17 Apr 16
Originally posted by yoctobyteBut the question is about the influence of an employer's Christianity on their treatment of their employees. If I wanted to address the question to non-Christian employers I would probably not do so on this Spirituality Forum.
If so I would ask that question not only of Christuan employers but all, I think the over all response of a Christian employer might be the same of a non-Christian employer. [...] Just because a Christian employer has workers does not mean they are now charged with their care, they are hired for a specific purpose just as any other employer.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by Rajk999When I occasionally pose questions here to Christians about the practical application of their Christian principles to ordinary everyday mundane things ~ aside from you ~ it is often met with prevarication, and I get the sense that I am seen as having asked a slightly mystifying or audacious question.
In any case, the Christian has an obligation to follow the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles ie brotherly love, charity and good works. .. makes no difference whether he is a fortune 500 listed businessman or a school teacher. The more of this worlds goods that you are given, the more you will be required to demonstrate these Christian principles.
Originally posted by yoctobytehttp://www.economist.com/news/business/21646742-old-debate-about-what-companies-are-has-been-revived-business-business
An accounting professor one told me, a business is in business for no other reason than to make money.
IN 2000 two American law professors, Henry Hansmann of Yale University and Reinier Kraakman of Harvard, pronounced that the most hotly-contested debate in corporate law had been resolved. For decades conservatives and progressives had argued over whether the purpose of a company is to maximise shareholder value or pursue broader social ends. Now, the conservatives had won. Anglo-Saxon capitalism was sweeping all before it. And the world’s legal systems were converging on the shareholder-value model. The duo could hardly have been more unlucky in their timing. Not long after their article was published, several companies that proudly practised shareholder-value maximisation went up in flames: Enron, Arthur Andersen and WorldCom, among others. Six years later the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a global crisis.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by yoctobyteSmall businesses primarily exist to provide employment for self and/or family associates.
How so? He was speaking from an American prospective I am sure.
edit: Why are businesses in business where you reside? Some other reason?
If they grow they may decide to employ people with the aim of making money.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by yoctobyteConsider the words "infra-red" or "ultra-violet". Infra-red is "below red" on the color spectrum and ultra-violet is "above violet". From this, one can deduce that what he means by "infra-human" wages is "below-human" wages.
I personally have never heard of "infra-human" wages. My assumption is that you are referring to a sort of subsidy maybe? forced on a 'Christian' employer to make up the difference set by an authority like the government, state or community? (Of what it costs to live). Am I right?
If so I would ask that question not only of Christuan employers but al ...[text shortened]... . If you are in a union, raises are generally automatic every year regardless of anything else.
In the parable, a denarius is the usual daily wage. By "infra-human wage", what he means is even less than this. Corporations do this because they feel under pressure to increase their bottom line in order to satisfy shareholders over and above their own workers. No, employers are not charged with their employees care, but corporations should at least provide their workers with a living wage, so that they do not need "subsidies". The main reason subsidies exist is because a lot of corporations pay their entry workers an "infra-human" wage and expect government to provide a safety net. This actually subsidizes the corporations because they can now get away with paying these "infra-human" wages. Hopefully, we can get down to paying workers a "living wage" once again after the minimum wage gets raised to where it should be, and indeed, where it should have been had companies taken care to provide their employees a "human wage", AKA a "living wage" so that fewer employees need "subsidies". Surely, even you, with your rant against subsidies, can see that this is a satisfactory solution.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtBUT, we (Americans, anyway) are all part of "We the People".
That a country has a representative democracy does not mean that everyone is part of the government, it just means they are able to select it. I am not part of the government and KellyJay is (I assume) not part of the US government.
A. Lincoln called our government "of the people, by the people, for the people". And in this way, we ARE all a part of "government".
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by FMFIn my opinion, a Christian employer should indeed have his workers interests in mind, even in his business decisions. I have known many Christian employers who, indeed, treat their employees "like family" and they pay their employees well above the "minimum wage".
But the question is about the influence of an employer's Christianity on their treatment of their employees. If I wanted to address the question to non-Christian employers I would probably not do so on this Spirituality Forum.
18 Apr 16
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, we are finally seeing a backlash from the United States adopting Capitalism, or more precisely, Free Enterprise, as the state-sponsored "religion". Perhaps we're finally on-track to abolish "Reagan-capitalism" and finally begin our recovery as a nation which actually values its citizens, and not only those with high incomes.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21646742-old-debate-about-what-companies-are-has-been-revived-business-business
IN 2000 two American law professors, Henry Hansmann of Yale University and Reinier Kraakman of Harvard, pronounced that the most hotly-contested debate in corporate law had been resolved. For decades conservatives and progressiv ...[text shortened]... om, among others. Six years later the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a global crisis.