T
Tomdstone
Guest
They may not have the money to relocate and therefore they would be forced to stay there. The scenario is one where they are just barely making it on their salary and they don’t have any money to pay for moving.
- Status
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Megabus will take you to Burlington for $1 if you time your purchase right. If they can’t scrape up a dollar, then you are right, they are stuck. I don’t think they can be helped then.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Would that price of $1 include all of your household goods, including your refrigerator and kitchen stove? There are additional costs in moving such as trying to find a job and trying to rent an apartment in a safe area. Vermont has a somewhat higher rate of drug use than most parts of the USA, so a poor family would not want to be in an area of high drug trafficking.
To sum up, it is not realistic to suppose that they would be able to move, given their meager salary and it is therefore imperative that they be paid a living wage which means raising the minimum wage from $8 per hour.
E
Ender
Guest
Let’s be very clear on this point: Bishop Wenski did not advocate for a living wage, however it is defined, and in any event there is nothing in church teaching that supports the idea that an employer has a moral obligation to pay one. We should all look at that as a good thing inasmuch as an economic policy it would be catastrophically bad and it would additionally destroy the concept that church teaching should be taken seriously.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
From the article:
said Archbishop Wenski. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that workers deserve just wages, wages that allow them and their families to fulfill material, social, cultural and spiritual needs.”
He advocated for it, defined it and linked it to Church teaching. I would expect Catholic to take Church teaching seriously, if not non-catholics.
P
pnewton
Guest
Left and right, too many put politics or money ahead of their faith.Cafeteria Catholicism is alive and well among the American Right…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One departs from simply advocating the teachings of the Church when one goes from broad, universal principles to minute (and ever changing) policy positions by particular politicians, especially when one does not even attempt to lay a factual foundation for the conclusion. One is then joining the ranks of the politicians, and expressing a political view, not advocating Church teaching.
From the article:
said Archbishop Wenski. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that workers deserve just wages, wages that allow them and their families to fulfill material, social, cultural and spiritual needs.”
He advocated for it, defined it and linked it to Church teaching. I would expect Catholic to take Church teaching seriously, if not non-catholics.
One could fill in the “middle term” any number of ways, depending on either established facts or simple assumptions. Examples could be: (And I’m making them up, so don’t bother quibbling with them)
"Since all workers are paid whatever the minimum wage is, and since $8.00/hour is not sufficient to meet the expressed goals, (here follow the budgetary figures), it is evident the minimum wage must be raised to “X”.
But an alternative could be: “Since only 15% of workers making minimum wage are over the age of 25, and since 80% of that 15% are working for extra income or simply for something to do, and since there is a crisis in unemployment of younger people, and since (here fill in the name of the study and the numbers) minimum wage hikes result in additional mechanization, then it is evident that raising the minimum wage would be destructive to those trying to enter the labor market.”
We have, on this thread, seen arguments back and forth about this, but nobody has yet established, empirically, that a significant societal benefit would result from raising the minimum wage or failing to raise it, either one.
Bishop Wenski is entitled to have political views, at least within the parameters allowed to him by the government. But he is not entitled to claim they represent the teachings of the Catholic Church when they really are only political positions. Doing so trivializes the Church and its teachings.
As an aside, it might be noted that in today’s America, he doesn’t actually have all that much freedom to express Church teachings as applied when they oppose government policy. He cannot directly oppose election of an abortion promoter, for example, or be too vocal about Church teachings concerning homosexual “marriage” in some places.
It’s disheartening to me, as a Catholic, when some bishops are constrained to expressing opinions only about minor political positions, and do not feel themselves free to address more serious moral issues.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
To be fair, nobody has established that there would be any significant societal harm either from raising the minimum wage or failing to raise it as well. I think it can be easily established that the claims on both sides tend to be way overblown.
S
shockerfan
Guest
I think you are on to something here. The US laws on non-profit organizations certainly seem to muzzle Church leaders about talking about specific politicians whose very policies are a threat to the life of the unborn or religious freedom. Thus a lot of Catholics support those politicians. Then, they express opinions about an issue like the minimum wage, and a lot of Catholics equate that opinion to dogma.
Astute observation
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Actually, I don’t think you are quite correct here. The Bishops cannot say vote for John Doe because he support an increase in the minimum wage. They can ask politicians to increase it, just as they can ask politicians to vote for restricting abortion.
C
catholictiger
Guest
the article takes the CCC passage slightly out of context (the bishop may have quoted the whole thing so I’m not sure)
From the article:
said Archbishop Wenski. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that workers deserve just wages, wages that allow them and their families to fulfill material, social, cultural and spiritual needs.”
He advocated for it, defined it and linked it to Church teaching. I would expect Catholic to take Church teaching seriously, if not non-catholics.
let’s examine the CCC passage that is being referred to
from reading this passage it appears that a man’s lively hood is only a part of it, the productivity of the person’s work should also be taken into account. Should a Walmart greeter be able to provide for a 4 person family if that is his only job?
I think taking into consideration his state of life, the state of the business, the productivity of his work, and the needs of his family and livelihood. With all this taken into consideration than no it isn’t the case that a walmart greeter should have a wage to support a family of 4.
if you go and look at the footnote of the CCC passage you also see that it comes from GS
GS 67 has this passage immediately precede it.
so it appears that it isn’t up to the employer to make sure all of his employees have sufficient wage to provide for himself and his family, but rather the society, and I guess the government, to make sure a person get’s a job that is sufficient to give him a dignified lively hood and pay for the livelyhood of his family.
T
TEPO
Guest
Strange that even with all the union legislation that it’s still not good enough. It used to be that workers would protest or picket a low paying employer… I guess people are too lazy to protest these days. They’d rather have the government do the work for them.
Now if these people are that lazy and ambitionless, then I can understand why an employer would reject offering them a raise.
Now if these people are that lazy and ambitionless, then I can understand why an employer would reject offering them a raise.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
And one could argue that since we have compulsory education which is free from K-12, and there are programs to help subsidize the costs of College/Trade school, that society is doing something to help people get better jobs.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
While it may be different elsewhere, around here fast food chains, for instance, are almost entirely staffed by very young people and/or very old people. The manager (when visible) seems to be the only exception. I don’t know what managers make, but some of them are actually the franchise owners.
Why would a high school student go on strike, and miss out on wages that might help him/her save for college, or a car or whatever? Why would a retired person who used the wage for 'little extras" go on strike and stand out in the cold or heat with a sign and miss out on his/her “pin money”?
And for the students, at least, there are other students who applied for the same job but didn’t get it. And if they unionize, they’ll pay dues for a job they don’t intend to keep.
It makes no sense to go on strike or unionize, and that’s why they don’t. It’s not a matter of laziness or employer oppression, either one.
T
TEPO
Guest
True. But what would you prefer, employees dealing with their employer without government intervention or the government passing laws across the board that unions used to handle on an individual basis?
It makes no difference what our opinions are of unions -the fact is that the government has been throughout the last 20 years been filling in the unions roles. We now have the ever intrusive OSHA agents as well as proposed minimum wage increases in the process… Environmental radicalism, etc. I’d rather handle these kinds of issues independently without sweeping government mandates.
…at least some small businesses could squeak by, as you’ve pointed out. Not every job deserves $10.00 an hour pay rate.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Bishops will not say: “don’t vote for any pro-abortion candidate”, even if no name is mentioned. That would certainly have a greater impact than advocating for a particular minimum wage increase.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
They certainly can advocate for anti-abortion policies just as they can advocate for increases in the minimum wage. I do not see the difference here.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Remember, this sub-discussion started when I agreed with Ridgerunner’s observation about Bishops being somewhat muzzled in their speech. Which they are, because they do not want to endanger the Church’s non-profit status. Which is a little peculiar, since the Left would howl if a politician spoke at a Catholic Church, but they seem to look the other way when a Democrat stumps at a left-leaning Protestant church
E
Ender
Guest
Bishop Wenski’s comment (as it was reported) is not accurate. The catechism does state that workers should receive a just wage, but then goes on to say “In determining fair pay **both **the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account.” If, as the catechism clearly states, the contributions of the worker figure into the calculation of his salary, then his salary clearly is not based on his needs alone, therefore the employer does not have a requirement to pay the worker what he and his family need to live on.
CCC 2434 goes on to say:
“Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”
Bishop Wenski’s statement paraphrases the section in blue above. Unfortunately he ignored the remainder of that section which modifies it considerably. When you include the nature of the job being done (“the role and productivity of each”) it is obvious that what is being demanded is not a living wage for everyone but fairness, a demand that the employer be mindful of his employees needs and pay him a wage appropriate for the work being done, but that demand stops well short of demanding a living wage.
The problem is that there is no link to church teaching, not to the catechism, Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, or anything else. What those documents contain is not a demand for a living wage from the employer but a demand for a just wage from him and a level of support from the government that allows him and his family to live in dignity.
It would be good if everyone who commented on church teaching understood what the church actually says.
Ender
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
A lot of government intervention has been at the behest of unions. Since many no longer perceive unions as representing the workers’ interests, their numbers have dropped. But unions still have a lot of money and can buy politicians to do their bidding.
Sometimes OSHA inspections are union-inspired. If a non-union employer gets beaten to death with fines (sometimes because of union activist sabotage in the workplace set up for OSHA to find) the union can cite that “lack of safety” to workers as a recruiting tool. I have seen it. And, of course, the union can “promise” management that it will have "worker safety’ representatives (paid for by the company) in the plant to “ensure” that no OSHA violations occur.
- Status