Of course they do, all of them, every single one. Aren’t you Catholic? That is exactly what the doctrine of original sin implies.
What does this have to do with the minimum wage? Do you agree with my point about what’s just for someone who works hard and behaves lawfully and respecfully to society?
Wow. This is just nuts. Now the minimum wage should be sufficient to provide for a family? Why? The minimum wage should be sufficient to provide for sick relatives? Retirement? A Rainy Day Fund? How about cable TV? Cell phone? Computer? Car? Air conditioning? Big screen TV?
And as Bricker pointed out, many of us work WAY more than 40 hours per week. 40 x $7.25 not good enough for you? Work more hours, get an additional job. And if you don’t like those options, come up with a better plan for your life. One that doesn’t limit you to a life of bouncing from one minimum wage job to the next.
Because otherwise, many people won’t be able to provide for their family – and today, many people aren’t, without assistance. Wouldn’t it be better if these folks were paid enough that they didn’t need food stamps or any other government assistance?
For sick family members – yes. And yes and yes (for modest retirement/emergency fund). Families shouldn’t be just one tragedy away from homelessness.
No.
Some people can’t get an additional job, for various reasons (health, children to take care of, etc.). Many jobs won’t let them work more hours even if they can and want to.
Some people aren’t going to have a better plan and aren’t going to be able to make one. Others made bad choices. Once they start working hard and being decent members of society, they still deserve these basic necessities.
I think what conservatives commonly misunderstand is that there are some people who are unable to advance themselves above a minimum wage job. The workforce is a jungle, and there are quite a few who just cannot compete. We can’t say get a better job because many simply cannot. To expect these people to survive on the current minimum wage is unreasonable.
No. Food stamps and the like are intended to help people in the short term, and we should have programs like that. And we always will. When you raise the minimum wage you won’t eliminate food tamps or other forms of social welfare. And in a short time, the increased minimum wage will simply raise the threshhold under which you will qualify for such assistance.
I strongly reject the idea that a minimum wage should even support a mother, father and one child. It’s a minimum wage…a starting wage. If you’re plan is to live the American Dream by working for minimum wage 40 hours a week, you need a better plan. It’s really as simple as that.
That’s why you should work hard and not be stuck in a job that pays you $7.25 an hour. If you made so many bad decisions that that is all you can hope for, that is your problem, not mine. Being able to care for family members, or yourself, in sickness is one of the things that motivated me to bust my ass. You want that ability, then bust your ass.
Also, I am loathe to make it easier for people down the road to be as lazy in their decision making.
Even if that is factual, you need to take that all in as you plan for life. And the smaller this special group gets the more we can help them efficiently through a government program.
We wildly disagree and what constitutes basic necessities. And as I’ve said numerous times, there is no reason why someone should be stuck in a job at minimum wage. There are always things you can do to make your employer want to pay you more.
Look, here in the U.S> it fairly easy to have an okay life. Just do some really basic things, like graduate high school, don’t have a kid out of wedlock, don’t have a kid until you can afford to, don’t become a drunk or drug addict, stay out of jail. Show up on time and work hard. Just do those things and you will not have to be concerned what the minimum wage is.
This is obviously a disagreement on our respective philosophies of government. Because we have fundamentally different expectations and philosophies of what government should do, and how it should serve the people, we’re going to disagree here.
The minimum wage is not a new idea. We’ve raised it many times before. I’ve seen no evidence that these things accompany all such increases. Further, by (eventually) pegging it to inflation, we make sure it keeps up with the value of moeney.
So we disagree on this.
For some, for various reasons, it’s almost the best they’re going to get.
Some people aren’t and can’t have a better plan. And what I describe isn’t the “American Dream” – it’s basic necessities.
Some folks don’t have much choice.
It’s your problem, too – you’re paying for their health care at the emergency room, their assistance, the increased crime because they can’t spend as much time with their kids, etc.
Sick people often can’t “bust their ass”. And busting one’s ass is no guarantee of being able to pay for health care, at least not before the ACA. There are plenty of people who work as hard or harder than you do and don’t have the ability to meet various basic needs.
I don’t believe this would be the case. I don’t believe it was for past minimum wage increases.
Apparently so.
There’s no reason why someone ‘should’ be, but people often are anyway.
Sometimes. Sometimes not – sometimes the boss knows he has all the power, and you can’t quit no matter what.
Fairly easy for some. Not so easy for some.
I disagree. Sometimes these things conflict. Someone might not be able to finish high school because they have to earn money to support their parents and siblings. Someone might be recruited into crime at age 11, and not gain the skills and reason to get out of this until age 30. Some people are raped and abused, and otherwise damaged to the point that it can take many years to repair them.
I don’t advocate a minimum wage of $20. It should just be a bit higher than $7.25. Maybe $10 is the right number. Maybe it’s $12. In any case, we should only raise it slowly, with periodic pauses to analyze for any possible adverse effects.
How many threads over how many years have you suggested, hinted, predicted, and cheered for Walker’s political demise?
And when it doesn’t happen, you don’t acknowledge the failure; you simply start anew.
So: no, it won’t be “an issue” here, if 'an issue" is intended to suggest that Walker’s position will lead to his defeat.
I think that’s right. Hell, I don’t want a minimum wage at all. I think it’s degrading and unhelpful to individuals. But that is fodder for another thread.
I am Catholic.
No, it’s not. “Original sin,” refers to the deliberate sin of the first man, and the hereditary stain of sin which inures to all humans as a result.
However, the idea that this refers to transmission of death alone, literally, was the mistake of the Pelagians, and condemned by the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent. Original sin condemned all humans to a natural death, yes, but does not remotely imply that the deliberate infliction of premature death upon a human is somehow acceptable.
I love it when atheists think they understand religious doctrine. They’re not atheier, they’re the atheist!
Absolutely.
So it makes perfect sense to frame the issue this way. For a variety of very rational reasons, you contend that a wise social policy includes the concept that people deserve a particular wage.
For a variety of very rational reasons, I disagree. We are each certainly free to advance arguments in support of our position.
What we are NOT free to do in a respectful debate context, I contend, is assert that our position is unambiguously the correct one, and that to even question it is “stupid.”
Agreed?
Kumbaya!
I agree that it’s not respectful to call one another (or one’s questions) “stupid”. I’m assuming, in that particular instance, that the poster was not interested in being respectful.
By the way, Bricker, aside from our differences on philosophy of government, do you agree or disagree with this part:
“These things” are defined as the basic necessities discussed in a previous post.
I don’t think you understand what he was getting at. He wasn’t saying that Original Sin meant you can kill people (as silly as it is to say that a fetus is “people”). He was saying, I think, that since Original Sin applies, dying before you have a choice to redeem yourself, would grandfather you into heaven, because the aborted child had no chance to exercise free will.
Since most people won’t get into heaven, you’d actually be helping the fetus in question by getting him or her a pass.
I believe I read that actually it’s far worse than that. I believe, and please correct me with cites if I’m wrong, that the Catholic thinking on this, is that an aborted fetus should by the rules as we know them not go to heaven. But since God is merciful, then we’ll just trust him to do the merciful thing.
Disagree.
But the disagreement may rest on the word “deserves.”
I might say of a losing team, “Man, that was a tough loss. The Redskins played well, and only lost because of a couple unlucky plays. They deserved to win.”
It should be clear in that sense that I don’t actually contend that the Redskins should be given a win on the record books.
So what do you mean by “deserve?” Do you mean that a person who works hard should have a legally cognizable claim to the items above?
I doubt that. Because if Original Sin did not exist, the statement would be the same: dying so early would qualify you for heaven. So of what relevance would Original Sin be in that formulation?
Also: where do you get the idea that “most people” won’t get into heaven?
Not exactly, although that’s a close approximation. In “The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized,” the Vatican’s commission on this very issue, we read:
I’m going because my Grandma is there, and God wouldn’t dare piss her off.
Indeed. Paying workers enough to cover extravagances like food and shelter is not nearly as important as preserving their dignity.
Come now, you know this election is a dead heat, which means Walker might lose it, and if he does, how will you be sure the minimum-wage issue had no effect on the vote?
If No Original Sin: People go to heaven unless they sin. Babies go to heaven because they haven’t had a chance to exercise free will, and thus cannot sin.
If Original Sin exists (and babies go to heaven):
The presumption of innocence switches over to a presumption of guilt. You need to commit an overt act to erase the sin. Many babies will not do that, so the free pass is still a good thing for the baby, it never need run the obstacle course of life successfully to get into heaven. I would say it would be preferential because now salvation is harder.
Matthew 7:13-14 New International Version (NIV)
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Every once in awhile, and atheist squirrel finds a nut. 