by william e. kelly
do neighbors, friends, taxpayers and government have a responsibility for the “innocent needy” and the under or unemployed? These are questions of morality and compassion that have no clear, univer- sal, one-size-fits-all answers. While these and other questions are the subjects of countless debates, we cannot ignore the realities of the human condition and those in need. Human greed can be found in the richest and poorest among us, but as a civilization based on common and basic needs, there must be realistic compromise as to who is responsible, as well as when and how those responsibilities are met. A living wage and what responsibilities any society
IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE… OR IS IT? July’s “Think About It” was inspired by the
March 1, 2014 article in the Boston Globe titled: “At Walmart, higher wages lift all carts” by Renée Loth. A link to that article appears at the close of the thoughts that follow. The necessities of 21st century life in America can
be reduced to the basic requirements of shelter, clothing, food, healthcare, a means of communica- tion and transportation, as well as a sense of com- munity and well-being. At the root of meeting those needs, nearly every willing and able person seeks the opportunity to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Yet, some can and some cannot or simply won’t and separating those that can from those who can’t or won’t is a complex matter. With so many shades of gray, conditions are seldom simply a mat-
PROVIDING LIVING WAGE JOBS:
ter of who is worthy of assistance from the society in which they live and who is not. Even with a defined criterion to identify one group from the other, what do we do with those who can, but won’t, versus those who can’t, but are willing? What about their innocent offspring? Do their employers bear responsibility for paying wages and benefits that enable labor to afford basic 21st century needs? Are employers responsible for helping the workforce they rely upon to make their businesses profitable... responsible for providing them a living wage? Questions with few set answers, because the variables that create favor- able or unfavorable circumstances are not constants. Traditionally, basic necessities are the responsi-
bility of individuals and their immediate families. Absent family support and/or gainful employment,
has to fill gaps for those trapped in a cycle of poverty, or in the class of the working poor, should be less of an issue than it has become in our free market, capitalist economy. Providing living wage jobs is not rocket sci- ence. Is it? Increase the product and service demand (i.e. sales volume) and both profit as well as demand for new labor rise. Give people the means to earn a living wage and they will spend those wages filling their needs. Increased demand increases output and in turn creates jobs and higher profits for business owners and investors, as well as tax revenues for governments that fill social and economic gaps in our system, that can’t be filled any other way. The “fly in the ointment” of constructive and sustainable capitalism is greed, both on the part of employers and employees. Profitable businesses, owners and stockholders can make up in volume and productivity much of what might be lost to increased wages and benefit packages. The determining factor in a sustainable free-market economy is just how much profit employers need as compensation for their work and investment and how much of the prof- it they need to set aside for research, maintenance and expansion. Obviously, what is left is divided between the investors and owners who provide the jobs and the wages and benefits to sustain those who provide the products and services that are sold. Maintaining a sustainable economy and a balance
between productive labor pools, a healthy market and a reasonable return on investment is not rocket science. Or is it?
Think About It!
To read the Boston Globe article referred to by Renée Loth, enter “At Walmart, higher wages lift all carts” in the search window at
bostonglobe.com.
“Absent family support and/or gainful employment, do neighbors, friends, taxpayers and government have responsibility for the “innocent needy” and the under or unemployed? “
88 RAGE monthly | JULY 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96