Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[stinkcat_14]

Of course in the letter from the Bishops states that they have no knowledge at all of economics or the labor market.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/labor-employment/upload/joint-minimum-wage-letter-2014-01-08.pdf

That is not quite what they said. They said that:

We write not as economists or labor market experts

If we are discard every comment on this thread that was not made by an economist it would be a pretty empty thread. So the question is, while the Bishop is not an economist, how do you know that he has less knowledge of economics, than you do? What is the threshold for economic knowledge for being allowed to comment on a proposed policy?

 

[anex]

Clergy are obliged to consider the corporeal works of mercy, which include:

• Feed the hungry
• Give drink to the thirsty
• Clothe the naked
• Shelter the homeless

It can be argued that raising the minimum wage is tantamount to giving individuals money by which they can do for themselves all of the above.

I can understand refusing to feed certain persons, or to clothe or shelter them, because they refuse to work in order to do these things for themselves. Other than that, I can see no reason in Christian charity for refusing to help if I have the means to do so. In the case of raising the minimum wage, the persons being helped have already shown their willingness to work, so I find no way to rationalize withholding the means to help them.

you are exactly right, there is nothing that states that clergy needs to interfere with things that society can judge on their own such as the minimum wage, if they are so concerned about the minimum wage, then they need to work on doing the change they want to see, not getting involved in politics and demanding someone else do the things they should be doing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

you are exactly right, there is nothing that states that clergy needs to interfere with things that society can judge on their own such as the minimum wage, if they are so concerned about the minimum wage, then they need to work on doing the change they want to see, not getting involved in politics and demanding someone else do the things they should be doing.

One does not give up their right to have an opinion on public policy once they become ordained.

 

[anex]

That is not quite what they said. They said that:

If we are discard every comment on this thread that was not made by an economist it would be a pretty empty thread. So the question is, while the Bishop is not an economist, how do you know that he has less knowledge of economics, than you do? What is the threshold for economic knowledge for being allowed to comment on a proposed policy?

I think it is a safe bet to say that some laity are making financially less than a bishop of a diocese, while it is easy to be a couch expert on issues with out backing up any claims, there are some basic things that we can tell what one does not need to comment on.

The threshold for economic knowledge starts with those who are trained on it, and is verified by those who are actually working those minimum wage earnings and hours. Those that are detached from the issue are those who are financially well off, haven’t had to work for minimum wage in who knows how long and those who do not have any understanding on economics at all.

I don’t go to a mechanic for medical advice, nor do I look to clergy of any rank to solve any kind of economic issue or political issue. I rely on clergy to guide me closer to Christ, and to help me realize how I can do my parts in acting on the physical works of mercy.

So there is the thing, if the mechanic is going to start giving medical advice, then I am going to start asking why and what qualifications or examples does the mechanic have towards why I should trust that advice or even listen to it.

Same with the USCCB and any Bishop or Archbishop or Cardinal maybe even the Holy Father at times too, they do excellent at preaching about change, but offer no solutions on how to enact said preaching in regards to economic matters such as this. It would be something if a bishop said the minimum wage needs to be raised because of this reason and not only that I came up with a feasible plan on how it could work, and dropped some bombshell of I dunno a 100 pg outline to some politician figure. But to just give the same cry on how poor everyone is and do something, doesn’t help.

 

[anex]

One does not give up their right to have an opinion on public policy once they become ordained.

an opinion you are correct, but to preach about change and how something needs to be done, and then offer nothing on how to fix the matter or how to go about things, what is that opinion worth.

 

[Ender]

So the question is, while the Bishop is not an economist, how do you know that he has less knowledge of economics, than you do? What is the threshold for economic knowledge for being allowed to comment on a proposed policy?

The better question is why would a bishop comment on a political issue about which he himself acknowledges his lack of expertise and imply his position is the morally correct alternative? Experts disagree over the impacts of the minimum wage so even if he claimed expertise in this area the implication that his position is the morally correct one would still be inappropriate.

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

The better question is why would a bishop comment on a political issue about which he himself acknowledges his lack of expertise and imply his position is the morally correct alternative? Experts disagree over the impacts of the minimum wage so even if he claimed expertise in this area the implication that his position is the morally correct one would still be inappropriate.

Ender

In his letter, he has not claimed that it is the only morally correct policy. On the other hand, it is certainly not an immoral one either. He really did not comment on other policies, so I don’t see anything about the minimum wage being more morally correct than anything else.

 

[Ender]

One does not give up their right to have an opinion on public policy once they become ordained.

This is true but isn’t really the point. When a member of the clergy suggests a course of action it automatically comes with the implicit suggestion that, simply because it was made by a clergyman, it is not just the correct choice (as a matter of fact) but the correct moral choice as well, but if there is any reasonable doubt about it being the factually correct choice then there can be no question of morality involved and what is implied is false. In this case (and practically every other political issue in which the bishops and the USCCB are involved) there is no basis whatever for believing that the suggestions they make represent moral choices.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

In this case (and practically every other political issue in which the bishops and the USCCB are involved) there is no basis whatever for believing that the suggestions they make represent moral choices.

What if the bishops specifically state that this is Catholic moral teaching? Is it OK to dissent from Catholic moral teaching?

 

[Ender]

What if the bishops specifically state that this is Catholic moral teaching?

It would be incorrect to make such a claim. If a bishop were to claim it he would be mistaken.

Is it OK to dissent from Catholic moral teaching?

It is not acceptable for a Catholic to dissent from church doctrine but it is acceptable for a Catholic to disagree with the prudential opinions of bishops.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

What if the bishops specifically state that this is Catholic moral teaching? Is it OK to dissent from Catholic moral teaching?

See post #328. That quote is Catholic moral teaching.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So you admit that raising the min wage is only an argument as to if it really does benefit the workers at or near min wage, and then state there should be no argument against this position. Bizarre.

So anything you THINK might happen means we shouldn’t oppose a position. Even when we have evidence and good arguments contrary to your argument.

I really have no idea what you are saying. If you could provide more specifics in a calm and unemotional manner, we could discuss your ideas. Meanwhile, I do not think raising the minimum wage will have any large impact on the economy, whereas I do believe it would bring quick relief to many in desperate need. The main program of conservatives, which I completely agree with, are to lower taxes, cut government spending, and reduce the size of government, especially with regards to EPA, Dept of Education, and Dept of Energy, for starters. I would also favor much greater surveillance and control of the Federal Reserve Board, and return to precious metals-backed currency. If you only want to quarrel with raising the minimum wage, so be it. I think it’s small potatoes, yet could do a lot of instant good, much the same as direct help programs, like habitat for humanity, Catholic Relief Services, and inner city shelters and soup kitchens.

 

[JamesCaruso]

So you admit that raising the min wage is only an argument as to if it really does benefit the workers at or near min wage, and then state there should be no argument against this position. Bizarre.

So anything you THINK might happen means we shouldn’t oppose a position. Even when we have evidence and good arguments contrary to your argument.

I really have no idea what you are saying. If you could provide more specifics in a calm and unemotional manner, we could discuss your ideas.

Meanwhile, I do not think raising the minimum wage will have any large impact on the economy, whereas I do believe it would bring quick relief to many in desperate need. The main program of conservatives, which I completely agree with, is to lower taxes, cut government spending, and reduce the size of government, especially with regards to EPA, Dept of Education, and Dept of Energy, for starters. I would also favor much greater surveillance and control of the Federal Reserve Board, and return to precious metals-backed currency.

If you only want to quarrel with raising the minimum wage, so be it. I think it’s small potatoes, yet could do a lot of instant good, much the same as direct help programs, like habitat for humanity, Catholic Relief Services, and inner city shelters and soup kitchens.

Also, minimum wage could be targeted, which is not happening today, and which is the cause for much of the discontent with the program. It should be reaching those struggling to stay above the poverty line more so than kids living at home and going to school. But that’s just the way I see it.

If it could be demonstrated that I am really sticking a knife in the back of the poorer working classes, I would be happy to change my position, but so far, I have only heard rhetoric, or seen one-sided charts, and no real proof that it would do more harm than good (and I’m not talking about this thread, but about arguments I have been hearing for 20 or more years). We have had minimum wages since 1938, and I can see no real overall detriment to the poorest workers in this country. It does not seem to have affected the overall unemployment rate over the long run.

If you will remember, President Nixon even went further with a proposal for a guaranteed income for every family in America with children, with a provision that family members who were employable must work. That didn’t go over, but it does serve to underline the fact that major conservatives in our history have considered the idea of minimum income provisions.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I do not need a poll. I never said all. If I said, I do not like posters who have called me names, this does not mean all posters call me names or that I characterized all posters as having called me names. Of course not all Republicans are the same. I was ranting about the ones that helped convince me that the Party is not something I want to support any longer. Yes, I was ranting. I do get my ire up when I read someone speak of bishops being ignorant, especially on an anonymous internet.

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t it be better to have government policies that would create an environment where higher skilled jobs (that would be worth more money) be created?
Few of the laity are educated enough in economics to make a fully informed criticism of the bishops.

That is true, and no doubt there are many avenues we might take. However, wealth disparity is increasing. Perhaps some action is better than no action. If trickle-down economics didn’t work so well, at least it was a reasonable action. I think the problem is that economics is such an inexact science. Yes, we know many principles that always apply, but the interweaving of all economic principles everywhere across the world is chaotic. I am not sure a magic eight ball would be just as effective. Then we could blame the eight ball and not Bush (or Obama, or whoever the next man will be).

PS - Yes, as a chauvinist, I said “man”.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, one more thing (for now). Roll back to this statement of which the bishop quoted half:

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.”

Note that not all these factors are put in a list, as if they were equal in consideration. I wish they still taught sentence diagramming in school. I would make for better communication. The second clause is a modifier of the first (there is no “and” in between). Thus in modifies the primary verb phrase “should guarantee” and lists factors that are to be considered in this guarantee, not eliminate the guarantee.

 

[ishii]

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 do not need a poll. I never said all. If I said, I do not like posters who have called me names, this does not mean all posters call me names or that I characterized all posters as having called me names. Of course not all Republicans are the same. I was ranting about the ones that helped convince me that the Party is not something I want to support any longer. Yes, I was ranting. I do get my ire up when I read someone speak of bishops being ignorant, especially on an anonymous internet.

Pnewton said:

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

Which is the same as saying:

“Republican Catholics reject anything that alleviates suffering.”

You didn’t say “some” Republican Catholics. Therefore, the unqualified statement seems very unfair and smear-like. I don’t know any Catholic Republicans who reject anything that alleviates suffering. It is just a silly, unfair statement to make. Emotional rant or not.

And for the record, ** some ** bishops are somewhat ignorant of economics.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

Meanwhile, I do not think raising the minimum wage will have any large impact on the economy, …

Actually that is not true because increasing the minimum wage boosts consumer spending and thereby creates jobs and increases employment. See:
nelp.3cdn.net/02b725e73dc24e0644_0im6bkno9.pdf
"A Strong Minimum Wage Can Help Working Families, Businesses and Our Economy Recover …
Contrary to opponents’ claims, a large body of rigorous academic research finds that increases in the minimum wage do not lead to job loss. "

 

[stinkcat_14]

And for the record, ** some ** bishops are somewhat ignorant of economics.

Ishii

Which ones?

 

[markomalley]

That is true, and no doubt there are many avenues we might take. However, wealth disparity is increasing. Perhaps some action is better than no action. If trickle-down economics didn’t work so well, at least it was a reasonable action. I think the problem is that economics is such an inexact science…

A few points on this:

1. I said nothing about supply side economics, Keynesian economics, or any other economic theory. While I think more government spending with the debt load we hold is absolute insanity, the fact of the matter is that the jobs could come as a result of lowered tax burden causing an incentive or they could come from the government letting a huge contract with part of the statement of work including building a huge factory in an economically depressed area (btw, the government does that all the time anyway, it’s called a “HUBZone” set-aside). The point is that higher-skilled jobs naturally pay better.
2. You need to address the points highlighted from Centesimus Annus 48 (quoted above). Although I would appreciate you addressing each of them, please note this one in particular: Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. Note the three items he talks about:a) Creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities
   b) Stimulating those (business) activities where they are lacking
   c) Supporting them (business activities) in moments of crisis
   Note that none of those actions include establishing a national minimum wage or getting, in any way, involved at that miniscule level. The fact of the matter is that higher-skilled jobs pay better. That’s just the way it is.

Frankly, perhaps a better use of the taxpayer’s money would be to support vocational-technical training for the skilled trades as opposed to paying for college for people who end up getting college degrees that will qualify them to be waiters / waitresses. (BTW, the federalist that I am, let me clarify that when I say “taxpayer money”, I am talking about the state or local level, not the federal level)

There are a couple of other Magisterial quotes that I would supply to you:

First, from Rerum Novarum:46. If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income. Nature itself would urge him to this. We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable. The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners.
John Paul II had a very interesting spin on this in his Encyclical Laborem Exercens (19):…Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures…
That is a very interesting thing that he talks about in the bolded text above.

First, such a measure implies that there are proper roles for the man and for the woman. The man should be responsible for earning the wages for the household and that the woman should be responsible for rearing a family.

Second, that an employer should be allowed (or perhaps required) to consider the state of the employee when considering a wage to pay said employee. There are a couple of ways that could be done:A) The employer could offer two different wages – one for the family man and another for single people or for wives trying to earn some extra money (and, frankly, in total justice, the family man wage would need to be incremented according to the number of kids he has and the single people wage would need to be incremented if they are living on their own or are still with their parents); or,

B) Certain higher-paying jobs could be reserved for family men and the lower level, lower-paying jobs could be reserved for single people and the lowest paying jobs could be reserved for teenagers trying to earn some extra date money.
Of course, such practices would be blatantly against the law in the US (they’d be viewed as discriminatory). But we could fix those laws if we wanted to do so. And I, frankly, would have a whole lot more sympathy to doing that then simply raising the minimum wage.

There are plenty of other things we could do if we really wanted to help people earn a better living (outside of an overly-simplistic increase in “minimum wage”), but I don’t think those would be any more palatable to most post-modern Americans than what John Paul II suggested in Laborem Exercens.