Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[Ender]

For example, I am sure that you would be the first to agree that you are not an expert in economics.

What we can say, and what is relevant to this thread, is that we do know Bishop Wenski is not an expert in economics, as he himself admitted. Whatever may be true of others has no impact on the fact that it was Bishop Wenski who called for an increase in the minimum wage and it is his (lack of) expertise that matters here.

Ender

 

[markomalley]

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

150% for whom? A single person?

And, frankly, it is sort of hard to take a deduction when you pay no tax in the first place.

 

[stinkcat_14]

What we can say, and what is relevant to this thread, is that we do know Bishop Wenski is not an expert in economics, as he himself admitted. Whatever may be true of others has no impact on the fact that it was Bishop Wenski who called for an increase in the minimum wage and it is his (lack of) expertise that matters here.

Ender

Are you saying that someone who had expertise in economics would not be calling for an increase in the minimum wage?

 

[markomalley]

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.

An anonymous poster on a forum can’t very well use argumentum ab auctoritate, now can he?

(Not saying that is +Wenski’s intent, but a lot of folks would receive it that way, and he has to know that whether or not that was his intent or not)

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that someone who had expertise in economics would not be calling for an increase in the minimum wage?

No, not at all. I am sure there are experts on both sides of this issue, which is kind of my point. If the call to raise the minimum wage was made by Mr. Random Economist it would receive an evaluation based on strictly economic reasons, but when the call to raise the minimum wage comes from Fr. Random Bishop it meets with an entirely different (and inaccurate) reception.

First, there is no reason to take Bp. Wenski’s recommendation as economically sound as he presents no economic arguments and confesses to a lack of expertise in the area anyway, and, second, there is no reason to take Bp. Wenski’s recommendation as obligatory under church teaching as the church (with commendable good sense) is silent on the issue. Unfortunately, most people don’t investigate this themselves and simply assume that a bishop’s opinion is synonymous with church teaching and feel morally bound to assent to it. That assumption is incorrect.

Ender

 

[Yerusalyim]

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

Where’s the “Standing Ovation” icon? My sentiments exactly. I REALLY wish the Bishops would stay out of politics…they end up losing credibility.

 

[markomalley]

Where’s the “Standing Ovation” icon? My sentiments exactly. I REALLY wish the Bishops would stay out of politics…they end up losing credibility.

Should that include the politics of abortion and euthanasia? Should they remain silent as good Catholics are required to violate their consciences as the result of political policy (witness the thread about the bakers) Should they be silent when Catholics are slaughtered overseas for the crime of being Catholic? (for example, Syria…or Turkey)

Seriously.

The Church has competence to teach us about moral principles. The Church has a duty to speak out when Her children are being harmed. However…

However, as JPII stated (specifically about economic models):
43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another.

Encyclical Centessimus Annus, 43
​

Or as Paul VI stated (more generally):
The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.’’

Encyclical Populorum Progressio, 13
​

Or as our Beloved Benedict XVI summarized very clearly:The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of States.” She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation.

Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, 9
​

Vatican II teaches us that the governance of the world is the particular competence of the laity, not the clergy.
Upon all the laity, therefore, rests the noble duty of working to extend the divine plan of salvation to all men of each epoch and in every land. Consequently, may every opportunity be given them so that, according to their abilities and the needs of the times, they may zealously participate in the saving work of the Church.

Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 33
​

Secular duties and activities belong properly although not exclusively to laymen. Therefore acting as citizens in the world, whether individually or socially, they will keep the laws proper to each discipline, and labor to equip themselves with a genuine expertise in their various fields. They will gladly work with men seeking the same goals. Acknowledging the demands of faith and endowed with its force, they will unhesitatingly devise new enterprises, where they are appropriate, and put them into action. Laymen should also know that it is generally the function of their well-formed Christian conscience to see that the divine law is inscribed in the life of the earthly city; from priests they may look for spiritual light and nourishment. Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church,(17) let the layman take on his own distinctive role.

Often enough the Christian view of things will itself suggest some specific solution in certain circumstances. Yet it happens rather frequently, and legitimately so, that with equal sincerity some of the faithful will disagree with others on a given matter. Even against the intentions of their proponents, however, solutions proposed on one side or another may be easily confused by many people with the Gospel message. **Hence it is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed in the aforementioned situations to appropriate the Church’s authority for his opinion. **They should always try to enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and caring above all for the common good.

Pastoral Constitution, Gaudium et Spes, 43
​

In light of the above, I, for one, would prefer it if the episcopal hierarchy and their staffs would really concentrate primarily upon those moral principles and assist with the formation of the lay peoples’ consciences. And then, as is taught in GS (above), the laity should use those consciences, in conjunction with their technical skills, to formulate solutions. Provided those solutions do not clearly and unambiguously violate moral teaching, I would think it appropriate that the hierarchy remain silent.

 

[Ender]

Should that include the politics of abortion and euthanasia? Should they remain silent as good Catholics are required to violate their consciences as the result of political policy (witness the thread about the bakers) Should they be silent when Catholics are slaughtered overseas for the crime of being Catholic? (for example, Syria…or Turkey)

I think the point Yerusalyim was making was that bishops should avoid political issues, not moral ones. There are some moral issues that have significant political ramifications, but they are first and foremost moral issues and the clergy is not only justified in commenting on them but is obligated to do so. These are, however, few in number.

The Church has competence to teach us about moral principles. The Church has a duty to speak out when Her children are being harmed.

Most political issues raise virtually no moral concerns and we are not well served when bishops propose solutions to them. Does anyone really believe Cardinal Dulles’ comment here is wrong?“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.”
Ender

 

[JamesCaruso]

You can do the math yourself. …

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

Mostly, I agree with you. I want to say something on the following statement of yours which I also agree on:

… 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.

The first part of your statement is why I am a conservative. I believe that conservative policies will lead us back to that dream environment. The problem I have is what to do in the meantime? What I mean is that currently we have a horrendous unemployment problem, much higher than the government’s numbers show. We have a government that is not creating that environment where we have better jobs, and we certainly do not have enough jobs to go around. People need help now; it takes time to reconstruct that environment that is conducive to full employment and upward mobility.

I have a friend who was one very successful as an architect. When the bottom fell out of the economy, his firm and many other architectural companies, went belly up. Building was at a standstill. This person had the initiative to use his background along with taking classes to start a home inspection company. The trouble is, the real estate market where he was located never came back. He spent days and months looking for a better source of income. Then he found a job, only to find that he was only one in a long series of persons who was fired within a year by his boss. In fact, he had lasted longer than anyone. After this let down his wife decided to divorce him. Now he has moved to a different state and the search for employment in anything related to his field goes on. He was working for Walmart while pursuing a a better job. Finally he found a job. In order to give it his best, he quit the Walmart job and put himself into succeeding in his new job, which he liked very much. After a month and a half, the new company had not paid him. The company is based in London, England. Every time he contacted them, they gave him another story. Finally, he got the message, they were scamming him. He had to quit, and he turned his salary claim over to a collection agency. Now he back to putting out resumes and going on job interviews. Currently, he is living in Los Angeles.

My question is, how do we help people who need it now, before the dream environment arrives and everyone is happy and gainfully employed? With Obamacare, unless repealed, we may never get back to the environment you hope for where everyone can have a job, let alone a better job. It looks like where we are headed is more socialistic policies, meaning a higher number of the population depending on the government for support. Let’s hope that can be averted.

I see minimum wage as helpful for those struggling to get in the race. At least the party helped is not sitting at home on the dole; he is working. Minimum wage may pay many employees more than their job is worth, or more than they deserve. But if it is so bad, why has it persisted since 1938? During those years we have had quite a few years where the country experienced what we call “full employment.” It does not seem that minimum wage is so destructive that it keeps us from returning to that dream environment you speak of. If anything will keep us from getting back there, it will be Obamacare, not minimum wage.

A person must have X amount of money to live on. He may be an unskilled person or even a stupid person, but still, he is a person, and a person must be able to live and provide for himself. If the going rate for a certain job were $1.00 an hour and it was the only job available, many would take it rather than starve. But should a person have to work for $1.00 an hour. I used an absurd example to demonstrate that just being a living, breathing human being deserves better than than that, without regard to what the job is worth. It reminds me of barns filled with grain and food exports flourishing during the Irish potato famine,as Irish people died on the roads in search of food. What I am trying to say is that economics should not be the only deciding factor. People need help now, and something must be done until we can get back to the environment that will support full employment. During those periods where there is full employment, I would guess that the competitive wage catches back up to the minimum wage. Do you see where I’m going, Mark? Minimum wage as we know it today is not all that much to pay for any job that requires a person to spend eight hours of his day doing anything whatsoever. Eight hours of a human being’s life must have some value independent of the job being done. Maybe, ten dollars an hour should be the rate for asking a person to stand in one spot for eight hours. I think that gets to the heart of minimum wage. Maybe the state should have a role in maintaining the worth of the human being. I am just thinking out loud, a fault of extraverts.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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

I wouldn’t say that. But it may be worth studying. I wouldn’t want to encourage married couples to have more children to achieve a higher wage. The current flat rate provides no such incentive.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

You can argue that [about Nixon]. I have a friend who argues that Obama is right of center. He is a far left Democrat; I’m wondering if you are a far right conservative, not that there’s anything wrong with that. For his time, a period of social activism, I put Nixon as a conservative. Not an ideologue, not a William Buckley Jr., nor a Goldwater, but he did appoint four conservative Justices to the Supreme Court and he did moderate the pace of social reform. He was the first president in a century whose party controlled neither the House nor the Senate, so he was forced to work with the progressives, like it or not, if he were to get anything accomplished. I’ll not argue the point with you, price controls and all that, but living through those times, I felt him more conservative than not. I was a liberal at the time and I did not like him at all.

 

[markomalley]

I think the point Yerusalyim was making was that bishops should avoid political issues, not moral ones. There are some moral issues that have significant political ramifications, but they are first and foremost moral issues and the clergy is not only justified in commenting on them but is obligated to do so. These are, however, few in number.
Most political issues raise virtually no moral concerns and we are not well served when bishops propose solutions to them. Does anyone really believe Cardinal Dulles’ comment here is wrong?“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.”
Ender

I agree with Dulles’ statement 100%.

But that does not mean that the clergy should not teach on moral issues with political ramifications. Where I believe they should stop is with endorsing or criticizing specific legislation, policy, court decisions, and so on, unless we are dealing with a clear and unambiguous violation of Church teaching.

For example, I think the hierarchy is perfectly in line in addressing the issue of so-called “marriage equality” issues. Church teaching on that subject is clear and unambiguous (NB: though I honestly think that they’d be better served by addressing it as a moral issue rather than skirting the moral issue by calling it “religious freedom”)

For example, I think the hierarchy is perfectly fine in dealing with abortion legislation, court decisions, and so on. As above, Church teaching on that subject is clear. (I wish they’d put the emphasis onlegislation on that subject as they do on amnesty for illegal immigration – boy, I sure hope a bishop or two read this paragraph )

On the other hand, I think it is perfectly fine for them to teach that xenophobia is immoral. I think it is fine that, as a society, we have an obligation to welcome the stranger. I think that if they want to write about the moral obligations of legislators and wish to remind legislators, particularly Catholic legislators, about the teachings of the Church…to include that States have a right to control immigration and that the first thing that should happen is to try to help correct defects in the countries of origin so people don’t feel that their only choice is to emigrate, then I have no problem with that. However, as the method to accomplish that goal is prudential, then the point of teaching the underlying morals is where it should come to a screeching halt. Pushing Catholics to lobby for or against specific legislation is in clear violation of the Church teaching I cited above. And they need to butt out at that point.

 

[markomalley]

Mostly, I agree with you. I want to say something on the following statement of yours which I also agree on:

… 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.

The first part of your statement is why I am a conservative. I believe that conservative policies will lead us back to that dream environment. The problem I have is what to do in the meantime? What I mean is that currently we have a horrendous unemployment problem, much higher than the government’s numbers show. We have a government that is not creating that environment where we have better jobs, and we certainly do not have enough jobs to go around. People need help now; it takes time to reconstruct that environment that is conducive to full employment and upward mobility.

In general I would have agreed with you in 2006-2009; however, this government has done everything in its power to make people more dependent upon government and to reduce opportunities for economic growth. That is something for you to consider.

My question is, how do we help people who need it now, before the dream environment arrives and everyone is happy and gainfully employed?

My position agrees with that taken by the Chicago Fed.
It is possible that a minimum wage increase reduces the odds that those without a job will be able to find one. Moreover, we ignore most teenagers, where the evidence of disemployment is most compelling.

I see minimum wage as helpful for those struggling to get in the race. At least the party helped is not sitting at home on the dole; he is working. Minimum wage may pay many employees more than their job is worth, or more than they deserve. But if it is so bad, why has it persisted since 1938? During those years we have had quite a few years where the country experienced what we call “full employment.” It does not seem that minimum wage is so destructive that it keeps us from returning to that dream environment you speak of. If anything will keep us from getting back there, it will be Obamacare, not minimum wage.

I am not at this point suggesting getting rid of the minimum wage at this point in time for the reasons you state; rather, I am suggesting that the minimum wage not be dramatically raised. See the quote from the Fed, above.

A person must have X amount of money to live on. He may be an unskilled person or even a stupid person, but still, he is a person, and a person must be able to live and provide for himself. If the going rate for a certain job were $1.00 an hour and it was the only job available, many would take it rather than starve. But should a person have to work for $1.00 an hour.

Again, no argument when you get to the extreme. But the problem is that, at least in my area, you get paid more for being on the dole than you get paid when working for minimum wage. Therefore, those who work minimum wage are those who, for some reason, are not eligible for the dole. For example, unemployment coverage (which I agree is a different animal, but is still government assistance). In my last place of work, there was some serious downsizing. A graphics designer who worked in my place of work was laid off. There were a plenty of jobs out there (when my position was made redundant, I found another job within 2 weeks, as an example); however, he waited almost a year on unemployment because he was looking for a job that was in the exact same field he was in. I had another friend who did the same thing: she was an export control specialist – rather than taking a job that I found for her as a generic contract specialist, she waited for months to find the right job in the right place.

Minimum wage as we know it today is not all that much to pay for any job that requires a person to spend eight hours of his day doing anything whatsoever. Eight hours of a human being’s life must have some value independent of the job being done. Maybe, ten dollars an hour should be the rate for asking a person to stand in one spot for eight hours. I think that gets to the heart of minimum wage. Maybe the state should have a role in maintaining the worth of the human being.

$10 an hour does little or nothing for a family man with a large family. Go upthread a bit and look at the argument I presented in regards to the minimum wage being the solution to keeping a person out of poverty.

My main argument with a large increase in minimum wage is that, at some point, it becomes more economically feasible for a business to increase automation so that they need fewer employees (and that those employees become more “productive” – that is, that they generate more value per employee). And if that is not an option, at some point the business will be required to raise prices to accommodate the additional labor costs in their production – and must accommodate additional price increases as a result of their suppliers’ additional labor costs. Or, alternatively decide that business is no longer viable.

I am just thinking out loud, a fault of extraverts.

And forum participants

 

[markomalley]

You can argue that [about Nixon]. I have a friend who argues that Obama is right of center. He is a far left Democrat; I’m wondering if you are a far right conservative, not that there’s anything wrong with that. For his time, a period of social activism, I put Nixon as a conservative. Not an ideologue, not a William Buckley Jr., nor a Goldwater, but he did appoint four conservative Justices to the Supreme Court and he did moderate the pace of social reform.

What???

He appointed Harry Blackmun…the author of Roe v Wade.

The Burger Court (Nixon appointed Burger as Chief Justice) was one of the most activist courts in our history and is responsible for irreparable harm to our society. Roe v Wade, school busing, eliminated the death penalty (later reversed), mandated that states may not prohibit distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, and instituted the infamous “Lemon Test” as far as determining where government may support religious efforts.

Conservative? Hah!!

He was the first president in a century whose party controlled neither the House nor the Senate, so he was forced to work with the progressives, like it or not, if he were to get anything accomplished. I’ll not argue the point with you, price controls and all that, but living through those times, I felt him more conservative than not. I was a liberal at the time and I did not like him at all.

Nixon instituted wage and price controls. Not a conservative idea.

He created the EPA. Not exactly a conservative organization. (not that the idea of environmental protection is a bad thing, but just think about the excesses and over-reach that the EPA is known for)

He created OSHA. Again, not that on the job safety is a bad thing, but this Nixon created agency is off the rails.

Nixon was no conservative.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

150% for whom? A single person?

And, frankly, it is sort of hard to take a deduction when you pay no tax in the first place.

150% for anyone. The part about paying no tax is false as you already know. Deductions and tax credits are the way to assist families. Reduced taxes, and ceiling cut-offs on selected incomes is the way to help wealthy people.

Poor families need help, wealthy people, not so much.

 

[markomalley]

150% for anyone. The part about paying no tax is false as you already know. Deductions and tax credits are the way to assist families. Reduced taxes, and ceiling cut-offs on selected incomes is the way to help wealthy people.

Poor families need help, wealthy people, not so much.

You’re not making sense here.

The federal poverty level varies based upon the number of people in a household.



So you are asserting that the minimum wage should be based upon 150% of the Federal Poverty Level. Again, I ask, 150% of the Federal Poverty Level for whom? (in other words, for which family size?)

In an earlier post, you said:

The family of six can see further relief through tax deductions.

I answered your question: if a family owes no tax, there can be no deductions.

People who are married filing jointly are not required to even file income tax forms if they make <$20,000, as there is no way that they owe any income tax. From the 2013 Form 1040 instructions:

easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded/621/3138168915.png

If you’re thinking about FICA taxes, well, there is no such thing as FICA deductions. And, with the exception of self-employed people (such as those working on 1099s), FICA is an automatic deduction from their pay. Of course, now, minimum wage doesn’t even apply to people who are self-employed and on 1099 as, technically, they are earning revenue rather than drawing wages.

But I note that NOW you bring up tax credits (you didn’t mention tax credits before). Obviously a refundable tax credit (I will assume you are talking about refundable tax credits here) is different than a deduction.

Having said the above, let me ask you again. You say that minimum wage should be based upon 150% of the FPL. 150% of FPL for which family size? Or should minimum wage be variable based upon the size of the family the employee supports?

 

[marty1818]

but he did appoint four conservative Justices to the Supreme Court

And yet Rehnquist was the only Nixon appointee to go against the 7-2 *Roe v. Wade *decision.

 

[zz912]

My question is, how do we help people who need it now, before the dream environment arrives and everyone is happy and gainfully employed? With Obamacare, unless repealed, we may never get back to the environment you hope for where everyone can have a job, let alone a better job. It looks like where we are headed is more socialistic policies, meaning a higher number of the population depending on the government for support. Let’s hope that can be averted.

I see minimum wage as helpful for those struggling to get in the race.

Countries have tried many, many times to alleviate the natural consequences of the laws of economics. We want to alleviate the pain inflicted on people (naturally), but what ends up happening is we only delay the pain, and usually make it worse.

Take for example the situation in the 2000’s. The interest rates were radically lowered to encourage the housing market to stave off the effects of the dot com bubble popping. But what happened is that the housing market was already being manipulated by other govt programs, and caused an even bigger bubble, which when it popped caused much worse pain and suffering.

Take a look at Japan, they have been trying for two decades to “fix” the economy and avoid the effects of economics, and it has been a stunning failure. They have been mired in the Lost Decades.

 

[zz912]

You can argue that [about Nixon]. I have a friend who argues that Obama is right of center. He is a far left Democrat; I’m wondering if you are a far right conservative, not that there’s anything wrong with that. For his time, a period of social activism, I put Nixon as a conservative. Not an ideologue, not a William Buckley Jr., nor a Goldwater, but he did appoint four conservative Justices to the Supreme Court and he did moderate the pace of social reform. He was the first president in a century whose party controlled neither the House nor the Senate, so he was forced to work with the progressives, like it or not, if he were to get anything accomplished. I’ll not argue the point with you, price controls and all that, but living through those times, I felt him more conservative than not. I was a liberal at the time and I did not like him at all.

Yes, I am a far-right conservative. Proudly so.

Nixon was cast as the evil, far-right villian, but he was nothing of the sort. George W Bush was painted in the same way. And both are leaning left.

 

[zz912]

I’m curious how many who are advocating for raising the minimum wage, based upon moral reasons, are also in favor of outlawing abortion.

The moral reasoning is based upon the idea that we don’t want to allow another person to take advantage, or harm another person. So the same principle applies in much greater fashion to babies in the womb.