Catholic Charities USA seeks minimum-wage hike

[Texas_Roofer]

On a personal comment a big issue is initiators verses inheritors. If you look at most major corporations today you see the top executives actually began preparation before their birth!! Yes it is true their parents waited to have children, then did not have too many because the best education, and considerable financial backing would be needed to increase the chances of these children achieving those desired positions. And frankly if the parents were not relatively close to those positions the children’s chance plummet. This is one reason many are upset about executives, because they rarely earn the pay they receive. Most executive pay is actually given as a reward for achieving the position not the work done while in the position. If you look at stock options where much of the money is rewarded you see many things as 1) executives often never pay the market price of the stock 2) the supposed payment was a loan 3) The numbers were manipulated (see the SEC scandals) 4) ridiculous expenses are commonly charged to the company by the executive 5)the theatrical bosses (board of directors) often refuse to act on any circumstance. If you contrast that to the initiator who may well see a need in portable potties, he typically earned more than he received. The initiator may well have to offer free or reduced services to obtain accounts, or buy overpriced supplies in the short term. The initiator by definition could not make money from employees because there are not employees yet. In my opinion this is why people know the executives commonly ride on society, while workers maintain society, and initiators improve society.

I support the minimum wage on moral grounds I do believe it reduces the unjust advantage some people use to employee others of lower skill sets.

Hope that helps

 

[jman507]

I find a little irony in that businesses are concerned with the bottom line and others are concerned with a minimum-wage hike. It’s all about the bottom line on the macro- and micro- levels. Both businesses and wage earners need to be concerned about their bottom line or they cannot take care of anyone.

 

[Kendy]

Have you ever run a business?

Yes.

 

[hoosiertoo]

The economy and the church do not affect each other. The church is based in faith and morals, while the economy is simply the amount of trade occurring between people.

Begging pardon, but there is a cost/benefit angle to religion also. If there was no opportunity for “gain” - eternal life, 72 virgins, whatever - in the next life, there would be no reason to engage in faith “transactions” in this life.

 

[mvinca]

It used to be that businesses were closed Sundays. Time for family and prayer. No longer. It’s not industrious enough. Gotta keep pace, make a buck!

Chik-a-fila is an enterprising business that is run by a Christian. He refuses to be open on Sundays and he is running a widely successful (profitable) business.

 

[mvinca]

It was once the case that wives got to stay home, take care of their kids, helped the old guy down the street, went to community functions in the evening to build up society. No longer. Moms have to work to stay on par with the Joneses. The old guy has to go on Medicare so someone can be hired (at a low wage) to come help him get by, mom is too tired when she returns from work to go to a meeting at Church (and she wants to spend a couple hours with her kids before they go to sleep). Ah, but the economy is growing!

It used to be that people had time for real leisure (albeit going to the beach or park for free more often than anything), they went out on their porches and talked to the neighbors, they engaged in communal cultural causes. Now you have a TV and air conditioner to stay inside - kids playing video games, dad brings something home for little Johnnie to make up for not being around all week, who’s that living next door, and the cultural organizations collapse. Ah, but overall, we’re making more money and life is good! Or is it?

This really has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with lifestyle choices. We are a single wage family, but we don’t watch TV or have an air conditioner. We can afford both, but we choose not to. We talk to our neighbors on our porches. I stay home with the kids. So I really don’t see what all this you stated about has to do with the economy, or making money, or the minimum wage. It is about choice, and a minimum wage increase doesn’t affect that choice one bit.

 

[Kendy]

This really has nothing to do with the economy, it has to do with lifestyle choices. We are a single wage family, but we don’t watch TV or have an air conditioner. We can afford both, but we choose not to. We talk to our neighbors on our porches. I stay home with the kids. So I really don’t see what all this you stated about has to do with the economy, or making money, or the minimum wage. It is about choice, and a minimum wage increase doesn’t affect that choice one bit.

I think it’s about the way the culture views money, and in a materialistic dog eat dog world, people on the bottom who don’t have as much power get short changed. A minimum may help mitigate the effect of their vulnerable position in the economy.

 

[jman507]

On a personal comment a big issue is initiators verses inheritors. If you look at most major corporations today you see the top executives actually began preparation before their birth!! Yes it is true their parents waited to have children, then did not have too many because the best education, and considerable financial backing would be needed to increase the chances of these children achieving those desired positions. And frankly if the parents were not relatively close to those positions the children’s chance plummet. This is one reason many are upset about executives, because they rarely earn the pay they receive. Most executive pay is actually given as a reward for achieving the position not the work done while in the position. If you look at stock options where much of the money is rewarded you see many things as 1) executives often never pay the market price of the stock 2) the supposed payment was a loan 3) The numbers were manipulated (see the SEC scandals) 4) ridiculous expenses are commonly charged to the company by the executive 5)the theatrical bosses (board of directors) often refuse to act on any circumstance. If you contrast that to the initiator who may well see a need in portable potties, he typically earned more than he received. The initiator may well have to offer free or reduced services to obtain accounts, or buy overpriced supplies in the short term. The initiator by definition could not make money from employees because there are not employees yet. In my opinion this is why people know the executives commonly ride on society, while workers maintain society, and initiators improve society.

I support the minimum wage on moral grounds I do believe it reduces the unjust advantage some people use to employee others of lower skill sets.

Hope that helps

You really need to take your office what ever it is in life, and do the best you can, be it king, executive, middle management, janitor or whatever office it is. There have been Saints who have been kings to porters to homeless. I am not envious of the wealthy there is far more to life than money. Many rich have ended up hopeless and depressed. I am not envious of the poor, who do not need to know the responsibility of employees looking to you to keep their job in order to feed their family. I’ve inherited many gifts, and initiated many more too.

Of the many executives who you sound as if to say they solely inherited their position, many have worked plenty hard, many bad choices and many good choices. I guess you do not see the littered who have not done so well. I guess Paris Hilton has inherited her position, but has not had to worry about other’s livelihoods.

I guess I am not so much in favor of min. wage, because with equal pay for equal work, wages are not given out based on need. I do not see the need to give someone a wage who has no one to care for but himself, while being cared for by parents, and keep them on the same playing field as someone who has to care for a family. My worry is that person who doesn’t have to worry about caring for anyone, is going to be more than happy with that wage not worry about school, and then find that when children come they are stuck.

As much as I am not a fan of government assistance, I’d very much like government assistance that gives aid to poor workers, but at the same time give incentives to get promotions and pay increases, to support themselves and their family. That way an entry level can be just that, the entry to a higher level. I would just hope that what I think is a hand up, does not become a hand that holds one down.

 

[chicago]

Chik-a-fila is an enterprising business that is run by a Christian. He refuses to be open on Sundays and he is running a widely successful (profitable) business.

Glad to hear it. I know of a few other businesses which have managed the same. Unfortunately, it isn’t the norm.

A priest I know once related the story of how he wouldn’t shop at J.C. Penny. He worked there at the time that the family boss died. This man had held out nobly (in the face of all his competition) to keep his stores closed on Sunday. As soon as he died (and before he was even buried) the management announced that “This coming Sunday we’ll be open!”

 

[chicago]

I guess I am not so much in favor of min. wage, because with equal pay for equal work, wages are not given out based on need. I do not see the need to give someone a wage who has no one to care for but himself, while being cared for by parents, and keep them on the same playing field as someone who has to care for a family. My worry is that person who doesn’t have to worry about caring for anyone, is going to be more than happy with that wage not worry about school, and then find that when children come they are stuck.

If people are already being paid a family wage for equal work, then they ought to be able to support a family on it when that time comes. In the interim, they’ll be able to save, invest, spend, maybe get to the point of being able to start their own business. Which is good for the economy, no?

 

[irenaeus1]

The bottom line is that a person pays what the task to be performed is worth, not what a person is worth per hour. If I think that it is not worth paying $60 to have someone mow my lawn, I won’t pay for it. If someone else comes along and says that he will mow my lawn for $35, I may say, “Okay, deal.” – because that is what I believe the task is worth, regardless of who does it. If the neighbor kid mows my lawn or the neurosurgeon across town mows my lawn, they would still only get $35. I don’t pay based on how many kids this person has. Same would be true for other tasks such as a housekeeper, pool guy, nanny, etc. So why would not a business be allowed to do the same?… to pay what the task is worth. This has nothing to do with the dignity of the person performing the task. Remember, it’s the value of the task, not the value of the person’s worth per hour.

 

[Kendy]

The bottom line is that a person pays what the task to be performed is worth, not what a person is worth per hour. If I think that it is not worth paying $60 to have someone mow my lawn, I won’t pay for it. If someone else comes along and says that he will mow my lawn for $35, I may say, “Okay, deal.” – because that is what I believe the task is worth, regardless of who does it. If the neighbor kid mows my lawn or the neurosurgeon across town mows my lawn, they would still only get $35. I don’t pay based on how many kids this person has. Same would be true for other tasks such as a housekeeper, pool guy, nanny, etc. So why would not a business be allowed to do the same?… to pay what the task is worth. This has nothing to do with the dignity of the person performing the task. Remember, it’s the value of the task, not the value of the person’s worth per hour.

The question is what do you do when there are five people desperate for any kind of work and one of them offers to do it for $5. Will you still give him the $35?

 

[irenaeus1]

The question is what do you do when there are five people desperate for any kind of work and one of them offers to do it for $5. Will you still give him the $35?

I would probably ask why he is willing to do it for $5 when he knows that the market in our neighborhood will support between $30-$40. But if numerous folks started going around saying they would mow lawns for $5, you can bet that that would govern what the task is worth. On the other hand, if the government mandated that I pay a minimum of $65 for a person to mow my lawn, then I will mow it myself and have just caused a person to be unemployed.

 

[jman507]

If people are already being paid a family wage for equal work, then they ought to be able to support a family on it when that time comes. In the interim, they’ll be able to save, invest, spend, maybe get to the point of being able to start their own business. Which is good for the economy, no?

I work with some guys who are 19-20. I worry that they might invest their money into audio equipment for their car, if one day they realized they needed to raise a child, I think if they tried to sale that equipment they would find that it greatly depreciated.

My advice to them is look there is this community college you could go to, take something like plumbing, then you could buy the best Camaro and trick it all out cause then you’ll really make the big bucks. Ahh, who knows, once they end up with their first child and have a rethink of things, they don’t have to try to do things on their $7 an hour but actually have their big bucks, that aren’t so big after insurance, a much nicer place than they thought was great at 19, and taking care of dependants, but it is a heck of a lot nicer than what they could afford on their $8.50.

Sorry I do not give a lot of people credit for the foresight to be prudent with their money when they are young and before children.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I work with some guys who are 19-20. I worry that they might invest their money into audio equipment for their car, if one day they realized they needed to raise a child, I think if they tried to sale that equipment they would find that it greatly depreciated.

My advice to them is look there is this community college you could go to, take something like plumbing, then you could buy the best Camaro and trick it all out cause then you’ll really make the big bucks. Ahh, who knows, once they end up with their first child and have a rethink of things, they don’t have to try to do things on their $7 an hour but actually have their big bucks, that aren’t so big after insurance, a much nicer place than they thought was great at 19, and taking care of dependants, but it is a heck of a lot nicer than what they could afford on their $8.50.

Sorry I do not give a lot of people credit for the foresight to be prudent with their money when they are young and before children.

Your’e right – but that doesn’t absolve us older heads, who have been there and done that, from advising them. We need to uphold certain values, and one of those values is that a family is an obligation, not a right. We need to steer the younger generation toward looking to the future and preparing to meet their responsibilities.

 

[mvinca]

My advice to them is look there is this community college you could go to, take something like plumbing, then you could buy the best Camaro and trick it all out cause then you’ll really make the big bucks.

I think this the beautiful thing about America. That is what we do in our homeless workshops, we give them a blue collar skill like this. And they can make big bucks if they break their dependicies on the things that waste their money. It is an excellent example of how opportunities are there to lift yourself out of “being poor” in this country. It isn’t easy. there is sacrifice. And much easier before you have a family. But it is very possible. Some people just need to be affirmed that it is possible instead of listening to people that tell them that they are oppressed by the rich.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes.

Great! Then you know that customer service alone, while very important, will not lead to success. If you don’t watch your costs, your pricing in the market, and your product quality (assuming your product is not service only), then you will still fail even with superior customer service.

 

[Kendy]

Great! Then you know that customer service alone, while very important, will not lead to success. If you don’t watch your costs, your pricing in the market, and your product quality (assuming your product is not service only), then you will still fail even with superior customer service.

First of all, I was just trying to play on the words. Apparently, not very succesfully

Second, there’s nothing wrong with using prudence in business as long as you doing it to serve God and neighbor.

 

[rlg94086]

The question is what do you do when there are five people desperate for any kind of work and one of them offers to do it for $5. Will you still give him the $35?

Yes! And the Church calls us as *indviduals *to pay the just wage. It doesn’t call on governments to determine the proper wage.

 

[rlg94086]

First of all, I was just trying to play on the words. Apparently, not very succesfully

Second, there’s nothing wrong with using prudence in business as long as you doing it to serve God and neighbor.

Kendy,

We agree more than we disagree. The question is not “what is the right thing to do?” The question is “who is responsible to do it.” There are limits to government involvement…especially a national government of such a large country of ours. This is why the Church wisely teaches the principle of subsidiarity. This is also why I am against a national minimum wage, and lukewarm on any minimum wage.

Pax,

Robert