Names are everything. The mere fact that government subsidies have been redefined as corporate welfare is a form of propaganda. If the name does not matter, then why did the term “corporate welfare” even become used for something that already had an accurate name?
This is true and completely non-controversial. No one disputes this.
This is your opinion. It is nowhere stated by the church and is in fact what the debate is mostly about. Asserting that it is true without an argument to support the claim is unhelpful.
This is nonsense. People who work at Walmart are their employees, not their wards. Walmart has an obligation to pay them a just compensation for their labor, but they have no responsibility at all to ensure all their financial needs are met.
Then let’s even the playing field. Why not refer to social welfare programs as subsidies for the poor instead of “hand-outs?”
No, it is a fact. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
And: http://www.vatican.va/content/john-...s/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html
If there’s no living wage, there’s no viable means of subsistence. As summarized eloquently in a link I posted upthread, where these needs can be met through living wage, public programs may step in and supplement them.
See my references above.
It depends. Many of them are called dead-end jobs for a valid reason. People who for whatever reason can’t attain a higher education or different job, (rural communities can have this problem), do need a way to feed the family and keep the lights on. That way has to come through social programs or a living wage. Or a combination.
The link you never read demonstrates through adequate citations that the Church demands wages of subsistence. This is not my opinion.
That’s a long and round about post to say simply that you cannot support your claim that Walmart does not pay just wages to the clerks.
If your assertion is in fact factual you should have no problem pointing to the specific passage in that document that says it rather than referencing a passage that includes your interpretation.
That the formation of a family is a natural right, and that work is its foundation, says nothing whatever about how individuals are to be compensated for their work.
I think you meant “where these needs cannot be met…”, but saying that refutes your claim that “if there’s no living wage, there’s no viable means of subsistence.” That is precisely what public programs are meant to do, so why should the burden of providing for the poor be placed on the companies that hire most of them, that is, the ones with the most minimum wage workers? IBM, GM, and GE don’t have minimum wage workers, why should they be exempt from providing for the poor? What is the argument that we should impose that burden solely on companies like Walmart and McDonalds?
We agree that the government has a role to play in achieving social justice. You have made some comments that reflect government’s overall report card. If you were to assign a grade (ABCDF), how successful do you think they been since Rerum Novarum of 1891?
Excellent quote from the 1981 encyclical. The State must take its responsibility (in this quote referring to the evil of unemployment) to promote social justice for the worker.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding due to definitions: Corporate welfare is often used to describe a government’s bestowal of money grants, tax breaks, or other special favorable treatment for corporations .
I stand corrected. I agree with @blackforest that low wages are a direct benefit to corporations.
Which includes low wages. Also includes ability to strip assets, go bankrupt, disappear pensions, short final wage payouts; meanwhile pay bonus to management as did Sears.