Income inequality

Archive From The 'Tank
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Zarathustra wrote:or gain new skills to make themselves more valuable to their fellow man.
A 4-hour course at Dallas County Community College costs about $240, not counting labs fees, registration fees, books, etc--for in-county residents. Let's just say $400 for a 4-hour course to account for all those. Most of the introductory computer courses are only 3 hours. I don't see the one I found before but the course designed to help you pass the CompTIA Network+, ITNW 1458, is a 4-hour course. If you two two of the entry-level "hands on" computer courses for the A+ certification, you will have spent about $1,200 at DCCCD. If you qualify due to low income that amount can be covered by grants so you don't have to pay them back. All you need to do is cover the cost of the certification exams themselves; once you pass them, you start qualifying for many jobs in the Metroplex which pay about $15 per hour, maybe even a little more. Someone following this path will, in less than one year, no longer be a strictly blue-collar/mostly-unskilled laborer but will have a quasi-white-collar, mostly "middle class" job in a call center or corporate help desk environment. That might not sound like a lot to some people, but to a person in their early 20s who is used to making $11 for pushing shopping carts or hanging drywall that would be a significant upgrade...and it gets them out of the weather.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

I didn't make it up. It's called capitalism, Wosbald. You know, that concept that defines our economy? If you read more than religios propganda, you might stumble across such concepts every now and then.

It's not a trick, it's a fact. Value is how much you're willing to pay for something; or, how much you're willing to pay for something is a measure of it's value. Now, I'm talking about market value. If you're talking about something more nebulous like "the worth of human dignity," or something, then we're not dealing with something measured in dollars, and all talk of minimum wage is pointless. But as long as someone has to make a budget, run a business, make a profit, and pay the employee, it's just a fact that he can't pay whatever wage the employee (or government) demands. Since it's his money, and that money is finite, it's not only proper that he defines the value of the labor he is purchasing (for a job that wouldn't even exist if not for his expenditure!), it's also a literal fact.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

Zarathustra wrote:The person paying defines the value.
But the person working can decide that the person paying is not paying fair value, and thus withhold their labour.

You didn't say why the government is doing this though...seems to me that they would only be doing it if sufficient people believe that the value of that labour is higher.

They don't increase the minimum wage just because they feel like it.

If enough labourers decide that they are not receiving fair recompense for their labour (that the value of their labour is higher than the "payer" is putting on it) then either the payers pay more, or they do without that labour.

Seems to me that's exactly how the free market is supposed to work?

--A
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9192
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Avatar wrote:
Zarathustra wrote:The person paying defines the value.
But the person working can decide that the person paying is not paying fair value, and thus withhold their labour.

You didn't say why the government is doing this though...seems to me that they would only be doing it if sufficient people believe that the value of that labour is higher.

They don't increase the minimum wage just because they feel like it.

If enough labourers decide that they are not receiving fair recompense for their labour (that the value of their labour is higher than the "payer" is putting on it) then either the payers pay more, or they do without that labour.

Seems to me that's exactly how the free market is supposed to work?

--A
No, the govt is interfering in the free market by trying to buy votes. The market decides someones value for what they do. The person can 'think' all day long that they should be making $25 per hour but if the job they perform in the market is currently paying $15 and there is no shortage of people that can do the same job and will do so for $15, then it doesnt matter what they think. They can choose to withhold their services but that might just make them unemployed.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Post by Skyweir »

Trump is interfering in the free market?

Employees do and can effect the labour market ... as experienced candidates select not to take underpaying jobs employers have to improve pay and conditions to attract good staff.

Particularly with the US current low unemployment rate .. that puts more power in the hands of employees.. there will always be unskilled job market though .. they have less leverage to work with and must take Hobsons choice.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

Skyweir wrote:Particularly with the US current low unemployment rate .. that puts more power in the hands of employees.. there will always be unskilled job market though .. they have less leverage to work with and must take Hobsons choice.
I just demonstrated only two days ago how someone can transform themselves from "unskilled" to "trained" in only one year and a few community college courses. People who remain unskilled do so by their own choice.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Pope's direct experience of financial crisis informs views on economy, expert says [In-Depth]
Image
Pope Francis flanked by Queen Silvia of Sweden delivers his speech during the conference "Narcotics, Problems and Solutions of This Global Issue" organized by the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences at the Casina Pio IV, at the Vatican, Thursday, Nov. 24, 2016. (Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)


ROME -- When Pope John Paul II decided to tackle communism and help bring down the Berlin Wall, he did so not only because he saw it as a global problem, but because he had first-hand experience of the impact of the communist system due to his Polish upbringing.

Similarly, according to American layman Eric LeCompte, executive director of Jubilee USA Network, when Pope Francis goes against "vulture funds," and calls for a new economic model, it's because he has first-hand experience of the financial crisis these institutions caused in his home country, Argentina.

Hence, it's both extraordinary but not surprising, LeCompte says, that a Feb. 5 summit in the Vatican will bring together some of the world's most important players when it comes to finances, including the head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva and several Nobel laureates. Argentina's finance minister, Martin Guzman, will also be present.

[...]

What follows are excerpts of LeCompte's conversation with Crux Feb. 4.

[...]

Crux: The IMF is coming, the World Bank is coming, and they promote some issues Pope Francis has often accused them of tying to financial aid, the "price tag" or ideological colonization that he often speaks about. Do you think that it's good that he's sitting at the table with them?

LeCompte: I think that what Pope Francis is doing is continuing the high level of diplomacy that the Catholic Church has been recognized for and it's something that Pope Francis himself is really good at. His words have been some of the most striking, challenging and powerful on how the international financial system operates. And some of his major documents, even though he doesn't mention the IMF by name, he is critiquing its policies. With one hand he's critiquing and with the other, he's trying to open the can to have a conversation.

[...]

And even though there's a lot of things on which the Church and these players disagree -- population control, abortion -- there are others in which there's a common ground, like in the protection of the environment...

Right. I think that's also something we're going to see emphasized during this gathering. The impact of climate as we talk about poverty and inequality. Climate can no longer be removed from the equation of financial crisis, debt crisis or countries not being able to raise the revenue they need to be able to take care of their own people and fight the consequences of climate change.

Why should Catholics care about this?

For Catholics, this is foundational teaching. If we really want to understand this event, it's important to start from the point of view that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. As Catholics, we know we are called to be in solidarity with one another, to be able to work for the common good as a part of Catholic teaching, and be able to participate in making the world better. This is foundational Catholic teaching.

This is not Pope Francis being a Communist?

No... If we didn't have Pope Francis, the teaching would still be the same. I don't know if we'd be having the meeting without him, but the reality is that this teaching pre-dates Pope Francis by decades.

[...]


Image
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6084
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+


Arthur Brooks, defender of capitalism, has a lot more work to do [In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Arthur Brooks, of the American Enterprise Institute, right, talks May 12, 2015, with U.S. President Barack Obama and Robert Putnam of Harvard University during the Catholic-Evangelical Leadership Summit on Overcoming Poverty at Georgetown University in Washington. (CNS/Tyler Orsburn)


Arthur Brooks [speaking at the 2020 National Prayer Breakfast, Feb 6th], like so many converts, is fervent in his faith. I make no comment on his commitment to Catholicism, the religion to which he converted as a teenager: There has been enough of calling people "bad Catholics" for one reason or another. But, his commitment to capitalism, the religion to which he converted later in life, is fair game.

Brooks' essay at America has already received a fine rebuttal from Catholic University's David Cloutier, whose recent book, The Vice of Luxury, I reviewed in two parts, here and here. Published in Commonweal, Cloutier's rebuttal focuses on many of the issues I wanted to take on. For example, Brooks says that five interrelated forces are responsible for lifting millions out of poverty: "globalization, free trade, property rights, the rule of law and the culture of entrepreneurship."

Cloutier notes that the free market advocates like some laws, those which protect property rights, but usually oppose others, such as those that regulate the market. "Catholic free market defenders like Brooks would be well-advised to spend more time articulating with precision the 'strong juridical framework which places [the market] at the service of human freedom in its totality.' If conservatives took this responsibility with seriousness, then perhaps we could get past the canard that government regulation is always and everywhere a hindrance to business and prosperity." Well said.

The issue is deeper than regulation. Brooks and other Catholic free-marketeers are correct that Catholic social doctrine posits a right to private property. But, that is not the end of the story. They tend to ignore the church's teaching on the universal destination of goods. Every person is entitled to own what they need for their sustenance, but whatever they own beyond that has a social mortgage attached. I can conceive of other civil society actors being the beneficiary of that social mortgage, but I do not see why government should not as well. It is typical of Brooks that he highlights those few principles of Catholic social doctrine that do not challenge his faith in the market, but neglects other important principles that would challenge his economic presuppositions.

[...]

... For Brooks and capitalism's other fellow travelers in the Catholic intellectual milieu, capitalism is treated as a given, its laws akin to the natural law, and, in some extreme cases, as a source of divine grace. "For many years, one of my favorite texts in Scripture has been Isaiah 53:2-3: 'He hath no form or comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; he was despised and we esteemed him not.' I would like to apply these words to the modern business corporation, a much despised incarnation of God's presence in this world," wrote Michael Novak in his essay "A Theology of the Corporation." No matter how many times I read those words, I am still shocked by them.

Brooks is far more sophisticated than Novak to be sure. But, he still misses the point. For Catholic social doctrine, the preference for solidarity over competition is a given. The preference of charity, in its fullest sense, over profit is a given. The preference of labor over capital is a given.

The capitalists like to cloak their system with all manner of virtue, and the more morally serious among them, like Brooks, recognize the importance of morality to making capitalism humane, but the morality is always extrinsic, an add-on. I read their defense of the free market and I am always reminded of James Madison defending the Constitution, noting that if men were angels there would be no need for government. If the morality is extrinsic and must be brought to the putatively neutral market, and it must be good for the system to work, then we must find a world of angels, no? And, if men were angels, then any economic system would yield just results, yes? The problem is that men are not angels, and capitalism as a system encourages behaviors that a Christian is called to shun.

[...]


Image
User avatar
SoulBiter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 9192
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
Has thanked: 74 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Post by SoulBiter »

Every person is entitled to own what they need for their sustenance, but whatever they own beyond that has a social mortgage attached. I can conceive of other civil society actors being the beneficiary of that social mortgage, but I do not see why government should not as well.
Lucky for those of us that are not Catholic nor follow its teachings that we are not obligated to follow it. The above is almost the very definition of socialism.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch Image
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

SoulBiter wrote:
Every person is entitled to own what they need for their sustenance, but whatever they own beyond that has a social mortgage attached. I can conceive of other civil society actors being the beneficiary of that social mortgage, but I do not see why government should not as well.
Lucky for those of us that are not Catholic nor follow its teachings that we are not obligated to follow it. The above is almost the very definition of socialism.
The concept of a 'social mortgage' is incoherent because it relies upon mythological intderpretations of 'goods' and 'resources.' It assumes that resources were created by a mythical being and are thus, by his intention, 'meant for all.' It imbues material reality with purposes of an unseen Creator, for whom the Pope (one of the biggest hoarders of resources on the planet) has appointed himelf as spokesperson. Even if we were to take his word for it, this ignores the factual reality of resources and their crucial dependence upon uneven effort to find, develop, and even create them. Something is not a resource until some human (or group of humans) finds a way to put it to use. It's not like resources are just lying around for anyone to pick up. If god created them for everyone, then why do they require the skill, labor, expertise, and capital investment of a tiny minority to make these resources useful, while the vast majority sit back and do nothing but consume them? What justification do we find in the facts of this world for such a childish, naive, magical, teleological view of resources. If I work harder than my neighbor, and produce more than I need to sustain myself, and I invest this surplus in something like an oil well, and produce a a resource that can drive the modern world, It is extremely convenient for someone else who has not put out all this effort or investment or taken these risks to say that a supernatural being wants him to have my stuff. This is the reasoning and justification of ignorant, backward, primitive people. Reality is not a magical fairy land where everyone gets property merely by insisting that magical beings created it and want them to have it. Resources come from people, not magical beings. Therefore, they are the property of those who produce them, not spread among those who had nothing to do with their production.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Hashi Lebwohl
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19576
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm

Post by Hashi Lebwohl »

I concur, but I will summarize it in one word: bullshit.

Until the catholic church sells all its real estate and art work they don't get to have an opinion on what other people do with what they own.

"Social mortgage" my foot. Fuck that idea.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
Locked

Return to “Coercri”