article--Higher Minimum Wage? Catholics Should Know Better

[Assisi]

Realistically someone has to do these jobs. Someone has to do the dirty jobs. But the goal as Americans should be, "I don't want to flip burgers for the rest of my life!"

Why?

A Christian can work hard, act with integrity, be good at his job, and go above and beyond all while "flipping burgers." Isn't that pleasing to God?

There are many people who are never going to do more than flip burgers in the eyes of the world. Why do they not deserve the dignity of being able to support their families?

 

[MikeK]

Why?

A Christian can work hard, act with integrity, be good at his job, and go above and beyond all while "flipping burgers." Isn't that pleasing to God?

There are many people who are never going to do more than flip burgers in the eyes of the world. Why do they not deserve the dignity of being able to support their families?

The (irrational) fear is that if we pay our burger-flippers $10/hr instead of $7/hr, two things will happen; people won't want to be Doctors, Engineers, or businessmen and our burger cost will be 1.4 times what it was previously.

Both are absurdly simple thinking. I don't know a single person who learned a trade or went to college directly so that they could avoid making minimum wage. Certainly money is a motivator and it should be, but there just aren't people out there that are trying to decide whether they want to pursue a career in fast food cooking or become a market analyst in the athletic shoe industry. The majority of the cost in fast food is not employee pay. See:
http://www.epionline.org/studies/aaronson_06-2006.pdf

ETA: that sounded like I was preaching to you, Assisi. I know you get it. I also know that you live in Australia where the minimum wage is $15 or $16/hr. Please let our good readers know if, in your experience, the people who have the capacity to be chemists are instead opting to spend their entire adult lives cooking french fries.

 

[Assisi]

But even if those two things were true, what's so bad about that?

Is it so bad for a person to choose a retail job over a career?

And shouldn't we pay as much as things are really worth?

 

[MikeK]

But even if those two things were true, what's so bad about that?

Is it so bad for a person to choose a retail job over a career?

And shouldn't we pay as much as things are really worth?

I don't know because I don't think that way. I don't think you'll get a straight forward reason from those who side against the Church on this, but I suspect their answers are:

1) Yes. If they choose a career in retail than they do not deserve a livable wage that they could reasonably be expected to raise a family on. "Those people" who work retail for a living shouldn't have children.
2) not if we can help it. Something something let the market decide.

This is economic eugenics. To add to their shame, it is often these same people who complain that the government gives assistance too freely. Laissez-unfair.

 

[Fantine]

Labor unions ushered in prosperity and a thriving, growing middle class in the twentieth century. Income inequality began when Ronald Reagan busted the air traffic controllers' union.

It may be a cliché, but we often lose what we cling on to too tightly. Business owners who, in the name of productivity, run a bare-bones shop with underpaid, overworked employees, may prosper in the short run but are contributing to the decline of the middle class--and without consumers to buy their products and use their services, their businesses will eventually fail.

I saw this at work in the two years I lived in a college town in South Dakota. Two businesses wanted to open up a joint call center, employing hundreds at the then munificent sum of $8 an hour (late 1990's). The Chamber of Commerce, composed of small business owners, tried to block the business from moving in, because they were afraid they'd have to raise the wages of their underpaid employees to compete. They never thought, "If we have more people in this town earning $8 an hour, we'll sell more of what we're selling."

They were not only stingy but shortsighted. Thank goodness they failed. We weren't that involved with the local economy--my husband worked for a large company thirty miles away, in a management job with stock options. I taught piano in my home and music classes to young children. I had one homeschooling family that paid me in eggs, but that was OK, because he made a good living and I just wanted to keep busy doing something. I got so many eggs I gave them to the church for church suppers.

 

[AMDG]

Why?

A Christian can work hard, act with integrity, be good at his job, and go above and beyond all while "flipping burgers." Isn't that pleasing to God?

There are many people who are never going to do more than flip burgers in the eyes of the world. Why do they not deserve the dignity of being able to support their families?

Because those "flipping burger types of jobs" are intended to be entry level jobs to give teens that live with mommy and daddy (and sometimes those that need to supplement the primary breadwinners salary) some pocket cash while they get an opportunity to get some work experience (getting to work on time, doing what the boss says, working as a team). Those entry level jobs were never intended to support a family- They were just there to help the person enter the work force where if he worked hard, he'd get raises, promotions, and could lift himself out of poverty. Force the business to pay more than it can afford and the poor will be priced out of jobs. (There's just so much money.)

The question should be "why would one want to keep someone from entering the workplace and lifting himself out of poverty by his hard work? It's an important question to ask because that is what is being suggested. (See what the eugenist and employment minister under Woodrow Wilson said about his favorite topic--the minimum wage and what it was planned to accomplish.)

 

[Tallguy88]

Because those "flipping burger types of jobs" are intended to be entry level jobs to give teens that live with mommy and daddy (and sometimes those that need to supplement the primary breadwinners salary) some pocket cash while they get an opportunity to get some work experience (getting to work on time, doing what the boss says, working as a team). Those entry level jobs were never intended to support a family- They were just there to help the person enter the work force where if he worked hard, he'd get raises, promotions, and could lift himself out of poverty. Force the business to pay more than it can afford and the poor will be priced out of jobs. (There's just so much money.)

The question should be "why would one want to keep someone from entering the workplace and lifting himself out of poverty by his hard work? It's an important question to ask because that is what is being suggested. (See what the eugenist and employment minister under Woodrow Wilson said about his favorite topic--the minimum wage and what it was planned to accomplish.)

The Archbishop of Miami already answered this in post 2:

"For a worker to be dignified by his or her work, remuneration must be just. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that workers deserve just wages, wages that allow them and their families to fulfill material, social, cultural, and spiritual needs. The current state and federal minimum wages do not meet that standard. Those who toil to harvest our produce, to cook and serve our food, and to clean our buildings, are our brothers and sisters--and they deserve to enjoy the same dignity in work that others enjoy."

"And looking towards the future, half of the new jobs projected to be added to our economy will be in low-wage occupations. These jobs, to a great extent, will be filled by adults and not, as sometimes suggested, by teenagers who still live at home. "

Bolding mine.

 

[AMDG]

Why exactly should we listen to the article you post rather than listening to the letter from the UCCBS posted by Tallguy?

NOT about what the good bishops or cardinals have said, but instead the fact that this was a PLAN of the Princeton professors and government ministers who believed in eugenics to HARM the people. The fact that the Progressives are still pushing this--still trying to HARM what they call "undesirables".

The Catholics are being duped (because we think it's to HELP the poor). We should know better--we have a history of being guardians of the poor (the sheep). The Progressives are just "wolves in sheep's clothing. They sought to harm the folks in the past, and now their trying again.

 

[Needing_Grace]

NOT about what the good bishops or cardinals have said, but instead the fact that this was a PLAN of the Princeton professors and government ministers who believed in eugenics to HARM the people. The fact that the Progressives are still pushing this--still trying to HARM what they call "undesirables".

The Catholics are being duped (because we think it's to HELP the poor). We should know better--we have a history of being guardians of the poor (the sheep). The Progressives are just "wolves in sheep's clothing. They sought to harm the folks in the past, and now their trying again.

Credibility FAIL.

 

[AMDG]

Credibility FAIL.

Then look up what government minister and champion of the minimum wage, Royal Meeker said about it. You don't HAVE to remain in ignorance about what he said. It's all over the web (not just in this Catholic article that I linked to.) You see THAT is what this thread is about. The eugenic history behind the minimum wage.

Eugenics is contrary to our Faith. I thought that was known.

From the article:

in the early 20th century, one of the chief eugenic methods for excluding “inferiors” from healthy, white society was by enacting legal minimum wages too high for most of the poor to earn. Second, once these “undesirables” were removed from the workforce, the “State” was meant to “deal with” them separately as a “special class” in the welfare system.

 

[mark46]

TO BE CLEAR

Th good bishops and the USCCB are being duped. And you, with much better knowledge and analytic skills, understand better than they do.

You must be kidding.

NOT about what the good bishops or cardinals have said, but instead the fact that this was a PLAN of the Princeton professors and government ministers who believed in eugenics to HARM the people. The fact that the Progressives are still pushing this--still trying to HARM what they call "undesirables".

The Catholics are being duped (because we think it's to HELP the poor). We should know better--we have a history of being guardians of the poor (the sheep). The Progressives are just "wolves in sheep's clothing. They sought to harm the folks in the past, and now their trying again.

 

[Fantine]

TO BE CLEAR

Th good bishops and the USCCB are being duped. And you, with much better knowledge and analytic skills, understand better than they do.

You must be kidding.

If you have statistics that show that higher minimum wages translate to mass layoffs and widespread poverty, please show them to us, AMDG, because I've heard that none exist.

 

[AMDG]

TO BE CLEAR

Th good bishops and the USCCB are being duped. And you, with much better knowledge and analytic skills, understand better than they do.

You must be kidding.

No I am not kidding. I read the article. Did you? And I don't need the statistics to show that the minimum wage hurts the very people it claims to help. That's just common sense--there is just so much money available and when that's gone, well so is a job and any hope to pull oneself out of poverty. (But for folks who like to see it in "black and white and color", read the article--it starts out with charts before quoting those very Progressives that came up with the sickening eugenic idea as a way to keep folks down.)

How about answering the question I posed? Why would people want to price the vulnerable (who they refer to as "that kind") out of employment? BTW extra credit, to someone who can figure out if HURTING someone is good or bad.

 

[Brother Bread]

The capitilist ,communist or socialist econimies willl never work. They all have the cloak of good and helpfull even Christian but they are mans economy. The only one that works is Gods economy which we find in Acts 2, which the only examples of that we find today is in our monestaries.

 

[Assisi]

AMDG the answer is that it doesn't price people out of the job market.

You acknowledge that people who work low paid jobs are often vulnerable, so it's not just teens doing these jobs before they 'move up' to better things? Why should the vulnerable not be able to support themselves through full time work?

 

[AMDG]

AMDG the answer is that it doesn't price people out of the job market.

You acknowledge that people who work low paid jobs are often vulnerable, so it's not just teens doing these jobs before they 'move up' to better things? Why should the vulnerable not be able to support themselves through full time work?

If an employer only has $40 to spend to hire employees and pay rent and utilities as well as the raw materials necessary for the business. If he pays them $7 each how many people can he hire? 40 divided by 7 = 5 with a remainder of 5. That means he can hire 5 people plus he can plow $5 back into his business to pay things like rent and utilities--basically so that there will BE a business to employ people. Now if he is arbitrarily forced to pay $10 per person, what happens to the fifth employee? And when the business can no longer pay rent and utilities and the raw materials necessary, what happens to ALL the employees? Don't think they'll be so easily finding another job, because all the businesses around them will be in the same position and besides the people lack the skills and experience (or else they wouldn't have been in the entry level jobs in the first place.)

Sooo--how are these people going to be helped by depriving them of jobs so they can no longer work themselves out of poverty?

Then to find out that the eugenicists of the early Twentieth Century were putting forth policies to PURPOSELY do this--create a permanent underclass of "that kind" for the "elite" to control so that the elite would have no competition on their way to getting richer and the "marginalized" will simply be forced and encouraged not to breed and never even have a hope to get out of poverty.

Look, I'm not the one who made the statements. You'll need to go to the folks like the eugenicists of the early Twentieth Century, people like the Princeton economist and head of labor under Woodrow Wilson, Royal Meeker.

 

[Assisi]

If an employer only has $40 to spend to hire employees and pay rent and utilities as well as the raw materials necessary for the business. If he pays them $7 each how many people can he hire? 40 divided by 7 = 5 with a remainder of 5. That means he can hire 5 people plus he can plow $5 back into his business to pay things like rent and utilities--basically so that there will BE a business to employ people. Now if he is arbitrarily forced to pay $10 per person, what happens to the fifth employee? And when the business can no longer pay rent and utilities and the raw materials necessary, what happens to ALL the employees? Don't think they'll be so easily finding another job, because all the businesses around them will be in the same position and besides the people lack the skills and experience (or else they wouldn't have been in the entry level jobs in the first place.)

Sooo--how are these people going to be helped by depriving them of jobs so they can no longer work themselves out of poverty?

Then to find out that the eugenicists of the early Twentieth Century were putting forth policies to PURPOSELY do this--create a permanent underclass of "that kind" for the "elite" to control so that the elite would have no competition on their way to getting richer and the "marginalized" will simply be forced and encouraged not to breed and never even have a hope to get out of poverty.

Look, I'm not the one who made the statements. You'll need to go to the folks like the eugenicists of the early Twentieth Century, people like the Princeton economist and head of labor under Woodrow Wilson, Royal Meeker.

The economy doesn't work like that. There are a huge number of factors you have left out. Like Mike said I live in Australia with a minimum wage rate of $16.37 (higher than the US) and our unemployment rate is 6% (lower than the US).

 

[Tallguy88]

The economy doesn't work like that. There are a huge number of factors you have left out. Like Mike said I live in Australia with a minimum wage rate of $16.37 (higher than the US) and our unemployment rate is 6% (lower than the US).

Have your Catholic Bishops stated whether they support your minimum wage?

 

[Assisi]

Have your Catholic Bishops stated whether they support your minimum wage?

I think it's pretty much a non-issue here. I had a quick google but the only current thing I could find was about pay equity (particularly for women.)

 

[AMDG]

The economy doesn't work like that.

Had to simplify for some folks who do not understand simple cause and effect. And YES it DOES come down to that. There is just so much money. Businesses have to have money to produce and to hire. When the outgo is more than the income, the business fails. (Anyone who has even run a lemonade stand knows it.)

But the point about the Minimum Wage is that the policy WAS put in practice to HURT the marginalized. it was admitted. (Go look up Royal Meeker, if you don't want to read the article. He was a BIG promoter of the Minimum Wage BECAUSE he was a eugenicist.)

Here's a quote from an article from CanadaFreePress:

Royal Meeker, a left-wing Princeton professor, and advisor to liberal poster-boy President Woodrow Wilson, explains the rationale behind the left-wing’s drive for the minimum wage, planned parenthood, and the welfare state:

“Better that the state should support the Inefficient wholly, and prevent the multiplication of the breed, than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.”