No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth?

[JimG]

Would your position be that their labors are put to best use? I would say that I would rather see them employed at the same wage doing something of greater value to society, and to others. The turning point for me was, as a kid, coming across an email from my mom to the Bentley dealer, apologizing for not buying a car that month, because my dad thought that buying a jet and another car in one month showed signs of being “spendaholics”. She did offer the opinion that she didn’t want another dark colored vehicle, so for the dealer please to keep that in mind for next month. I was probably 12 years old.

I don’t know… would you say that spending 20 or 30 million dollars because you don’t like going through security at airports to be moral, keeping in mind what that money could do when put to other uses?

I rather think that most private jets are bought by businesses, not individuals. And even business don’t buy them once a month.

(It’s worth noting that for private jets bought by individuals, President Obama’s complaint about the tax write-off is irrelevant, since individuals don’t take business deductions on jets they own for private transportation. Businesses depreciate business equipment over a number of years. The only question here is whether it should be 5 or 7 years.)

And yes, there are probably better ways for an individual to spend money than to buy a private jet. There are better ways to spend money than to buy a yacht, or an Ipad, or a blu-ray player. Heck, there are better ways to spend money than to buy another computer or laptop or graphic novel. Why should I own a computer and a laptop and a lot of books while people in 3rd world countries can’t even obtain the necessities of life? But who’s going to decide how best to spend money? The government? The USSR tried that, and it didn’t work out very well. Not only that, but transferring the buying decisions from individuals to government throws a wrench into the economy and makes things worse, not better, and doesn’t help the poor anywhere.

Finally, any worker in the private aircraft industry would no doubt dispute that their labor is not being put to good use. They are producing a quality product for which there is a demand–primarily a business demand–and they are proud of their work. They would rather not abandon the business to an overseas manufacturer.

 

[davidmlamb]

All right! We can turn around the economy by forcing Wal-Mart to unionize! Why can’t Wal-Mart grasp tnis?

And if that will turn around the economy, let’s just unionize girls with lemonade stands as well, and require that they be paid a minimum wage. Or maybe not, since they are management, not employees.They must be capitalists. Let’s make them hire lemonade stand workers–unionized–who will be paid a living wage.

Sure, if it will turn around the economy, I’m all for it.QUOTE]

Walmart employs over 2 million associates on the floor. Let us take half that number. If one million of these employees who have benefited from a union wage go out and buy homes this will in return create 2 million more jobs. and further stimulate the economy. It will put carpenters, plumers, and electricians back to work. They in return will buy cars giving the auto industry a big economic boost. So yes unionizing just Walmart alone will have a significant positive impact on the economy. And of course this would be upholding Catholic doctrine including all the social encyclicals and apostolic writings of the Popes since 1891. You only oppose this because you reject Catholic social teachings in favor of right wing conservatism, which is a modern apostasy in the Church.

David

 

[JimG]

JimG;8437246:

All right! We can turn around the economy by forcing Wal-Mart to unionize! Why can’t Wal-Mart grasp tnis?

And if that will turn around the economy, let’s just unionize girls with lemonade stands as well, and require that they be paid a minimum wage. Or maybe not, since they are management, not employees.They must be capitalists. Let’s make them hire lemonade stand workers–unionized–who will be paid a living wage.

Sure, if it will turn around the economy, I’m all for it.QUOTE]

Walmart employs over 2 million associates on the floor. Let us take half that number. If one million of these employees who have benefited from a union wage go out and buy homes this will in return create 2 million more jobs. and further stimulate the economy. It will put carpenters, plumers, and electricians back to work. They in return will buy cars giving the auto industry a big economic boost. So yes unionizing just Walmart alone will have a significant positive impact on the economy. And of course this would be upholding Catholic doctrine including all the social encyclicals and apostolic writings of the Popes since 1891. You only oppose this because you reject Catholic social teachings in favor of right wing conservatism, which is a modern apostasy in the Church.

David

No, I don’t oppose Catholic social teaching at all. Catholic social teaching supports the right of workers to unionize, whether clerical workers or aircraft workers. So do I. It does not, I think, support the idea that workers must be forced to unionize against their will, or that they should be denied secret ballots in a union organizing vote.

And yes, higher paid Wal-Mart workers will spend more money, thereby supporting the economy, and that’s good. And there will be less of them, which is bad.

 

[Mudgely]

I rather think that most private jets are bought by businesses, not individuals. And even business don’t buy them once a month.

(It’s worth noting that for private jets bought by individuals, President Obama’s complaint about the tax write-off is irrelevant, since individuals don’t take business deductions on jets they own for private transportation. Businesses depreciate business equipment over a number of years. The only question here is whether it should be 5 or 7 years.)

And yes, there are probably better ways for an individual to spend money than to buy a private jet. There are better ways to spend money than to buy a yacht, or an Ipad, or a blu-ray player. Heck, there are better ways to spend money than to buy another computer or laptop or graphic novel. Why should I own a computer and a laptop and a lot of books while people in 3rd world countries can’t even obtain the necessities of life? But who’s going to decide how best to spend money? The government? The USSR tried that, and it didn’t work out very well. Not only that, but transferring the buying decisions from individuals to government throws a wrench into the economy and makes things worse, not better, and doesn’t help the poor anywhere.

Finally, any worker in the private aircraft industry would no doubt dispute that their labor is not being put to good use. They are producing a quality product for which there is a demand–primarily a business demand–and they are proud of their work. They would rather not abandon the business to an overseas manufacturer.

True, and individuals and small businesses often form partnerships to operate their jets, and they use chartering services to charter them out and handle the maintenance. When my dad’s executives were flying to LA and back many times per week privately, instead of using Southwest, which flies once per hour, and costs about $100… you should have seen the look on their faces when I suggested that as an alternative to a heavy carbon footprint, and spending several thousand dollars per flight.

Nobody said anything about buying a jet every month. One friend who has a citation 10 (transcontinental range), only flies it once or twice per year.

Maybe I am not being clear. My point is a matter of degree. A four seater 20 year old jet goes for about $1M. The new A380 being built for the king of SA is in the hundreds of millions, maybe even a billion. Even a nice used turbo prop was running about $7-8 million the last time I shopped for one, which was in 2006. It doesn’t need to be airplanes. There are at least a few people in the world who own multi-hundred-million dollar boats, and sometimes several of them.

My point is that such gluttony is sinful. Simple as that. How could it not be, with people all around us lacking basic needs? Wouldn’t it be better to build and endow a medical center, or a school, then for Paul Allen to build yet another billion dollar boat? What is he thinking? Two helicopters on one boat? A submarine? Where does it end, and why?

 

[Wardog]

My point is that such gluttony is sinful. Simple as that. How could it not be, with people all around us lacking basic needs? Wouldn’t it be better to build and endow a medical center, or a school, then for Paul Allen to build yet another billion dollar boat? What is he thinking? Two helicopters on one boat? A submarine? Where does it end, and why?

I can agree that gluttony is sinful, and Paul Allen does not need another boat. What I cannot agree to is that any one else, such as you, the government or the Church, has the right or duty to confiscate Paul Allen’s wealth thru taxes or any other means and use it to build the medical center or other worthy effort. Nor do I want to live in a country that allows this, because it will soon become bereft of wealthy people.
The title of this thread is about allowing accumulating excessive wealth. Who decides what is excessive, who is given the authority to decide and who decided who is given that authority. Everyone has great ideas on what to do with other people’s money.

 

[cooterhein]

At some point, we do need venture capitalists, yes? I mean…not every country has them, but for the ones that don’t…people get bankrolled somehow, and if it’s not a VC of some kind it’s probably going to be a drug cartel or something equally illicit.

They perform an essential function in the world we live in, but in order to make it happen, it does require a substantial amount of wealth that has to be excessive by anyone’s standards. (Unless you’re a relatively small-time VC, of course). I would think it’s best when legit businessmen fill this role under well-controlled circumstances.

It’s probably best for churches and church leaders if they stay out of this game and avoid the potentially problematic entanglements that might prove to be compromising. But someone’s got to do it, right?

 

[Mudgely]

I can agree that gluttony is sinful, and Paul Allen does not need another boat. What I cannot agree to is that any one else, such as you, the government or the Church, has the right or duty to confiscate Paul Allen’s wealth thru taxes or any other means and use it to build the medical center or other worthy effort. Nor do I want to live in a country that allows this, because it will soon become bereft of wealthy people.
The title of this thread is about allowing accumulating excessive wealth. Who decides what is excessive, who is given the authority to decide and who decided who is given that authority. Everyone has great ideas on what to do with other people’s money.

Who suggested confiscating anything?

But since you bring it up, that is exactly what taxes do. They take the money from one person, and give to another. Taxation is how wealth is redistributed involuntarily. In our society, this is supposedly done only through elected representatives who represent the will of “the people”.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I’ve worked at a Walmart and none of what you said makes any sense. We are were all trained for whatever position we were working at. None of the non-management positions required anything other than a high school degree if even that to be applicable for. Training was given after you were hired for whatever position you got and it was really not necessary. If you wanted to work your way up in the company you could. There were no mom’s and dad’s working in non-management positions unless you are talking about mom’s and dad’s with kids’ who are already out of the house. A cashier at Wal-mart is never going to make enough money to support a family, union or no union. Those positions are filled by high school and college age kids as well as older people who are just looking to make a little money on the side. Being a cashier at Wal-mart is not a career and should not be made out to be one. A union is just going to end up making the prices of products go up, and end up stealing jobs from the young and old.

But these jobs at super markets used to pay a living wage. When I was a kid you could start as a bagger (this was the job that didn’t support a family), move up to checker (which did support a family on one income), move up to assistant manager, move up to manager, move up to district supervisor etc. Today they do not. There is a large disconnect between what vice presidents of large corporations do and earn vs. what the rank and file do and earn. I would argue the rank and file do a lot more to earn that income than most VP’s and yet the income earned is disproportionately given to the VP class (I use VP generically).

You really think these jobs are only held by people trying to make a few bucks?
Why shouldn’t someone be able to make a career out of being curteous and helpful to you while ringing up your goods? There was a time in America where this was indeed a career–not everyone can move up to manager and higher–it’s a pyramid and there are fewer opportunities at the top–why should only the top jobs be considered career worthy? All the positions are needed to make the store function and be successful and all should be compensated with a decent living wage. The CEO should not make 1000x what a checker makes–more yes, but not an obscene amount more. There was a time in America when the disparity was nowhere near what it is today and there would be nothing wrong with returning to that.

 

[Brendan]

I would argue the rank and file do a lot more to earn that income than most VP’s and yet the income earned is disproportionately given to the VP class (I use VP generically). .

How about subsistance farmers in rural Africa? One can also claim that they too work harder, yet earn a small fraction of what the rank and file at an assembly plant, or a nurse or teacher might make.

Is that unfair? Should their be a tax applied to all who make large multiples of what that Kenyan farmer makes so that weath can be distributed to them as well?

 

[JimG]

Well yes, a lot of really wealthy people do accumulate a lot of wealth. And maybe they spend it foolishly. I’m not sure that it is up to the rest of us to decide what is foolish and what is not. And I’m talking personal wealth here, not corporate wealth. Corporations ought to have business reasons for what they spend money on. If they spend it foolishly, the business won’t last long.

I don’t know whether it’s immoral for a billionaire to own a private jet or not. Is it more immoral to own a private jet or to own a ten million dollar home? Is it more immoral to own a pricey home and a private jet than it is to own a private fully equipped Imax home theater for personal use? All of them could be considered excesses. And yet, I don’t actually trust the government to confiscate that money and put it a better use. I really don’t.

If an individual is so rich that he can spend millions for luxuries, that’s wasteful and profligate, though it does have the benefit of providing jobs. The rich are big spenders, and big spending creates jobs.

Sure, the government could take that money and dole it out in its own way for its own preferred programs. Would the nation be better off? I doubt it. At least the billionaire, though he is rich, might have some qualms about just how fast his money his being spent. I’ve never met a government bureaucrat authorized to spend money who has any such qualms. If the money is there, it will be spent. Just be sure to spend it before the end of the fiscal year.

Now, some billionaires contribute millions, even billions, to their own charitable organizations which do charitable work. I’ve heard it argued that that in itself is a misuse of funds. It is said that using excess wealth to fund charities probably does less real good than if the billionaires had plowed that money back into business enterprises which would have increased economic activity and increased employment. In other words, using excess funds for venture capital rather than charity might actually benefit more people.

 

[davidmlamb]

So your going to save their soul by forcing them to give up their money haha? Could this get anymore ridiculous?

You’re being disengenuous here. The argument was made that Jesus did not force the richman to be charitable. I simply pointed out his choice had consequences. So although we are not forced to do what is right, doing what is wrong is sin and the wages of sin is death. The only soul Im concerned with saving is my own and those I love. What does it profit a man if he gains all the wealth of the world and forfeits his soul in exchange?

David

 

[davidmlamb]

But these jobs at super markets used to pay a living wage. When I was a kid you could start as a bagger (this was the job that didn’t support a family), move up to checker (which did support a family on one income), move up to assistant manager, move up to manager, move up to district supervisor etc. Today they do not. There is a large disconnect between what vice presidents of large corporations do and earn vs. what the rank and file do and earn. I would argue the rank and file do a lot more to earn that income than most VP’s and yet the income earned is disproportionately given to the VP class (I use VP generically).

You really think these jobs are only held by people trying to make a few bucks?
Why shouldn’t someone be able to make a career out of being curteous and helpful to you while ringing up your goods? There was a time in America where this was indeed a career–not everyone can move up to manager and higher–it’s a pyramid and there are fewer opportunities at the top–why should only the top jobs be considered career worthy? All the positions are needed to make the store function and be successful and all should be compensated with a decent living wage. The CEO should not make 1000x what a checker makes–more yes, but not an obscene amount more. There was a time in America when the disparity was nowhere near what it is today and there would be nothing wrong with returning to that.

EXCELLENT POST!! People forget that there was a time in America that if you had a job you were represented by a union. People did make careers out of working at grocery stores and retired with a decent pension. I know because I have a few in my family and know several more who have retired well in Sun City, AZ. One in particular started out a bagger and belonged to a union. He eventually went through a meat cutter apprenticeship program and retired from the same company after 38 years of service. My great aunt is a retired Target worker. In 1978 she was making 17 dollars an hour working in the women’s department for Target. She is retired now and receives a modest pension plus social security. In 1978 Target employees who worked as cashiers made more then Wal-Mart cashiers do today after 5 years of service. Why can’t a person make a living working in retail? The fact is they can and they should. If you are Catholic you should agree that a living wage is the lagitamte fruits of work.

David

 

[davidmlamb]

The bile of envy
This foolish preoccupation with wealth obscures the real sins – pride and selfishness are the culprits. St Augustine effectively says “It was not Lazarus’ poverty that saved him, but his humility. Nor was it wealth that kept the rich man from bliss, but his pride and selfishness (Sermon 24,3).

“Catholic tradition has always had a balanced view of the responsibilities, temptations and opportunities of wealth, and it has never sought to canonize the poor or to demonize the rich. Catholic social doctrine, rather, calls all people to responsibility, generosity and holiness.” Inside The Vatican, June 1997].

Centesimus Annus, John Paul; II, 1991, #12:
“By defining the nature of the socialism of his day as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of the problem.
“…the Socialists encourage the poor man’s envy of the rich and strive to do away with private property, contending that individual possessions should become the common property of all…; but their contentions are so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter confusion in the community."

By His parable of the Talents Jesus is not implying that anyone should seek wealth first in their lives. He is preaching and rewarding prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance, rather than attacking those who accumulate wealth legitimately, He is lambasting the slothful. In the Encyclical Letter *Sollicitudo Rei Socialis *(On Social Concerns), 1987, #42, Pope John Paul II emphasises “Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.”

I think Saint Paul puts the matter in its proper perspective:

• If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions 5 and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.*

11 But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness. 1 TIMOTHY 6:3-11

David

 

[manualman]

EXCELLENT POST!! People forget that there was a time in America that if you had a job you were represented by a union. People did make careers out of working at grocery stores and retired with a decent pension. …

And people ALSO forget that that time coincided with the reality that the most devastating war in human history had recently ended leaving pretty much every other industrialized nation on earth bombed 2/3 of the way back to the stone age. America got a massive, decades long artificial economic boost through being the supplier of goods to much of the world that was rebuilding what had been ruined.

Guess what happened once the cities, the factories, the mines, the steel mills and so on were rebuilt? They started competing with our products and services. And guess what else? People wanted to buy the cheaper things, products made where labor and materials cost less. I’ve seen my share of Union Yes stickers on Hondas, you know. It’s human nature to want good value for one’s money even if it means buying from somebody other than your neighbor. Unions pretend this isn’t so.

At the height of your labor paradise, you COULD support a family on a grocery store wage. That family of 6 probably lived in a 1,200SF ranch, without AC (or maybe a window unit), one rotary phone with long cord, MAYBE a 19" black and white TV with three channels, one station wagon, a coal furnace for heat. No computer, no cable TV, no cell phones, no flyaway vacations, no ipod, no hifi. If you got cancer, you died. If your arteries got clogged up, you died. If your baby was born 2 month premature, she died…

All the advances made since then haven’t been free. They cost money, LOTS of it. It is largely our CHOICE to accept these costs for the more luxurious lifestyle and better life expectancy, in spite of the need to (mostly) take two incomes to support it.

Simply unionizing won’t make that come back - unless you are suggesting that the rest of the world be bombed into another stone age first.

 

[JimG]

And people ALSO forget that that time coincided with the reality that the most devastating war in human history had recently ended leaving pretty much every other industrialized nation on earth bombed 2/3 of the way back to the stone age. America got a massive, decades long artificial economic boost through being the supplier of goods to much of the world that was rebuilding what had been ruined.

Guess what happened once the cities, the factories, the mines, the steel mills and so on were rebuilt? They started competing with our products and services. And guess what else? People wanted to buy the cheaper things, products made where labor and materials cost less. I’ve seen my share of Union Yes stickers on Hondas, you know. It’s human nature to want good value for one’s money even if it means buying from somebody other than your neighbor. Unions pretend this isn’t so.

At the height of your labor paradise, you COULD support a family on a grocery store wage. That family of 6 probably lived in a 1,200SF ranch, without AC (or maybe a window unit), one rotary phone with long cord, MAYBE a 19" black and white TV with three channels, one station wagon, a coal furnace for heat. No computer, no cable TV, no cell phones, no flyaway vacations, no ipod, no hifi. If you got cancer, you died. If your arteries got clogged up, you died. If your baby was born 2 month premature, she died…

All the advances made since then haven’t been free. They cost money, LOTS of it. It is largely our CHOICE to accept these costs for the more luxurious lifestyle and better life expectancy, in spite of the need to (mostly) take two incomes to support it.

Simply unionizing won’t make that come back - unless you are suggesting that the rest of the world be bombed into another stone age first.

If simply unionizing could restore prosperity, we would have a solution to poverty everywhere. Just force all third world countries to have unions for every job and to pay a minimum wage of $25/hr. Problem solved! Every nation suddenly becomes prosperous.

And we can restore propserty to some economically hard hit areas of our own country. Your town has a 25% unemployment rate? No problem. Just require unionization and require a minimum wage of $25/hr. The town is now prosperous. Or is it?

 

[Mudgely]

If simply unionizing could restore prosperity, we would have a solution to poverty everywhere. Just force all third world countries to have unions for every job and to pay a minimum wage of $25/hr. Problem solved! Every nation suddenly becomes prosperous.

And we can restore propserty to some economically hard hit areas of our own country. Your town has a 25% unemployment rate? No problem. Just require unionization and require a minimum wage of $25/hr. The town is now prosperous. Or is it?

Manufacturing has moved out of the US. Intellectual work about half way gone. Wyndham hotels does all of their accounting in India, etc…

The reason that the grocery clerk is no longer paid a high wage is because the income base for the customers is also shrinking. The price competition is strong. Food costs about 50% of what it cost 30 years ago.

 

[FLGreg]

I really appreciate all of the replies to my original post. There are certainly some learned folks here with a wide variety of strong opinions. However, I should have anticipated that this would turn into a class envy/union vs. non-union debate. For that, I am heartily sorry. Passions are strong given the state of our economy.

Being the person who started this thread, I’d like to steer it back to real theology and not political opinion. While one cannot know what is in a person’s heart, some of these posts seem to have a touch of envy and covetousness that runs contrary to our teachings.

I’ve read through all of the posts but, in my view, the question still has not been answered: Where EXACTLY does the Bible or the Magisterium, ex-cathedrally, teach “No one is allowed to amass excessive wealth”?

Yes, I understand the requirement of love of the poor, gifts of charity and works of mercy as taught by Christ Jesus. I’ve tried to research this topic as best I could by reading numerous encyclicals and decrees referenced in the Catechism but can find nothing that supports this absolutist statement.

As is demonstrated in the replies to my original question it remains exactly what is a matter of Catholic Faith & Morals and what is merely a matter of theological opinion?

I guess the closest thing in the Bible that discusses this is where Jesus speaks to the rich young man in Matthew 19:16 (and following) where He instructs, “go, sell what you have and give to [the] poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

Then again we read St. Luke writing about “a virtuous and righteous man”, Joseph of Arimathea, that St. Matthew describes as a “disciple of Jesus” who had amassed enough excessive wealth to afford a private, “rock-hewn tomb” that he donated for burial of our Lord and Savior. Do you think this man is not in the Kingdom of Heaven today? [or, perhaps he was just an astute businessman and knew his personal burial plot was going to be used for only three days. ]

I am not ashamed to admit that I was born into a rather wealthy family. My grandfather founded and ran, at the time, one of the largest commercial truck dealerships in the US. He treated his employees in a fair manner and paid his mechanics and drivers a wage that was considerably higher than the competing union shops in the area. He was also a very generous man donating millions of dollars over the years to local jobs programs, schools, universities, the Boy Scouts of America and the our local Catholic hospital. When he passed away several years ago, some of my more “greedy” extended family were more than a little dismayed to learn that large quantity of money he brought together over his lifetime (amassed) had been, for the most part, given to charity.

I do not tell this story to “toot my own horn” but to illustrate that it is not how much money one has but what one does with that matters and I think that the teachings of the Church bears this out. My grandpa was fond of saying, “it’s only money” and never idolized material things that are preached against in Scripture. He was a brilliant man and making money came easy to him.

 

[JimG]

I do not tell this story to “toot my own horn” but to illustrate that it is not how much money one has but what one does with that matters and I think that the teachings of the Church bears this out. My grandpa was fond of saying, “it’s only money” and never idolized material things that are preached against in Scripture. He was a brilliant man and making money came easy to him.

I think maybe you have pretty much answered the question here. It’s not so much a matter of where your money is but where your heart is. Money can be used for good or evil. And to have left much of it to charity before leaving this world is surely a good action.

Yet there are some who feel a need to provide for their heirs, and I would not argue with that either. The Church has a rich history of social teachings. The application of them is a matter of prudential judgment.

And it is good to remember that no matter one’s politcal persuasion, and no matter how little or how much we have, we will leave the world with none of our material possessions.

Even in this life, there are no guarantees. We may argue about how best to fix the economy. But sometimes forces reach a tipping point which no one can fix. We could have a sovereign debt collapse. We could have hyperinflation destructive of everyone’s savings. No one knows the future. Whatever happens, our heart must be with our fellow human beings.

 

[yosupman]

In our country there is absolutely no reason for wealth to be confiscated. Also higher taxes really hurt the economy.

What we need to do is encourage new ownership structures so that all peoples can share in the risk and ownership (those with capital & employees).

 

[davidmlamb]

And people ALSO forget that that time coincided with the reality that the most devastating war in human history had recently ended leaving pretty much every other industrialized nation on earth bombed 2/3 of the way back to the stone age. America got a massive, decades long artificial economic boost through being the supplier of goods to much of the world that was rebuilding what had been ruined.

Guess what happened once the cities, the factories, the mines, the steel mills and so on were rebuilt? They started competing with our products and services. And guess what else? People wanted to buy the cheaper things, products made where labor and materials cost less. I’ve seen my share of Union Yes stickers on Hondas, you know. It’s human nature to want good value for one’s money even if it means buying from somebody other than your neighbor. Unions pretend this isn’t so.

At the height of your labor paradise, you COULD support a family on a grocery store wage. That family of 6 probably lived in a 1,200SF ranch, without AC (or maybe a window unit), one rotary phone with long cord, MAYBE a 19" black and white TV with three channels, one station wagon, a coal furnace for heat. No computer, no cable TV, no cell phones, no flyaway vacations, no ipod, no hifi. If you got cancer, you died. If your arteries got clogged up, you died. If your baby was born 2 month premature, she died…

All the advances made since then haven’t been free. They cost money, LOTS of it. It is largely our CHOICE to accept these costs for the more luxurious lifestyle and better life expectancy, in spite of the need to (mostly) take two incomes to support it.

Simply unionizing won’t make that come back - unless you are suggesting that the rest of the world be bombed into another stone age first.

Your argument here negates the fact that the time in America when a grocery store job provided a living wage has nothing to do with what God tells us through the Church constitutes economic righteousness. Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have mandatory union wages for most jobs and all of them enjoy living wages, better benefits, greater economic freedom and lower unemployment with a lower GDP then we have. So your argument is bogus.

We enjoyed those economic prosperous years because corporate and business America practiced Catholic teachings on social justice and for no other reason. When we abandoned those principles for greed and selfishness our system began to unravel. Return to that system and stop offering up excuses to practices unrighteousness and the economy will turn around and we will return to the days where every American truly enjoyed freedom.

IN THE LIGHT OF HIS TRUTH,

David