Miami archbishop: raise the minimum wage [CC]

[markomalley]

I see what you are saying and I do agree about the scenario of an employer hiring 100 people and the negative consequences of doubling the minimum wage. While some people want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage (which would be bad) I am in favor of moderate annual increases of the minimum wage to match the inflation rate. Considering that about 5-7% of the workforce makes minimum wage its not an issue that I see that can hurt most businesses if its moderately increased.

Why? As opposed to letting the labor market find its own level (coupled with controlling immigration so that the market isn’t flooded with people who are more than willing to work for peanuts).

You have to consider that the vast majority of jobs out there are NOT minimum wage jobs. Those jobs seem to be able to find their own level to balance the availability of labor with the correct skill sets and the value the person adds to the manufacturing / service delivery process. Why not allow the same for the entry-level jobs?

(Again, with the constraint put on that serious controls are put on immigration to prevent flooding of the labor market)

The constant complaint that immigration advocates use is that there are jobs that people won’t do. Perhaps it is that there are jobs that people won’t do for that price. To me, that is not an argument to allow unrestricted immigration…it is an argument to increase the wages so that people will be willing to do the work.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Why? As opposed to letting the labor market find its own level (coupled with controlling immigration so that the market isn’t flooded with people who are more than willing to work for peanuts).

You have to consider that the vast majority of jobs out there are NOT minimum wage jobs. Those jobs seem to be able to find their own level to balance the availability of labor with the correct skill sets and the value the person adds to the manufacturing / service delivery process. Why not allow the same for the entry-level jobs?

(Again, with the constraint put on that serious controls are put on immigration to prevent flooding of the labor market)

The constant complaint that immigration advocates use is that there are jobs that people won’t do. Perhaps it is that there are jobs that people won’t do for that price. To me, that is not an argument to allow unrestricted immigration…it is an argument to increase the wages so that people will be willing to do the work.

First off I don’t care about immigration policies as minimum wage is not something that affects immigrants solely but natural citizens as well.

My point is that since minimum wage earners make up such a small percentage of the workforce that any business who has them isn’t going to reasonably suffer from a moderate increase.

If they do suffer then its probably for other factors. An example is where I work is for a local utility (electricity). A business owner had called up regarding his hydro account and the hydro had been disconnected due to non-payment. I couldn’t proceed with the call because the owner couldn’t recall his own business name that he had registered it with. Some business owners are stupid. If they can’t afford to stay in business from a moderate increase in minimum wage then they deserve to go out of business.

 

[markomalley]

First off I don’t care about immigration policies as minimum wage is not something that affects immigrants solely but natural citizens as well.

My point is that since minimum wage earners make up such a small percentage of the workforce that any business who has them isn’t going to reasonably suffer from a moderate increase.

If they do suffer then its probably for other factors. An example is where I work is for a local utility (electricity). A business owner had called up regarding his hydro account and the hydro had been disconnected due to non-payment. I couldn’t proceed with the call because the owner couldn’t recall his own business name that he had registered it with. Some business owners are stupid. If they can’t afford to stay in business from a moderate increase in minimum wage then they deserve to go out of business.

It’s **not **that wages impact immigrants (as well as permanent residents / citizens). It’s that immigrants impact wages.

Not any one given immigrant, but the *volume *of them when put together.

Don’t know if you remember the periods of (virtually) full employment during the late 90s and mid 00’s. Employers had a very hard time attracting people to work in those entry-level jobs, as it was relatively easy to find a far higher-paying job. These employers had to voluntarily raise their wages above minimum…even for entry level…they even, for a while, had to offer signing bonuses and longevity bonuses. Government action wasn’t needed to enforce minimum wage…they had to pay higher than minimum wage to attract people.

The point is that this is the way to raise wages, not through government fiat.

 

[Ender]

For sure, there are theoretical moral advantages and disadvantages to be calculated on all sides of the issue

These are not moral advantages and disadvantages, they are economic effects, some are positive and some are negative

Right means to use? Raising the minimum wage is one way to help those at the lower income levels. It does not preclude society from pursuing other means, as well.

That isn’t what I meant. The question is whether the benefits of such an action outweigh the harm it inevitably brings with it.

The negatives for raising the minimum wage come down to the free choices of employers, stockholders and customers, who are not solely motivated by profits and savings but also by moral considerations.

I don’t think you see any down side to raising the minimum wage, but in fact all economists recognize that they exist. The most significant is that it destroys some number of jobs, and while there is great disagreement over how many jobs are lost there is no disagreement that it happens.

As you can tell, I see a very definite nexus between raising the minimum wage and morality.

Yes you do, but that seems to be based on your understanding of the impact of such an action and your refusal to consider the very different basis for the opposition in others. For you it appears to be a simple choice between helping the poor or not helping them, but that is assuredly not the way others (myself included) see the issue.
I would like to help the poor as much as you, but I am unconvinced that raising the minimum wage is a good strategy. It makes the cost of entry level jobs higher and therefore keeps some number of people out of the job market. It eliminates some number of jobs since the value of the work is now less than the cost of having it done or some marginal businesses simply can’t afford the additional cost. Is my analysis right? Perhaps not, but there is no moral calculation involved. Having made the decision to help the poor we are in the position of the doctor trying to cure a patient and having to choose between two mutually exclusive treatments.

While it’s not immoral to oppose raising the minimum wage, one can advocate for it for moral reasons alone.

Suppose I believe that raising the minimum wage will hurt the poor more than it helps them. In that case it becomes immoral of me not to oppose raising it. There are no moral reasons for advocating it, only economic ones. What do you think is the moral choice before us?

Therefore, I support the Bishop’s support for raising the minimum wage, and I see it as within his purview to do so.

Since there is no moral choice involved in selecting what actions are helpful and which are harmful it was inappropriate of the bishop to suggest otherwise.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Both are wrong, but that’s the point: *both *are wrong.
Why is that? Surely if a bishop oversteps his bounds one is justified in pointing it out.

Ender

Gee whiz. Because you are not a bishop and maybe a bishop, like very bishop knows what is proper to his calling better than you and a bunch of folks like I do. Show me any where that a bishop is not allowed to make a political statement and I will concede the point. Lay people who always seem to know better than church leaders and then criticize church leaders for even having a political opinion are hypocrites, picking the specks at their betters without removing their own beams.

Now, I guess you can resume your bishop bashing.

 

[pnewton]

Well, the point was addressed by the Fourth Lateran Council, but I’m sure you know nothing is quite so black and white.
*42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***
*Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution. *(Fourth Lateran Council)
Ender

In 1213 AD, Clergy would sometimes also be secular royalty. Not the same thing. I question why anyone wants to deny the basic rights of citizenship to Catholic clergy. Perhaps the Catholic Clergy should also quit commenting on abortion, homosexual marriage and the death penalty.

If one or two of those three are still okay and one or two are not, then it will stand as evidence that this criticism of the bishops is about the issue, and not a true belief that bishops should be like children, seen and not heard. So, does someone want to email Fr. Pacwa and let him know he needs to get out of politics?

 

[pnewton]

Then I believe one can morally advocate a modest increase in the minimum wage, like the one proposed, in the vast majority of cases.

The low wages that would be paid without a minimum wage would definitely ensure a larger number of people living at the poverty level all other things being equal.

One can morally advocate either way. There is also the possibility that an increase in minimum wage would leave more people in greater poverty as a result of unemployment.

I think I believe that an increase would be a good thing, but the one truth that we must remember in all of this, as long as our motives are moral and we have a desire to ease the suffering of the poor, there are a myriad of moral opinions as to how that could be accomplished.

 

[markomalley]

Gee whiz. Because you are not a bishop and maybe a bishop, like very bishop knows what is proper to his calling better than you and a bunch of folks like I do. Show me any where that a bishop is not allowed to make a political statement and I will concede the point. Lay people who always seem to know better than church leaders and then criticize church leaders for even having a political opinion are hypocrites, picking the specks at their betters without removing their own beams.

Now, I guess you can resume your bishop bashing.

Not bashing, but this is worth considering in the discussion:
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
​

It, in my opinion, would probably be more profitable if the clergy would vigorously teach doctrine and confront/reprove those who are violating those doctrines as opposed to weighing in on legislation.

 

[pnewton]

Not bashing, but this is worth considering in the discussion: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
​

It, in my opinion, would probably be more profitable if the clergy would vigorously teach doctrine and confront/reprove those who are violating those doctrines as opposed to weighing in on legislation.

So they should oppose abortion, but not abortion laws? Oppose homosexual acts, but not homosexual marriage?

I appreciate you quoting this, as it does present well what I presented poorly in my last post. They are not experts. There are many opinions. However, I really thought that was clear from the beginning. I do not remember anyone who thought that this was some sort of Catholic Church statement. There is a balance between, on one hand, taking the words of a clergy as church teaching in this type of area, and on the other hand, expecting them to just shut the heck up. I cannot help but see partisan politics at play in those bishops which are cheered and those which are told they have no right to speak.

 

[pnewton]

It, in my opinion, would probably be more profitable if the clergy would vigorously teach doctrine and confront/reprove those who are violating those doctrines as opposed to weighing in on legislation.

Come on now Mark. We have been around long enough. Do I really have to say what fallacy this is?

 

[Ender]

Gee whiz. Because you are not a bishop and maybe a bishop, like very bishop knows what is proper to his calling better than you and a bunch of folks like I do.

Maybe, but even assuming that he ought to know better is no argument that his actions in this particular instance were appropriate.

Show me any where that a bishop is not allowed to make a political statement and I will concede the point.

No one has suggested they are not allowed to engage in political discussions. It has been pointed out by a number of others that it is unwise for them to do so.

Lay people who always seem to know better than church leaders and then criticize church leaders for even having a political opinion are hypocrites, picking the specks at their betters without removing their own beams.

The problem with this … argument … is its irrelevancy. Even if I was the hypocrite you presume me to be it doesn’t mean my position is wrong. Besides, I don’t consider a bishop my better and I suspect he doesn’t consider himself to be better either.

Now, I guess you can resume your bishop bashing.

This is another emotional, non-argument. To say that the bishop’s comments on the minimum wage were unhelpful hardly constitutes bashing any more than my pointing out that your arguments are inappropriate constitutes bashing you.

Ender

 

[Ender]

In 1213 AD, Clergy would sometimes also be secular royalty. Not the same thing.

I’m pretty sure the doctrines expressed by the church at her councils don’t age out and that what was true in 1213 is equally true today.

I question why anyone wants to deny the basic rights of citizenship to Catholic clergy.

Do you actually read the comments being made or is their content irrelevant? As a private citizen the bishop has exactly the same rights as anyone else. As a bishop of the church, however, his rights and duties are different than those of the laity. It is the church that has put restrictions on what constitutes justifiable involvement in politics.

Perhaps the Catholic Clergy should also quit commenting on abortion, homosexual marriage and the death penalty.

Those actually happen to be moral issues; raising the minimum wage is not.

If one or two of those three are still okay and one or two are not, then it will stand as evidence that this criticism of the bishops is about the issue, and not a true belief that bishops should be like children, seen and not heard.

Well there you go: it’s about the issue.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I’m pretty sure the doctrines expressed by the church at her councils don’t age out and that what was true in 1213 is equally true today.

I did not say any different, the operative word being “doctrine”.

Those actually happen to be moral issues; raising the minimum wage is not.

Poverty and justice are moral issues. The minimum wage is a matter of prudence on a moral position. Likewise, abortion is a moral issue, like adultery and pre-marital sex. Whether these should be illegal, and to what extent, is a likewise a matter of prudence on a moral issue. Just because we see abortion as a rather obvious sin that needs to be outlawed does not change the basic nature of law. For example, we do no outlaw pre-marital sex. Contraception is immoral. The ACA mandate that is a matter of prudence. I think the bishops should be allowed to comment on that, and so do they, even though they are familiar with both the 4th Lateran Council and Gaudium et Spes.

. It is the church that has put restrictions on what constitutes justifiable involvement in politics.

Right, of which this is justifiable, or at least allowable. The Catholic Church or the Holy Father has never said anything about this being inappropriate. This is not attempt to extend jurisdictional control over the secular government, as happened centuries ago.

 

[Tomdstone]

Those actually happen to be moral issues; raising the minimum wage is not.

I disagree. I think that raising the minimum wage is a moral issue. It has to do with whether someone is being paid fairly for the work done, or whether a part of his wages and labor are being stolen from him and pocketed by multimillionaire oligarchs. Stealing is against the commandments.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Then I believe one can morally advocate a modest increase in the minimum wage, like the one proposed, in the vast majority of cases.

I’m still waiting for you to back your assumption that more people will be helped by it than harmed by it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I disagree. I think that raising the minimum wage is a moral issue. It has to do with whether someone is being paid fairly for the work done, or whether a part of his wages and labor are being stolen from him and pocketed by multimillionaire oligarchs. Stealing is against the commandments.

This seems pure stereotyping to me, and without any foundational basis.

Around here, everybody gets paid more than minimum wage. Therefore, around here, there is no reason to have a minimum wage at all.

But when it comes to better pay or worse pay, the “millionaire oligarchs” (I’m not sure how many are really oligarchs, but never mind) pay better than the “mom and pops” that are barely making it.

 

[Tomdstone]

This seems pure stereotyping to me, and without any foundational basis.

The foundational basis is the Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

The low wages that would be paid without a minimum wage would definitely ensure a larger number of people living at the poverty level all other things being equal.

But does it? You seem to be assuming that a large number of people in poverty are earning minimum wage, and further assuming that such are still going to have jobs if the minimum wage is raised. I think both assumptions are doubtful, but they are certainly not proved in this thread.

Anybody below the official poverty line qualifies for public assistance and the Earned Income Credit if they’re working. You seem to be assuming that a person earning minimum wage (of whom I believe there are very few) will not avail himself of those benefits or that he would fail to qualifiy for them if the minimum is raised modestly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The foundational basis is the Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.”

Well, then, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the “millionaire oligarchs” are stealing from their employees, so we can make the connection without simply passing rash judgment on people we don’t know.

 

[JimG]

Mandating an increase in minimum wage in the midst of an economic depression will not cure the depression, but may make it worse by increasing unemployment.