Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message

[Mark121359]

seekerz I’ve been on the Forum too long to fall for the Tom Sawyer trick. If you do not believe my sources so be it.

Can you provide a link to your source, and by that I mean the original study that backs up your claim?

In other words, you have no evidence to back up your claim.

I believe that LisaA is absolutely spot-on about this. The link provided tells it exactly as Lisa described. What she says makes absolute perfect sense!..
catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0002.html

Poverty

That single-parent families should be prone to poverty is surely not surprising. One parent alone faces difficult financial odds. Staying home to take care of children makes the family dependent upon government support, which virtually guarantees poverty. Going out to work may bring in more income — but day care or baby-sitting costs are often quite high, and good jobs are hard to find, especially if the parent — often the mother — is young and inexperienced in the workplace. The link between poverty and single-parent families is well-recognized in the U.S., and there are now about 3.4 million mother-only families. The recent trends, cited above, suggest that many more are coming.

From 1959 to 1991 — a period of increasing American prosperity — the number of children in one-parent families (including father-only families) living in poverty increased by 200%, from 4.3 to 8.6 million. In the same period, the number of children in two-parent families in poverty declined, by over 200%, to 5.1 million — this, even though there are still many more two-parent than one-parent families. These changes are due entirely to the increases in divorce and illegitimacy, since the number of widowed mothers has slightly declined over this period.

In the 1991 U.S. census report, married-couple families continued to have the lowest poverty rate (6%) among all family types. In the census, families with only a mother represented 12.7% of non-poor families, but 54% of poor families. (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Poverty in the U.S. 1991, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 181, August 1992-xiii, 6-9.)

That marriage is a good way for the poor to get out of their poverty is documented in a study by Cohen and Tyrell (1986). To begin with, they note that the poor are over four times as likely to have grown up in a broken family. They then report data showing that among people born into poor families, 63% of those who remained in the lowest income bracket (bottom 20%) were single. By contrast, 95% of those who made it to the upper income bracket (top 40%) were married. They concluded that marital status was the main determinant of economic well-being and social mobility for young adults. In short, getting married is a good way to get ahead.

A special group of the very poor — namely homeless children — reliably come from a fatherless family. In a recent study in Boston, Lewis and Myers (1989) report that 99% of over 200 homeless children came from a fatherless family. (For further support for this finding, see MeChesney, 1995.)

Many of the single-parent families are the result of divorce, and in America it is now recognized that divorce often leads to poverty. The common situation is that the mother gets custody of the children and suffers a significant loss of income. Fathers often fail to provide much support, and many disappear completely. Lenore Weitzman (1985) has claimed that men have a 42% improvement in their post-divorce standard of living while women have a 73% decline. This is now understood as too extreme a claim, but the problem for women is certainly severe (e.g., Garvin, Kalter and Hansell, 1993). A recent U.S. Census Bureau study reported a 37% drop in income for the mother-headed family immediately after divorce, and showed that children are almost twice as likely to be living in poverty after a divorce than before. (See De Parle, 1991.)

Abraham (1989) has challenged Weitzman’s statistical evidence of men’s benefits and has provided evidence that in many cases the standard of living of men in fact declines after divorce. (He acknowledged, however, that divorce is often a serious economic trauma for women.) Commonly, divorce hurts both men and women because it breaks up an economically efficient family unit into two inefficient and competing halves. (See, for example, Duncan, 1994; Stroup and Pollock, 1994, for recent evidence to this effect.)

The well-established economic loss caused by divorce affects children all their lives. Cooney and Uhlenberg (1991) report that divorced parents are less likely to provide gifts and monetary assistance to their children even many years after the divorce, when the children are adults. The same pattern of less support for the children of divorce is reported by White (1992). There is, in a word, a great deal of evidence linking single-parent families, including those caused by divorce, to poverty.

Peace, Mark

 

[stinkcat_14]

I believe that LisaA is absolutely spot-on about this. The link provided tells it exactly as Lisa described…catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0002.html

Peace, Mark

Actually, what LisaA was trying to argue what that poverty was caused by the individual’s own behavior. Your article says the opposite, basically if you don’t want to be poor, don’t grow up in a poor family. Don’t grow up with divorced parents and in single parent households. These are not the types of things that kids have any control over.

 

[LisaA]

I’m glad you brought up the drug testing before receiving benefits, because I didn’t hear many “howls” when a politician recently went to drug rehab (basically at taxpayer expense, since it was reported that he will be receiving a salary). On the single thread I saw here about the incident, most people were respectful and sympathetic and I remember no complaints about his ‘benefits’. So I guess the question is, should drug usage disqualify people form receiving taxpayer money?

I guess you weren’t watching the right reports or listening to the right broadcasts. There were many calls to have this man step down and were I one of his constituants I would have led the charge. If people on CAF were “respectful and sympathetic” it was probably based on the command that we forgive someone if they ask forgiveness, make restitution and pledge not to offend in the future. I don’t know the details but IMO he should have resigned or been pushed out by his fellow Congressmen.

That being said, I DO think other recipients of benefit programs should demonstrate responsible actions including staying clean and sober. Random drug testing is appropriate for receiving TANF, food stamps, housing vouchers etc. If nothing else, it would help direct the person to rehab rather than continuing to abuse drugs.

This is no different than in the private sector where employees who have or had drug/alcohol problems are required to have random drug screening as a condition of returning to employment. As to drug use, my concern was his breaking the law and as a member of Congress should be forced to resign, face charges and take his punishment.

Lisa

 

[Dawnia]

It’s a meta fable about the history of civilizations, it’s all in your subconscious if you dare to look.

You need to work on your genre’s. But anyway. I don’t think it describes civiliazations very well at all. Most civilizations were concurred by someone else long before they had a chance to die by political means.

If you know anything about US history, anything happening now is just a bump in the road.

 

[Mark121359]

Actually, what LisaA was trying to argue what that poverty was caused by the individual’s own behavior. Your article says the opposite, basically if you don’t want to be poor, don’t grow up in a poor family. Don’t grow up with divorced parents and in single parent households. These are not the types of things that kids have any control over.

She posted this right here! It’s saying the exact same thing in the link I provided. Fractured and unformed families, i.e. broken families, single parent families What more do you want? Or maybe I’m missing something here.

According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[30] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households[30] and 19.1% of all persons living alone.[30] More than 75% of all poor households are headed by women (2012).[31]

seekerz I think there is ample evidence that fractured and unformed families are the major cause of American poverty. Above is a Census bureau report correlating marital status with poverty. There was a large study (Pew I believe) that documented that if you simply graduate from high school, get married before having children, and have a job, the chances of being poor in this country are minimal.

Again, I appreciate Catholic Social Teaching so much and wish everyone would give it a try! Those blessed with great wealth have wonderful opportunities to do great things for the world. Maybe we would be better off appealing to their better angels than the biting criticism often seen in the media.

Not sure about the reference to vulgar language. I don’t think I used any vulgarities in my posts…plus the Mods would be all over it.

Lisa

Peace, Mark

 

[LisaA]

Actually, what LisaA was trying to argue what that poverty was caused by the individual’s own behavior. Your article says the opposite, basically if you don’t want to be poor, don’t grow up in a poor family. Don’t grow up with divorced parents and in single parent households. These are not the types of things that kids have any control over.

Actually if you’d read my numerous posts on the subject you would have noted the following:

I said the individual’s decisions or that of their parents (and perhaps grand parents and so on) are the major indicators of future poverty in this country. I also pointed out numerous times that because of the generational poverty these well meaning but ineffective programs have created it becomes increasingly difficult to get out of the same pattern. My own experience volunteering in children’s services certainly confirms this as most of the children in the system were second if not third or fourth generation family members in the system.

I do love the way you pick and choose bits and pieces so as to try to dismiss what I think is a valid position regarding reasons for poverty in America.

I also suggested some ways to break this pattern including school choice, mentoring and monitoring at risk children early on. Continuing to pay a third generation to remain on welfare is not going to help the fourth generation get off this cycle of poverty.

Frankly if you don’t believe in these indicators of poverty so be it. I think if you’d either look at the facts or better yet, get involved helping people break the cycle, you’d see it face to face.

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

She posted this right here! It’s saying the exact same thing in the link I provided. Fractured and unformed families, i.e. broken families, single parent families What more do you want? Or maybe I’m missing something here.

Peace, Mark

I agree, the best way to avoid poverty is to be born into a high income family.

 

[Mark121359]

I agree, the best way to avoid poverty is to be born into a high income family.

In the 1991 U.S. census report, married-couple families continued to have the lowest poverty rate (6%) among all family types. In the census, families with only a mother represented 12.7% of non-poor families, but 54% of poor families.

No. Instead, marrying on a whim, divorce and illegitimacy, just plain bad choices are contributors to poverty. The fact is, is that a stable two parent (mother and father) household is proven by statistics to have lower poverty levels.

Peace, Mark

 

[Dawnia]

Actually, what LisaA was trying to argue what that poverty was caused by the individual’s own behavior. Your article says the opposite, basically if you don’t want to be poor, don’t grow up in a poor family. Don’t grow up with divorced parents and in single parent households. These are not the types of things that kids have any control over.

Stating that individual actions cause poverty is not the same as blaming people for said actions. Unless you are willing to look at those actions, you can’t fix the problems.

Does Poverty Lead to Poor Decision Making?

The fallout of neglecting other areas of life may loom larger for a person just scraping by, Shafir says. Late fees tacked on to a forgotten rent payment, a job lost because of poor time-management - these make a tight money situation worse. And as people get poorer, they tend to make difficult and often costly decisions that further perpetuate their hardship.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=seekerz;11490207]In the absence of stats to back up “the vast majority” you do - otherwise you’d be just pulling stuff out of the air regarding a whole lot of people.

“Meeting” people is insufficient for a data set and represents a typical Western liberal fallacy. One doesn’t “meet” a certain % of people in a group to form policy.

Again, where are the stats? Do people have to be starving and devoid of earthly possessions to be poor? Some of the most disadvantaged people in the Third World have cell phones and non-distended bellies. Are they not poor?

Here, here and here.

The Church’s standards for fair wages has nothing to do with “at-will” contracts. Unfair is unfair even if the person agrees to be unfairly treated.

If you look this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, merchants are allowed to negotiate, even entice so long as they are honest about the product they are selling. A priest once even told me there are minor exemptions such as do you really read the entire document about not exporting software you just installed to Iran or Syria?

The view of capitalism contracts that you are saying is based on Western liberalism, not Catholic morality.

Frankly, people realize they don’t get great deals all the time. Know why? Because rich people will pay through the nose for certain food. Even college students and the middle class will pay big amounts of money for organic and brand-name foods. But as long as they know what they are getting are still willing to pay, it’s valid and as far as the contract goes, moral.

When I lived in the suburbs, I was stunned at how all these people wouldn’t even look at the discounted or on-sale items.

Again, people who have those ideas will have to find cover for defending liberalism somewhere else.

Otherwise I could morally take a person’s kidney out because he really, really wants the money he’ll get for it.

:dts:

That is off base. First of all, at-will contracts are made usually for mutual benefit. It is essentially, a form of trade.

Not too many people will offer their kidney, but at-will means you don’t have to take the kidney----you get a choice-----isn’t that what American liberalism is all about???

 

[Darryl1958]

There is a difference between “blaming the victim” and holding out for the expectation that we are all responsible for our own lives.
To be a victim is to blow in the wind, to not act, but to only be acted upon, to not speak, but only to submit to the voice of others.

There is no dignity to such a life.

And no doubt the goddess Fortuna has rained her favor on some, and let loose all manners of curses and damnations on others.

However, to believe in the Gospel message that Paul pronounced so clearly, is to believe in our own redemption and the fact that we are free.

Holding oneself responsible for one’s own life means not accepting the dictates of Fortune, not resigning oneself to one’s position in life, or to one’s fate.Fortuna is a false goddess after all. Holding oneself responsible for ones own life means rejecting the status of victim and all that that entails.

Nobody says it is going to be easy, and for some it is a lot harder than for others. But there are things that people can do for themselves that make being successful a whole lot more probable, or conversely, failure almost inevitable.

I have not spent a moment of resenting the good fortune and the mega-salaries of others. If God has blessed them with all the riches of the world, or if they worked twenty hours a day all their lives for that, I can only wish them happiness.Their own success or happiness does not in the least determine how successful I will be. If they are doing worse, there is no reason to think that I will be doing better and if the material gap between us closes due to their own relative failure, that will make me less happy due to my feeling bad for them.

There are a million reasons why people fail in this life, and a million one excuses that we give to ourselves to justify that failure. And there is a good possibility that even in spite of our best efforts, we will still fail.

But to the extent that we hold ourselves responsible for our own lives, we own our own successes and our own failures.
And that is the very definition of dignity.

 

[epan]

This is not about “blaming the victim”. Its about being truthful. If a person thinks smoking pot is more fun that doing homework, and that behavior leads them to not get a good job, are they a victim? If I intentionally put my hand on a hot stove, am I a victim?

I don’t think your analogy fits at all.

So, you would say that people may simply choose their fate?

I would agree, if your point is that the choices people make affects their place in life. But I also think that it is also the “accident of birth” which puts some kids in wealthy or successful families, with advantages and role models, and other kids in places where they might take a bullet by their teens, and are likely to end up in legal trouble. Many of the factors which influence these outcomes are not chosen by the child.

And what about people of differing abilities, who are doing their best?

Even if one grants that all poverty is the result of bad decisions, would your position be that the lack of wisdom, or making a mistake, should be dealt with harshly by our society?

For example, should someone who contracts an STD be denied treatment? How about someone who smokes cigarettes which results in health problems? How about obesity?

I disagree with your point that poverty is simply a matter of choice. I also don’t think that people would advocate a more compassionate treatment of those who make bad decisions sometimes in their lives.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. Until recently, anyone with a preexisting condition could not get insurance. They could end up in poverty due to illness.

The causes of poverty are numerous, and not always the result of a person’s choices.

 

[Darryl1958]

A wage from the government IS taxpayers money…

I reject your premise.

Once my employer pays me my wage, that is my money, not his.
If I work for the government, the same reasoning implies.

You disagree, and are of the opinion that the taxpayer still owns the money that he has paid out as a wage. There is no further that we can go with that one then.

 

[Darryl1958]

She posted this right here! It’s saying the exact same thing in the link I provided. Fractured and unformed families, i.e. broken families, single parent families What more do you want? Or maybe I’m missing something here.

Peace, Mark

Studies usually have a way of proving what is already known by common sense. Divorce and the break down of the family in our societies have wreaked financial havoc on those subjected to this.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I thought I’d pull out Catholic Social Teaching which sort of juxtaposes rights & responsibilities vis a vis the special option for the poor.

**Rights and Responsibilities

The Catholic tradition teaches that human dignity can be protected and a healthy community can be achieved only if human rights are protected and responsibilities are met. Therefore, every person has a fundamental right to life and a right to those things required for human decency. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities–to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

A basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.**

As noted, being poor doesn’t mean you can abrogate all responsibility for your life or your actions. As Scripture states, justice is to be blind, and one is not to give someone a pass when wrong is committed even if the person has limited resources.

But in addition, we as Catholics (and hopefully all of society) should consider the needs of the poor. While I don’t see any tension between the two provisions, too often the Left/Progressives use the latter as a cudgel to claim their right to alter compensation or confiscate wealth which they will then bestow upon those favored at that time. Further any suggestion of demonstrating responsibility…drug testing before receiving benefits, ID to vote, “Work-fare” requirements are met with howls and screams about how those requests are outrageous or hateful or bigoted. It is not but is in fact evidence of respecting the human dignity of the person, treating him or her as a capable human being, not an incompent idiot. I’ve always held that the comment “soft bigotry of low expectations” has a great impact keeping people down. People tend to achieve what is expected of them and if the bar is low, many are willing to comply.

Lisa

I would add this:

What do you think God will say to someone on Judgement Day who is poor but is gaming the system and they are aware of it and are simply being lazy? From what I know about stealing, I would not want to be in that situation!

I cannot seem to even get the younger left to even admit that this kind of fraud exists! And the few that do, I wonder just how much of a priority it is to stop the fraud!

I have a couple of cops in my family, and one of them told me that a homeless beggar in the USA can make around 23 K USD a YEAR just by sitting outside and asking for money----I mean think about it, if you’re homeless and do this and have access to a soup kitchen and shelter----that’s 23 K of spending money.

And I’m supposed to sit here just dolling out money just because someone asks and because arm-chair charity folks in the West will try and make me feel guilty if I don’t?

How can I give to someone who has 20 K USD of spending money time after time instead of say to a crisis pregnancy charity where a decision between an abortion or adoption would be apparent?

In this day and age, Catholics need to be generous but are also called to avoid scandal…how many even know what that is today?

How are Catholics going to be successful at preaching the Gospel (ie testimony of the Truth) when they can’t even see the entire situation and see the evil that is present?

And that’s the problem right there-----too many don’t care about results.

The other problem is this mentality that people think they can have their cake and eat it too…that they can be the hippest, coolest person who is popular and rich and gets to indulge in high culture, but can still go to heaven because evidently, they think God wants them to enjoy life to its fullest.

In other words they are trying to find loopholes to serve BOTH God and mammon.

And really----the West in many places has become so prosperous that even its beggars can be well-off and its poorest are overweight.

Must be an awful place we live in, huh?

.

 

[SuperLuigi]

A wage from the government IS taxpayers money (a quite a bit of it too) if the person is sitting in rehab or is carrying out his daily duties under the influence of illegal substances; but my point is not to single out that one person. It’s more the principle of the thing: why should only those on assistance get tested, why not everybody receiving taxpayer money?

That is some real solid thinking right there.

Well said!

 

[Listener]

I think it’s about time a pope started speaking out about some of this stuff. I’m no expert on the Old Testament, but I read somewhere that many times it speaks about how bad it is to deny the laborer his wages. It also speaks about the importance of helping the orphan and the widow.

Then there’s also the story in the New Testament about separating the sheep from the goats, as in, “I was hungry and you gave me to eat, etc.”

It seems that the Church goes on an on about abortion, birth control, and same-sex marriage, but there are many other sins besides those.

I think it is terrible that some CEO’s of corporations are paid millions and millions, but they don’t seem to care about the employees who make minimum wage.

I thought that slavery had been abolished, but when you think about it, at least the slaves had slave quarters or at least a barn where they could sleep.

People who make minimum wage can’t even afford a place to live. I believe this is wrong, and it’s about time we had a pope who at least says something about it.

People say that those who work at McDonald’s don’t have marketable skills. Well, we stopped at a McDonald’s to grab a bite to eat on a recent trip. The employees who were taking orders at the drive-through window were the same people that were waiting on the customers inside. They were hopping around like kangaroos, literally running from the counter to the drive-in window and back again. It is impossible for a person to be in two places at once, and I found it very annoying. Because of that, the service was terrible. Believe me, it takes a certain amount of skill to multi-task like that. I know I couldn’t do it.

People say that they should get an education so they qualify for better jobs. Well, fine, but then who is going to flip the hamburgers? As far as I am concerned, anyone who uses their precious time to go to work for an employer at least deserves enough money to eat and pay some rent.

People complain about taxpayers having to subsidize poor people. Well, the subsidy is actually benefitting corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. After all, if they paid their employees something that resembled a living wage, those people would no longer qualify for government benefits.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Listener;11498663]I think it’s about time a pope started speaking out about some of this stuff. I’m no expert on the Old Testament, but I read somewhere that many times it speaks about how bad it is to deny the laborer his wages. It also speaks about the importance of helping the orphan and the widow.

Popes in the past have addressed this.

usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2011/04/john-paul-ii-pope-for-workers.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Then there’s also the story in the New Testament about separating the sheep from the goats, as in, “I was hungry and you gave me to eat, etc.”

It seems that the Church goes on an on about abortion, birth control, and same-sex marriage, but there are many other sins besides those.

I think the media does more of that than anything else, because they need wedge issues to get their fav progressives of parlour elected whose candidacy would be dead in the water otherwise.

I think it is terrible that some CEO’s of corporations are paid millions and millions, but they don’t seem to care about the employees who make minimum wage.

A lot of corporations actually issue out reports on issues such as social justice.

I thought that slavery had been abolished, but when you think about it, at least the slaves had slave quarters or at least a barn where they could sleep.

I think I might know some African-Americans who would be offended by that comparison.

Comparing the 21st Century, me-first Western lifestyle to the African Slave Trade.

Wow.

People who make minimum wage can’t even afford a place to live.

Where? And under what circumstances does this happen?

I believe this is wrong, and it’s about time we had a pope who at least says something about it.

To my knowledge the Pope hasn’t said anything about people being able to live a certain lifestyle.

 

[markomalley]

…I thought that slavery had been abolished, but when you think about it, at least the slaves had slave quarters or at least a barn where they could sleep.

If a person runs away from his/her job at McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, Walmart, Target, K-Mart, etc., will their masters come after them, put them in chains, and drag them back to work? Are there laws passed to prevent runaway Walmart employees from crossing state lines? Is there an underground railroad out there to help shelter runaways as they move up to Canada?

No?

Then there’s no slavery. Just a lousy job.

People say that those who work at McDonald’s don’t have marketable skills. Well, we stopped at a McDonald’s to grab a bite to eat on a recent trip. The employees who were taking orders at the drive-through window were the same people that were waiting on the customers inside…

People at McDonalds may have marketable skills, but there is not a shortage of those marketable skills.

I remember several years ago there was a real shortage of labor where I lived. Unemployment was down to like 2% or so. You know what I saw then? I saw McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, Target, Walmart, and so on, start being really aggressive with hiring, because they found that they couldn’t find people. They started advertising campaigns to attract people and talked about how fun the environment was. They started offering signing bonuses, longevity bonuses, and benefits for part timers. The pay even went up…

Why were they doing that? Because they were being nice? No, because they needed employees and they didn’t have employees beating the door down trying to get jobs.

Well, then the Pelosi/Obama recession happened. You don’t hear about signing bonuses at Mickey D’s anymore. And I would imagine that a starting wage would no longer be $10 an hour anymore.

Why did it stop? Because they became mean? No. Rather, they have a host of people begging for jobs there now and they no longer need to be as competitive.

People say that they should get an education so they qualify for better jobs. Well, fine, but then who is going to flip the hamburgers?

People who get Women’s Studies degrees or Queer Theory degrees and were not able to find jobs in academia or with the government?

As far as I am concerned, anyone who uses their precious time to go to work for an employer at least deserves enough money to eat and pay some rent.

I agree, in principle. Leo XIII’s standard should apply. I, especially, like the idea that John Paul II asserted in his encyclical, Laborem Exercens:This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family fot his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.
What do you think about that? Paying men who are the head of their households sufficiently so that their wives do not have to go out to work. Then paying those who only need to support themselves less, because they have fewer needs. And then paying high school kids or young adults even less…because they are still living with mommy and daddy, so they don’t have any real bills to deal with.

Of course, that would then imply that the man who was the head of the household would subsequently be penalized if his wife went out to work. After all, why pay him a “family wage” if he is not the sole provider for his family?

Then places like McDonalds could target high school and college kids or people trying to make a little extra. The good jobs could be reserved to family men.

On a practical basis, that would cut the labor pool down a whole lot. After all, a lot of women would leave the labor pool and would concentrate on being good wives and full time mothers, right? With fewer people competing for jobs, wages would naturally rise.

(Except in this country, though, as we would open the floodgates to illegal immigration in order to depress the average wage in this country)

Could you live with John Paul II’s idea? Somehow I doubt it.

People complain about taxpayers having to subsidize poor people. Well, the subsidy is actually benefitting corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. After all, if they paid their employees something that resembled a living wage, those people would no longer qualify for government benefits.

Do you really think that Wally World or Mickey D’s would all of a sudden pay people more if welfare was not available? Really?

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Flipping burgers is not an end job in itself, but rather an entry level job for unskilled laborers and high school kids. If the unskilled laborer is content to flip burgers in lieu of seeking promotion or training to improve his financial prospects, he must live with that decision. On the other hand, mentally or physically handicapped laborers incapable of rising through the ranks or seeking vocational training require special consideration, including SSI or other forms of assistance. All others must roll up their shirtsleeves, work hard for promotion, attend vocational school, take on a second job, or simply seek better employment. It can be done.