What is a decent minimum wage?

[sidbrown]

I’ve known several people who have been brought to penury by running afoul of tax law. .

Did they file false returns?

 

[jmcrae]

The fact is that the minimum wage has nothing to do with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Pol Pot.

Right, exactly. They employed slave labour - which means I’m pretty sure they didn’t have any “minimum wage laws”, therefore.

 

[stinkcat_14]

MW law is a minor manifestation of the same impulse that guided Stalin; a vanguard elite presumes to know what is best for everyone and takes from one to give to another by force of arms in furtherance of that vision.

Of course, isn’t this what is being done as well with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? A group of elites decides whether or not we should go to war, then they tax the common man to pay for it.

 

[sidbrown]

Of course, isn’t this what is being done as well with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? A group of elites decides whether or not we should go to war, then they tax the common man to pay for it.

Yeah. And I thought that Obama was supposed to be against war and yet he increases the number of troops we have in Afghanistan. Who is running this show and pulling the strings in the background?

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I don’t believe in a minimum wage. I believe in a living wage. You can find out more about what a living wage is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

 

[Darkbloom]

Of course, isn’t this what is being done as well with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? A group of elites decides whether or not we should go to war, then they tax the common man to pay for it.

Are you looking for hypocrisy here?

Democracy isn’t perfect, but we pick our elites. Of all the systems in which there is an elite, democracy is the best form. Personally, I’d prefer to do away with elites, at least elites with the capacity to force their will upon others. The only form of government that provides that is a republic.

 

[Darkbloom]

Yeah. And I thought that Obama was supposed to be against war and yet he increases the number of troops we have in Afghanistan. Who is running this show and pulling the strings in the background?

Jim Henson? The boogie man? Or, just maybe, brute reality exerts itself in such a way that someone who is antiwar while secure on the campaign trail has to adjust to the facts as they are and do things they didn’t think they would.

 

[sidbrown]

Jim Henson? The boogie man? Or, just maybe, brute reality exerts itself in such a way that someone who is antiwar while secure on the campaign trail has to adjust to the facts as they are and do things they didn’t think they would.

I don’t think that the boogie man is making the decisions, but I suspect that there are people behind the war machine. Look what happened right after JFK signed the nuclear disarmament treaty.

 

[Badaliyyah]

Pope Leo XIII defined it as follows in Rerum Novarum:

46. If a workman’s wages be sufficient to enable him comfortably to support himself, his wife, and his children, he will find it easy, if he be a sensible man, to practice thrift, and he will not fail, by cutting down expenses, to put by some little savings and thus secure a modest source of income.

​

I don’t see much of a better basic definition to work from anywhere.

I don’t often agree with MM, but this should have been the answer to the question and it was largely ignored. The Catholic Church has fairly clear and consistent teaching on the issue of a just wage in the social encyclicals beginning with Leo XIII.

As MM points out here, the primary wage earner, according to the teachings of the Church, ought to be able to support the entire family on the salary being earned. Not only that, they shouldn’t just be scraping by and surviving, they should be living in a manner that is “becoming” (to borrow from Pius XI), or as MM points out (following Leo XIII) “comfortably”. And beyond that, they should be capable of saving money against the possibility of the loss of employment.

The only thing I would add to MM is that Pius XI also makes clear that it is the job of the State to make sure that those who want employment can find such work. (for Pius XI, see Divini Redemptoris, or, obviously, Quadragessimo Anno).

salaam.

 

[Darkbloom]

I don’t think that the boogie man is making the decisions, but I suspect that there are people behind the war machine. Look what happened right after JFK signed the nuclear disarmament treaty.

The mafia, LBJ, Fidel Castro, the Soviets, Aristotle Onassis, Richard Nixon, and Oswald conspired to have him killed?

 

[Darkbloom]

I don’t often agree with MM, but this should have been the answer to the question and it was largely ignored. The Catholic Church has fairly clear and consistent teaching on the issue of a just wage in the social encyclicals beginning with Leo XIII.

As MM points out here, the primary wage earner, according to the teachings of the Church, ought to be able to support the entire family on the salary being earned. Not only that, they shouldn’t just be scraping by and surviving, they should be living in a manner that is “becoming” (to borrow from Pius XI), or as MM points out (following Leo XIII) “comfortably”. And beyond that, they should be capable of saving money against the possibility of the loss of employment.

The only thing I would add to MM is that Pius XI also makes clear that it is the job of the State to make sure that those who want employment can find such work. (for Pius XI, see Divini Redemptoris, or, obviously, Quadragessimo Anno).

salaam.

I’d like to invite you to read the rest of the thread.

 

[sidbrown]

The mafia, LBJ, Fidel Castro, the Soviets, Aristotle Onassis, Richard Nixon, and Oswald conspired to have him killed?

I don’t think that the Soviets had anything to do with it.
The question concerns whether or not there are those in the USA who benefit from these wars and are behind the war machine.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I’d like to invite you to read the rest of the thread.

i see no significant treatment of Catholic social teaching (CST) anywhere in the thread. All I see are a bunch of people discussing how the minimum wage, which really has little (no?) basis in CST (I suppose that could have been the answer), affects unemployment (the maintenance of which runs completely counter to CST) and the profitability of businesses (which is really only a good in CST insofar as it supports the owners in the manner described by Rerum Novarum, etc. and provides a just wage to all employees; anything above that is gravy).

If employers are paying just wages to the primary wage earner in a household, as called for by CST, the idea of a minimum wage becomes immediately irrelevant.

salaam.

 

[Darkbloom]

i see no significant treatment of Catholic social teaching (CST) anywhere in the thread. All I see are a bunch of people discussing how the minimum wage, which really has little (no?) basis in CST (I suppose that could have been the answer), affects unemployment (the maintenance of which runs completely counter to CST) and the profitability of businesses (which is really only a good in CST insofar as it supports the owners in the manner described by Rerum Novarum, etc. and provides a just wage to all employees; anything above that is gravy).

If employers are paying just wages to the primary wage earner in a household, as called for by CST, the idea of a minimum wage becomes immediately irrelevant.

salaam.

So, in effect, you’ve not really read the thread at all, and refuse to even entertain anything that may not fit with the conclusion you’ve already latched on to.

If the math doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work, and that won’t change, regardless of who you quote.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Are you looking for hypocrisy here?

Democracy isn’t perfect, but we pick our elites. Of all the systems in which there is an elite, democracy is the best form. Personally, I’d prefer to do away with elites, at least elites with the capacity to force their will upon others. The only form of government that provides that is a republic.

Yes, I would say that there is hypocrisy here, after all, you said:

MW law is a minor manifestation of the same impulse that guided Stalin; a vanguard elite presumes to know what is best for everyone and takes from one to give to another by force of arms in furtherance of that vision.

This is exactly the same thing that happened with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the right never called Bush a Stalinist.

 

[Darkbloom]

Yes, I would say that there is hypocrisy here, after all, you said:

This is exactly the same thing that happened with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the right never called Bush a Stalinist.

So, when did I argue in favor of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Furthermore, proving someone a hypocrite is not the same as proving them wrong. My dad is a chain smoker who tells anyone who will listen how terrible smoking is for your health. Is he a hypocrite? Yes. Is he wrong? No.

Plus, I never called anyone a Stalinist. What I basically said was MW laws and Statism - as practiced by Stalin, Mao, whoever - are different by degree, not by type.

 

[stinkcat_14]

So, when did I argue in favor of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Furthermore, proving someone a hypocrite is not the same as proving them wrong. My dad is a chain smoker who tells anyone who will listen how terrible smoking is for your health. Is he a hypocrite? Yes. Is he wrong? No.

Plus, I never called anyone a Stalinist. What I basically said was MW laws and Statism - as practiced by Stalin, Mao, whoever - are different by degree, not by type.

I never said you did argue in favor of the wars. However, many so called conservatives argue against the government interfering in the economy and taking away our freedom and then argue in favor of a war that takes away much more freedom than any minimum wage law that we are likely to enact ever will. I am sure that you will agree that any war should be funded by voluntary donations, not at the force of a gun.

 

[Darkbloom]

I never said you did argue in favor of the wars. However, many so called conservatives argue against the government interfering in the economy and taking away our freedom and then argue in favor of a war that takes away much more freedom than any minimum wage law that we are likely to enact ever will. I am sure that you will agree that any war should be funded by voluntary donations, not at the force of a gun.

I’m with you partially. I’m a pretty doctrinaire libertarian, and I think that we should avoid international entanglements if practicable and possible. But when faced with an existential threat, the Civil War and WW2 are the examples that jump immediately to mind, then no, self preservation trumps other concerns.

But my opposition to MW laws aren’t only based on government intrusion, but that is a big part of it. MW laws actually create more harm than good. Like I’ve said elsewhere here, I had an econ professor who dedicated his academic career to studying the economics of the nonprofit sector because he was A) a self identified hard core liberal, but also B) an intellectually honest man with an MIT PhD in economics who knew that the free market is maximally efficient.

And it is maximally efficient. That’s one of the orthodox views in microeconomics. But maximally efficient doesn’t mean maximally equitable.

Capitalism isn’t what’s wrong with our society. Our society is what’s wrong with capitalism.

 

[stinkcat_14]

But my opposition to MW laws aren’t only based on government intrusion, but that is a big part of it. MW laws actually create more harm than good.

I think that MW laws can create more harm than good, however, for the most part I think that in the US they are quite harmless in most cases since few people are subject to the minimum wage because in most areas of the country the minimum wage is below equilibrium. There are some exceptions, obviously, I imagine that they might have a bigger negative impact in places like Alabama and Mississippi.

Like I’ve said elsewhere here, I had an econ professor who dedicated his academic career to studying the economics of the nonprofit sector because he was A) a self identified hard core liberal, but also B) an intellectually honest man with an MIT PhD in economics who knew that the free market is maximally efficient.

I agree that the free market is maximally efficient. I just think that minimum wage laws, as they are currently written are a minor incursion into the free market arena. They do some damage, but a minor amount. And if we really wanted to get the government out of the marketplace there are probably better areas to start, such as allowing free trade in sugar.

And it is maximally efficient. That’s one of the orthodox views in microeconomics. But maximally efficient doesn’t mean maximally equitable.

Capitalism isn’t what’s wrong with our society. Our society is what’s wrong with capitalism.

And of course, your economics professor probably taught you that there is a tradeoff between efficient and equitable. Of course, we also have the problem of defining what is equitable.

 

[Badaliyyah]

So, in effect, you’ve not really read the thread at all, and refuse to even entertain anything that may not fit with the conclusion you’ve already latched on to.

If the math doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work, and that won’t change, regardless of who you quote.

I simply know the difference between Church teaching on the issue and what it is you are saying.

salaam.