Top 5 Lame Excuses Not to Support Extreme-Poverty Alleviation Work

[markomalley]

The essential problem with capitalism - and what I think this article is addressing - are what’s called “barriers to entry.” A barrier to entry is anything that prevents someone from entering into and competing in a free market economy.

Obviously not all barriers to entry are necessarily bad. I don’t think it’s a problem that I can’t start up my own fine jewelry company because I don’t have the money. I can still participate in the economy.

But other things can be significant problems. Medical care is a good example. I’ve had health problems to the point where I couldn’t work. If I hadn’t had a family to help out this could have been a real problem. I couldn’t obtain capital because I couldn’t work, and thus couldn’t pay for medical care. This means that, by myself, I was effectively unable to enter into the free market system. I wanted to work, but was unable to until after receiving medical care for a couple of months.

We generally think that intervention of some sort in these areas is a good thing - I mean in the basic sense, that we should help out people who can’t pay their own medical bills because they aren’t able to work. Things like food and water are also in this category, where people can’t perform work due to starvation.

Other things can also be an issue, depending on the region of the country. For third-world countries, this may mean things like the ability to invest enough money in seeds and farming equipment. In modern America it might mean access to things like clothing of a certain standard (to wear to interviews), or to a phone line to stay in contact with potential employers.

I agree with the concept of barriers to entry, but I look at it from a business perspective. A lot of times, large corporations will actually work with government for additional government regulation that actually prevents new businesses from entering the marketplace.

A classic, recent example of this is the so-called “Affordable Care Act” – insurers loved it, because they are guaranteed to have more transactions at a reliable rate…thus being able to make good, steady money. Big Pharma loves it, because more people covered means more people get to buy overpriced medicine and won’t see it so directly, because the bills go to the insurers and they deal with the copay. Big Business loves it because they can dump low-paid employees off from insurance and actually save money in the process. Big Hospital loves it because they get more money. The only ones who seem to have a problem with it are individual doctors (who are, because of the regulatory paperwork requirements, needing to abandon individual practices and move into larger group practices), small businesses who have a harder time providing insurance for their employees whom they actually want to care for, and individuals who have to pay increased premiums for lower levels of service…if they can manage to do that.

(Not trying to make this political; I’m just using this as an example of how large corporations often time work counter to many peoples’ intuition)

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Robert Sock;11750267]Does being far left mean that the story is less credible?

Yes.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Typical conservative response that denies the facts. I would rather trust the ‘experts’ who actually work in the field.

The objective experts have concluded the following:

International aid often makes things much worse .It has actually extended wars and empowered dictators even more.

Also, as Dr. Thomas Woods notes: “conservatives give FOUR times as much to charity than liberals DESPITE making less money”.

 

[tabycat]

AMEN BROTHER! THANK YOU for REAL-EYESing this, I just had a two hour discussion as to why it was wrong for the Vatican to horde millions of dollars while children are starving.

Just where are these ‘millions of dollars’ that, according to you, the Vatican is hording? How would you spend these ‘millions of dollars’ if left up to you?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yes, not only are they correct, they are completely consistent with what Pope Francis has been teaching. Unfortunately, many Catholics have adopted Capitalism as their religion, an approach denounced quite severely in Evangelii Gaudium.

Such as the Obama Administration and top democrats bail out failing corporations and then are neck-deep in crony capitalism with deals like Solyndra?

Is that how you read Pope Francis’s teachings?

It’s actually hilarious at how capitalist some left-leaning and self-proclaimed communists around the globe are.

PS—the catechism denounces central planning.

:tiphat:

 

[SuperLuigi]

Serious question for the American liberals on here:

Is your goal on this thread to actually root out corruption and greed, or just to complain about “evil” conservatives who are successful businesspersons in order to help the Democratic Party?

Be warned: the political leanings of many of the very rich may surprise you yet.

:tiphat:

 

[Robert_Sock]

I am officially confused here, Robert.

Anything I contribute is unacceptable, yet when I ask you for what your ideas are, you don’t have any?

You say that our current economic system is lacking in Christian love (An assertion with which, by the way, I actually agree)…but you are unable or unwilling to speculate what a system that does have Christian love would look like? (You’ve already ruled out atheistic communist / socialist examples)

I don’t even know what to say at this point.

I don’t quite know what it would look like, other than proposing that it would take experts in many fields, including psychology, to develop an economic system that promotes love.

 

[markomalley]

I don’t quite know what it would look like, other than proposing that it would take experts in many fields, including psychology, to develop an economic system that promotes love.

OK, well…let’s try this then as a starting point.

Leaving aside those who are unable to work (I will stipulate that society should care for them if their families are unable to do so…please let me know if you disagree)

Would an economic system that promotes love:

a) Provide everybody with everything they need and not connect providing these things with working for them?

b) Provide everybody an opportunity to work so that they can get what they need?

 

[Robert_Sock]

OK, well…let’s try this then as a starting point.

Leaving aside those who are unable to work (I will stipulate that society should care for them if their families are unable to do so…please let me know if you disagree)

Would an economic system that promotes love:

a) Provide everybody with everything they need and not connect providing these things with working for them?

b) Provide everybody an opportunity to work so that they can get what they need?

b) Provide everybody an opportunity to work so that they can get what they need. But fair and just wages so that single moms can support her family with all necessities.

 

[markomalley]

b) Provide everybody an opportunity to work so that they can get what they need. But fair and just wages so that single moms can support her family with all necessities.

Fair enough, Robert.

You say “fair” and “just” wages.

St Thomas Aquinas had some interesting thoughts on distributive justice that might prove pertinent, but I don’t want to muddy up the conversation right yet with it (just making a little place marker here)

So let’s talk compensation then.

Do you think that it is fair and just that a person is compensated for their labors according to their needs or is it fair and just that a person is compensated for their labors according to their contributions?

For example, you have single mom “a” who had a baby while she was still in high school. She managed to get through Beauty School and is working as a cosmetologist at a salon.

Then you have single mom “b” who graduated from medical school and residency (she is a single mom because her husband died tragically in a car accident just weeks before he, too, would have graduated from medical school).

Both are single moms with one child (that sort of defines their need)

However, mom “a” took vocational training that took 6 months and mom “b” had to go through 8 years of college and then another 2 years of residency (total of 10 years of post high school education). Of course, you know the relative level of complexity of their jobs and the impact those jobs have on peoples’ lives (that’s the contribution)

Should they be compensated differently? What would be fair and just?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Fair enough, Robert.

You say “fair” and “just” wages.

St Thomas Aquinas had some interesting thoughts on distributive justice that might prove pertinent, but I don’t want to muddy up the conversation right yet with it (just making a little place marker here)

So let’s talk compensation then.

Do you think that it is fair and just that a person is compensated for their labors according to their needs or is it fair and just that a person is compensated for their labors according to their contributions?

For example, you have single mom “a” who had a baby while she was still in high school. She managed to get through Beauty School and is working as a cosmetologist at a salon.

Then you have single mom “b” who graduated from medical school and residency (she is a single mom because her husband died tragically in a car accident just weeks before he, too, would have graduated from medical school).

Both are single moms with one child (that sort of defines their need)

However, mom “a” took vocational training that took 6 months and mom “b” had to go through 8 years of college and then another 2 years of residency (total of 10 years of post high school education). Of course, you know the relative level of complexity of their jobs and the impact those jobs have on peoples’ lives (that’s the contribution)

Should they be compensated differently? What would be fair and just?

This is more of a philosophical question, but The mom who put more work into it should probably be rewarded more, but the basic needs in each household should be provided to both.

I have a PhD in research psychology, and I gave it all up for my becoming a more devout Catholic. All I ask is that my basic needs be met. I honestly feel that the spiritual rewards of the Holy Spirit cause me to make out like a bandit. I strongly think that spiritual rewards are going to someday take over for materialism, with no person knowing what others around them are receiving. A humble countryman could easily receive much more spiritual rewards than an unrighteous person with numerous college degrees and hard work.

 

[markomalley]

This is more of a philosophical question, but The mom who put more work into it should probably be rewarded more, but the basic needs in each household should be provided to both.

I have a PhD in research psychology, and I gave it all up for my becoming a more devout Catholic. All I ask is that my basic needs be met. I honestly feel that the spiritual rewards of the Holy Spirit cause me to make out like a bandit. I strongly think that spiritual rewards are going to someday take over for materialism, with no person knowing what others around them are receiving. A humble countryman could easily receive much more spiritual rewards than an unrighteous person with numerous college degrees and hard work.

I think your decision is admirable, Robert. Once my daughter gets done with her schooling, my wife and I both intend to greatly downsize and simplify so that we can actually concentrate on what’s truly important. My goal is to die (financially) utterly broke.

But going back to the two ladies, I actually chose both occupations intentionally. Both basically are in private business. (You say that you were a research psychologist; I guess the equivalent for you would be if you were a clinical psychologist in private practice)

So let’s go back to mom “A”.

As I said, with most beauty parlors (as far as I have ever known), individual cosmetologists rent their chairs out from the shop owner. So if this mom “A” is talented, she has the opportunity to get a lot of clients asking for her by name…and that translates into more money in her pocket (to where she can pay her rent, buy groceries, and buy her kid’s clothes). Maybe enough to where after a few years of scrimping and saving, she has enough built up where she can open up her own shop and rent out chairs to other beauticians.

On the other hand, if mom “A” is careless and does a bad job coloring hair, doing perms, and giving cuts, she may get a bad reputation and might even be asked to leave by the owner…

But let’s be optimistic. Let’s say that after 10 years coiffing women’s hair, she saves up enough money to open up her own shop. Now, in addition to taking care of her own loyal clients, she has to manage the shop. That means paying the rent and utilities, making sure the shop can pass health inspections, making sure there are clean towels, ordering beauty supplies like shampoo, tissues, and hair colors, and so on and so forth (not being a beauty parlor owner, I don’t know all the details). Now she gets money from the other cosmetologists in her shop (now they have to pay our mom ‘a’ for rent on their chairs). She may even need to hire a couple of employees to help out (like a hair wash girl and somebody to wash the towels and clean up the shop)

Now I know you’re not in the beauty shop business and neither am I. But I can imagine that the margins are pretty tight (I know a couple of beauty shop owners and, while they aren’t poor, they are hardly rich either).

So how much does mom “a” pay her employees (the wash girl and the cleaning girl)? If she pays too little, she may have a hard time finding employees or they may leave. If she pays too much, then she may have to either raise prices on the shop (which would impact her customers), raise the rent on the beauticians’ chairs (which would cut into what the other beauticians are able to make), or reduce the amount that she can take home to pay her rent, buy her groceries, and put clothes on her kid’s back. It may impact the amount she can put away to pay for her kid’s college…

So how much does mom “a” pay? And how does she account for it?

(Mom B, the doctor, has a totally different set of problems to deal with, but let’s just keep it simple right now and concentrate on beautician mom “a”)

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think your decision is admirable, Robert. Once my daughter gets done with her schooling, my wife and I both intend to greatly downsize and simplify so that we can actually concentrate on what’s truly important. My goal is to die (financially) utterly broke.

But going back to the two ladies, I actually chose both occupations intentionally. Both basically are in private business. (You say that you were a research psychologist; I guess the equivalent for you would be if you were a clinical psychologist in private practice)

So let’s go back to mom “A”.

As I said, with most beauty parlors (as far as I have ever known), individual cosmetologists rent their chairs out from the shop owner. So if this mom “A” is talented, she has the opportunity to get a lot of clients asking for her by name…and that translates into more money in her pocket (to where she can pay her rent, buy groceries, and buy her kid’s clothes). Maybe enough to where after a few years of scrimping and saving, she has enough built up where she can open up her own shop and rent out chairs to other beauticians.

On the other hand, if mom “A” is careless and does a bad job coloring hair, doing perms, and giving cuts, she may get a bad reputation and might even be asked to leave by the owner…

But let’s be optimistic. Let’s say that after 10 years coiffing women’s hair, she saves up enough money to open up her own shop. Now, in addition to taking care of her own loyal clients, she has to manage the shop. That means paying the rent and utilities, making sure the shop can pass health inspections, making sure there are clean towels, ordering beauty supplies like shampoo, tissues, and hair colors, and so on and so forth (not being a beauty parlor owner, I don’t know all the details). Now she gets money from the other cosmetologists in her shop (now they have to pay our mom ‘a’ for rent on their chairs). She may even need to hire a couple of employees to help out (like a hair wash girl and somebody to wash the towels and clean up the shop)

Now I know you’re not in the beauty shop business and neither am I. But I can imagine that the margins are pretty tight (I know a couple of beauty shop owners and, while they aren’t poor, they are hardly rich either).

So how much does mom “a” pay her employees (the wash girl and the cleaning girl)? If she pays too little, she may have a hard time finding employees or they may leave. If she pays too much, then she may have to either raise prices on the shop (which would impact her customers), raise the rent on the beauticians’ chairs (which would cut into what the other beauticians are able to make), or reduce the amount that she can take home to pay her rent, buy her groceries, and put clothes on her kid’s back. It may impact the amount she can put away to pay for her kid’s college…

So how much does mom “a” pay? And how does she account for it?

(Mom B, the doctor, has a totally different set of problems to deal with, but let’s just keep it simple right now and concentrate on beautician mom “a”)

Mom ‘a’ is in a moral predicament living in a capitalistic society where maximizing one’s profits are paramount. Her workers should probably be governed by a minimum wage and perhaps a new earned income credit so they too can take care of their family’s basic necessities. Being loving and caring for her employees may very well cost her her business if in a very competitive environment. It’s in this type of circumstance that capitalism is incongruent with LOVE.

I would also like to see some kind of a safety net for people like mom ‘a.’ Within our competitive society, it’s too easy for someone to come along and create a large beauty parlor that puts poor mom ‘a’ out of business. In such instances, it’s too easy for mom ‘a’ to lose her life savings even though she’s talented and most sincere.

 

[markomalley]

Mom ‘a’ is in a moral predicament living in a capitalistic society where maximizing one’s profits are paramount. Her workers should probably be governed by a minimum wage and perhaps a new earned income credit so they too can take care of their family’s basic necessities. Being loving and caring for her employees may very well cost her her business if in a very competitive environment. It’s in this type of circumstance that capitalism is incongruent with LOVE.

I would also like to see some kind of a safety net for people like mom ‘a.’ Within our competitive society, it’s too easy for someone to come along and create a large beauty parlor that puts poor mom ‘a’ out of business. In such instances, it’s too easy for mom ‘a’ to lose her life savings even though she’s talented and most sincere.

Robert, you’re bypassing the question with buzzwords again (no offense intended).

What should mom ‘a’ do? ***Not ***what the government should do, ***not ***what great advantages would happen if she lived in a socialist system where the beauty shop was owned by ‘the people’. She’s ***not ***a corporate giant. She’s ***not ***greedy. She’s ***not ***being forced out of business by some multi-national chain of big box beauty shops. She runs a beauty shop on main street USA. She has decisions to make.

If you have a hard time, Robert, dealing with the idea of a beauty parlor, how about a clinical psychology practice? You’re the provider…you have a receptionist and a billing clerk. You only get paid so much money by insurance companies. If you pay them too little, they won’t stick around. If you pay them too much, you risk either not being able to pay the rent on the office, pay your mortgage on your house, or could impact the amount you can put away to send the kids to college. You’re not greedy. It just comes down to math. The insurance companies are going to limit how much they reimburse you; if you increase the rates for your patients that have to pay out of pocket, it might limit whether they can gain the benefit of your psychological expertise.

 

[dshix]

If you have a hard time, Robert, dealing with the idea of a beauty parlor, how about a clinical psychology practice? You’re the provider…you have a receptionist and a billing clerk. You only get paid so much money by insurance companies. If you pay them too little, they won’t stick around. If you pay them too much, you risk either not being able to pay the rent on the office, pay your mortgage on your house, or could impact the amount you can put away to send the kids to college. You’re not greedy. It just comes down to math. The insurance companies are going to limit how much they reimburse you; if you increase the rates for your patients that have to pay out of pocket, it might limit whether they can gain the benefit of your psychological expertise.

Math doesn’t work with people who are already set in their mindset. Only personal catastrophic disasters that affect their quality of life personally can get through the haze they have created around themselves.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, you’re bypassing the question with buzzwords again (no offense intended).

What should mom ‘a’ do? ***Not ***what the government should do, ***not ***what great advantages would happen if she lived in a socialist system where the beauty shop was owned by ‘the people’. She’s ***not ***a corporate giant. She’s ***not ***greedy. She’s ***not ***being forced out of business by some multi-national chain of big box beauty shops. She runs a beauty shop on main street USA. She has decisions to make.

If you have a hard time, Robert, dealing with the idea of a beauty parlor, how about a clinical psychology practice? You’re the provider…you have a receptionist and a billing clerk. You only get paid so much money by insurance companies. If you pay them too little, they won’t stick around. If you pay them too much, you risk either not being able to pay the rent on the office, pay your mortgage on your house, or could impact the amount you can put away to send the kids to college. You’re not greedy. It just comes down to math. The insurance companies are going to limit how much they reimburse you; if you increase the rates for your patients that have to pay out of pocket, it might limit whether they can gain the benefit of your psychological expertise.

This is a tough question for me to answer because it can be looked at within multiple perspective. My perspective is consistent with Christ, and I would say maximize LOVE by paying as high a wage as she can without going out of business, affecting her clients or depriving herself of her livelihood. An even more Christian way would be make sure her employees are paid enough even if she went out of business, in which case she can devote the rest of her life to following Christ. (I’m glad I’m not in this type of situation where I was forced to make these types of decisions.)

 

[freeRadical]

I don’t quite know what it would look like, other than proposing that it would take experts in many fields, including psychology, to develop an economic system that promotes love.

Ah, central planning. I recommend the book “The Road to Serfdom” by Frederich Hayek. Maybe that book will show you the error of your ways.

By the way, economic experts have already concluded what the best economic system is, a system with free markets, free enterprise, private property rights, freedom to contract, freedom to associate, free trade, a price system, and the means of production owned by individuals.

Central planning is a bad, bad way to run an economy or a country for that matter. You assume that those doing the planning can take into account the millions of different variables inherent in an economy, especially one interacting with other economies. Central planners treat men like chess pieces, ignoring their dreams, desires, and wishes.

 

[freeRadical]

I’m a psychologist, not an economist. From my perspective, I believe that the world will become socialistic. Also as a psychologist, I see certain forms of socialism as being much more congruent with humanitarianism and LOVE.

Apparently the Church thinks the opposite but what do they know?

 

[freeRadical]

It’s easy. Jesus commanded us to LOVE, but there is not enough of Christ-like love in the world, even in Christianity. We would care for the people we love. To establish worldwide love, we must adapt political and economic systems that breed love.

There is no political or economic system that will ever breed love. It sounds to me like you want to force people to love one another.

 

[markomalley]

This is a tough question for me to answer because it can be looked at within multiple perspective. My perspective is consistent with Christ, and I **would say maximize LOVE by paying as high a wage as she can without going out of business, affecting her clients or depriving herself of her livelihood. **An even more Christian way would be make sure her employees are paid enough even if she went out of business, in which case she can devote the rest of her life to following Christ. (I’m glad I’m not in this type of situation where I was forced to make these types of decisions.)

It is a tough situation, but it’s one that many of us have to deal with each and every day.

But here’s the thing, Robert, in the business world (at least in my experience), we generally try to follow the same principle as what you said in the text I bolded above.

In the second option you listed, keep in mind that if she goes out of business, then the beauticians that rented chairs from her will be forced to find other beauty parlors that have chairs available for rent and the employees (like the hair-wash girl and the cleaning girl) will have to find themselves other jobs. Obviously, losing the business would not just hurt mom “a”, but would hurt all the people who depend upon her for their livelihoods.

I am not trying to say that there are no scoundrels out there. There are. There are businesses out there who smuggle people in from outside the country and have them work as literal slaves until their shipping bill is paid for (if it ever is). There are people who will cheat their employees out of wages they’ve earned. There are people who hire employees and then pay them cash, so they can avoid having to pay taxes on them. I am not defending them. They need to be found, caught, very publicly frog-marched to jail in front of a whole lot of TV cameras and bright lights. And they need to spend a lot of years behind bars.

Just because there are scoundrels does not mean that the system is bad. It means that they are scoundrels.

Pope John Paul II once said,

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production…
The point is that yes, absolutely, the free market needs to have a certain sense of the logic of gift (as Pope Benedict called it). It needs to be tempered with love.

Think about it: even in religious societies (which is about as perfect an example of a communal existence as there is):

• All the members of that society joined it voluntarily as an adult
• If a member can’t adapt well to that society, he can be made to leave
• They still depend upon selling stuff (to the free market world outside)
• They still depend upon alms (from the free market world outside)

How would these religious institutes exist if there was no free market world to inject resources into them?

Anyway, thanks for considering the scenario I presented Robert!