Pope Francis condemned "bloodsuckers" who grow rich by exploiting others on Thursday, saying making "slaves" out of workers and setting unfair contracts was a mortal sin.
Francis, who frequently speaks of his concern for the poor, appeared to be referring to the kind of grueling labor often done by poor migrants in rich countries across the world, but also to many other workers on precarious contracts.
During mass at the Vatican, he told a story about a girl who found a job working 11 hours a day for 650 euros ($729) a month, paid "under the table".
"This is starving the people with their work for my own profit! Living on the blood of the people. And this is a mortal sin," he said at the service in his Santa Marta residence.
"Without a pension, without health care ... then they suspend (the contract), and in July and August (the workers) have to eat air. And in September, they laugh at you about it. Those who do that are true bloodsuckers."
($1 = 0.8919 euros)
#1: ConservingFreedom To: Willie Green (#0)
That sucks - but what about people whose labor has no higher value-add than that: are they better off if working for that pay is banned, so they wind up working zero hours for zero dollars?
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-19 12:29:17 Reply Private Reply
#2: tomder55 To: Willie Green (#0)
AKA Democrats
tomder55 posted on 2016-05-19 13:04:42 Reply Private Reply
#3: Vicomte13 To: ConservingFreedom (#1)
There is an answer to it. Really there are two answers to it. And neither of them have as an answer that the person starves.
One answer is that people voluntarily re-price labor and take lower profits, so that everybody earns a living wage in a free market - that the free- market self-limits and decides that no extended work is worth less than a living wage.
The other answer, the one that we have adopted as a civilization, is that people will not voluntarily re-price labor, take a cut to profit, and re- value labor at a living wage. And since we will not do it voluntarily, sufficient wealth must be redistributed by force, through government, to provide the means for living of the poorest.
Human nature being what it is, the second solution is probably the only one that is viable.
Trying to stand on the principle that paying a living wage will be voluntarily, and that if those with the means decide not to do so, there won't be forced redistribution either - essentially, "Let them eat cake", is not viable. The people who insist on that are evil, and the bulk of the population are simply not that evil and won't accept it.
So, as a practical matter, we have the social welfare state and mandatory minimum wages, and we will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
A great amount of ink is shed on marginal chat boards by marginal people railing against this reality, but such people are always destined to lose. Letting the poor starve and go homeless is not a viable option. It was the way of the past, and we are not ever going to return to it.
Vicomte13 posted on 2016-05-19 13:08:10 Reply Private Reply
#4: sneakypete To: Willie Green (#0)
He is obviously talking about the Catholic Church hierarchy and nuns.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-19 14:30:15 Reply Private Reply
#5: redleghunter To: Willie Green (#0)
redleghunter posted on 2016-05-19 14:58:46 Reply Private Reply
#6: Willie Green To: redleghunter (#5)
And Trump is a blowhard conartist who'll probably pick a mealy worm like Reince Priebus for VP... and then step aside so Reince can take over, just like Gerry Ford.
Go Bernie Go!!!
Willie Green posted on 2016-05-19 15:20:33 Reply Private Reply
#7: ConservingFreedom To: Vicomte13 (#3)
I'm not convinced that the "we" of private charity can't provide the truly poorest with what is truly the means for living - although it certainly can't match what Uncle Sucker dishes out as the means for self-indulgence to many people who live better than 90%++ of the world's population (or, for that matter, of Americans not so long ago).
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-19 15:22:33 Reply Private Reply
#8: ConservingFreedom To: Willie Green (#6)
You got that right.
ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-05-19 15:23:49 Reply Private Reply