• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Religious Roots of the Minimum Wage: Do you support it or not? Why

I

iamsharky789

Member
I was recently reading the article about minimum wage. It is The Religious Roots of the Minimum Wage | Tikkun Magazine

"Minimum-wage opponents say we all have the right to pursue our own happiness—and to maximize our self-interest—so long as we respect others’ right to do the same. Proponents counter that everyone has a right to certain necessities of life—food, clothing, and shelter—and that no one can be happy if some of us are deprived.

And the proponents have Pope Benedict XVI on their side.

Yes, that Benedict. You know, the “conservative” who recently announced he was stepping down from the papacy. In a 2009 encyclical, Benedict decried “the low value … put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the right to a just wage.”

Benedict’s comments echoed a long theological tradition among Catholics, who helped win the first American minimum wage measures a century ago. Joining hands with Protestant and Jewish allies, they insisted that every human being should earn enough from their labors to lead a “decent livelihood.”

The term was coined by John A. Ryan, a Catholic priest and the leading figure in the minimum-wage movement. Born to Irish immigrants on a Minnesota farm in 1869, Ryan watched bankers prosper while common laborers struggled to make ends meet. “We must have a more just distribution of wealth,” Ryan wrote in his diary in 1894. “We must have less individualism, more humanity and no absolutely unrestrained competition."

Does increasing the minimum wage directly effect a persons faith? It seems that the easier answer is to day no but I would beg to differ. I think that a increase in pay would allow the poor to buy things that help them participate in their religious group more. Donating, giving back and driving are some small examples. I can't see low-income workers immediately just miraculously becoming more religious. But on the flip side, materialism is the downfall for many people. Do people want to see the minimum wage? I just a conversation with this older man in line at a mcdonalds and he was saying that the minimum wage increase is outrageous. People expecting to get $15 and hours working at fast food should get a better job by getting more education. I was in the line trying to get some lemonade was a simply baffled why anyone would want to criticize the people out loud who were about to make his food but nevertheless, I chimed in and said that there are not enough jobs for everybody and not every one is able to afford and better education. I continued and said some business make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits while paying their workers next to nothing. He said that these jobs are not careers and are meant for high school workers. I agreed with that as I had a fast food job back then too but then moved on too. I can't imagine people making $12-$15 for certain types of jobs when skilled jobs in some areas only make that much. The main point was that this is about people's livelihoods so of course you want to see people do well but handout should never ever be given out when you are can work hard.

USA today just had an article on New Years day about this topic and called it a band aid rather than a long term solution and make some interesting points. Raising minimum wage a Band-Aid or real fix? Your Say

This article states Liberal arguments for increasing the minimum wage have a fundamental flaw: They restrict the set of policy choices to either a minimum wage increase or doing nothing. That means they overlook the single most important federal policy for the poor: the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Two Reasons Not to Raise the Minimum Wage - Bloomberg

But statistics show that there is support across the board for increasing the minimum wage but many people are staunchly against it. http://publicreligion.org/2013/12/s...e-minimum-wage-crosses-religious-party-lines/

What is your take?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Relying on "negative income tax" to see to the needs of the working poor amounts to a subsidy of employers who don't pay their employees a living wage.

Now... I'm not necessarily opposed to government subsidies, but I think they should be entered into in a deliberate way and only given in accordance with some legitimate government objective. I'm not sure that a government "top-up" of employee salaries for any and every business that doesn't want to pay its employees a living wage qualifies in this regard.

I think a better way to do it is to establish a universal minimum wage and then provide direct subsidies as needed to make good things happen. If an employee needs, say, $12/h as a living wage and his employer only wants to pay him $7, then it should be up to the emoloyer to justify why it would satisfy some legitimate policy objective for the government to chip in the $5 difference.
 
I

iamsharky789

Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Relying on "negative income tax" to see to the needs of the working poor amounts to a subsidy of employers who don't pay their employees a living wage.

Now... I'm not necessarily opposed to government subsidies, but I think they should be entered into in a deliberate way and only given in accordance with some legitimate government objective. I'm not sure that a government "top-up" of employee salaries for any and every business that doesn't want to pay its employees a living wage qualifies in this regard.

I think a better way to do it is to establish a universal minimum wage and then provide direct subsidies as needed to make good things happen. If an employee needs, say, $12/h as a living wage and his employer only wants to pay him $7, then it should be up to the emoloyer to justify why it would satisfy some legitimate policy objective for the government to chip in the $5 difference.
Click to expand...

Why the government and not the employer?
 
I

iamsharky789

Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...

You said, If an employee needs, say, $12/h as a living wage and his employer only wants to pay him $7, then it should be up to the emoloyer to justify why it would satisfy some legitimate policy objective for the government to chip in the $5 difference.

Why should the government even be considered by the employer beside to meet regulations get involved? If the employee cannot afford to pay the minimum, do they really need the employee?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
iamsharky789 said:
You said, If an employee needs, say, $12/h as a living wage and his employer only wants to pay him $7, then it should be up to the emoloyer to justify why it would satisfy some legitimate policy objective for the government to chip in the $5 difference.

Why should the government even be considered by the employer beside to meet regulations get involved? If the employee cannot afford to pay the minimum, do they really need the employee?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. My point was just that government shouldn't subsidize business unless it's a good way to achieve some legitimate policy goal. The question of which goals are legitimate are a separate issue. What I was trying to say is that if we're going to give out subsidies, they shouldn't be given out indiscriminately; some thought should be put into who gets them and why.
 
Jeremy Mason

Jeremy Mason

Well-Known Member
I would like to see a living wage that reflects the current economic conditions of the region they work in. If the necessary requirements require rent, food, toiletries, health insurance, utilities and a reasonable surplus, then it is up to the employer to provide that amount.

As a cook, I'm finding out that the busser is making more than the cooks. These people are responsible for the safe handling of your food that people eat. This job, fast-food or not, is a skilled labor position and is deserving of a wage that reflex it.

Remember this:

Facts at a Glance | National Restaurant Association
 
arthra

arthra

Baha'i
One of the Baha'i principles is to reduce the extremes of wealth and poverty.. and promote voluntary sharing of wealth..

1865. Social Inequality

"... Social inequality is the inevitable outcome of the natural inequality of men. Human beings are different in ability and should, therefore, be different in their social and economic standing. Extremes of wealth and poverty should, however, be totally abolished. Those whose brains have contributed to the creation and improvement of the means of production must be fairly rewarded, though these means may be owned and controlled by others."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 26, 1935)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 549)



1863. Voluntary Sharing

"The Teachings of Bahá'u'lláh advocate voluntary sharing, and this is a greater thing than the equalization of wealth. For equalization must be imposed from without, while sharing is a matter of free choice."

('Abdu'l-Bahá: Peace More Than an End to War Bahá'í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, p. 115)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 548)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top