Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Socrates: no, the free market doesn't take care of the problem. in the free market, they will pay people less so they can charge lower prices... problem solved. except the worker gets the bad end of it. legally requiring living wages across the board is not going to end up in less employers; it'll end up in less businesses selling things at unjust prices and paying unjust wages. Which creates a void in which there are people selling things that are actually marketable at their fair price and thus those employers can afford to pay just wages to their employees. there is no need to have companies which sell things below the just price... if there is not enough demand for those things to charge a just price (which is a price which will enable the employer to pay a just wage), then there's no need for a business which sells them. There are enough needed things which are in demand that can be sold at just prices for everyone to be employed (well, nearly everyone, obviously there are always people "between jobs") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassandragirl Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='27 October 2009 - 02:54 PM' timestamp='1256673245' post='1992246'] from another thread in case anyone wants to chip in. my view- they cause some unemployment that otherwise woldn't exist. but that's a necessary evil considering the benefits they give. everyone who worked closer to minimum would be making beans. there's pros and cons, but in this case, the pros outweight the cons, decent living v. poverty for more. [/quote] Actually, at this point, minimum wage is just a political tool. If you raise the minimum wage, you increase costs for a business to run which gets passed on to all the customers and is spread out everywhere so it really does not do a whole lot other than creating what appears to be a wage increase. However, it is followed by a cost increase that counterbalances it. No one can actually live at the current minimum wage so it does nothing to end poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 October 2009 - 09:56 PM' timestamp='1256864187' post='1993634'] (Is it rude of me to ask questions, and not respond to the points you make in response?) [/quote] no, I just assume that means I'm winning. lol jk...no it's fine though. being that you study economics and such, I think you should invest in studying some stuff by Heinrich Pesch. Wouldn't it be interesting to read the economist who's had the ear of the popes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 in terms of laws: I have suggested in the other thread that the laws would be such that if an employee was not receiving a living wage despite offering adequate work, such a person could present to his employer his needs and if not listened to could take the case to court, presenting of course the documentation that he's unable to use his wage to achieve a basic level of subsistence for himself and his family (and obviously if he's spending all his money on luxuries, he'd have no case)... the law should be on the side of getting him a living wage then. I dislike the across the board minimum wage approach because it treats snot nosed pimply faced teenagers who just want enough money to get that new XBox game the same as a father of four... the father of four should get more money for the same work as the snot nosed teenager; and employment needs to be preferential towards the father of four such that if it's between the two of them for a job, the snot nosed teenager should lose. ie those who don't need to be employed simply... gasp... maybe they should be unemployed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='29 October 2009 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1256864273' post='1993635'] Socrates: no, the free market doesn't take care of the problem. in the free market, they will pay people less so they can charge lower prices... problem solved. except the worker gets the bad end of it. legally requiring living wages across the board is not going to end up in less employers; it'll end up in less businesses selling things at unjust prices and paying unjust wages. Which creates a void in which there are people selling things that are actually marketable at their fair price and thus those employers can afford to pay just wages to their employees. there is no need to have companies which sell things below the just price... if there is not enough demand for those things to charge a just price (which is a price which will enable the employer to pay a just wage), then there's no need for a business which sells them. There are enough needed things which are in demand that can be sold at just prices for everyone to be employed (well, nearly everyone, obviously there are always people "between jobs") [/quote] Sounds like you need a lesson in basic economics. What exactly is a "just price"? How does one determine it? In a free market, price of goods and services is determined by an agreement between buyer and seller - where supply meets demand. The market price is the price at which both sellers are willing to sell and buyers are willing to buy. At a price above market price, buyers will not be willing to buy, and there will be a surplus of unsold goods until the price falls. At a price below market price, there will be shortage of goods, and sellers will not be able to make a profit. There are many factors which enter into determining market price, which will always fluctuate. The government can't come in and set an arbitrary "just price" for goods, without creating economic havoc. The same with wages - which are an agreement between employment and employer. Artificially-raised wages will merely cause employers to hire fewer workers (leading to more unemployment), and/or raise the prices of their goods to compensate, resulting in higher cost of living (which will hurt mostly the poor), and just help drive up inflation, so the situation is not in reality improved. If the government jumps in and raises both minimum wage and minimum selling prices to what it decides to be "just" levels, all it's done is devalued the dollar. I know you mean well, but yours is a utopian vision which does not correspond to reality. Edited October 30, 2009 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bone _ Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' date='29 October 2009 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1256864934' post='1993643'] in terms of laws: I have suggested in the other thread that the laws would be such that if an employee was not receiving a living wage despite offering adequate work, such a person could present to his employer his needs and if not listened to could take the case to court, presenting of course the documentation that he's unable to use his wage to achieve a basic level of subsistence for himself and his family (and obviously if he's spending all his money on luxuries, he'd have no case)... the law should be on the side of getting him a living wage then. I dislike the across the board minimum wage approach because it treats snot nosed pimply faced teenagers who just want enough money to get that new XBox game the same as a father of four... the father of four should get more money for the same work as the snot nosed teenager; and employment needs to be preferential towards the father of four such that if it's between the two of them for a job, the snot nosed teenager should lose. ie those who don't need to be employed simply... gasp... maybe they should be unemployed! [/quote] Perhaps, especially in this economy, it would behoove us to raise the minimum employment age to 18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 [quote name='T-Bone _' date='29 October 2009 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1256865656' post='1993649'] Perhaps, especially in this economy, it would behoove us to raise the minimum employment age to 18? [/quote] I'm helping to pay for my university education with money I made before I turned 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 this is where I derive my thinking on what a just price is: http://books.google.com/books?id=htpXgf5dyS4C&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=Heinrich+Pesch+minimum+wage+laws&source=bl&ots=NuXTU1ngA4&sig=B7lzEFkFoXDRroiu1Rm2NfCQYeA&hl=en&ei=RA3qSsuzN4nilAeW9cX_BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false I'll let Heinrich Pesch school me in economics, but thanks for your lesson in (classical) liberal economics. I know all that, I just reject it. there certainly must be equilibrium and the market price has a place... but there is such a thing as an unjust price that comes out as a market price... and that happens when employers pay unjustly low wages and are thus able to offer prices LOWER than what it really costs, in terms of what the employees deserve to be paid, to sell that product. In any event, I don't want the government to determine "just price". When employers are forced to pay a "just wage", they will then charge a just price to afford to pay that wage. I think a guild system would be a great way to help various trades to set the just prices so that there is no one that tries to unjustly compete by offering lower prices than what is just. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King's Rook's Pawn Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='29 October 2009 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1256860147' post='1993586'] St. Thomas Aquinas held that a right is a moral power to have the means necessary to fulfill a duty, or a moral obligation. therefore, as a father has the moral obligation to feed his family, he has the right to the means necessary to feed his family-- ie a living wage. everyone has the right to everything necessary to fulfill their moral obligations. THAT is the Catholic understanding of rights, vis a vis the Angelic Doctor. [/quote] Odd. The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Right, as a substantive (my right, his right), designates the object of justice. When a person declares he has a right to a thing, he means he has a kind of dominion over such thing, which others are obliged to recognize. Right may therefore be defined as a moral or legal authority to possess, claim, and use a thing as one's own." I don't know what St. Thomas Aquinas said about it. In any case, we're not obligated to agree with every either Aquinas or the Catholic Encyclopedia says. I'm not going to argue semantics. I am using the word "right" to refer to an individual's natural sovereign authority over his mind, his body, and his property. Maybe Aquinas used the word in a different sense. It's my contention that only actions that violate an individual's natural sovereign authority (or "dominion") over his mind, his body, and his property may be retaliated against because only such actions transgress that individual's [i]natural boundaries[/i]. The contention that each individual has a natural sovereign authority over his mind, his body, and his property does not violate any doctrine of the faith that I've ever heard tell of, and a good thing too, because then I'd find it hard to square such a doctrine with logic. [quote]Heinrich Pesch, the economist who is most responsible for influencing the economic thought of the popes since Pius XI (including John Paul II and Benedict XVI), held that if an industry is incapable of providing its services and also providing employees a living wage, then it is clear that that industry is not in high enough demand to exist.[/quote] That sounds like a great way to throw people out of jobs and impoverish everybody. Well, at least they'll have "dignity." [quote]just like there is a "just wage" there is also such a thing as a "just price"; places like WalMart often violate both just wages and just prices... "always [unjustly] low prices, always."... actually, it is necessary to violate just wages in order to violate just prices.. many places do both. the hot dog vendor should be able to support himself by the price of his hot dogs quite well... but it's hard since some major corporate hot dog shop might violate just prices and thus push him so that he is uncompetitive.[/quote] Well, I'm glad that the absurdities are at least consistent. Underselling the competition: another line on the long, long list of phony "capitalist" evils. If you sell too low its "unfair competition," if you sell to high its "price gouging," if you sell at the same level as your competitors its "collusion." Certainly we should get rid of all charities; they undersell everybody! I say, ban the price system altogether; we should all go back to bartering. Then no one could commit such evils. More great ways to snatch dearth from the jaws of abundance. [quote]employers treated their employees by such a golden rule![/quote] You do realize that the employer-employee relationship is [i]not[/i] master/slave relationship, don't you? Rather it is a trade relationship; it is an actual of exchange between what we nowadays call "consenting adults." The next thing you're going to say is that the employer has "economic power" over the employee. Whatever that is. It sounds to me like another way to distort the clear and obvious difference between aggression and voluntary interaction. In any case, in a free market, if anyone has economic power, it's the [i]consumers[/i], not employers. Yet I'm sure you want to protect them from those dastardly "capitalists" as well. How about we protect the capitalists from the consumers by letting them form their own unions. We just won't call them by that nasty old phrase "cartels." Or why not ban all trade? We could all be noble subsistence farmers; then we'd all have jobs and set our own prices. Mutually voluntary acts of exchange are just too perilous for peasants like us to engage in. We might hurt ourselves. In the other thread, the territorial state was a benevolent "authority," despite the fact that it essentially [i]is[/i] a slavemaster with a million guns. Employers are just trading partners, yet they're wicked and dangerous, and we should push them around. Is this reality or bizarro world? [quote] I'll let Heinrich Pesch school me in economics, but thanks for your lesson in (classical) liberal economics. I know all that, I just reject it. there certainly must be equilibrium and the market price has a place... but there is such a thing as an unjust price that comes out as a market price..[/quote] I adhere to Galen's theory of the four humors. I understand germ theory and all the stuff, but I reject it because it's unjust. [quote]I don't want the government to determine "just price". When employers are forced to pay a "just wage", they will then charge a just price to afford to pay that wage. I think a guild system would be a great way to help various trades to set the just prices so that there is no one that tries to unjustly compete by offering lower prices than what is just.[/quote] Oh, good we do get business unions. "Guilds," now there's a nice romantic phrase; much then cartels. Just like that wonderful institution, the AMA, that's brought such efficiency to our medical industry. More fruitful ideas to bring famine to 21st century. Who enforces the guild monopolies? Does the government use it's guns for that or do the guilds get to use their own guns? As for me, I secede from Bizarro World. I just prefer those dastardly "Enlightenment novelties" like freedom and prosperity. Edited October 30, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Aquinas's definition doesn't contradict the Catholic Encyclopedia's. The further elaboration that everyone has a right to all the means necessary to fulfill their duties is perfectly in line with that. your minimalization of rights to not apply them to other things and therefore declare that there are no "positive rights" is not in line with either definition. and I'm not exactly against all "collusion", that's what guilds are, in a certain sense. it's not a hard concept: everyone has the right to a living wage, therefore every employer has the obligation to sell things at prices that allow them to pay everyone a living wage. if there's not enough demand for your product that people are willing to pay that type of price for it, then the business doesn't really make sense. there are enough businesses that make sense in society that can actually be sold at a just price to employ everyone, we don't have to sell things at prices so cheap that it doesn't make economic sense to pay employees just wages in order to have enough jobs--there are enough things that need done in society that enough businesses can exist to employ as many people as need employed. your gloom and doom predictions of what happens when we follow anything else other than sacrosanct (classical) liberal economics is actually kind of funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King's Rook's Pawn Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='30 October 2009 - 01:47 AM' timestamp='1256878064' post='1993771']your minimalization of rights to not apply them to other things and therefore declare that there are no "positive rights" is not in line with either definition.[/quote] Once you accept the fact that individuals to have rights over their minds, bodies, and property, clearly their can't be any rights that contradict those rights. A so-called right to a wage contradicts the right to property if it justifies seizing another person's property. Say, do we have a right do high-speed Internet access, like the government of Finland thinks. If not, why not? If so, do we also have a right to cell phones? What about washer-dryers? What about a microwave oven? [quote]and I'm not exactly against all "collusion", that's what guilds are, in a certain sense.[/quote] Yes, I know that's what guilds are and [url="http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1252"]guilds smell of elderberries[/url]. They're cartels and cartels prevent competition and without competition, there is no way for efficiency to rise above inefficiency. Competition (nonviolent, obviously) is the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Stifled competition encourages endemic inefficiency, lack of innovation, high costs, high prices, and general squalor. You basically advocate economic fascism: a controlled, coercive, corporative state-business-labor welter. Do really think this will bring greater wealth or a more equitable distribution of wealth or more of any other good than a free and voluntary economy would bring? [quote]it's not a hard concept: everyone has the right to a living wage, therefore every employer has the obligation to sell things at prices that allow them to pay everyone a living wage.[/quote] I just love all these weasel terms: a "living wage." Is it $30k per person? $40k? $20k? Who knows? I wish you would settle on an actual concrete concept. [quote]if there's not enough demand for your product that people are willing to pay that type of price for it, then the business doesn't really make sense.[/quote] "the business doesn't really make sense." To whom??? Clearly not to the owners nor the consumers nor the employees; they all voluntary chose to own, buy from, and work at this organization. Clearly it makes sense to them. It just doesn't make sense to [i][u]you[/u][/i]. You are free to [i]not[/i] work at or buy from or own stock in that business. You can even organize a vocal boycott if you like. But you are [i]not[/i] free to forcibly impose your will on these people. Nor is anyone else, including President So-and-So or Guildmaster Such-and-Such. [quote]there are enough businesses that make sense in society that can actually be sold at a just price to employ everyone, we don't have to sell things at prices so cheap that it doesn't make economic sense to pay employees just wages in order to have enough jobs--there are enough things that need done in society that enough businesses can exist to employ as many people as need employed.[/quote] In other words, it's okay to run peoples' lives for them as long as it only makes them a [i]little[/i] poorer. If "living wages" are a "right" surely it doesn't matter [i]how[/i] poor they make everyone right? Even if unemployment was at 30%, we would have to tolerate to ensure that the 70% of employed workers had their rights met, right? I love the periodic lapses from traditionalist Catholicism into utilitarianism. "Only when it's conveeeeenient!" [quote]your gloom and doom predictions of what happens when we follow anything else other than sacrosanct (classical) liberal economics is actually kind of funny.[/quote] Funny unless you're living it, as people do all over the world who live under oppressive regimes that think they know what's best for them. Funny, really, until [i]you're[/i] the young person thrown out of work, the business owner driven into bankruptcy, or the working-class consumer who sees prices rising even as the variety and quality of goods and services is declining. Aloysius, human beings aren't silly putty you can twist to fit a romanticized version of 13th century Europe, nor are the economic structures they choose create through their free and voluntary interactions. You keep telling me how important it is to live in society. Yet you don't seem to want to accept the anything the people within society choose to do or choose to create. "We all must be part of society: [i]MY[/i] society!" Edited October 30, 2009 by King's Rook's Pawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 property is not an absolute right. it is certainly a right, but the Church never held it as an absolute right; Fr. McNabb explains the real Catholic understanding of property rights quite well here: http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/fr-mcnabb-speaks-on-rights-and-property.html one cannot do unjust things with one's property. we have the right to everything which is necessary to fulfill our moral obligations (duties). this is actually common sense. if we have a moral obligation to do something, we have the right to have what is necessary to do it. and a living wage is absolutely necessary to fulfill every human being's duties--moral obligations--to live, to support their family, et cetera. again, you have doom and gloom predictions, but you cannot point to anything that remotely follows my principals... and despotic governments or communistic governments around the world do not follow ANY of what I've been saying. at all. so it's absolutely false to compare my statements to those situations. there's not only two options; anything that's not classical liberalism doesn't necessarily translate to communist. it's funny because it's so blatantly and apparently false. that's why it's funny. a living wage is enough for a person to fulfill his duties. if he has a family, it's enough to provide a home and subsistence for his family. if he's an individual, it's enough to provide a home and subsistence for himself. so there's no set number, it's all based upon individual needs. you and I will never agree... I don't expect that. all I care is that if any anonymous person is reading this that they see both sides well and hopefully side more with me... just like in all debates, it's the audience that mostly counts. which is why I don't see the need to respond to all your more ridiculous points, because honestly, they're things most people will see right through... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 an argument about economics with an anarchist is like an argument about religion with a nihilist... really not possible to work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Aloysius' date='30 October 2009 - 02:37 AM' timestamp='1256884659' post='1993806'] property is not an absolute right. it is certainly a right, but the Church never held it as an absolute right; Fr. McNabb explains the real Catholic understanding of property rights quite well here: [url="http://distributist.blogspot.com/2007/02/fr-mcnabb-speaks-on-rights-and-property.html"]http://distributist....d-property.html[/url] one cannot do unjust things with one's property. we have the right to everything which is necessary to fulfill our moral obligations (duties). this is actually common sense. if we have a moral obligation to do something, we have the right to have what is necessary to do it. and a living wage is absolutely necessary to fulfill every human being's duties--moral obligations--to live, to support their family, et cetera.[/quote] Is the businessman required to give you a raise every time you have a child, (in justice?) You have the duty to care for that child. Does he have to give you a raise based on your decision to have a child? You have the right to work for whoever will hire you, for whatever wage you and he agree to hire you for. [quote] again, you have doom and gloom predictions, but you cannot point to anything that remotely follows my principals... and despotic governments or communistic governments around the world do not follow ANY of what I've been saying. at all. so it's absolutely false to compare my statements to those situations. there's not only two options; anything that's not classical liberalism doesn't necessarily translate to communist.[/quote] Things are either accomplished through voluntary association, or coercion. They are either accomplished voluntarily from the bottom up, or coerced from the top down. An act cannot be done wholly voluntarily and simultaneously under duress. Period. Insofar as "communist" means "by violence," yes, anything that is not voluntary actually is coerced. [quote]a living wage is enough for a person to fulfill his duties. if he has a family, it's enough to provide a home and subsistence for his family. if he's an individual, it's enough to provide a home and subsistence for himself. so there's no set number, it's all based upon individual needs.[/quote] All of which we are speaking are monetary needs, the prices of which are determined by the laws of the market, whether anyone likes it or not. Violence and redistribution do not create wealth for society. Voluntary interaction does. ~Sternhauser Edited October 30, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 when a father has another child, an employer certainly ought to offer him either more work or a raise or some combination of the two so that he is able to afford to. well, assuming that father already made ONLY a living wage. if he already made more than a living wage then his next child just kind of takes a bit more of his profit margin from his wage, huh? the point is that every individual has a minimum number, and the minimum number for fathers of many children is a higher number than the minimum number for fathers of few children. when they have more children, their minimum goes up. yeah... all government is coercion (and thus apparently 'violent' which equals 'communist' ) and the 'man' is going to ruin everything with his stupid laws that keep us from making our own contracts however we like them (even though clearly the employers hold all the cards in most situations of employment and without some type of laws to stop them wages would degenerate into quite subhuman standards because employees would have to agree to them since there wouldn't be other possibilities... all the 'unskilled' masses would be at the mercy of the powerful and rich)... oh it's ever so violent when the big bad government threatens fines and such or even... gasp! the horror!-imprisonment!... against people if they employ unfair employment practices and don't pay people what their work is worth. don't those people know they could just stick it to any unjust employer and quit... I mean, they and their family might starve rather than being malnourished by unjustly low wages... but at least they'd prove that their contract was voluntary! the fact is that the 'voluntary' contract only counts when workers have high degrees of skill and are thus in high demand and really have their own bargaining chips. on the lower end of the ladder, which is where Christians should be most concerned with because of Christ's presence in the impoverished, the voluntary part means 'i'll pay you what i want to pay you, if you don't like it you can starve to death' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now