T
- Status
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
How many people are going to lose their jobs if the minimum wage is raised?
E
Ender
Guest
No one is advocating for poverty or against justice. Disagreements about how to alleviate poverty are not disagreements about whether to alleviate it.
“Moral position” is a vague and not particularly useful term. Poverty is a problem which we have a moral obligation to address but once we have made the choice to try to help the poor we have addressed the only moral concern that faces us. Whether the minimum wage helps solve the problem of makes it worse is, as you note, a matter of prudential choice and is not a moral question.
Given that the determination to support or oppose raising the minimum wage is a prudential choice where is the moral concern? Neither the position for or against raising the minimum wage is immoral. Our reason for holding one position or the other may make our action immoral but the positions themselves are morally neutral.
The problem with the bishop’s statement is that his support for one position implies something that isn’t true, namely that his position is the moral one and the contrary position is therefore immoral.
Ender
Suudy
Active member
Ender,
You posted a link on another thread to Crisis magazine regarding the “ratbag” Bishop (note: I am not calling him that, I’m quoting another poster). Just a quick glance, and I see the following new article from yesterday exactly relevant to this thread.
And in the very first paragraph, we see an echo of what you’ve been saying all along here.
crisismagazine.com/2014/when-policy-choices-become-moral-mandates
Two recent newspaper articles—one in the Catholic and the other in the secular press—illustrate the need to be skeptical about claims that particular public policy approaches are morally necessary. Both discussed recent federal legislative efforts: one to raise the minimum wage, the other to cut food stamp benefits (the legislation that ultimately passed did so slightly). Both involve helping the economically disadvantaged. Concern for the poor is certainly a Christian obligation. The universal destination of created goods and a just wage are basic principles of Catholic social teaching and the right to life and the means necessary for its development (such as food, shelter, medical care, etc.) is at the top of the list of human rights stressed by the popes. The problem is that policies cannot be made synonymous with a moral principle itself, or held to be essential to achieving it.
Food for thought…
You posted a link on another thread to Crisis magazine regarding the “ratbag” Bishop (note: I am not calling him that, I’m quoting another poster). Just a quick glance, and I see the following new article from yesterday exactly relevant to this thread.
And in the very first paragraph, we see an echo of what you’ve been saying all along here.
crisismagazine.com/2014/when-policy-choices-become-moral-mandates
Two recent newspaper articles—one in the Catholic and the other in the secular press—illustrate the need to be skeptical about claims that particular public policy approaches are morally necessary. Both discussed recent federal legislative efforts: one to raise the minimum wage, the other to cut food stamp benefits (the legislation that ultimately passed did so slightly). Both involve helping the economically disadvantaged. Concern for the poor is certainly a Christian obligation. The universal destination of created goods and a just wage are basic principles of Catholic social teaching and the right to life and the means necessary for its development (such as food, shelter, medical care, etc.) is at the top of the list of human rights stressed by the popes. The problem is that policies cannot be made synonymous with a moral principle itself, or held to be essential to achieving it.
Food for thought…
E
Ender
Guest
Actually the minimum wage has nothing to do with whether someone is being paid fairly for the work done. We are no more capable of judging the fairness of someone earning the minimum wage than we can of judging the fairness of anyone else’s wage, nor is there even a way to define it such that a number could actually be determined.
I think you can judge this for yourself by giving us your “fair hourly wage” in dollars and cents. Is it $5.00? $8.25? $10.73? If this is truly a moral issue then moral people ought to be able to come up with the same answer, but quite clearly the rates people will come up with will vary widely. How do you judge who’s is “most moral”?
Ender
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Then I would suggest that the “moral” thing to do is support the ones with the most favorable economic effects for those in need. If they aren’t in need, then I agree there is no moral issue involved.
I don’t believe that raising the MW brings “inevitable” harm. I do agree that the actions of some businesses to any increase in the MW is harmful.
It happens, but it is within the power of employers to take different actions, such as, raising consumer prices, accepting lower profits, or trimming costs elsewhere, such as in waste reduction, cracking down on pilfering, or salary or perk reductions for upper levels of management.
I don’t actually see it so simplistically as you suggest, but when all is said and done, I’d rather err in doing the good that I can see [increased wages] than hoping for the good that comes from not doing it [avoiding possible negative consequences]. I can support the MW and still do all the other things that people propose. The difference is that raising the MW does an instant good, whereas other measures take precious time. Better to apply a band-aid now IMO, while we’re waiting for other actions we may take to take effect
It’s only one strategy among many. We are not talking about prohibitive amounts, only a modest increase in the current MW. It really does not raise the cost of entry that much. If a business is so marginal that it depends on paying substandard (which I know is a subjective judgment, but a judgment nevertheless, that should be made one way or the other) wages, they are not viable businesses and only tend to perpetuate the institutionalization of substandard wages. .
I believe you would have a difficult time demonstrating that the modest increases proposed will hurt the poor more than help them, but you are free to try.
I think the moral choice before us is helping those whose families live in poverty (both in terms of money and in the time parents can spend with their families) I see many longer-term measures we can take, and should, but few short-term ones. A small raise in the minimum wage is one of the short-term measures; perceived long-term disadvantages of this can be addressed in the longer term measures .Also, some of the downside is due to companies making economic choices over moral ones. Only God can address that, but we should not act in ways to play up to this weakness in running our businesses. Few large companies would be mortally wounded by upper management taking less in salaries and perks for example.
I no respect for a company that in which upper management boasts high salaries and benefits, while its workers cannot subsist on the wages it pays.
I know this is anecdotal, but I have a friend who has three jobs since his wife became ill in order to make ends meet, and all of them are above the MW. Thank God he is not one of the millions working at MW.
I believe there is a moral choice involved. It may not be a slam dunk, but I approve of the position he took.
I know you can’t hear my tone of voice, so rather than leave it to your imagination, I am only giving what I think is best and wholly respect your opinions and your right to disagree with mine. I was against the minimum wage for many years, but reflecting on it over the years, I have changed my mind. I still think the best things to do are to stimulate the economy so that there is as near full employment as we can get by removing unnecessary regulations on businesses and reducing taxes, among others things.
Respectfully, JamesCaruso
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I’d only add that unemployment is not an inevitable consequence of raising the minimum wage. It’s an independent action of businesses and not the only recourse they have. At any rate, it is not the one who raises the MW by a modest amount who is responsible for greater unemployment.
True.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, this is exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. The policy (raising the minimum wage) is not synonymous with the moral principle (help the poor), and cannot be held to be essential (or even effective) in achieving it.
Ender
T
Tomdstone
Guest
You judge it by the fact that the disparity of income between those being paid the minimum wage and those in the upper 1% has increased drastically. Income inequality has grown significantly in the USA since 1970. The Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis stated in Evangelii Gaudium, that the structural causes of inequality must be attacked in order to find a solution to the problems of the world.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
I know that all the people who work at MW will be helped.
I do not know that any people will necessarily be harmed, such as, by workforce reduction. We are talking about a modest increase in the MW, not something monumental.
The families of some who are working at MW are living in poverty, both in terms of financial means and in terms of how much time they can spend properly raising their families due to the need for multiple jobs. Assuming the worker is being paid substandard wages, and I would not advocate for raising the MW otherwise, if a business chooses to reduce its workforce due to the increase, it is not the proponent of the increase who is morally responsible, it is the management of the business. If the business is so marginal that it has no choice, all other options considered, but to pay substandard wages, then that business deserves to go out of business.
E
Ender
Guest
You said that you used to be against the minimum wage. Was that because you didn’t care about the poor before or because you thought it was bad economic policy? You are certainly justified in supporting whichever policy you believe is best, and to changing your mind over time, but you are not justified in suggesting that one policy is more moral than the other. Your own experience with this issue should convince you of that.
That’s a very valid position, and this is how the issue should be discussed. What will happen if we do X? What is harmful to that discussion is linking it to moral choices because then the debate becomes not about discussing what will happen (or not) but about who is good and who is, well, a greedy oligarch.
Actually I don’t care to; that’s never been my reason for joining this debate. My sole purpose is to address the (lack of) moral choice involved.
Do you really think the people who oppose raising the minimum wage do so because they don’t care about families living in poverty?
You seem like a thoughtful person; explain what that moral choice is.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Now that you’ve gotten that off your chest, put a number to it. What is THE fair wage in dollars and cents? Remember, if this is a moral question then there can be only one right answer. (There can be only one …)
Ender
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Are you being dismissive of what the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church has taught?
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
No he’s not. He’s asking you a fair question and a valid point.
What should the minimum wage actually be? If this is such a “moral” issue and not one of prudential judgement, you should be able to name the correct number.
P
pnewton
Guest
No. He didn’t say that. I know his position is not* the* moral one. You know it. I do not think we are so exceptional that we can know this and pretty much everyone else misses this point. I’m sure nothing special. Whenever we use the word “imply” in a discussion it is a patch used to cover a hole, a flaw. Yes, if the bishop would have presented his statement as a doctrine from the church on faith or morals, then everyone here up in arms would have a point. He didn’t
J
JimG
Guest
A minimum wage of $10/hr is a full time annual wage of $20,800 per year, which is greater than the median income in many nations. There are many eager and hardworking immigrants—legal or not—who would jump at a chance to earn such a wage.
At the same time, due to long term employment stagnation in the economy coupled with long term unemployment benefits and erosion of job skills, there are a great many in our own country who would simply not be hired at a higher wage because they are not worth it to the employer without a great deal of training not only in the job but in work ethic and social skills. A minimum wage might push them even further down the employment ladder, while increasing pressure to ease blocks to immigration. The bishops have also favored immigration.
I’m just saying that a higher minimum could backfire on the most needy of American workers.
At the same time, due to long term employment stagnation in the economy coupled with long term unemployment benefits and erosion of job skills, there are a great many in our own country who would simply not be hired at a higher wage because they are not worth it to the employer without a great deal of training not only in the job but in work ethic and social skills. A minimum wage might push them even further down the employment ladder, while increasing pressure to ease blocks to immigration. The bishops have also favored immigration.
I’m just saying that a higher minimum could backfire on the most needy of American workers.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No it isn’t. It’s the HuffPo’s opinion. No evidence to support any proposition you have stated.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I have no more idea than anyone else has any really good foundation to believe that raising the minimum wage to $10 or whatever people are aiming for, will reduce poverty to any significant degree.
But I will say I suspect, at least, that those likely to lose their jobs, if anyone does, are the employees of the “mom and pop” establishments, not the big employers. The latter can generally pass on additional costs to the customers, including those whose wages get increased for one reason or another. Mom and Pop’s don’t have that kind of pricing power.
Personally, I don’t know any company of any size that pays even near minimum wage, let alone at it.
But my point, and evidently I didn’t make it well, is that nobody knows whether raising the minimum wage will be a net benefit or net loss to workers generally. People argue both sides of that, but nobody ever truly proves it. And therefore, taking a “moral” stand for or against it is really hanging one’s moral sense on a speculation, not a moral certitude.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If one receives a letter on a city letterhead saying it wants this or that, you pay attention, whether, upon closer examination or calmer thought, you discount what it says.
When a bishop uses USCCB letterhead to promote his political position, people often take it as somehow a doctrine or position of the Church. Surely you have seen some of the endless threads on here before where someone stoutly maintained that some USCCB letter is morally binding. I have at least twice seen such arguments exceed 1,000 posts.
Some believe that, and bishops should be careful about seeming to use their position to espouse prudential judgments peculiar to them.
M
markomalley
Guest
Sadly, his statements are released on USCCB letterhead…and, whether it is his intent to do so or not, there are too many (including, if history holds true) even here on CAF who will take that statement as being not only the political position of the USCCB, but as a Magisterial statement.
As far as abortion legislation, so-called “same sex marriage” legislation, and so on.
I would submit to you that hearing from our bishops more than once a year (1-2 weeks before the March for Life) on the subject of abortion…and when we hear his teachings, that he actually get angry about it. And then at the annual diocesan Red Mass (at a minimum) he speaks out to the legislators and jurists about their responsibility to LIFE and their responsibility to promote the moral absolutes and, oh, by the way, if they can’t find it in their hearts to show the courage to do so, they should consider their obligations under Canon 916 (I said 916, not 915 intentionally). To consistently (not constantly, but regularly) hammer on the issue, along with the other moral issues (like homosexual relations, etc.)
And then if politicians blow it off (as they likely will), have the meetings necessary…and then invoke Canon 915 on those who don’t change their tunes…publicly explaining to his diocese why.
Note: I haven’t mentioned or even suggested that a bishop mention a specific item of legislation here…just to stress the moral principles involved.
For the anti-type, consider poor Archbishop Nienstedt in St Paul…with his wonderful DVDs (about why they should support a marriage amendment) distributed to a diocese who weren’t ready for it. Had this message (moral absolutes) not been dropped by Archbishops Roach and Flynn for the 30 years beforehand…his diocese would not have even needed those DVDs in the first place.
- Status