Catholic social teaching supports basic income’s aim

[lonegreywolf20]

But, to help out the person who’s supporting a family, we have government benefits that that person would qualify for.

What exactly are those government benefits? I certainly don’t qualify for them making $12.18 an hour, and I am paying out $600 for health insurance and $200 for child support. My job just cut me down to 36 hours a week. I am working on a 12 hour shift and one 24 hour shift.

I figured it out that monthly I’ll be getting $816. As a single father who co-parents his children, that is way too low! Yet, I don’t qualify for benefits because my gross income is too high!

Again I ask, what exactly are those government benefits?

I am having to hit my credit cards which is causing a whole slew of other problems. I am getting in over my head in debt. July 2020 cannot come fast enough so that I can start class in order to get a better paying job, but right now I am screwed because there is no help!

 

[Theo520]

St. John Chrysostom

Thank you for providing full paragraphs, which provides the context on teachings to prevent prooftexting!

The Church teaches developing mature and kind hearts that support their neighbors, not govt forced redistribution. The Church teaches practicing SUBSIDIARITY.

 

[pnewton]

“directly linked” indicates causing

I read that post differently. When I saw the quote, I thought of how we are all linked through the universal destination of goods. There is a direct link without causation. It just is, as we are linked in other ways, like sin. I suffer the consequences of the sin of others, and they suffer the consequences of mine. We are also linked in one body through Christ. That is why it is so hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom.

So, going back to that thread, if you check, it wasn’t suggesting government control of wealth. The government wasn’t mentioned. Like this thread on Catholic social teaching, it is only the aim of basic income that Catholic doctrine supports, not any program. I mean really, is there anyone here that thinks the actual mechanism of dark age feudalism could apply today?

 

[Anrakyr]

I mean really, is there anyone here that thinks the actual mechanism of dark age feudalism could apply today?

That is a very good point. Up until the industrial revolution the only way to get more pie was to plunder someone else. Now we live in a world where raw resources can be refined to great value far out weighing our needs.

We found a way to make more pie.

As technology grows the pie will too (within reason of course).

With tech growth, however, so too does the job market change. We have robots doing more and more of the dangerous or repetitive tasks we take for granted. As such our ability to be relevant in the workforce requires us to be thinkers, planners and not ‘workers’.

It’s important to be open to rewriting how fairness from the Bible applies in such a world.

 

[edwest211]

I’m watching the technological developments. A lot of things are still in the early stages of development. Thinkers are workers. Planners are workers. Part of my job involves forecasting. That is a skill someone can learn on their own. Computer related skills are in demand but that will require keeping up with relevant changes, and solving problems.

 

[Theo520]

So, going back to that thread, if you check, it wasn’t suggesting government control of wealth. The government wasn’t mentioned. Like this thread on Catholic social teaching, it is only the aim of basic income that Catholic doctrine supports, not any program. I mean really, is there anyone here that thinks the actual mechanism of dark age feudalism could apply today?

You can’t be serious!?
The topic of the thread is specifically about the govt redistributing wealth to provide a universal basic income (UBI).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

In ye olde days of the 50s, an employer might give an employee a raise because they were going to have another kid, or simply hire a family man at a higher salary than a single person.

I would have absolutely no problem with an employer paying more to a person who is the sole support of a family, nor with the employee being paid more if they have more children. That is Catholic economics, but obviously not secular economics.

 

[Neithan]

That doesn’t seem right. If Tom and I work the same job and perform at the same level, he gets higher earnings because he has a wife and family? I’d feel much better donating to him as an act of charity than having it forcefully removed from my paycheque for social reasons.

 

[KMC]

Don’t you think that would incentivize the employer to hire single people, especially young people living at home? Why hire more costly married people?

 

[Jimbo]

Those employers who hire illegal immigrants to work should be fined, because the inducement of their work, even at low wages, is what brings many illegals into our country.

I realize my opinion is unpopular, but an amnesty would fix at least that quickly. Those who just want illegals in here without any problem basically advocate for a large group to be second class citizens.

Now, IMHO, I’d also couple a general amnesty with much tighter border security.

It’s not ‘fair’ but we aren’t going to get perfect fairness in this life. I’d allow people in the US waiting to be a citizen quick access too to help mitigate that. And if people want to be here and want to be citizens and have skin in the game I’m fine with that.

And bingo bango the folks employing the illegals all of the sudden have to pay full price for labor.

the other option is deporting all these people and that would take a ton of time and money.

 

[Jimbo]

I agree. And automation is going to get worse anyway; this would just accelerate that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Don’t you think that would incentivize the employer to hire single people, especially young people living at home? Why hire more costly married people?

Because in a rightly ordered Catholic society, business would be about more than just maximizing profits. Looking at it through the eyes of faith, sole providers for families should get preference in hiring, and the larger the family, the bigger the paycheck.

Notice I said “sole providers”. I did not specify husbands, nor did I specify marital status. My grandmother was left widowed at age 48 and truly struggled; everyone had to work. My father just received the bare rudiments of education when he could have done much more, had he not had to work two and three jobs.

I am postponing my social encyclical until another time. I hear there is a young lady up in New York who is pretty well-versed in that sort of thing…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That doesn’t seem right. If Tom and I work the same job and perform at the same level, he gets higher earnings because he has a wife and family? I’d feel much better donating to him as an act of charity than having it forcefully removed from my paycheque for social reasons.

Paying Tom more doesn’t necessarily take anything away from you. The business owner could simply pay Tom more, and take it out of what would otherwise be profits.

Modern secular economies operate on the principle of maximizing profits, but there is more to a just, fair, Catholic social order than ensuring that the owners of capital always get as much money as they can possibly get. There is nothing wrong with a fair profit, in fact a market society relies upon this — you can’t stay in business and keep losing money — but there is more to business, to work, and to life, than making the absolute maximum amount of money you possibly can.

To use a real-life example of a business that operates in accord with Christian principles, Chick-fil-a closes on Sundays. Their Baptist owners are content to do without a potential day’s worth of profits every week. They sell a quality product at a fair price. Their business is not doing badly at all.

 

[Neithan]

Modern secular economies operate on the principle of maximizing profits, but there is more to a just, fair, Catholic social order than ensuring that the owners of capital always get as much money as they can possibly get. There is nothing wrong with a fair profit, in fact a market society relies upon this — you can’t stay in business and keep losing money — but there is more to business, to work, and to life, than making the absolute maximum amount of money you possibly can.

I agree with this, definitely. Maximizing profits at all costs is detrimental to society. I think most people agree with that, even fiscal conservatives. It gets complicated when you have shareholders demanding their dividends, though.

The business owner can pay Tom more, but that is discrimination based on marital status. I hope I’d be magnanimous enough not to complain about it, but there is probably a better way of providing for single-income household earners. Tax cuts, for example.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Modern secular economies operate on the principle of maximizing profits, but there is more to a just, fair, Catholic social order than ensuring that the owners of capital always get as much money as they can possibly get. There is nothing wrong with a fair profit, in fact a market society relies upon this — you can’t stay in business and keep losing money — but there is more to business, to work, and to life, than making the absolute maximum amount of money you possibly can.

Sadly, you are right, this could constitute discrimination. This should go to show just how far our society and economy have departed from Catholic and Christian principles. True social renewal can only take place when the mass of men have converted to the Catholic faith, and have instituted laws and systems among themselves to bring about a Catholic social order. The classic papal encyclicals, among these Rerum novarum and Quadragesimo anno, provide the blueprint.

In such a society, shareholders — and there would be many — would understand that profits cannot be maximized at any cost. There are things more important than money.

 

[Socrates92]

There are arguably business reasons for doing so. A man with a family may be less free to shop around for a different job, hence providing lower risk to the employer. Marriage would then be seen as a signalling device, kind of like getting a degree (which arguably doesn’t actually make you more qualified, but that’s a different debate). It could also be see as an investment in CSR, which - let’s be real - corporations do for purely business, not altruistic reasons. Of course, how this would apply would vary case by case, assuming it were legal, which it isn’t in most Western countries. I wouldn’t have a problem with it though - I think we should bring back the ability of employers to legally discriminate in hiring and see how things play out.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I have seen no indication of what you speak of.
My pay has gone up little, while the cost of living is increasing all the time.

 

[Theo520]

I have seen no indication of what you speak of.
My pay has gone up little, while the cost of living is increasing all the time.

inflation and wage increases are accurately measured in the economy but obviously individual people are not on the mean measurement. An anecdote doesn’t disprove the measurement of the economy in aggregate.

 

[KMC]

Help me out. Here is the CCC on a just wage:

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

I see you referencing “needs” of the person, but not the “contributions”, “the role and productivity”, “the state of the business”, and “the common good”.

So a hypothetical for me to better understand your position. Lets say I own a small burger stand and I have two employees to flip burgers: one is a high school kid and the other a father of 10. Am I to pay the father of 10, approximately 10 times more than the high school kid? (or whatever is required to support a family of 12).

 

[Ridgerunner]

So a hypothetical for me to better understand your position. Lets say I own a small burger stand and I have two employees to flip burgers: one is a high school kid and the other a father of 10. Am I to pay the father of 10, approximately 10 times more than the high school kid? (or whatever is required to support a family of 12).

I know I’m not politically correct or even legally correct, but I would try to find a way to pay the father of ten more; a way I could get away with legally. Of course, if the kid is a white male, I probably am not going to get into trouble, because white males are not a protected class.