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.
Yeah - - some people could do it but not everyone. $35k isn’t going to support a McMansion lifestyle, but it might just support an old-fashioned life the way people used to live in the 1930s, 40s, 50s. Small house, one car, stay at home mom. It’s hard to be borderline broke when everyone else is living large. It does seem better than paying $1300 rent for a trailer though!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Hard to be counter-cultural Catholic in general!
 
Last edited:
Forget Walmart managers - - obviously the big money is in owning trailer courts.
 
o_mlly said:
Who pretends McMillon is equal to someone else?
Click to expand...
I’m simply reminding you that he’s a leeeetle bit more than just an employee.
o_mlly said:
If you think $1.3MM is too much then what is the correct amount (in a free market)?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how much he’ll end up making after paying his clerks a fair wage. I’m sure it will be more than what sustains what one commenter recommends:
Jen95 said:
an old-fashioned life the way people used to live in the 1930s, 40s, 50s. Small house, one car, stay at home mom.
Click to expand...
In the meantime, I’ll hold in my tears for his plight. Paying a living wage won’t leave him in a homeless shelter.
o_mlly said:
And, what is corporate welfare?
Click to expand...
Corporate welfare is welfare for corporations instead of actual people. It can be direct, through government subsidies, or indirect, by forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for the housing, health care, etc. that full-time employees can’t afford on their wage.
 
blackforest said:
I’m simply reminding you that he’s a leeeetle bit more than just an employee.
Click to expand...
It’s binary. Either one is or is not an employee.
blackforest said:
I’m not sure how much he’ll end up making after paying his clerks a fair wage.
Click to expand...
I’m sure: the answer is $1.3 million. Unless you can make the argument that Walmart clerks are paid an unfair wage, you only offer us your opinion.
blackforest said:
Corporate welfare is welfare for corporations instead of actual people. It can be direct, through government subsidies, or indirect, by forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for the housing, health care, etc. that full-time employees can’t afford on their wage.
Click to expand...
Ahh. Once again, the complaint based on vague generalities instead of facts. Give us a factual example of “corporate welfare” that supports your claim of “forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab”.
 
o_mlly said:
Ahh. Once again, the complaint based on vague generalities instead of facts. Give us a factual example of “corporate welfare” that supports your claim of “forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab”.
Click to expand...
I believe she’s referring to how many low wage workers take advantage of safety net benefits (SNAP, Housing Vouchers, Medicaid) which allow companies to slide from paying those same workers too much. Plus, she (she?) may have a point how a lot of government funding goes to companies like defense contractors, agriculture and pharmaceuticals (not too sure on the last) though the truth is more nuanced, it’s technically true, plus the tax code for credits and deductibles.

Happy Thanksgiving to the both of you. How was the food?
 
I am a conservative, I do think Rerum Novrum is a rather conservative statement.
But I do not consider today’s GOP conservative at all.
 
o_mlly said:
Once again, the complaint based on vague generalities instead of facts. Give us a factual example of “corporate welfare” that supports your claim of “forcing taxpayers to pick up the ta
Click to expand...
Really? I can think of many. Electric car subsidies, agriculture subsidies, wind/solar power subsidies, oil production subsidies, local tax breaks for corporate relocations, using eminent domain law for commercial development, sports stadium building.

I could go on and on.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
I believe she’s referring to how many low wage workers take advantage of safety net benefits (SNAP, Housing Vouchers, Medicaid) which allow companies to slide from paying those same workers too much.
Click to expand...
OK. Let’s look at SNAP. The claim is that SNAP is a corporate welfare program that allows employers to exploit their “full-time employees”. But the fact is that “close to two-thirds of SNAP participants are children, elderly, and people who receive disability benefits and are not expected to work.”

And the fact regarding the one-third who are workers are not full-time but transient workers, that is, between jobs: “These analyses show that most non-disabled adults participating in SNAP are workers, but they are more likely to participate in SNAP when they are between jobs.”


SNAP is hardly a “corporate welfare” program. The facts show SNAP is a primarily an unemployment welfare program.
 
I am not saying they do that. But I am saying they are examples of corporate welfare where taxpayers pick up the tab.
 
o_mlly said:
SNAP is hardly a “corporate welfare” program
Click to expand...
Grocery retailers do benefit from SNAP though, in fact one of the benefits lauded is the economic output it helps bring in. Know I’m being a know it all right now.

You have a point on the part time can’t go full time workers, underemployment seems like a
conundrum for people. And it’s a scary and intimating thought to be think even with record job openings, it may not be enough to end the poverty rate.
 
tafan2 said:
I am not saying they do that. But I am saying they are examples of corporate welfare where taxpayers pick up the tab.
Click to expand...
The legislative intent (usually misguided and always ignorant of unintended consequences) for the programs you listed was not “corporate welfare” but something else, e.g., support for a perceived new and promising technology, stability of a core industry, local increases in employment, etc.
 
Of course the intent was not “corporate welfare”, that is just a term used to describe government largesse towards corporations. Just as many programs to help the poor and middle class are not called welfare.
 
tafan2 said:
Of course the intent was not “corporate welfare”, that is just a term used to describe government largesse towards corporations.
Click to expand...
I believe the term is just a liberal talking point repeated often to give unfounded currency in an attempt to depict a fascist government conspiracy for any policy or program they oppose. Which of the programs that you listed is or was not supported by progressives? Just “big oil”? If so, make the argument that the oil depletion allowance is “corporate welfare”.
Electric car subsidies, agriculture subsidies, wind/solar power subsidies, oil production subsidies, local tax breaks for corporate relocations, using eminent domain law for commercial development, sports stadium building
Click to expand...
 
I think you would find support for many of these programs across the political spectrum. Many of them are driven more by constituency interests of certain powerful politicians or other political considerations (eg ethanol subsidies). Some are driven by progressives (eg electric car subsidies) but not nearly all of them. Where I live, politicians are lined up across the board to continue wind and solar subsidies, as we have a lot of that being built in our state.

You may not like the origins of the term, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
 
tafan2 said:
I think you would find support for many of these programs across the political spectrum.
Click to expand...
No, I think just the opposite. Many, if not most, of the programs benefit a few at the cost of many. Evidence of that truth is the presence of the few lobbyists who back any particular program.

Where is the social justice when benefits fall narrowly and costs broadly? Why should all taxpayers pay for your electric car? Because an elitist in Washington thinks that’s a good thing? Have those elitists thought this through? The electric vehicle is battery operated. A battery does not make energy; it stores it. Where does the energy to charge and re-charge batteries come from? Coal, oil and natural gas.

There may be a benefit to “charging up” rather than “filling up” but why not publish the full cost-benefit analysis before lurching forward and going “where no man has gone before” powered on di-lithium crystals, no less.
 
o_mlly said:
It’s binary. Either one is or is not an employee.
Click to expand...
Understood. As CEO, he’s a billionaire employee, in no way equal to the others.
o_mlly said:
Unless you can make the argument that Walmart clerks are paid an unfair wage, you only offer us your opinion.
Click to expand...
It is the Church’s opinion that everyone should be paid a just wage. What it takes to pay a Just Wage | Catholic Moral Theology
  • must not be below the level of subsistence
  • furnishes the means to cultivate worthily the laborer’s material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his or her dependents
Click to expand...
A just wage would therefore be a living wage, which Walmart does not provide to all employees.
o_mlly said:
Ahh. Once again, the complaint based on vague generalities instead of facts. Give us a factual example of “corporate welfare” that supports your claim of “forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab”.
Click to expand...
You’re rather quick to dismiss the concept for someone whose never heard of it.
Corporate welfare is real. It comes in the form of A) direct government subsidies, i.e. welfare money, to businesses and/or B) taxpayers picking up the tab for basic necessities not covered by wages.

We all pay a special Walmart Tax. https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...dize-mcdonalds-and-walmarts-low-wage-workers/
RCIAGraduate said:
Plus, she (she?)
Click to expand...
Yep. She. 🙂
 
I cannot understand you point, I thought you were denying corporate welfare existed, I was just trying to point out it did. I am certainly not trying to defend these programs. If you disagree that Republicans in Iowa support ethanol subsidies or Republicans in Texas support wind subsidies, fine. Not really a point worth arguing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top