Okay, again, I’ve never even mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan, and you can’t really expect me to exculpate all conservatives.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.
I think we may have more in common than not, even though we take different sides.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.
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 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.
The Church’s teaching on this matter is not ex cathedra, and I’m aware of nowhere in Catholic thought where one is required to accept a policy that is mathematically unsound.I simply know the difference between Church teaching on the issue and what it is you are saying.
salaam.
We are, though, required to attempt to form our conscience in accordance with Church teaching. The idea that just because a Pope has not spoken ex cathedra on the matter that one is free to believe whatever one wishes on the topic is simply wrong. The Papal encyclicals are among the most serious teaching instruments that the magisterium has at its disposal; on this particular topic the Papacy has released numerous, consistent statements over the last century and a half through its encyclicals. Dissent is, of course possible, but it ought to be a tragic conclusion at which one arrives after struggling to understand and bring one’s conscience into accordance with the teaching office and finding it impossible to do so. [on the importance of encyclicals and the level of assent that is demanded to them, see, e.g., Pius XII, Humani Generis]The Church’s teaching on this matter is not ex cathedra, and I’m aware of nowhere in Catholic thought where one is required to accept a policy that is mathematically unsound.
I am not so sure of this point.The mathematics here is secondary, as someone else already pointed out. .
it sounds like some bad decisions were made to get into that spot to start with.I am not so sure of this point.
What if for example, it is shown that the company or the government will go bankrupt if it enacts certain policies but fails to enact others. Take a look at the problems that Greece is facing today precisely because it did not take seriously the disastrous effects of ignoring mathematical models indicating the necessity of austerity programs.
The fact of the matter is, capitalism has been one of the greatest boons for the human race, enabling a standard of living that, for even the poor among the first world nations, was unimaginable in earlier generations.We are, though, required to attempt to form our conscience in accordance with Church teaching. The idea that just because a Pope has not spoken ex cathedra on the matter that one is free to believe whatever one wishes on the topic is simply wrong. The Papal encyclicals are among the most serious teaching instruments that the magisterium has at its disposal; on this particular topic the Papacy has released numerous, consistent statements over the last century and a half through its encyclicals. Dissent is, of course possible, but it ought to be a tragic conclusion at which one arrives after struggling to understand and bring one’s conscience into accordance with the teaching office and finding it impossible to do so. [on the importance of encyclicals and the level of assent that is demanded to them, see, e.g., Pius XII, Humani Generis]
The mathematics here is secondary, as someone else already pointed out. The mathematical models of any economic theory already presuppose basic dispositions regarding what it is to be human, how we relate to others and the goals of human personal interactions (even if the presupposition is, in some cases, merely indifference to the nature of the human end).
Economy, which takes its name from the household and its organization (oikonomia), is an attempt to describe a large and very important sphere of personal interactions; it is an account of personal relationships between people (or groups of people) in a particular region of life. Thus it has to be organized in a manner that accords with justice and charity and promotes the good. Any organization of society that fails in this regard does violence to persons and families and destroys community.
The social encyclicals have made repeatedly clear that liberal economics and socialism both fail in precisely those respects. I highly recommend Leo XIII, Pius XI, JP2 et al. for further reading.
Despite the fact that the Church says clearly and manifestly that it is not? It instead describes liberal economics as destructive and preparing the ground for socialism. It is not in keeping with the Church’s views on the value of life.The fact of the matter is, capitalism has been one of the greatest boons for the human race, enabling a standard of living that, for even the poor among the first world nations, was unimaginable in earlier generations.
That is all manifestly good and surely in keeping with the Church’s views on the value of life.
Please help me find where this responsibility is authoritatively established.It is also the responsibility of the state to make sure that the primary wage earner in a family has access to work in which they might earn a just wage for their family.
Karl Marx.Please help me find where this responsibility is authoritatively established.
Dan Grelinger
Wages are not determined by contribution to value (how would you work that out exactly), but the availability of labour That’s why the wages paid to third world workers are so low.The minimum wage should be based on the value added to a job or item and be based upon the workers contribution to that value. It is this and nothing else.
.
Not so. Supply of labor is a part of the wage rate, you’re right, but certain jobs create more wealth than others, and that is also a factor.Wages are not determined by contribution to value (how would you work that out exactly), but the availability of labour That’s why the wages paid to third world workers are so low.
Yes, manifestly good.Despite the fact that the Church says clearly and manifestly that it is not? It instead describes liberal economics as destructive and preparing the ground for socialism. It is not in keeping with the Church’s views on the value of life.
Any wage rate enforced by the government, as you’ve suggested, is a MW law, regardless of what you call it.As mentioned above, the idea of the minimum wage is not a part of Church teaching to start with. The Church always speaks of the responsibility of employers to pay a just wage (and we have already discussed the components of that). Once a just wage is available to support a family, the idea of a minimum wage in other jobs becomes somewhat irrelevant.
What you are advocating is blatantly socialistic.But it is nonetheless a matter of justice. It is also the responsibility of the state to make sure that the primary wage earner in a family has access to work in which they might earn a just wage for their family.
How can you call someone dismissive when you’ve not even pretended to rebut any of the many, many cogent arguments made herein against MW, on both mathematical/economic and moral grounds?Btw, just to be clear…I’m not suggesting you are schismatic or anything of the sort. It just seemed to me that the teaching office was being dismissed much too quickly without much serious engagement of what it had to say on the topic.
Rerum Novarum.Please help me find where this responsibility is authoritatively established.
Dan Grelinger
and they are generally more difficult, so there are fewer workers with the neccessary skills, thus they command higher wages…Not so. Supply of labor is a part of the wage rate, you’re right, but certain jobs create more wealth than others, and that is also a factor.
Correct, but you miss the point. If there were 100 people vying for one ditch digging job and 100 people vying for one job as a computer programmer, the programmer who gets the job will make more than the ditch digger who gets the job, even though the labor poll is identical, because the programmer creates more wealth in what he does.and they are generally more difficult, so there are fewer workers with the neccessary skills, thus they command higher wages…
and if programmers were being offered the same rate as a ditch diggers, they might think “what’s the point - we may as well be digging ditches” and not bother applying for said job.Correct, but you miss the point. If there were 100 people vying for one ditch digging job and 100 people vying for one job as a computer programmer, the programmer who gets the job will make more than the ditch digger who gets the job, even though the labor poll is identical, because the programmer creates more wealth in what he does.
Agreed. I’m with you 100%, the supply of labor greatly influences the price, no doubt about it. I’m just saying it isn’t the only factor. Wealth produced by the job also plays a big role.and if programmers were being offered the same rate as a ditch diggers, they might think “what’s the point - we may as well be digging ditches” and not bother applying for said job.