We all know how ungodly rich the German Church is and how much the clergy of all religions earn as they are paid handsomely by the government including Catholic cardinals and other bishops.
But now the German auto company, Audi/VW, says that girls are only worth something if and only if, they make equal pay or more pay than their boy counterpoints!
Hello Audi! All of us are worth something not because of what we make but because of who we are, CREATED IN THE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD!
The consumeristic, materialistic Audi believes our worth is based upon how much we make! BOYCOTT AUDI!
48 comments:
Well, your hyperbole is showing. AUDI does not say in the ad, "...that girls are only worth something if and only if, they make equal pay or more pay than their boy counterpoints!" (I think the word you wanted was "counterparts," but I digress...)
AUDI does support equal pay for equal work. Now, in a culture such as ours, it is understandable that salary level is, unfortunately, one of the criteria by which we judge people. That is one of the unfortunate results of radical, unchecked capitalism.
But AUDI makes a much broader point in this ad. Women are to be valued as women, not as a second-class gender, in life, not just in terms of remuneration.
If companies could LEGALLY get away with paying women less than men for the same quality of work.....why would ANY COMPANY hire anything but women?
If I were a CEO and could hire an all-female workforce and thereby cut my entire labor costs by 30% and yet get the same (or better) productivity out of this all-Amazon work-force.... I'd be criminally inept if I DIDN'T proceed with this course of action.
So the "gender pay gap" is a complete crock. It might exist in a handful of individual cases - but it's not a 'systemic' system caused by "CAPITALISM".
The reason illegal immigrants get jobs is precisely because they will work for less than the LEGAL minimum wage/benefits....so employers will risk hiring illegals with fake documents so as to get away with paying people 20-30% less in benefits and wages than they'd have to pay Americans for the same job.
And all this is common knowledge... so why wouldn't the same unscrupulous Capitalists do the same thing with women?
They would! If they could!
But they don't....because paying Judy $30,000 and John $39,000 for the exact same job/work load is SO easily proven in court, that no company would get away with it. They'd all be sued out of existence.
Ergo, this is 'fake-news' designed for low information, low IQ feminists and their ideological hangers on. It doesn't pass the simplest of scrutiny.
The pay gap is based upon multiple factors, not because someone is a woman.
FRMJK, What do I tell my daughter, that her grandfather is worth more than her grandmother...."
Worth here is not moral worth, but the fact, as wrong as that might be, that men make more and thus are valued more than women--based upon unequal pay, not moral worth.
Audi and other progressives don't see housekeeping and stay at home mothers worth much either. That is the sad fact and this commercial wreaks of it--it is about capitalism and materialism and one's worth based upon work for which one is paid.
What should the father in the commercial have said? My little daughter, it isn't what you are paid that brings you worth, it is that both male and female are created in the image and likeness of God. So little daughter, live simply, not beyond your means, and when you become a wife and mother, stay at home, depend on your husbands allowance and take care of your husband, children and home.
Your children will understand how much they are worth as God's creature because you find them more important than making the same amount as a man.
My wife and had this discussion this morning, for different reasons. It is related to the question, "why do bad people get ahead and prosper?" It depends on how you want to define prosperity and success. You should get paid for the value of your labor. But you have to be willing to withhold it or go elsewhere and do something else. It is a trait of people who value posessions more than people. It is also linked to people who think men and women are equivalent.
"...stay at home, depend on your husbands allowance and take care of your husband, children and home."
Some people whimsically yearn for the past, when a family could depend on one income. Alas, for many (most?) this is no longer the case. Incomes have not kept up with cost of living for the last several decades. While the income of the top 1% have risen majestically, the middle-class has been left in the doldrums.
And that worthless Betsy Devos why is a progressive rich woman better than a conservative rich woman? What will I tell my daughter?
As far as standard of living, yes if you want a big house that have bathrooms that are bigger than most small bedrooms and walk in closets as big as some master bedrooms and clothes and stuff that won't fit in these walkins so storage is rented in this growing industry, oh my!
I grew up in a house with one bathroom tiny bedrooms with small closets and room to spare with all the clothes we had.
"It is also linked to people who think men and women are equivalent."
Men and women are not equivalent. When, however, a man and a women do the same job equally well, they should receive the same compensation.
Next, we can move to a discussion of the Family Wage. Pay is based not on job performance ("Horror!" shout the unreformed capitalists) but on the needs of the worker to provide for his/her family.
"In order to protect this relationship between family and work, an element that must be appreciated and safeguarded is that of a family wage, a wage sufficient to maintain a family and allow it to live decently[564]. Such a wage must also allow for savings that will permit the acquisition of property as a guarantee of freedom. The right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks also to savings and to the building up of family property[565]. There can be several different ways to make a family wage a concrete reality. Various forms of important social provisions help to bring it about, for example, family subsidies and other contributions for dependent family members, and also remuneration for the domestic work done in the home by one of the parents[566]. _ Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 250
Father Kavanaugh, do you pay the Family Wage to your staff?
The Family Wage is paid based on the needs of a worker to support his/her family. In the case of the staff, yes.
Do you?
Fr. Kavanaugh, since I am in the professional business world we pay market, which requires us to exceed such standards. I assume then that you pay competitive wages, provide health insurance, and either a pension or 401 (l)(k) or 403(b) Plan.
It's already illegal to pay a woman different from a man for the exact same job/skill level.
But in most companies there are specializations and seniority to consider so one might be an assistant and make $35,000 while another makes $30,000 due to the differential of specialization, education, skill set, etc.
Unless we're talking a massively labor intensive factory where lots of people are doing the exact same task for 8 hours a day, it's hard in the modern economy to find people in the identical job.
Most companies thus have a pay scale....and preferential hiring for women and minorities (since women are the demographic MAJORITY). There are preferential hiring for minority owned companies, veterans, and women owned companies.... there are special rules to lower the threshold standards so as to get more women and minorities into 'traditionally white male' industries.... and even so, if you total all the wages earned by all men and compare with all women, there is a difference.
But that doesn't mean millions of companies are arbitrarily, viciously, and with malice aforethought, intentionally paying all women less than all men on their payroll. But that's how you'd think based on the feminist talking points....
The Small Business Administration will designate certain market areas as being under represented by various groups, women included. They are designated as being disadvantaged and given preferential treatment for contract awards, loans, etc. Several years ago machine shops owned by women were removed from the list because enough women had entered those markets as owners and operators of machine shops that there was no justification for continuing the preferences. I attended the SBA conference where this was announced. Several questions occur. This is a stereotypical male industry so how did the women overcome the barriers so quickly? What is the ratio of male to female employees in these companies and what is the wage ratio? How did the businesses survive after the preferences were removed and what is the current ratio of women owners and operators?
It is my experience that small businesses of all types have a great deal of trouble surviving the weaning process. I suspect the same thing happend when families and individuals attempt to transition from artificial bonuses such as the Family Wage.
Hillary Clintoon paid her women 72 cents on the dollar of what she paid men!!!!
Family wage is Communism and Leftist BS. A person, male or female, who has initiative, vision, and drive should be rewarded for those traits and should, indeed, make more money than state employees, factory workers, and hangers on. If a CEO creates thousands of jobs, produces goods that benefit everyone, and manages a strong company, I don't care how much he makes. A CEO's salary is not money out of the pockets of the poor. That is pure propaganda. Plus, highly successful people provide role models and encourage ambition in young people with those same traits. It is called American exceptionalism, and that is good.
I have a friend who came from Italy at age 18, barely could speak English. 40 years later he is a millionaire, a faithful Catholic, and a Republican! He publicly states that modern day Dems are communists
Gene - Once again you reject and denounce the Church's teaching. And once again I stand with the Church against you. And that is what all Catholics should do.
The Church has long been misguided in her social doctrine, wrongly interpreting NT teachings through the lens of modern political ideology.
"The Church has long been misguided in her social doctrine, wrongly interpreting NT teachings through the lens of modern political ideology."
As the Scriptures say, "What further need have we of witnesses?" (Luke 22:71)
When our friend Job o'erstepped his proper boundaries...
Job 38:1-4
Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said:
Who is this who darkens counsel with words of ignorance?
Gird up your loins now, like a man;
I will question you, and you tell me the answers!
Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Is Family Wage a Church Teaching? Does it carry any weight as a requirement such as the principle to not defraud workers of their wages? This seems to set the wage without the context of any work to put it in conflict with the Seventh Commandment.
Church social teaching has been misused by left-wing ideologues to fit a political, not a spiritual, agenda. The Archbishop of Chicago is an example of disordered thinking. It aint' 1960 anymore but he supports unions big time even though they are almost non-existent in the private sector. The public employee unions with their obscene pensions and benefits have bankrupted the State of Illinois. But to perpetuate this obscenity either services will need to be curtailed or taxes raised. I guess drivers, waiters, etc., should pay higher taxes to support their betters. Now that's turning "social justice" on its head. When it comes to economics, most Catholic clergy are ignorarnt or naive, and should just butt out and leave it to properly trained Catholic laity with the competence to deal with these issues.
rcg....
.....that's a nice little trick liberal 'catholics' have going lol. They invent teachings of Jesus like so called climate change and gun control to 'form their consciences' based on their political ideology. That 'seamless garment' gets stretched out pretty thin with all their pet political agendas that supposedly are on par with the evil of abortion.
johnnyc, it does seem that way. They deserve a charitable word of caution about putting words in, or taking them out of, Christ's mouth.
No, the Family Wage is not without context. The context is the needs of the worker's family.
This is based on further Catholic teaching regarding the purpose of a wage.
CCC 2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 250. In order to protect this relationship between family and work, an element that must be appreciated and safeguarded is that of a family wage, a wage sufficient to maintain a family and allow it to live decently[564](Ref to Quadragesimo Anno, Gaudium et Spes, and Laborem Exercens) . Such a wage must also allow for savings that will permit the acquisition of property as a guarantee of freedom. The right to property is closely connected with the existence of families, which protect themselves from need thanks also to savings and to the building up of family property[565] (Ref to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno). There can be several different ways to make a family wage a concrete reality. Various forms of important social provisions help to bring it about, for example, family subsidies and other contributions for dependent family members, and also remuneration for the domestic work done in the home by one of the parents[566] (Ref to Laborem Exercens and Charter of the rights of the family).
Fr. kavenaugh, thank you for the references. In the case of the CCC 2434 citation it seems reasonable although I will need to research the embedded quote both as to its source and as to whether it expands the paragraph or is an illustration of an ethical application. For example I don't think it is possible to guarantee anything for a family.
The second source is more problematic for me for the same reason. In both cases it seems, reductio ad absurdum, to require we pay different people different wages based on their family situation. Someone like Gene would cite these as proof a woman should be paid less than a man since she would only support herself and the children whereas he supports the woman, the children and himself. 🤔 I would never do such a thing but I do thing it makes a strong Christian case for extremely high tariffs on most Asian, African, and South American countries.
rcg - If the proper end (purpose) of a wage is to provide support for the wage earner and his/her dependents, then, yes, different pay is required.
And, yes, this flies in the face of those who are tied to a "minimum wage" type of thinking or to the "unrestrained capitalist" type of thinking that sees workers as means to an end.
A worker, regardless of his/her gender, is paid according to that worker's needs. The single mother with three children to house and feed may have a greater need than the single male working a second job to make money for tattoo removal procedures.
How this is related to tariffs I can't see...
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You have never run a business, it is quite clear. In the real world, there is no free lunch.
But to use your example. I am running a small business with slim margins. I am taking all of the risk (not you or the government) and this provides my family and myself with a comfortable, but not lavish lifestyle (Unlike the Clintoons, I do not have foreign governments throwing millions at me!). A mother of 3 comes to me for a job and quite frankly I could only afford to employ her if she accepts $10-12 an hour as her wage, which unless, she lives in the boondocks, is likely not considered a "Family Wage." I have two choices: hire her at the wage, provided she accepts, or tell her I cannot afford her. Keep in mind neither the government nor the diocese is going to subsidize my business.
Get it?
What you are discribing is charity and depends on the amount of money being available to provide the living wage without regard to the value of the work done.
The link to tariffs was a poor attempt at humor: if a foreign country undercuts the wages of our citizens we should raise the cost of their goods and services to meet the needs of the families in our country. Under such righteous pressure the offending country will raise their wages and shower the proceeds on their workers allowing a global fair wage and we can remove the tariff.
Your argument reminds me of the Libertarian view of the Rational Actor and assumes everyone will act in their own best interests with the twist that if they don't then the first person in the argument will.
TJM - In any business that I can think of, the owner does not take all the risk. Imagine if you will a startup with an owner and 10 new employees. These employees are also taking a risk by joining the business and hoping it succeeds.
The owner may be taking a great deal of financial risk, but the employees on the production line for 8 or 10 or 12 hours contribute their resources, sometimes with greater levels of labor risk. The employer has resources on which she can fall back if this venture fails. The line workers - not so much.
As long as you think in terms of employer - employee relationships as being adversarial, then you will never see the justice in the Family Wage proposition.
rcg - A wage is intended to provide for a worker and his/her dependents. Paying a wage, whether at some artificial "minimum" or at the Family Wage level is not in any way charity.
I am no Libertarian nor libertarian thinker. Libertarianism is the political/economic equivalent of Pelagianism.
Kavanaugh, you clearly do not understand the concept of "risk" as used in business and finance. No surprise here.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You really don't get it. The employee doesn't risk their capital, the employer does. If the business can't pay a family wage, who is going to provide it, you, the government, the diocese, the DNC? Because you're a priest, big mama Church will take care of you. When YOU start a business and start paying wages, we will listen to what you have to say. You are exhibit A for why sentient folks don't take what you have to say on secular matters seriously.
TJM, You mean you take him seriously on theological matters? I don't.
Gene and TJM - Risk comes in different forms, even in business and finance. "Capital" is not the only thing risked in starting a new business venture.
A person worth, say, $500 million, risks $500,000 to back a new restaurant, hoping he/she will profit in the form of return on the investment. The involvement of the investor in the restaurant will take the form of receiving monthly financial statements.
This person's risk is, relative to his wealth, slight.
A person worth, say, $50,000, risks taking a job as chef in this new restaurant, hoping he/she will profit in the form of a paycheck. The involvement of the chef will involve 12 to 15 hour days 6 days a week (Closed on Mondays), being on his/her feet for most of those 12 to 15 hour days, and everything else that goes into being a chef.
This person's risk is maximal - he/she needs the job to buy clothes, food, medicines, and to pay rent.
Both are taking risks here. The risk taken by the investor is, relatively, quite small. The risk taken by the chef is, relatively, quite large.
Both risks are necessary to the business. Without capital, the restaurant does not open. Without a chef, the restaurant does not open.
The investor needs know nothing about cooking. The chef must master the task, or at least be good enough to prepare food people will come back for.
Sentient folks - you like that word "sentient," don't you? - sentient folks understand that the moral questions surrounding financial matters are questions about human beings, not about profits, risks, or ledger books.
When "Profit/Loss" is the moral measure of an investor's life, then that investor is pretty much doomed.
Father Kavanaugh,
You paint the opposite picture of where most job creation comes from in the US: it comes from small start ups with little capital. Nice try, but you're all wet, and NON-sentient. When you can respond to my example which is grounded in economic reality, I will take you seriously. Otherwise go back to big mama Church for your daily bread and Thank God you are not in the business world.
Even using that logic, Fr. K., the return on investment is far greater for the cook than the owner.
rcg - It MAY be greater, indeed. But the question was about risk.
TJM - Risk in business is taken by both Capital and Labor. If being in the business world means I ignore the Church's teaching, I discount the morality of business decisions, and overlook the workers of the world, then I am very glad not to be in business.
LOL! The ROI addresses the risk. The employee will, and should!, take the job that offers the best return for her investment of time and effort. If she has a skill that demands greater pay she may consider employment with a company that will pay her for the skill to employment with another company that may pay less but has longer employment potential, better benefits, etc.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You must have a mental block. You want a start up business to pay a family wage when the business cannot afford to do so. I know it bursts your fairytale construct that there is an endless money tree to fund YOUR viewpoint of what constitutes "social justice." When a business fails, the owner is stuck with the bill, not the worker. They move on to another job. You should stay in your fairyland and leave the heavy lifting to the big boys and girls in the laity. And let's not get started on "morality." What was the "morality" behind Cardinal Mahony of LA's decision to stonewall the legal process when his priests got into trouble with the boys? in the business world, business owners would have concluded that such behavior was "bad for business" whereas Mahony did not.
TJM - When a business fails, the worker is stuck with no job and no income. Workers MAY move onto another job, if these are available. (Ask West Virginia coal miners about that availability.) If the owner has gobs of money and loses a very small portion, his/her "risk" has resulted in almost no loss, while the workers are without income.
Morality is an aspect of every human decision and every decision that effects humans. That includes starting a business, hiring a worker, paying a worker, firing a worker.
If you think that businesses did not cover up sexual abuse or harassment by employees, you haven't been awake over much of the last 20 years.
Kavanaugh, your responses are so ignorant that they defy comment. Maybe you should try theology again...well, never mind. Ever consider driving a taxi?
Gene - If you'd care to comment specifically on what you find "ignorant" and why, please do. Otherwise,...
I'd encourage you to start with the citations I've posted of Church doctrine.
Fr. Kavanaugh, but the Church should have a higher standard than a business, and it would appear they do not. You still haven't responded to my real life example of a start-up business because you can't, it would destroy your delusions.
Fr. Kavanugh, glad you brought up the West Virginia miners. Your boy, Obama the Magificent, did everything in his power to destroy their jobs. Obama did that to appease the wealthy left-wing loon donors in the Abortion Party (formerly the Democrat Party and the Party of the Little Guy). LMAO at YOU!
TJM - Obama didn't destroy coal mining jobs. The market did. I'd think someone with all your business savvy would have known that.
Huffington Post: "What’s driving the coal industry into bankruptcy is the free market — competition from cheaper, more abundant natural gas and renewable energy. Meanwhile, the costs of mining coal have increased. Coal production decreased in 2015, and the Energy Information Administration projects it will fall an additional 16 percent this year."
Forbes Magazine on why those jobs aren't coming back: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/05/like-manufacturing-jobs-to-china-whatever-trump-says-mining-jobs-are-not-returning-to-w-virginia/#6451c1dd6f48
Fr. Kavanaugh,
That's an unmitigated lie but you have exposed yourself for what your are, a left-wing ideologue. The Huffington Post is the ultimate left-wing rag and fake news extraordinaire.Obama imposed regulations on coal mines and refining plants designed to cause them to be less than cost effective. He personally said he would bankrupt them without giving a moments thought to the livelihoods he was destroying. Hillary Clinton in a candidtmoment said she would finish the job and destroy their jobs. Have you know decency? Is there any lie you won't spread to defend Abortion King and the Abortion Party? And you still won't answer my true life example of a start up business because you can't. May God have mercy on your soul.
Forbes doesn't lie about business. Neither does the Washington Post:.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/04/heres-why-central-appalachias-coal-industry-is-dying/
Neither does the Bookings institute:. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/01/25/automation-guarantees-a-bleak-outlook-for-trumps-promises-to-coal-miners/amp/
Post a Comment