Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[estesbob]

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.

Some have:

*No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion," he said.

“You may in some circumstances where you don’t have any candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion, choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country, but you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes that it should be available to everyone,”*

Cardinal Burke

 

[TEPO]

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.

I’m not sure how old you are, but in my 36 years if life I’ve only heard of, but have never seen these union bully’s or union sabotages take place. But I don’t doubt it at all. Maybe the days of union intimidation have slowed, but if they did it’s because the Union sold itself out to leftist ideology and now works side by side with the government. But that’s a huge problem! It’s problematic because selling out to politics especially leftist politics seems to be the common trend these days. But how does that happen? Do you think it could have been the Democrats who infiltrated the unions? After all, it would make sense for the Democrats to buy the unions out because unions urge their members to vote.

In light of the thought of Democratic infiltration, is it possible that our Church leaders here in America could also be bought out by left wing democratic diplomats? I’m not sure if that’s possible myself, but I am very weary of our Church supporting any kind of political legislation, as that’s how things got started with the unions before they sold themselves out.

It’s just the whole idea of building ties with one party over another that causes concern for me… It used to be that the Church would warn the world about this or that threat to morality - but these days the Church is actually doing a lot of political supporting. Just like the unions did.

…there is a huge difference between ‘backing’ one party over another and simply warning of the dangers involved with policies or ideologies in general.

 

[Ridgerunner]

In light of the thought of Democratic infiltration, is it possible that our Church leaders here in America could also be bought out by left wing democratic diplomats? I’m not sure if that’s possible myself, but I am very weary of our Church supporting any kind of political legislation, as that’s how things got started with the unions before they sold themselves out.

It’s just the whole idea of building ties with one party over another that causes concern for me… It used to be that the Church would warn the world about this or that threat to morality - but these days the Church is actually doing a lot of political supporting. Just like the unions did.

…there is a huge difference between ‘backing’ one party over another and simply warning of the dangers involved with policies or ideologies in general.

Interesting post. Perhaps I am too pessimistic, but I’m not so sure it’s exactly a matter of Democrat infiltration as it is a matter of weakness, irresolution and perhaps simply poor judgment in the face of political operatives steering a lot of churchmen onto unfortunate paths.

I’m older than you are. I remember the (waning) days of the “great Catholic institutions”, when Catholic Universities really were Catholic, when Catholic hospitals were truly Catholic, when Catholic charities were, on and on.

I don’t think many, perhaps most of us realize how that has all collapsed. It’s mostly just gone. The big inducement was, of course, money. But there was also that secularization that is almost like a disease that follows close canoodling with political powers.

But I think good intentions plus the lure of money (to do good works, of course, strings attached and all accepted) plus major naivete and some serious lack of courage has made so many churchmen “go along to get along”. And it still goes on with some, though perhaps many have now learned.

What a trick the secularists played on them with obamacare! The USCCB and so many Catholic institutions and spokespersons and politicians supported it. Oh, they said, “universal healthcare is the moral choice”. Did they not know who they were dealing with? (How does that saying go about using a long spoon if one sups with the devil?) And then, at the last second, they were betrayed and along came the HHS mandate, and the remnant Catholic institutions are told they must violate conscience or face institutional ruin. And groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor face the full force of a government with unlimited people and resources. But even AFTER the HHS mandate, some church people and “Catholic” leaders STILL support it. And so, the decline continues.

 

[gamewell45]

A lot of government intervention has been at the behest of unions. .

That is true; Unions as a whole believe that no one should come to work and either die or be injured on the job.

Sometimes OSHA inspections are union-inspired. .

That is true as well; many employees are unfamilar with OSHA rules and regulations and wouldn’t know the first thing about knowing what and what isn’t an OSHA violation. Union’s on the other hand maintain a staff of trained safety officials who are trained in this discipline.

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…

As a former long time union organizer, I can tell you that unions definitely use this as part of the organzing effort; but that’s only part of the equation. We explain that being union can afford its members with job security, working conditions, a living wage, a realistic benefits package, a grievance and arbitration procedure and improvement in quality of life issues, all of which non-union people are not guaranteed. All of this of couse has to be bargained for. BTW, I’ve never seen any acts of deliberate safety sabotage by anyone union or non-union occur in any unionized shops.

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.

They cannot realistically “promise” that; what can do is to, through bargaining, insert contract safety language; but again both sides have to agree on the proposal

 

[JamesCaruso]

The church is silent on the question of whether a minimum wage is an economically good idea. Archbishop Wenski would have served us better had he taken the same approach. There are reasonable arguments to be made both for and against a minimum wage, but there is no argument to be made that one position is more moral than the other.

Ender

I’m a fiscal conservative and I tend to side with arguments against raising the minimum wage from a strictly economics point of view. Employers will take any number of countermeasures in the face of higher wages that have negative effects on either workers, the economy, or both. They will lay off workers; they will move to machine replacements, like self checkout stations at stores; they will pile additional duties onto existing workers; they will lower other worker costs, like health care insurance, by moving full-time jobs to part-time status; they will raise prices of products and services to cover the additional wage costs, which means that workers paychecks will not go as far. I am sure that there are many other repercussions that I have not named.

But I also look at the problem through the eyes of faith. I don’t know for sure that all these things will occur, even though they are logical and plausible. I do believe that God will honor direct assistance to any human being or group of human beings. I do not believe that Jesus and his disciples would have stopped giving money directly to poor and needy people because it might have a negative effect on the economy of Jerusalem. We are talking about base levels, not complete wage and salary engineering. I believe that the economy quickly adjusts to such wage measures and will not show these negative consequences over the long run. When in doubt, I believe we should always opt for measures to directly alleviate the suffering of those on the lowest rung on the economic ladder. Let’s not carry the desire for fiscal responsibility to the absurd. The workers at this level are at least working-- they are not sitting on their duffs looking for a handout. They are trying to support themselves and their families, whether as their only job or as a job for supplemental income. In an economy where there is nothing near full employment, I think every job should be looked at as if it were the only job a person can find to support himself and his family. It’s not right that a person should have to work two full time jobs in order to make a living wage. In the end, I come down on the side of helping where and when it is needed, not exclusively pursuing policies that may help through generalized effects at some point in the future, if ever, although I am in favor of some such measures, as well.

 

[Ender]

In the end, I come down on the side of helping where and when it is needed

James - Why would you believe that those of us who oppose raising the minimum wage believe any differently? You support raising the wage because you believe it will help those who most need it, but suppose you believed raising the minimum would be harmful. Wouldn’t you oppose raising it? Wouldn’t you expect people to oppose something they believe is bad? Where is the justice in supposing the people who oppose raising the minimum wage do so because they actually believe it will work but will harm businesses and care more about businesses than people? In the end, it is better to come down on the side of believing that each of us is doing what the thinks is best, with no ulterior motives.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

… When in doubt, I believe we should always opt for measures to directly alleviate the suffering of those on the lowest rung on the economic ladder. Let’s not carry the desire for fiscal responsibility to the absurd. The workers at this level are at least working-- they are not sitting on their duffs looking for a handout. They are trying to support themselves and their families, whether as their only job or as a job for supplemental income. In an economy where there is nothing near full employment, I think every job should be looked at as if it were the only job a person can find to support himself and his family. It’s not right that a person should have to work two full time jobs in order to make a living wage. In the end, I come down on the side of helping where and when it is needed, not exclusively pursuing policies that may help through generalized effects at some point in the future, if ever, although I am in favor of some such measures, as well.

thanks James for your support for the poor working families trying to make ends meet on a job that pays $8 per hour. I just read an article in yahoo news where a family finds it impossible to make ends meet on a six figure income.
finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/i-earn-six-figures-and-still-feel-broke-215546862.html
Now if a family of four feels desperately broke on a six figure income, imagine how much more difficult it is for families to live on $18,000 per year - and that is before all of the deductions on their meager salary. Some people here seem to just not care about these families trapped in poverty.

 

[pnewton]

the article takes the CCC passage slightly out of context (the bishop may have quoted the whole thing so I’m not sure)

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.

Well, if you want to believe it is “out of context” that is surely your perogative. I was responding to the statement that the Bishop did not give any Church doctrine, despite the fact he quoted the catechism. I think that says more about Catholic than it does the bishop, but that is nothing new.

Yes, it is talking about the responsibility that employers have. If one wants to use the argument, " I am personally against (unlivable wages), but I don’t think the government should regulate (unlivable wages). People should have the choice to behave morally or not." It is used on both sides of the aisle.

 

[pnewton]

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.

He ignored it? How do you know? He did not address it, but that does not mean he ignore it. Perhaps his command of language is sufficient to understand that no modification made but the second clause actually negates one part of the first clause.

 

[pnewton]

I think it would be good if our Catholic bishops were respected for the fact they aren’t a bunch of ignorant buffoons. The very idea that posters here see themselves as wiser and more intelligent than they, when they are doing nothing but re-iterating the teaching of Jesus again again again. Poverty? Are we really serious. It is only covered about a hundred time more than abortion in the Bible. We have lost our balance in America. Prosperity has made us mad, as we have abandoned the wisdom of God for the foolishness of Man.

 

[pnewton]

I’m a fiscal conservative and I tend to side with arguments against raising the minimum wage from a strictly economics point of view.

As a fellow conservative and former Republican it is the rejection of Republican Catholics to anything that alleviates suffering that has put me off, if it the Government or (God-forbid) the Democrats that are want to act.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I think it would be good if our Catholic bishops were respected for the fact they aren’t a bunch of ignorant buffoons. The very idea that posters here see themselves as wiser and more intelligent than they, when they are doing nothing but re-iterating the teaching of Jesus again again again. Poverty? Are we really serious. It is only covered about a hundred time more than abortion in the Bible. We have lost our balance in America. Prosperity has made us mad, as we have abandoned the wisdom of God for the foolishness of Man.

Well said.

 

[Ender]

He ignored it? How do you know? He did not address it, but that does not mean he ignore it. Perhaps his command of language is sufficient to understand that no modification made but the second clause actually negates one part of the first clause.

The catechism identifies five components that determine the wage an employee should receive: his needs, his role, his contribution, the state of the business, and the common good. To suggest that the employer has the obligation to pay a living wage based solely on his needs is not only to reject church teaching but to distort it as well.

We don’t know exactly what Bishop Wenski actually said; we only know what was reported, but it surely appears that he implied the employee has a moral right to a living wage and that the employer has an obligation to provide it. That at least seems how most supporters on this forum have interpreted his remarks. That being the case, his remarks (as they appeared) have mislead quite a number of people.

Ender

 

[Ender]

As a fellow conservative and former Republican it is the rejection of Republican Catholics to anything that alleviates suffering that has put me off

The church speaks often about an obligation of charity, that is, we are required interpret a person’s words in the best possible way. That means at the very least if someone explains why he has decided on one option against another we are obligated to take him at his word. We may properly believe his is mistaken but we may not believe, let alone suggest, that he is lying.

So let me explain this yet again: I oppose raising the minimum wage because I believe it will increase suffering rather than alleviate it.

I’m not really all that concerned about your opinion of me but I too have an obligation to you to point out when your actions fall short of your moral obligations. Your remarks are an offense against charity.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a fellow conservative and former Republican it is the rejection of Republican Catholics to anything that alleviates suffering that has put me off, if it the Government or (God-forbid) the Democrats that are want to act.

I’m not a Republican, but I object to this judgment of Catholic Republicans. Is there a poll somewhere that establishes that Catholic Repubs oppose anything that alleviates suffering? Where is it? What evidence of any kind is there?

I would be considered a conservative in most things nowadays. I have countless times on here drawn attention to the total neglect by both parties of the poorest of the poor in this country; the disabled poor. Nobody has done a thing for them for decades. What we’re seeing now is nothing but transfers from one part of the middle class to another part; vote buying of the most cynical sort.

When it comes to alleviating the needs of the poor, the Dems have nothing to brag about; perhaps even less than the Repubs do. At least the Repubs favor high employment.

What Catholic Repub wants to throw disabled poor people out on the street to fight with the alley cats for fish heads? I have never met one. I sometimes find Catholic Repubs rather inarticulate as to what exact policies they might enact to ameliorate the waste and vote buying to which this government is addicted. But that doesn’t mean they’re heartless. Yes, they talk a lot about subsidiarity. But then, so do the Papal Encyclicals. They talk a lot about personal charity, but so did Jesus Christ.

I remember one of the USCCB bishops criticizing Paul Ryan for proposing an 8% increase in food stamps instead of 12%, and at a time when food inflation was well less than 8%. Why is that a cruelty? Why did anyone, including that bishop, accuse Paul Ryan of wanting to starve poor children? Maybe some of those “social justice” bishops would profit by participating on CAF so they can see a broader range of positions.

Are we looking at reality here with all this Repub hatred, or are we looking at stereotyping sound bytes gone amok? I think the latter.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So let me explain this yet again: I oppose raising the minimum wage because I believe it will increase suffering rather than alleviate it.

The empirical results suggest that in some cases, teenage unemployment may increase slightly. However there are also many studies that also show no significant effect on teenage employment. So I guess the suffering is mostly teenagers have to put off getting the latest iphone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The empirical results suggest that in some cases, teenage unemployment may increase slightly. However there are also many studies that also show no significant effect on teenage employment. So I guess the suffering is mostly teenagers have to put off getting the latest iphone.

Or perhaps going to college. My children worked in fast food growing up and saved their money. It mattered.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Or perhaps going to college. My children worked in fast food growing up and saved their money. It mattered.

I would have to see the data on that one, because a truly poor 18 year old could probably get his tuition at the community covered by pell grants and getting a work study job likely would be no problem at all as well, since the federal government picks up most of the tab.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would have to see the data on that one, because a truly poor 18 year old could probably get his tuition at the community covered by pell grants and getting a work study job likely would be no problem at all as well, since the federal government picks up most of the tab.

Not all students are sufficiently poor to qualify for Pell grants. Most middle class people can expect to self-finance education. So, every bit of money that can be raised matters.

My kids not only worked in fast food, they raised calves since they were really little, all to pay for their education. And they knew why they were doing it. They all got merit based scholarships, at least in part, and they worked hard for those as well.

Financing education is no breeze for kids and their parents if they’re middle-middle class.

 

[Trader]

I would have to see the data on that one, because a truly poor 18 year old could probably get his tuition at the community covered by pell grants and getting a work study job likely would be no problem at all as well, since the federal government picks up most of the tab.

Why should they remain poor? Allow them to work and teach them to save and spend what they earn wisely. I had a paper route in 5th grade and was caddy starting after 8th grade. On bad weather days I worked with my father who was a painting contractor. I was way to tired to spend the money I earned. I was still able to work hard enough at school to earn scholarships and buy a car, graduating from a private college with no money left, but no debt either.

I know many other people of my age did the same. Others served in the military and used GI Bill benefits to attend college. Others chose not to work as hard in school or at their jobs. The one thing that has changed over time is that my first job paid more in two months than a whole year of private college tuition. Government “help” had a lot to do with tuition inflation since I graduated in 1971.