I Cringe When I Hear The Term "living Wage."

[4588686]

I could work for the NSA and get the emotional destruction pretty easily. Or McDonalds. Or the auto industry. So many great possibilities.

 

 

I'm disturbed by your lack of thirst for public affirmation.  You're going to make a crappy politician.  

[Pliny]

I've asked you a few questions that you ignored so you could complain about me posting a pretty established economists respectful critique of a proponent of your mindset.  The article takes no more than a few minutes to read but if reading makes you sad then please feel free to ignore it.  

 

My apologies.  I'll go back and look for your questions and respond if I can.

[4588686]

My apologies.  I'll go back and look for your questions and respond if I can.

 

 

No problem.  My questions were just:

 

1-What do you mean by 'free market'?

 

2-Do you believe that private economic power can ever be coercive?

[arfink]

I'm disturbed by your lack of thirst for public affirmation.  You're going to make a crappy politician.  

 

I don't know, the fact that you're disturbed by my conduct instead of just being coldly indifferent makes me feel slightly more significant, I guess. How am I doing?

[NotreDame]

I'd say it's fair. Certainly matches my sentiment. :)

 

Although what I wished to bring attention to is that the idea of minimum wage causing people to be unemployed doesn't make much sense when those who wish to work for less can always be self-employed. Which is rather madly ironic in a way...

 

OK,  I'm not following this either....  I think you mean something other than you wrote. 

 

"those who wish to work for less" - I don't think anyone wishes to work for less, rather some might be willing to work for less, is that what you mean?

 

While it certainly is possible for someone unemployed to become self-employed, how often is that realistic?  Especially for those with limited skills, who are exactly the types that would be looking for minimum wage?

 

[Slappo]

Although what I wished to bring attention to is that the idea of minimum wage causing people to be unemployed doesn't make much sense when those who wish to work for less can always be self-employed. Which is rather madly ironic in a way...

 

Not everyone has the knowledge, skills, and ability to be self-employed. That's the crux. The people willing to work for less than minimum wage typically aren't the go getter entrepreneur types.

 

You say self-employment is easy, but then the traits you list for self employment require skills that not everyone has. I.E being able to set something up on the internet...

 

 

Edit: Basically what NotreDame said right before me. Somehow my page didn't load his post even though it's time stamped 25 minutes earlier

Edited February 12, 2014 by Slappo

[NotreDame]

I guess so.  You apparently consider vague innuendo and not-particularly clever hyperbole intelligent.  I do understand why Gintis would not meet your standards of intelligence though since he lacks you extensive academic accomplishments and does not have your Bill Nye the Science Guy equivalent engineering training.  

 

OK, first of all, I read the entire essay before I posted that response - in fact, it provoked that response... It attributes a number of assumptions to Friedman without actually establishing them, then rather than address those assumptions it just goes on to disagree with his various platforms, beginning with Social Security, calling it an "astounding success" and aren't we lucky we can't save our own money.  In short, it's pretty dumb.

 

And this is also a good example of where you get annoying... You'll either zero in on one little point ("race") or you'll pull this boil the ocean stuff like you are doing here... whatever benefits you at the time. 

 

And of course I have read other points of view, there is just a limit to how much of the same rehashed garbage I can stomach...  I'm not sure how old you are, but when I grew up I didn't always have access to all this information and I was essentially force-fed all the liberal keynsian or marxist ideas.  They were on our news channels (only had 3 of those) our newspaper (only got one of those), and in all my classrooms.  I had to try really hard to get my hands on alternative viewpoints.

 

So while I've read Marx, Keynes, and used to be a regular Krugman reader back in 1998-99, it's just not that interesting to me anymore because it's all the same old ideas rehashed.

Edited February 12, 2014 by NotreDame

[arfink]

OK,  I'm not following this either....  I think you mean something other than you wrote. 

 

"those who wish to work for less" - I don't think anyone wishes to work for less, rather some might be willing to work for less, is that what you mean?

 

While it certainly is possible for someone unemployed to become self-employed, how often is that realistic?  Especially for those with limited skills, who are exactly the types that would be looking for minimum wage?

 

Yeah, I know it makes no sense. I was merely saying that the piece you originally quoted was initially meant to convey a thought which I now acknowledge is rather silly.
 

Man, I need caffeine now.

 

EDIT: Just FYI, many of the previous posts were made when I was hungry, tired, decaffeinated, and taking a break from the sanding and finishing I had been spending all day on. :P Take with a large grain of salt, perhaps one this big:

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by arfink

[4588686]

 

And this is also a good example of where you get annoying... You'll either zero in on one little point ("race") or you'll pull this boil the ocean stuff like you are doing here... whatever benefits you at the time. 

 

 

Ok

Edited February 12, 2014 by Hasan

[arfink]

Ok

 

I was going to say, you do know that exactly zero people in the entire history of the internet have had their opinions about politics changed by an argument they had on the internet.

[NotreDame]

Ok

 

Why'd you edit it?  I liked the first post better.  

 

I was going to say, you do know that exactly zero people in the entire history of the internet have had their opinions about politics changed by an argument they had on the internet.

 

But we don't have to argue, we can discuss.

[Nihil Obstat]

I was going to say, you do know that exactly zero people in the entire history of the internet have had their opinions about politics changed by an argument they had on the internet.

Me.

[4588686]

Me.

 

 

Ditto

[Slappo]

Mine have definitely been influenced, but I'm not sure a single argument ever changed a strong political stance I held. A series of arguments has probably helped shape my political viewpoints though.

[Pliny]

Because of internet arguments I changed my mind about circumcision, although too late for it to be of any personal benefit.

 

 

[Aloysius]

That everyone should have access to a job that can support themselves/ their family isn't optional, it's Catholic doctrine.  HOW that happens is up for a question, but you should not cringe at the term "living wage"--because as Catholics we believe everyone who is willing to work SHOULD get a living wage.  work it into your political ideology however you like, Leo XIII insisted it should be enforced by unions, guilds, etc, protected in their existence by the state but providing a means to avoid necessitating state interference.  by the time we get to John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, the suggestions tend to be more along the line of some increased regulation by governments to make it happen.  the one thing that is consistent is that it OUGHT to happen and that it is UNJUST when it doesn't.  When someone is willing to work and they are unable to earn the amount that they and their families need to live on (ie a "living wage") it is unjust.  in fact, Leo XIII referenced "depriving workers of their just wages" as "one of the sins that cry out to heaven for VENGEANCE" when he talked about how people were not getting a living wage for their work.

[mortify ii]

I think you need to read some Catholic social teaching.

 

Rerum novarum

[Aloysius]

From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:

 

302. Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships.[659] The “just wage is the legitimate fruit of work”.[660]  They commit grave injustice who refuse to pay a just wage or who do not give it in due time and in proportion to the work done cf. Lv 19:13; Dt 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). A salary is the instrument that permits the labourer to gain access to the goods of the earth. “Remuneration for labour is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good”.[661] 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”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence”[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.

 

(emphasis added)

 

Citations are:

[659] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 19: AAS 73 (1981), 625-629.

[660] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2434; cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931), 198-202: “The Just Wage” is the title of Chapter Four (nos. 65-76) of Part Two.

[661] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 67: AAS 58 (1966), 1088-1089.

[662] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum: Acta Leonis XIII, 11 (1892), 131.

 

All of which are very good to read on the subject, though the Compendium of Social Doctrine itself is the best summary of the Church's teachings on all such economic and political matters.

[NotreDame]

That everyone should have access to a job that can support themselves/ their family isn't optional, it's Catholic doctrine.  

HOW that happens is up for a question, but you should not cringe at the term "living wage"--because as Catholics we believe everyone who is willing to work SHOULD get a living wage.  work it into your political ideology however you like, Leo XIII insisted it should be enforced by unions, guilds, etc, protected in their existence by the state but providing a means to avoid necessitating state interference.  by the time we get to John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, the suggestions tend to be more along the line of some increased regulation by governments to make it happen.  the one thing that is consistent is that it OUGHT to happen and that it is UNJUST when it doesn't.  When someone is willing to work and they are unable to earn the amount that they and their families need to live on (ie a "living wage") it is unjust.  in fact, Leo XIII referenced "depriving workers of their just wages" as "one of the sins that cry out to heaven for VENGEANCE" when he talked about how people were not getting a living wage for their work.

 

So should the minimum wage be a "living wage"?  If so, how do we determine that wage?  And if raising the minimum wage to that level eliminates jobs (as it most likely will), how do you reconcile that with everyone having access to a job, which everyone should have, as you point out?

 

I think you need to read some Catholic social teaching.

 

Rerum novarum

 

What would you recommend?

[Nihil Obstat]

It is an interesting question from a Catholic perspective. Assuming there should be a minimum wage, would it be fundamentally unjust for that wage to be below a living wage?