Pope: 'unjust' unemployment can mean sin, suicide

[stinkcat_14]

Sorry it took me so long to respond to you. I was being with Maths homework all day.

I agree. For the majority of workers in the United States, the minimum wage is below the market wage. The premise I was arguing is that the minimum wage prices low skilled labor out of the market. Do you disagree with that premise?

I would say that it could price low skilled labor out of the market, and would be more likely to do so in low cost of living areas. I have lived in areas where McDonalds has to pay $10 an hour and so in those areas the effect of a minimum wage increase would likely be minimal.

The problem with having a federal minimum wage is it applies equally to all states and all professions. That presents a problem to me. The cost of living in New York is not the same as Indiana. Furthermore, labor markets differ vastly depending on the locality and the industry. I am in favor of eliminating the minimum wage all together as I believe it does more harm than good, especially to low skilled and minority workers, the same people it claims to help. However, I know that’s not realistic.

Thus, since I know the minimum wage is never going away, I am more in favor of local and state government setting a minimum wage then I am the federal government. I am also in favor of a small, limited federal government and strong state and local government because I believe broad federal laws cannot not take into account the various socioeconomic conditions of various locales. I believe that local and state governments are more able to do this.

I agree that if a minimum wage is set, it should be local rather than national.

But back on the topic of the minimum wage and market price. For high skilled workers I would agree that the market price is about the minimum wage but for low skilled labor I don’t see how you can argue that is the case. Let’s examine a local example from my city. Doctors in my city make well above the minimum wage, thus the market price for the labor of doctors is above the minimum wage. The local Toyota plant starts people off at 14 an hour, again, in the particular labor market for this industry, the market price is above the minimum wage.

However, the cashiers at my local Wal-Mart make the minimum wage. It’s obvious the market price for this labor is either below or at the minimum wage because if it was above the minimum wage they would make more then the minimum wage. The same is true of fast food workers in my city. Now, if the federal government increased the minimum wage to 10.10 (which is the most recent value that Obama has called upon Congress to set the minimum wage to) what do you think will happen in my city. Is there going to be an increase in unemployment for high-skilled labor in my city? No. Is there going to be an increase in unemployment for low-skilled labor in my city? I believe you could reasonably say yes, seeing as I just argued that currently the market price for their labor in my city is below or at the minimum wage.

In conclusion, if you look at labor in the United States as a whole, raising the minimum wage probably doesn’t increase unemployment on average. But, if you look at the effect on minimum wage on the unemployment of low skilled workers in certain industries, I think you will find it does. Many economists are in agreement with me on this, including Nobel Prize laureates. So I think I’m in good company.

I think there is a pretty good consensus among economists, that whatever effects the MW has, it will be among the low skilled workers.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

The problem with having a federal minimum wage is it applies equally to all states and all professions. That presents a problem to me. The cost of living in New York is not the same as Indiana. Furthermore, labor markets differ vastly depending on the locality and the industry.

I completely agree with this.

 

[seekerz]

I’m glad Pope Francis has decided to recognize the injustice of unemployment. Perhaps he might turn his attention to some of the causes within easy control: Minimum wage legislation is unjust because it causes the injustice of unemployment. Obamacare is unjust because it causes the injustive of unemployment. The list is long and the problem dire.

Obamacare causes unemployment? Strange, I would have though that jobs which do not enable a person to afford routine medical care, except by virtually stealing it (i.e. leaving the bill to be picked up by the average Joe) would be considerably more unjust.

 

[ProVobis]

Obamacare causes unemployment? Strange, I would have though that jobs which do not enable a person to afford routine medical care, except by virtually stealing it (i.e. leaving the bill to be picked up by the average Joe) would be considerably more unjust.

I somewhat agree with that. If a person doesn’t need an employer for providing healthcare, I’d say that is a good thing. Employers generally have their own business to attend to.

And if a person quits his job (or wants his hours cut) why doesn’t the company hire someone from the unemployment lines to fill that spot? Should be at least a wash in the unemployment stats.

 

[markomalley]

I somewhat agree with that. If a person doesn’t need an employer for providing healthcare, I’d say that is a good thing. Employers generally have their own business to attend to.

And if a person quits his job (or wants his hours cut) why doesn’t the company hire someone from the unemployment lines to fill that spot? Should be at least a wash in the unemployment stats.

So in other words, a person should be responsible for his or her own healthcare.

Good idea.

 

[seekerz]

So in other words, a person should be responsible for his or her own healthcare.

Good idea.

I think you mean health care coverage and yes, that is one of the things that Obamacare does: it enables people to more easily afford to purchase their own insurance. I’m not satisfied that full cost of Obamacare plans (premiums + out-of-pocket costs) is that affordable, but your point about personal responsibility is exactly one of the things it enables.

 

[ProVobis]

Probably not a bad idea to teach medical insurance in your high school personal hygiene/gym classes either.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So in other words, a person should be responsible for his or her own healthcare.

Good idea.

Part of the problem is our screwed up tax system. We have the silly idea that if your employer pays you cash, you get taxed, but if your employer buys you health insurance that benefit is not taxed. If we taxed people on the value of their employer’s contribution to health insurance premiums then perhaps people would begin to be responsible for their own healthcare.

 

[markomalley]

Part of the problem is our screwed up tax system. We have the silly idea that if your employer pays you cash, you get taxed, but if your employer buys you health insurance that benefit is not taxed. If we taxed people on the value of their employer’s contribution to health insurance premiums then perhaps people would begin to be responsible for their own healthcare.

If people paid their own medical bills, then perhaps people would take responsibility for their own healthcare or, more properly, their own health.

People are willing to let a hospital charge them $10 for a single aspirin because their insurance pays for it, not the patient. People are willing to pay $300 a month for cholesterol meds rather than eating healthily because somebody else pays for it (note: I realize that there are some who are genetically disposed to have extraordinarily high cholesterol that cannot, regardless of diet/exercise, be controlled without the use of drugs, but those are the minority). And so on.

(Note: nothing in that statement precludes corporal works of mercy for those who have medical needs and are unable to pay their own medical bills…)

 

[markomalley]

I think you mean health care coverage and yes, that is one of the things that Obamacare does: it enables people to more easily afford to purchase their own insurance. I’m not satisfied that full cost of Obamacare plans (premiums + out-of-pocket costs) is that affordable, but your point about personal responsibility is exactly one of the things it enables.

No, I mean healthcare. Just what I wrote.

 

[stinkcat_14]

If people paid their own medical bills, then perhaps people would take responsibility for their own healthcare or, more properly, their own health.

Perhaps if we stopped exempting employer provided health insurance from the income tax people would have more of an incentive to pay their own medical bills? There really is no economic justification for exempting in-kind compensation versus cash compensation.

People are willing to let a hospital charge them $10 for a single aspirin because their insurance pays for it, not the patient. People are willing to pay $300 a month for cholesterol meds rather than eating healthily because somebody else pays for it (note: I realize that there are some who are genetically disposed to have extraordinarily high cholesterol that cannot, regardless of diet/exercise, be controlled without the use of drugs, but those are the minority). And so on.

(Note: nothing in that statement precludes corporal works of mercy for those who have medical needs and are unable to pay their own medical bills…)

Once again, a reason to get rid of the tax preference for employer provided health insurance.

 

[markomalley]

Perhaps if we stopped exempting employer provided health insurance from the income tax people would have more of an incentive to pay their own medical bills? There really is no economic justification for exempting in-kind compensation versus cash compensation.

Once again, a reason to get rid of the tax preference for employer provided health insurance.

I wouldn’t mind phasing out ALL tax deductions (over a period of a few years so that people could take the appropriate actions to protect themselves).

But that won’t cure the damage that health insurance has done. Only getting rid of health insurance altogether will do so.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I wouldn’t mind phasing out ALL tax deductions (over a period of a few years so that people could take the appropriate actions to protect themselves).

But that won’t cure the damage that health insurance has done. Only getting rid of health insurance altogether will do so.

I am not in favor of getting rid of health insurance, because if two parties want to enter into a contract I am not sure why we would want to prohibit that. We don’t have to give tax preferences for certain types of contracts though.

 

[markomalley]

I am not in favor of getting rid of health insurance, because if two parties want to enter into a contract I am not sure why we would want to prohibit that. We don’t have to give tax preferences for certain types of contracts though.

If it was actual health insurance, and it was an actual contract between two parties and that was it, I wouldn’t have an issue with it either.

But it’s not. On both counts.

It is not insurance, in the normal definition of insurance (“a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.”)

We have homeowner’s insurance: they pay out in the event of damage or theft. There’s usually a deductible involved.

We have fire insurance: they pay out in the event of a fire. There is usually a deductible involved.

We have auto liability insurance: they pay the other party in the event that you cause damage with your vehicle.

We have auto collision insurance: they pay you in the event that you cause damage to your own vehicle (it is typically considerably more expensive than liability insurance). There is usually a deductible involved (the lower the deductible, the higher…in some cases vastly higher…the premium)

Then we have health insurance: they pay for all your medical expenses.

There is a distinct disconnect here. If health insurance has a deductible, it’s not a “per incident” deductible, as with every other kind of insurance, there is a “per year” deductible. They pay for all expenses (in recent years, this is more and more mandated by state insurance commissions…even before Obamacare). It would be as if your auto insurance was required to pay for brake jobs and new tires…or if your homeowners insurance paid for tree removal, new windows, and a new roof (to prevent water damage in the event of a leak). Or if your fire insurance was to pay for the installation of a Halon system and dry chemical dispensers over your stove.

Health insurance is not really health insurance…it’s more of a all-encompassing maintenance plan.

Secondly, health insurance is not a private contract. As discussed above, there are a huge number of requirements that each state has on health insurance carriers. That puts it more in the line of a fascist type of arrangement (a dirigisme) than a private contract.

 

[freeRadical]

I am not in favor of getting rid of health insurance, because if two parties want to enter into a contract I am not sure why we would want to prohibit that. We don’t have to give tax preferences for certain types of contracts though.

Does that mean that you also agree that a person should be able to sell his labor at any value he wishes? As you said above, why would we want to prohibit two parties from entering into a contract?

 

[freeRadical]

Perhaps if we stopped exempting employer provided health insurance from the income tax people would have more of an incentive to pay their own medical bills? There really is no economic justification for exempting in-kind compensation versus cash compensation…

I am in full agreement with you here. I have argued against the tax exemption of employer provided health insurance for a long time. The only reason employers started offering health insurance was because the government froze prices, I think it was during WW2, and it was the only way they could attract workers.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Does that mean that you also agree that a person should be able to sell his labor at any value he wishes? As you said above, why would we want to prohibit two parties from entering into a contract?

I would be in favor of that as well. I am not in favor of government setting wages (i.e. the minimum wage).

 

[stinkcat_14]

I am in full agreement with you here. I have argued against the tax exemption of employer provided health insurance for a long time. The only reason employers started offering health insurance was because the government froze prices, I think it was during WW2, and it was the only way they could attract workers.

Which of course is a textbook example of why price controls are a bad thing.

 

[freeRadical]

I would be in favor of that as well. I am not in favor of government setting wages (i.e. the minimum wage).

Well, it seems we agree on a lot. A previous poster in this thread was under the impression that me and you would disagree and you would “prove me wrong” about something.

 

[freeRadical]

Which of course is a textbook example of why price controls are a bad thing.

Exactly. I am against all wage and price controls.