Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[markomalley]

We want people who are working to be well above the poverty line. 150% of the poverty level would be a start.

I thought we were very clear about this.

OK, whatever. The principle of what I’m talking about is the same.

150% of poverty for a single man is $8.28 an hour. 150% of poverty for a man with a wife and six kids is $28.58 an hour.

So what should minimum wage be then? $8.28 an hour? $28.58 an hour? Or what?

Should you pay single men $8.28 an hour? A man with a wife should earn $11.18 an hour? A man with a wife and two kids should earn $16.98 an hour?

If you arbitrarily set the minimum wage to correspond to keeping the single person out of poverty (150% of FPL, as you state), then how does that help the man with a big family? On the other hand, if you set the minimum wage to correspond to a man with a big family, then the single man can live pretty large, can’t he?

So where is your thought on that in light of distributive justice? Can your sense of distributive justice deal with a man with a wife and 9 kids getting paid a whole lot more than a single teenager living at home with mommy and daddy? When they are both doing the same job?

And then let’s say your wife is a bit materialistic and wants to go out to get a job, too, so she can have some money to play with? Should she be treated as the breadwinner with the big family? Or as a single person (since you’re the breadwinner and are being paid the big bucks)?

And if your employer finds out about it, should your pay be cut back because you’re not the sole breadwinner? Where is that in the grand scheme of distributive justice?

And that sort of transitions into a discussion of commutative justice?

(By the way, to repeat from above, it’s not that I want people to have lousy jobs that don’t pay well. While I think that it’s perfectly OK for a teenager, I don’t for an adult responsible for a family. I just happen to think that the real solution lies not with the “minimum wage” but in creating an environment where higher skilled jobs, that *naturally *pay better, are more abundant)

 

[markomalley]

This is basically irrelevant to families where the wage earner is working 40 hours per week at the minimum wage.

Don’t argue with me on that statement…argue with the Fed (who was cited in your junk-science advocacy paper)

If you want to believe your Community Organizing Organization…by all means, do so.

I prefer to examine facts, but far be it from me to impose that preference on anybody else.

 

[JamesCaruso]

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/619/9846035525.png

If a man was to be at the poverty level living by himself, that would be $5.52 per hour (assuming he worked a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year)

A man supporting himself and a wife would be $7.45 an hour.

A man supporting himself, a wife, and six kids would be $19.05 an hour.

So if you think that it is laudable to keep a person out of poverty, according to government numbers, that means that you should pay him somewhere north of $5.52 an hour.

But here’s the more important point: if you want to establish a minimum wage to keep a man and his family out of poverty, then should you set a higher minimum wage for a man with a bigger family than for a single person?

So, what you are saying is that a man supporting himself, his wife, and possibly any number of kids (I can’t tell by your analysis above as you jump from man and wife to man and wife with 6 kids) on minimum wage, might be able to get above the poverty level. That’s fine. And don’t forget all the people who are already slightly above the poverty level, as if that’s the life of Riley! There is nothing great about being just above the poverty level, and so yes, I do think it laudable.

 

[estesbob]

So, what you are saying is that a man supporting himself, his wife, and possibly any number of kids (I can’t tell by your analysis above as you jump from man and wife to man and wife with 6 kids) on minimum wage, might be able to get above the poverty level. That’s fine. And don’t forget all the people who are already slightly above the poverty level, as if that’s the life of Riley! There is nothing great about being just above the poverty level, and so yes, I do think it laudable.

So you believe the minimum wage should be based on martial status and number of children?

 

[JamesCaruso]

http://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/619/9846035525.png

If a man was to be at the poverty level living by himself, that would be $5.52 per hour (assuming he worked a 40 hour week, 52 weeks a year)

A man supporting himself and a wife would be $7.45 an hour.

A man supporting himself, a wife, and six kids would be $19.05 an hour.

So if you think that it is laudable to keep a person out of poverty, according to government numbers, that means that you should pay him somewhere north of $5.52 an hour.

But here’s the more important point: if you want to establish a minimum wage to keep a man and his family out of poverty, then should you set a higher minimum wage for a man with a bigger family than for a single person?

As for targeting wages at the base level according to number of members in the family, I think the proposition should be studied. You may be right, but we would have to consider the incentive for families to have more children in order to get more pay, so it could be self-defeating. The current flat minimum wage across the board does not create such an incentive.

Anyway, we’re talking about people living hand to mouth, whether or not they officially live above or below the minimum wage. They don’t make much money; life is very hard; a minimum wage is not like an incentive to not work harder to achieve a higher wage. It only sets the lower limit. The incentive still exists to work harder, to obtain training/education, in order to have a share in the American dream. Just existing is not, IMHO, sharing in the American dream. I can go to any European country for that.

I think most Americans think as I do, simply because we have had a minimum wage since 1938 and no Congress has had the votes to repeal it.

 

[Tomdstone]

Don’t argue with me on that statement…

Oh? Did you read what I wrote? I didn’t argue with the content of the statement. I said that this statement that you brought up in your post to support your argument, that the minimun wage does not affect high wage earners was basically irrelevant and immaterial to a family of four trying to make ends meet at a wage of $18,000 per year. I supported my statement with an outline of some of the basic costs for such a family. And there are many families with four children, which would make it six people to support. How are they going to manage to pay all of their bills, including rent, utilities, gas and electric, clothing, dental, transportation and food on this salary?

Like I said, you really ought not to cite junk from advocacy groups.

I don’t believe that support for a raise in the minimum wage and concern for families at or near starvation level is junk. It is just reasonable, that the little extra money that this family would get would go back into the local economy and create jobs, while at the same time helping them out to just a small degree. This is not junk. This is both good economics and good policy to help families struggling to make ends meet.

 

[ishii]

Ishii It’s a funny thing memory. Sometimes it’s accurate, and other times just convenient.

ATB

Sometimes its both.

 

[Ender]

I don’t believe that support for a raise in the minimum wage and concern for families at or near starvation level is junk. It is just reasonable, that the little extra money that this family would get would go back into the local economy and create jobs, while at the same time helping them out to just a small degree. This is not junk. This is both good economics and good policy to help families struggling to make ends meet.

Well, yeah, and if helping those families was the only effect of raising the minimum wage then everyone would support it. The problem of course is that there are other effects and some of them are harmful and if you don’t account for the down side of an action then you’re not presenting an honest choice. It really isn’t a question of choosing between doing good or doing nothing but of determining whether the good that is done outweighs the harm that is also done.

The last question is something about which the clergy has no particular expertise (as Bishop Wenski admitted) and the question is not addressed by church doctrine. Make whatever argument you like that raising the minimum wage is good economic policy, but don’t believe for a moment that solving that problem involves moral choices.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

(I can’t tell by your analysis above as you jump from man and wife to man and wife with 6 kids) on minimum wage, might be able to get above the poverty level.

You can do the math yourself. Take the money value for the family size in that table and divide by 2080 (2080 is 52 weeks times 40 hours a week).

As for targeting wages at the base level according to number of members in the family, I think the proposition should be studied.

Fair enough.

Now, consider this:

If a fast food franchisee had to pay their employees $19.05 an hour (or, if, as another poster suggested, they should be required to pay 150% of the FPL, which would end up being $28.58 per hour) (for a family size of 8), that would put the business in a bad position. They would need to do one of the following:

• Increase their prices significantly to cover the difference – but unless all of their patrons’ wages went correspondingly up, they’d lose customers
• Change their processes to use a lot more automation – making the employees a lot more productive – and making it so they’d have to hire a LOT fewer people. Imagine them having robots to do literally everything but deal with customers; and then if they can figure it out, to have a robot do that, as well.
• Hire only single kids so they’d only have to pay the wage appropriate for the single kid ($5.52 to get them at FPL for a single person; $8.29 to get them at 150% of FPL)

Personally, I think you’d see a lot more of this kind of thing:



The Catechism states the following definition:2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons and between institutions in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.

One distinguishes commutative justice from…distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.
In essence, commutative justice requires that the employer pays the employee the amount that was agreed and that the employee pays the employer the productivity that was promised. Looking at the two as individuals. In other words, if the employee agreed to work for $2 an hour, then he is being done justice (commutative) if the employer pays him that $2 an hour.

On the other hand, if you consider the business as a “society” / “community”, paying a person according to his family situation answers half the mail in regard to distributive justice. Distributive justice requires, in this situation that the society (business) should distribute to its citizens (employees) in proportion to their contributions and needs (St Thomas Aquinas, citing Aristotle, said that “the mean in distributive justice is observed according to the geometric proportion”). So setting a minimum wage by family size takes care of the “needs” part, but what about the “contributions” part? is it possible for the hamburger flipper, the cashier in a retail store, or the car wash technician to contribute $19 an hour or $28 an hour worth of value?

Pius XI had a couple of interesting observations on the topic:72. In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers…
He then goes on to say:…But another point, scarcely less important, and especially vital in our times, must not be overlooked: namely, that the opportunity to work be provided to those who are able and willing to work. This opportunity depends largely on the wage and salary rate, which can help as long as it is kept within proper limits, but which on the other hand can be an obstacle if it exceeds these limits. For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment…
(there are some important caveats in there that space limitations prevent me from reproducing, so I would go to the link above and read the whole context)

There are a whole lot of competing factors that have to be considered, aren’t there?

(To repeat, I think the best solution is to create an environment where we have better jobs available for people rather than to mandate that jobs that don’t create that much monetary value get paid beyond what they are, in reality, worth)

This is an illustration of the problems that occur when you have the government legislate to “feel good”. I don’t think that the “Great Society” legislators understood how much their legislation would end up contributing to the degradation of marriage and out-of-wedlock births. But they did. I don’t think that people who supported Obamacare understood that businesses would cut peoples’ hours so they wouldn’t be considered full time employees (as well as the number of people who would get thrown off their insurance they were happy with). And I don’t think people who advocate a $4 an hour increase in minimum wage recognize what will happen if they get their way.

Employers need to treat their employees morally. But that moral behavior needs to come from the heart.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

:banghead:

Again, this is very naive/overly simplistic. People working lower wage jobs will always be working lower wage jobs relative to others. The solution may not be to raise the minimum wage, but to get people educated and to grow the number of higher paying jobs.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This is basically irrelevant to families where the wage earner is working 40 hours per week at the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage would help that family enormously. This issue of minimum wage does not involve families with high or middle income and, of course, it would not help those wealthy and middle class families. But I submit that it is very difficult for a family of four or more to get by on $18,000 per year. And that is $18K per year before all the deductions. The rent for even a relatively small apartment in a low income area in Massachusetts goes for about $700 per month, which amounts to $8,400 per year. So now the family is left with just under $10,000. And that will have to pay for food, clothing, transportation, dental work, misc health costs, heating in the wintertime, misc school costs, and for all those other misc, items needed about the house for this family of four people, They will spend their last dollar since they have no choice. It only stands to reason that if this family were to get an additional $1,000 they would spend it and the economy would benefit, not suffer. So the research that I presented was not junk as you claim it was. It was a serious study designed to show that the economy does not benefit when families are forced to live at near starvation levels with the present minimum wage.

Yes it does affect middle class families - people have explained this before.

What happens if we raise the minimum wage to $20/hr?

People making under $20 would get a raise.

What happens to those who had jobs that paid $25 (a good wage in many parts of the country) before this? Should they get a raise too, because they have additional training/education/experience above the geater at Wal-Mart? Isn’t that fair? If you don’t give them a raise, why shouldn’t they quit their jobs and work at an easier job or whatever - i.e. I can work a flexible schedule at McD’s and still make most of my original salary back. If you give them a raise, you will still have income disparity and you have solved nothing.

Oh and if we pay based on “need,” doesn’t that fly in the face of “equal pay, equal work” that many people fought for over the years? I don’t see hpw that is fair either.

And this doesn’t consider that if we go wild and raise wages too much too fast, that prices may increase and/or profits will hurt. Oh and many middle class people own mutual funds or 401k’s so you would be hurting them in that regard if profits turned into losses.

As you can see, it’s not cut and dry just to increase the minimum wage, unless you have some further wage controls or pice controls. That brings up the whole issue of “socailism” that the church speaks out against, that we do not have freedoms.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Hire only single kids so they’d only have to pay the wage appropriate for the single kid ($5.52 to get them at FPL for a single person; $8.29 to get them at 150% of FPL)

Which would be discriminatory. We would have to throw out several laws regarding protected classes and equal pay for equal work.

This simply isn’t a case of “Well, Peggy Sue has been with the company 20 years and worked up the ranks to store manager, that’s why she is paid $20/more.” This would be a reasonable reason why people make more - they are paid comiserate with their skills and responsibility. If we’re just going to pay based on “need,” companies will discriminate and hire single, young workers. Somehow, I don’t think that would be good for families.

I somehow think the same people who would are up in arms about raising the minimum wage would be up in arms about this, too.

 

[markomalley]

Which would be discriminatory. We would have to throw out several laws regarding protected classes and equal pay for equal work.

This simply isn’t a case of “Well, Peggy Sue has been with the company 20 years and worked up the ranks to store manager, that’s why she is paid $20/more.” This would be a reasonable reason why people make more - they are paid comiserate with their skills and responsibility. If we’re just going to pay based on “need,” companies will discriminate and hire single, young workers. Somehow, I don’t think that would be good for families.

I somehow think the same people who would are up in arms about raising the minimum wage would be up in arms about this, too.

Reminds me of one of my other favorite JPII quotes (from Sollicitudo Rei Socialis):

1. However, the picture just given would be incomplete if one failed to add to the “economic and social indices” of underdevelopment other indices which are equally negative and indeed even more disturbing, beginning with the cultural level. These are illiteracy, the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining higher education, the inability to share in the building of one’s own nation, the various forms of exploitation and of economic, social, political and even religious oppression of the individual and his or her rights, discrimination of every type, especially the exceptionally odious form based on difference of race. If some of these scourges are noted with regret in areas of the more developed North, they are undoubtedly more frequent, more lasting and more difficult to root out in the developing and less advanced countries.

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
Sadly, this quote appears to escape many.

 

[zz912]

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.

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.

I’m completely calm. I have no idea where you got the idea that I was upset or emotional.

As highlighted above, your position is based upon your opinion. It is not based upon fact. And I was noting in your prior post that you mentioned that there was no reason to oppose the raising of the minimum wage. But I was pointing out that that was only correct if you accepted the premise that your opinions were correct.

And you last paragraph, well all I can say is that Nixon was NOT conservative. On the political spectrum he falls slightly left. So your point about him supporting minimum income provisions is moot.

 

[zz912]

I wouldn’t call someone ignorant unless I saw a sample of their economic thought first.

You can’t have it both ways. Earlier you stated that a large fraction of people are ignorant of economics. Please explain the sample of the economic thought that you have seen from the population at large.

Otherwise you are being duplicitous in requiring Ishii to detail specific bishops, when he is describing the bishop population as a whole.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You can’t have it both ways. Earlier you stated that a large fraction of people are ignorant of economics. Please explain the sample of the economic thought that you have seen from the population at large.

I find my sample of people from what I read from various sources. What you have are people who argue one side or another, but don’t look at the whole picture. Nor does either side seem to have a penchant for looking at evidence that disputes what they are arguing for.

On the other hand, as far as I know, I have not seen any bishops using economic analysis to argue for or against the minimum wage. So therefore, I cannot say with any certainty whether any bishops are ignorant of economics.

 

[ishii]

You can’t have it both ways. Earlier you stated that a large fraction of people are ignorant of economics. Please explain the sample of the economic thought that you have seen from the population at large.

Otherwise you are being duplicitous in requiring Ishii to detail specific bishops, when he is describing the bishop population as a whole.

Thanks for pointing that out, zz912 - that was a double standard that I missed. Apparently one can say that a large fraction of people are ignorant of economics - but you if you say some bishops are ignorant, suddenly its, “I need to see a sample of their writing on economics before I can make that statement” etc. Of course, I don’t think we’ll see that poster admit to the double standard.

Ishii

 

[stinkcat_14]

Thanks for pointing that out, zz912 - that was a double standard that I missed. Apparently one can say that a large fraction of people are ignorant of economics - but you if you say some bishops are ignorant, suddenly its, “I need to see a sample of their writing on economics before I can make that statement” etc. Of course, I don’t think we’ll see that poster admit to the double standard.

Ishii

I don’t see it as a double standard. For example, I am sure that you would be the first to agree that you are not an expert in economics. And of course, you have posted plenty on economics, so it would not be difficult to find areas where you have made mistakes. On the other hand, can we say the same thing about someone whose opinions on economics we have not read.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

OK, whatever. The principle of what I’m talking about is the same.

150% of poverty for a single man is $8.28 an hour. 150% of poverty for a man with a wife and six kids is $28.58 an hour.

So what should minimum wage be then? $8.28 an hour? $28.58 an hour? Or what?

Should you pay single men $8.28 an hour? A man with a wife should earn $11.18 an hour? A man with a wife and two kids should earn $16.98 an hour?

If you arbitrarily set the minimum wage to correspond to keeping the single person out of poverty (150% of FPL, as you state), then how does that help the man with a big family? On the other hand, if you set the minimum wage to correspond to a man with a big family, then the single man can live pretty large, can’t he?

So where is your thought on that in light of distributive justice? Can your sense of distributive justice deal with a man with a wife and 9 kids getting paid a whole lot more than a single teenager living at home with mommy and daddy? When they are both doing the same job?

And then let’s say your wife is a bit materialistic and wants to go out to get a job, too, so she can have some money to play with? Should she be treated as the breadwinner with the big family? Or as a single person (since you’re the breadwinner and are being paid the big bucks)?

And if your employer finds out about it, should your pay be cut back because you’re not the sole breadwinner? Where is that in the grand scheme of distributive justice?

And that sort of transitions into a discussion of commutative justice?

(By the way, to repeat from above, it’s not that I want people to have lousy jobs that don’t pay well. While I think that it’s perfectly OK for a teenager, I don’t for an adult responsible for a family. I just happen to think that the real solution lies not with the “minimum wage” but in creating an environment where higher skilled jobs, that *naturally *pay better, are more abundant)

I think we should look upon 150% as the minimum. Equal pay for equal work being foremost in out thoughts. The family of six can see further relief through tax deductions.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Sometimes its both.

Yeah there is always that chance.

ATB