What wage is just?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours. About double what it is at present. Before taxes, that would net a 40-hour total of $600 or about $2,400 a month, an annual net of $28,800.
 
And the expense for such a permit would bring about crippling debt?
Most people can’t get a taxi permit without a license or a computer security one without a degree to back it up.

I feel like you are really being deliberately obtuse.

We have insurance in the world which requires protocol. while yes you could very well weld without a licenses of a degree in order to protect themselves employers will look for people who have the degrees so their protection aka insurance isn’t invalidated.

This isn’t the 60s-70s-80s anymore where you can just get experience and get good. You need paperwork for everything.
 
Last edited:
Most people can’t get a taxi permit without a license or a computer security one without a degree to back it up.

I feel like you are really being deliberately obtuse.
Sorry you feel that way.
I am just trying to figure out why you see crippling debt as a necessary step to success.
 
I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours. About double what it is at present. Before taxes, that would net a 40-hour total of $600 or about $2,400 a month, an annual net of $28,800.
How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?
 
That’s called, the market. Not saying the proposal is right or wrong. But I will say again, let’s not assume all wage increases result in equivalent price increases. That argument has been proven wrong for over 100 years.
 
How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?
Okay first just cause its a pet peeve don’t read much more into something then that but you do know you can multi-quote someone within one post right?
First, you highlight what you want to reply too, then reply to it under it:

Like nah
I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 per hours
Then you highlight the next bit and the option to quote that line appears within one post.
Please do this, you’re making my eye twitch.

BACK ON TOPIC:
How do you intend on making sure the employer doesn’t simply pass the cost for the additional payroll on to the customers?
That’s the problem of the business. automates the parts of the job the educated guy shouldn’t be wasting his time doing. Get an intern? Streamline your company. Either way, not my problem.
 
That’s called, the market. Not saying the proposal is right or wrong. But I will say again, let’s not assume all wage increases result in equivalent price increases. That argument has been proven wrong for over 100 years.
So we are content to let market forces drive the prices, but not content to let these same market forces drive the payroll expense?

How would you insure the employer doesn’t simply terminate one or more employees to keep their payroll expense in line?
 
How would you insure the employer doesn’t simply terminate one or more employees to keep their payroll expense in line?
Well if he was paying them crap wages anyway they couldn’t have been needed anyway that couldn’t be streamlined by something else.
 


For some people this is pocket change, for others it would require taking on debt.
 
I never said that. I simply answered your question about increased wages being passed on to consumers.

In general, I trust markets, but that does not mean they require no regulation.

We must acknowledge that employers have a grave moral responsibility to pay a just wage. Until we can agree on that, talk of how to ensure it through government action, or if to do so, is beginning to seem fruitless.
 
How would you insure the employer doesn’t simply terminate one or more employees to keep their payroll expense in line?
Why would I want to ensure that? On a micro-econimic level, increased wages certainly will reduce jobs in many instances. At a macro-economic level, there is no historical evidence of this happening.

Let’s just allow Malaysia type wages so that an employer can hire 10 times as many workers?
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why you are always discussing a condition in Rerum Novarum that is no longer needed. I am not quoting Rerum Novarum. I am quoting the Compendium of Social Justice of the Catholic Church, published in 2004.
Look up “compendium” and you’ll see it is merely a summary. Do you understand that the Compendium, a letter to the Pope (not a letter from the Pope), has no Magisterial authority of its own. Any authority in the Compendium is in its footnotes. The passage you reference cites Rerum Novarum as its authority. Where else would I go to understand the teaching? The question really is: Why do you not go there?
I am not emphasizing any point, but simply highlighting the point which contradicts you statement. Again, you say “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just.”. The Catholic Church says: “The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage””.
No, the Catholic Church does not teach what you cite as the paraphrase from a summary. Standard academic practice requires one to go to source documents. Refer to the Encyclicals: Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Centesimus Annus to know the mind of the Church. “Mining” sentences out of context from summaries to support a biased position is intellectually dishonest. Have you read the encyclicals? Perhaps you missed this passage from Centesimus Annus:
Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain amount for savings.
As I have posted several times, we are no longer in the period of “unbridled capitalism.” The responsibility for a just wage does not weigh on the employer but all society and its forms of governance.
 
You prejudice is showing.
I am ashamed and embarrassed for you.
It’s not a prejudice, my contract if you want to make this about you is with you. Your price for your goods or services, what have you is between the customer and you. Not me.

It’s not my responsibility to see you not screw them to pay me, that’s on you.
 
Why would I want to ensure that? On a micro-econimic level, increased wages certainly will reduce jobs in many instances. At a macro-economic level, there is no historical evidence of this happening.
Your right, I would not ensure it either. I believe there are too many laws on how a small business should be run.

And yes, there is historic evidence that this is the case. Seattle is the most obvious.
 
Look up “compendium” and you’ll see it is merely a summary
Compendium is not just a mere summary, it “a collection of concise but detailed information about a particular subject, especially in a book or other publication” or “a collection of things, especially one systematically gathered.”

The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church was not published as a letter to the Pope, it was published as a book, that is well over 300 pages long. It was systematically compiled under orders from John Paull II. It most certainly has Magisterial authority, albeit it would be part of the non-infallible ordinary magisterium.

The passage I give has phrases from Rerum Novarum. I have read that encyclical multiple times. Yes, go to the sources to understand various parts, just as when reading the Catechism. But do not assume only the sources have authority. I have no need for this argument to go to the source, because the teaching is so dang clear: and agreement between employer and employee is not sufficient. You understand it, which is why you left with the arguments of a) it is no longer required in our modern economy (base off of flawed logic, but I have no desire to debate economics with you) and b) the book, published by the Holy See, at the request of the Pope, has not magisterial authority. It is an absurd claim.
As I have posted several times, we are no longer in the period of “unbridled capitalism.” The responsibility for a just wage does not weigh on the employer but all society and its forms of governance.
This is even more absurd. As I have expressed in my recent responses to @TheLittleLady . We cannot claim to be performing moral acts for the sole reason that they are within the law.
 
In order to work in this market you have to have a college education leaving many of us in crippling debt. My rent right now is lower then my loan repayments every month. I need a living wage stat.

a9a66c634d3071ad3d3f672bfbb3e2a3ed474432.png
Peeps:
What’s your skill set? What kind of work are you qualified to do?

Do you live in a part of the U.S. with a high cost of living? If so, are you willing/able to move to a part of the U.S. with a cheaper cost of living?

Do you teach and do you have the degree and other certification? There is legislation pending in Illinois (my state) to make starting salaries for teachers $40K… That, plus their benefits, makes a pretty decent life, unless you live in Chicago or the suburbs. We are really short of teachers in our city, and if you are a male and especially if you are a member of a minority, you would have a good chance of being hired. I think the legislation is likely to pass, as teachers are rather revered here.

If you are a skilled laborer (welding, machinist/mechanic, pipe-fitter, etc.) there are plenty of jobs in my city that pay a good wage.

If you are a medical technologist who wants to work in Microbiology, PM quick! We can share the “finder’s fee!”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top