F
fix
Guest
Lisa N:
- Status
R
Richardols
Guest
Lisa N:
If that isn’t a definition of a “living wage,” I don’t know what is. But, why should I be surprised at your statement? I don’t expect Republicans to care very much for the working man - they never did, never will.
You disagree with Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, then. In §65, he said that it was not enough for an employer to pay a worker a wage, but one “sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife, and children.”
If that isn’t a definition of a “living wage,” I don’t know what is. But, why should I be surprised at your statement? I don’t expect Republicans to care very much for the working man - they never did, never will.
P
Philip_P
Guest
Lisa N:
As far as “what the market will bear,” I have a hard time believing that the market can bear absurdly escalating CEO compensations but can’t bear an increase at the bottom. Incidentally, the market argument is a very good argument for unions – collective bargaining on the part of labor means the power to negotiate its supply to meet management’s demand, ensuring that “what the market will bear” is closer to a just wage. Markets should serve people, not the other way around.
Lisa N:
Now look at what is considered ‘middle class;’ HUGE homes, we call them Mc Mansions in this city. Family rooms, game rooms, bonus rooms, HUGE kitchens, nooks, formal dining rooms, bedrooms for each child and an office. Two or three cars, two or three TVs, computers, luxury vacations, meals out several times a week, organized play or organized sports, etc etc etc.
Part of why I moved away from the suburbs. Ironically, I’ve found it much easier to tone down materialism in my life since I’ve moved into the city. At some point I hope to marry and have a family, and I’m sure it’ll become an issue again… I’m not sure how to properly address the problem of the rampant materialism in our society, but I haven’t heard anything from either end of the political spectrum that sounds promising. Maybe the idea of national service? Participating in service projects in college gave me a much better perspective, and quite a number of people I know who’ve done some form of service after college have found it to be similarly transformative. Nothing like getting out of the bubble to help keep you grounded.
Lisa N:
Also if we enforced support orders (and I will say it’s getting better) the men who sired these kids would have to help.
This is a good point. I don’t think this necessarily invalidates anything I’ve said, though. There’s nothing about extending time-off benefits or increasing the minimum wage that precludes going after those who shirk their legally mandated responsibilities. (And while we’re at it, let’s crack down tax fraud by high-wage earners. That’s OUR money they’re stealing.)
jlw:
The point was the AFFORDABILITY. That DOES give a poor family more freedom of choice!!! The way you sound even rich people (who therefore can afford a private school) would be
“denied freedom” if a private school turned down their kid because they don’t accept…kids with juvenille records???
I imagine there could be any number of reasons a school might turn down a kid. My fear is that we get into a position where children are turned back based on some discriminatory measure such as income, race, gender, family status, etc., or that private schools are forced to toss out their standards altogether. Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to vouchers, but there are definitely issues that have to be resolved to make them a workable proposal.
Price control doesn’t have a very good track record, which is why I’m not advocating it (nor have I heard anyone else advocating it, though you could probably find some fringe communist pushing it someplace). Specifying wages can also be problematic. What I’m talking about here is setting a FLOOR. The current federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. At 40 hours a week for 52 weeks, that comes out to $10,712.00 a year. That’s ridiculous.
As far as “what the market will bear,” I have a hard time believing that the market can bear absurdly escalating CEO compensations but can’t bear an increase at the bottom. Incidentally, the market argument is a very good argument for unions – collective bargaining on the part of labor means the power to negotiate its supply to meet management’s demand, ensuring that “what the market will bear” is closer to a just wage. Markets should serve people, not the other way around.
Lisa N:
Now look at what is considered ‘middle class;’ HUGE homes, we call them Mc Mansions in this city. Family rooms, game rooms, bonus rooms, HUGE kitchens, nooks, formal dining rooms, bedrooms for each child and an office. Two or three cars, two or three TVs, computers, luxury vacations, meals out several times a week, organized play or organized sports, etc etc etc.
Part of why I moved away from the suburbs. Ironically, I’ve found it much easier to tone down materialism in my life since I’ve moved into the city. At some point I hope to marry and have a family, and I’m sure it’ll become an issue again… I’m not sure how to properly address the problem of the rampant materialism in our society, but I haven’t heard anything from either end of the political spectrum that sounds promising. Maybe the idea of national service? Participating in service projects in college gave me a much better perspective, and quite a number of people I know who’ve done some form of service after college have found it to be similarly transformative. Nothing like getting out of the bubble to help keep you grounded.
Lisa N:
Also if we enforced support orders (and I will say it’s getting better) the men who sired these kids would have to help.
This is a good point. I don’t think this necessarily invalidates anything I’ve said, though. There’s nothing about extending time-off benefits or increasing the minimum wage that precludes going after those who shirk their legally mandated responsibilities. (And while we’re at it, let’s crack down tax fraud by high-wage earners. That’s OUR money they’re stealing.)
The point was the AFFORDABILITY. That DOES give a poor family more freedom of choice!!! The way you sound even rich people (who therefore can afford a private school) would be
“denied freedom” if a private school turned down their kid because they don’t accept…kids with juvenille records???
I imagine there could be any number of reasons a school might turn down a kid. My fear is that we get into a position where children are turned back based on some discriminatory measure such as income, race, gender, family status, etc., or that private schools are forced to toss out their standards altogether. Again, I’m not necessarily opposed to vouchers, but there are definitely issues that have to be resolved to make them a workable proposal.
P
Philip_P
Guest
I don’t know, but presumably more than $10,000 a year. It is precisely the conversation of what constitutes a living wage that we should be having; the question of whether we should even have one ought not to even exist.
I’ll leave it to real economists to propose a formula for a living wage. Off the top of my head, I would guess it would be set off something like the Consumer Price Index.
J
jlw
Guest
Philip P:
What I would like to see is how many men and women OVER THE AGE OF 22, with children have minimum wage jobs. Married?? Single?? Do they have highschool diplomas?? College diplomas?? In what field of study?? Do they speak english fluently??
B
Brad
Guest
Lisa N:
Ahh yes. Materialism. A subset of the dominating, secularlism mindset. The living standards are up but so are the debt levels, causing financial stress, a big contributer to broken families.
B
Brad
Guest
False statement.
F
fix
Guest
Can you show us the quote? I do not see any 65 listed, but I found this:
Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages axe fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this - that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.”(6) Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?
L
Lisa_N
Guest
True statement. I live in Oregon where we have had the highest unemployment in the country for YEARS (thanks to our oppressive tax system and all the greenies IMO but that is another discussion). I assure you as an employer we cannot get anyone for $5.15 an hour for even our relatively unskilled positions. For example we have a file clerk who makes ten bucks an hour. Not a princely amount but I assure you that if we paid less the job would go begging. I see the postings in our hospital and again, even jobs such as custodial, transportation (wheeling patients around), and mailroom are well into the double digits and these jobs do not require any extensive technical skills. Transcriptionists, record keepers, etc make $20 an hour. And we aren’t even talking about skilled clinical folks.
I agree there are some minimum wage jobs out there but again these are often entry level, part time student jobs, or temporary positions and these jobs go to people without education or other skills.
Now there are jobs that have big responsibilities but lower pay such as child care workers, social workers, and counsellors. But it’s a matter of supply and demand. Lots of people want those jobs and so the price is deflated. The reality is that you can’t have your dream job at a dream salary. It’s usually a trade off
Lisa N
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Philip P:
This is a good point. I don’t think this necessarily invalidates anything I’ve said, though. There’s nothing about extending time-off benefits or increasing the minimum wage that precludes going after those who shirk their legally mandated responsibilities. (And while we’re at it, let’s crack down tax fraud by high-wage earners. That’s OUR money they’re stealing.)
OK Philip you’ve moved into the world where I have a LOT of expertise. I’m a tax accountant. I ASSURE YOU that high wage earners are not able to engage in tax fraud. As you probably know, our wages, withholdings and other tax payments are reported to the IRS. A high wage earner is among the LEAST able to defraud the government. Those who make money with dividends, interest, and capital gains similarly have this information reported directly to the IRS. If Joe Taxcheater has $100000 in capital gains and doesn’t report it on his return the document match program will have a nasty little letter fired off in a New York minute.
Tax fraud is usually the provence of those involved in illegal activities or certain all cash businesses that are basically under the radar screens of the IRS or other officials. There are also certain tax fraud schemes (offshore trusts) that may allow someone to cheat for a year or two but these folks tend to get caught and they go to jail.
Lisa N
This is a good point. I don’t think this necessarily invalidates anything I’ve said, though. There’s nothing about extending time-off benefits or increasing the minimum wage that precludes going after those who shirk their legally mandated responsibilities. (And while we’re at it, let’s crack down tax fraud by high-wage earners. That’s OUR money they’re stealing.)
OK Philip you’ve moved into the world where I have a LOT of expertise. I’m a tax accountant. I ASSURE YOU that high wage earners are not able to engage in tax fraud. As you probably know, our wages, withholdings and other tax payments are reported to the IRS. A high wage earner is among the LEAST able to defraud the government. Those who make money with dividends, interest, and capital gains similarly have this information reported directly to the IRS. If Joe Taxcheater has $100000 in capital gains and doesn’t report it on his return the document match program will have a nasty little letter fired off in a New York minute.
Tax fraud is usually the provence of those involved in illegal activities or certain all cash businesses that are basically under the radar screens of the IRS or other officials. There are also certain tax fraud schemes (offshore trusts) that may allow someone to cheat for a year or two but these folks tend to get caught and they go to jail.
Lisa N
J
jlw
Guest
If wages go up, what else goes up??
If taxes go up, what else goes up??
If taxes go up, what else goes up??
B
Brad
Guest
Lisa N:
On a totally unrelated note (and not to put you out of business), but with this being the case, haven’t we evolved to the point where we shouldn’t have to track down all our income year after year after year? Why can’t this be done automatically? Like you said, if we miss something, they’ll know.
J
jlw
Guest
HA!! God bless you LisaN, but I wouldn’t mind if you HAD to find other work!!
NO more income taxes!! Only SALES taxes!! Then all taxes COULD BE TRACKED, right???
R
Richardols
Guest
My source was the Encyclical as posted on the Office of Social Justice site, Catholic Social Teaching page. Nos. 63-65 are the relevant paragraphs. It may be their numbering, but you can check it out.
F
fix
Guest
I did. I went to the vatican website and did not find that quote. I posted what I found, but I may have missed it.
J
jlw
Guest
"ONE OF MY favorite cartoons is a sketch by Skelly depicting two Catholic bishops delivering a homily on “economic salvation.” One intones from a “Pastoral Letter” while the other squints at an economics textbook held upside down. Between them a large chart shows nonsensical zigzagging lines and the word “Taxes,” on either side of which are “The Poor” and “the Very, Very Rich.” A kneeling parishioner prays: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are talking about”
Read the whole thing.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925605
Read the whole thing.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n20_v44/ai_12925605
B
Brad
Guest
65 says this:
65. If a worker receives a wage sufficiently large to enable him to provide comfortably for himself, his wife and his children, he will, if prudent, gladly strive to practice thrift; and the result will be, as nature itself seems to counsel, that after expenditures are deducted there will remain something over and above through which he can come into the possession of a little wealth. We have seen, in fact, that the whole question under consideration cannot be settled effectually unless it is assumed and established as a principle, that the right of private property must be regarded as sacred. Wherefore, the law ought to favor this right and, so far as it can, see that the largest possible number among the masses of the population prefer to own property.
It doesn’t mention anything about a “living wage”.
B
Brad
Guest
The 2 postings have many differences. How interesting. In any event, the Vatican document is the correct one.
R
Richardols
Guest
Brad said:
A wage as described in #65 amounts to a living wage, even if not explicitly called such. It’s a wage that allows the worker and his family to live rather than just subsist.
B
Brad
Guest
Yes, but
- It doesn’t say anything about requiring a worker to have this kind of wage. It simply says IF the worker has this kind of wage, what he should do if he is prudent.
- I’m not sure of the source of this document based on the fact that it conflicts with the Vatican document.
- Status