Originally posted by FMFJesus once watched people giving tithes and said a curious thing. He watched a widow cast in two mites, which amounted to only a couple of pennies back then. He then looked at his disciples and said that she had given more than the other rich folk who were throwing in a 100 times more than she because she gave out of her poverty.
As a follower of Jesus what are your thoughts on the 'free market', the 'coercive nature of poverty', and 'infrahuman wages'?
Jesus is only concerned with the condition of our hearts, not our bank accounts. Conversely, the world only looks at our bank accounts.
This whole issue of income inequality can be correlated to Donald Sterling and his racial comments. What are we to do with a bigot? Here in the US, he was publically shamed and forced to give up his basketball team. So how did this change Donald? Did he miraculously become a nonbigot over night? Did bigots who saw the tar and feathering recant and change their bigoted ways? More than likely not. Their hearts remain the same, only they suppress what is in their hearts in fear of retribution.
Jesus did not come to suppress the sinner, but to liberate him and change his heart. This is something no piece of legislation can do.
Originally posted by whodeyI created this thread to discuss spiritual-philosophical-religious stances on the problem of income inequality, not to discuss solutions.
So where is the maginot line? Where do you draw your "red line" in the sand when it comes to income inequality? You obviously have one or would not have created this thread.
Originally posted by FMFI don't think you even want to discuss that, it seems to me that you are
I created this thread to discuss spiritual-philosophical-religious stances on the problem of income inequality, not to discuss solutions.
more interested in bashing people who give others jobs, if the pay is low,
but there are those willing to work it nonetheless.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeyJesus once watched people giving tithes and said a curious thing. He watched a widow cast in two mites, which amounted to only a couple of pennies back then. He then looked at his disciples and said that she had given more than the other rich folk who were throwing in a 100 times more than she because she gave out of her poverty.
Jesus is only concerned with the condition of our hearts, not our bank accounts. Conversely, the world only looks at our bank accounts.
This whole issue of income inequality can be correlated to Donald Sterling and his racial comments. What are we to do with a bigot? Here in the US, he was publically shamed and forced to give up his basketball team. So how did this change Donald? Did he miraculously become a nonbigot over night? Did bigots who saw the tar and feathering recant and change their bigoted ways? More than likely not. Their hearts remain the same, only they suppress what is in their hearts in fear of retribution.
Jesus did not come to suppress the sinner, but to liberate him and change his heart. This is something no piece of legislation can do.
This thread is not about 'the politics of solutions'. I am interested in the spiritual dimension and perhaps also the Christian ethics of the employer-employee relationship.
Originally posted by FMFHas anyone other than myself, actually attempted to answer the question in the OP? The way I understood it, you were asking whether our views on income inequality were in any way related to our views on spirituality. Am I correct? Instead the discussion seems to be mostly about what peoples views on income inequality are, and nothing more.
I created this thread to discuss spiritual-philosophical-religious stances on the problem of income inequality, not to discuss solutions.
What about you FMF, to what extend do you think your views on income inequality are related to your views on spirituality?
Originally posted by FMFWhat you said is not an answer! Water, shelter, nutrition, are not standards
Well if someone worked full time (assuming no time for other jobs) for you, should their pay cover the nutrition, clean water and shelter they need to live? I am asking you as a Christian employer.
that are shared world wide, and even here you can spend more than a little
bit of money on each of those. Some water costs more than other, some
homes cost more than others, some foods cost more than others! So what
do you mean by full time, that 32 hours a week, 40, 12? Come on give
me something to work with here!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe standards where your employees live, obviously.
What you said is not an answer! Water, shelter, nutrition, are not standards
that are shared world wide, and even here you can spend more than a little
bit of money on each of those. Some water costs more than other, some
homes cost more than others, some foods cost more than others! So what
do you mean by full time, that 32 hours a week, 40, 12? Come on give
me something to work with here!
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy "spiritual" views pertain to the human spirit and the ways we interact with other positively or negatively, physically, but also abstractly ~ so what I see as my "spiritual" views [which have nothing to do with the supernatural] therefore encompass my sense of morality too. I try not to harm others; I try not to deceive others; I try not to coerce others. So in the scenarios I offered, I would not exploit the circumstances by paying infrahuman wages. I have no difficulty stating this from my own moral ~ and what I see as my "spiritual" ~ viewpoint. Furthermore, I actually do employ people and I apply my philosophy to my dealings with them.
What about you FMF, to what extend do you think your views on income inequality are related to your views on spirituality?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFWell, standards in the US are different than other places. If the place
The standards where your employees live, obviously.
that has to hire people can pay X to get work done and stay in business,
than why would you force them to close down if there are people who are
willing to work for X?
The living wage has nothing to with how much money a company can
spend, it only has to do with what people want to earn. So those that
demand certain levels of income are not taking into account what people
can pay.
So my question for you is if I can hire paying x and there are those that
want to work for x. Would it be wrong to pay x as a starting job for those
that have no experience to draw upon, or should I just not hire anyone to
do that job for x? Which is better?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI would pay more than x for job y if job y was full time and x was an infrahuman wage, and if the employee felt coerced into accepting x because of poverty. If I could not raise my product price to improve upon x, then I would consider myself a failure and try a different business. I would say providing employees with a living wage for full time work is a minimal obligation for an employer.
So my question for you is if I can hire paying x and there are those that
want to work for x. Would it be wrong to pay x as a starting job for those
that have no experience to draw upon, or should I just not hire anyone to
do that job for x? Which is better?
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat does your thing about "if there is a wage I can pay and want to" relate to the absolute minimum wage that you can get away with paying, on account of the downward pressure applied by abject poverty and its coercive effect?
Does not matter where we are, if there is a wage I can pay and want to,
and others would take the job, because they want to! Would say no keep
the doors closed, because I don't like that low wage?