CDZ Minimum Wage Madness

[JoeMoma]

Raising the minimum wage is like raising the lowest rung of a ladder. If the lowest rung is raised to high, then short people will have more difficulty steping up to it. Likewise, if the minimum wage is raised too high, those with lesser skills and abilities will no longer be able to get that first job to increase their skill sets and advance to higher paying jobs.

 

[oldsoul]

Since the destruction of the unions and the governments wellness to enforce the anti-trust laws the super rich have taken nearly all the add profit. The workers are working hard and productivity is at record levels but aren't getting any of the benefits as the rich at the top are taking it all.

Yet, you call raising the minimum wage madness? You must be rich as hell to say that.

Tell me, why is it the government's job to ensure that I have a certain standard of living? Is that not MY resposibility? To shift that to the government is to say "I am incapable of fending for myself, so someone else must do it for me."

 

[oldsoul]

Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

Get real. While a lot of people, maybe most, live in a metro area, many do not. If you are not able to live the lifestyle you want in the place you live, move. I did, it was not easy, it was not cheap, but I did it because that is what I had to do to live like I want to.

"Move" is a great idea/suggestion until you realize than unless you, oldsoul, give that family of four the money to move, they have no way to move because they can't afford it.

I found a way to make it happen, they can too.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Since the destruction of the unions and the governments wellness to enforce the anti-trust laws the super rich have taken nearly all the add profit. The workers are working hard and productivity is at record levels but aren't getting any of the benefits as the rich at the top are taking it all.

Yet, you call raising the minimum wage madness? You must be rich as hell to say that.

Tell me, why is it the government's job to ensure that I have a certain standard of living? Is that not MY resposibility? To shift that to the government is to say "I am incapable of fending for myself, so someone else must do it for me."

We all live in civilization right? We elect a government to do things like regulate our food, water, air and make sure our rights are protected.. They're all jobs of the government.

Corporations/businesses have a long history of destruction of workers rights, pollution and taking all of the pie. Tell me why the government shouldn't protect the workers and regulate? What's the point of government if it is going to allow a few to control everything? Why elect one.

 

[oldsoul]

What a laugh you are! Did anyone hold a gun to these peoples heads to accept the wages these fast food places can sustain?

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

You and I just discussed the degree to which our society is poorly informed. Do you think that lower income folks, particularly those below or near poverty, are any better informed than are the ignorant folks who aren't struggling day by day? The dichotomy between your remarks there and here astounds me. How can we have a society of poorly informed folks and not have that affliction apply to low income or impoverished folks too? Wouldn't they be just as susceptible, perhaps more so, as society's typical middle class ignoramus?

Of course, there are reasons why some, perhaps many, poor folks cannot reliably and consistently make sound or high quality decisions. To your point immediately above, however, outright stupidity isn't necessarily one of those reasons.

Of course they are not, but that is not my fault, nor is it my problem. It is the responsibility of each of us to me well informed. If someone chooses to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world, let them reap the rewards of their laziness.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a laugh you are! Did anyone hold a gun to these peoples heads to accept the wages these fast food places can sustain?

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

Say what? Low wages increase the welfare bill?

Wonder what would happen to the welfare bill if the low wage jobs disappear ?

The UK has just cottoned on to this.

This is how it works.

People on low pay can get other benefits to enable them to feed their kids and keep a roof over their head. Our incredibly thick govt has just realised that the tax payer is basically subsidising greedy businesses. So they have started to raise the minimum wage. As the minimum wage rises the welfare cost goes down.

And this after being totally opposed to the introduction of the minimum wage.

Business owners are always keen on government handouts to swell their profits.

I think I can summarise your argument as these jobs would disappear if the minimum wage was raised. This has not been the case in the UK.

Hope this explains my point.

There was a study done on this and you are wrong ( just do a simple Google search to find it)I also posted a link on it in one of USMB many threads on MW)common sense says the threshold for welfare would have to go up if the minimum wage was raised nationally because they are still poor.

Also just look at the history of raising the MW in this country , just recently as In 2007 the welfare doesn't go down.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you want America to be like Africa or western Europe? The difference is government.

 

[oldsoul]

I find it quite interesting that Libs and Progressives always want to blame big corporations, and yet they still shop at Walmart, Target, Saks, ect., as well as drive nice new cars from Ford, Chevy, Audi, BMW, ect., and fly around on commercial aircraft, operated by Southwest, Delta, ect., made by Boeing, Airbus, ect. All BIG CORPORATIONS. If big corporations are the problem, why simply demonize them? Why not stop giving them your money? Buy used vehicles, shop local small business, drive to your destinations, ect. Put your money where your mouth is.
And I answer, because they don't want to accually fix the problems, they only want to complain about them to gain more power and influence for themselves.
True conservatives, on the other hand, recognise that there is a divide between the "haves" and "have nots", and attempt to make it more attainable for the "have nots" to become a "have". This, of course, requires a person to take responsibility for themselves, and not expect someone else to hand them something.
What a horrible concept, expecting someone to work for what they want.

 

[320 Years of History]

Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

Get real. While a lot of people, maybe most, live in a metro area, many do not. If you are not able to live the lifestyle you want in the place you live, move. I did, it was not easy, it was not cheap, but I did it because that is what I had to do to live like I want to.

"Move" is a great idea/suggestion until you realize than unless you, oldsoul, give that family of four the money to move, they have no way to move because they can't afford it.

I found a way to make it happen, they can too.

You apparently have a great plan for how to make it happen. Do share, please.

 

[320 Years of History]

Its possible that these people might struggle to get other jobs. They still need to be protected from those who would exploit them. Its a huge issue in the UK and a ticking bomb.

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

You and I just discussed the degree to which our society is poorly informed. Do you think that lower income folks, particularly those below or near poverty, are any better informed than are the ignorant folks who aren't struggling day by day? The dichotomy between your remarks there and here astounds me. How can we have a society of poorly informed folks and not have that affliction apply to low income or impoverished folks too? Wouldn't they be just as susceptible, perhaps more so, as society's typical middle class ignoramus?

Of course, there are reasons why some, perhaps many, poor folks cannot reliably and consistently make sound or high quality decisions. To your point immediately above, however, outright stupidity isn't necessarily one of those reasons.

Of course they are not, but that is not my fault, nor is it my problem. It is the responsibility of each of us to me well informed. If someone chooses to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world, let them reap the rewards of their laziness.

What then is the causal factor(s) that explains why both a non low income person and a low income person, both of whom "choose to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world," one of them should and does reap some degree of reward and the other shouldn't and does not? The only thing that makes any sense to explain that other than just dumb (literally) luck.

You and I both know there are plenty of folks above the poverty level who clearly do nothing like picking up a book and so on. Just look at in any thread on USMB and you'll surely find multiple folks making claims and/or intimations that are entirely unsupported by (1) the facts or (2) anything resembling rational analysis of the facts. They may have "picked up a book," but they are too stupid or ignorant to know that it's the wrong one if it's the only one they are going to bother reading.

 

[oldsoul]

Where can family of four live on $45K/year and not be impoverished? Where I live, that's exactly what they'd be, benefits or no benefits. Maybe that's not so for such a family living on the side of a mountain in Kentucky, but in any metropolitan area, it certainly will be so. Heck, anywhere in the Eastern Megalopolis, one could give that family of four $10K more and bring their household income to $55K/year and they still would live in poverty; it'd just be less poverty than at $45K/year.

Get real. While a lot of people, maybe most, live in a metro area, many do not. If you are not able to live the lifestyle you want in the place you live, move. I did, it was not easy, it was not cheap, but I did it because that is what I had to do to live like I want to.

"Move" is a great idea/suggestion until you realize than unless you, oldsoul, give that family of four the money to move, they have no way to move because they can't afford it.

I found a way to make it happen, they can too.

You apparently have a great plan for how to make it happen. Do share, please.

It's called perseverance, and willpower. Sometimes one has to do things they find distasteful to accomplish their goals. Often times one has to make sacrifices to improve ones self.

 

[oldsoul]

Frankly, I don't really give a damn if it is a huge problem in the UK. I live on the other side of the pond. What is an issue in Europe, may not be an issue here.
As for these people needing to be "protected" from "exploitation", what of the people who provide jobs? Are they not equally in need of protection from exploitation by the government, special interest lobbyists, and anti-business groups?
I have to side with those who are providing the jobs, they don't have to, they could just put the money into other investments and sit at home while someone else does the work. Instead, they choose to do something that helps the local economy, helps themselves, and provides jobs to those who may not otherwise have them. If that is exploitation, then I am fine with it.

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

You and I just discussed the degree to which our society is poorly informed. Do you think that lower income folks, particularly those below or near poverty, are any better informed than are the ignorant folks who aren't struggling day by day? The dichotomy between your remarks there and here astounds me. How can we have a society of poorly informed folks and not have that affliction apply to low income or impoverished folks too? Wouldn't they be just as susceptible, perhaps more so, as society's typical middle class ignoramus?

Of course, there are reasons why some, perhaps many, poor folks cannot reliably and consistently make sound or high quality decisions. To your point immediately above, however, outright stupidity isn't necessarily one of those reasons.

Of course they are not, but that is not my fault, nor is it my problem. It is the responsibility of each of us to me well informed. If someone chooses to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world, let them reap the rewards of their laziness.

What then is the causal factor(s) that explains why both a non low income person and a low income person, both of whom "choose to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world," one of them should and does reap some degree of reward and the other shouldn't and does not? The only thing that makes any sense to explain that other than just dumb (literally) luck.

You and I both know there are plenty of folks above the poverty level who clearly do nothing like picking up a book and so on. Just look at in any thread on USMB and you'll surely find multiple folks making claims and/or intimations that are entirely unsupported by (1) the facts or (2) anything resembling rational analysis of the facts. They may have "picked up a book," but they are too stupid or ignorant to know that it's the wrong one if it's the only one they are going to bother reading.

Choices. That is the difference. I chose not to attend a 4-year college, I have to live with that choice. I also chose to not accept the notion that I would be doomed to low-income because of that choice. Others do not make the same choices, that is their right. I, however, have the right to beleive that they have to live with those choices. We all make choices, some good, some bad, to argue that it is my "moral" or "social" responsibility to "help" those who made poor choices, is tanamount to endorsing communism, IMHO.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Apparently business is getting the message and instead of firing people they are raising wages on their own. Where is the great robot/kiosk invasion?

Across the U.S., workers at the bottom of the ladder get pay raises

 

[GaryDog]

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

You and I just discussed the degree to which our society is poorly informed. Do you think that lower income folks, particularly those below or near poverty, are any better informed than are the ignorant folks who aren't struggling day by day? The dichotomy between your remarks there and here astounds me. How can we have a society of poorly informed folks and not have that affliction apply to low income or impoverished folks too? Wouldn't they be just as susceptible, perhaps more so, as society's typical middle class ignoramus?

Of course, there are reasons why some, perhaps many, poor folks cannot reliably and consistently make sound or high quality decisions. To your point immediately above, however, outright stupidity isn't necessarily one of those reasons.

Of course they are not, but that is not my fault, nor is it my problem. It is the responsibility of each of us to me well informed. If someone chooses to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world, let them reap the rewards of their laziness.

What then is the causal factor(s) that explains why both a non low income person and a low income person, both of whom "choose to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world," one of them should and does reap some degree of reward and the other shouldn't and does not? The only thing that makes any sense to explain that other than just dumb (literally) luck.

You and I both know there are plenty of folks above the poverty level who clearly do nothing like picking up a book and so on. Just look at in any thread on USMB and you'll surely find multiple folks making claims and/or intimations that are entirely unsupported by (1) the facts or (2) anything resembling rational analysis of the facts. They may have "picked up a book," but they are too stupid or ignorant to know that it's the wrong one if it's the only one they are going to bother reading.

Choices. That is the difference. I chose not to attend a 4-year college, I have to live with that choice. I also chose to not accept the notion that I would be doomed to low-income because of that choice. Others do not make the same choices, that is their right. I, however, have the right to beleive that they have to live with those choices. We all make choices, some good, some bad, to argue that it is my "moral" or "social" responsibility to "help" those who made poor choices, is tanamount to endorsing communism, IMHO.

Any anecdotal evidence, especially your perspective of your own life, is truly worthless in a policy discussion.

 

[320 Years of History]

We need the state to protect us from the exploiters. Without state protection we would be eating grass and living in caves. Low wages increase the welfare bill and we all end up paying for that.

For those of us too dumb, uneducated and/or unwilling to protect ourselves, you are correct. For the rest of us, the government is not helping, it is rather getting in the way. You seem to be of the beleif that those people on the low end of the pay scale cannot, for whatever reason, look out for their own best interests. I beleive that they can, and if given the chance(as well as the expectation), they will.
Entry-level positions(those most likely to be at or near minimum-wage), should not be the career goal of any person. They are great for gaining experience and therefore being able to advance into better paying jobs/positions. To argue that these jobs should pay enough for a person to build a life and career around them is assinine at best.

You and I just discussed the degree to which our society is poorly informed. Do you think that lower income folks, particularly those below or near poverty, are any better informed than are the ignorant folks who aren't struggling day by day? The dichotomy between your remarks there and here astounds me. How can we have a society of poorly informed folks and not have that affliction apply to low income or impoverished folks too? Wouldn't they be just as susceptible, perhaps more so, as society's typical middle class ignoramus?

Of course, there are reasons why some, perhaps many, poor folks cannot reliably and consistently make sound or high quality decisions. To your point immediately above, however, outright stupidity isn't necessarily one of those reasons.

Of course they are not, but that is not my fault, nor is it my problem. It is the responsibility of each of us to me well informed. If someone chooses to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world, let them reap the rewards of their laziness.

What then is the causal factor(s) that explains why both a non low income person and a low income person, both of whom "choose to watch TV instead of picking up a book or otherwise increasing their understanding of the world," one of them should and does reap some degree of reward and the other shouldn't and does not? The only thing that makes any sense to explain that other than just dumb (literally) luck.

You and I both know there are plenty of folks above the poverty level who clearly do nothing like picking up a book and so on. Just look at in any thread on USMB and you'll surely find multiple folks making claims and/or intimations that are entirely unsupported by (1) the facts or (2) anything resembling rational analysis of the facts. They may have "picked up a book," but they are too stupid or ignorant to know that it's the wrong one if it's the only one they are going to bother reading.

Choices. That is the difference. I chose not to attend a 4-year college, I have to live with that choice. I also chose to not accept the notion that I would be doomed to low-income because of that choice. Others do not make the same choices, that is their right. I, however, have the right to beleive that they have to live with those choices. We all make choices, some good, some bad, to argue that it is my "moral" or "social" responsibility to "help" those who made poor choices, is tanamount to endorsing communism, IMHO.

Red:
The term beneficence connotes acts of mercy, kindness, and charity. It is suggestive of altruism, love, humanity, and promoting the good of others. In ordinary language, the notion is broad, but it is understood even more broadly in ethical theory to include effectively all forms of action intended to benefit or promote the good of other persons. The language of a principle or rule of beneficence refers to a normative statement of a moral obligation to act for the others' benefit, helping them to further their important and legitimate interests, often by preventing or removing possible harms. Many dimensions of applied ethics appear to incorporate such appeals to obligatory beneficence, even if only implicitly. For example, when apparel manufacturers are criticized for not having good labor practices in factories, the ultimate goal of the criticisms is usually to obtain better working conditions, wages, and benefits for workers.

Whereas beneficence refers to an action done to benefit others, benevolence refers to the morally valuable character trait—or virtue—of being disposed to act to benefit others. Many acts of beneficence have been understood in moral theory as obligatory, as determined by principles of beneficence that state moral obligation. However, beneficent acts also may be performed from nonobligatory, optional moral ideals, which are standards that belong to a morality of meritorious aspiration in which individuals or institutions adopt goals and practices that are not obligatory for everyone.

Exceptional beneficence is commonly categorized as supererogatory, a term meaning paying or performing beyond what is obligatory or doing more than is required. This category of extraordinary conduct usually refers to high moral ideals of action, but it has links to virtues and to Aristotelian ideals of moral excellence. Such ideals of action and moral excellence of character need not rise to the level of the moral saint or moral hero. Even moral excellence comes by degrees. Not all supererogatory acts of beneficence or benevolent dispositions are exceptionally arduous, costly, or risky. Examples of less demanding forms include anonymous gift-giving, uncompensated public service, forgiving another person's costly error, and complying with requests to provide a benefit that exceeds the obligatory requirements of ordinary morality or professional morality.

Saintly and heroic beneficence (and benevolence) are at the extreme end of a continuum of beneficent conduct and commitment. This continuum is not merely a continuum mapping the territory beyond duty. It is a continuum of beneficence itself, starting with obligatory beneficence. The continuum runs from strict obligation (grounded in the core norms of beneficence in ordinary morality) through weaker obligations (the outer periphery of ordinary expectations of persons, such as great conscientiousness in attending to a friend's welfare) and on to the domain of the morally nonrequired and exceptionally virtuous. The nonrequired starts with lower‑level acts of supererogation such as helping a stranger who is lost find a desired location in a city. An absence of this sort of beneficence constitutes a defect in the moral life, even if not a failure of obligation. The continuum ends with high-level acts of supererogation such as heroic acts of self-sacrifice to benefit others. Beneficence is best understood as spread across this continuum. However, there is considerable controversy about where obligation ends and supererogation begins on the continuum.

A celebrated example of beneficence that rests somewhere on this continuum, though it is hard to locate just where, is the New Testament parable of the Good Samaritan. In this parable, robbers have beaten and left half-dead a man traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. A Samaritan tends to his wounds and cares for him at an inn. The Samaritan's actions are beneficent and the motives benevolent. However, they do not seem—on the information given—to rise to the level of heroic or saintly conduct. The morally exceptional, beneficent person may be laudable and emulable, yet neither a moral saint nor a moral hero.

Deep disagreements have emerged in moral theory regarding how much is demanded by obligations of beneficence. Some ethical theories insist not only that there are obligations of beneficence, but that these obligations sometimes demand severe sacrifice and extreme generosity in the moral life. Some formulations of utilitarianism, for example, appear to derive obligations to give our job to a person who needs it more than we do, to give away most of our income, to devote much of our time to civic enterprises, etc. It is likely that no society has ever operated on such a demanding principle, but it does seem embraced, at least abstractly, by a number of moral philosophers—arguably even on Kant's theory of the categorical imperative (although, as already mentioned, Kant seems to deny such scope to obligatory beneficence).

By contrast, some moral philosophers have claimed that we have no general obligations of beneficence. We have only duties deriving from specific roles and assignments of duty that are not a part of ordinary morality. These philosophers hold that beneficent action is virtuous and a commendable moral ideal, but not an obligation, and thus that persons are not morally deficient if they fail to act beneficently. An instructive example is found in the moral theory of Bernard Gert, who maintains that there are no moral rules of beneficence, only moral ideals. The only obligations in the moral life, apart from duties encountered in professional roles and other specific stations of duty, are captured by moral rules that prohibit causing harm or evil. In Gert's theory, the general goal of morality is to minimize the causation of evil or harm, not to promote good. Rational persons can act impartially at all times in regard to all persons with the aim of not causing evil, he argues, but rational persons cannot impartially promote the good for all persons at all times.

Those who defend such a beneficence-negating conclusion (regarding obligation) do not hold the extreme view that there are no obligations of beneficence in contexts of role-assigned duties, such as those in professional ethics and in specific communities. They acknowledge that professional and other roles carry obligations (or duties, as Gert insists) that do not bind persons who do not occupy the relevant roles; they claim that the actions one is obligated to perform within the roles are merely moral ideals for any person not in the specific role. That is, these philosophers present beneficence not as a general obligation, but as a role-specific duty and as institutionally or culturally assigned.

In rejecting principles of obligatory beneficence, Gert draws the line at obligations of nonmaleficence. That is, he embraces rules that prohibit causing harm to other persons, even though he rejects all principles or rules that require helping other persons, which includes acting to prevent harm to them. Thus, he accepts moral rules such as “Don't kill,” “Don't cause pain or suffering to others,” “Don't incapacitate others,” “Don't deprive others of the goods of life,” and the like. His theory therefore makes nonmaleficence central to the nature and theory of moral obligation while denying that beneficence has any place in the theory of obligation.

However, the mainstream of moral philosophy has been to make both not-harming and helping to be obligations, while preserving the distinction between the two. This literature can be confusing, because some writers treat obligations of nonmaleficence as a species of obligations of beneficence, although the two notions are very different. Rules of beneficence are typically more demanding than rules of nonmaleficence, and rules of nonmaleficence are negative prohibitions of action that must be followed impartially and that provide moral reasons for legal prohibitions of certain forms of conduct. By contrast, rules of beneficence state positive requirements of action, need not always be followed impartially, and rarely, if ever, provide moral reasons that support legal punishment when agents fail to abide by the rules.

The contrast between nonmaleficence and beneficence notwithstanding, ordinary morality suggests that there are some rules of beneficence that we are obligated to follow impartially, such as those requiring that we make efforts to rescue strangers under conditions of minimal risk. Even some legal punishments for failure to rescue strangers may be justifiable. Significant controversies have arisen in both law and moral philosophy about how to formulate and defend such requirements, but one more or less classic idea has been to argue that a person P has an obligation of beneficence to help another whenever the other is at risk of significant loss of or damage to some basic interest; P's action is necessary (singly or collaboratively) to prevent this loss or damage; P's action (singly or collaboratively) is likely to prevent the loss or damage; and P's action does not present significant risks, costs, or burdens to P while the benefits that the other person can be expected to gain outweigh any burden that P is likely to incur.

 

[320 Years of History]

Apparently business is getting the message and instead of firing people they are raising wages on their own. Where is the great robot/kiosk invasion?

Across the U.S., workers at the bottom of the ladder get pay raises

??? Say what? Can you clarify that remark, please?

Thematic and strategic drivers for the pay increases, as given/implied in your linked article:

• "While higher wages typically increase a company’s costs, they can make it easier for companies to attract quality recruits and stem turnover."
• The raises coincide with a decline in available workers for what are often less desirable jobs. The jobless rate has held at or below 5% this year, and the number of available workers per job opening is hovering near a 15-year low.

Given that, what would be the point, in an increasingly favorable to sellers of labor market (decreasing labor supply), of firing workers "instead of" giving them raises, given also that the employer wants better quality workers? I don't see the "instead of" point to your remark in light of the "playing field" described in the article.

 

[Holos]

Don't they understand this will require yet another hidden tax on consumers?.

They are not stupid, but they consistently deny the reality of cause and effect until after their schemes have been implemented. Only then do they accept the consequences as if they had been inevitable from the beginning.

Do they find the real world so abhorrent that they must live in an alternate reality of wishful thinking?

What people are you referring to exactly? The people working for the minimum wage? The people implementing the minimum wage? The people enforcing the minimum wage?

Who are "they" in this case, so we can have the appropriate reason for a debate?

 

[MizMolly]

Minimum wage jobs should be for teenagers, part time workers, or retired people looking for a few extra bucks. It is not meant to be a job for the breadwinner of the family. If you want better pay, better your education and obtain the skills needed to make more money. People without any skills should not expect to make the same as someone who furthered their education and obtained skills.

 

[oldsoul]

Minimum wage jobs should be for teenagers, part time workers, or retired people looking for a few extra bucks. It is not meant to be a job for the breadwinner of the family. If you want better pay, better your education and obtain the skills needed to make more money. People without any skills should not expect to make the same as someone who furthered their education and obtained skills.

Well said.