FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Employer & Government obligation from a Catholic perspective
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I have been reading the writings of the Popes on employer and government responsibilities towards the working class people, specifically the Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII in 1891. From what I read employers are under an obligation to pay the working class enough to support a family so they can afford a modest home and of course food and clothing. Obviously this isn't happening. The average wage for the working class at least around here is around $10 per hour, sometimes less than $10. I am making slightly above this and I am single. This certainly isn't enough to live on. To rent an apartment, never mind own a home, you are looking at over $1000 a month + utilities just for rent for a 1 BR apartment in the slum areas. I am talking about areas where there is gunfire and drug deals going on every night. You can figure a little more if you have a family and need a 2 or 3 BR apartment. I take home around $1200 a month after taxes. So, if I had to pay my own rent and then utilities, food, car payment, and other expenses this is clearly not enough to live on.

So basically, companies would have to pay employees $15-$20 an hour in my area to provide enough to live in a modest house or apartment and provide for food and other expenses. Obviously it's worse in areas like Boston and New York City where you are looking at housing costs that are double what they are from where I live.

It also says that "retirement" as we have come to know it is not acceptable as it is an excuse for sloth. It states retirment should be spent in service of the poor volunteering and going to daily Mass when possible.

So, from my experience it seems like a lot of employers are going to have to answer for defrauding employees a just wage. Anyone have any thoughts about this?

What if the employer can't afford to pay $15.00-$20.00 per hour without going bankrupt?
Well, here's the deal. If I am starting a business and I know it's going to cost me X to pay the employees and operational costs and I can't afford it then I don't go into business.

(08-28-2010, 06:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]Well, here's the deal. If I am starting a business and I know it's going to cost me X to pay the employees and operational costs and I can't afford it then I don't go into business.

Then you take the chance that the people you would have employed won't find work at all,or will have to work for somebody else for what you consider to be a substandard wage.  You cannot be required to pay a "family wage", as recommended by Leo XIII, if you cannot afford to do so.  If your business succeeds and is booming, that's a different story. 

If the government would reduce taxes, it would make it easier for people to live on the wages they are able to make.
The piece of the puzzle both of are not seeing is this. In the past thirty years the business model where the business charges a fair price to cover material labor and maintainence and a little profit is gone. There is now this piece of biz talk which is making the rounds it's "cost of ownership". What it means is the Client sets the price and you need to keep committing financial suicide slowly to retain business. The construction industry was the last to still have the old method of costing. Innovation used to be from the contractor inward. That is as a company became better it take a larger portion of business because of their superior methods. ISO and the EU stopped this, while protecting European interests in manufacturing. One of the fallacies was the push by the cognoscenti towards CNC machining which brings little or no advantage to manufacturing in price or quality. I don't want to bore you with the details so I'll stop this part, and move to the next.

The other thing is the Banks are no longer local. When you go for a loan to start up you are going to Wall Street, and they are not inclined to lend money to Pete's Painting and Dry walling, but they should be. The money supply goes to the MBA's, who have had their morals surgically removed, with a plan to rule the universe and screw everyone they touch. The coup de grace came with NAFTA, which was likie a stone skipping on Mexico and landing in India and China. Do not let anyone fool you this is not about superior methods of manufacturing or tax laws or enviornmental concerns, it is about paying 30 cents per hour, and removing all manufacturing from America.
tim
I guess you can add the Jewish banking system of charging too much interest. Housing costs would be a lot more affordable if you didn't have a high interest rate. Good companies paid unskilled laborers $10 an hour 20 years ago. Today these same "good" companies are still paying laborers $10 an hour. I don't know about you but while $10 an hour 20 years ago would been a livable wage, it's not today.

I think Pete what has to be done to be successful is the owner has to think of pay in different terms. If the "G" does not see cash transactions it thinks nothing is going on. The construction guys have been doing this for years. They find a foreclosure property, buy it, bring in their friends and barter their skills to fix it, bring it to code and make it attractive, then sell it. Payday !  Barter may be the way. We may need to make a  "black market". These folks have driven us out of the regular channels of commerce and allow only subsistence jobs, just like the evil tax collectors in the time of Jesus or serfdom. The peasants always went underground, but today most people no longer have the skills to figure the way to do this. Think about it, and you will come up with some answers and from there you can build. Think like this what do I need to do to get a chicken and a dozen eggs from a farmer every week ?
tim
(08-28-2010, 06:53 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]Well, here's the deal. If I am starting a business and I know it's going to cost me X to pay the employees and operational costs and I can't afford it then I don't go into business.

Isn't some money better than none?

Let's say you have 30 dollars for wages. Why hire one worker at 30 instead of 3 at 10? Do those 2 other workers not need the money?

And that's a pretty stupid reason not to go into business. Always room for growth. Maybe you can only afford to pay them 10 now, but down the road it could be that 30.
I guess the other side of it is if G didn't take almost half my pay check maybe I could afford to live on $10 an hour.

(08-29-2010, 04:25 PM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]I guess the other side of it is if G didn't take almost half my pay check maybe I could afford to live on $10 an hour.

Right on. Except you forgot the part where you're doubly screwed. First the corporations are taxed. Then the individuals get taxed. And people wonder why corporations flee to other countries?
Pages: 1 2