I appreciate your compassion for those in need, and your desire to see society as a whole provide just compensation.

I find that in our denomination, and in conservitive circles in general, that often when I do hear of the poor (not as often as it ought to be), I am as likely to hear stereo-types and cliches thrown around as I am to hear thoughtful and insightful discussions.

Respectfully, I would suggest several ideas for consideration:

From a Constitutional stand point, some consider minimum wage standards set at the Federal level questionable because such folks view the overgenerous interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that it is based upon as an inaccurate interpretation. On the other hand, some local and state governments have been dealing with this more expediently than the Federal government. This also allows for the consideration of what a "living wage" is given the particular economic environment. For example, an area in boom might need a different response from one in depression. Likewise the cost to live in LA is much differernt than a remote area of Michigan.

Even more germane, I would suggest that from an economic stand point, some find a credible argument that the law of unintended consequence would result in fewer job opportunities for the demographic you view the minimum wage helping.

It depends on whether an employer is willing/forced to hire from that demographic, (and in particular those individuals), and whether there is sufficient profit to absorb the increased cost, or the ability in the market for the cost to be passed to the consumer.

Should the necessary surplus of operating revenue not be available or potentially available, then there must be an alternate solution to trim costs of production.

This may mean reducing costs of raw materials (which places the supplier of raw materials in the position of reducing profit or reducing costs of production, which means we now are in a cascading affect). Or it may mean cheapening the quality of the product. A cheapened product might lead to more units sold (a positive), or it might lead to loss of market share.

Given that most businesses desire some ROI, and that the risk of loss of market share endagers an employer's viability, and given that wages and salaries are often a significant portion of the cost of production in the US, it is quite possible that the increase in minimum wage may result in layoffs. Whether through a reduced work force and increased productivity, or through outsourcing of those jobs, the result is fewer jobs available. The potential result is a larger supply in the job force, which may mean that the least qualified/unqualified, freshly unemployed, will have even fewer opportunties for re-employment.

May I also suggest you read information on why the unions in South Africa supported increased minimum wages as a way to keep blacks un/under-employed and to secure work for their union members? Again, what can seem "just" may have the unintended consequence of being unjust.

Lastly I also suggest that while minimum wage might be an attractive concept in some aspects, no matter how low or how high the minimun wage might be, those who are viewed as "unemployable" will remain unemployed.

It is a complex issue. I only offer these examples to suggest that there are alternative understandings that provide a legitimate basis for some folks to disagree with what is commonly marketed as "social justice" initiatives while remaining truly compassionate towards the poor and committed to a just society.

Since I believe that your advocation for the minimum wage isn't for that method in and of itself, but for helping the poor and providing just compensation, I thought you wouldn't mind questioning whether your goal is actually achieved. :)

Mike

Mike, here's my basic concern. A lot of economic theory is based on past experience. For example, many people use Cowperthwaite's success in reducing poverty in Hong Kong by limiting government as validation for limiting government today. The problem with that thinking is that it often doesn't account for the current economic climate. What worked in the past doesn't always work today and new approaches need to be looked at. Very complex indeed.

And of course there is always the tendency to exaggerate the facts to suit a particular theory. Kind of like how some people can confuse a comment with a thesis. :-)

Tom

LOL - Fair enough - my comment does look "lengthy" once posted :P

I'll get to work now on volume 2. :D

One of my wishes is that there was a forum where we could better gather to reason together on such issues. Perhaps few would care to, but I think we are weaker as a denomination that we do not "think" deeply together now and again.

I totally agree that past success doesn't mean the method will be successful in the current climate.

My point wasn't advocation of a particular method or economic theory. Instead, primarily I was questioning whether any method (using the minimum wage as an example) necessarily provides the intended outcome. I think good intentions can have negative side effects.

A tangent point was a reminder that you might have compassion for the poor and still oppose minimum wage proposals if you genuniley believe the cascading affect hurts rather than helps.

Sometimes I fear our society has become so simplified that if you are "liberal" you are automatically pro-choice, pro-min. wage, pro-poor, pro justice, etc., and that every "method" proposed by the neo-liberal political parties are the only ways to address such issues. Conversley those labeled as "right-wing" don't care for the poor, for justice, etc, and their methods must be meant to help the rich.

I believe that there is much greater complexity, and neither the "left" nor the "right" have consistently helped the poor effectively in the last 45 years.

Okay. Now to volume 3 of my thesis ;P

Mike

Mike -- I'm aware of the arguments you raised concerning the minimum wage, and they are valid. They generally come from a pro-business (i.e. Republican) slant, but that's okay.

A blog enables me to make simplistic statements with reckless abandon. Realize that I'm usually aware of when I'm doing this. In this case, I included a throw-away paragraph in the midst of the stuff I really wanted to say.

In regard to comments at the end of Volume 2, I don't put particular faith in either party. But I most definitely do not believe that the Republican party, as an institution, cares about the poor. I have not, in my LIFETIME, seen evidence that they do.

As for George Bush...the underclass have probably never crossed the path of this Child of Privilege. He doesn't know they exist, though he has perhaps heard rumors about them.

Steve

Knowing you, I was pretty sure you were aware of the arguments. I also recognize that you usually use your blog to vent frustration and share passion rather than engage in debate. I hope you are not offended by my engaging you in a little bit of debate.

Fwiw - I have seen individuals in multiple parties (democrat, republican, constitutional/us taxpayer, libertarian, and more) demonstrate concern for the poor. I think they attempt to carry that intention into their individual participation in party politics, though without applied success.

I can't say that I have ever seen ANY established party as an institution demonstrate concern for the poor beyond rhetoric. Politics is about advancing philosophy to a small part, but power to the greatest part. The poor (and others) become pawns to be manipulated by sound bites by all parties seeking power.