Dissent From Catholic Social Teaching: A Study In Irony - Inside The Vatican

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crocus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dovekin said:
One way of addressing this issue would be to resurrect the commons in some form
Click to expand...
This is what I was trying to say; my apologies for doing so badly 😳
Crocus said:
The proliferation social programs is for the “widows & orphans” (those unable to work). It is not true justice for workers to have to rely on these programs to supplement wages that are too low.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Altho I do think Pope Leo would have something to say about single women bearing children–which seems to have increased shortly after welfare programs which were restricted to mothers without husbands-- I believe that the issue of the commons is important, because it shows that part of what people used to get by way of necessities was from the common pool of resources (land, water, etc), and not simply from wages.

Therefore, I do think that society-as-a-whole needs to provide a replacement for the commons, which is currently done (not extremely well) through welfare programs.
 
Annie said:
I disagree. Altho I do think Pope Leo would have something to say about single women bearing children–which seems to have increased shortly after welfare programs which were restricted to mothers without husbands
Click to expand...
Yes. And the fathers of children who abandon them! If there were no sin, society would run much more harmoniously.

Yet, it is the children we must favor in those circumstances. They need the resources most of all, being the most vulnerable.

Welfare programs I meant to include all those unable to work, for whatever reason. (Wage earners excepted, as they should get their keep from what they earn).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lots of homes like this all over the USA. I realize that not everyone can get a home loan, but there are lots of even cheaper homes that people might be able to get. I’d say $10,000 is a lot to pay for rent.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
In this case doing nothing is preferable than doing something harmful.
Click to expand...
You’re side-stepping the question. Is doing nothing the best solution to the under-income problem? If not, what is?
Ender said:
You make the assumption that Republicans oppose social programs because they are indifferent to the poor rather than because they think those programs - like raising the minimum wage - are harmful.
Click to expand...
How do/should people make enough money to pay bills and afford housing and groceries? A) Living wage B) Social programs compensating for the low wages, or C) Fill in the blanks here, please _________________________ .
 
Last edited:
@on_the_hill, while I appreciate what Galbraith says, I wish so hard it wasn’t so. I regrettably add to the subject of the quote, virtually all politicians, for how many can survive to serve as lawmakers, who stand unequivocally for moral issues? They would be saints, and saints get martyred.

Wages below a living wage is widely accepted as the new normal, it seems.
 
Last edited:
JimmyTolder said:
Well, I’m not going to go out and say that the entire burden falls on the employer. I think the burden falls on all of us.
Click to expand...
I do too, which is why I oppose the concept of a “living wage” which would put the entire burden on the employer, and not just any employer, but those least able to afford it. Those, that is, who hire the most minimum wage workers, like McDonalds, Dominoe’s Pizza, and Bunky’s Car Wash.

I oppose a “living wage” because I consider it counterproductive in that it would make low wage jobs unaffordable for employers. We can already see what happens with the order kiosks in fast food places, automated check-out lines in grocery stores, even check yourself lanes in airports. Raising the minimum wage has the same affect. Making employers provide for the livelihood of the poor is a bad idea. That’s a government/community responsibility.
 
That’s just the mortgage amount. Need to include principle, interest, taxes and insurance
 
blackforest said:
You’re side-stepping the question. Is doing nothing the best solution to the under-income problem? If not, what is?
Click to expand...
The issue being discussed was a living wage. That’s what I was addressing. The “best” solution to the relationship between salaries and poverty is not part of that discussion, and is not relevant to the OP.
How do/should people make enough money to pay bills and afford housing and groceries? A) Living wage B) Social programs compensating for the low wages, or C) Fill in the blanks here, please
Click to expand...
No. That’s not what this thread is about. My opinion on that matter is not relevant.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
No. That’s not what this thread is about. My opinion on that matter is not relevant.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely relevant to our understanding of social justice, and your refusal to answer is noted.
Crocus said:
Wages below a living wage is widely accepted as the new normal, it seems.
Click to expand...
It reminds me of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s getting caught referring their employees to welfare programs. When employers won’t pay their works adequately, the taxpayers pick up the tab.
 
blackforest said:
It reminds me of Wal-Mart and McDonald’s getting caught referring their employees to welfare programs. When employers won’t pay their works adequately, the taxpayers pick up the tab.
Click to expand...
Won’t? Try “can’t”.

Since McDonald’s is primarily a franchise operations (over 80%), the hamburger flipper’s pay is determined by the franchisee and varies by location. Analyzing whether the operators won’t or can’t pay employees more is problematic. However, it is worth noting that the average franchisee annual operating income is estimated at ~ $60M. Not much for the investment and time.

Walmart’s numbers do allow an analysis on whether the retail giant is able to pay more. What net profit margin would suggest evil Walmart exercises corporate greed by underpaying its workers? 35%? 25%? 15%? Think again.


(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
blackforest said:
Doug McMillion grossed 1.3 million last year in salary and earned an additional 15 million in other perks. He can afford to pay his employees a better wage. And if he can’t, he shouldn’t be in business. Corporate welfare is simply socialized capitalism, (let that paradox sink in), and defeats the purpose of the free market.
Click to expand...
McMillon is an employee. Let the facts sink in.

“Doug McMillon went from a high schooler working at Walmart for $6.50/hr.” Now the complaint is Walmart pays a good employee too much?
 
o_mlly said:
Now the complaint is Walmart pays a good employee too much?
Click to expand...
He’s the Chief Executive Officer. Let’s not pretend that he’s somehow “equal” to the cashiers. And he doesn’t need corporate welfare, direct or indirect, to save him.
 
blackforest said:
He’s the Chief Executive Officer. Let’s not pretend that he’s somehow “equal” to the cashiers. And he doesn’t need corporate welfare, direct or indirect, to save him.
Click to expand...
Who pretends McMillon is equal to someone else? He’s the CEO. If you think $1.3MM is too much then what is the correct amount (in a free market)? And, what is corporate welfare? Is it the $175M Wamart pays to the average store manager?

Let’s not pretend that society does not determine to a large extent the actions of its citizens. Do you know how much the ACA scrambled the ratio of part-time/full-time of employees? It seems the quip “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it” turned out to be only if you can still afford it.
 
yes it is…

$90K House
30 Year Loan
4.5% interest rate
Annual Property Tax ~$4000
Annual Home insurance ~$800
Monthly Payment $856.02
Annual Payment ~$10,200

This assumes 20% down which most can’t do…
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
Is it the $175M Wamart pays to the average store manager?
Click to expand...
I do not think Walmart managers are paid $175 million a year.

Maybe they get that much to run the store and whatever is left over, they get to keep. (Which is kind of a rotten system in practice)
 
I think your $4000 Property Tax is where you are way off for these cities. From what I can tell the property tax for that house is more like $1000 / annually.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top