A couple of points. First of all companies can’t “set whatever wages they want.” If that were the case why in the world would a hospital pay a brain surgeon a six figure salary? Why not just set the pay at $10 an hour? Second the only places in the world today that has a class that stays in constant poverty are places that have to a large degree planned economies. The only cases in recorded history, and it’s relatively recent history I might add, in which large numbers of poor people were able to raise themselves out of poverty is in societies that had largely free trade and price controlled economies. What do you think the American dream is? No one ever talked about the Soviet dream or the Chinese dream.I mean, what are we going to come back with? “We believe that it’s necessary to have a class of people that works full-time and remains in constant poverty, and that means letting companies set whatever wages they want.” ?
You are right. The money has to come from somewhere. Where do you suppose it comes from? It also doesn’t take into account the number of people who will be laid off or have their jobs eliminated due to automation or just can’t get a job in the first place because their skill level doesn’t justify the wage. Raising the minimum wage leads to higher unemployment. This is proven through empirical studies and basic economic reasoning in general.Raising the minimum wage won’t actually lead to more government debt. It would theoretically lead to less government spending, since people who get more money from their jobs aren’t eligible for things like food stamps. The money’s got to come from somewhere, right? So why not have it come from people’s jobs, instead of funneling it through the government?
Minimum wage laws violate my right to life, liberty and property. If two men want to call themselves married my rights are violated in no way.Now, again, you can all disagree with that. This is clearly in the realm of prudential judgement. But let’s not pretend that wanting to raise the minimum wage is evil in the same way that abortion and same-sex civil marriage are.
How does minimum wage violate your right to life, liberty, and property? The issues are not related. You are not required by law to work, you are not required to have your own business. You are not guaranteed property, you have to earn it (unless you do it the way dukes in England do, by being the first born). Liberty has never meant that everyone gets to do whatever they want.Minimum wage laws violate my right to life, liberty and property. If two men want to call themselves married my rights are violated in no way.
Yes, because of supply and demand. In theory, employers enter into mutually beneficial agreements with employees. The employee should be getting more money than whatever they value their time at, and the employer should be getting more value out of the employee’s work than the value of the employee’s salary. Normally, we can tell that a relationship is mutually beneficial when it is consensual; as long as the employee is not being forced to work, we trust that they will leave to find a new job if they’re not getting paid enough.A couple of points. First of all companies can’t “set whatever wages they want.” If that were the case why in the world would a hospital pay a brain surgeon a six figure salary? Why not just set the pay at $10 an hour?
Source, please. I’m pretty sure most countries have a class that’s stuck in relative poverty.Second the only places in the world today that has a class that stays in constant poverty are places that have to a large degree planned economies.
The United States has comparatively low intergenerational economic mobility (people born to poor parents in the US are likely to be poor themselves). The number of people who “raise themselves out of poverty” is lower here than in many other first world countries, including Canada, Germany, and most of Scandinavia. All of those lean more towards socialism than America does.The only cases in recorded history, and it’s relatively recent history I might add, in which large numbers of poor people were able to raise themselves out of poverty is in societies that had largely free trade and price controlled economies.
Which is why it’s theoretical. I have no idea whether the benefits to those who have higher wages would outweigh the negatives of unemployment. As I said, it’s a prudential judgement. The right answer is the one that will lead to the most prosperity; neither approach is inherently immoral. (Although I would think that CEO’s being forced to shave a few million off of their personal paychecks would be a start, as far as finding money to pay for a higher minimum wage.)You are right. The money has to come from somewhere. Where do you suppose it comes from? It also doesn’t take into account the number of people who will be laid off or have their jobs eliminated due to automation or just can’t get a job in the first place because their skill level doesn’t justify the wage. Raising the minimum wage leads to higher unemployment. This is proven through empirical studies and basic economic reasoning in general.
Minimum wage laws don’t violate your right to life. At all.Minimum wage laws violate my right to life, liberty and property. If two men want to call themselves married my rights are violated in no way.
It violates my right to property because it says I am coerced by force by the government to pay someone (my money=my property) more than the value they produce for my company. It violates my right to liberty because I don’t have the liberty to negotiate for the services of an employee. It violates my right to life as I said we spend out limited time on this earth acquiring property. When you take my property you take a part of my life. This violates all the precepts of God given rights.How does minimum wage violate your right to life, liberty, and property? The issues are not related. You are not required by law to work, you are not required to have your own business. You are not guaranteed property, you have to earn it (unless you do it the way dukes in England do, by being the first born). Liberty has never meant that everyone gets to do whatever they want.
That’s not what “life” is. If property were the same thing as life, it wouldn’t need to be listed separately.It violates my right to property because it says I am coerced by force by the government to pay someone (my money=my property) more than the value they produce for my company. It violates my right to liberty because I don’t have the liberty to negotiate for the services of an employee. **It violates my right to life as I said we spend out limited time on this earth acquiring property. When you take my property you take a part of my life. **This violates all the precepts of God given rights.
There are only two portions of that that are in any way problematic for a Christian, the references to gay marriage and overturning the Hobby Lobby decision. Everything else in there a true Christian will have no problem with. The tragedy is that we Christians have let secularism take the high ground that we should have.Have fun my friends. I’ll hop on later with my take.
- “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”
- “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
- “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”
- “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”
- “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
- “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
- “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
- “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”
- “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”
- “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
You do NOT have a moral right to pay someone less than a fair and liveable wage. If you define your life by your acquisition of property, then you need to reread (or maybe read for the first time) the Gospels.It violates my right to property because it says I am coerced by force by the government to pay someone (my money=my property) more than the value they produce for my company. It violates my right to liberty because I don’t have the liberty to negotiate for the services of an employee. It violates my right to life as I said we spend out limited time on this earth acquiring property. When you take my property you take a part of my life. This violates all the precepts of God given rights.
What is a fair and liveable wage for one person might be an inadequate wage for another, or an excess wage for yet another.You do NOT have a moral right to pay someone less than a fair and liveable wage. If you define your life by your acquisition of property, then you need to reread (or maybe read for the first time) the Gospels.
I have brought up JPII’s idea, discussed in Laborem Exercens, of a “family wage” before. Trouble is that I cannot get one left-winger to acknowledge the morality of paying a family man $25 /hr for a job and a teenager making date money $5 / hr for the same job.What is a fair and liveable wage for one person might be an inadequate wage for another, or an excess wage for yet another.
A teenager doing part time work can live on less than a married man with children, because he has other means of support. Is one set minimum wage supposed to be 'fair and liveable for all comers?"
Does an employer have a moral obligation to pay a wage to beginning workers at a rate that would require him to fire some of them?
Morally, giving to each according to his need sounds like a fine idea. Although we would need a set of rules to determine which people have the greatest economic need (so that employers don’t discriminate based on race/gender/religion/other things that aren’t connected to economic need).I have brought up JPII’s idea, discussed in Laborem Exercens, of a “family wage” before. Trouble is that I cannot get one left-winger to acknowledge the morality of paying a family man $25 /hr for a job and a teenager making date money $5 / hr for the same job.
In addition, consider that the cost of living in one part of the country is radically different than other parts of the country. In fact, the cost of living in one part of a state is radically different than in another part of the same state. (For example, the cost of living in the DC suburbs is significantly different than the Eastern Shore of Maryland; the cost of living in Chicago is significantly different than that in Southern Illinois; the cost of living in Seattle is significantly different than in Yakima) – particularly when you consider the cost of housing in the equation (which is not a consideration in the government poverty level calculations).
A valid criticism as far as having a single, national minimum wage, but it doesn’t really change whether a higher minimum wage is a good idea. I don’t think there are very many places where one can live on $7.50 an hour with any degree of comfort or security.Therefore, a living wage in Bethesda, Maryland, would be quite different than that needed to sustain a family in Easton.
Do you think then that “family wage” is not feasible?I have brought up JPII’s idea, discussed in Laborem Exercens, of a “family wage” before. Trouble is that I cannot get one left-winger to acknowledge the morality of paying a family man $25 /hr for a job and a teenager making date money $5 / hr for the same job.
Have fun my friends. I’ll hop on later with my take.
- “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.” I agree, lets bring back Glass-Steagal for starters.
- “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
Science especially science fiction can be useful. I agree we should protect the earth.- “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.” I agree.
- “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.” I agree.
- “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.” I’m proud to fight for, living wages. not to mention reforming the at will employee mess.
- “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
I agree.- “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.” I agree.
- “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.” If the work is equal, the pay should be.
- “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.” I would need clarification on her definition of marriage. But for now I agree that any man, and woman who are not related by blood should be able to marry.
- “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.” I guess she means further reform. If thats the case, then I agree.
- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. Corporations are not people, and who is trying to deny woman their bodies?We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it! I agree they will, they will.
How does “women having a right to their bodies” imply that a corporation is forced to buy them a drug or device to make their bodies malfunction?"And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
And why would you hire a family man for $25 when you could pay a teenager $5?I have brought up JPII’s idea, discussed in Laborem Exercens, of a “family wage” before. Trouble is that I cannot get one left-winger to acknowledge the morality of paying a family man $25 /hr for a job and a teenager making date money $5 / hr for the same job.
In addition, consider that the cost of living in one part of the country is radically different than other parts of the country. In fact, the cost of living in one part of a state is radically different than in another part of the same state. (For example, the cost of living in the DC suburbs is significantly different than the Eastern Shore of Maryland; the cost of living in Chicago is significantly different than that in Southern Illinois; the cost of living in Seattle is significantly different than in Yakima) – particularly when you consider the cost of housing in the equation (which is not a consideration in the government poverty level calculations).
Therefore, a living wage in Bethesda, Maryland, would be quite different than that needed to sustain a family in Easton.
Such a scheme would also be good for family life, as mothers would not feel compelled to divide their time between raising the children and earning a living. Thus, the size of the labor force would be reduced. This has tremendous benefits for those who remain in the work force.Morally, giving to each according to his need sounds like a fine idea. Although we would need a set of rules to determine which people have the greatest economic need (so that employers don’t discriminate based on race/gender/religion/other things that aren’t connected to economic need).
If the family man chose to work at a McDonald’s flipping burgers as a career choice, you’d have a point. However, for skilled jobs, that would be a different story: skills come with experience. While, sure, there in theory would be a preference for experienced, educated, trained people who were single vice married…how much do you think that would actually come into play?Economically, it would make it exponentially more efficient for companies to hire teenagers (and/or people who need work the least), so the family man will have a tough time finding any work at all. I’m not sure how to get around that hurdle.
Here’s the bottom line: wages come down to being a moral argument. It all comes down to the following quote from Leo XIII:A valid criticism as far as having a single, national minimum wage, but it doesn’t really change whether a higher minimum wage is a good idea. I don’t think there are very many places where one can live on $7.50 an hour with any degree of comfort or security.
What kind of rules? Who enforces them? Do they know what they’re doing? Regulators are not necessarily the smartest guys on the block, and they can’t possibly foresee all possibilities, as has been demonstrated on several occassions.“We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”
Science is not a religion. It doesn’t require belief. Neither is the earth a god. I believe we have a responsibility to protect the humans.“We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
I’ll leave this to someone more knowledgeable about the Internet. It goes without saying that each interested party pays for their own portion of the internet. Somebody’s got to pay for it.“We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”
And that means and endless round of increasing the minimum wage, higher inflation, more minimum wage increases, higher unemployment. When do we get off this merry-go-round, and who decides which minimum wage is optimal?“We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”
What’s a liveable wage? Should they get the same pay as an airframe mechanic? Who decides? Who forces the fast food company to stay in business? Who pays the higher prices? Do we force consumers to go to those place to make sure everyone stays employed?“We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
I do too. That’s why students should not take on unsustainable debt. As for being “entitled” to an education, does she mean K-12? High school? Community college? Four year degree? Med School? PhD? How far does entitlement extend?“We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
A nice thought, but no guarantees. Social Security and Medicare are already unsustainable, private pensions are in theory backed by the PBGC, but that may not be sustainable either if some large companies fail.“We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
Personally, I have never seen a job advertised with unequal pay for various classes of people. (I have seen instances, though, in which someone in the DOL objected to unpaid internships because the company was getting unpaid workers. It’s too bad, because the workers wanted those internships for the experience, and they would have led to good jobs.)“We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”
I have no idea what that means, but I’m sure the bureaucracy would be happy to write a few thousand pages of regulations to clarify it.“We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”
Finally! I agree with this one.“We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
What a hoary old canard. Of course corporations are not human persons. They are legal persons for corporate purposes. Otherwise, who are you going to sue—all the owners jointly and severally? And I don’t believe in fighting to restrict religions liberty. I believe in fighting to retain religious liberty.And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!
We know that there will be more prosperity for all if all groups have a fair share of the wealth of the country. We know that the country will achieve economic stability and progress only if the benefits of our production are widely distributed among all its citizens.
We believe that it is the Federal Government’s obligation, under the Constitution, to promote the general welfare of all our people–and not just a privileged few.
The policies we advocate are based on these convictions.
We maintain that farmers, like businessmen, should receive a fair price for the products they sell.
We maintain that workers are entitled to good wages and to equality of bargaining power with their employers.
We believe that cooperatives and small business should have a fair opportunity to achieve success, and should not be smothered by monopolies.
We hold that our great natural resources should be protected and developed for the benefit of all our people, and not exploited for private greed.
We believe that old people and the disabled should have an assured income to keep them from being dependent on charity.
We believe that families should have protection against loss of income resulting from accident, illness, or unemployment.
We hold that our citizens should have decent housing at prices they can afford to pay.
We believe in assuring educational opportunities for all our young people in order that we may have an enlightened citizenry.
We believe in better health and medical care for everyone — not for just a few.
We hold that all Americans are entitled to equal rights and equal opportunities under the law, and to equal participation in our national life, free from fear and discrimination.
Nothing but more “cradle-to-the-grave” government welfare.Now, my friends, these are the policies that spell the progress for all our people.
“Father, must I go to work“
No, my lucky son,
We’re living now on easy street
On dough from Uncle Sam.
We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam;
so don’t get exercised.
Nobody has to give a danm,
we’ve all been subsidized!”
“But if Sam treats us all so well,
and feeds us milk and honey,
Please tell me, Daddy, tell me what the hell
he’s going to use for money?”
“Don’t worry, bub, there’s not a hitch
in this here noble plan;
He simply soaks the filthy rich
and helps the common man!”
“But father, won’t there come a time
when they run out of cash,
When we have left them not a dime
when things will go to smash?”
“My faith in you is shrinking,
son you nosey little brat;
You do too much thinking, boy,
to be a Democrat!”