'Living wage' is anti-Christian
Gentle Joe Orthodox
by the Rev. Robert Siricoand the Rev. Gerald Zandstra
The supporting arguments used by those who favor a "living wage" appear
to be clear and forthright.
In a recent commentary in another local newspaper, the Rev. Garett
Dorsey and Jeann Zang provide a clear exposition:
"By paying people a `living wage,' we show respect for them and what
they do and we enable them to give something back. The have the income
to spend more, local businesses, professionals, school districts and,
yes, churches, benefit. We also benefit as a community because people
who are able to meet their basic needs by working a 40-hour week have
time and energy for their family, their faith community, and civic life."
Because the debate is essentially one of justice and ethics, it is
important to make a few, basic moral assertions.
First of all, Christianity always has professed that human beings have
dignity, weight, and worth because we are created in the image of God,
according to the book of Genesis. All human beings, regardless of
gender, race, creed, or ability, are deserving of respect and justice.
Secondly, human beings have the ability to be creative. Our needs are
met and our humanity is realized when we can apply our intellect and
creativity to the nature of things. In the words of John Paul II, "Work
is a good thing for man - a good thing for his humanity - because
through work man not only transforms nature, adapting to his own needs,
but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a
sense, becomes more a human being."
All Christians should realize the importance of work. And all Christians
should seek to work toward justice in wages. No one wants to see the
poor stuck in their poverty or those at the bottom of the wage pool
being forced to remain where they are. The central issue is how to lift
the poor out of their poverty.
`THE ELASTIC EFFECT'
Proponents of the ``living wage'' believe they have found the means. If
through the use of legislation, the government at one level or another
can force employers to pay workers $10 or $12 or even $15 per hour, then
the poor would no longer be in poverty.
Unfortunately, the economy and the use of the power of the government
are not so simple. For those who want to understand the effects of
implementing a ``living wage,'' it is important to have a grasp of this
truth:
When the government puts in place a certain public policy, there always
is some response that comes from the marketplace. In public policy
circles, this is called the "elastic effect."
For instance, raising the entrance fee to a public park by 5 percent
would lead us to conclude on the basis of logic that the park would take
in 5 percent more income than it did last year. But this is not
necessarily the case because raising the cost may cause 10 percent fewer
people to visit the park, resulting in lowered revenue.
The problem with the ``living wage'' as an ``answer'' is that it leads
to negative consequences that are equal to or sometimes worse than the
problem the policy sought to remedy.
Studies over the past 40 years indicate that even a legally determined
minimum wage leads to fewer available jobs. If forced to pay higher
wages, employers tend to hire fewer employees. Labor economists, for
examples, point out that a 10 percent forced increase in wages will
increase unemployment by 1 to 3 percent.
Furthermore, companies that have a ``living wage'' imposed on them may
induce companies to move their operations to another location, resulting
in a further lose of jobs.
And finally, the extra costs produced by ``living wage'' legislation
will not be born by the companies affected. They will, of course, pass
along the costs to those who buy their products, which will include the
employees who have just had their wages raised, thus making those same
wages that much less "livable."
BENEVOLENT BOOMERANG
Who are the people most likely to be effected by the elastic effects?
The same poor people that proponents of the ``living wage'' seek to
help. Their jobs will be the first ones cut when employers decide cost
reductions are necessary to keep the business viable. The entry-level
jobs, so needed by low-income people to get them started moving up the
economic ladder, are the very ones that will disappear.
A wage which enables people to live above the poverty line is a noble
goal, provided that it respects the rights of both employer and employee
and is realized within the context of free negotiation. Certainly the
employer has a moral obligation to pay a fair wage, but this does not
mean that a government edict can accomplish this.
Simply put, wages, like the price of goods and services, are not the
capricious decisions of employees; they are the response of those who
own businesses to what consumers are saying they value. To disregard
this economic law is to invite economic disaster.
+++++++++++++
The Rev. Robert Sirico is a Catholic priest and president of the Acton
Institute. The Rev. Gerald Zandstra, is a minister in the Christian
Reformed Church and director of programs at Acton.
Acton, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., a free-market think tank devoted to
training the religious community on the proper free-market economic
principles. It is involved in creating a three-way interaction between
religious leaders (who are so tempted to be socialists), the business
community, and the policy community.
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>'Living wage' is anti-Christian
>by the Rev. Robert Siricoand the Rev. Gerald Zandstra
Anyonw who says that that displayes the grossest moral turpitude. It is one of
the sinse that cry out to God, like wilful murder, or the sin of Sodom.
Try reading Isaiah 58.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
ntr...@sarovpress.com
error.
Why should someone doing menial things like McDonald's or Burger King
make more and hour than I do as a self-employed white man?
What's next? Giving Illegal aliens civil rights?
Nicholas Trahan
Steve Hayes
>I think those who are in favour of a "living wage" are the ones in
>error.
>
>Why should someone doing menial things like McDonald's or Burger King
>make more and hour than I do as a self-employed white man?
Read Isaiah 58.
ntr...@sarovpress.com
wages I am able to keep at the end of the year than to worry about
people too lazy to work out the station of life they presently live in.
You are advocating Communism at it's purest and I, as a Christian, want
nothing to do with that. Why stop at $15.00 and hour? why not $20.00?
And when the employers stop employing people where are they going to
get their "Living Wage?"
Nicholas Trahan
Steve Hayes wrote:
Steve Hayes
>I would rather read my tax returns to see how little of my HARD EARNED
>wages I am able to keep at the end of the year than to worry about
>people too lazy to work out the station of life they presently live in.
>
>
>You are advocating Communism at it's purest and I, as a Christian, want
>nothing to do with that. Why stop at $15.00 and hour? why not $20.00?
>And when the employers stop employing people where are they going to
>get their "Living Wage?"
If you are a Christian, why do you say that Christian morality is
anti-Christian?
If paying a living wage is "communism", then communism must be Christian
morality at its purest. But actually communism at its purest does not advocate
paying a living wage. According to Marxist-Leninist communism, the paying of a
living wage simply delays the revolution, and the "iron law of wages" means
that more and more capitalist employers will pay starvation wages, and that
this is a good thing (in the communist view) because it will hasten the
revolution. So it seems that your knowledge of communism is almost as
deficient as your knowledge of Christianity.
Since you claim to be a Christian, please say where in the Scriptures, or in
the Fathers of the Church, you can find any support for the contention that
paying a living wage is "anti-Christian".
Are your views those of "SarovPress"? If they are, I take it that it
publishes heretical works under an imprint calculated to deceive Orthodox
Christian into beliving that they are Orthodox.
ntr...@sarovpress.com
Why not answer the question. "Where does the 'living wage' stop?" What
will happen when employers tire of the Communists in this country
taking their money for those too damned lazy to work. and the employers
close their shops? Where will the "living wage" come from then?
I have had enough of your type of person changing the names to the PC
crap. Bring back the days of minimum wage, and illegal aliens rather
than this PC crap of "Living wage" and "Undocumented worker."
Who's going to pay me $15.00 an hour? My wife is an oncology nurse.
What is a "living Wage" for her? Does education and skill matter or do
we just throw money at them and hope for the best.
No thank you. I am not a fan of socialism or communism.
So, Stevie Boy, try again.
Nicholas Trahan
Steve Hayes
>Nice try.
>
>Why not answer the question. "Where does the 'living wage' stop?" What
>will happen when employers tire of the Communists in this country
>taking their money for those too damned lazy to work. and the employers
>close their shops? Where will the "living wage" come from then?
Because that question is irrelevant to Orthodox Christianjity, and has nothing
to with the evil assertion in the subject line that "'Living wage' is
unChristian".
If you agree with that statement, then please show from the Bible and the
Church Fathers why you think it is true.
>I have had enough of your type of person changing the names to the PC
>crap. Bring back the days of minimum wage, and illegal aliens rather
>than this PC crap of "Living wage" and "Undocumented worker."
What on earth are you talking about?
Read Isaiah 58.
>Who's going to pay me $15.00 an hour? My wife is an oncology nurse.
>What is a "living Wage" for her?
That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
"anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
>No thank you. I am not a fan of socialism or communism.
And you are not a fan of Orthodox Christianity either, it seems.
Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
jo
society NECESSARY to allow others opportunities to pursue THEIR gifts
and talents. We are all created equal.. does this hold true only if a
person is above a certain IQ? Of a certain class? If we do not care
for the society which brought us 'greatness', we will continue our
decline in morality, prosperity and reputation.
Small businesses hiring illegals are commensurate with multi-national
corporations shipping jobs outside the country. Both take the benefits
and profits provided by the american society, out of the wages and
pockets of the american common laborer, and perpetuate societies with
an endless supply of repressed labor.
To say our businesses NEED cheap illegal labor echoes the South's
protestations that they NEEDED slavery. Such labor practices only masks
the truth of uncompetitve business practices. Propping up such failing
businesses (which is what they are else they would not need to cheat)
only prolongs the agony and diminshes our ability to adjust to the
realities of the marketplace.
You want fairness and equality? Tie the wage of lowest paid worker
(including sub-contractors) to the compensation packages of highest
paid executive. No caps, no minimums, just ethical prorating. Doing so
will provide that all parts of our society will grow with the company.
Steve Hayes
>The fast food cook as well as the city bus driver are part of the
>society NECESSARY to allow others opportunities to pursue THEIR gifts
>and talents. We are all created equal.. does this hold true only if a
>person is above a certain IQ? Of a certain class? If we do not care
>for the society which brought us 'greatness', we will continue our
>decline in morality, prosperity and reputation.
>
>Small businesses hiring illegals are commensurate with multi-national
>corporations shipping jobs outside the country. Both take the benefits
>and profits provided by the american society, out of the wages and
>pockets of the american common laborer, and perpetuate societies with
>an endless supply of repressed labor.
All very interesting, but it doesn't come close to dealing with the
astrounding assertion in the subject line that paying a living wage is
"anti-Christian".
It's got nothing to do with "American society", because it applies to every
society in every country from the beginning till now.
Consider the scenario: you pay less than a living wage for a full week's work,
or any other period. That means that the wage does not allow the person to
cover the cost of staying alive: food, shelter, clothing etc.
But it doesn't matter, because if the workers die of starvation, exposure, or
disease from living in insanitary conditions, there are plenty of others to
take their place when they die.
Nut according to the subject line, it is wrong NOT to do that. It is not just
wrong, it is "anti-Christian".
It's got nothing to dom with skill, education, legality, documentation,
nationality: if you pay ANYONE enough to cover their daily necessities for
survival, you aqre being "antiChristian", according to the subject line.
I want to know why some people seem to think that.
So far no one has given a good answer.
Consider the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
We are not told that Lazarus did any work at all for the rich man, yet the
rich man went to hell for allowing Lazarus to starve at his gate.
How much more would he deserve to go to hell is someone who worked for him
starved at his gate, because he did not give him a just recompense for hisd
labour?
jo
Steve Hayes wrote:
> All very interesting, but it doesn't come close to dealing with the
> astrounding assertion in the subject line that paying a living wage is
> "anti-Christian".
>
> It's got nothing to do with "American society", because it applies to every
> society in every country from the beginning till now.
As in the subject line the words living and wage are enclosed in 's, it
declares the unique phrase to be referencing currently proposed US (as
in American society) legislation for a minimum wage that, contrary to
normal understanding of the words, hostory has shown would further
impoverish the needy rather than lift them up as the words normally
imply--
Very much like other legislation already passed by the GOP using the
words 'death tax' rather than inheritance to mask the narrowly focused
benefits of their policy.
Demanding people follow the DNC spin and accusing informed readers of
false representation is imo, a best both hypocritical and disengeuous.
(Unless, which i doubt, you purport care for the needy is not a
Christian teaching?)
i may be a bleeding heart liberal, but i often vote GOP as neither
party is what they claim to be.
Stephen Adams
>You want fairness and equality? Tie the wage of lowest paid worker
>(including sub-contractors) to the compensation packages of highest
>paid executive. No caps, no minimums, just ethical prorating. Doing so
>will provide that all parts of our society will grow with the company.
Please provide a specific number you feel apropriate.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
ntr...@sarovpress.com
from Massachusettes, Ted Kennedy.
Can someone give me a figure that would be a good "living wage?" or is
this merely an excercise in mental masturbation?
Nicholas Trahan
Steve Hayes
>Can someone give me a figure that would be a good "living wage?" or is
>this merely an excercise in mental masturbation?
No matter what the figure, would somone please tell me why it would be
"anti-Christian" to pay it?
rlm_3071
> Read Isaiah 58.
Steve, Isaiah 58 doesn't provide any direction about living or minimum
wages. The commandments in Scripture, whether in the OT or from
Christ, were never given as directives in how to form goverments or
what policies they ought to pursue. God is talking to you personally.
The living wage is abominable because it's a form of confiscation on
the part of the government, and secondly it accomplishes nothing. If
you artificially raise a wage, the service and price of the product
will rise, thereby still making it unaffordable for the worker. This
has been tried in countless socialist schemes and it doesn't work.
History shows that it creates lower quality services and products and
workers are poorer for it. You'll end up in a vicious spiral of price
fixing and wage raising which can easily be seen as an evil joke on the
poor and economically ignorant. We've had mimimum wage schemes for
decades and they've not done anything to solve poverty.
> That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
>
Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
they earn? There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
demagogues.
> Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
>
Paying a particular wage, if an employer chooses such, isn't
anti-Christian. Government plundering is what's anti-Christian. Being
paid with plundered money for what was not earned is what's
anti-Christian. Envying your employer's resources is anti-Christian.
Not working is anti-Christian. And so on.
rlm_3071
> On 1 May 2006 06:57:28 -0700, ntr...@sarovpress.com wrote:
>
> >Can someone give me a figure that would be a good "living wage?" or is
> >this merely an excercise in mental masturbation?
>
> No matter what the figure, would somone please tell me why it would be
> "anti-Christian" to pay it?
For the same reason it's anti-Christian to point a gun to someone's
head (or threaten prison time) and take their money. That's pretty
much what you are doing.
ntr...@sarovpress.com
Nicholas Trahan
veritas
"rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1146494702.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> The market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
> demagogues.
The market was not able to determine the right equilibrium point between
social and economic needs in 1929 .
Stephen Adams
What market?? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff is the *real* culprit for the
depression, not the collapse of the stock market or banks. Destroy
global trade and you *guarantee* a depression.
And Smoot-Hawly is hardly a *market* force.
ntr...@sarovpress.com
If it is "Christian" to pay someone a "Living Wage," then is it
"Christian to bankrupt the employers too?
Using your argument, it is.
jo
Stephen Adams wrote:
>
> Please provide a specific number you feel apropriate.
>
Stephen,
A 10% compensation differential would be easy to work with, have
negligible adverse impact on small businesses, encourage national
business diversification (as opposed to conglomeration) as well as
investment in rather than subjugation of labor (ie, health, education
and stock option benefits included in low as well as hig end comp
pkgs).
FWIW, imo it is just as anti-christian to pay below societal norm wages
and so create a sub-class within society as it is to write legislation
to make it look like you are caring for the poor while covertly robbing
them.
Stephen Adams
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>>
>> Please provide a specific number you feel apropriate.
>
>negligible adverse impact on small businesses, encourage national
>business diversification (as opposed to conglomeration) as well as
>investment in rather than subjugation of labor (ie, health, education
>and stock option benefits included in low as well as hig end comp
>pkgs).
What exactly do you mean by 'compensation differntial'? I don't want
to read into this what I think it is - please give an example.
>FWIW, imo it is just as anti-christian to pay below societal norm wages
>and so create a sub-class within society as it is to write legislation
>to make it look like you are caring for the poor while covertly robbing
>them.
"Societal norm" - who defines this?? And are you prepared for the massive
inflation that will result from what you are asking for? Which will lead
you to demand even higher wages, which will lead to even higher prices,
etc, etc. Artificial wage and price controls have failed everytime they
have been used. CF the Soviet Union for an example of this. Or the
10% *structural* unemployment in France or Germany.
jo
millions (mostly hidden in fine print) while same corporations have
illegals sweeping the floors hidden away in dark corners of third shift
or third world country.
Differential as in bringing the two groups closer together.. NOT
mandating any caps OR minimums. The execs are free to name their
price... so long as it is no more than 10 times what the lowest paid
worker/subcontractor is paid.
If the top exec makes 3mil, be prepared to pay the janitors 300k
(although with my proposal they would be more likely to pay a
subcontractor 300k to service all their properties.)
"Societal Norm" is in the eyes of the beholder.. what do YOU (not you
personally) see in YOUR society? My FWIW bit referred not to
legislation but to personal faith in action. Consider how a parent
determines what is appropriate for a child's allowance. Persoanl
societal norms come into play. What does the child (worker) need etc.
If YOU determine YOUR employees are not part of YOUR society, then YOU
have determined to undermine the US constititions bill of rights
guaranteeing equality and rather to perpetuate inequality and a caste
system within america.
ntr...@sarovpress.com
Again I ask, my wife is an oncology nurse. Shouldn't she get more than
the janitor based on her education alone?
Nicholas Trahan
jo wrote:
> "Compensation Differential" as in wage gap.. ie top execs making
> millions (mostly hidden in fine print) while same corporations have
jo
an hr to work alongside a janitor making at least $6 an hour. (assuming
the top exec at her firm makes the equivelant of $60 an hr) Nor should
it be overlooked that eduaction can easily be included in compensation
pkgs.. english as a second language, citizenship, heating and a/c
classes etc would be as appropriate for janitor as CE conferences are
to an nurse.
A 10% differential leaves plenty of room for incentive and advancement
even within a single company. If one hits the top at one comapny they
are free to move on to a more profitable/competitive company able to
pay higher wages.
Gentle Joe Orthodox
Green Party some time ago. Anyway, why stop at an arbitrary 10 times?
Why not 11 times? That's exactly what will happen when you've created
such a totalitarian Marxist state and you begin to see that it's not
bringing about the benefits you imagined/wished. You'll keep tweaking
the wages and prices until the country has ground to an economic halt, a
la the CCCP. You guys don't seem to get it. This has all been tried
before. It doesn't work. You obsess over paper theories and
pie-in-the-sky dreams which are proven failures. It's frightening that
a few people still believe in this nonsense.
jo wrote:
> If the top exec makes 3mil, be prepared to pay the janitors 300k
> (although with my proposal they would be more likely to pay a
> subcontractor 300k to service all their properties.)
>
A company isn't operating in a bubble. It has to meet changing economic
challenges and competition. The janitor at the other company isn't
making $300K a year, nor is the executive making only $3 million. A
company can't operate if its wage differential is out of whack with the
market. You have to reward/pay your employees as much as it takes to
keep them there. Otherwise, they quit and go elsewhere. Likewise, if
they are being paid above and beyond the market norm for their
education/experience, your business will not be around for long. Your
prices will be much higher than the other guy, and consumers (who are
not stupid) will shop for the best bargain.
> "Societal Norm" is in the eyes of the beholder.. what do YOU (not you
That's why it should be left to the blind, objective eyes of the market.
> personally) see in YOUR society? My FWIW bit referred not to
> legislation but to personal faith in action. Consider how a parent
> determines what is appropriate for a child's allowance. Persoanl
> societal norms come into play. What does the child (worker) need etc.
> If YOU determine YOUR employees are not part of YOUR society, then YOU
> have determined to undermine the US constititions bill of rights
> guaranteeing equality and rather to perpetuate inequality and a caste
> system within america.
>
Baloney. If your skills are marketable and in need, you don't have to
work in an "unequal" environment. You go elsewhere. And if you don't
like being stuck in a rut, then get an education. Don't give me this
garbage that there's no way you can afford to go to college. The
government is blowing money like it's water on helping the poor go to
school.
If you choose to quit school and not take advantage of all the student
grants and loans out there, stop whining about your poverty. I, for
one, don't want to subsidize laziness. Nor did the Hebrews. It's your
own responsibility to make appropriate life decisions and the rest of
the community is very much entitled to say they are not going to
subsidize your slothfulness and irresponsibility.
FWIW, I've never worked in a union and no one dictates to my employer
what they should pay me. Funny how I live just fine with nothing to
want. That in itself blows your worldview away, which would have others
believe that without the government controlling wages, we would all be
making peanuts. You need to go read a sensible and intelligent book on
labor and wage pricing rather than the Das Kapital drivel.
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> Isn't it amazing how we can almost -- but not quite -- turn Christ into
> Milton Friedman?
>
> "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing
> shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why
> callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if
> thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him,
> Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit
> adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
> Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
> thyself.
What part of "thou shalt not steal" did you not understand? Or perhaps
you choose to not love your neighbors who have more than you?
> The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my
> youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be
> perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou
What are you waiting for? Why haven't you sold your computer, yet? Or
is it the case that you are posting from your workplace computer and
wage gouging your employer?
> shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the
> young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great
> possessions. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you,
> That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And
> again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of
> a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When
> his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then
> can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this
> is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Then answered
> Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed
> thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I
> say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when
> the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit
> upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one
> that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
> mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
> receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
> But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."
>
Christ is telling his followers to give to the poor. He's not telling
them to steal from those who have more and then giving 25% of the loot
to the poor while keeping 75% for themselves for the "administrative
overhead."
> And if we can't quite manage to turn Christ into Milton Friedman, isn't
> it even more amazing that we try to nullify what Christ teaches us
> about our relationship with and responsibility to the poor?
>
> Amazing, I tell, simply amazing.
>
No, what's amazing is your inability to read plain commandments. No one
is saying we shouldn't help the poor. What's being said is we shouldn't
steal from others. But you'd rather attack a strawman. To do otherwise
would force you to call into question your mixing of Marxist economic
theory with religion.
jo
A company isn't operating in a bubble. It has to meet changing
economic
challenges and competition.
Indeed, as it is a world market it either GOES to the third world or
brings the third world here.
Gentle Joe wrote:
Baloney. If your skills are marketable and in need, you don't have to
work in an "unequal" environment. You go elsewhere.
Ah yes, the blind capitalist answer is for all the common laborers to
emmigrate to DarFor and leave the US of A for the aristotcrats. World
market, world society.. guess we will have to be shipping all our
parents out to the third world so the riff raff will be able to wipe
privileged parental hineys without the marring the perfect elitist
landscape.
Steve Hayes
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> All very interesting, but it doesn't come close to dealing with the
>> astrounding assertion in the subject line that paying a living wage is
>> "anti-Christian".
>>
>> It's got nothing to do with "American society", because it applies to every
>> society in every country from the beginning till now.
>
>As in the subject line the words living and wage are enclosed in 's, it
>declares the unique phrase to be referencing currently proposed US (as
>in American society) legislation for a minimum wage that, contrary to
>normal understanding of the words, hostory has shown would further
>impoverish the needy rather than lift them up as the words normally
>imply--
Yes, but this newsgroup is alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, not
alt.politics.usa.misc
Steve Hayes
And how am I doing that?
I am not doing that, but you are *advocating* it, even if you are not doing
it.
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>What part of "thou shalt not steal" did you not understand? Or perhaps
>you choose to not love your neighbors who have more than you?
He understood it perfectly.
But there is definitely a part of if that you don't understand: you obviously
thi8nk it anti-Christan NOT to steal.
You advocate stealing a person't labour and not paying them for it.
That is exactly the same as underpaying for goods.
If I amke a widget, and the cost of production, labour and materials and
overheads is 100 currency units, and you pay be 50 and then walk of with the
widget, you are stealing.
In the same way, you advocate stealing people's labour.
Steve Hayes
>It still sounds like Communism to me. What about education and talent.
>Again I ask, my wife is an oncology nurse. Shouldn't she get more than
>the janitor based on her education alone?
That is not the question. The question is whether either of them should get
less than they need to live on for a full day's work.
jo
"Yes, but this newsgroup is alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox, not
alt.politics.usa.misc "
And unfortunately american politics infects world societies. :(
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Read Isaiah 58.
>
>Steve, Isaiah 58 doesn't provide any direction about living or minimum
>wages. The commandments in Scripture, whether in the OT or from
>Christ, were never given as directives in how to form goverments or
>what policies they ought to pursue.
I'm not talking about forming governments or what policies they ought to
pursue.
An Orthodox prayer book I had from St Tikhon's press had a list of "Four sins
that cry out to heaven"
1. Idolatry
2. Wilful murder
3. Withholding a worker's wages
4. The sin of Sodom
I trust that those who are now arguing that 3 is not only OK, but that NOT
commiting that particular sin is "anti-Christian" will also say the same of
the others -- that not worshipping idols is anti-Christian, that not wifully
mudering someone is anti-Christian, and that not committing the sin of Sodom
is anti-Christian.
If not, what criteria do you use to pick and choose?
I've often seen pious pronouncements here (most recently about Olympiada)
about how bad she is because she is said to believe that one can pick and
choose, and discard the bits of Orthodoxy that one does not like. I hope that
those who attacked Olympiada on such grounds are not doing the same thing
themselves in trying to justify this particular sin, and so far nobody has
tried to justify it on Orthodox grounds, but just tried to evadie it by saying
that it somehow doesn't apply to us, using external criteria, and is not
putting those external criteria above Orthodoxy idolatry?
God is talking to you personally.
>The living wage is abominable because it's a form of confiscation on
>the part of the government, and secondly it accomplishes nothing.
FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the health
of the workers and their families .
If
>you artificially raise a wage, the service and price of the product
>will rise, thereby still making it unaffordable for the worker. This
>has been tried in countless socialist schemes and it doesn't work.
>History shows that it creates lower quality services and products and
>workers are poorer for it. You'll end up in a vicious spiral of price
>fixing and wage raising which can easily be seen as an evil joke on the
>poor and economically ignorant. We've had mimimum wage schemes for
>decades and they've not done anything to solve poverty.
>
>
>> That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
>> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
>>
>
>Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
>they earn? There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
>what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
>will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
>market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
>demagogues.
>
>
>
>> Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
>>
>
>Paying a particular wage, if an employer chooses such, isn't
>anti-Christian. Government plundering is what's anti-Christian. Being
>paid with plundered money for what was not earned is what's
>anti-Christian. Envying your employer's resources is anti-Christian.
>Not working is anti-Christian. And so on.
--
Steve Hayes
>> That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
>> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
>>
>
>Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
>they earn?
You tell me -- I didn't say that, you did.
I am not saying that people should be slothful and not work for what they earn
(how can they earn what they have not worked for?). I am saying that they
should be paid a living wage for the work they do, and not paying them for the
work they do is a sin that cries out to heaven.
> There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
>what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
>will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
>market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
>demagogues.
Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
Both believe that man should be subjected to economic forces. For one the name
og the deity is "the free rein of the market forces", and for the other it is
"the dialecical forces of history".
But by placing the forces of the marked above God, one commits idolatry.
"You shall have no other gods before me", no matter how objective an arbiter
you may think they are.
>> Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
>>
>
>Paying a particular wage, if an employer chooses such, isn't
>anti-Christian. Government plundering is what's anti-Christian. Being
>paid with plundered money for what was not earned is what's
>anti-Christian.
Being paid a living wage for a fair day's work is not "being paid with
plundered money one has not earned".
jo
The festering wound of secular humanism has been torn open and spread
worldwide, relegating faith (of all kinds) to hidden corners and
closets with the worldly passions of sloth, greed and lust
metasticizing cultures 'round the world.
Imo, there is nothing left to do but treat the disease at its source
(american influence) using what bits of Christ's teachings she may
still be able to swallow-- equality (hidden of course in a neat pkg of
constitutional patriotism).
Are we welcoming the 'poor huddled masses' to give them opportunities
or to exploit them as the 21st century pc slave labor with such
righteous justifications as "We are treating them better than they
would get elsewhere."
ps how do you keep your posts from being archived?
David Goode wrote:
> All the more reason to quarantine ourselves from it wherever possible, then.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9BS
> http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/ [Dave's University home page]
> http://www.food-in-due-season.info/ [Dave's first book, published May 2005]
> http://www.living-bread.info/ [Dave's next book, published February 2006]
jo
may lead me to the X header.
i'm also just as brilliantly slow as i am new so while i won't count on
it working, i will expect some sort of interesting foul-up to puzzle
over.
Thanks! :)
David Goode wrote:
> jo wrote:
>
> > It's a little late for that dontcha think? ;)
>
> Won't stop me trying, though ;-)
>
> > ps how do you keep your posts from being archived?
>
> There is an unofficial X header you could use in the NNTP header:
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> But it's not mandatory to respect it, so don't count on it working.
Stephen Adams
>"Compensation Differential" as in wage gap.. ie top execs making
>millions (mostly hidden in fine print) while same corporations have
>illegals sweeping the floors hidden away in dark corners of third shift
>or third world country.
>
>Differential as in bringing the two groups closer together.. NOT
>mandating any caps OR minimums. The execs are free to name their
>price... so long as it is no more than 10 times what the lowest paid
>worker/subcontractor is paid.
But this is not economicaly efficient. Nor will it work. Note well,
command economies ALWAYS fail. And you give just one way to avoid
this:
>If the top exec makes 3mil, be prepared to pay the janitors 300k
>(although with my proposal they would be more likely to pay a
>subcontractor 300k to service all their properties.)
Yes, and of that 300k, the owner of the business will take $150,000k and
the janitors will get $15k each. Or some similar thing. This will lead
to ALL lower paying jobs being outourced to contractors, and those firms
will be setup in such a way that the janitor (or whoever) ends up with
a salary that is set by the market, not by the government.
How about a small company. Say I put up 100% of the capital to start a
business. I assume all the risk, and hire two people to work for me. I
pay them $40,000 each. After a year or two, the business is successful
and I turn a profit of $600,000. Am I now required to raise their salaries?
Even though I may not make the same profit in the next year? And all of
the capital risk is mine?
>"Societal Norm" is in the eyes of the beholder.. what do YOU (not you
>personally) see in YOUR society?
I see business paying the 'going rate' for employment. They offer a job.
If they can't find someone to do it, they either raise the pay or they
change some part of the job (hours, duties, etc). In times of tight
labor markets, wages will rise. In times of high unemployment, wages will
fall. Just like prices do in times of high and low demand. Once you
introduce artificial controls on the market, it no longer behaves properly
and you get stuff like the goverment-incudes Depression. Yep, that was
caused by *regulation* and *taxes* - not by the supposed stock fraud.
The number one culprit in the global depression was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff
which choked off international trade just as the US economy was going into
a recessionary/deflationary period. Bad move. The banking problems were
caused by foolish regulations (some still exist today - branch banging
restrictions, regional banking limitations, restriction in the flow of
captial, etc).
Sure, there was fraud in Railroad stocks. Yes, people follishly bought
on margin. Yes, there were defaults and then rusn on banks. But because
so much banking was restricted to local regions, there was no way for the
system to disperse the loss and risk across the entire country. And then
the chain reaction started. But even THEN, the economic situation would
not have been so bad had trade not been killed by Smoot-Hawley.
Command economies with tight capital controls do NOT work.
>My FWIW bit referred not to
>legislation but to personal faith in action.
Fair enough - and in fact, I generally agree that most CEO's earn WAY too
much money for the actual results they achieve. Part of the problem is
that when compensation plans are tied to certain results (stock price,
profit, sales, or whatever) the CEO is in a position to manipulate the
company to achieve that result, even if it hurts the company over all.
There are a couple of problems that need to be addressed, I think. First
of all, there should be staggered terms for directors, and it should be
easier for alternate candidates to get onto ballotts. Second, some kind
of compensation formula should be developed that measures overall performance
of the company - stock price, dividend, profit, etc, so that it's harder
to manipulate the results to improve compensation. Third, it should be
easier for shareholder proposals to be placed on ballotts and information
sent out. Right now, the boards have too much of a monopoly on communication
with the shareholders making non-director proposals nearly impossible to pass.
None of the above needs regulation - the shareholders can make these changes
themselves. People complain that 'Wall Street money managers' control what
goes on. But where do THEY get their money? From individuals in IRA or
401K or SEP plans. And if those individuals tell the managers of their
funds that they want the changes, and are willing to move their money if
they aren't implemented to another manager who WILL vote their way, things
WILL change.
Personally, I review the proxy statements for all the companies I own stock
in, and vote for the various shareholder proposals I agree with (usually
regarding the election/ballott provisions noted above, plus some of the
compensation proposals). If everyone did this, and encouraged their money
managers to do the same thing, this would change. Without needing any
overarching government supervision.
>Consider how a parent
>determines what is appropriate for a child's allowance. Persoanl
>societal norms come into play. What does the child (worker) need etc.
This is a bad comparrison - my kids get housing, clothing, food, some
amount of transportation, and most of their needs taken care of. The
allowance is simply 'spending money' so they can learn about making
financial decisions. As they get older, the amount increases (at least
until they go to work), and then it goes the OTHER way - they are required
to contribute towards the household budget - specifically with regard to
auto insurance(!), gas, etc.
>If YOU determine YOUR employees are not part of YOUR society, then YOU
>have determined to undermine the US constititions bill of rights
>guaranteeing equality and rather to perpetuate inequality and a caste
>system within america.
Huh??
First of all, the Bill of Rights does NOT guarantee equality. If you think
it does, please show me where!
The pay level for any job is the value of having someone else do the job,
not some artificial number set by the government. I take my car to the
Jiffy Lube because it's worth the $50 or so it costs for me to NOT have to
do it. If the price were $100, I would do it myself. Same goes for having
a cleaning service at home - it's not worth the cost to me at this point.
And that's the issue. If Jiffy Lube or Maids on Time set their prices too
high, they will have no business. They can only charge what people are
willing to pay. And then they have to pay their employees based on that.
Take the cleaning service as an example. If $100 is the max someone is
willing to pay for a whole-house cleaning, then there is only $100 to cover
the workers, admin staff, etc. Raising prices HURTS the cleaning staff
because they will have less work (or no work) to do.
I don't mean to be insulting, but I have to ask if you have studied economics
at all? Or history?
Stephen Adams
>It still sounds like Communism to me. What about education and talent.
>Again I ask, my wife is an oncology nurse. Shouldn't she get more than
>the janitor based on her education alone?
According to these theories, no. Which means you then have to have
full government support of education, since nobody in their right
mind would go $100,000 (or more) in debt to get a job that requires
long, hard hours when their is no remuneration for it!
High paying jobs (not talking CEO's or business owners here) pay high
because they often require specialized knowledge that takes either a
serious education or serious experience.
Command economies of ANY kind fail. Even vaunted Sweden introduced
market-based reforms, privitization and other 'liberal' (using the
classical definition) programs because the pure socialist system
does NOT work.
Stephen Adams
>Gentle Joe wrote:
>A company isn't operating in a bubble. It has to meet changing
>economic
>challenges and competition.
But it cannot do this when it is so heavily regulated as you require
to make your 'system' work. Command economies do NOT work. And that
is what you are proposing.
>Indeed, as it is a world market it either GOES to the third world or
>brings the third world here.
If you have free movement of goods, labor and capital, things will equalize
around the world (a good thing). And rising trade enriches EVERYONE. In
fact, import/export controls, tariffs, etc, REDUCES wealth of everyone
involved.
What you see on a global scale happened in the US on a regional basis in
may times in the past. Jobs shifted from one area to another, some
businesses closed, others opened. Economic and social dislocation happened.
And it was good for the country overall. The fact that every buggy-whip
company went out of business is certainly bad for the workers, but good
for the economy overall - the steel and car industries (and related ones)
generated far more jobs than the buggy industry did!
Sure, the US is losing manufacturing jobs - but there is NOTHING that can
be done to stop this. Nothing. It's a fact of life. Even high tariffs
won't do it - it will just choke off imports and raise prices for consumers,
causing job loss and LOWERING the wealth of the US and the foreign country.
I'm not being pesimistic - there are plenty of things the US can do and
do well. And we need to do those things. A perfect example is building
aircraft. Boeing is competing quite nicely with the heavily subsidized
Airbus. On a truly level playing field, Airbus would get their butts
kicked right and left. When you (ie Airbus) get to introduce no planes
at NO RISK it's easy to compete. Take that away, and it changes things
immensely.
>Gentle Joe wrote:
>>Baloney. If your skills are marketable and in need, you don't have to
>>work in an "unequal" environment. You go elsewhere.
>
>Ah yes, the blind capitalist answer is for all the common laborers to
>emmigrate to DarFor and leave the US of A for the aristotcrats. World
>market, world society.. guess we will have to be shipping all our
>parents out to the third world so the riff raff will be able to wipe
>privileged parental hineys without the marring the perfect elitist
>landscape.
The US needs LOTS of common laborers. The fact is, most American workers
have come to the conclusion that such work is for latino immigrants and
won't do it. Just like in the past with Irish immigrants. Or Polish
immigrants. You find me a 'common laborer' willing to dig ditches in
August in Chicago, and he can have all the work he wants. At a good wage.
The Mexicans (and others) come here because there are jobs. Jobs that
'regular Americans' won't do at ANY price.
Stephen Adams
Yes, and discussing an Orthodox Christian response is not problematic...
Stephen Adams
>FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the health
>of the workers and their families .
How is it theft? If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
and it is accepted, then it's not theft. And paying an artificial wage
harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
power and causing job loss.
All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
Capitalism is NOT unChristian. If one treats his workers humanely (ie does
not abuse them - and paying the 'going wage' is NOT abuse), pays them on
time, and in the mutually agreed amounts, gives them proper work hours, etc,
then there is no sin.
I've been the employer - for my own business. I carefully considered the
value each employee brought, and paid them based on a combination of the
various inputs - value to the company, going wage for such jobs, what they
produced, etc. I did also try to take into account their personal life
situation, but I was limited in my ability to pay based on what was earned.
I limited my draw initially and was making LESS than my highest paid
employees. I also had 100% risk. Any profits are return on the risk of
capital.
You see, you view labor as the ONLY input, and discredit capital. But
without capital, the laborer would have no job. The person who provides
the capital has the right to profit from it which is at least equal to
the right of the laborer to profit from his labor.
That's the part that the socialist/communist folks always leave out.
rlm_3071
> On 1 May 2006 07:45:02 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> Read Isaiah 58.
> >
> >Steve, Isaiah 58 doesn't provide any direction about living or minimum
> >wages. The commandments in Scripture, whether in the OT or from
> >Christ, were never given as directives in how to form goverments or
> >what policies they ought to pursue.
>
> I'm not talking about forming governments or what policies they ought to
> pursue.
>
> An Orthodox prayer book I had from St Tikhon's press had a list of "Four sins
> that cry out to heaven"
>
> 1. Idolatry
> 2. Wilful murder
> 3. Withholding a worker's wages
> 4. The sin of Sodom
>
> I trust that those who are now arguing that 3 is not only OK, but that NOT
> commiting that particular sin is "anti-Christian" will also say the same of
> the others -- that not worshipping idols is anti-Christian, that not wifully
> mudering someone is anti-Christian, and that not committing the sin of Sodom
> is anti-Christian.
>
You're mixing apples and bananas in the discussion. Yes, withholding a
worker's wages would constitute theft. But the worker's wage is that
which is mutually, contractually agreed upon at the time of hiring! A
worker doesn't have to agree to it if he can find a better deal
elsewhere with his given skill set. What I'm reading is that some want
the government to come in after that mutually agreed upon contract is
in place, and through the use of force revoke and impose a new contract
upon the employer against his will. What's going to happen is
employers will become reticent in hiring new employees, current
employees will be overworked, short-term contractual labor will
balloon, and a permanent, 10-15% unemployment class will arise as you
witness in Western Europe today. You can't ignore the underlying
market dynamics no matter the economic scheme designed to impose
*fairness* and *equality*. As sure as the sun rises, there will be an
unavoidable market reaction to every policy decision and the most
intrusive ones more likely than not will have the most negative,
unintended results *despite* the good intentions behind them.
rlm_3071
> On 1 May 2006 07:45:02 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
> >> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
> >>
> >
> >Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
> >they earn?
>
> You tell me -- I didn't say that, you did.
>
> I am not saying that people should be slothful and not work for what they earn
> (how can they earn what they have not worked for?). I am saying that they
> should be paid a living wage for the work they do, and not paying them for the
> work they do is a sin that cries out to heaven.
>
They are being paid for the wage they and their employer agreed upon.
The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
Is it the case you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? Do you
believe one's work and product produced has an objective value, and the
employer is skimming off the top? That would be the reasoning of the
living wage advocates. This has been demonstrated a false doctrine, my
friend. I can spend ten hours digging a ditch by the road but my labor
isn't worth anything if a) there's no market for it, b) no one wants to
pay for it, c) no one is investing in the work, and d) I don't have the
smarts to find the proper outlets to sell the product. It's a highly
complex process that can't exactly be quantified as Marx and his
like-minded philosophers imagined. Someone slaving over the lettuce
patch for two dollars an hour is earning exactly what the market is
offering his set of skills and service. That market mechanism includes
consumers in the store, many of whom are low-wage workers themselves.
Raising the wage without the corresponding increase in productivity
(which can only occur through natural market mechanisms) merely shifts
to a rise in the product's price. The worker gets his raise, but goes
to the store and sees prices rise.
> > There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
> >what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
> >will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
> >market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
> >demagogues.
>
> Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
>
First off, I'm not advocating any economic *system*, but merely that
the ten commandments be obeyed. Leaving the economy under those
commands would be a laissez faire arrangement at the governmental
level. It's not a matter of *doing* some plan, but a matter of *not*
doing theft and *not* promoting class envy and warfare.
> Both believe that man should be subjected to economic forces. For one the name
> og the deity is "the free rein of the market forces", and for the other it is
> "the dialecical forces of history".
>
> But by placing the forces of the marked above God, one commits idolatry.
>
> "You shall have no other gods before me", no matter how objective an arbiter
> you may think they are.
>
> >> Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
> >>
> >
> >Paying a particular wage, if an employer chooses such, isn't
> >anti-Christian. Government plundering is what's anti-Christian. Being
> >paid with plundered money for what was not earned is what's
> >anti-Christian.
>
> Being paid a living wage for a fair day's work is not "being paid with
> plundered money one has not earned".
>
You earn the money you agreed to be paid at the time of hire. Voting
for the army and police to put a gun to the head of your employer to
pay you something else is indeed plundering.
rlm_3071
> jo wrote:
>
>
> Dave
>
Still can't get over that independence thing, eh? You can't handle
that you guys lost the big one, then we had to come save you twice in
the last century. Make that three times if you count fending off
communist Russia :-D We'd like to quarantine ourselves but our
European friends have this inane ability to start global wars and
ethnic genocide on a grand scale. It never fails we're called in to
clean up the place.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
>>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the health
>>of the workers and their families .
>
>How is it theft?
Because it's stealing.
> If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
>and it is accepted, then it's not theft.
That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
survive on it. You may think that childhood malnutrition is really cool
because, hey, their parents are paid the "going" rate. Well, keep your
millstone handy.
> And paying an artificial wage
>harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
>power and causing job loss.
Artificial, shmaritifical. That's a weasel word, and you know it -- or you
ought to if you've ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
>All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
>see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
If you stopped looking at economies and drawing weird conclusions, and started
looking at the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, you might
not spout such unChristian gobbledegook.
>Capitalism is NOT unChristian. If one treats his workers humanely (ie does
>not abuse them - and paying the 'going wage' is NOT abuse), pays them on
>time, and in the mutually agreed amounts, gives them proper work hours, etc,
>then there is no sin.
How can you utter such immoral nonsense? Paying stavation wages is most
certainly inhumane and abusive, and no amount of sophistical godless
rationalising will change that.
>I've been the employer - for my own business. I carefully considered the
>value each employee brought, and paid them based on a combination of the
>various inputs - value to the company, going wage for such jobs, what they
>produced, etc. I did also try to take into account their personal life
>situation, but I was limited in my ability to pay based on what was earned.
>I limited my draw initially and was making LESS than my highest paid
>employees. I also had 100% risk. Any profits are return on the risk of
>capital.
Bully for you.
>You see, you view labor as the ONLY input, and discredit capital. But
>without capital, the laborer would have no job. The person who provides
>the capital has the right to profit from it which is at least equal to
>the right of the laborer to profit from his labor.
>
>That's the part that the socialist/communist folks always leave out.
Maybe they do, but that is irrelevant. The question at issue is not rival
economic systems. Living under one or other economic system or political
system does not absolve us from trying to live according to Orthodox ethical
precepts, and confessing our sins when we fail. You can sin under a socialist
system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
Abortion may be legal in your country as it is in ours, and even be socially
approved of in some circles, but if an Orthodox Christian has or procures or
performs an abortion that is a sin that they ought to confess. They should not
think it is OK because "everyone does it". And the same applies to paying a
living wage, because failing to do so can kill children just as surely as
abortion does, though more slowly. .
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 1 May 2006 07:45:02 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >> Read Isaiah 58.
>> >
>> >Steve, Isaiah 58 doesn't provide any direction about living or minimum
>> >wages. The commandments in Scripture, whether in the OT or from
>> >Christ, were never given as directives in how to form goverments or
>> >what policies they ought to pursue.
>>
>> I'm not talking about forming governments or what policies they ought to
>> pursue.
>>
>> An Orthodox prayer book I had from St Tikhon's press had a list of "Four sins
>> that cry out to heaven"
>>
>> 1. Idolatry
>> 2. Wilful murder
>> 3. Withholding a worker's wages
>> 4. The sin of Sodom
>>
>> I trust that those who are now arguing that 3 is not only OK, but that NOT
>> commiting that particular sin is "anti-Christian" will also say the same of
>> the others -- that not worshipping idols is anti-Christian, that not wifully
>> mudering someone is anti-Christian, and that not committing the sin of Sodom
>> is anti-Christian.
>>
>
>You're mixing apples and bananas in the discussion.
No, you're mixing God and Mammon.
Yes, withholding a
>worker's wages would constitute theft. But the worker's wage is that
>which is mutually, contractually agreed upon at the time of hiring! A
>worker doesn't have to agree to it if he can find a better deal
>elsewhere with his given skill set.
And if he can't, and if the choice is between a starvation wage and a
starvation wage?
Oh well, tough -- the market has determined the rate, and the Almighty Market
is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and has far more authority than any
upstart Galilean carpenter who doesn't have an economics degree.
What I'm reading is that some want
>the government to come in after that mutually agreed upon contract is
>in place, and through the use of force revoke and impose a new contract
>upon the employer against his will. What's going to happen is
>employers will become reticent in hiring new employees, current
>employees will be overworked, short-term contractual labor will
>balloon, and a permanent, 10-15% unemployment class will arise as you
>witness in Western Europe today. You can't ignore the underlying
>market dynamics no matter the economic scheme designed to impose
>*fairness* and *equality*. As sure as the sun rises, there will be an
>unavoidable market reaction to every policy decision and the most
>intrusive ones more likely than not will have the most negative,
>unintended results *despite* the good intentions behind them.
Well, if you can't serve God and Mammon, Mammon must take precedence, it
seems.
Poor old God, sorry he lost out, but he was a victim of the market forces, you
know.
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@yahoo.com
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 1 May 2006 07:45:02 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> That would depend on the cost of living where she lives. But why would it ber
>> >> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
>> >they earn?
>>
>> You tell me -- I didn't say that, you did.
>>
>> I am not saying that people should be slothful and not work for what they earn
>> (how can they earn what they have not worked for?). I am saying that they
>> should be paid a living wage for the work they do, and not paying them for the
>> work they do is a sin that cries out to heaven.
>>
>
>They are being paid for the wage they and their employer agreed upon.
>The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
Have it your way.
Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
"anti-Christian".
>Is it the case you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? Do you
>believe one's work and product produced has an objective value, and the
>employer is skimming off the top?
The perfect example of Marx's theory of labour value is a man who spends 50
years of his life making a matchstick model of the Eiffel Tower. Its sole
value lies in the labour he has put into it.
When you say that artificial economic theories, whether Marxist, Friedmanist
or Randist, must take precedence of Christian values, that is something else.
>> > There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
>> >what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
>> >will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
>> >market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
>> >demagogues.
>>
>> Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
>>
>
>First off, I'm not advocating any economic *system*, but merely that
>the ten commandments be obeyed. Leaving the economy under those
>commands would be a laissez faire arrangement at the governmental
>level. It's not a matter of *doing* some plan, but a matter of *not*
>doing theft and *not* promoting class envy and warfare.
And paying a starvation wage is theft, and is breaking at least one of the ten
commandments.
Stephen Adams
>On 2 May 2006 14:06:04 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
>>>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the
>>>health of the workers and their families .
>>
>>How is it theft?
>
>Because it's stealing.
Stealing WHAT? There is nothing to steal.
>> If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
>>and it is accepted, then it's not theft.
>
>That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
>certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
>survive on it.
But this has NOTHING to do with the value of the work! You are trying to
break compensation from the value of the work provided, and this is simply
not possible unless you intend to control prices, incomes, trade and exchange
rates. If you do not control all of those, with extreme micromanagement,
the economy will find a way to adapt - and it will be the low-end who get
hurt. Hurt even worse than if you had just left the system alone in the
first place.
Please show me a single command economy that EVER worked. Even if you
could seal off 100% of outside influence, it STILL would not work, since
you can't provide 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the market. And
even if you could, there would be no way to generate wealth.
Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
>You may think that childhood malnutrition is really cool
>because, hey, their parents are paid the "going" rate. Well, keep your
>millstone handy.
This is quite a leap. First of all, children in the US are FAR better off
than those in third-world economies (or even some developing economies).
Your system would, of necessity, have to cut off imports from those
countries with phony economic barriers to make goods produced in your
economy competitive. Thus consigning hundreds of millions of people to
permanant poverty. You were saying?????
Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
then the employer changes the conditions.
The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity. In the
US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
leftist meddling in our economy.
Before the Civil War, the federal government consumed no more than 5% of
the output of Americans. At the height of the Civil War, it consumed 20%.
Today, it consumes that regularly - and more!
Want to help the working poor? Repeal Social Security. The payroll tax
is the most egregious, regressive, ill-conceived notion in history.
>>And paying an artificial wage
>>harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
>>power and causing job loss.
>
>Artificial, shmaritifical. That's a weasel word, and you know it -- or you
>ought to if you've ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
Or, as noted, the janitor will go to work for a janitorial firm which is
setup in such a way as to pay them even LESS than they were getting before.
>>All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
>>see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
>
>If you stopped looking at economies and drawing weird conclusions, and started
>looking at the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, you might
>not spout such unChristian gobbledegook.
Nothing I have said is UnChristian. You seem to have missed THIS:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not
disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone?s bread free of charge, but
worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to
any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an
example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we
commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we
hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not
working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and
exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat
their own bread.
[ II Thes 3:7-12 ]
and
But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton
against Christ, they desire to marry, having condemnation because they
have cast off their first faith. And besides they learn to be idle,
wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and
busybodies, saying things which they ought not. Therefore I desire that
the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no
opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some have already
turned aside after Satan. If any believing man or woman has widows, let
them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may
relieve those who are really widows.
[ I Tim 11:5-16 ]
We can draw some clear conclusions from the passages that the left usuallly
ignores when trying to claim that capitalism is 'unchristian':
1. Men are expected to work and are not to receive formal charity from the
church.
2. Young women are expected to marry or stay with their parents or brothers
and not receive charity from the church.
None of this mitigates against almsgiving, which we are required to do. And
to give to those who ask of us. But what YOU want is compulsory almsgiving,
which benefits NO ONE.
I note well that the most atheistic societies are the ones with the most
direct, governmental control of day-to-day life. That ought to tell you
something right there!
>>Capitalism is NOT unChristian. If one treats his workers humanely (ie does
>>not abuse them - and paying the 'going wage' is NOT abuse), pays them on
>>time, and in the mutually agreed amounts, gives them proper work hours, etc,
>>then there is no sin.
>
>How can you utter such immoral nonsense? Paying stavation wages is most
>certainly inhumane and abusive, and no amount of sophistical godless
>rationalising will change that.
Paying NO wages is even worse. But you seem to think that somehow money
will magically appear that does not currently exist in the economy to make
up this difference, and that somehow nobody will be hurt.
You foolishly focus on the perhaps 1000 to 2000 CEO's of the biggest
companies and decry ALL businesses by that. The average small business
does't generate as much earnings as any one of the top 500 CEO's makes
in compensation! Changing the pay rate of the CEO of IBM or GM is going
to have a tiny effect on the economy, and won't generate sufficient excess
money to cover the expenses your plan creates.
All you will have is extra money to pay out as dividends or be spent on
some other part of the business that the shareholders want to spend it
on. What next? A ban on dividends and/or distributions to shareholders?
Confiscatory taxes to stop it? Nobody will invest if you do that. And
you'll destroy the economy.
Yeah, that's REAL Christian - destroing the entire economic system. The
Soviets tried it. Didn't work. The Chinese learned that lesson quite
well and are moving towards a more free economic system so they don't lose
their heads (literally). Same with the Indians.
Sorry, but your accusations miss the mark. Care to try again?
>>I've been the employer - for my own business. I carefully considered the
>>value each employee brought, and paid them based on a combination of the
>>various inputs - value to the company, going wage for such jobs, what they
>>produced, etc. I did also try to take into account their personal life
>>situation, but I was limited in my ability to pay based on what was earned.
>>I limited my draw initially and was making LESS than my highest paid
>>employees. I also had 100% risk. Any profits are return on the risk of
>>capital.
>
>Bully for you.
No response, of course. Since the above defeats your entire argument. And
since the vast majority of employment in the US is done by SMALL PRIVATE
COMPANIES, your plan will send government agents to harass and destroy the
main engine of the US economy.
>>You see, you view labor as the ONLY input, and discredit capital. But
>>without capital, the laborer would have no job. The person who provides
>>the capital has the right to profit from it which is at least equal to
>>the right of the laborer to profit from his labor.
>>
>>That's the part that the socialist/communist folks always leave out.
>
>Maybe they do, but that is irrelevant.
No, it's not. Without profit on invested capital, there will be NO
investment! They'll stick their earnings in government bonds, etc,
and not take ANY risks. That will drive down bond yields and interest
rates and do serious damage to the world economy. It will make it even
harder for the middle class to save ANYTHING without losing it all to the
massive inflation your plan will cause. Or if you control prices, then
the quality of the goods will suffer (see the USSR for examples).
You need to learn some basic economics. Having wonderful idealistic
notions is great, but they don't work and wreak havoc on everyone. And
the poorest will suffer MORE under your system than under the current
one.
>The question at issue is not rival
>economic systems. Living under one or other economic system or political
>system does not absolve us from trying to live according to Orthodox ethical
>precepts, and confessing our sins when we fail.
I never said it did. We're discussing the notion of wage and price controls.
Where did I ever say I was absolved from almsgiving, etc? No, rather, you
want to force some centrally mandated 'almsgiving' that does not benefit
anyone, except perhaps the bureaucrats who administer it.
>You can sin under a socialist
>system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
>communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
>transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
>Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
Who is squeezing out my personal responsibility to give alms? Not me. If
we got the feds down to 5% of the national output again, my tax rates would
fall dramatically and I would have even MORE money to give. I do not
live extravagantly. We do not eat extravagantly. I use public transportation.
Right now, the only thing limiting my almsgiving is the 50% tax burden from
all levels of government!
And frankly, until you are prepared to repeal Social Security in its
entirety, you have no room to talk. It harms the poor more than anyone
with its regressive form. How dare you steal 9% of a man's income, and
force his employer to pay another 9% in matching funds. If you just left
that money to the employee now, he could have a 20% raise!!!!
You are so in love with your social engineering that you can't see that
your engineering is doing far more harm to people than anything you are
complaining about!!
>Abortion may be legal in your country as it is in ours, and even be socially
>approved of in some circles, but if an Orthodox Christian has or procures or
>performs an abortion that is a sin that they ought to confess. They should not
>think it is OK because "everyone does it". And the same applies to paying a
>living wage, because failing to do so can kill children just as surely as
>abortion does, though more slowly. .
Your plan will cause even more suffering in Africa, India and China. Do
you accept responsibility for all of THOSE deaths that will come as surely
as day follows night?
Command economies do not work. Never have. Never will. They cause more
suffering than they alleviate. In every case.
rlm_3071
> Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
> fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
> "anti-Christian".
>
Strawman. I don't believe it's required to steal to feed children who
are dying of malnutrition. You would believe otherwise. You've such
low opinion of the good men can do that you bail out in trying to
appeal to man's better side and instead advocate theft.
> >Is it the case you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? Do you
> >believe one's work and product produced has an objective value, and the
> >employer is skimming off the top?
>
> The perfect example of Marx's theory of labour value is a man who spends 50
> years of his life making a matchstick model of the Eiffel Tower. Its sole
> value lies in the labour he has put into it.
>
It has no value whatsoever except for the sentimental value the
matchstick dude has for his modernist garbage art or whatever sucker
would pay for it.
> When you say that artificial economic theories, whether Marxist, Friedmanist
> or Randist, must take precedence of Christian values, that is something else.
>
Strawman. Let's stay on topic: Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not
covet.
> And paying a starvation wage is theft, and is breaking at least one of the ten
> commandments.
>
What's a starvation wage? You've been reading too much Charles
Dickens. Do tell how much money you believe a human needs to purchase
enough food to live. You'd be surprised at how little it takes! I had
friends in college who studied far away from home and they lived
extremely cheap on ramen noodles, bologna sticks, and crackers for
months. Your starvation wage is comical. From what I'm reading in
recent threads, those who've been complaining about starvation wages
and being poor are shopping for food in trendy, expensive stores like
Whole Foods. It's difficult to take the concept of a starvation wage
seriously when the people complaining about it are often overweight and
seem to be meeting their basic human needs plus entertainment. What's
really going on is that some have hard jobs or they don't want to walk
the hard path of going to school to improve their lot.
rlm_3071
No, you're unable to discern witholding wages in contrast to paying a
mutually agreed upon low wage. As much as you'd like, you can't shake
and dance away from the *theft problem*, which forms the rotten core of
every socialist scheme. When you read Christ's imploring us to help
the poor, you read a command to steal. Try being more imaginative and
creative in solving man's problems without violating God's commands.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>On 2 May 2006 14:06:04 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
>>>>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the
>>>>health of the workers and their families .
>>>
>>>How is it theft?
>>
>>Because it's stealing.
>
>Stealing WHAT? There is nothing to steal.
>
>>> If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
>>>and it is accepted, then it's not theft.
>>
>>That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
>>certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
>>survive on it.
>
>But this has NOTHING to do with the value of the work! You are trying to
>break compensation from the value of the work provided, and this is simply
>not possible unless you intend to control prices, incomes, trade and exchange
>rates. If you do not control all of those, with extreme micromanagement,
>the economy will find a way to adapt - and it will be the low-end who get
>hurt. Hurt even worse than if you had just left the system alone in the
>first place.
The more you spout your Mammonist ideology, the more anti-Christian it
appears.
>Please show me a single command economy that EVER worked. Even if you
>could seal off 100% of outside influence, it STILL would not work, since
>you can't provide 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the market. And
>even if you could, there would be no way to generate wealth.
So the 10 Commandments will never work? I'm sure God will be grateful for you
advice, and repeal them ASAP.
>Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
And the breast stroke beats polarized light. Mensturation.
>
>>You may think that childhood malnutrition is really cool
>>because, hey, their parents are paid the "going" rate. Well, keep your
>>millstone handy.
>
>This is quite a leap. First of all, children in the US are FAR better off
>than those in third-world economies (or even some developing economies).
>Your system would, of necessity, have to cut off imports from those
>countries with phony economic barriers to make goods produced in your
>economy competitive. Thus consigning hundreds of millions of people to
>permanant poverty. You were saying?????
That your Mammonis ideology is anti-Christian.
Would you like me to repeat it.
>Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
>contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
>A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
>then the employer changes the conditions.
And if the contact is for less than a living wage, the employer is guilty of
theft and extortion.
>The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity.
Which part of "Christian charity" includes the paying of starvation wages?
> In the
>US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
>Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
>other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
>leftist meddling in our economy.
So if employers don't pay their employees enough to live on, the difference
should be made up by pr4ivate charity, churches and the like? That sounds like
the Speenhamland system, and that didn't work.
>>>And paying an artificial wage
>>>harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
>>>power and causing job loss.
>>
>>Artificial, shmaritifical. That's a weasel word, and you know it -- or you
>>ought to if you've ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
>
>Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
>pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
>much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
>
>If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
>jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
>out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
>the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
I am not propounding any economic theory. You appear to want to substitute
economic theories for Christian morality. I don't buy your artificial economic
theories, because they are clearly anti-Christian.
>Or, as noted, the janitor will go to work for a janitorial firm which is
>setup in such a way as to pay them even LESS than they were getting before.
>
>>>All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
>>>see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
>>
>>If you stopped looking at economies and drawing weird conclusions, and started
>>looking at the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, you might
>>not spout such unChristian gobbledegook.
>
>Nothing I have said is UnChristian. You seem to have missed THIS:
Just about EVERYthing you have said is unChristian, because you are trying to
justify starving children to death with your fancy theories, to try to
convince yourself that it's not a sin.
Quite.
But you recommend that they should receive formal charity from the church
because their employers don't pay them enough to live on.
As you yourself put it:
>The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity.
> 2. Young women are expected to marry or stay with their parents or brothers
> and not receive charity from the church.
I don't see what tyhat has to do with it.
>None of this mitigates against almsgiving, which we are required to do. And
>to give to those who ask of us. But what YOU want is compulsory almsgiving,
>which benefits NO ONE.
If employers paid a living wage, the working poor would not need alms,
compulsory ot voluntary.
A living wage is not almsgiving of any sort, compulsory or otherwise.
>I note well that the most atheistic societies are the ones with the most
>direct, governmental control of day-to-day life. That ought to tell you
>something right there!
I note well that the sun is about 93 million miles from the earth. That ought
to tell you something right there.
It doesn't, of course, tell you anything about the morality of paying or not
paying a living wage, but neither does your observation.
>>>Capitalism is NOT unChristian. If one treats his workers humanely (ie does
>>>not abuse them - and paying the 'going wage' is NOT abuse), pays them on
>>>time, and in the mutually agreed amounts, gives them proper work hours, etc,
>>>then there is no sin.
>>
>>How can you utter such immoral nonsense? Paying stavation wages is most
>>certainly inhumane and abusive, and no amount of sophistical godless
>>rationalising will change that.
>
>Paying NO wages is even worse. But you seem to think that somehow money
>will magically appear that does not currently exist in the economy to make
>up this difference, and that somehow nobody will be hurt.
I'm not so sure. I think the system that you are advocating is even worse than
chattel slavery in some ways. In chattel slavery the slave owner will feed the
slave if for no other reason than self-interest, as he puts oil in his car, in
order to maintain the value of his property. But in the system you advocate
the employer has nothing to lose if the worker starves, and his children die
of malnutrition. Let them die, or let them be fed from "Christian charity".
>You foolishly focus on the perhaps 1000 to 2000 CEO's of the biggest
>companies and decry ALL businesses by that. The average small business
>does't generate as much earnings as any one of the top 500 CEO's makes
>in compensation! Changing the pay rate of the CEO of IBM or GM is going
>to have a tiny effect on the economy, and won't generate sufficient excess
>money to cover the expenses your plan creates.
What on earth are you talking about?
I have not focused on any such thing. I haven't said anything about any such
thing. I have no plan. God may have a plan, but I don't.
>>>I've been the employer - for my own business. I carefully considered the
>>>value each employee brought, and paid them based on a combination of the
>>>various inputs - value to the company, going wage for such jobs, what they
>>>produced, etc. I did also try to take into account their personal life
>>>situation, but I was limited in my ability to pay based on what was earned.
>>>I limited my draw initially and was making LESS than my highest paid
>>>employees. I also had 100% risk. Any profits are return on the risk of
>>>capital.
>>
>>Bully for you.
>
>No response, of course. Since the above defeats your entire argument. And
>since the vast majority of employment in the US is done by SMALL PRIVATE
>COMPANIES, your plan will send government agents to harass and destroy the
>main engine of the US economy.
Wow! So I'd better toss out the Bible, and all the works of the Fathers,
because in one paragraph you have demolished their entire argument.
Go Mammon!
>>>You see, you view labor as the ONLY input, and discredit capital. But
>>>without capital, the laborer would have no job. The person who provides
>>>the capital has the right to profit from it which is at least equal to
>>>the right of the laborer to profit from his labor.
>>>
>>>That's the part that the socialist/communist folks always leave out.
>>
>>Maybe they do, but that is irrelevant.
>
>No, it's not. Without profit on invested capital, there will be NO
>investment! They'll stick their earnings in government bonds, etc,
>and not take ANY risks. That will drive down bond yields and interest
>rates and do serious damage to the world economy. It will make it even
>harder for the middle class to save ANYTHING without losing it all to the
>massive inflation your plan will cause. Or if you control prices, then
>the quality of the goods will suffer (see the USSR for examples).
>
>You need to learn some basic economics.
You need to learn some basic Christian ethics and get your priorities
straight.
.
>Having wonderful idealistic
>notions is great, but they don't work and wreak havoc on everyone.
Well, on some people. When God meddled in human affairs, they taught him a
lesson all right - nailed him up on a cross That wreaked a bit of havic, that
did.
And
>the poorest will suffer MORE under your system than under the current
>one.
>
>>The question at issue is not rival
>>economic systems. Living under one or other economic system or political
>>system does not absolve us from trying to live according to Orthodox ethical
>>precepts, and confessing our sins when we fail.
>
>I never said it did. We're discussing the notion of wage and price controls.
No we're not, we're discussing the ethics of paying a living wage, which a lot
of people, including you, seem to think is somehow "anti-Christian". But when
I ask people to demonstrate the truth of that statement, it seems that no one
can come up with any *Christian* arguments, but just a lot of economic theory
that they think takes precedence over Christian ethics. Where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also.
>Where did I ever say I was absolved from almsgiving, etc? No, rather, you
>want to force some centrally mandated 'almsgiving' that does not benefit
>anyone, except perhaps the bureaucrats who administer it
And you want to justify the killing of children because you think your
economic theory mandates it.
>
>>You can sin under a socialist
>>system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
>>communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
>>transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
>>Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
>
>Who is squeezing out my personal responsibility to give alms? Not me.
Is it your economic theory that confuses alms and wages?
>You are so in love with your social engineering that you can't see that
>your engineering is doing far more harm to people than anything you are
>complaining about!!
Don't complain to me, complain to God. If you think Christian ethics is
"social engineering" and that social engineering is a bad thing, and that your
economic theories are better than Christian ethics, then be honest enough to
admit it, and don't pretend to be a Christian. Ayn Rand wasn't ashamed of
being an atheist.
>>Abortion may be legal in your country as it is in ours, and even be socially
>>approved of in some circles, but if an Orthodox Christian has or procures or
>>performs an abortion that is a sin that they ought to confess. They should not
>>think it is OK because "everyone does it". And the same applies to paying a
>>living wage, because failing to do so can kill children just as surely as
>>abortion does, though more slowly. .
>
>Your plan will cause even more suffering in Africa, India and China. Do
>you accept responsibility for all of THOSE deaths that will come as surely
>as day follows night?
>
>Command economies do not work. Never have. Never will. They cause more
>suffering than they alleviate. In every case.
Well, as I said, if you are so aggainst commands, then drop the ten
commandments, if you don't think they will work. You're not the first to think
that, of course.
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> I was having lunch with a client a while back when the subject of taxes
> came up. He is a mid-level marketing executive and told me he deducted
> car expenses from his taxable income. It turned out to be a sizeable
> amount. I made the mistake of wondering aloud if the service class
> (like his nanny and cleaning lady) should also be deducting their
> travel expenses since they needed public transit just as much for their
> jobs as he needed his car for his. His reaction was so explosively
> negative I was left momentarily speechless, jaw dangling open with food
> left unchewed. His rant went on for some minutes, justifying each and
> every deduction, letting me know that he worked very hard for his
> money, that his nanny and cleaning lady got exactly what they deserved
> and maybe more, and that he hated the government that stole his money
> to subsidize public transit that he never used. It was a classic case
> of total disregard and undervaluation of service labor, and an
> excessive overvaluation of his own. Amazing.
>
Your tall tale has a teeny weeny little problem, Serafim. The nanny and
cleaning lady aren't paying income taxes, other than for their SS and
Medicare. In fact, the bottom income earners are actually, on average,
paying a negative income tax. And then those taxpayers who are
itemizing deductions above a certain income bracket. The average lower
middle to middle income taxpayer wouldn't itemize because the standard
deductions are higher than if they itemized.
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>'Living wage' is anti-Christian
>by the Rev. Robert Siricoand the Rev. Gerald Zandstra
Since this thread started about five days ago, I've learnt several things, and
make some general observations on how the thread has developed.
One thing that has deeply impressed me is the lengths to which people will go
to evade moral responsibility by changing the definition of sin. That isn't
all that uncommon these days. Lots of people say that things that used to be
wrong are now OK, because "times have changed". We don't have to confess as
many sins as we used to, not because we are morally better than we used to be,
but because we have indulged in sophistry to change the definitions of sin, so
that acts that in the past we needed to confess and repent of, we can now feel
proud of doing.
This has been common in some Western denominations, but I hadn't realised
quite how common it is in Orthodoxy.
At the same time, the reverse has taken place. Things that used to be regarded
as virtues, like paying a living wage, have now become, not merely sins, but
are dfescribed as "anti-Christian".
I have asked people to explain why they think the copncept of a "living wage"
is anti-Christian, and strangely enough, no one has come up with any Christian
arguments for this. They have argued on the basis of economic theories (how do
economic theories determine whether something is anti-Christian?), or racism
(one seemed to thionk that saying he was a white man showed that a "living
wage" was an anti-Christian concept). In fact the arguments were based on just
about anything BUT Christian ethics.
And there were enough red herrings to stock a fish mongers for decades.
Arguments that command economies don't work, for example, or government
programmes and things like that.
But since when have commond economies of government programs been needed for
us to tell the difference between right and wrong? When I go to confession, I
go to confess my sins and failures and shortcomings, and putting the blame on
some bureaucrat running a programme just won't wash. My failure is my failure.
My sin is my sin. *I* must confess it, *I* must repent.
Let me give an example.
It's not an Orthodox example, but I think it will serve for the purposes of
illustration.
An Anglican bishop from Namibia visited some parishes in South Africa, and
encouraged people from there to come and work for God in Namibia. One guy
said, "What can I do> I'm just a builder." The Bishop said, "God will find
something for you to do." So he threw up his job with one of the biggest
building firms in South Africa, where he was a building estimator who drew up
and submitted all their tenders. He bought an old beat up Volkswagen van, they
let their house, loaded up as many of their posessions as would fit, and set
off on the 1500 miles to Windhoek.
When they arrived, he said, "The Lord has sent me, what shall I do?" So the
church tregistered a building company. They wanted to call it "Ikon
Construction" but the Regitrar of Companies wouldn't have it, so they turned
it around and called it "Noki Construction." It had three directors -- the
Bishop, the Diocesan Secretary, and Ed Morrow, the builder. They each held one
share in the registered capital of R200, and the diocesan trust board owned
the rest.
Then the bishop wrote to clergy in Ovamboland, a rural area in the far north
of Namibia, and said if any young men were interested in learning the building
trade, they could apply. They were looking for three, and got them quite
quickly. They repaired church buildings, and took on outside jobs to make some
money -- usually small alterations and additions.
After 18 months Ed Morrow gave the first report from Noki Construction to the
diocesan synod.
He began his report by saying "We have shown that it is possible to run a
business on Christian lines and still make a profit."
He made the following points:
1. They paid three times the "going rate" for building workers.
2. They paid their bills promptly
3. They quoted fair prices and did a good job, so that customers were
satisfied, and they were respected for this in town.
4. The people in Noki Construction were a team: they worked together, played
together and prayed together.
In part, of course, their success was due to the particular skills of Ed
Morrow. As an estimator for a big building firm, he was very good at costing
jobs, and setting a price that was fair to the customer, and yet would still
let them make a profit. Now if that skill was used for undesirable
"micromanaging wage controls and price controls" and "social engineering",
then I fail to see what is undesirable about it. Noki Construction paid a
living wage that was three times the going rate in the building industry in
Windhoek at the time. I fail to see what was so anti-Christian about that.
Of course those four points of their achievements mentioned in the synod
report show that it didn't work, it couldn't work, because it never has and a
command economy has never worked.
But not being a devotee of pagan economic theories, I don't see it. I think it
worked, and it worked pretty well.
And even if it hadn't worked, at least they had the moral courage to *try* to
run a business on Christian lines, rather than taking the defeatist line of
saying that such a thing never has worked, never would work, and never will
work.
.
The
Stephen Adams
>On 2 May 2006 18:45:54 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>Because it's stealing.
>>
>>Stealing WHAT? There is nothing to steal.
You still haven't answered this. Your claim is simply an attempt to
shoehorn your redistributionist ecnomics into the Ten Commandments.
But there is NOTHING being stolen. And you know it.
>>>That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
>>>certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
>>>survive on it.
>>
>>But this has NOTHING to do with the value of the work! You are trying to
>>break compensation from the value of the work provided, and this is simply
>>not possible unless you intend to control prices, incomes, trade and exchange
>>rates. If you do not control all of those, with extreme micromanagement,
>>the economy will find a way to adapt - and it will be the low-end who get
>>hurt. Hurt even worse than if you had just left the system alone in the
>>first place.
>
>The more you spout your Mammonist ideology, the more anti-Christian it
>appears.
No refutation. Just more socialist blather with no backing of any kind.
One more time - describe EXACTLY what is being stolen. You can't. You
also cannot find redistributionist economics prescribed in the Bible as
the way to run a society.
>>Please show me a single command economy that EVER worked. Even if you
>>could seal off 100% of outside influence, it STILL would not work, since
>>you can't provide 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the market. And
>>even if you could, there would be no way to generate wealth.
>
>So the 10 Commandments will never work? I'm sure God will be grateful for you
>advice, and repeal them ASAP.
Nothing about the economic system you decry so loudly violates the Ten
Commandments.
>>Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
>
>And the breast stroke beats polarized light. Mensturation.
Poor attempt to refute my argument. But that's because you can not. It
is NOT possible to show a single case where such systems do not *increase*
misery. And we thought you were opposed to misery. Guess you prefer that
ALL live in misery.
>>Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
>>contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
>>A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
>>then the employer changes the conditions.
>
>And if the contact is for less than a living wage, the employer is guilty of
>theft and extortion.
Nope. If the person agrees to work for that wage, there is no theft and no
extortion. You seem to think that the person who has the money is
automatically a thief if he fails to give it all to the people YOU decide
he should.
If anyone is advocating theft, it is YOU. You insist on compulsory
almsgiving which benefits NO ONE. It's NOT Christian.
>>The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity.
>
>Which part of "Christian charity" includes the paying of starvation wages?
One more time - charity is NOT cumpulsory. You advocate theft. And
blatantly, too. Define "starvation wages" - can't afford a double latte
mocha at Starbucks? Can't afford a new car? Guess what, neither can I
at this time. You don't see me whining that someone else should be forced
to pay for these things, or high speed internet access, or any other thing.
Let's see a complete definition of what you are talking about.
I *dare you* to post one. Go on.
>> In the
>>US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
>>Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
>>other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
>>leftist meddling in our economy.
>
>So if employers don't pay their employees enough to live on, the difference
>should be made up by pr4ivate charity, churches and the like? That sounds like
>the Speenhamland system, and that didn't work.
You make stuff up out of thin air and try to insinuate that I do the same
thing. I do no such thing - my facts are facts. And private charity DOES
work. In fact, it works BETTER than government charity.
>>Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
>>pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
>>much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
>>
>>If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
>>jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
>>out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
>>the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
>
>I am not propounding any economic theory. You appear to want to substitute
>economic theories for Christian morality. I don't buy your artificial economic
>theories, because they are clearly anti-Christian.
No, they aren't. And I posted the Scripture to prove it. You on the other
hand advocate stealing from those who have, at the point of a gun, to give
to your particular special interest group. Talk about unChristian!
>Just about EVERYthing you have said is unChristian, because you are trying to
>justify starving children to death with your fancy theories, to try to
>convince yourself that it's not a sin.
Hogwash. Nowhere do I advocate starving children to death. In fact, I
challenge you to point to verifiable non-criminal starvation deaths of
children in the US. And the parents spending all their money on crack
and abandoning the kids doesn't count.
>> [ II Thes 3:7-12 ]
>>
>>and
>>
>> [ I Tim 11:5-16 ]
>>
>>We can draw some clear conclusions from the passages that the left usuallly
>>ignores when trying to claim that capitalism is 'unchristian':
>>
>> 1. Men are expected to work and are not to receive formal charity from the
>> church.
>
>Quite.
>
>But you recommend that they should receive formal charity from the church
>because their employers don't pay them enough to live on.
And you advocate forcing it at the point of a gun and in the process
destroying the economy and impverishing the entire world. I'd say my
response is not only Christian, but better overall.
>> 2. Young women are expected to marry or stay with their parents or brothers
>> and not receive charity from the church.
>
>I don't see what tyhat has to do with it.
That not everyone should get help from the church. They should turn to their
family if they are in need. But the wonderful left has made this nearly
impossible to do with all the stupid regulations they have imposed.
>>None of this mitigates against almsgiving, which we are required to do. And
>>to give to those who ask of us. But what YOU want is compulsory almsgiving,
>>which benefits NO ONE.
>
>If employers paid a living wage, the working poor would not need alms,
>compulsory ot voluntary.
Employers pay what the job is worth to them. Doing anything else will
destroy the economy for EVERYONE. Can't you get that through your head?
Implementing your governmental theft program will HURT the very people
you are trying to help.
>A living wage is not almsgiving of any sort, compulsory or otherwise.
You want it as a substitute.
>>I note well that the most atheistic societies are the ones with the most
>>direct, governmental control of day-to-day life. That ought to tell you
>>something right there!
>
>I note well that the sun is about 93 million miles from the earth. That ought
>to tell you something right there.
>
>It doesn't, of course, tell you anything about the morality of paying or not
>paying a living wage, but neither does your observation.
You simply can't refute the truth so you try to make the conversation
useless. Typical leftist tactic.
>>>Bully for you.
>>
>>No response, of course. Since the above defeats your entire argument. And
>>since the vast majority of employment in the US is done by SMALL PRIVATE
>>COMPANIES, your plan will send government agents to harass and destroy the
>>main engine of the US economy.
>
>Wow! So I'd better toss out the Bible, and all the works of the Fathers,
>because in one paragraph you have demolished their entire argument.
>
>Go Mammon!
So I guess instead I should have NOT hired the person, left him unemployed
and gone to work somewhere else. And all those small businesses, to hell
with the owners making a reasonable living. Yeah, we need to drive them
out of business and make sure we have MORE unemployed people and MORE
hunger. Yeah, brillians "christian" plan you have there.
>>You need to learn some basic economics.
>
>You need to learn some basic Christian ethics and get your priorities
>straight.
My priorities are straight. Capitalism has improved the lives of more
people than any other economic system in history. Communist and
Socialist redistribution plans have ruined more people than any other
system in history. And yet you advocate forced redistribution.
Go study some history.
>>I never said it did. We're discussing the notion of wage and price controls.
>
>No we're not, we're discussing the ethics of paying a living wage, which a lot
>of people, including you, seem to think is somehow "anti-Christian".
The only way to force what you are talking about is a complete command
economy. Otherwise the economy will route around your imposed inefficiency.
>But when
>I ask people to demonstrate the truth of that statement, it seems that no one
>can come up with any *Christian* arguments, but just a lot of economic theory
>that they think takes precedence over Christian ethics. Where your treasure
>is, there will your heart be also.
My treasure is where it ought to be - improving the situation for the most
people possible. You on the other hand, propose solutions that will HURT
more people than my idea. Of the two, that makes YOURS the unChristian
one, as it causes even more suffering and advocates theft.
>>Where did I ever say I was absolved from almsgiving, etc? No, rather, you
>>want to force some centrally mandated 'almsgiving' that does not benefit
>>anyone, except perhaps the bureaucrats who administer it
>
>And you want to justify the killing of children because you think your
>economic theory mandates it.
I do no such thing. Capitalism has SAVED more children than any other
system. Communism has killed more. I'll stand by the stats.
>>>You can sin under a socialist
>>>system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
>>>communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
>>>transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
>>>Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
>>
>>Who is squeezing out my personal responsibility to give alms? Not me.
>
>Is it your economic theory that confuses alms and wages?
No, it is yours. You believe that to be Christian, we must steal money
from people by force and give it to others. Rather than rely on the
charity of Christians, you would steal their money at the point of a gun.
>>Your plan will cause even more suffering in Africa, India and China. Do
>>you accept responsibility for all of THOSE deaths that will come as surely
>>as day follows night?
>>
>>Command economies do not work. Never have. Never will. They cause more
>>suffering than they alleviate. In every case.
>
>Well, as I said, if you are so aggainst commands, then drop the ten
>commandments, if you don't think they will work. You're not the first to think
>that, of course.
Please show me which commandment I am violating and state with specificity
how that is the case. I double-dare you.
Stephen Adams
>Let me give an example.
>
>It's not an Orthodox example, but I think it will serve for the purposes of
>illustration.
Nope. Not even close.
>He began his report by saying "We have shown that it is possible to run a
>business on Christian lines and still make a profit."
>
>He made the following points:
>
>1. They paid three times the "going rate" for building workers.
>
>2. They paid their bills promptly
>
>3. They quoted fair prices and did a good job, so that customers were
>satisfied, and they were respected for this in town.
>
>4. The people in Noki Construction were a team: they worked together, played
>together and prayed together.
>
>Of course those four points of their achievements mentioned in the synod
>report show that it didn't work, it couldn't work, because it never has and a
>command economy has never worked.
Of course, this wasn't a command economy. It was a choice of the owners
of the business. There is a HUGE differnce in a voluntary agreement and
in once enforced from the outside.
So, in other words, you tell a tall tale. You purport to refute my comments
about a command economy, but you do no such thing.
Do you advocate voluntary agreements between workers and employers? Or
only when such agreements meet some arbitrary standard you impose. And
if the employers do not meet your arbitrary standard, would you impose
by law such a standard.
Oh, and one last thing. The owners of this business could pay higher
wages because they didn't need or expect a return on their capital.
Things change when the owner needs an income, too.
A normal business, run by an owner operator (the most common kind in the
US) is quite different than the idea you state here.
It's apples and oranges. But I suspect you knew that when you posted
it. You just tried to twist it to support YOUR views.
>And even if it hadn't worked, at least they had the moral courage to *try* to
>run a business on Christian lines, rather than taking the defeatist line of
>saying that such a thing never has worked, never would work, and never will
>work.
So I guess when I ran my business, I should not have expected to make any
money, starved my family and given all the proceeds to the employees.
That's what would happen if most owner-operator businesses operated like
the (effectively) not-for-profit you describe here.
How very Christian of you, advocating that I starve my family to meet
your (wrong) view of how Christians should conduct business.
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:30:50 GMT, Gentle Joe Orthodox
> <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>
>> 'Living wage' is anti-Christian
>> by the Rev. Robert Siricoand the Rev. Gerald Zandstra
>
> Since this thread started about five days ago, I've learnt several things, and
> make some general observations on how the thread has developed.
>
> One thing that has deeply impressed me is the lengths to which people will go
> to evade moral responsibility by changing the definition of sin.
Rather, that's a perfect description of what you and "Mr. Tkachuk" have
done. You would evade your personal, moral responsibility of helping
the poor and instead promote a "mob morality" that steals from a
minority and shifts -- make that forces -- the responsibility upon them.
You promote what's better known as the "external solution" -- you
derive a "solution" to a problem, real or perhaps imagined, that
involves no cost to you but is foisted upon someone else by force. All
the while, you imagine yourself being more pious and Christian for
having thought of it, though you don't bear the burden. With all due
respect, it's not pious. It's crass. It's dishonest. It's sinning
against God's command that forbids theft against your neighbor. You
would seem to get peeved because someone doesn't like having their
property stolen. Let's have a mob ransack your house and then preach to
you about your evasion of moral responsibility. That would be the
Robert Mugabe way, and it's no different from you seem to believe in.
And by the way, it's a very short step from stealing from those deemed
"kulaks" to imprisoning them to murdering them. Be careful in whom you
hate and blame for the problems of the world, and those you imagine can
be sinned against in order to fix such problems.
> I have asked people to explain why they think the copncept of a "living wage"
> is anti-Christian, and strangely enough, no one has come up with any Christian
> arguments for this.
To quote Tom Cruise, "You're being glib", Steve. You've been challenged
by quotes of the Lord's commandment against stealing from others. I
don't recall seeing an Orwellian qualifier appended to the commandments
-- "except for sinning against those deemed rich."
We can continue posting in circles, but I suspect you'll continue along
this path of sloppy reasoning and selective reading of what's posted.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
>> fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
>> "anti-Christian".
>Strawman. I don't believe it's required to steal to feed children who
>are dying of malnutrition. You would believe otherwise. You've such
>low opinion of the good men can do that you bail out in trying to
>appeal to man's better side and instead advocate theft.
Strawmanm
What theft have I advocated?
.
>> And paying a starvation wage is theft, and is breaking at least one of the ten
>> commandments.
>What's a starvation wage? You've been reading too much Charles
>Dickens. Do tell how much money you believe a human needs to purchase
>enough food to live. You'd be surprised at how little it takes! I had
>friends in college who studied far away from home and they lived
>extremely cheap on ramen noodles, bologna sticks, and crackers for
>months. Your starvation wage is comical. From what I'm reading in
>recent threads, those who've been complaining about starvation wages
>and being poor are shopping for food in trendy, expensive stores like
>Whole Foods. It's difficult to take the concept of a starvation wage
>seriously when the people complaining about it are often overweight and
>seem to be meeting their basic human needs plus entertainment. What's
>really going on is that some have hard jobs or they don't want to walk
>the hard path of going to school to improve their lot.
Straw man.
If they are meeting all those needs out of their wages, they are obviously
being paid a living wage.
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> So I guess when I ran my business, I should not have expected to make any
> money, starved my family and given all the proceeds to the employees.
> That's what would happen if most owner-operator businesses operated like
> the (effectively) not-for-profit you describe here.
>
Not only that, your employees would be out of a job when your business
imminently collapsed and you're the one saddled with the debts and
bankruptcy, not them.
And not-for-profits typically pay well below for-profit businesses.
Paying three times the going rate for that band of the market isn't
saying a lot. If he's saying they were paid three times what a worker
earns in the private sector, I'm not buying it. In essence, he would be
saying that local churches and other unspecified buyers purchased their
service and paid nearly three times the going rate of the private market
-- not what I'd call "fair prices." Even if you drastically cut back on
what the two "executives" earned from this venture, it doesn't add up.
It displays a common misconception that executives in a corporation are
making most of the money and the employees are thrown bread crumbs, when
in fact that one executive with the bloated salary remains only a blip
on the overall budget screen. Most of the corporation's costs are in
regular employee salaries and benefits. The misconception leads one to
believe that if you reduce/eliminate the executive salary, everyone else
is going to get a big raise. Nothing could be further from the truth,
as it completely ignores the fact that the pay scales are graduated
throughout the business.
He also talks of this Noki Construction venture in the past tense, as if
it no longer exists. Wonder what happened?
> How very Christian of you, advocating that I starve my family to meet
> your (wrong) view of how Christians should conduct business.
>
> -Stephen
I'd bet a box of immigrant-picked oranges that he never once passed a
single thought about what happens to your family. They're guilty by
association.
Amazing that anyone still believes in this nonsense. What more has to
happen??? Do we need to kill off another hundred million "kulaks" to
prove that this fantasy doesn't improve the lot of mankind? Is it going
to take a Black Book of Communism, Part Two???
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> If they are meeting all those needs out of their wages, they are obviously
> being paid a living wage.
>
What are those needs? A car? What kind of car? What kind of food?
Clothing from the Gap? A three-bedroom house with a white picket fence?
Who's supposed to decide this? You? And who's supposed to pay it?
Me? How convenient. You arbitrarily set the rules, someone else bears
the responsibility. How many people should lose their jobs so that a
few can bankrupt the company?
Gentle Joe Orthodox
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> When you say that artificial economic theories, whether Marxist, Friedmanist
>> or Randist, must take precedence of Christian values, that is something else.
>
>
You're being a hypocrite. I've not seen a single person quoting,
praising or referring to Friedman or Rand (the latter a true joke), but
YOU did in fact post a lengthy piece praising Galbraith.
jo
First, i mispoke re Bill of Rights.. equality phrase is of course
Declaration of Independance. My mistake. i apologise.
Second, i am discussing a compensation differential between the highest
and lowest paid exec/consultant/employee/subcontractor. i am NOT
discussing and would vote AGAINST a "Living (minimum) WAGE" bill
because that type legislation has historically 'fed' large corporations
from the dismembered small businesses and driven poor laborers deeper
into poverty.
A compensation differential rather than a leftist(american) minimum
wage regulation or right wing American) capitalist free-for-all policy
allows free-market trade while accomodating the people (societies) that
market serves will not drown in steerage and 3rd class while the tide
raises the ship.
Note, i HAVE been on welfare, and i HAVE had my eldest hospitalized for
malnutrition while we worked our way off it. I also am born, bred and
continue to live in Ronald Reagan's hometown. Trickle down doesn't work
here because everything is being trickled to China, Mexico and
executive pockets. i have also been a small business owner (wholesale
electronic repair, now retired) and HAVE paid a couple of my employees
more than myself.
Living outside Chicago and having suffered severe heat stroke while
mowing (the same year so many urban homeless were buried in mass
graves) i would contend that it is inhumane to ask anyone, citizen or
not, to keep 'normal' pace in those conditions. Then again, it is
someone in a nice a/c office making the production and scheduling
decisions-- based on the convenient blind capitalist eye of the bottom
line in a world market. A world market with plenty of 'disposable'
laborers to compete with our businesses.
An oncology nurse from Uraguay or China would be more than happy to
come work for a quarter the wage of an American nurse. It makes a lot
of sense, what with the cost of health care today. Global competition,
gotta love it.
Exporting all our common/menial labor is a bad idea. So is exporting
our farms. We NEED food. We need people to plant and harvest our food.
It is my contention that people need food even more than they need
oil/energy. With all the calls of increasing domestic energy
production for national security i am amazed at the simultaneous mypoic
view of a necessary diverse healthy DOMESTIC laborforce. Of course it
did take 9-11 to open national eyes to the threat of foreign energy
dependcy. Greater still is the threat of foriegn labor dependancy. Of
course, i am speaking from my own needs and if you do not need food or
cleanliness i can see where you wouldn't be at all concerned.
>Stephen Methodius Hayes :
>
>Yes, and discussing an Orthodox Christian response is not problematic...
>
> -Stephen
Orthodoxy Christianity? It has EVERYthing to do with Orthodoxy.
Is Orthodoxy not a Way of Life, not to be segregated only to Sundays or
our 'leisure' time?
1Cr 9:7-10
"Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a
vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock,
and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth
of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
Or saith he [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt,
[this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that
he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."
If a laborer is in our society, it is our responsibility to see that
they have hope to partake/participate in our society.
Is it not Orthodox Christian teaching that the boss was 'fair' who paid
the latest arriving workers the same as the earliest, having the same
need despite having labored less? (same inherent value despite
unbalanced labor/market value)
Is it not Orthodox teaching that ALL are welcome to the Paschal feast,
those who have strictly observed the fast and those just remembering
and coming in?
2Cr 1:3,4
Blessed [be] God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father
of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to
comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we
ourselves are comforted of God.
Is it not Orthodox that EVERY person is created in the image of, is an
icon of God?
Is it not Orthodox teaching that what we do to/for the least among us
we do to/for Christ God?
rlm_3071
> On 2 May 2006 14:34:14 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
> >> fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
> >> "anti-Christian".
>
> >Strawman. I don't believe it's required to steal to feed children who
> >are dying of malnutrition. You would believe otherwise. You've such
> >low opinion of the good men can do that you bail out in trying to
> >appeal to man's better side and instead advocate theft.
>
> Strawmanm
> What theft have I advocated?
That's try to make this as simple as possible. I agree to pay for
someone's labor at a fixed rate. I need the work done, he has the
skills, we negotiate to an agreed unit of work for a fixed price. The
deal is made. His mob friends later come by and pull a pistol to my
head and say I'm going to pay their friend more than what I agreed to.
I wouldn't have hired the individual in the first place at that new,
imposed rate, nor will I risk hiring any more in this town unless I
absolutely have to.
That's theft, coupled with instilling fear and threatening violence.
That's what you're advocating when you appeal for government mandated
*living wages*.
> >> And paying a starvation wage is theft, and is breaking at least one of the ten
> >> commandments.
>
> >What's a starvation wage? You've been reading too much Charles
> >Dickens. Do tell how much money you believe a human needs to purchase
> >enough food to live. You'd be surprised at how little it takes! I had
> >friends in college who studied far away from home and they lived
> >extremely cheap on ramen noodles, bologna sticks, and crackers for
> >months. Your starvation wage is comical. From what I'm reading in
> >recent threads, those who've been complaining about starvation wages
> >and being poor are shopping for food in trendy, expensive stores like
> >Whole Foods. It's difficult to take the concept of a starvation wage
> >seriously when the people complaining about it are often overweight and
> >seem to be meeting their basic human needs plus entertainment. What's
> >really going on is that some have hard jobs or they don't want to walk
> >the hard path of going to school to improve their lot.
>
> Straw man.
> If they are meeting all those needs out of their wages, they are obviously
> being paid a living wage.
>
Their needs shouldn't be met by sinning against others. No matter the
low view of human nature held by socialist types, there is such a thing
as an honest living on this earth. Don't make stupid life decisions
that leave you unable to meet your needs.
Stephen Adams
>Short notes concerning what i have read this morning:
>
>First, i mispoke re Bill of Rights.. equality phrase is of course
>Declaration of Independance. My mistake. i apologise.
No problem. But the Declaration isn't our governing document. The
Constitution is. And note well that the Constitution was counter-
revolutionary. It repudiated much of the doctrine of the revolution,
which was espoused in the Articles of Confederation. So despite the
statements in the DofI, reference to it really has little to do with
the actual governing principles of the US. And after 1860, the
meaning of the US Constitution, in fact, the very nature of the union
and the role of the Federal Government changed dramatically.
>Second, i am discussing a compensation differential between the highest
>and lowest paid exec/consultant/employee/subcontractor. i am NOT
>discussing and would vote AGAINST a "Living (minimum) WAGE" bill
>because that type legislation has historically 'fed' large corporations
>from the dismembered small businesses and driven poor laborers deeper
>into poverty.
So, then, if I hire a company to do work for me, I cannot earn more than
10x the lowest paid person in THAT company? How do you propose to
enforce that?
>A compensation differential rather than a leftist(american) minimum
>wage regulation or right wing American) capitalist free-for-all policy
>allows free-market trade while accomodating the people (societies) that
>market serves will not drown in steerage and 3rd class while the tide
>raises the ship.
Except that it creates artificially high wages for some jobs, and
artificially low wages for others, without regard to the amount of
time and effor necessary to obtain the skills/education for the
higher paying job. A doctor often graduates with hundreds of thousands
of dollars in education debt. Who would do this if they didn't have
the earning potential to pay it off in relatively short order?
You see, once you mandate wages in the way you specify, you will need
to mandate educational costs, prices and a whole host of other things,
or else your economy will fall apart.
Let's say that the CEO of GM makes $50 million a year (hypothetical).
If GM has 50,000 workers, and we eliminate the CEO's pay, then there
is $1000 per employee available. Of this, just under 10% must be
subtracted to pay the increased employer share of social security and
medicare. Now we're down to $900/year. The employee also loses just
under 10% to payroll (ie Social Security + Medicare) taxes.
Granted, $70 a month is significant to some, but it doesn't permit
the kind of change you are advocating. Reducing the CEO's pay will
NOT solve the problem you are trying to solve.
>Note, i HAVE been on welfare, and i HAVE had my eldest hospitalized for
>malnutrition while we worked our way off it. I also am born, bred and
>continue to live in Ronald Reagan's hometown. Trickle down doesn't work
>here because everything is being trickled to China, Mexico and
>executive pockets. i have also been a small business owner (wholesale
>electronic repair, now retired) and HAVE paid a couple of my employees
>more than myself.
In any economic system there will be dislocation. It can't be avoided.
The question is how to deal with that dislocation. And how much the
government (read that as taxpayers/businesses) can be held responsible
for this. I sympathize with your situation. The quesiton is how best
to help individuals without wrecking the economy. We know from brutal
experience that command economies don't work. Look at France's recent
problems to see what artificial regulation of the labor market does!
>Living outside Chicago and having suffered severe heat stroke while
>mowing (the same year so many urban homeless were buried in mass
>graves) i would contend that it is inhumane to ask anyone, citizen or
>not, to keep 'normal' pace in those conditions. Then again, it is
>someone in a nice a/c office making the production and scheduling
>decisions-- based on the convenient blind capitalist eye of the bottom
>line in a world market. A world market with plenty of 'disposable'
>laborers to compete with our businesses.
It's impossible to wall ourselves off from this labor market. And it's
not economically wise to do so, even if we could. Trade increases wealth.
Trade barriers decrease it. France is suffering because they refuse to
allow any kind of dislocation. The result is high prices for consumers
and low chance of employment (of any kind) for many youth and most
imigrants.
And one need not look further than Russia to see the results of a complete
command economy. You can make SOME things excellent for all people, but
not all things. In Cuba, for example, the health care system is one of
the best, most effective in the world. The schools are pretty good. Pretty
much everything else sucks. And there is no freedom, economic or social.
>An oncology nurse from Uraguay or China would be more than happy to
>come work for a quarter the wage of an American nurse. It makes a lot
>of sense, what with the cost of health care today. Global competition,
>gotta love it.
No way to avoid global competition. The issue with the nurse coming
here is somewhat controlled by immigration law. We control the flow
of 'skilled' workers quite well. It's the unskilled that we don't
have much control over. Frankly, we need immigrants. The problem is
the illegal nature of the immigration, not immigration in and of itself.
>Exporting all our common/menial labor is a bad idea.
Well, that can't be done - most of that labor is local and has to stay
local (building roads, digging ditches, sweeping streets, cleaning
buildings, etc). What is being exported is manufacturing. But this
is nothing new. It's been going on since the beginning of time. We
were keeping up by improving efficiency, but we're pretty much tapped
out there. Now, we must compete with other sources.
I'll note though, that "Japanese" car manufacturers seem to have no
problem building cars in the US. It's the US Auto Firms that are
having trouble. Why? Because of stupid work rules, like the 'job
bank' etc. These rules create impossible situations which make it
so US companies can't compete.
>So is exporting
>our farms. We NEED food. We need people to plant and harvest our food.
Well, I see lots of people screaming about sending all those farm hands
back to Mexico.
In any event, the farming issue is a disaster, mostly because of completely
misguided federal regulation. The US pays 3x (or more) the going price for
sugar because of regulations. This causes candy companies to move out of
the US.
The FDA (and others) prevent efficient farmers from selling at lower than
a mandated (ie fixed) price. There's a huge battle in court now between
a very efficient dairy farmer who can sell milk direct at $1.95 a gallon,
vs. the $3+ we pay here. But the milk cartel, with the help of the US
government, is trying to force him to charge $3, with the excess going
to the cartel!!
>It is my contention that people need food even more than they need
>oil/energy. With all the calls of increasing domestic energy
>production for national security i am amazed at the simultaneous mypoic
>view of a necessary diverse healthy DOMESTIC laborforce.
We do have a diverse, healthy domestic labor force. But it cannot remain
stagnant. There aren't too many buggy-whip makers around these days. Or
leather smiths. And on and on. Economies change. We were almost
fully agrarian at the start, moved to manufacturing slowly (and there
was a hue and cry about this), and now we're moving to technology. It's
happened before. It will happen again. :-)
Read about the Industrial Revolution and then get back to me.
>Of course it
>did take 9-11 to open national eyes to the threat of foreign energy
>dependcy.
Heh. I didn't need that. I've been advocating non-gasoline solutions
for cars, solar/wind power for homes, etc, for YEARS. And I'm not even
a dewy-eyed tree hugger. :-) But yes, that's true.
>Greater still is the threat of foriegn labor dependancy. Of
>course, i am speaking from my own needs and if you do not need food or
>cleanliness i can see where you wouldn't be at all concerned.
Not sure what you mean by this. No economy is completely self-sufficient.
Trade is the only way to increase wealth. We trade what we have for what
they have. And this will change over time. It has always been the way.
Don't see to much molasses trade these days (one of the fundamental
industries of early America).
>>Stephen Methodius Hayes :
>>
>>Yes, and discussing an Orthodox Christian response is not problematic...
>>
>Orthodoxy Christianity? It has EVERYthing to do with Orthodoxy.
I didn't say it didn't. I said we should discuss Orthodox response. I
don't believe government mandate is an Orthodox response!
>Is Orthodoxy not a Way of Life, not to be segregated only to Sundays or
>our 'leisure' time?
>
> 1Cr 9:7-10
>
>If a laborer is in our society, it is our responsibility to see that
>they have hope to partake/participate in our society.
And what exactly does this mean? That we use force to ensure that everyone
has what *we* think is 'fair'??
>Is it not Orthodox Christian teaching that the boss was 'fair' who paid
>the latest arriving workers the same as the earliest, having the same
>need despite having labored less? (same inherent value despite
>unbalanced labor/market value)
This isn't talking about economics, but about those who come to the kingdom.
It can't really be applied to economics.
>Is it not Orthodox teaching that ALL are welcome to the Paschal feast,
>those who have strictly observed the fast and those just remembering
>and coming in?
Salvation. Not economics.
> 2Cr 1:3,4
>
>Is it not Orthodox that EVERY person is created in the image of, is an
>icon of God?
Of course.
>Is it not Orthodox teaching that what we do to/for the least among us
>we do to/for Christ God?
Of course. But if someone is forced, under threat of violence or loss
of freedom to do something, how does that benefit him?? It helps
neither party with theosis. It only creates class warfare.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>So the 10 Commandments will never work? I'm sure God will be grateful for you
>>advice, and repeal them ASAP.
>
>Nothing about the economic system you decry so loudly violates the Ten
>Commandments.
I was not decrying an economic system, but the idolisation of it by so many in
this newsgroup, who seem to concider that it overrides Christian ethics.
>
>>>Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
>>
>>And the breast stroke beats polarized light. Mensturation.
>
>Poor attempt to refute my argument. But that's because you can not. It
>is NOT possible to show a single case where such systems do not *increase*
>misery. And we thought you were opposed to misery. Guess you prefer that
>ALL live in misery.
I made no attempt to refute it. It was simply an irrelevant assertion. I
merely supplied another equally irrelevant assertion, since you seem to like
such things.
>>>Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
>>>contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
>>>A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
>>>then the employer changes the conditions.
>>
>>And if the contact is for less than a living wage, the employer is guilty of
>>theft and extortion.
>
>Nope. If the person agrees to work for that wage, there is no theft and no
>extortion. You seem to think that the person who has the money is
>automatically a thief if he fails to give it all to the people YOU decide
>he should.
You should think the same way about those who are rich and greedy. They are a
kind of robbers lying in wait on the roads and burying others goods in their
own houses as if in caves and holes. Lets us not therefore call them fortunate
because of what they have; but miserable because of what will come, because of
that dreadful courtroom, because of the inexorable judgement, because of the
outer darkness which awaits them.
-- St John Chrysostom
>If anyone is advocating theft, it is YOU. You insist on compulsory
>almsgiving which benefits NO ONE. It's NOT Christian.
>
>>>The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity.
>>
>>Which part of "Christian charity" includes the paying of starvation wages?
>
>One more time - charity is NOT cumpulsory.
One more timje -- paying just wages is not charity.
You advocate theft. And
>blatantly, too. Define "starvation wages" - can't afford a double latte
>mocha at Starbucks? Can't afford a new car? Guess what, neither can I
>at this time. You don't see me whining that someone else should be forced
>to pay for these things, or high speed internet access, or any other thing.
Your ridiculous exaggerations are completely irrelevant.
>Let's see a complete definition of what you are talking about.
Try reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Your question is like that of the lawyer who questioned Jesus. He wanted a
complete definition of "neighbour".
And at the end of telling the story, he still didn't get his definition,
because Jesus showed that he was asking the wrong question. The lawyer was
concerned to know the bare minimum he could get away with.
But Jesus turns around his question and shows that the real question that he
(and all of us) should be asking is not "Who is my neighbour?" but "Who can I
be a neighbour to?"
>>> In the
>>>US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
>>>Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
>>>other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
>>>leftist meddling in our economy.
>>
>>So if employers don't pay their employees enough to live on, the difference
>>should be made up by pr4ivate charity, churches and the like? That sounds like
>>the Speenhamland system, and that didn't work.
>
>You make stuff up out of thin air and try to insinuate that I do the same
>thing. I do no such thing - my facts are facts. And private charity DOES
>work. In fact, it works BETTER than government charity.
I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow what you were saying there? What is it that
you think I am insinuating that you are doing?
And what do you mean by "charity"?
How about a complete definition?
And please explain how it works better than paying a just wage in the first
place?
>>>Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
>>>pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
>>>much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
>>>
>>>If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
>>>jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
>>>out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
>>>the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
>>
>>I am not propounding any economic theory. You appear to want to substitute
>>economic theories for Christian morality. I don't buy your artificial economic
>>theories, because they are clearly anti-Christian.
>
>No, they aren't. And I posted the Scripture to prove it. You on the other
>hand advocate stealing from those who have, at the point of a gun, to give
>to your particular special interest group.
Please show where I have advocated any such thing?
>
>>Just about EVERYthing you have said is unChristian, because you are trying to
>>justify starving children to death with your fancy theories, to try to
>>convince yourself that it's not a sin.
>
>Hogwash. Nowhere do I advocate starving children to death. In fact, I
>challenge you to point to verifiable non-criminal starvation deaths of
>children in the US. And the parents spending all their money on crack
>and abandoning the kids doesn't count.
You have clearly and repeatedly tried to justify employers paying their
worklers less than is needed to feed their families, and then advocated
"Christian charity" to make up the difference -- which means that in effect
the employer is stealing from the church which he is not willing to pay.
And Christian ethics are universal. The US is not exempt, though its
government seems to think so.
--
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> If they are meeting all those needs out of their wages, they are obviously
>> being paid a living wage.
Straw man.
>What are those needs? A car? What kind of car? What kind of food?
>Clothing from the Gap? A three-bedroom house with a white picket fence?
> Who's supposed to decide this? You? And who's supposed to pay it?
>Me? How convenient. You arbitrarily set the rules, someone else bears
>the responsibility. How many people should lose their jobs so that a
>few can bankrupt the company?
If kids are starving, you would offer them a picket fence?
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On 2 May 2006 14:34:14 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >> Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
>> >> fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
>> >> "anti-Christian".
>>
>> >Strawman. I don't believe it's required to steal to feed children who
>> >are dying of malnutrition. You would believe otherwise. You've such
>> >low opinion of the good men can do that you bail out in trying to
>> >appeal to man's better side and instead advocate theft.
>>
>> Strawmanm
>> What theft have I advocated?
>
>
>That's try to make this as simple as possible. I agree to pay for
>someone's labor at a fixed rate. I need the work done, he has the
>skills, we negotiate to an agreed unit of work for a fixed price.
Right. Let's take it from there.
The question then is, assuming that he is working full-time, whether the
"fixed" price is enough for him to feed, clothe and house his family. If is
not enough for that, and results in his children being under nourished, and
suffering from stunted development, then it is not a living wage.
You still have not explained why paying a living wage is "anti-Christian".
But what follows is simply lunatic fantasy.
> The
>deal is made. His mob friends later come by and pull a pistol to my
>head and say I'm going to pay their friend more than what I agreed to.
>I wouldn't have hired the individual in the first place at that new,
>imposed rate, nor will I risk hiring any more in this town unless I
>absolutely have to.
>
>That's theft, coupled with instilling fear and threatening violence.
>That's what you're advocating when you appeal for government mandated
>*living wages*.
I'm not appealing for "government mandated" living wages. I'm saying that far
from being "anti-Christian", a living wage is mandated by Christian conscience
and Christian ethics, regardless of what governments do or don't do.
>
>
>> >> And paying a starvation wage is theft, and is breaking at least one of the ten
>> >> commandments.
>>
>> >What's a starvation wage? You've been reading too much Charles
>> >Dickens. Do tell how much money you believe a human needs to purchase
>> >enough food to live. You'd be surprised at how little it takes! I had
>> >friends in college who studied far away from home and they lived
>> >extremely cheap on ramen noodles, bologna sticks, and crackers for
>> >months. Your starvation wage is comical. From what I'm reading in
>> >recent threads, those who've been complaining about starvation wages
>> >and being poor are shopping for food in trendy, expensive stores like
>> >Whole Foods. It's difficult to take the concept of a starvation wage
>> >seriously when the people complaining about it are often overweight and
>> >seem to be meeting their basic human needs plus entertainment. What's
>> >really going on is that some have hard jobs or they don't want to walk
>> >the hard path of going to school to improve their lot.
>>
>> Straw man.
>> If they are meeting all those needs out of their wages, they are obviously
>> being paid a living wage.
>>
>
>
>Their needs shouldn't be met by sinning against others. No matter the
>low view of human nature held by socialist types, there is such a thing
>as an honest living on this earth. Don't make stupid life decisions
>that leave you unable to meet your needs.
--
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> tells a tall tale...
>
>>Let me give an example.
>>
>>It's not an Orthodox example, but I think it will serve for the purposes of
>>illustration.
>
>Nope. Not even close.
>
>>He began his report by saying "We have shown that it is possible to run a
>>business on Christian lines and still make a profit."
>>
>>He made the following points:
>>
>>1. They paid three times the "going rate" for building workers.
>>
>>2. They paid their bills promptly
>>
>>3. They quoted fair prices and did a good job, so that customers were
>>satisfied, and they were respected for this in town.
>>
>>4. The people in Noki Construction were a team: they worked together, played
>>together and prayed together.
>>
>>Of course those four points of their achievements mentioned in the synod
>>report show that it didn't work, it couldn't work, because it never has and a
>>command economy has never worked.
>
>Of course, this wasn't a command economy. It was a choice of the owners
>of the business. There is a HUGE differnce in a voluntary agreement and
>in once enforced from the outside.
Why are you so obsessed with a command economy? What does it have to do with
whether paying a living wage is "anti-Christian" or not?
>So, in other words, you tell a tall tale. You purport to refute my comments
>about a command economy, but you do no such thing.
I no not attempt to refute your assertions about a commond economy, because
that seems to be some kind of private obsession of yours, and I don't see the
connection.
>Do you advocate voluntary agreements between workers and employers? Or
>only when such agreements meet some arbitrary standard you impose. And
>if the employers do not meet your arbitrary standard, would you impose
>by law such a standard.
"And who is my neighbour?"
>How very Christian of you, advocating that I starve my family to meet
>your (wrong) view of how Christians should conduct business.
Ah, light at the end of the tunnel! could it be that you are beginning to see
that starvation wages might be a bad thing?
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>He also talks of this Noki Construction venture in the past tense, as if
>it no longer exists. Wonder what happened?
The guy who ran it has been dead for a couple of years. He was also deported
from Namibia.
Steve Hayes
<JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:30:50 GMT, Gentle Joe Orthodox
>> <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Living wage' is anti-Christian
>>> by the Rev. Robert Siricoand the Rev. Gerald Zandstra
>>
>> Since this thread started about five days ago, I've learnt several things, and
>> make some general observations on how the thread has developed.
>>
>> One thing that has deeply impressed me is the lengths to which people will go
>> to evade moral responsibility by changing the definition of sin.
>
>
>Rather, that's a perfect description of what you and "Mr. Tkachuk" have
>done. You would evade your personal, moral responsibility of helping
>the poor and instead promote a "mob morality" that steals from a
>minority and shifts -- make that forces -- the responsibility upon them.
Where do you get this stuff from?
Are all Americans barking mad, that they seem prone to the same lunatic
fantasies?
Stephen Adams
Dn Stephen seems uninterested in a real discussion, and refuses to answer
the most basic questions. Further back-and-forth exchanges are of no value,
so I'll let him have the last word in this thread, should he wish it...
ntr...@sarovpress.com
Is it Christian to bankrupt employers?
Nicholas Trahan
rlm_3071
> On 3 May 2006 08:08:23 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> On 2 May 2006 14:34:14 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> >> Children who die of malnutrition have no objective value whatsoever. If you
> >> >> fail to ensure that they have kwashiorkor and pellagra, you are
> >> >> "anti-Christian".
> >>
> >> >Strawman. I don't believe it's required to steal to feed children who
> >> >are dying of malnutrition. You would believe otherwise. You've such
> >> >low opinion of the good men can do that you bail out in trying to
> >> >appeal to man's better side and instead advocate theft.
> >>
> >> Strawmanm
> >> What theft have I advocated?
> >
> >
> >That's try to make this as simple as possible. I agree to pay for
> >someone's labor at a fixed rate. I need the work done, he has the
> >skills, we negotiate to an agreed unit of work for a fixed price.
>
> Right. Let's take it from there.
>
> The question then is, assuming that he is working full-time, whether the
> "fixed" price is enough for him to feed, clothe and house his family.
But that's the price the worker agreed to sell his labor. You're
making up a hypothetical situation that is nonsensical. Am I supposed
to pay a living wage to the store owner who sells me a box of cereal?
Are you in the habit of paying for a product or service over its asking
price? You're not making any sense. The worker has agreed to sell his
labor for a fixed price. We have to assume that's what he wants and it
meets whatever needs exist in his mind.
> You still have not explained why paying a living wage is "anti-Christian".
>
Deacon Stephen, you've mischaracterized the article and shifted the
goal posts in this discussion. It's not been said that *paying*
someone a living wage, whatever that's supposed to mean, is
anti-Christian. An employer can pay his employees in gold bullion and
buy each of them tickets to Disneyland if he so chooses. (That's not
anti-Christian per se though it could be argued to be immoral when it
leads to other workers not getting paid or they lose their jobs as a
result.) What would be anti-Christian is to use force him against his
God given free will to do it. A government *mandate*, upon threat of
sharing a jail cell with a male rapist, to pay a *living wage* is
immoral.
Read that article carefully. The author writes: "All Christians should
realize the importance of work. And all Christians should seek to work
toward justice in wages. No one wants to see the poor stuck in their
poverty or those at the bottom of the wage pool being forced to remain
where they are. The central issue is how to lift the poor out of their
poverty."
He goes on to write: "Proponents of the 'living wage' believe they have
found the means. If through the use of legislation, the government at
one level or another can force employers to pay workers $10 or $12 or
even $15 per hour, then the poor would no longer be in poverty.
Unfortunately, the economy and the use of the power of the government
are not so simple. For those who want to understand the effects of
implementing a 'living wage,' it is important to have a grasp of this
truth: When the government puts in place a certain public policy, there
always is some response that comes from the marketplace. In public
policy circles, this is called the 'elastic effect.' "
My previous analysis stands. You are beating a strawman in this thread
and purposely mixing apples and bananas when you ought to know better.
rlm_3071
> Why are you so obsessed with a command economy? What does it have to do with
> whether paying a living wage is "anti-Christian" or not?
>
Obviously you didn't read the article that initiated this discussion.
You only read the byline and jumped head first into the shallow end of
the pool. The article is about government *mandated* living wages,
Deacon Stephen. On topic, my good man, stay on topic.
Liam _
Sorry for jumping in here, but...
: Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
:>On 2 May 2006 14:06:04 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
:>>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
:>>
:>>>FAILING to pay a living wage is theft on the part of the employer, and a sin
:>>>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the
:>>>health of the workers and their families .
:>>
:>>How is it theft?
:>
:>Because it's stealing.
: Stealing WHAT? There is nothing to steal.
It is not stealing in the sense of taking what someone has, but rather
denying what a person is due. Therefore the employer who does not pay a
living wage is in essence stealing the labor of the employee who is not
paid a living wage.
:>> If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
:>>and it is accepted, then it's not theft.
:>
:>That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
:>certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
:>survive on it.
: But this has NOTHING to do with the value of the work! You are trying to
: break compensation from the value of the work provided, and this is simply
: not possible unless you intend to control prices, incomes, trade and exchange
: rates. If you do not control all of those, with extreme micromanagement,
: the economy will find a way to adapt - and it will be the low-end who get
: hurt. Hurt even worse than if you had just left the system alone in the
: first place.
What workers are paid often has little to do with the value of their work.
Rather workers tend to be paid based off of the supply of labor who are
available to do the work. Only when there is a shortage of workers for a
position will employers start paying wages that are tied to the value of
the work. Therefore, engineers tend to make alot more than janitors,
because there are far fewer people capable of doing engineering than of
being janitors. If the number of people willing to do janitorial work in
this country was to shrink dramatically, the wages of janitors would rise
dramatically as well.
: Please show me a single command economy that EVER worked. Even if you
: could seal off 100% of outside influence, it STILL would not work, since
: you can't provide 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the market. And
: even if you could, there would be no way to generate wealth.
I will agree that no Command Economy can ever match the economic growth of
a Capitalist Country over the long term, that doesn't necessarily mean
that a command economy is itself necessarily unfeasible. During certain
periods, command economies did far better than unregulated Capitalist
Countries (in particular during the Great Depression, while Western Europe
and the United States had negative Growth, the Soviet Union had major
economic growth). Over all the failure of the Command Economies of
Communisim had less to do with efficiency and more to do with the
unwillingness of the commanding authority to orient itself towards the
production of consumer goods or to provide incentives to encourage workers
to increase production.
: Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
If their goal is to make the playing field completely level then I would
tend to agree, but they can be very successful at mitigating the worst
excesses of capitalism and in preventing the formation of an hereditary
monied class.
:>You may think that childhood malnutrition is really cool
:>because, hey, their parents are paid the "going" rate. Well, keep your
:>millstone handy.
: This is quite a leap. First of all, children in the US are FAR better off
: than those in third-world economies (or even some developing economies).
: Your system would, of necessity, have to cut off imports from those
: countries with phony economic barriers to make goods produced in your
: economy competitive. Thus consigning hundreds of millions of people to
: permanant poverty. You were saying?????
Most goods produced in the United States are already uncompetitive with
foreign goods based on wages paid. There is no way any manufacturer in
this country can pay $10 a day and expect to produce a decent product.
The manufacturing jobs that remain in this country do so because the US
has a skill set or resources that are unavailable outside the USA. The
vast majority of jobs that don't pay living wages in this country are not
manufacturing jobs, but rather are service jobs that effectively can't be
exported. McDonalds can't sell a Hamburger in New York from a service
counter in Bejing.
: Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
: contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
: A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
: then the employer changes the conditions.
An employer is usually willing to pay as little as he can to fill a
position (in fact usually is forced to because of local competition that
will put him out of business if he has to raise prices to match wages).
The imperitive of Capitalism is to keep wages as low as possible, and if a
person is only able to get a job that leaves them solidly in poverty, it
simply means that they will have so sacrifice luxuries like heat, or food,
but hey, at least they have a job right?
: The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity. In the
: US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
: Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
: other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
: leftist meddling in our economy.
Umm, what disaster? I suppose you are referring to the fact the United
States maintains one of the highest standards of living in the world? Or
maybe the fact that by any measure people in this country today are far
better off than they were 70 years ago? Or is it the fact that workers no
longer are working 96 hour work weeks? Or maybe the fact that the United
States has not had a Depression since end of WWII when previously we had
Depressions every 20 years or so?
: Before the Civil War, the federal government consumed no more than 5% of
: the output of Americans. At the height of the Civil War, it consumed 20%.
: Today, it consumes that regularly - and more!
And yet we still enjoy a standard of living that only a small handfull of
countries around the world enjoy... and more so the countries that enjoy
those standards of living often have governments that sponsor even more
social programs than the United States does.
: Want to help the working poor? Repeal Social Security. The payroll tax
: is the most egregious, regressive, ill-conceived notion in history.
Indeed, it does need to be reformed, so that is a progressive as opposed
to a regressive tax. Further I certainly think means testing should
become part of the solution. On the other hand, how many people want Mom
and Dad to live with them in their last 20 years of life because they
can't afford to live alone? Or want them to have to work at 75 or 80?
:>>And paying an artificial wage
:>>harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
:>>power and causing job loss.
:>
:>Artificial, shmaritifical. That's a weasel word, and you know it -- or you
:>ought to if you've ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
: Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
: pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
: much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
Neither does yours. Workers are commonly paid far less than their
ultimate contribution to the company they work for.
: If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
: jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
: out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
: the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
The only way an engineer is taking out his own garbage, and cleaning the
office is if the living wage is set at the same level the engineer makes.
There is no company that is going to want an engineer making $80K a year
to waste his work time cleaning toilets when a janitor making say $30K a
year can do the job instead.
Further, every time someone talks of raising the minimum wage in this
country we get cries of how it will destroy the economy.. the problem is,
it never has.
: Or, as noted, the janitor will go to work for a janitorial firm which is
: setup in such a way as to pay them even LESS than they were getting before.
Interesting theory, but how would the janitorial firm get around a living
wage law with out breaking the law?
:>>All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
:>>see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
:>
:>If you stopped looking at economies and drawing weird conclusions, and started
:>looking at the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, you might
:>not spout such unChristian gobbledegook.
: Nothing I have said is UnChristian. You seem to have missed THIS:
On the contrary, Capitialism is decidedly unChristian. At some point
people in this world have decided the laws of the market place are the
laws of God, they are not, they are the laws of a fallen humanity that is
obsessed with wealth and material comforts.
: For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not
: disorderly among you; nor did we eat anyone?s bread free of charge, but
: worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to
: any of you, not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an
: example of how you should follow us. For even when we were with you, we
: commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. For we
: hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not
: working at all, but are busybodies. Now those who are such we command and
: exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat
: their own bread.
: [ II Thes 3:7-12 ]
And how is paying a living wage equivalent to not working for one's bread?
During the Irish Potato Famine, the British idea of relief was to offer
the Irish jobs that paid enough to buy half of the food they needed... the
result was a million dead Irish and at least million more in America.
There were plenty of Irish who took the jobs because they had no where
else to go, so by the rules you play by it was perfectly just. I wouldn't
try telling that to the Irish though.
: and
: But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton
: against Christ, they desire to marry, having condemnation because they
: have cast off their first faith. And besides they learn to be idle,
: wandering about from house to house, and not only idle but also gossips and
: busybodies, saying things which they ought not. Therefore I desire that
: the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no
: opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some have already
: turned aside after Satan. If any believing man or woman has widows, let
: them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may
: relieve those who are really widows.
: [ I Tim 11:5-16 ]
: We can draw some clear conclusions from the passages that the left usuallly
: ignores when trying to claim that capitalism is 'unchristian':
: 1. Men are expected to work and are not to receive formal charity from the
: church.
Yes, but this also assumes that the men are able to get jobs that pay them
a living wage. Paul certainly was not attacking those who worked hard but
were still unable to provide enough food to feed themselves or their
families.
: 2. Young women are expected to marry or stay with their parents or brothers
: and not receive charity from the church.
: None of this mitigates against almsgiving, which we are required to do. And
: to give to those who ask of us. But what YOU want is compulsory almsgiving,
: which benefits NO ONE.
No, compulsory almsgiving is welfare... which is not the issue here. The
whole argument is about a living wage. In other words paying working men
and women enough so they can afford to live. If capitalism cannot pay the
lesat of its workers even that, then the system is completely bankrupt and
it should not be supported by any Christian.
: I note well that the most atheistic societies are the ones with the most
: direct, governmental control of day-to-day life. That ought to tell you
: something right there!
:>>Capitalism is NOT unChristian. If one treats his workers humanely (ie does
:>>not abuse them - and paying the 'going wage' is NOT abuse), pays them on
:>>time, and in the mutually agreed amounts, gives them proper work hours, etc,
:>>then there is no sin.
:>
:>How can you utter such immoral nonsense? Paying stavation wages is most
:>certainly inhumane and abusive, and no amount of sophistical godless
:>rationalising will change that.
: Paying NO wages is even worse. But you seem to think that somehow money
: will magically appear that does not currently exist in the economy to make
: up this difference, and that somehow nobody will be hurt.
Ah, but the question is how many companies really would go out of business
if they were forced to raise their wages. In many cases, the businesses
would have to raise their prices (but not necessarily by nearly as much as
the increase in salary to their workers) to make up the difference, but
ultimately they would be able to absorb the hit. The industries that
would have to raise their prices the most are the ones whose costs are
most directly related to services. Therefore the landscaping and
janitorial work would likely rise quite a bit. However companies that
sell actual product might not have to raise prices nearly as much. For
example, lets look at fast food worker. Lets say, the guy at the Grill is
making $6.00 an hour. He might well cook on average 50 burgers an hour
during his shift. Currently therefore, $0.12 of every $2.00 is the labor
involved in cooking it. If his salary was raised to $15 an hour, the cost
would rise to $0.30, or a net increase in the price of the burger to
$2.18. Now I will grant that there might be others involved in getting
the burger to the consumer who will need to be paid more as well, but not
everyone, and many who do have their salary increased, will not have it
increased as much as they guy actually flipping the burger. The final
cost of the new burger might be $2.50, or even $2.75. Rather steep I will
grant you, but the guy who was making $6 an hour is still far better off
than he was.
: You foolishly focus on the perhaps 1000 to 2000 CEO's of the biggest
: companies and decry ALL businesses by that. The average small business
: does't generate as much earnings as any one of the top 500 CEO's makes
: in compensation! Changing the pay rate of the CEO of IBM or GM is going
: to have a tiny effect on the economy, and won't generate sufficient excess
: money to cover the expenses your plan creates.
: All you will have is extra money to pay out as dividends or be spent on
: some other part of the business that the shareholders want to spend it
: on. What next? A ban on dividends and/or distributions to shareholders?
: Confiscatory taxes to stop it? Nobody will invest if you do that. And
: you'll destroy the economy.
Hmm, lots of people invest now in stocks that don't pay dividends or
distributions. But I don't personally think we need to stop paying
dividends to share holders. What I do think we need to do is restructure
the way the corporations work so that the fiduciary responsibility to
shareholders is not the end all and be all of corporate decision making.
: Yeah, that's REAL Christian - destroing the entire economic system. The
: Soviets tried it. Didn't work. The Chinese learned that lesson quite
: well and are moving towards a more free economic system so they don't lose
: their heads (literally). Same with the Indians.
Hmm, see this is where your argument breaks down. You are arguing that
one materialistic system is just based on the argument that another
materialistic system failed. The simple fact of the matter is that any
form of materialism is simply unChristian. The very success of
Capitialism is making it possibly the single greatest threat to
Christianity of the 21st century. It is the economically prosperous
countries of Western Europe that seem to be most definitely cutting their
ties with their Christian Faith.
: Sorry, but your accusations miss the mark. Care to try again?
:>>I've been the employer - for my own business. I carefully considered the
:>>value each employee brought, and paid them based on a combination of the
:>>various inputs - value to the company, going wage for such jobs, what they
:>>produced, etc. I did also try to take into account their personal life
:>>situation, but I was limited in my ability to pay based on what was earned.
:>>I limited my draw initially and was making LESS than my highest paid
:>>employees. I also had 100% risk. Any profits are return on the risk of
:>>capital.
:>
:>Bully for you.
: No response, of course. Since the above defeats your entire argument. And
: since the vast majority of employment in the US is done by SMALL PRIVATE
: COMPANIES, your plan will send government agents to harass and destroy the
: main engine of the US economy.
According to the US government, small businesses account for 52% of all
employment... That is hardly a vast majority. Further the definition of
small business includes employers of up to 500 employees. Of course many
of these small business have few if any workers making below the sort of
living wage we are discussing here. An Auto Shop is probably not going to
find a decent mechanic for less than $40K a year. A small software
company likewise is not going to have many employees making less than $50K
a year, most construction contractors are likewise going to be paying many
of their workers considerably more than $10/hour.
:>>You see, you view labor as the ONLY input, and discredit capital. But
:>>without capital, the laborer would have no job. The person who provides
:>>the capital has the right to profit from it which is at least equal to
:>>the right of the laborer to profit from his labor.
:>>
:>>That's the part that the socialist/communist folks always leave out.
:>
:>Maybe they do, but that is irrelevant.
: No, it's not. Without profit on invested capital, there will be NO
: investment! They'll stick their earnings in government bonds, etc,
: and not take ANY risks. That will drive down bond yields and interest
: rates and do serious damage to the world economy. It will make it even
: harder for the middle class to save ANYTHING without losing it all to the
: massive inflation your plan will cause. Or if you control prices, then
: the quality of the goods will suffer (see the USSR for examples).
See the funny thing is, a living income will not ultimately remove capital
or investment. The low yeilds on government bonds that you suggest are
the very reasons that they will be forced to invest back into the market.
Further I doubt that there would be the massive inflation you suggest
(this has been the cry of the Lassiez-Faire conservative everytime a
minimum wage has been proposed.. it hasn't happened yet). Yes a small
section of the economy would be impacted strongly, but other sectors would
be relatively uneffected.. and in fact might be bolstered by a living wage
law. For example, the US auto industry already generally pays far more
than a living wage; what would happen to that industry if there were
suddenly 10 million more Americans who could think about buying a new car?
Ok, it might hurt the fast food industry, but then again, that might be
good for the over all health of Americans. I doubt it would hurt the
janitorial industry much, because for most companies, it would still be
far cheaper to hire a janitor than to get a far more expensive employee to
do the work.
: You need to learn some basic economics. Having wonderful idealistic
: notions is great, but they don't work and wreak havoc on everyone. And
: the poorest will suffer MORE under your system than under the current
: one.
You need to remember that economics is not a predictive science. The
ability of an economist to predict the future makes the ability of a
weatherman to predict the weather for next week look Godlike in
comparison.
:>The question at issue is not rival
:>economic systems. Living under one or other economic system or political
:>system does not absolve us from trying to live according to Orthodox ethical
:>precepts, and confessing our sins when we fail.
: I never said it did. We're discussing the notion of wage and price controls.
: Where did I ever say I was absolved from almsgiving, etc? No, rather, you
: want to force some centrally mandated 'almsgiving' that does not benefit
: anyone, except perhaps the bureaucrats who administer it.
Mandating a living wage is not almsgiving. Almsgiving implies no return
for service. It is simply doing the same thing for labor that laws
against price gouging does for consumers. It ensures that corporations
cannot take advantage of excess employment to exploit people.
:>You can sin under a socialist
:>system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
:>communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
:>transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
:>Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
: Who is squeezing out my personal responsibility to give alms? Not me. If
: we got the feds down to 5% of the national output again, my tax rates would
: fall dramatically and I would have even MORE money to give. I do not
: live extravagantly. We do not eat extravagantly. I use public transportation.
: Right now, the only thing limiting my almsgiving is the 50% tax burden from
: all levels of government!
Its always easy to blame the government. But the fact is that you are,
taxes and all, living far better than 75% of the people in the world, and
better than almost anyone who lived more than 100 years ago, and better
than anyone in a comperable economic position before the New Deal.
: And frankly, until you are prepared to repeal Social Security in its
: entirety, you have no room to talk. It harms the poor more than anyone
: with its regressive form. How dare you steal 9% of a man's income, and
: force his employer to pay another 9% in matching funds. If you just left
: that money to the employee now, he could have a 20% raise!!!!
Well, it would actually be an 18% raise, and somehow I doubt that the
employee would see all of that 18%, and in fact I would be suprised if he
saw more than a few percent of it or any of it.. after all the lower end
of the labor market is driven by the supply of labor, not the value the
labor provides. I agree that the Tax needs to be progressive, not
regressive. However, the success of Social Security if limiting poverty
amongst the elderly is frankly astounding. The percentage of elderly
living in poverty today is far smaller than it was before Social
Security. It has also helped free up American Workers who no longer need
to worry about being completely responsible for financially destitute parents.
: You are so in love with your social engineering that you can't see that
: your engineering is doing far more harm to people than anything you are
: complaining about!!
You appear to hate the government so much as to ignore the fact the United
States has propered under all the "social engineering" that you claim is
destroying it.
:>Abortion may be legal in your country as it is in ours, and even be socially
:>approved of in some circles, but if an Orthodox Christian has or procures or
:>performs an abortion that is a sin that they ought to confess. They should not
:>think it is OK because "everyone does it". And the same applies to paying a
:>living wage, because failing to do so can kill children just as surely as
:>abortion does, though more slowly. .
: Your plan will cause even more suffering in Africa, India and China. Do
: you accept responsibility for all of THOSE deaths that will come as surely
: as day follows night?
: Command economies do not work. Never have. Never will. They cause more
: suffering than they alleviate. In every case.
Interesting Mantra there. The simple fact is that the most extreme forms
of command economies (facisim and communism) have failed, but the more
moderate forms that have been adopted in the West have been more
successful than not. Unchecked capitalism is like riding a bucking
bronco.. The ride will be exciting but you will get thrown to the ground.
Regulated Capitalism has proven very successful at evening out the worst
excesses. Implemented properly, a living wage law could do the same.
--
Bill
Stephen Adams
>Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>Sorry for jumping in here, but...
>
>:>>>that cries out to heaven. And accomplishes a great deal: tt damages the
>:>>>health of the workers and their families .
>:>>
>:>>How is it theft?
>:>
>:>Because it's stealing.
>
>: Stealing WHAT? There is nothing to steal.
>
>It is not stealing in the sense of taking what someone has, but rather
>denying what a person is due. Therefore the employer who does not pay a
>living wage is in essence stealing the labor of the employee who is not
>paid a living wage.
If the employer offers a job at a particular wage, and the employee agrees
to this wage, then he is due exactly THAT wage. No more. No less. It
is theft by use of force for you to come by and require me to pay more than
was mutually agreed.
>:>> If the the employer offers a job at a certain pay rate,
>:>>and it is accepted, then it's not theft.
>:>
>:>That depends on the rate and the circumstances. We are not talking about "a
>:>certain" rate. What is significant is whether the person and their family can
>:>survive on it.
>
>: But this has NOTHING to do with the value of the work! You are trying to
>: break compensation from the value of the work provided, and this is simply
>: not possible unless you intend to control prices, incomes, trade and exchange
>: rates. If you do not control all of those, with extreme micromanagement,
>: the economy will find a way to adapt - and it will be the low-end who get
>: hurt. Hurt even worse than if you had just left the system alone in the
>: first place.
>
>What workers are paid often has little to do with the value of their work.
>Rather workers tend to be paid based off of the supply of labor who are
>available to do the work. Only when there is a shortage of workers for a
>position will employers start paying wages that are tied to the value of
>the work. Therefore, engineers tend to make alot more than janitors,
>because there are far fewer people capable of doing engineering than of
>being janitors. If the number of people willing to do janitorial work in
>this country was to shrink dramatically, the wages of janitors would rise
>dramatically as well.
And what exactly do you think the value of their work is?? It's exactly
that - the value to the employer to get the job done combined with their
willingness to accept the wage. In other words, we agree.
Work is worth no more than an employer is willing to pay, and no less
than an employee is willing to accept.
>: Please show me a single command economy that EVER worked. Even if you
>: could seal off 100% of outside influence, it STILL would not work, since
>: you can't provide 100% of the raw materials and 100% of the market. And
>: even if you could, there would be no way to generate wealth.
>
>I will agree that no Command Economy can ever match the economic growth of
>a Capitalist Country over the long term, that doesn't necessarily mean
>that a command economy is itself necessarily unfeasible. During certain
>periods, command economies did far better than unregulated Capitalist
>Countries (in particular during the Great Depression, while Western Europe
>and the United States had negative Growth, the Soviet Union had major
>economic growth). Over all the failure of the Command Economies of
>Communisim had less to do with efficiency and more to do with the
>unwillingness of the commanding authority to orient itself towards the
>production of consumer goods or to provide incentives to encourage workers
>to increase production.
In other words, they failed because they failed to adopt market principles.
Which is my point. I wasn't talking short term. That's foolish since one
can do exactly as you did - select a very specific period and make outlandish
claims from them. Note well - the depression was caused by GOVERNMENT
interferance in trade. In other words, moves toward the command economy.
>: Redistribution systems do not work. Period.
>
>If their goal is to make the playing field completely level then I would
>tend to agree, but they can be very successful at mitigating the worst
>excesses of capitalism and in preventing the formation of an hereditary
>monied class.
If you confiscated every dollar that the billionaires in the US had, you
could run the government for a few weeks. At the cost of the complete
destruction of the economy.
>:>You may think that childhood malnutrition is really cool
>:>because, hey, their parents are paid the "going" rate. Well, keep your
>:>millstone handy.
>
>: This is quite a leap. First of all, children in the US are FAR better off
>: than those in third-world economies (or even some developing economies).
>: Your system would, of necessity, have to cut off imports from those
>: countries with phony economic barriers to make goods produced in your
>: economy competitive. Thus consigning hundreds of millions of people to
>: permanant poverty. You were saying?????
>
>Most goods produced in the United States are already uncompetitive with
>foreign goods based on wages paid. There is no way any manufacturer in
>this country can pay $10 a day and expect to produce a decent product.
>The manufacturing jobs that remain in this country do so because the US
>has a skill set or resources that are unavailable outside the USA. The
>vast majority of jobs that don't pay living wages in this country are not
>manufacturing jobs, but rather are service jobs that effectively can't be
>exported. McDonalds can't sell a Hamburger in New York from a service
>counter in Bejing.
And McDonalds increases their pay when they can't find people willing to
work at the offered wages. Around here, they are offering $8/hour to
start. Because the labor pool is small. If the labor pool was larger,
they could probably pay less.
BUT, if you force them to raise the rate to $15/hr, that $10 meal is
going to cost $20, their business will dry up and they will fire people.
And if you do this across the board, all that will happen is everyone
will raise their prices to adjust for the new wages, which will then
cause the wages to go up, and the prices, and, well, runaway inflation.
>: Note well that I said NOTHING about anything except the employee/employer
>: contract. The eomployer offers a job at a wage they are willing to pay.
>: A person accepts it or doesn't. If they do, so be it. If they don't,
>: then the employer changes the conditions.
>
>An employer is usually willing to pay as little as he can to fill a
>position (in fact usually is forced to because of local competition that
>will put him out of business if he has to raise prices to match wages).
Well, of course. If I can find someone to do a good job working on my
lawn for $50/visit, why would I pay $100? If nobody will do it for $50,
maybe I'll do it myself. Oops, now we ADD to unemployment. You refuse
to acknowledge the economic effects of your artificial wage levels.
>The imperitive of Capitalism is to keep wages as low as possible, and if a
>person is only able to get a job that leaves them solidly in poverty, it
>simply means that they will have so sacrifice luxuries like heat, or food,
>but hey, at least they have a job right?
You keep missing the point - if you force employers to raise wages, you
will cause inflation. Which will then cause wages to go up, causing
more inflation, etc. Setting a floor on wages simply guarantees that
prices must be above a certain level, and ensures that economic events
cannot force prices lower than a certain point.
It's a artificial wage/price that has no elasticity, and which causes
major economic problems.
>: The solution is not government programs, but Christian charity. In the
>: US, prior to the "New Deal", charity was provided by private organizations.
>: Society solved these problems by using the extended family, churches and
>: other charitible groups. The current disaster is the direct result of
>: leftist meddling in our economy.
>
>Umm, what disaster? I suppose you are referring to the fact the United
>States maintains one of the highest standards of living in the world? Or
>maybe the fact that by any measure people in this country today are far
>better off than they were 70 years ago? Or is it the fact that workers no
>longer are working 96 hour work weeks? Or maybe the fact that the United
>States has not had a Depression since end of WWII when previously we had
>Depressions every 20 years or so?
Disasters like all the candy manufacturers leaving the country because
sugar is artificially priced 3x the going rate. Disasters like the
government forcing a dairy farmer to charge 2x what he wants to charge
with the excess going to the dairy cartel whose job it is to keep prices
artificially high by force. And on and on. If you eliminate the foolish
government intervention (paying farmers NOT to grow crops, for example),
you wouldn't have to worry about such high prices.
And dont' even get me started on the nightmare that is welfare and
social security. The SS system is a complete and utter disaster,
funded by the most evil, regressive income tax there is.
>: Before the Civil War, the federal government consumed no more than 5% of
>: the output of Americans. At the height of the Civil War, it consumed 20%.
>: Today, it consumes that regularly - and more!
>
>And yet we still enjoy a standard of living that only a small handfull of
>countries around the world enjoy... and more so the countries that enjoy
>those standards of living often have governments that sponsor even more
>social programs than the United States does.
Well, if you implement YOUR plan, we can kiss our standard of living
goodbye tout-suite.
>: Want to help the working poor? Repeal Social Security. The payroll tax
>: is the most egregious, regressive, ill-conceived notion in history.
>
>Indeed, it does need to be reformed, so that is a progressive as opposed
>to a regressive tax. Further I certainly think means testing should
>become part of the solution. On the other hand, how many people want Mom
>and Dad to live with them in their last 20 years of life because they
>can't afford to live alone? Or want them to have to work at 75 or 80?
The extended family seemed to work just fine for thousands of years.
It's only gone away since WWII. Frankly, restoring it would have a
major positive effect.
As for SS, cut the rate by about half (from around 9% to around 5%),
lift the cap, exempt the first $12k of income for everyone and means
test outlays it at 2x poverty, decreasing by $1 for each $2 earned
over 2x the poverty level.
Quick, neat and easy. No longer regressive. Solvent. And it would
work. It would massively benefit everyone who made less than $150k
a year or so.
>:>>And paying an artificial wage
>:>>harms society as a whole by increasing prices, decreasing purchasing
>:>>power and causing job loss.
>:>
>:>Artificial, shmaritifical. That's a weasel word, and you know it -- or you
>:>ought to if you've ever read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
>
>: Weasel word???? Not even close. You think that some government flunky can
>: pick some random number out of a hat and declare it 'too little' or 'too
>: much' - your valuation has nothing to do with the actual value of the work.
>
>Neither does yours. Workers are commonly paid far less than their
>ultimate contribution to the company they work for.
No, they are paid what their labor is worth - the intersection of the lowest
amount they will accept and the highest amount an employer offers. Their
labor is not worth any more or any less.
>: If we adpot your economic theory, we get 20% unemployment. The 'low paying
>: jobs' will all disappear. Instead, the high-paid engineer witll be taking
>: out his own trash and cleaning off his own desk as part of his job, and
>: the janitor who used to do the job will be out of work.
>
>The only way an engineer is taking out his own garbage, and cleaning the
>office is if the living wage is set at the same level the engineer makes.
>There is no company that is going to want an engineer making $80K a year
>to waste his work time cleaning toilets when a janitor making say $30K a
>year can do the job instead.
You wish. I worked for a company that decided the cleaning service was
too expensive. So guess what, the $80k/yr engineers took out their own
trash, wiped down their own desks, did the dishes, etc. Write me privately
and I'll be happy to give you the name of the company, you can look up
the contact information on the net and they will verify this to be the
case when I worked there (until last October).
Oh wait, and where I work now, when I visit our disaster recovery site,
I have to take out my trash each day, since the company won't pay for
a cleaning service.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
>Further, every time someone talks of raising the minimum wage in this
>country we get cries of how it will destroy the economy.. the problem is,
>it never has.
There's a difference between raising the minimum wage by $.50 and the kind
of increases you are talking about. And raising the minimum wage DOES
reduce the number of entry-level jobs available and DOES add to inflation.
>: Or, as noted, the janitor will go to work for a janitorial firm which is
>: setup in such a way as to pay them even LESS than they were getting before.
>
>Interesting theory, but how would the janitorial firm get around a living
>wage law with out breaking the law?
This was talking about the differential wage theory. Too easy to skirt.
As for the living wage law, pass it, and you'll have unemployement at more
than 10%, a stagnet workforce and all kinds of other problems. See, for
example, France.
>:>>All one needs do is look at the wonderful success of the French ecnomoy to
>:>>see exactly what we would get with such proposals.
>:>
>:>If you stopped looking at economies and drawing weird conclusions, and started
>:>looking at the teachings of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers, you might
>:>not spout such unChristian gobbledegook.
>
>: Nothing I have said is UnChristian. You seem to have missed THIS:
>
>On the contrary, Capitialism is decidedly unChristian. At some point
>people in this world have decided the laws of the market place are the
>laws of God, they are not, they are the laws of a fallen humanity that is
>obsessed with wealth and material comforts.
I disagree. Capitalism is neither Christian nor unChristian. What we
DO with the wealth we generate is either Christian or not. People love
to cite the 'rich young ruler' who was told "one thing you lack - go
sell all your goods and give to the poor" - but this is no general
command, it was a challenge to someone who claimed to be holier than
everyone else and to follow the law. Jesus knew where his true love
was (money) and challenged him.
It is not a sin to be rich. It is not a sin to make a profit. It is not
a sin to invest and gain from that investment. It *is* a sin to fail to
give alms. It *is* a sin to fail to care for your neighbor.
But you want to use force to make this happen, which means that it is of
no benefit to the giver OR the receiver. Your system is UnChristian, as
it steals from the rich to give to your selected class.
>: We can draw some clear conclusions from the passages that the left usuallly
>: ignores when trying to claim that capitalism is 'unchristian':
>
>: 1. Men are expected to work and are not to receive formal charity from the
>: church.
>
>Yes, but this also assumes that the men are able to get jobs that pay them
>a living wage. Paul certainly was not attacking those who worked hard but
>were still unable to provide enough food to feed themselves or their
>families.
So your solution is to take the money from those who have it at gunpoint.
I don't think Paul was advocating THAT either.
>: 2. Young women are expected to marry or stay with their parents or brothers
>: and not receive charity from the church.
>
>: None of this mitigates against almsgiving, which we are required to do. And
>: to give to those who ask of us. But what YOU want is compulsory almsgiving,
>: which benefits NO ONE.
>
>No, compulsory almsgiving is welfare... which is not the issue here. The
>whole argument is about a living wage. In other words paying working men
>and women enough so they can afford to live. If capitalism cannot pay the
>lesat of its workers even that, then the system is completely bankrupt and
>it should not be supported by any Christian.
Except that all the others are worse. No system can generate overall wealth
and a high standard of living like capitalism. You said so yourself above.
If advocating capitalism is not Christian, then advocating a system which
causes even MORE suffering can't be Christian either.
Economic systems are not Christian or unChristian. It is what we do with
what we are given that matters. And if you force it by law, then it is
not we who are doing it. And if you force it by law, you are not being
Christian, since you are stealing from those who have to give to some group
you believe is more deserving.
If the government took less of my money, I would have more to give away.
When I ran a business, I wanted to pay higher wages, but the amount I
had to fork over to the government prevented that.
>:>How can you utter such immoral nonsense? Paying stavation wages is most
>:>certainly inhumane and abusive, and no amount of sophistical godless
>:>rationalising will change that.
>
>: Paying NO wages is even worse. But you seem to think that somehow money
>: will magically appear that does not currently exist in the economy to make
>: up this difference, and that somehow nobody will be hurt.
>
>Ah, but the question is how many companies really would go out of business
>if they were forced to raise their wages. In many cases, the businesses
>would have to raise their prices (but not necessarily by nearly as much as
>the increase in salary to their workers) to make up the difference, but
>ultimately they would be able to absorb the hit. The industries that
>would have to raise their prices the most are the ones whose costs are
>most directly related to services. Therefore the landscaping and
>janitorial work would likely rise quite a bit.
And so there would be lower demand, leading to fewer jobs, leading to a
WORSE situation that we have now. Higher unemployment. For the few
who are fortunate to have jobs, things are great. For the rest, they
are totally screwed. See France. A perfect parallel.
>However companies that
>sell actual product might not have to raise prices nearly as much. For
>example, lets look at fast food worker. Lets say, the guy at the Grill is
>making $6.00 an hour. He might well cook on average 50 burgers an hour
>during his shift. Currently therefore, $0.12 of every $2.00 is the labor
>involved in cooking it. If his salary was raised to $15 an hour, the cost
>would rise to $0.30, or a net increase in the price of the burger to
>$2.18. Now I will grant that there might be others involved in getting
>the burger to the consumer who will need to be paid more as well, but not
>everyone, and many who do have their salary increased, will not have it
>increased as much as they guy actually flipping the burger. The final
>cost of the new burger might be $2.50, or even $2.75. Rather steep I will
>grant you, but the guy who was making $6 an hour is still far better off
>than he was.
You will have to pay the cook, the server, the busboy, the dishwasher,
the hostess, the assitant manager, etc, etc. And those higher wages
cause higher emoployment taxes (SS, Medicare, etc). That $2.00 burger
is now going to cost around $4.00. And burger sales will drop. And
fewer people will be employed. So now instead of 2 cooks, only 1. Yep,
he's happy, but the other guy is screwed.
I've run a business. What you are proposing simply won't work. Just
look at France. Or worse, the former USSR.
>: All you will have is extra money to pay out as dividends or be spent on
>: some other part of the business that the shareholders want to spend it
>: on. What next? A ban on dividends and/or distributions to shareholders?
>: Confiscatory taxes to stop it? Nobody will invest if you do that. And
>: you'll destroy the economy.
>
>Hmm, lots of people invest now in stocks that don't pay dividends or
>distributions. But I don't personally think we need to stop paying
>dividends to share holders. What I do think we need to do is restructure
>the way the corporations work so that the fiduciary responsibility to
>shareholders is not the end all and be all of corporate decision making.
They own the freaking company. It's theirs. Why should YOU get to say
how they decide to run the company? Want to change it? Buy stock,
elect your own slate of directors and then do as you please.
I ran my own company. The amount of regulation was unbelievable. The
hoops that had to be jumped through to do the most simple thing were
crazy. The tax system was a nightmare and a disincentive. There were
WAY too many people trying to tell me how to run my company - and the
things they wanted were destructive.
Now, you want to come along and insist on paying certain wages. I set
my prices based on what people were willing to pay. That generated a
certain amount of revenue, and after the government got done skimming
off their porition, I had to pay wages, utilities, etc, plus try to have
some left to pay myself. If forced to raise wages, I would have had to
FIRE people. Period. I could not raise my prices beyond what they
were. And my people knew that. Everything was in the open. They knew
revenues, expenses, taxes, etc. Even salaries were known. And there
was no wiggle room.
>: Yeah, that's REAL Christian - destroing the entire economic system. The
>: Soviets tried it. Didn't work. The Chinese learned that lesson quite
>: well and are moving towards a more free economic system so they don't lose
>: their heads (literally). Same with the Indians.
>
>Hmm, see this is where your argument breaks down. You are arguing that
>one materialistic system is just based on the argument that another
>materialistic system failed. The simple fact of the matter is that any
>form of materialism is simply unChristian. The very success of
>Capitialism is making it possibly the single greatest threat to
>Christianity of the 21st century. It is the economically prosperous
>countries of Western Europe that seem to be most definitely cutting their
>ties with their Christian Faith.
The whole idea of 'Christendom' is a lie. It was enforced by threat of
force in most places. When the threat of force went away, people began
to fall away quite quickly. When state churches were disestablished
people chose for themselves what to do (rather then their prince or
king, or whoever). Blaming capitalism for this is, well, misguided.
>: No, it's not. Without profit on invested capital, there will be NO
>: investment! They'll stick their earnings in government bonds, etc,
>: and not take ANY risks. That will drive down bond yields and interest
>: rates and do serious damage to the world economy. It will make it even
>: harder for the middle class to save ANYTHING without losing it all to the
>: massive inflation your plan will cause. Or if you control prices, then
>: the quality of the goods will suffer (see the USSR for examples).
>
>See the funny thing is, a living income will not ultimately remove capital
>or investment. The low yeilds on government bonds that you suggest are
>the very reasons that they will be forced to invest back into the market.
Individual investors do not provide the capital for starting companies.
You are missing the point. If you buy a stock in an existing company,
you are not investing capital in the company, but in the future value
of the company, and the company gets NOTHING from your investment.
The true capitalists, the ones who put up the bucks to start companies
(eg Venture Capitalists) must have major sums to do their job. They
don't get it right every time, but it is they, not those who buy
stocks (even in IPO's) who provide the capital. Taking away their
money will ruin economic growth.
The other true capitalists are those who start small businesses with
their own capital or by borrowing. Increasing their costs only
reduces the number of people who are willing or able to do this.
The Democrats and the left have NEVER figured out that confiscating
money from people by various schemes is BAD for the economy.
>Further I doubt that there would be the massive inflation you suggest
>(this has been the cry of the Lassiez-Faire conservative everytime a
>minimum wage has been proposed.. it hasn't happened yet).
We're not talking $.50 or $1.00 raise in the minimum wage (which really
has little effect because so few people earn just the minimum). You
said above a $9 increase (a whopping 150%). Now THAT will cause major
inflation and dislocation.
>Yes a small
>section of the economy would be impacted strongly, but other sectors would
>be relatively uneffected.. and in fact might be bolstered by a living wage
>law.
I disagree. A 150% increase in wages at the low end will force up wages
and prices massively. Do you think the guy currently making $15/hr is
going to sit still for 150% raises at the low end and nothing for him?
And the unions will go nuts!
>For example, the US auto industry already generally pays far more
>than a living wage; what would happen to that industry if there were
>suddenly 10 million more Americans who could think about buying a new car?
Except that what will happen is the guy making $15 busting his butt at
the auto plant will go to his union and demand $25 since the government
gave all the 'lower paid' folks a 150% raise!!
>Ok, it might hurt the fast food industry, but then again, that might be
>good for the over all health of Americans.
And likely throw tens of thousands of people out of work.
>I doubt it would hurt the
>janitorial industry much, because for most companies, it would still be
>far cheaper to hire a janitor than to get a far more expensive employee to
>do the work.
Wanna bet? See above.
>:>You can sin under a socialist
>:>system, you can sin under a capitalist system and you can sin under a
>:>communist system. St Paul says, do not be conformed to this world, but be
>:>transformed by the renewal of your mind. That means we should not allow our
>:>Christian values to be squeezed out by the values of the society around us.
>
>: Who is squeezing out my personal responsibility to give alms? Not me. If
>: we got the feds down to 5% of the national output again, my tax rates would
>: fall dramatically and I would have even MORE money to give. I do not
>: live extravagantly. We do not eat extravagantly. I use public transportation.
>: Right now, the only thing limiting my almsgiving is the 50% tax burden from
>: all levels of government!
>
>Its always easy to blame the government. But the fact is that you are,
>taxes and all, living far better than 75% of the people in the world, and
>better than almost anyone who lived more than 100 years ago, and better
>than anyone in a comperable economic position before the New Deal.
It all depends on what you value. I value freedom and personal choice,
all of which we have far less of than before 1860. I value being left
alone by the government to make my own way.
See the Declaration of Independence for my basic view. Or the writings
of Thomas Jefferson. Note - these are POLITICAL views. My personal
actions are Christian, at least in so far as I can overcome sin.
>: You are so in love with your social engineering that you can't see that
>: your engineering is doing far more harm to people than anything you are
>: complaining about!!
>
>You appear to hate the government so much as to ignore the fact the United
>States has propered under all the "social engineering" that you claim is
>destroying it.
At the cost of political, social and economic freedom. See Thomas Jefferson.
He didn't like government much, either.
>: Your plan will cause even more suffering in Africa, India and China. Do
>: you accept responsibility for all of THOSE deaths that will come as surely
>: as day follows night?
>
>: Command economies do not work. Never have. Never will. They cause more
>: suffering than they alleviate. In every case.
>
>Interesting Mantra there. The simple fact is that the most extreme forms
>of command economies (facisim and communism) have failed, but the more
>moderate forms that have been adopted in the West have been more
>successful than not.
Yeah, things are great in France. And last I checked, even Sweden was
backing off their socialism, since it didn't work.
>Unchecked capitalism is like riding a bucking
>bronco.. The ride will be exciting but you will get thrown to the ground.
>Regulated Capitalism has proven very successful at evening out the worst
>excesses. Implemented properly, a living wage law could do the same.
Regulation must be light and minimal, not heavy-handed. What you are asking
for is heavy-handed, is a violation of personal liberty and interferes with
the right of contract. And it advocates theft from those who are the most
successful and transfer of their wealth to special interests...
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes <haye...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>Dn Stephen seems uninterested in a real discussion, and refuses to answer
>the most basic questions. Further back-and-forth exchanges are of no value,
>so I'll let him have the last word in this thread, should he wish it...
Since you have consistently failed to demonstrate, on *theological* grounds,
that paying a living wage is "anti-Christian", I have to agree that the
discussion is futile.
The questions that you seem to regard as "basic", I regard as "irrelevant".
Have you ever stopped to wonder why?
You can't have a "real discussion" unless you are willing to seek some common
ground. I thought that the "common ground" would be the Orthodox Christian
faith, but it seems that I was mistaken.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> >That's try to make this as simple as possible. I agree to pay for
>> >someone's labor at a fixed rate. I need the work done, he has the
>> >skills, we negotiate to an agreed unit of work for a fixed price.
>>
>> Right. Let's take it from there.
>>
>> The question then is, assuming that he is working full-time, whether the
>> "fixed" price is enough for him to feed, clothe and house his family.
>
>But that's the price the worker agreed to sell his labor. You're
>making up a hypothetical situation that is nonsensical. Am I supposed
>to pay a living wage to the store owner who sells me a box of cereal?
>Are you in the habit of paying for a product or service over its asking
>price? You're not making any sense. The worker has agreed to sell his
>labor for a fixed price. We have to assume that's what he wants and it
>meets whatever needs exist in his mind.
Get real!
In the cloud-cuckoo land of free-market theorists, there may be "perfect
competition", but to think that it ever exists in real life is as ridiculous
as thinking that the USSR ever actually created a worker's paradise.
The question is not whether the price was agreed, but whether ity is enough
for the worker tyo live on. The question of a fixed price is a significant one
in a secular value system, but if we are Christians it is not the only
criterion, nor even the most important one.
--
Steve Hayes
Yes indeed.
The article that began the topic dealt a proposal for implementing an idea in
a foreign country where I have a limited knowledge of conditions, and wouldn't
have to live with the consequences. So I took care to avoid discussing the
proposals themselves, but rather the assumptions revealed in the subject line
and the title of the article.
This newsgroup is for discussing Orthodox Christianity, not particular
political policies in one country. So I therefore chose to discuss the
*principle* enunciated in the subject line, and the heading of the article in
question. The principle is of wider application, and applies to any country,
and any economic system.
But what has impressed me about the discussion so far is that a lot of
Americans will not approach any debate on the topic from a Christian point of
view, but rather from a secular one. That's not peculiarly American of course.
In any country you will find Christians who are Sunday-only Christians, and
leave their Christian principles behind when they go out of the church door.
They accept the secularist notion that "religion is a private" affair, and
that "business is business", and therefore Christianity should not interfere
in the world of secular economics and politics.
A few years ago I edited a doctoral thesis on business ethics, which was for a
PhD in the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. The researcher
interviewd a number of businessmen and his main finding was that religious
beliefs made no difference in the ethical decision-making of the subjects of
his research -- so the secularist dream was coming true.
Liam _
:> >
:> >Steve, Isaiah 58 doesn't provide any direction about living or minimum
:> >wages. The commandments in Scripture, whether in the OT or from
:> >Christ, were never given as directives in how to form goverments or
:> >what policies they ought to pursue.
:>
:> I'm not talking about forming governments or what policies they ought to
:> pursue.
:>
:> An Orthodox prayer book I had from St Tikhon's press had a list of "Four sins
:> that cry out to heaven"
:>
:> 1. Idolatry
:> 2. Wilful murder
:> 3. Withholding a worker's wages
:> 4. The sin of Sodom
:>
:> I trust that those who are now arguing that 3 is not only OK, but that NOT
:> commiting that particular sin is "anti-Christian" will also say the same of
:> the others -- that not worshipping idols is anti-Christian, that not wifully
:> mudering someone is anti-Christian, and that not committing the sin of Sodom
:> is anti-Christian.
:>
: You're mixing apples and bananas in the discussion. Yes, withholding a
: worker's wages would constitute theft. But the worker's wage is that
: which is mutually, contractually agreed upon at the time of hiring! A
: worker doesn't have to agree to it if he can find a better deal
: elsewhere with his given skill set.
So in other words, its ok to pay a wage that one cannot live on as long as
everyone else is doing it.
: What I'm reading is that some want
: the government to come in after that mutually agreed upon contract is
: in place, and through the use of force revoke and impose a new contract
: upon the employer against his will.
Actually the majority of workers in America have no contract with their
employers. They are at will employees who can be terminated for any of a
variety of reasons and can have the terms of their employment changed
almost at will by their employer. If they have a valuable skill set they
probably can avoid this fate, but if they are un-skilled or semi-skilled
workers then they probably can't.
Mind you also, you see few business men complaining when the goverment
revokes a contract when it benefits them (As often happens in the case of
companies undergoing bankruptcy reorginization).
: What's going to happen is
: employers will become reticent in hiring new employees, current
: employees will be overworked, short-term contractual labor will
: balloon, and a permanent, 10-15% unemployment class will arise as you
: witness in Western Europe today.
The countries in Europe that have a high unemployment rate have it for
reasons other than starting salaries, rather they have it because of a
rather over generous set of conditions that make it impossible to
terminate employees when necessary.
: You can't ignore the underlying
: market dynamics no matter the economic scheme designed to impose
: *fairness* and *equality*. As sure as the sun rises, there will be an
: unavoidable market reaction to every policy decision and the most
: intrusive ones more likely than not will have the most negative,
: unintended results *despite* the good intentions behind them.
The thing is the market dynamics are in large part the result of the
economic scheme that is imposed. A century ago the sort of economic
controls that the USA has now would have been considered crippling by the
majority of business men, yet not only has the US survived those controls,
American Businesses have for the most part thrived.
--
Bill
Liam _
: Steve Hayes wrote:
:> On 1 May 2006 07:45:02 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:>
:> >> "anti-Christian to pay her enough to li8ve on?
:> >>
:> >
:> >Why is it Christian for someone to be slothful or not work for what
:> >they earn?
:>
:> You tell me -- I didn't say that, you did.
:>
:> I am not saying that people should be slothful and not work for what they earn
:> (how can they earn what they have not worked for?). I am saying that they
:> should be paid a living wage for the work they do, and not paying them for the
:> work they do is a sin that cries out to heaven.
:>
: They are being paid for the wage they and their employer agreed upon.
And often the employer is in a position to force the employee to accept
whatever wage the employer feels like paying. In fact, market forces in
an unregulated capitalist system demand that the worker be paid as little
as possible for the work they do.
: The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
Actually they do, it simply means that a worker working a full time job
should be paid enough money to afford decent food, housing and shelter for
himself and his family.
: Is it the case you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? Do you
: believe one's work and product produced has an objective value, and the
: employer is skimming off the top? That would be the reasoning of the
: living wage advocates. This has been demonstrated a false doctrine, my
: friend. I can spend ten hours digging a ditch by the road but my labor
: isn't worth anything if a) there's no market for it, b) no one wants to
: pay for it, c) no one is investing in the work, and d) I don't have the
: smarts to find the proper outlets to sell the product. It's a highly
: complex process that can't exactly be quantified as Marx and his
: like-minded philosophers imagined. Someone slaving over the lettuce
: patch for two dollars an hour is earning exactly what the market is
: offering his set of skills and service. That market mechanism includes
: consumers in the store, many of whom are low-wage workers themselves.
: Raising the wage without the corresponding increase in productivity
: (which can only occur through natural market mechanisms) merely shifts
: to a rise in the product's price. The worker gets his raise, but goes
: to the store and sees prices rise.
The Labor Theory of Value was not Marx's; it existed long before Marx and
he adapted it to his work. That being said you analogy of the ditch is
flawed, because it doesn't exist in an employer, employee relationship.
And employer is not going to ask an employee to dig a ditch unless he has
need of a ditch. In any case this is not really about the actual value of
labor, but rather the justice of paying someone a wage that is
unsufficient to meet all the needs of life.
The analogy of the lettuce picker fails because the work of actually
picking the lettuce makes up only a fraction of its cost in the
supermarket. Sure increasing the wage of the picker will probably
increase the price of lettuce, but almost certainly not nearly as much as
the increase in the workers wage.
:> > There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
:> >what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
:> >will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
:> >market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
:> >demagogues.
:>
:> Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
:>
: First off, I'm not advocating any economic *system*, but merely that
: the ten commandments be obeyed. Leaving the economy under those
: commands would be a laissez faire arrangement at the governmental
: level. It's not a matter of *doing* some plan, but a matter of *not*
: doing theft and *not* promoting class envy and warfare.
Sigh, and Lassez Faire Capitalism has shown to be a chaotic system, which
is why we don't have it anymore. The western world abandoned it 100 years
ago for a regulated capitalist system. Ultimately mandating a living wage
is no different than other restrictions on Capitalist endevours.
:> Both believe that man should be subjected to economic forces. For one the name
:> og the deity is "the free rein of the market forces", and for the other it is
:> "the dialecical forces of history".
:>
:> But by placing the forces of the marked above God, one commits idolatry.
:>
:> "You shall have no other gods before me", no matter how objective an arbiter
:> you may think they are.
:>
:> >> Please explain why you think paying a living wage is "anti-Christian"?
:> >>
:> >
:> >Paying a particular wage, if an employer chooses such, isn't
:> >anti-Christian. Government plundering is what's anti-Christian. Being
:> >paid with plundered money for what was not earned is what's
:> >anti-Christian.
:>
:> Being paid a living wage for a fair day's work is not "being paid with
:> plundered money one has not earned".
:>
: You earn the money you agreed to be paid at the time of hire. Voting
: for the army and police to put a gun to the head of your employer to
: pay you something else is indeed plundering.
And how is that any worse than putting the gun of starvation at a
worker's head and saying we will pay you $x and no more for this work
because you won't get more than $x anywhere else. What, you can't live on
$x? Well that is not my problem, its what the market demands.
--
Bill
rlm_3071
> You can't have a "real discussion" unless you are willing to seek some common
> ground.
You can't have common ground when you failed to read the article. You
would reframe the discussion into what a buyer chooses to pay for a
service, rather than what everyone else is discussing..... government
mandated *living* wages. Nobody has objected to or found *unChristian*
an employer who freely *chooses* to pay employees in gold bullion to
cover their wants and desires.
rlm_3071
> But what has impressed me about the discussion so far is that a lot of
> Americans will not approach any debate on the topic from a Christian point of
> view, but rather from a secular one.
That's factually and intellectually dishonest. I made repeated
references to God's commandments to not steal and not covet. You've
not made any Orthodox argument that justifies forcefully taking money
from one individual and giving to another. That's the essence of this
discussion, not almsgiving. But perhaps you live in a society where
stealing has become so common place that it is accepted as normal.
rlm_3071
> And often the employer is in a position to force the employee to accept
> whatever wage the employer feels like paying. In fact, market forces in
> an unregulated capitalist system demand that the worker be paid as little
> as possible for the work they do.
>
Absolutely false. You're not forced by the employer to take a job and
he can't stop you from quitting. Explain how it is that most employers
pay their workers more than minimum wage. I and I alone negotiated my
current wage with my employer and it's many times the minimum wage.
> : The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
>
> Actually they do, it simply means that a worker working a full time job
> should be paid enough money to afford decent food, housing and shelter for
> himself and his family.
>
*Decent food* and *shelter* have no objective meaning. You believe
otherwise? Ok, tell us EXACTLY how much the minimum wage should be to
cover those items. You really don't have a clue in how an economy
functions. Or better yet, what you advocate did indeed exist at one
time. It was called slavery. Your master took care of your living
expenses, keeping them at the absolute minimum as would be expected.
But to do so he had to restrict your freedom in all ways in order to
ensure the economy and his situation allowed for him to meet those
meager needs of yours. The Soviets reinstated the same system. I
guess you find slavery a more Christian system than the current market
setup. Thank God most don't think like you, at least for the time
being.
> : Is it the case you subscribe to Marx's labor theory of value? Do you
> : believe one's work and product produced has an objective value, and the
> : employer is skimming off the top? That would be the reasoning of the
> : living wage advocates. This has been demonstrated a false doctrine, my
> : friend. I can spend ten hours digging a ditch by the road but my labor
> : isn't worth anything if a) there's no market for it, b) no one wants to
> : pay for it, c) no one is investing in the work, and d) I don't have the
> : smarts to find the proper outlets to sell the product. It's a highly
> : complex process that can't exactly be quantified as Marx and his
> : like-minded philosophers imagined. Someone slaving over the lettuce
> : patch for two dollars an hour is earning exactly what the market is
> : offering his set of skills and service. That market mechanism includes
> : consumers in the store, many of whom are low-wage workers themselves.
> : Raising the wage without the corresponding increase in productivity
> : (which can only occur through natural market mechanisms) merely shifts
> : to a rise in the product's price. The worker gets his raise, but goes
> : to the store and sees prices rise.
>
> The Labor Theory of Value was not Marx's; it existed long before Marx and
> he adapted it to his work. That being said you analogy of the ditch is
> flawed, because it doesn't exist in an employer, employee relationship.
> And employer is not going to ask an employee to dig a ditch unless he has
> need of a ditch. In any case this is not really about the actual value of
> labor, but rather the justice of paying someone a wage that is
> unsufficient to meet all the needs of life.
>
The analogy works. It highlights your unit of work is only as valuable
as what another will buy it for or continue paying for it. I didn't
make a presumption that the ditch digger was not employed. The
employer can't pay him more than what he's able to sell out of the
service. If digging a ditch, laying railroad tracks, or banging horse
shoes has no demand in the market place, those engaging in that
activity aren't going find anyone to essentially pay for their life
needs for free. The moral of the story: don't engage in activities
that have little to no demand. The Soviet economies tried to prop up
artificial demand in countless ways in order to sustain the living
standards of existing jobs and it failed. It can't be done.
If the ditch digger believes his work is exploited and he's not
receiving the full value, he can get on his horse and go solo.
> The analogy of the lettuce picker fails because the work of actually
> picking the lettuce makes up only a fraction of its cost in the
> supermarket. Sure increasing the wage of the picker will probably
> increase the price of lettuce, but almost certainly not nearly as much as
> the increase in the workers wage.
>
You've admitted the price will go up. It's not relevant by how much,
only that it does. The competitor's price is NOT going up. Now guess
which product the consumer will buy? The scheme fails.
> :> > There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
> :> >what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
> :> >will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
> :> >market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
> :> >demagogues.
> :>
> :> Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
> :>
>
> : First off, I'm not advocating any economic *system*, but merely that
> : the ten commandments be obeyed. Leaving the economy under those
> : commands would be a laissez faire arrangement at the governmental
> : level. It's not a matter of *doing* some plan, but a matter of *not*
> : doing theft and *not* promoting class envy and warfare.
>
> Sigh, and Lassez Faire Capitalism has shown to be a chaotic system, which
> is why we don't have it anymore. The western world abandoned it 100 years
> ago for a regulated capitalist system. Ultimately mandating a living wage
> is no different than other restrictions on Capitalist endevours.
>
You didn't respond to my previous paragraph. What you call *regulated*
is a violation of God's commands against theft and envy. As far as
what happened over a hundred years ago, your history is skewed. The
economy was hardly laissez faire capitalism. Those robber barons were
an institution of government endowed monopolization of various
industries that prevented competition. Robber barons can only exist in
a government restricted market, not a laissez faire system.
>
> : You earn the money you agreed to be paid at the time of hire. Voting
> : for the army and police to put a gun to the head of your employer to
> : pay you something else is indeed plundering.
>
> And how is that any worse than putting the gun of starvation at a
> worker's head and saying we will pay you $x and no more for this work
What a joke! Now your neighbor is responsible for the existence of the
need for food and he's more responsible than you in satisfying it! How
unjust! Hey dude, your problem is with God, not the rich! He is truly
an unfair entity, no doubt about it. You're born, you have to struggle
to live, you get sick, you die. Perhaps you go to hell. That's
reality and no *living* wage is going to save you.
rlm_3071
Moral of the story: develop a skill set that's needed. Perhaps you'd
rather people waste time on work that's not needed and benefits no one?
I'm sure that's pleasing to the Lord.
I observe that you, like Deacon Stephen, are not reading carefully
what's written and responding in other directions.
> Mind you also, you see few business men complaining when the goverment
> revokes a contract when it benefits them (As often happens in the case of
> companies undergoing bankruptcy reorginization).
>
I see few non-business men and women complaining when they can declare
bankruptcy and shed most, if not all, of their debts. Those are debts
to other people who have families and employees to tend to.
> : What's going to happen is
> : employers will become reticent in hiring new employees, current
> : employees will be overworked, short-term contractual labor will
> : balloon, and a permanent, 10-15% unemployment class will arise as you
> : witness in Western Europe today.
>
> The countries in Europe that have a high unemployment rate have it for
> reasons other than starting salaries, rather they have it because of a
> rather over generous set of conditions that make it impossible to
> terminate employees when necessary.
>
Didn't say anything about starting salaries. But I'm glad you
understand the over generous nature of the working conditions and the
necessity of terminating employees. You've really contradicted
yourself. You can't mandate that employers take care of someone's
basic living expenses but turn around and say that employers need to
the right to terminate him.
> : You can't ignore the underlying
> : market dynamics no matter the economic scheme designed to impose
> : *fairness* and *equality*. As sure as the sun rises, there will be an
> : unavoidable market reaction to every policy decision and the most
> : intrusive ones more likely than not will have the most negative,
> : unintended results *despite* the good intentions behind them.
>
> The thing is the market dynamics are in large part the result of the
> economic scheme that is imposed. A century ago the sort of economic
> controls that the USA has now would have been considered crippling by the
> majority of business men, yet not only has the US survived those controls,
> American Businesses have for the most part thrived.
>
> --
> Bill
The correlation shows that the imposition of controls and protectionist
trade led to the Great Depression starting in the late 1920's, and the
acceleration of those controls under Roosevelt led to a few more
depressions under his rule. Unemployment averaged around 20% during
his four terms in office. The gradual lessening of those controls
after he died through the Kennedy administration led to a major revival
in the economy and living standards. The leftist Johnson and leftist
Nixon began jacking taxes and regulations back through the roof leading
to a dismal set of conditions in the country by the late 1970's.
Reagan reversed the trend and Clinton, for the most part, maintained
the status quo which led to the 80's-90's boom years.
Stephen Adams
>> :> > There are two sides to this coin. The question remains
>> :> >what's the appropriate wage that someone can live on and whether that
>> :> >will run a business into collapse and everyone loses their jobs. The
>> :> >market is the best, objective arbiter to determine this, not political
>> :> >demagogues.
>> :>
>> :> Capitalism and communism are two denominations of the same religion.
>> :>
>>
>> : First off, I'm not advocating any economic *system*, but merely that
>> : the ten commandments be obeyed. Leaving the economy under those
>> : commands would be a laissez faire arrangement at the governmental
>> : level. It's not a matter of *doing* some plan, but a matter of *not*
>> : doing theft and *not* promoting class envy and warfare.
>>
>> Sigh, and Lassez Faire Capitalism has shown to be a chaotic system, which
>> is why we don't have it anymore. The western world abandoned it 100 years
>> ago for a regulated capitalist system. Ultimately mandating a living wage
>> is no different than other restrictions on Capitalist endevours.
>
>You didn't respond to my previous paragraph. What you call *regulated*
>is a violation of God's commands against theft and envy. As far as
>what happened over a hundred years ago, your history is skewed. The
>economy was hardly laissez faire capitalism. Those robber barons were
>an institution of government endowed monopolization of various
>industries that prevented competition. Robber barons can only exist in
>a government restricted market, not a laissez faire system.
Exactly. It's called mercantilism, and it depends on HEAVY government
influence on trade - tariff structures, quotas, restrictions and building
as unlevel a playing field as possible.
It certainly was not laissez-faire, which would mean *minimal* governemt
involvement (things like keeping the sea lanes open, stopping piracy,
etc).
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>rlm_3071 <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
>
>Actually they do, it simply means that a worker working a full time job
>should be paid enough money to afford decent food, housing and shelter for
>himself and his family.
But that, according to some people posting here, would be "artificial", though
it's hardly any more "artificial" than the economic theories they use to
justify It. I wonder if everything "artificial" is "anti-Christian", or if not
how you tell which things are anti-Christian because they are "artificial".
Steve Hayes
>> : The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
>>
>> Actually they do, it simply means that a worker working a full time job
>> should be paid enough money to afford decent food, housing and shelter for
>> himself and his family.
>>
>
>*Decent food* and *shelter* have no objective meaning. You believe
>otherwise? Ok, tell us EXACTLY how much the minimum wage should be to
>cover those items.
Like the lawyer who wanted to know *exatly* who his neighbour was, so he could
establish the minimum he could get away with.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> But what has impressed me about the discussion so far is that a lot of
>> Americans will not approach any debate on the topic from a Christian point of
>> view, but rather from a secular one.
>
>That's factually and intellectually dishonest. I made repeated
>references to God's commandments to not steal and not covet.
And made it cleair that you believe they apply to employees more than they do
to employers.
>not made any Orthodox argument that justifies forcefully taking money
>from one individual and giving to another.
Why should I?
>That's the essence of this
>discussion, not almsgiving.
No, this discussion is about neither. It's abput whether paying a living wage
is anti-Christian.
> But perhaps you live in a society where
>stealing has become so common place that it is accepted as normal.
It seems that you live in a society where stealing has become so commonplace
that you can't recognise it when you see it.
rlm_3071
> On 4 May 2006 08:07:21 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Steve Hayes wrote:
> >> But what has impressed me about the discussion so far is that a lot of
> >> Americans will not approach any debate on the topic from a Christian point of
> >> view, but rather from a secular one.
> >
> >That's factually and intellectually dishonest. I made repeated
> >references to God's commandments to not steal and not covet.
>
> And made it cleair that you believe they apply to employees more than they do
> to employers.
>
No, I've made it clear that I oppose theft. I just as quickly oppose
the government moving in and mandating that a worker take a lower pay
after a contract has been agreed. That's actually happening today with
the income tax scheme. While we're arguing about rich people, the sad
truth is that the redistributionist schemes in place are by far
screwing the middle class more than anyone else. You know why?
Because the initial idea of taking from the rich to fix society didn't
work. Thus, the authorities had to lower the bar.
> >not made any Orthodox argument that justifies forcefully taking money
> >from one individual and giving to another.
>
> Why should I?
>
> >That's the essence of this
> >discussion, not almsgiving.
>
> No, this discussion is about neither. It's abput whether paying a living wage
> is anti-Christian.
>
As far as I've read in this discussion, no one has laid out such a
position. You are redrawing the debate and ignoring the content of the
initial article. Your argumetation depends upon distraction.
rlm_3071
> On 4 May 2006 08:38:19 -0700, "rlm_3071" <rlm_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> : The words *living wage* don't have any objective meaning whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Actually they do, it simply means that a worker working a full time job
> >> should be paid enough money to afford decent food, housing and shelter for
> >> himself and his family.
> >>
> >
> >*Decent food* and *shelter* have no objective meaning. You believe
> >otherwise? Ok, tell us EXACTLY how much the minimum wage should be to
> >cover those items.
>
> Like the lawyer who wanted to know *exatly* who his neighbour was, so he could
> establish the minimum he could get away with.
>
Broken, backwards analogy. The thought experiment you offer highlights
someone who's trying excuse continued hatred for a person or class of
people. The *living* wage discussion is driven by the desire to avoid
theft and envy. The lawyer in your example is seeking an escape hatch
to continue sin, the latter is seeking to stop sin.
Steve Hayes
Not at all. You don't have to know the exact minimum you can get away with in
order to pay a living wage. You can always pay more than the minimum to be on
the safe side. In this country we have a statistical "poverty datum lin",
calculated by econometrists, which indicates the minimum income needed by a
family of a certain size to survivve. The figure varies for different places
in the country, and it varies over time as prices change. You could start with
such a figure and calculate what you ought to pay accordingly.
Steve Hayes
The article makes a statement in its title, which is echoed in the subject
line of this thread.
It is quite common in usenet to discuss particular aspects of a topic, and
there is no need for every message to discuss every aspect of the original
posting.
I am discussing the topic as declared in the subject line, and in the title of
the article, which taken alone is a lie. Of course one does not necessarily
have to take it alone, but such things very often get simplified in the
telling and turn into factoids. The title becomes the conclusion.
If the topic had to be as narrow as you say, then the subject should have
specified that. If it has been something like "Proposed US legislation on
iving wage is anti-Christian", I would probably have ignored it altogether.
But when the thread has a subject line that is intrinsically a whopping lie,
then it needs some correction, especially when the subsequent discussion shows
that several people in the group actually believe that like, and have sought
to justify it.
Steve Hayes
>Hey Stevie,
>
>Is it Christian to bankrupt employers?
White ones or black ones?
--
Terms and conditions apply.
Steve Hayes
haye...@yahoo.com