I think that is because, from an economic point, a little bit among thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of employees will raise costs more than a lot among a single CEO. A bishop, on the other hand, holds up justice over money, and therefore tries to lead us to appreciate Christ in the least among us, rather than live for our own economic well-being, worshipping God, not Mammon.
Sy, there are smaller businesses who will have to cut back on their workforce if they have to increase the wage to $15 an hour. Workers will get laid off or have fewer hours. Other job seekers will have fewer opportunities. What do you say to those people adversely affected by this and, what does it have to do with what a CEO makes?
Opposing the minimum wage increase is not worshipping mammon. It is not good to question the faith of or otherwise demonize those with whom you disagree.
They can, but they shouldn’t. When they offer their opinions on matters like these it is assumed that they are taking a moral stance rather than offering their personal political view. Since that is not the case, their involvement is misleading. The real down side to all this however is that their opinions merely coarsen the nature of the discussion. Instead of debating the economic implications of the minimum wage the exchange is reduced to charges that those who oppose the bishops’ position are not merely wrong but are immoral. After all, if the bishops’ position is the moral one what could the opposite position be but immoral? Nothing good comes from a bishop’s involvement in politics.
People have to have enough to eat and get by. How is a father of six children going to support their Catholic school costs and college education on a salary of $10 per hour?
The difference is the Govt isn’t forcing anyone to pay CEOs $20,000 an hour
May I hold you and others to your last sentence? I’m thinking for instance when Christians are told they are secular because they are further to the left than many here. Or that they are voting for the party of death because they believe for instance the minimum wage is indeed a moral issue. Perhaps even a life issue for many families struggling to live.
Amen
So, if a father of six is flipping hamburgers at McD’s, should he get paid more than the 16-year old that still lives in his parent’s home? Should wage be based upon need or upon productivity?
If that were the unfortunate path business owners chose to take, one thing I would say is it would merely prove what we already know. That Republican trickle down doesn’t work. And regarding CEOs, if the McDonalds CEO was pd even half of what he is, he would still be rich and living extremely comfortable, and at least the other half could be used in another way.
According to the Small Business Administration in the US Gov, there are 27.9 million small businesses in 2010. There were 18,500 firms with 500 or more employees.
Your answer proves you know little about the struggles of businesses. They often operate on very small profit margins. The owners aren’t wading in gravy and refusing to part with their largess to the poor workers. The increase in minimum wage represents a big challenge to many small businesses not because of “trickle down” but because of government getting involved. When people who no little to nothing of how businesses run start meddling then nothing good happens.
So if I choose to take my family to move to New York city to flip burgers should I be in a position to demand $150,000 a year to live in that expensive city and also send my kids to the local catholic school? That equates to $78.12 / hr btw. If not, on what basis?
True, at least to some extent. Certainly does not apply to walmart or target, though. Walmart is notoriously parsimonious with pay, to put it mildly. But the reason for all of this is that manufacturing jobs that once paid a livable wage and benefits to low-skilled workers have mostly moved to places where workers are paid pennies, and waste is simply dumped in the nearest creek. This is why jobs which used to be teen jobs or extra money jobs for housewives have become the only game in town for so many.
Oh that’s easy, Sy Noe. There are moral issues - such as the sanctity of life, and then there are prudential issues such as the tax rate, minimum wage and such. Good honest Catholics can disagree on the latter issues, but on the former, there is no room for disagreement. That is why they are called non-negotiables.
Let’s take your example. Despite the fact that McDonald’s operates in a franchise model, and franchise owners are not paid near as much as CEO’s, and individual McD’s employees aren’t paid by McD’s corporate, lets continue. According to Bloomberg (here), the CEO makes $8.75M. There are roughly 1.7M employees at McD’s (here). Now, let’s cut the CEO salary in half and equally divide it among all the employees. So $8.75M/2 = $4.375M. Then divide that by the number of employees, so $4.375M/1.7M = $2.
Newsflash. McDonalds is in trouble now. It’s been losing customers in droves to new fast food places like Chipotle, Sonic etc. that offer far more wholesome food for not much more money. It’s planning desperate measures, like all day breakfast, to stem this trend. So much for the high quality of CEO that Micky D’s stands to lose.
So should they get a govt subsidy to help them out or should we let the market work it out?Newsflash. McDonalds is in trouble now. It’s been losing customers in droves to new fast food places like Chipotle, Sonic etc. that offer far more wholesome food for not much more money. It’s planning desperate measures, like all day breakfast, to stem this trend. So much for the high quality of CEO that Micky D’s stands to lose.
Don’t get me wrong. I think the golden parachutes CEO’s get is ridiculous. Every single one of us are paid for what we produce. Only CEO’s and executive get paid even when they fail. Now, I realize that it is often the case that executives will take lower immediate pay in exchange for higher promises if they are ousted by the board. And it makes sense that if the board jettisons a CEO/executive arbitrarily, there should be some protection. But when bad decisions are made–especially with respect to company direction and vision–, CEO’s and executives should be held accountable.So much for the high quality of CEO that Micky D’s stands to lose.