Is Pope qualified to preach economics

[Church_Militant]

Potentially a mandatory living wage could deter employers from hiring as many employees as they might without such a measure.

However kind and generous, a businessman has to meet his overhead costs. In deciding to take on an extra employee, the extra cost of paying a mandatory living wage could make the difference.

Which pretty much ignores everything I pointed out.

That philosophy of economics is secular in nature and presupposes that every service must make its owner wealthy.

Wealth is not immoral, but we have St. Paul telling Timothy, (1st Timothy 6)
6] There is great gain in godliness with contentment;
7] for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world;
8] but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content.
[9] But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.
[10] For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. (Emphasis mine)

And Our Blessed Lord tells us…
16] And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”
17] And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
18] He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,
19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
20] The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?”
21] Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.
**[23] And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
[24] Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
[25] When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?”
[26] But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” **
27] Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?”
28] Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
30] But many that are first will be last, and the last first. (Emphasis mine. See also Mark 10:17-31)

I’m sure that those who are less than wealthy find these things easier to accept, but

 

[Church_Militant]

So, to the original question of the Pope’s qualifications…what do we see now?

 

[stinkcat_14]

So, to the original question of the Pope’s qualifications…what do we see now?

Is there any evidence that he is not qualified to speak on economic matters?

 

[KathleenGee]

In ‘Veritatis Splendor’, the key was detachment from material things and when we do have them, to be as servants in applying them.

There was bad liberation theology that condemned people with wealth, and had racist components that white people could not have empathy or help with people of color who were poor. Class warfare…and the focus on our own hands to make our existence…but without grace.

John Paul II and Pope Benedict did very well in their commentaries…Church did not force…never has in context of this thread…earliest times the rich were to be the ones to support the widows and orphans…but they themselves decide how much to share not the Church.

 

[celestialhost]

OK, Church Militant. I’m just asking you to think about the realities of situations.

Let’s say you own a butcher’s shop and you hire three people to work in it. Let’s suppose the standard rate for people working in butcher’s shops is five dollars an hour.

Now let’s also suppose that an hypothetical living wage was seven dollars an hour. What do you do?

Option 1: Pay a living wage and pass the costs on to the customers. That means all your customers will go to the other butcher’s shops which pay their staff five dollars an hour.

Option 2: Pay a living wage and take the cost from your own take home pay. I imagine you would favour this as fitting your moral principles. But maybe profits are already low. Maybe you are already in debt to the bank. Are your family able to manage with less money?

Option 3: Pay a living wage and cut down your staff to just two. That’s fine for the two guys who get the living wage, but not so good for the one who loses his job.

Option 4: Carry on paying the going rate.

Of course, if the government made the living wage mandatory, the last option would be removed.

What would you do if you were a businessman in such a situation?

 

[sallybutler]

OK, Church Militant. I’m just asking you to think about the realities of situations.

Let’s say you own a butcher’s shop and you hire three people to work in it. Let’s suppose the standard rate for people working in butcher’s shops is five dollars an hour.

Now let’s also suppose that an hypothetical living wage was seven dollars an hour. What do you do?

Option 1: Pay a living wage and pass the costs on to the customers. That means all your customers will go to the other butcher’s shops which pay their staff five dollars an hour.

Option 2: Pay a living wage and take the cost from your own take home pay. I imagine you would favour this as fitting your moral principles. But maybe profits are already low. Maybe you are already in debt to the bank. Are your family able to manage with less money?

Option 3: Pay a living wage and cut down your staff to just two. That’s fine for the two guys who get the living wage, but not so good for the one who loses his job.

Option 4: Carry on paying the going rate.

Of course, if the government made the living wage mandatory, the last option would be removed.

What would you do if you were a businessman in such a situation?

Option 1 would also go away.

Which option do you support? In all 4 options someone gets hurt. Apparently there are no good solutions , except maybe the cost of living goes down. Oh wait, then the butcher couldn’t afford $5 an hour.

 

[MPat]

OK, Church Militant. I’m just asking you to think about the realities of situations.

Let’s say you own a butcher’s shop and you hire three people to work in it. Let’s suppose the standard rate for people working in butcher’s shops is five dollars an hour.

Now let’s also suppose that an hypothetical living wage was seven dollars an hour. What do you do?

Option 1: Pay a living wage and pass the costs on to the customers. That means all your customers will go to the other butcher’s shops which pay their staff five dollars an hour.

Option 2: Pay a living wage and take the cost from your own take home pay. I imagine you would favour this as fitting your moral principles. But maybe profits are already low. Maybe you are already in debt to the bank. Are your family able to manage with less money?

Option 3: Pay a living wage and cut down your staff to just two. That’s fine for the two guys who get the living wage, but not so good for the one who loses his job.

Option 4: Carry on paying the going rate.

Of course, if the government made the living wage mandatory, the last option would be removed.

What would you do if you were a businessman in such a situation?

Sorry, but a hypothetical example has little to do with “realities of situations”. Things might work that way in “perfect competition”, but that is a mathematical model.

For example, in real life rising prices do not automatically result in all customers instantly going elsewhere. Even if we’ll ignore everything else, there are costs associated with looking for other options.

Also, in real life the “standard rate for people working in butcher’s shops” does not arise without any involvement of employers and employees. For all we know, every other shop will go out of business because their employees will leave for the ones that pay better.

Thus I’m afraid you’ll need a better example. And not the one that merely shows that different moral principles can have different priorities.

 

[awke]

It’s funny to me that the same people who used to condemn dissenters of the pope’s teaching are now happily justifying their own dissent.

A pope teaches about the evils of communism? Or contraception? Or anything else controversial that aligns with the conservative view point? That’s faith and morals. It’s probably infallible. It would be a serious sin to disagree with him.

The current pope now teaches about the evils of capitalism? On our moral obligation to help the poor? That economic structures that create inequalities violate human rights? That’s just his opinion. In fact, he’s not even qualified to preach economics.

 

[Seraphim73]

Sorry, but a hypothetical example has little to do with “realities of situations”. Things might work that way in “perfect competition”, but that is a mathematical model.

For example, in real life rising prices do not automatically result in all customers instantly going elsewhere. Even if we’ll ignore everything else, there are costs associated with looking for other options.

Most of economics is mathematical models. What you are talking about is a basic economic principle known as incremental substitution. You are right insofar as we can never predict how an individual will react to pricing signals, but we can predict quite accurately how groups of people will react. People are always people, they will as a group act in a way that serves their self interest.

Also, in real life the “standard rate for people working in butcher’s shops” does not arise without any involvement of employers and employees. For all we know, every other shop will go out of business because their employees will leave for the ones that pay better.

Thus I’m afraid you’ll need a better example. And not the one that merely shows that different moral principles can have different priorities.

Well there is really no such thing as a “standard rate.” The prices for labor are governed buy the law of supply and demand just like every other good and service. Short of union extortion employers are not going to pay employees more than the value they produce with their job skills.

 

[awke]

Most of economics is mathematical models. What you are talking about is a basic economic principle known as incremental substitution. You are right insofar as we can never predict how an individual will react to pricing signals, but we can predict quite accurately how groups of people will react. People are always people, they will as a group act in a way that serves their self interest.

Read about Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago school of economics. Just one of countless examples where the models completely failed.

 

[MPat]

Most of economics is mathematical models. What you are talking about is a basic economic principle known as incremental substitution. You are right insofar as we can never predict how an individual will react to pricing signals, but we can predict quite accurately how groups of people will react. People are always people, they will as a group act in a way that serves their self interest.

Yes, we can get useful insights from models, even models that are as simplified as “perfect competition”. But they (and especially their features that are simplified) should not be presented as “reality” that can somehow “override” moral considerations.

Well there is really no such thing as a “standard rate.” The prices for labor are governed buy the law of supply and demand just like every other good and service. Short of union extortion employers are not going to pay employees more than the value they produce with their job skills.

That is one reason why I suspected that the example dealt with “perfect competition” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition), where each firm already knows what the market price will be and cannot affect it in any way. It might be more reasonable to describe that market price as “standard rate”.

However, “Short of union extortion employers are not going to pay employees more than the value they produce with their job skills.” looks suspicious… Are you sure there never was a single employer who overpaid an employee because of mistakes concerning evaluation of that “value”? Or because of that same Catholic Social Teaching? And it is not like “the value they produce with their job skills” is a number that is always known with great accuracy…

Now, of course, it is not hard to weaken your statement to make it clearly true. For example, “Total labour costs of the firm with finite resources can only stay higher than the firm’s total revenue for a finite time.”. And yes, if paying a living wage will result in something like that, we would have a problem. But, for all we know, the right solution might be closing a firm down and letting someone else (who, presumably, does a better job) to deal with it…

 

[ralfyman]

He is qualified to talk about injustices in light of economic issues which have been readily discussed by various experts.

 

[Seraphim73]

That is quite a bold statement on your part. You seem to think that nobody would ever use their own money WILLINGLY to help the poor; and that the only way this would work is through the use of force.

It’s a bad idea to try and reach into my mind and decipher what I think.

I was speaking about the government supposedly having a responsibility to the poor. My point is the only way government gets money to help the poor is if it first takes that money from someone else. That at it’s very core is coercion and force.

 

[adawgj]

Maybe the Holy Father should read “Compassionate Capitalism” by Rich Devos co founder of Amway.

 

[Seraphim73]

Read about Chile under Pinochet and the Chicago school of economics. Just one of countless examples where the models completely failed.

Humans are not perfect. We all make mistakes. Since people created the models they will never be perfect. What I am talking about is basic human nature. People as a whole will always react to the incentives placed before them and act in their own self interest.

 

[celestialhost]

It’s a bad idea to try and reach into my mind and decipher what I think.

I was speaking about the government supposedly having a responsibility to the poor. My point is the only way government gets money to help the poor is if it first takes that money from someone else. That at it’s very core is coercion and force.

What about people who are incapable of working through disability? Is it wrong for the government to use tax payers money to provide a reasonable standard of living for those people?

 

[Seraphim73]

What about people who are incapable of working through disability? Is it wrong for the government to use tax payers money to provide a reasonable standard of living for those people?

I would ask you why that can’t be handled through private charity? I’m all for helping the poor and disabled and downtrodden but that is your personal responsibility. Using government to coerce someone else to pay for it on your behalf it is a cop out.