Posted on 07/02/2006 7:06:06 PM PDT by xzins
"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' " - Matthew 25:40.
Churches and faith-based groups in Toledo are joining state and national efforts to raise the minimum wage, asserting that they have a moral obligation to combat poverty.
"You can't continuously give handouts to folks, you have to deal with the systemic problems that create the need," said the Rev. Larry Clark, executive director of Toledo Area Ministries. (Snip)
The proposal to boost the Ohio minimum wage to $6.85 an hour has been endorsed by a number of regional denominational leaders, ...Evangelical Lutheran Church in America... the United Methodist Church, ... Catholic Archdiocese.
Ohio recently raised the state minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15, but that is still far below the federal poverty line for families, Mr. Ballinger said. At the current rate, working 40 hours a week, the minimum wage would earn a worker $10,712 in a year.
On the national level, a nonpartisan organization called Let Justice Roll, comprising 70 faith-based and community-based groups, is pushing to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
Mr. Ballinger, in a letter from the Ohio Council of Churches, said 60 percent of minimum-wage workers are women and 71 percent are over age 20. ....."Among the key principles found in the Holy Scriptures is the importance of paying workers fairly for their labor and the rights of workers to perform their responsibilities with dignity," he said.
He said the current minimum wage has not been raised since 1997 and when adjusted for inflation is at its lowest level in 50 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
Actually, I was thinking that the $100 grand a year idea has merit.
But, you have a point.
We should require that everyone receive the 100 grand. If they want luxuries, though, they have to get a job. However, the tax rate on income above the 100 grand should be 101%.
We need to give a fresh perspective to anyone who thinks they should be different than the rest.
In Ohio there is an attempt to put an increase in the minimum wage on the ballot in the Fall. I was solicited at the library by a young fellow to sign a petition to do so. When I challenged him he was speechless and had no idea what I was talking about. He either failed or never took Economics 101.
Seriously.
Next time ask him "Why shouldn't the minimum should be $40 per hour. Wouldn't that be better?"
It would be interesting to see if he has objections to that, and what those objections would be.
Can't you see a qualitative difference between a $40/hr. minimum wage and a $10-$12 minimum?
Serious question, though, Jude.
What reasons can you give for NOT setting the minimum wage at $20 per hour?
Or give the reasons for favoring $20 per hour minimum wage.
I'm working off the assumption that the minimum wage should be enough to live above the poverty line.
If $12 is good, then why not get them far above the poverty line by making it $20 per hour?
What are your reasons for NOT doing so? I am truly interested.
jude24-There is a difference only in degree. The market will quickly adjust the price of a hamburger from $4.00 to 8.00 when the min.wage goes from $5.00 to $10.00. If the min. goes to $50 per hr., then it will increase the hamburger to $40.00(ten x the present $4.00).
This isn't France, jude. I can't remember the last time I worked a 32 hour work week. For most of my adult life I've worked closer to a 64 hour work week. So if I worked 2 jobs at 32 hours each, then I'd be making your above poverty level wage, wouldn't I?
The fact is that if someone is living in poverty because he is working 32 hours per week at a minimum wage job, then he needs to work TWO minimum wage jobs. He'd still be working less hours than I have worked for most of my life. What gives a guy who is letting his children go without dinner the right to work 32 hours a week and then complain that he doesn't have enough money? After he's worked 32 hours, he still has 134 hours of leisure time. Even if he's working 64 hours per week, he still has 104 hours of idle time. If he sleeps 6 hours a day, like I do, then he would still have 62 hours of leisure time. He could work three 32 hour a week jobs if he were that desperate.
Tell me jude, do you think you are going to find a job in the legal profession where you can get away with working 32 hours per week? Dream on.
I haven't since I worked retail. These days, I'm working closer to 50 and sometimes 60.
When I worked retail, however, the employers always screwed their employees by giving them no more than 36 hours most weeks. You get a guy for 32 hours - and float the schedule so that you don't know until the night before the week starts what days you're working, and all your workers will be stuck working almost full time with you, but have great difficulty getting another job. The reason why retailers and other employers do this is so they don't have to pay full-time benefits to their workers.
You just don't get it. These days, a person without a college degree has a hard time finding a full time job that pays decently. It's all Wal-mart jobs, where you're working 32 hours a week at 7.50 an hour if you're lucky.
jude24-I don't mean to pile on here but another question comes to mind in this context. If the US needs to establish and maintain a "liveable" minimum wage who should be the arbiter of this. Should we establish a new federal agency? Clearly, you can't leave it to congress. Look at all the years it has remained unchanged. Is it possible that the cure is worse than the disease? I can't speak for the rest of those on this thread who seem to agree with me, but I give you my personal assurance that I am not a "cold-hearted,mean-spirited,viscous,right-wing,conservative republican ideologue,whose biggest regret is that my grand-mother isn't alive so I can throw her out in the snow." I hope we have convinced you.
I thought you were going to school. I was working at a full time job 50 to 60 hours a week while I was going to law school. If I counted my 15 hours a week at school and my homework, I was probably working about 100 hours a week. But that doesn't count. Law School was part of my leisure time. It was not a necessity, it was a luxury.
When I worked retail, however, the employers always screwed their employees by giving them no more than 36 hours most weeks.
That has a lot to do with the union structure. When I worked retail I was in a non-union shop. I usually worked 48 hours on the clock and then I would clock out and work another 8 to 10 hours a week. I was promoted to manager in 6 months.
If the Unions didn't force the employers to provide additional benefits to employees who worked more than 35 hours per week, the employers would gladly let their employees work more hours. But the minute they get to the magic 36 hours per week, the employer is burdened with paying health benefits and 401k contributions and they run the risk of overtime and vacation accrual. So don't blame the employer for keeping your hours down, blame the unions.
The reason why retailers and other employers do this is so they don't have to pay full-time benefits to their workers.
Duh. If they had to pay everyone those full time benefits, they would have to let half the staff go, then you'd have a whole bunch of people working zero hours per week.
It's all Wal-mart jobs, where you're working 32 hours a week at 7.50 an hour if you're lucky.
Wal Mart wants the government to raise the minimum wage to something like $7.50 per hour. Why do you think that is? Do you think they are being charitable? Not bloody likely. The reason they want a high minimum wage is so that they can push all the small retailers who simply can't afford to pay their employees that much out of the market. Because of its sheer size and its buying power and distribution capabilites, Wal Mart can provide a higher than minimum wage job to every one of their employees and still undercut the small retailer. So an increase in the minimum wage will benefit big companies like Wal Mart, while at the same time, put small retailers out of business, thus reducing their competition.
So your compassion is going to hurt a lot of people. It will drive small businesses into the ground and make start up companies a logistical nightmare. At the same time it will help big businesses eliminate their competition. Ah, the joys of Utopia.
When I used to work at K-Mart foods, I was told that the profit margin on, not the dollar, but THE ITEM was a penny, and that, therefore, we were to be extremely cautious using too many bags for groceries. Each of the bags cost about a penny at that time.
As to why this hasn't yet occured, the answer is simple. To mandate a living wage would require real political leadership at a time where most politicians are wholly owned corporate subsidiaries. Society's interests here do not intersect with that of Corporate America's.
As regards your personal "cold-heartedness," I have no reason to assume you are personally indifferent to the poor. I do think your ideology is, but you yourself may not be.
Do you have any idea how Marxist that sounds?
There is probably not a single major corporation that pays any of its employees minimum wage. A rise in minimum wage will not hurt big corporations. If anything it will benefit them. The guy who will get hurt is the mom and pop company and the employees of the mom and pop companies. When the mom and pop companies are all forced out of business then the big corporations will move in to fill in the gap.
Legal clerkship.
Wal Mart wants the government to raise the minimum wage to something like $7.50 per hour. Why do you think that is? Do you think they are being charitable?
Because they know they have a huge PR problem because of their low-paying jobs, but they don't want to unilaterally raise their employee's pay.
That has a lot to do with the union structure.
Unions ain't got nothing to do with it. I've never worked in a union shop.
I usually worked 48 hours on the clock and then I would clock out and work another 8 to 10 hours a week.
I very much doubt that.
Do I care?
Their corporate existence is a privilege extended by the state, created as an act of the state. The state has every right to demand corporations fulfill certain responsibilities in return for their franchise.
It's not Marxism to believe in corporate responsibility. Marxism disbelieves in personal property. It is not inconsistant with capitalism to believe that corporations owe certain duties to their employees. In fact, my measures are intended to keep capitalism alive and forestall a Marxist-style revolution. Keep abusing workers, however, and you see a proletariat revolt. Marx was right about that; his error was in believing this would be a good thing resulting in an utopian society. It will not; it will result in the oppression you saw in the Soviet Union.
I didn't realize that you were an attorney. I strongly endorse your comments.After an early retirement as an HR exec I did some guest lecturing for the Ohio State Bar Assn and Columbus Bar Assn on topics such as "Violence in the Workplace" and "Managing Employees Within the Law".During my corporate life I was able to win 44 of the 45 discrimination charges against us. It's gotten very combative out there.
Jude, why stop at $12 per hour?
Why NOT $20 per hour and get them well above the poverty line?
***Keep abusing workers, however, and you see a proletariat revolt. ***
I can envision mass migration to Mexico where life is good. We need to get that fence built or we'll lose our proletariat.
"Help"
"Help"
"The socialists are revolting!"
Response:
You can say that again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.