[CS-FSLUG] PD: Re: Christians taking action...

[Stephen J. McCracken]

> In other words. Let's say that most people "need" a wage of at least
>  $7.00/hr plus benefits. If the state provided no health coverage and
>  hospitals turned away those who had no coverage, people would not 
> work for less than the combined total of $7.00/hr plus benefits 
> (let's say that totals $10/hr.). Now, if the state provides benefits
>  for people below the poverty line, then people will work for $3 or
>  more under what they would work for in a free market. So, while a 
> store that treats its employees very well and provides a complete 
> compensation package might pay $10/hr., Wal-Mart can pay $7/hr. and
>  get approximately the same quality of help.

This is a simplistic view of the system.  One which most fighting for a
"living wage" espouse.  But things are much more complex than that.
What about the teenagers that want a little income, but are covered
under the family benefit plan?  What about the retirees who are mostly
covered by their retirement plans, but want something to do or a little
extra income?  These people will easily work for under the "living wage"
(which in your example is $10/hr) because they don't need the benefits.

The other part that I don't agree with is your statement that "people
would not work for less than the combined total of $7.00/hr plus
benefits (let's say that totals $10/hr.)"  People make these choices all
the time.  Let's say there was a hard cutoff that one needed the $10/hr
(including benefits) to have what they needed.  I don't agree that no
one would accept any job for less.  If it was a choice between not
having a job and getting something for even $5/hr without benefits, many
would work the $5/hr in order to put food on the table (assuming no
welfare in your example).  They wouldn't have health coverage, but at
least they could eat.  Many would work more than one job or both mom &
dad would work.  If you want examples, look south toward Latin America
or at most any developing nation or even at the illegal immigrants in
this country.

I'm not saying that it is good, but just that things are more
complicated than as presented.

As doc said:

> What we know about the reality of socialism in the fallen world is
> that it is not Biblical, it enslaves the lazy to dependency and the
> productive to the support of the lazy.
> 
> <Insert company name here> is a secular company in a secular country
> in a secular world and functions according to secular standards.

We live in a fallen world.  Most people (and maybe even many Christians)
will exploit others if they can get away with it.  In the context of
this discussion, it will be excused as business practice to stay
competitive.  In some places companies may "need" to do this to survive
as, with increasing globalization, there are no level playing fields
anymore.  It is similar to the classic Prisoner's Dilemma.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

sjm