Should Low-Wage Restaurant Workers Be Paid More?

[Peace]

Your twisting my words, or searching for ugly inner motivations for my beliefs, is getting a little tiresome.

Again, I don't think anyone should let people starve to death if they can prevent it.  (I thought I made that clear in another thread.)

To answer your question, if taxing people's income is in fact absolutely the only way to prevent persons from starving to death, then, yes, it would be acceptable.  I'm probably not as convinced as you are that it's the only way, and absolutely necessary, but I'm open to the possibility.  Human life itself takes precedence over property rights. (Similar to the way that it may be permissible in extreme circumstances to steal bread to save someone from starving, but that does not mean that theft should become a generally accepted policy.)

Thank you for clarifying. If you made that point in another thread then I must have missed it.

I was not sure how you would answer the question. I think that a pure view of "property-rights" or a pure "free-market economy" would dicate the opposite answer. That no - even where a person would starve to death, there is no right to take one person's property and give it to another. It is good to confirm that you do not subscribe to that view.

As for my questioning your motivations - look at it this way. You consider yourself a conservative. You want to advocate conservative beleifs. One thing that is going to help you do that is to pay particular attention to the way that your message is conveyed and the way that it is perceived. If you desire to get your point across then it would be good for you to make clear that the reasons for the principles you advocate are not based in greed or personal-self interest, as they are for some people, but because you believe those principles are in fact better for the poor and everyone else. When you loosely throw around words like burger-flippers and say that "you would not complain too much" about a billionaire getting taxed a small amount to help a poor person, it does not convey that message very well. You are more likely to be perceived as a person who is motivated only by greed.

Now that may not be fair. But that is how a lot of people will perceive you if you go on speaking in that manner. In my opinion, this is a big part of the reason why although we have a center-right majority in the USA, the Republicans consistently lose elections. The party does not know how to get its message across. Many people perceive it it as the party of greed or the party of intolerance, whether or not that characterization is fair.

I think you have seen the same thing with the Catholic Church. Many people outside of the Church see us as some rigid organization that only cares about following rules but does not care about the spirit of what Jesus taught. We are seen as kind of modern-day Pharisees. They don't understand that the rules and sacraments are motivated out of love and to help lead people to Jesus, because the Chuch has been poor in the way that She communicates and manages Her public image. So how is it that Pope Francis has been so sucessful in helping reshape the image of our Church in such a short period of time? Substantively, he has not said much of anything that Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul II, or others have not already said, but he communicates the message in a modern way that people get. That's important.

And it's not as though the "polical shaming" is something that is only done by liberals against conservatives. You see it going the other way too, when conservatives accuse liberals of being socialists, wanting the state to control everything, being welfare queens, and so forth . . .

However, the insatiable tax-and-spend appetites and actions of our current leviathon state go far, far beyond feeding the starving, and the state is loathe to relinquish any new powers it is given.  I share St. John Paul II's concerns about the modern ever-growing "Social Assistance State," which is more and more becoming the reality of our government.  But I've been over all that before.

I am not in favor of a Social Assistance State either. I guess we can start a thread on it another time, but I do not think that the USA is anywhere remotely close to what Pope John Paul II had in mind. I think that encyclical was written in the cold-war era and was directed towards communist governments. We are the only major civiilzed country that does not have universal-health-care. Heck. We don't even have paid leave for pregnant women. The social safety-net here in the USA is much, much less than what you have in most countries. And we still have a relatively free-market economy. I don't think we are anywhere close to what Pope John Paul II was fighting against.

From a purely economic perspective, yes (at least according to Friedman).  There are other good reasons for limiting immigration, but that's a topic for another thread.  You're the one who seems to want to have it both ways.

I am in favor of a relatively free market economy and relatively open borders. But I beleive that there should some limitations on both. I do not want criminals or other bad people coming here. And I do not want us to go back to the days where you have 8 year old kids working in coal mines or people going bankrupt because of medical expenses because they could not afford health insurance.

It looks like we agree for the most part on the essentials.  I said before that there should be more voluntary giving on the personal, family, church, and local level.  Unfortunately, it seems we keep abdicating more and more responsibilities to the state, and the government has been an enabler of the disastrous collapse of family and positive community in the inner cities.

Perhaps. My impression was that you wanted to go back to a bare-bones government where basically the government does nothing other than provide a military and public infrastructure. Is that not the case? 

I think that would violate the principle of subsidiarity - that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible and the highest level necessary. There are some things that the government can do better than by private action. That is true with national defense. It also happens to be true with things like health-care and assisting the poor through programs like SNAP (I would assume this is why the Catholic Church supports both of these programs).

So - you had always kind of struck me as a person who was for conservatism for the sake of conservatism, and who then might turn to the Bible to attempt to garner support for your conservatism, instead of a person who starts with moral principles that our Church teaches and lets those principles take him to whatever political policy that may follow. But I could be wrong about that. That was my honest impression based on what you write. At least you would rule out some extremes, like with the starving-person hypothetical I presented you with above. At least you would not go that far - and I had wondered.

I am in favor of whatever system most effectively advances the moral precepts of the Church. I advocate some things that the Democrats advocate and some things that Republicans advocate. I don't particularly care if it is in line with some conservative or liberal principle, I care about whether the policy is consistent with what the Catholic Church teaches. And I think that if anyone is intellectually honest and true to their faith, then they should be able to see things in both platforms that they support, and things in both platforms that they disagree with.

I would not call myself a "conservative" a "liberal" or a "moderate", but rather a "Catholic". I advocate principles that I believe are Catholic, be they liberal, conservative, or whatever.

There are selfish and greedy persons of every political ideology.  However, it's neither fair nor accurate to characterize conservatives in general as being selfish and heartless.  Surveys consistently confirm that, as a group, conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do.

I agree that there are plenty of greedy people in every party.  I don't think I have characterized all conservatives that way, either (in my post above you can see that I wrote that there are well-meaning conservatives and heartless ones as well).

Do you have any of those surveys? I would not be surprised to find that conservatives are more highly correlated with those who donate, but I would guess that the causation has more to do with religious affiliation than it does with political ideology. In other words, religious people in the USA tend to donate more than non-religious people, and at this particular point in history the religious block of the USA tends to vote on the right. I would not think that there is correlation with conservatism outside out of religious affiliation.

Let's not confuse current liberal opinion with Jesus.

 I certainly do not confuse "liberal opinion" with the teachings of Jesus. Nor do I confuse "conservative opinion" with the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus commands us to perform personal acts of giving and self-sacrifice for others.  He said nothing, however, about raising taxes, or spending more on government programs.

I do not agree with attempts by the left or the right to use Jesus as support for their political agenda.

If Jesus had said "you shall not raise taxes or have government programs for the poor" then you would have an argument. The poltical world that we live in today is vastly different than that in which our Lord lived in. Like many modern things such as stem-cell research, human cloning, in-vitro fertlization, etc., we do not have any clear directive in the Sacred Scriptures concerning whether Jesus would have preferred us to vote for Donald Trump or Hilliary Clinton.

How then do we decide on those things? Luckily - Jesus left us with a Church to guide us. And that is where I think any faithful Catholic should start when forming a political (or any other kind) of philosophy.

What does She advocate? I think She advocates a system that is somewhere in-between what the far-left advocates and what the far-right advocates, because both "pure communisim" and "pure capatalism" abrogate our ethical responsibilites towards one another. At least in our era, it seems to me that the Church has consistently advocated for something that is in between the extremes put forth by the left and the right, and that She has denounced and advocated certain policies by both wings depending on how She beleives those policies to be consistent with our faith.

[little2add]

I can't afford to eat at the fast food places besides junk food is not that good for you nutritionally

You could pay them fast food workers $15 an hour or more and still could not afford to eat there

[Socrates]

Thank you for clarifying. If you made that point in another thread then I must have missed it.

I was not sure how you would answer the question. I think that a pure view of "property-rights" or a pure "free-market economy" would dicate the opposite answer. That no - even where a person would starve to death, there is no right to take one person's property and give it to another. It is good to confirm that you do not subscribe to that view.

 

 

 . . . . 

Peace, bro, no disrespect, but that post's simply longer and more "all over the place" than I have time to respond to in any depth.  And a lot of it is stuff we've already debated elsewhere, and is straying far off the original topic of minimum wage laws.

If there's something you want to debate further in more focus, perhaps start another thread, or dig up an old thread on it.

I still see absolutely no reason to believe that federal government bureaucracies are in fact better than voluntary and local activity at either managing healthcare or administering charity.  There's no reason beyond ideological superstition to think that socialism will in fact make healthcare more affordable and available when it fails in that regard with every other service.

And the Church does not dictate that we follow any particular government economic/political "program," much less one that is midway between the current policies of the American Democrat and Republican parties (which are in fact a lot more alike than different).

If you read Pope Leo XIII's ("the Father of Catholic Social Teaching") writings, you'd see he does not call for a bigger activist centralized state, but focuses on protecting the rights of families, the right of persons to property, and voluntary, non-state organizations such as worker's guilds.

Also, if you read Centesimus Annus, it's clear when John Paul II speaks of the "Social Assistance State" or "welfare state," he is talking about something distinct and different from Communist governments, which he discusses in depth earlier in the encyclical (which was written at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union).

Edited August 30, 2015 by Socrates

[Peace]

Peace, bro, no disrespect, but that post's simply longer and more "all over the place" than I have time to respond to in any depth.  And a lot of it is stuff we've already debated elsewhere, and is straying far off the original topic of minimum wage laws.

If there's something you want to debate further in more focus, perhaps start another thread, or dig up an old thread on it.

Feel free to respond or not respond as you wish. Either way is cool with me.

I still see absolutely no reason to believe that federal government bureaucracies are in fact better than voluntary and local activity at either managing healthcare or administering charity.  There's no reason beyond ideological superstition to think that socialism will in fact make healthcare more affordable and available when it fails in that regard with every other service.

You would like reasons other than ideological superstition? Here are at least 2: 1) The state can identify people who need charity more efficiently than you or I can. 2) You can compare the cost and number of people with health insurance in countries with universal health care and those without it.

And the Church does not dictate that we follow any particular government economic/political "program," much less one that is midway between the current policies of the American Democrat and Republican parties (which are in fact a lot more alike than different).

Yes. What you wrote is technically correct.

She does not allow for pure communism or pure capatalism. I think you can deduce that what She does allow is somewhere between these two extremes.

If you read Pope Leo XIII's ("the Father of Catholic Social Teaching") writings, you'd see he does not call for a bigger activist centralized state, but focuses on protecting the rights of families, the right of persons to property, and voluntary, non-state organizations such as worker's guilds.

Also, if you read Centesimus Annus, it's clear when John Paul II speaks of the "Social Assistance State" or "welfare state," he is talking about something distinct and different from Communist governments, which he discusses in depth earlier in the encyclical (which was written at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union).

OK. I will take a look at them.

To clarify - I do not advocate a "bigger activist centralized state" than the one that we currently have either. I would actually like to see the size of government reduced, just as you do

I would not pair down government so that it consists of nothing more than a means for providing a military and public infrastructure. I think that is too extreme - but if this is no longer your position then perhaps we would not disagree that much.

[Socrates]

You would like reasons other than ideological superstition? Here are at least 2: 1) The state can identify people who need charity more efficiently than you or I can. 2) You can compare the cost and number of people with health insurance in countries with universal health care and those without it.

 

1) Somehow I seriously doubt that federal government bureaucrats can really deal better with persons in need on the individual level than persons who are actually part of their own community and have a personal relationship with them.  For instance, knowing who is genuinely in need of help vs. who is lazy and "playing the system.," and knowing more details of the person and his situation to help him better himself.

To take immediately take all problems straight to the federal government because you deem the federal bureaucracy "more efficient" seems to undercut the whole principle of subsidiarity.

2) Socialized medicine in other countries is in reality hardly the unqualified glowing success you apparently think it is.

Somewhat old article, but still relevant:  http://fee.org/freeman/national-health-insurance-a-medical-disaster/

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/071713-664109-british-nhs-socialized-health-care-an-unmitigated-failure.htm

The increase in needless deaths under that system, and the "death panels" that many predict will come with Obamacare should at very least make one pause before essentially declaring socialized medicine a moral mandate.

And there are other factors impacting cost and such in different countries.  In the U.S., premiums and deductibles for many have already gone up, and many experts expect costs to spike much higher in the near future.  And comparing number of persons with health insurance is not really a good indicator of superior quality, as under socialized systems, persons are forced by law to buy insurance, whereas in a free system, some freely choose not to.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428

This last article's notable, as Politico's a left-wing web mag.

 

To clarify - I do not advocate a "bigger activist centralized state" than the one that we currently have either. I would actually like to see the size of government reduced, just as you do

How exactly would you reduce government?  Less military spending?

I would not pair down government so that it consists of nothing more than a means for providing a military and public infrastructure. I think that is too extreme - but if this is no longer your position then perhaps we would not disagree that much.

That wasn't exactly my position, but anyway.

[Peace]

1) Somehow I seriously doubt that federal government bureaucrats can really deal better with persons in need on the individual level than persons who are actually part of their own community and have a personal relationship with them.  For instance, knowing who is genuinely in need of help vs. who is lazy and "playing the system.," and knowing more details of the person and his situation to help him better himself.

To take immediately take all problems straight to the federal government because you deem the federal bureaucracy "more efficient" seems to undercut the whole principle of subsidiarity.

 I don't recall having written anything about immediately taking all problems to the federal government.

It is not only a matter of efficiency but a matter of necessity. Some of the things that poor people need are money, food, clothing, and shelter. It does not particularly matter how deep of a personal relationship I have with my neighbor if he is incapable of providing those things. At least in the United States of America, the people who are capable of providing those things (the wealthy) by and large choose to live far away from the poor, in large houses out in the suburbs. Because most people with abundance do not choose to live among, associate with, or assist the people who are most in need of their abundance, taxation becomes a necessity to ensure that the wealthy pay their debt of justice to the poor. If you do not have some programs like SNAP I believe that some people would go hungry.

2) Socialized medicine in other countries is in reality hardly the unqualified glowing success you apparently think it is.

I do not recall having written anything about it being an unqualified glowing success. No system is perfect, but I believe that the universal health care systems that have been freely implemented in most first world countries are preferable to the system that we have in the USA.

Personally, I have lived in a country with universal health care for 6 years. I have lived the rest in the USA. I've had 4 major surgeries in the USA and 3 while living abroad, so I think I have some basis for comparison. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose a country with universal health care. This is not based on any political inclination, but rather my personal experience with both systems. And that seems to be the same for everyone I have met that has lived under both systems. Just a few weeks ago I asked 3 foreign colleagues of mine how they prefer the two systems, and each of them said that they much prefer the system in their home countries. I do not think I have met a single person who has actually lived under both systems, and who prefers the US system - have you? I am not saying that universal health care will lead to a utopia - but I think one has to ask why every first world country in the world except for one has freely adopted it.

As for "death panels" - the closest thing I have seen to that was right here in the USA (before Obamacare). My insurance company refused to pay for a surgery that my doctor wanted to perform. Think about it - insurance companies in the USA are in business to make profit. If they do not pay for medical care, their profit increases. If they pay out money for medical care, their profit decreases. I think you can put two and two together.

 And under the old system - good luck getting any kind of insurance if you found yourself out of work and with a medical condition. There is a reason why medical costs are the leading cause of medical bankruptcy, you know. . .

By the way, exactly how is it that Obamacare is going to result in increased "death panels"?

Both FactCheck.org and Politifact called BS on that years ago, but I am not surprised to see that people are still repeating the mantra:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/whoppers-of-2009/

I am not a particularly big fan of Obamacare, by the way. It seems to have a few good things in it such as prohibiting bans on people with pre-existing medical conditions, but I do not think it is a particularly good law. I think it did not go far enough. I wanted the public health insurance option, which the Republicans managed to take off of the table. Without the public option you pretty much have the same health care system at the core, with a few tweaks here and there. I think that we are still pretty far away from what most other countries have, despite whatever spin there may be to the contrary.

What specific provisions of Obamacare is it that you think are bad?

How exactly would you reduce government?  Less military spending?

No. I am in favor of a strong military, actually. I would eliminate most of the agencies that adminster social welfare programs and replace them with a guaranteed minimum income. I would just tax and give people the money directly, without having to administer programs like SNAP, public housing, etc. I would also take a look at downsizing a lot of agencies like Energy, Education, Transportation, etc.

That wasn't exactly my position, but anyway.

I see. It appears that I misunderstood you. Other than the military, public infrastructure, and the courts, what do you think are legitimate functions of government?

[Peace]

Re: Guranteed Minimum Income:

[Winchester]

If you think wages should be higher in a particular business, then start one up and pay them. 

[StMichael]

Bad idea.

How have we gone from a nation where just 40-50 years ago, the head of the family only needed to work and could support his wife, 2 children and all their needs including home ownership, etc. to where even 2 income couples cannot purchase a home today? Is it the minimum wage?

Or is the what is eating away at the wages that already exist?

Lets take a major city that is implementing this arbitary $15 per hour. Los Angeles.

We all consume. Groceries, clothes, etc. So we must pay a sales tax. In 1965 you would be levied with a 3% sales tax. In 2015, this is 9.5% (3x higher).

LA, you have no choice but to drive. All public and private transportation was destroyed in the 1950’s to make way for the freeway. Sure gas was cheap and plentiful, but the tax levied by just the state, again 1965,  was $0.07 per gallon (Federal added another $0.04 per gallon, combing for a whopping 11¢ per gallon.

2015, each gallon of gas is hit with 57.9¢ per gallon (39.5¢ CA + 18.4¢ Fed) + sales tax (9%).

Of course that is just what is upfront, that doesn’t include all the taxing behind the scenes to the gas companies to get the gas in the state, tax for transportation of the gas, etc. Gas, lifeblood to getting to work, to school, etc. costs over $1 more per gallon in CA than anywhere else in the US. 

In 1965, there was no welfare state, yet, that was looming. So, while FICA existed, in 1965 you paid at a rate of 3.625%. In 2015, 12.4% is taken. Medicare didn’t exist yet in 1965, but it began in 1966 at a rate of 0.35%, today that rate is 2.9%.

Yes, we can speak to inflation, supply & demand, etc. but it is the local, state and federal that are picking our pockets clean with an insatiable appetite and no end in sight.

In 1965 the minimum wage was $1.25, having such a thing in a so-called free market is no longer a free market. Regardless, it has been around since 1938 thanks to a wave of socialistic moves by FDR (that for another time). It was 25¢. The very idea that the government can get in the way of 2 interests and dictate terms, well, it isn’t in the Constitution. OK, so we have this floor set. It is a pittance, it allowed for employers to hire the unskilled and new to the job force at rate that provided the employee with some earnings, while providing them with the wealth of learning business, work ethic, etc. and preparing them for the real world or what would eventually become their career. Burger joints filled with teens working there, gas hops the same, in fact almost every low or no skilled position was fielded by the 16-21 year old group. 

Go to your local McDonald’s or Starbucks or Baskin Robbins. Are you met by someone under the age of 25? Los Angeles (still the example) is ranked 98th (out of 100) regarding youth unemployment with close to 17%. The minimum wage in Los Angeles (2015) is $9 (a full $1.75 over the Federal requirement). So what do businesses do? They use less workers. They will not shell out $9 or $15 or whatever inflated amount the government says to the unskilled that they will have to pay to train and may not work out. So we create a cycle where cut off their futures as employment as a teen correlates to future employment. Then you add in other factors like competition from illegal aliens and it is the American Dreamers (our children) who suffer most.

So who benefits from an increase in the minimum wage? Is it the businesses? Is it the employees? Is it the local, state and federal governments? The consumer? Whatever tiny benefit the employee might see, it will be erased by higher taxes, more workload, etc. Look at those protesters. Who are they? Up until April 2015, SEIU (a union) has spent over $637, 243 paying union members to rally. The hope for the SEIU is to unionize fast food workers. This breaks labor laws as they are not allowed to engage in this type of play. So is it about membership? That is a small benefit.

The main reason unions are fueling and have been fueling this is that their members pay is linked to the minimum wage whereby they are a certain percentage over that, so the average union member today gets paid $22 per hour based on the $7.25 per hour fed minimum wage. With the plight and blight unions have brought to America’s once great industries, striking would be their death knell, so this way they can pull the strings and get a rainfall of cash.

The minimum wage does not exist to live off. It exists to ensure that something is earned. Unless you are a cultured chef, flipping frozen burgers at McDonald’s is not a career, it is an entry level or supplemental job. 

Ah, but there is always our welfare state that far exceeds the $15 per hour. In Los Angeles, welfare pays over $18 per hour (Hawaii is the highest at $29.13 per hour). 

Viva socialism

[AccountDeleted]

I can't say I understand economics at all but I do know that I live in a country where the minimum wage is $17.29 per hour, the government supports the unemployed and health care is available to all, for free to those who are poor and subsidised to those who earn a living wage. Our taxes might be high, I don't know. I do know our petrol costs are much higher (even though we have our own resources) and certainly things like clothes and food are more expensive than in the US, but somehow we seem to have a pretty good standard of living here. We have excellent public transport and superannuation (like 401K) is compulsory for those who work (paid by employers) and for those who don't, there is an age pension (a non-contributory Social Security).

I just think that things in the US could be better if people put their effort into it. I know our societies and governments are different, but maybe economists could look at the best in every country and then put together some kind of plan for the US that actually works. A minimum wage of $15 is not a lot, really. Most people here get paid more. And when I lived in the States and worked professionally, I didn't worry about minimum wage, but when I lost my job and had to take a minimum wage job to survive, I realised that it just isn't enough to live on comfortably. Anyway, I don't know the answer.

Edited September 10, 2015 by nunsense

[StMichael]

Nunsense, no offense, but the system you live under is a get by system. The US system has provided more property then any country in the history of time. The US system, where consent by the governed was the rule. Where every major leap forward for humanity in the last 100+ years has originated from medical to industrial to technology. Where we feed the world. Where we come to the rescue. 

It is not the US system that is broken. It is the introduction of socialism that is making the US ill.

That should read "The US System has provided more prosperity then any country in the history of time." Not property.

(no way to edit?)

[Peace]

Nunsense, no offense, but the system you live under is a get by system. The US system has provided more property then any country in the history of time. The US system, where consent by the governed was the rule. Where every major leap forward for humanity in the last 100+ years has originated from medical to industrial to technology. Where we feed the world. Where we come to the rescue. 

It is not the US system that is broken. It is the introduction of socialism that is making the US ill.

That should read "The US System has provided more prosperity then any country in the history of time." Not property.

(no way to edit?)

Well. I can see that someone has been drinking his fair share of the Kool-Aid.

[Anastasia13]

You can work in at least somewhat skilled office jobs  with an associate degree for several years and not make as much as $15/hour.  Why should someone make more than that to ask if you would like fries with your order?

[AccountDeleted]

Nunsense, no offense, but the system you live under is a get by system. The US system has provided more property then any country in the history of time. The US system, where consent by the governed was the rule. Where every major leap forward for humanity in the last 100+ years has originated from medical to industrial to technology. Where we feed the world. Where we come to the rescue. 

It is not the US system that is broken. It is the introduction of socialism that is making the US ill.

That should read "The US System has provided more prosperity then any country in the history of time." Not property.

(no way to edit?)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds very nationalistic and jingoistic to me. I was born in the USA but I can still see the value of other countries' systems. It doesn't sound like you have any idea what the rest of the world is like. If you have something useful to say about economics, that would be informative, but this just sounds like fanaticism to me.

[StMichael]

Well. I can see that someone has been drinking his fair share of the Kool-Aid.

Well, I can see you have zero to offer.

Edited September 11, 2015 by StMichael