Originally posted by FMF
What happens if they are working 70 hours a week for you and what you pay them only meets 70% of their requirements in terms of clean water, nutrition and shelter?

Kelly, does this scenario have any ramifications for you as a Christian?

Originally posted by FMF
Kelly, does this scenario have any ramifications for you as a Christian?

If I hire you to work for the agree upon wage, and you agree than
that is the wage you agree to work for. If you need a 2nd or 3rd
job to make ends meet that is what you need. Unless you want to tell
me that those who hire you now owe you more so you can make ends
meet, we will disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by FMF
You have just agreed that "poverty can be a coercive 'market force'". We don't need to discuss guns.

You are attempting to force someone into something they either cannot
do, or don't want to. I'm telling you that if there is a job that pays X
and you want it, and agree to take it, than X is the wage. It does not
matter one wit if it is a lot of money or little.
Kelly

Originally posted by FMF
Coming up with a scenario where there is less of a problem hardly addresses the scenario I have asked you to look at.

I didn't see a problem!
There are a lot of people who are not making ends meet on 1 job, I was
one of them at one time in my life. I hope to never go back there, but if I
ever have to I will work more than 1 job.

It cuts both ways, if I can make more else where I'm going else where.
If those who need to get the job done for less need to else where, they will go else where.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I hire you to work for the agree upon wage, and you agree than
that is the wage you agree to work for.

As a Christian entrepreneur, would you be happy to allow the coercive force of poverty (something you concede exists) minimize your wage costs even if you know you are paying infrahuman wages?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are attempting to force someone into something they either cannot
do, or don't want to. I'm telling you that if there is a job that pays X
and you want it, and agree to take it, than X is the wage. It does not
matter one wit if it is a lot of money or little.

Is paying as little as mathematically possible ~ even if full time work for you does not lift your employees out of abject poverty ~ your stance as an advocate of free market forces, your stance as a Christian, or your stance as both ~ a 'Christian employer'?

Originally posted by FMF
Kelly, does this scenario have any ramifications for you as a Christian?

If I have a job and I can pay X, than I can pay X. It is as simple as
that. I don't pay Y because of what is going on with those who work for
me, if the job can only handle X than X it is. That said, nothing changes
if the company makes more and can afford to give more in wages, unless
that is the desire of those in charge, it will not happen. If you force it,
you brought the gun back into the discussion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't see a problem!

You don't see any problems being caused by abject poverty allowing wages to be set at infrahuman levels?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you force it, you brought the gun back into the discussion.

The gun would be a coercive factor. Are you now backtracking on your agreement that abject poverty is a coercive factor too?

Originally posted by FMF
Is paying as little as mathematically possible ~ even if full time work for you does not lift your employees out of abject poverty ~ your stance as an advocate of free market forces, your stance as a Christian, or your stance as both ~ a 'Christian employer'?

Paying as little as possible makes the item your selling or the service
you are rendering cost less. Abject poverty has nothing to do with the
bottom line. If you cannot make a living at your job, get a better one, if
you don't have the skill sets, go get them. If you want to FORCE
someone into giving you more, go get a gun.

I'm not pushing for anyone to living in poverty! It is still an agreement
among free people we are talking about!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I have a job and I can pay X, than I can pay X. It is as simple as
that. I don't pay Y because of what is going on with those who work for
me, if the job can only handle X than X it is.

Yes, but what if they are working full time and X (which is a super low figure because of the poverty in the area) only meets 70% of their needs ~ say clean water, nutrition and shelter ~ and Y would cover it? As a Christian,you would pay X rather than Y?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Paying as little as possible makes the item your selling or the service
you are rendering cost less. Abject poverty has nothing to do with the
bottom line.

Don't the-lowest-wages-possible affect the "bottom line"? What if the wages level results from the coercive nature of poverty?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to FORCE someone into giving you more, go get a gun.

Why would a Christian have to be forced at gunpoint to pay more than infrahuman wages?

Originally posted by FMF
Would this constitute "justice" in your view?

And that is just it, isn't it FMF?

What accounts justice in your view? This is what was contemplated by men such as Karl Marx. Marxism is nothing but a religion unto itself. It is a religion that preaches that truth is relative, so whatever seems right to us at this time is right, and this sense of right and wrong "evolves" so that the goal posts are forever changing. In this relative truth world right and wrong is decided by a few master planners. They alone decide what we should have or not have and correlate this to their perceived sense of justice. We here such catch phrases as "social justice" or "collective salvation" now all the time. It is a fanaticism that preaches that the only way to "save" any give society is to make it just and the only way to make it just it to make it equal.

Of course, the only way to make an unequal society equal is to continually tinker with it because it never is "equal" and never will be "equal", whatever "equal" means. In short, this type of thinking leads to abject tyranny every time, because this nonstop tinkering demands that they meddle in every aspect of our lives as they decide what is right and wrong with how we are living our lives. To do this, this means that the power of the master planners must be absolute and unchallengeable.

The materialistic religion about which I speak views human free will as the enemy. Men are naturally greedy and selfish, so the state must march in and punish them or rob from them what was "robbed" from others. This is why Marxists are so opposed to a "free market". They purport to love freedom EXCEPT when it comes to other peoples money. The trouble is, most people spend the vast majority of their time trying to make a living, so in essence, this lack of economic freedom ends up saturating pretty much every aspect of our lives.

Whether or not one is religious or not, I think everyone concedes what is "wrong" with the world is related to our individual freedoms. The only difference being that there is disagreement as to what is "evil" and "good" and what should be done to correct those "evil" deeds.

In the end, what will be needed is a God like figure to come down and deal out justice because man has proven time and again to be incapable of it. The interesting thing here is, God gave us this free will. It is interesting to me that it is man who seeks to take it, not God. Looking at history, various collectivist ideologies have enslaved and murdered the vast majority of people who have ever walked the earth.

One thing pretty much everyone can agree upon is that greed is a "sin". How then do we deal with it? Do we force men to not be greedy, or do we compel them not to be? It is an important question because the solution involves either bondage or freedom. Christ came to make us free, not slaves. He wishes that men be compelled to do the right thing.

Originally posted by whodey

And that is just it, isn't it FMF?

What accounts justice in your view? This is what was contemplated by men such as Karl Marx. Marxism is nothing but a religion unto itself. It is a religion that preaches that truth is relative, so whatever seems right to us at this time is right, and this sense of right and wrong "evolves" so that the goal posts are forever changing. In this relative truth world right and wrong is decided by a few master planners. They alone decide what we should have or not have and correlate this to their perceived sense of justice. We here such catch phrases as "social justice" or "collective salvation" now all the time. It is a fanaticism that preaches that the only way to "save" any give society is to make it just and the only way to make it just it to make it equal.

Of course, the only way to make an unequal society equal is to continually tinker with it because it never is "equal" and never will be "equal", whatever "equal" means. In short, this type of thinking leads to abject tyranny every time, because this nonstop tinkering demands that they meddle in every aspect of our lives as they decide what is right and wrong with how we are living our lives.

The materialistic religion about which I speak views human free will as the enemy. Men are naturally greedy and selfish, so the state must march in and punish them or rob from them what was "robbed" from others. This is why Marxists are so opposed to a "free market". They purport to love freedom EXCEPT when it comes to other peoples money. The trouble is, most people spend the vast majority of their time trying to make a living, so in essence, this lack of economic freedom ends up saturating pretty much every aspect of our lives.

Whether or not one is religious or not, I think everyone concedes what is "wrong" with the world is related to our individual freedoms. The only difference being that there is disagreement as to what is "evil" and "good" and what should be done to correct those "evil" deeds.

In the end, what will be needed is a God like figure to come down and deal out justice because man has proven time and again to be incapable of it. The interesting thing here is, God gave us this free will. It is interesting to me that it is man who seeks to take it, not God. Looking at history, various collectivist ideologies have enslaved and murdered the vast majority of people who have ever walked the earth.

I disagree with RBHILL's suggestion. It would not be "justice" in my view.