Re: Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/31/07 01:22:14 PM |
Age 30, KY |
I must admit to not reading at least one of your posts carefully because not once did I suggest "tax-free [French word] capitalism." I am not a free-market anarchist, but I believe in a tax structure that does not dole handouts to the poor (and oftentimes lazy and addicted) on the backs of producers (in other words, minimally progressive or non-progressive; flat tax or national sales tax). I resent the "tax-free" label, and the accusation that that is ever what I suggested when if you will read MY posts you will see I did not. You were saying something about middle ground?
|
Re: Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/30/07 11:18:29 PM |
Age 43, NH |
First please remember that the early church was being persecuted because to be a Christian was illegal. They helped each other and I believe it important to help eachother today in the Church family. That has nothing to do with the goverment forcing a certain wage on private companies. I also wonder with your declaration of the "Church not helping the poor"...I wonder if you give anything to the Church, or the poor yourself?
-Dr. Berman
|
Re: Re: Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/30/07 02:42:05 PM |
Age 40, NJ |
Dr. Berman says, "I simply said that socialism does not work, and never will get the desired high wages"... which is a prudential judgement, not a moral one. Aside from the tacit (and laughable) equation of minimum (living) wage laws with "socialism", the economic consequences (supposedly inflation, job losses, &c.) are easily verified empirically, since there have been minimum wage laws for several generations now. Well, where is the historical data that should be oozing out all over the place, if these slogans were in fact true? The fact is we ought not expect slogans to be true. They are, after all, just slogans.------ Dr. Berman says, "Only personal hard work, and ambition based in biblical morality will bring about the best in society in all areas." No critic on this forum has expressly denied this, but it seems a non sequitur. It does seem that it is quite moral to reward hard work with some minimum wage, say, for example, a denarius.------ Dr. Berman says, "Human nature is such that it can't be trusted with total power as the government continues to take." This is certainly true, and for precisely the same reasons, various businesses cannot be completely trusted to behave justly toward their workers. It is precisely (if not exclusively) the rightful place of governments to foster the common good. It ought not be surprising then that governments must somehow balance the extent of their own powers against the power inherent in large concentrations of wealth (big business). Of course, equating "living wage" laws with government "total power" is a bit of a stretch.------ Dr. Bermany teams with him to Mexico to teach the Bible, work with children, and feed the h says, "Market forces are the best way to bring about productivity, and good wages. Government mandates chase away investment to other places where investment brings a return." Again this is a prudential judgement, not a strictly moral one. It may in fact be right, and I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly with a smaller government model. But obviously Dr. Berman doesn't advocate complete "market" anarchy. Are minimum health standards a "government mandate"? Contract law? Immigration status of workers? Should the government NOT intervene if a business "just decides" not to pay its workers on Friday? Another "mandate"? Obviously the hand of government must be wielded wisely, but that is not to say not at all.------ Dr. Berman quite tellingly asserts, "No government will ever be able to establish the utopia that you liberals desire." Who are the "you liberals" in that statement I wonder? I asserted below that the supposed sanctity of free markets is one of the very first liberal ideas. This assertion is as yet unanswered. It is the conservative who wishes to protect his own country, his own community, his own job, his wages. The conservative impulse is always toward protectionism. It is the liberal who says to break down all barriers (to trade, between races, between sexes, &c.). It is the liberal who says that pre-rational, instinctive notions of right and wrong (say, e.g., a just wage) have no place in positive law. Utopianism is indeed a quite liberal failing, and indeed must be eschewed. But how is pursing legislation that might bettern enable a father to feed his children utopian. Does someone think $10.50/hr. is like winning the lottery? ------ Dr. Berman, your doctorate (according to the bio) is in Theology, not presumably in economics or political theory. You do your readers no favors by stepping beyond areas of demonstrable expertise. As I said (Age 40, NJ) below, there are several good reasons to oppose THIS PARTICULAR law, some of which you outline. But an a priori rejection of "living wage" legislation because it somehow violates the sanctity of "free markets" is not one of them. I think you would do well to discover the roots of this libertarian way of thinking (Enlightenment rationalism), and see just how antithetical they are to biblical Christianity. Best regards.
|
Re: Re: Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/30/07 01:34:34 PM |
Age 36, IL |
What proof (other than ideology) do you have that socialism "doesn't work", or rather, that it works any less well than capitalism. Workers' real wages have been declining in this country since 1973, while the richest 1% now own more than the lower 80% combined. Is that a system that works? (Rather, the question should be--for whom is that system working?) There will always be those that, as you point out, aren't able bodied; someone has to take care of them. Depending on charity leaves them vulnerable to the goodwill of others, and leaves us dependent on the appropriate administration of the charity-givers. A democratic government gives the people control over those charity-givers (esp. if the charity-giver is the government). Complaints about bureaucratic inefficiency are not critiques of an economic system but of the governmental system that administrates it. (Besides, in a democracy, inefficiencies exist by design--for example, a bicameral legislature and separation of powers--to prevent tyranny.) Market inefficiencies create situtations where people are "free" to fall through the cracks. All systems have weaknesses, to disingenuously ignore capitalism's weaknesses (especially when they're pointed out) smacks of ideology. Especially the refusal to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a "free" market. I didn't advocate socialism (or even liberalism), but a "mixed economy" (as one sees in the US today) that recognizes that an excessive concentration of power--governmental, fiscal, or otherwise--is dangerous to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
|
Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/30/07 07:32:24 AM |
Age 30, VA |
No, Ill wait right here while you reread my initial post. But if you cant be bothered. I said there should be some kind of middle ground between what the Universal Living Wage group is suggesting and what the minimum is. The cost of living is different in every city as well as the minimum wage. So you do the math. I also think small businesses should get some kind of tax credit to help counter balance. Along with universal healthcare for all, perhaps workers can get out of the poverty cycle a maybe start small businesses of their own as your husband was able to do.
|
Re: Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/29/07 06:40:18 PM |
Age 30, KY |
Interesting how you never state just WHAT the minimum wage should be. For just what amount exactly should we bleed small business owners (who are many times taking home less than minimum wage themselves)? $7? 9? How about $20? Heck, let's just print more money while we're at it. Socialism is EXACTLY what you're suggesting. I'll wait here while you run back to the union hall for more talking points.
|
Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/29/07 03:16:31 PM |
Age 30, VA |
Yes your lack of economic education is surprising. Its great that your husband was able to pull himself up from his bootstraps. But you should do some research about the people who cant and try to understand why. Look at whats going on currently. Whats really devaluing the dollar? Look at the real reasons that small business must downsize. If you are intellectually honest, you will see an entirely different picture. Im not suggesting Socialism but what you and Mr. Berman are is suggesting (tax-free laissez-faire capitalism) will only enslave people, destroy our economy and culture and ultimately our country. Just look at whats going on in the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands (google Marianas Islands, Tom Delay) and you will see what these Christian economic conservatives like Berman are really after. A big price to pay to get what you think is your fare share.
|
Re: Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/29/07 12:56:37 PM |
Age 30, KY |
Give me a break, three-time poster! Your bleeding heart economic policies would drive this country into bankruptcy if you were in charge, which, thank God you're not. People must take responsibility for their decisions in life. My husband provided for myself and our daughter, briefly, on $5.50 an hour. When that didn't work, he swung a hammer with carpenters. When the timing was right, he started his own contracting company, and now employs 40 people, all well-paid. Government must keep its hands out of our small business owners' pocketbooks, because our economy depends on these businesses. Artificially overblown minimum wages will only serve to devalue the dollar (thereby negating the usefulness of the minimum wage) and force small business owners to downsize: the minimum wage earner will suddenly be a no-wage earner. Does that sound prudent to you? I can't believe the lack of economic education in this country.
|
Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/29/07 07:50:49 AM |
Age 28, TX |
OK, to bring God back into the article and explain why this should be an important issue to the church:
The early church pooled their resources so that there were none in need. Everyone was taken care of. The widows were cared for, those whose husbands had abandoned them were supported. You don't see that in the church today. The church I just left is made up mostly of low wage workers, many of them single moms. One of these mothers is paid $10.50 an hour and she was so excited to get that job- said it was twice what she was making! Out of that she pays health insurance and has four children to support, with no child support check because her husband is missing presumed dead. The church should be assisting low income families. But, the church is not doing it's job.
|
Re: Re: Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/29/07 07:43:17 AM |
Age 28, TX |
The whole issue isn't really about the bottom minimum wage, it's about paying low wage workers more so they can afford healthcare and housing. Above minimum wage is still below living wage. One cannot support a family on, say, $7-$9 an hour which is the common wage for an experienced working adult in my area (Houston area.) My parents didn't pay for anything for me, but I was forced to live in their home (which was abusive in my opinion) because I couldn't afford to live anywhere else. Once I paid for my car insurance (no car note, I got a piece of junk begging at a church so I could get to work because there's also no public transportation here)and rent and food and toiletries and medical care (couldn't afford health insurance) I had nearly nothing left, certainly not enough left to save to rent an apt. And I had two years of college and was certified in my field, too! My schedule was somewhere between 6:30 AM and 7:30 PM M-F and no one was willing to hire me just on the weekends. I tried several different kinds of jobs OUTSIDE of my certified field, and was still never able to get ahead, no matter how hard I worked. I used to work a day job with dancers from a strip club and I learned quickly why some of these girls prostitute themselves like that: because they had to support their families and they couldn't find another way to do it. It wasn't so they could live a rich lifestyle or because they enjoyed living immorally. They wanted to feed and clothe their families.
So, I'm afraid you are the one without a clue.
|
Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/28/07 06:20:16 PM |
Age 30, VA |
According to the Economic Policy Institute the type of minimum wage worker that you describe account for only 7% of the total minimum wage work force. About two-thirds of minimum wage workers are over 20 years old; about two-thirds are women and about two-thirds do NOT live with their parents. The report confirms that 40% of them are the sole source of income in their households. This doesnt even account for those who are earning above minimum wage but below what would be a living wage. So please...
|
Re: Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/28/07 12:26:46 PM |
Age 43, NH |
You have a right to choose any field that you want including low paying ones, however
You do not have the right to choose a job that pays little such as your "musician" example, and then expect the government to dictate to the private sector what you should be paid. That is plain stupip. As far as the biblical mandate goes. I never said that the private sector should not pay well, I simply said that socialism does not work, and never will get the desired high wages. Only personal hard work, and ambition based in biblical morality will bring about the best in society in all areas. Human nature is such that it can't be trusted with total power as the government continues to take. Market forces are the best way to bring about productivity, and good wages. Government mandates chase away investment to other places where investment brings a return. It is simple. You may not like it but that is the way it works. No government will ever be able to establish the utopia that you liberals desire. If you are an able bodied person, get off your back side and improve your self. If you choose not to, do not presume that everyone else owes you a living. Now for those who are down by no fault of their own I believe that private charities are much better. I also think it very important that those who do well be willing to help others by their own choice and thus those who are helped are accountable. Government waste is a joke, and a bad one at that.
-Dr. Berman
|
Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/28/07 10:22:02 AM |
Age 30, VA |
According to the Economic Policy Institute the type of minimum wage worker that you describe account for only 7% of the total minimum wage work force. About two-thirds of minimum wage workers are over 20 years old; about two-thirds are women and about two-thirds do NOT live with their parents. The report confirms that 40% of them are the sole source of income in their households. This doesnt even account for those who are earning above minimum wage but below what would be a living wage. So please...
|
Re: Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/28/07 08:56:32 AM |
Age 59, ON |
Thank you; you said exactly what I was feeling (and you expressed it far better than I could have). I sometimes wonder why articles like this appear at this site; I don't see anything Christian about it, and it certainly doesn't seem to pay any attention to Jesus' call to heal the sick, comfort the poor, and love our neighbors.
|
Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/27/07 11:43:29 PM |
Age 30, VA |
According to the Economic Policy Institute the type of minimum wage worker that you describe accounts for only 7% of the total minimum wage work force. About two-thirds of minimum wage workers are over 20 years old; about two-thirds are women and about two-thirds do NOT live with their parents. The report confirms that 40% of them are the sole source of income in their households. This doesnt even account for those who are earning above minimum wage but below what would be a living wage. So please...
|
Re: Nickel & Dimed
| Posted On: 03/27/07 09:51:57 PM |
Age 30, KY |
Dear 30 VA: You are assuming, in practicality, that everyone working a minimum wage job "should be able to get" or "deserves" to meet their basic minimum costs. The vast majority of those working for minimum wage are 16-20 year olds with their mommies and daddies paying for their cars, car insurance, clothing, food, shelter, and schooling. They do not need a "living wage" on the backs of the small business owner trying to make his way in the USA, providing jobs for many in his community. They need a LEARNING wage. The government needs to stay out of it. This is merely another tax on the people who produce things in this country, and these people are taxed enough. Especially when you stop to consider all the small business owner means to our economy. So please... stop. Consider.
|
Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/27/07 06:45:45 PM |
Age 36, IL |
As for dim-witted ideas and false assumptions, as many have pointed out (including others here), there's no such thing as a "free" market. All markets have rules. (Otherwise, you wouldn't have a market, you'd have anarchy.) Current rules were designed to protect property, not people. Isn't it more Biblical to protect people, not profits? The current rules work because they debase everyone to simple profit-seekers--holding that to be the highest aspiration anyone should desire. Honoring my father and mother (to take one example), if not in my economic best interest, is not well-served in a "free" market. My parents should have planned ahead to have enough to retire on that they would not burden me in their aged and infirm state.
To presume that the only reason people work is to make money is to further play into this ideology and debase people. Using this logic, people would only play a musical instrument, care for the sick, or even attend church if they got paid for it. Because some people do those things for pay doesn't mean that everyone is only interested in doing those things for pay. Once a worker is freed from the fear of not being able to meet his or her basic needs, s/he is free to pursue work that is truly meaningful in life--giving back to others instead of simply greedily gaining as much as possible for him or herself. That is the crux of the "living wage" movement (regardless of any particular piece of legislation).
When you say: "If you are reading this and not making a wage you can live on, ask yourself if you are doing what is necessary to improve your marketable skills. Do not expect someone else to be forced to pay you what you are not worth! That is illogical, akin to extortion, and presumptuous," ask yourself the reverse question: "if you are reading this and making more than you need to live on, what makes you think that you are worth more than someone who makes less than you?" This is the corrupt logic of the "free" market that judges people, not by their souls, but by their wallets.
I'm anticipating the traditional, "but if we are free to choose the jobs we want, who will do the jobs that no one wants" argument. Who takes out the garbage in your house? Someone that LOVES garbage? Or someone who recognizes that taking out the garbage doesn't define them as a person, but is a duty they have to the community to contribute to the benefit of all. Some homes even rotate the duty so that one person is not stuck with the unpleasant tasks. The only reason an economy can't function thus is the belief that people will only act in their self interest.
If you are blessed with an inheritance, is it no illogical, presumptious, and akin to extortion to keep that money rather than going out and getting a job based only on your skills (as if one could give away all of the benefits bestowed by the vagaries of birth)?
"Liberals" argue for reforming the system to prevent it from abuse--abuse of the powerless. "Conservatives" see the very system as abusive--abusive to their liberty. Only someone endowed with power already would claim that what the powerless need is more liberty. To claim that you have "the right" to be exploited by agreeing to work for a wage less than you can live on (in most cases because it's the only wage available to you, and half-a-loaf beats starving) ignores the inherent injustice of the abuser having "the right" to exploit you. The "liberty" to starve is no liberty at all. Capitalism is premised on the existence of a "reserve labor force" that is always willing to work for cheaper. An economic system built on exploiting people is not a Biblical worldview. Only a "mixed economy" that recognizes that there are higher values than mammon--and that frees them from insecurity so that they can pursue those higher goals is one that can truly call itself Biblical.
If we are to serve the Lord, we must put people before profits.
|
Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/27/07 12:46:10 PM |
Age 40, NJ |
The sanctity of free markets is, itself, one of the very first liberal ideas... and often a rather dim-witted one at that. It stems from the absurd notion, high ideology really, that all men are created free and equal and may thus relate to one another by means of rational contract. But that is not, nor has it ever been, the way most people relate to one another most of the time. Instead, people relate primarily in families, and then in churches and communities. Only lastly do they relate in purely voluntary organizations. Yet this ideology of governance and (dubious) good order only recognizes the existence of this latter, voluntary, type of relationship. It is the poison tree from which we reap the fruit of the culture of death (contraception, abortion, sodomitic acts, divorce, complete and irrevocable individual autonomy).
Good government, i.e., good order, will be predicated upon preserving these "pre-rational", involuntary relations because these transcend individual autonomy and conserve public morals and thus the public good. It is thus quite right and just for a government, working with due prudence, to ensure a minimum wage for certain classes of workers, especially those on whom is the burden of caring for families.
Now THIS Federal legislation is no doubt NOT such a law. For one, as pointed out, it fails to discriminate between heads of households (those upon whom families completely depend), and those earning second or third incomes, or teenagers just starting out. Moreover, as pointed out, a federal standard wage is patently absurd, given the huge variances in the cost of living throughout the nation. It would be far more just, and eminently more practical, to pass living wage style laws at the state level.
These reasons are alone sufficient to oppose this particular "living wage" legislation. But to oppose it on purely ideological grounds, the supposed sanctity of "free markets" (which can of course never be truly free), in which it is INHERENTLY unjust to apply controls, is to buy, part and parcel, into a very specific ideology: enlightenment liberalism, which has no part in a Christian worldview.
|
Nickel and Dimed
| Posted On: 03/27/07 11:26:11 AM |
Age 30, VA |
Your conservative economic theories seem valid in principle but not in a real world application. The working poor are finding it harder and harder to get by and the economy is not any better. Imagine that you are earning minimum wage and you can't afford to put down the deposit for an apartment and therefore end up staying in a fleabag hotel. You will pay more in a month on a hotel room than you would have on rent. And you would not have saved up for the deposit because of that extra cost and the fact that you have to eat out everyday because there is no kitchen in your room. It cost you more to be poor. And this cycle would only grow. Imagine if you were to get sick. This kind of thing is happening in almost every facet of honest hard working people. To leap frog to the next step of economic freedom, you at least need a lily pad from which to jump. Yeah, okay, that formula for a universal living wage is coming from a small leftist website, not the Democratic party (who are a far from socialist by the way). ULW says $12.83 an hour in Austin, TX. The current minimum wage there is $5.15. There HAS to be a middle ground. Their basic premise however, is sound: Anyone working 40 hours per week should be able to get housing and get off of the streets. But that's just not happening in America. I challenge you and everyone to read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America.
|
Re: Another Dim-Witted Liberal Idea: The government should pass
| Posted On: 03/27/07 11:10:54 AM |
Age 28, TX |
I thoroughly agree, mandating higher wages is not going to fix the situation, but only make everything cost more and put more businesses out of business.
What I don't agree with " every job is designed to be a primary income source for a family is a major absurdity... (low paid) workers for example simply are not working in a career position unless they are planning to move into a management position... These are also supplementary income jobs. Perhaps a person may need a second job to supplement their income for their needs or simply because they would like to save money for some desired purchase."
My husband works with many professionals (not entry level, these are IT PROFESSIONALS) who are not making enough to live on. The fact is, most jobs do not pay what is needed to live on, and most jobs do not allow a schedule such that you can have a second job. Even though I was an experienced, college educated, certified, 20 something working in management, I was still not paid a sufficient wage (no matter where I worked. I have never been paid more then $11 an hour.) This means that the worker will never be self sufficient- will depend on government and family to help or to resort to illegal or unethical activity just to survive. Then what happens when a two income family who is just making it looses one of the incomes due to something like pregnancy? Again, the family is forced to rely on government and extended family. When I had our first child we lived with my inlaws because we couldn't afford to live on my husband's PROFESSIONAL salary. He could not work a second job, and although he looked for other positions he was actually paid pretty well staying where he was at in comparison! Not only is it unscriptural for me to work outside the home now, it is impractical. All my wages would be eaten up by childcare and work costs. A fact of life.
So, a lot needs to be done to fix the situation, but raising the wages will only raise the cost of living.
|
|
|
|
|
