Catholic Charities USA seeks minimum-wage hike

[chicago]

Well, it’s an interesting argument, but I disagree. The problem is that the “family wage” is not a clear quantitative amount.

I think that the problem is when we try to set a “clear quantitative amount” upon it as a prerequisite for admitting to the legitimacy of discussing the idea.

If the employer still hires a lot of singles, would he then be accused of still not paying a “family wage” since he hasn’t hired many heads-of-household?

An interesting argument. But if all are paid equally to the married man, then what is the problem? The singles just have more to spend or save.

I think some jobs are worth more than others (market value, societal value, etc) and those will attract people raising a family. Now, if someone can prove that there are too many “single wage” jobs and not enough “family wage” jobs, I would agree there is a problem. Since no one can even give a “family wage” amount (especially nationally) without just picking a number arbitrarily (as the minimum wage increase seems to be), I don’t think it is the right way to go.

I would agree that some jobs are worth more than others. The real question is what the baseline for ALL fulltime work that an adult might make as their profession. Now, would some say that you should not be able to make a profession of certain jobs? Yes. But, this too, is debateable. Why ought not someone be able to support a family as a sales clerk, for example? Particularly if this is where your genuine talent lies. You used to be able to do that. Now it is relegated to teenagers who are poorly trained. So I think that there is the matter of raising the bar rather than lowering it at play. Further, the fact that there are so many people who can find no better work than something which is less than sustainable for an individual - let alone a family (even at something higher than the defined minimum wages) - suggests that there are too many “single wage jobs” and not enough “family wage” ones.

Conduct a study and get back to me.

Only if you pay me a family wage for it!

In the meantime, I think the onus is on the employer to determine a fair wage based on his moral compass, the market, his P&L and/or his contracts with organized labor (if that applies).

And here I would agree. Yet I do think that there is something more for him to consider than merely his own moral compass. What if, for instance, his own mind on these matters (no matter how well intended, perhaps) is still insufficient?

 

[rlg94086]

I think that the problem is when we try to set a “clear quantitative amount” upon it as a prerequisite for admitting to the legitimacy of discussing the idea.

That’s not what I am saying. Discussing the idea is fine. What I am saying is how can you set a “family wage” requirement when you can’t quantify what a “family wage” is? A stab in the dark is not a fair way to set policy, especially on a national level.

I would agree that some jobs are worth more than others. The real question is what the baseline for ALL fulltime work that an adult might make as their profession. Now, would some say that you should not be able to make a profession of certain jobs? Yes. But, this too, is debateable. Why ought not someone be able to support a family as a sales clerk, for example? Particularly if this is where your genuine talent lies. You used to be able to do that. Now it is relegated to teenagers who are poorly trained. So I think that there is the matter of raising the bar rather than lowering it at play.

A reasonable point. But, it begs the question again…what is a “family wage?”

Further, the fact that there are so many people who can find no better work than something which is less than sustainable for an individual - let alone a family (even at something higher than the defined minimum wages) - suggests that there are too many “single wage jobs” and not enough “family wage” ones.

Perhaps, but I would like more actual data than anecdotal evidence.

And here I would agree. Yet I do think that there is something more for him to consider than merely his own moral compass. What if, for instance, his own mind on these matters (no matter how well intended, perhaps) is still insufficient?

Well, I’m constantly hearing from the Left that we “can’t legislate morality.” Apparently, this doesn’t count. As I’ve said before, I am not wholly opposed to a minimum wage, if it’s based on data and done at a more local level (at least State, preferably County). There has to be some reasonable, agreed upon calculus to determine the “family wage” before the amount can be set. It seems to me that the more local, the better.

 

[chicago]

That’s not what I am saying. Discussing the idea is fine. What I am saying is how can you set a “family wage” requirement when you can’t quantify what a “family wage” is? A stab in the dark is not a fair way to set policy, especially on a national level.

A reasonable point. But, it begs the question again…what is a “family wage?”

As someone else has stated, “That which it takes to raise a family.” Perhaps in this case, it would be easier to state what a family wage is not rather than what it is. Admitedly, the details can vary from place to place.

Perhaps, but I would like more actual data than anecdotal evidence.

But would you then just argue (as some have in this thread) with the evidence and spin it to your own advantage?

Well, I’m constantly hearing from the Left that we “can’t legislate morality.” Apparently, this doesn’t count.

Touche! But, then, I’m more of a natural law type and tend to detest our merely positivistic standards.

As I’ve said before, I am not wholly opposed to a minimum wage, if it’s based on data and done at a more local level (at least State, preferably County). There has to be some reasonable, agreed upon calculus to determine the “family wage” before the amount can be set. It seems to me that the more local, the better.

While I would tend to agree, I also think it is legitimate to have some national standards if it is clear that at the local level there are problems which just are not being effectively dealt with. At some point, our idea of free exchange in trade does require regulation which reaches the greater extent of the society which is affected by such commercing.

 

[rlg94086]

While I would tend to agree, I also think it is legitimate to have some national standards if it is clear that at the local level there are problems which just are not being effectively dealt with. At some point, our idea of free exchange in trade does require regulation which reaches the greater extent of the society which is affected by such commercing.

I am very much against national standards in this case, and I don’t understand the justification for it. To me it is no different than calling on an international standard. Big Brother does not need to legislate every part of our lives. I don’t feel a need as a Washingtonian to tell people in Mississippi what their minimum wage should be.

 

[rlg94086]

But would you then just argue (as some have in this thread) with the evidence and spin it to your own advantage?

Why do you assume I would spin the evidence? People who are completely opposed to minimum wage (not me) would not have a need to spin the evidence, because they are opposed on principle.

If the evidence showed an absolute minimum that should be set nationally, that’s fine. Of course what you really would have done is set a minimum that only really matters to the lowest paying states, and would have zero impact on the rest. What is the point of that? It won’t have your desired effect in the states with higher overall pay, since their “family wage” would still be above the national minimum. IOW…the evidence would show that I am correct, so I would have no need to spin.

Why aren’t you concerned with people who are for a national minimum wage spinning the evidence to maximize that number? They are above that? I don’t think so…

 

[rlg94086]

Hey, someone may have data. According to Habitat for Humanity…

it takes a $29 hourly wage to afford a two-bedroom apartment in Marin County, part of the reason 30,000 workers commute to jobs from outside the county.

usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-19-affordable-homes-marin_x.htm

Well, there you go…a $29/hour minimum wage should do…guess we should make it national.

 

[chicago]

Why do you assume I would spin the evidence? People who are completely opposed to minimum wage (not me) would not have a need to spin the evidence, because they are opposed on principle.

If the evidence showed an absolute minimum that should be set nationally, that’s fine. Of course what you really would have done is set a minimum that only really matters to the lowest paying states, and would have zero impact on the rest. What is the point of that? It won’t have your desired effect in the states with higher overall pay, since their “family wage” would still be above the national minimum. IOW…the evidence would show that I am correct, so I would have no need to spin.

Why aren’t you concerned with people who are for a national minimum wage spinning the evidence to maximize that number? They are above that? I don’t think so…

People tend to use statistics merely to upbuild their own positions or try and undermine others rather than allowing them to be helpful towards a genuine analysis of matters. I’m, therefore, suspicious when someone dismisses “anecdotal evidence” and insists upon “statistics” as your satire in a subsequent post shows.

 

[chicago]

I am very much against national standards in this case, and I don’t understand the justification for it.

So you are essentially against it on principle, then.

To me it is no different than calling on an international standard.

Well, maybe there SHOULD be an international standard, too.

Big Brother does not need to legislate every part of our lives. I don’t feel a need as a Washingtonian to tell people in Mississippi what their minimum wage should be.

Well, what if all the companies run off to Mississippi (or Mexico) for the lower wages?

 

[rlg94086]

So you are essentially against it on principle, then.

National minimum wage? Yes. Absolutely. Minimum wage? No…reread my posts. I believe in subsidiarity as taught by the Church, which means things are better handled locally.

Well, maybe there SHOULD be an international standard, too.

Okay…what amount? $10.00/day? Give me a break. The variation in wages and cost-of-living globally is huge.

Well, what if all the companies run off to Mississippi (or Mexico) for the lower wages?

So, you don’t think we are losing business to other areas due to wages?

 

[rlg94086]

People tend to use statistics merely to upbuild their own positions or try and undermine others rather than allowing them to be helpful towards a genuine analysis of matters. I’m, therefore, suspicious when someone dismisses “anecdotal evidence” and insists upon “statistics” as your satire in a subsequent post shows.

Yeah. Good idea. We should base all of our policies on anecdotal evidence.

 

[boppaid]

I am very much against national standards in this case, and I don’t understand the justification for it. To me it is no different than calling on an international standard. Big Brother does not need to legislate every part of our lives. I don’t feel a need as a Washingtonian to tell people in Mississippi what their minimum wage should be.

I can see your point there. But I believe that the federal government can mandate that every state needs to come up with a LIVABLE WAGE rather than a minimun wage, and then let the state figure out what it costs to live in that state. And I believe that the Catechism calls us to do this, as pointed out in an earlier post.

 

[rlg94086]

I can see your point there. But I believe that the federal government can mandate that every state needs to come up with a LIVABLE WAGE rather than a minimun wage, and then let the state figure out what it costs to live in that state. And I believe that the Catechism calls us to do this, as pointed out in an earlier post.

That might work, but you would need to define the parameters for what a living wage consists of. To leave it open would just perpetuate the argument.

Perhaps if you take the COL data combined with the average rent amounts for a given area, or something like that, reviewed on an annual basis. At least it would be based on measurable data, rather than an arbitrary number.

If so, it would need to be done at the county level at the largest. State level would be too large for some states. I know in the states I have lived in (California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado) it wouldn’t work on the state level. The metro areas are much more expensive than the rural areas. And even large areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego) would vary greatly within their counties.

 

[chicago]

NSo, you don’t think we are losing business to other areas due to wages?

I’ve already mentioned Mexico as one example. In a sense, you’re arguing against yourself as to why there may be a need for better coordination at a level higher than merely local. For eventually it touches upon us all.

 

[chicago]

Yeah. Good idea. We should base all of our policies on anecdotal evidence.

Actually, in a certain sense, perhaps we ought. Afterall, anecdotes are the real stories of real people and in some ways better reflect the genuine circumstances and provide an overall picture which could be more human than mere stats can offer absent that content.

 

[boppaid]

Perhaps if you take the COL data combined with the average rent amounts for a given area, or something like that, reviewed on an annual basis. At least it would be based on measurable data, rather than an arbitrary number.

I like that idea.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, in a certain sense, perhaps we ought. Afterall, anecdotes are the real stories of real people and in some ways better reflect the genuine circumstances and provide an overall picture which could be more human than mere stats can offer absent that content.

Which can be spun even easier than statistics…which is why some people prefer to use them than actual data.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve already mentioned Mexico as one example. In a sense, you’re arguing against yourself as to why there may be a need for better coordination at a level higher than merely local. For eventually it touches upon us all.

An international minimum wage will not fix the problem of losing workers to other countries. The only fix for that long term is the growing economies of those countries. If you were to require them to raise their wage standards up to our levels (or even half) , they would collapse. But, that’s a big “if” because you would never get everyone to agree on an international minimum wage.

Even if you used boppaid and I’s brilliant idea ( ) of requiring a “living wage” and setting the parameters internationally, you would still have a great wage disparity between countries, causing businesses to choose to move their products.