There is no Isaiah 58:22-3. Near as I can tell, he is referring to Isaiah 65:22, and only a small snippet thereof. Regardless, his line is clearly taken out of context, as the scripture is referring to God's chosen people, contrasting God's curses for disobedience, per Deuteronomy. At any rate, I still have yet to see any of the substantive arguments against raising the minimum wage addressed on this board. Wallis creates a false choice between raising the minimum wage and working in vain.
Conservatives do not oppose minimum wage hikes because they do not care about the poor. Rather, they oppose minimum wage hikes because statistics show that they do more harm than good to the very people they are trying to help.
Regardless of your view on this issue, to ignore this fact is fundamentally dishonest.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2007 3:20 PM

"Conservatives do not oppose minimum wage hikes because they do not care about the poor. Rather, they oppose minimum wage hikes because statistics show that they do more harm than good to the very people they are trying to help." This flatly is false, Kevin -- this is the same straw man business groups trot out every time there's talk about the minimum wage being raised, and in truth there is essentially no effect. Not only that, but I read a story recently that mentioned that workers along the Idaho/Washington state border were flocking to Washington because it had a higher minimum wage, and ironically business was booming there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 3:53 PM

"God may hate inequalities, but I doubt he's all that worked up over middle-class teenagers earning less than 7 bucks an hour at part-time jobs. He's at least as likely to be upset over the difficulty that unskilled workers have finding steady, full-time work, a problem that is aggravated by an overly high minimum wage." An overly high minimum wage? Well, even $7 per hour at 30 hours a week (remember that most minimum-wage jobs are only part-time) nets only $210 a week before taxes and only about $50 there. On that you have to buy food and pay rent plus child-care and transportation. So you're talking about trying to do all that on less than $600 take-home a month. My own church is, and should be, heavily involved with the poor in the neighborhood where it's located -- some years ago the deacons put themselves through an exercise to experience as to how to try to raise a family on such an income. But it recognizes that also has a responsibility to speak out for justice, whether it means getting the poor better jobs or preparing the poor for such. It's not an "either/or"; it's a "both/and."

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 4:16 PM

Jim Wallis wrote: "What does the Bible have to say about the minimum wage?" I don't care what the Bible says about the minimum wage. The Bible was written by people who had much less understanding about many important things than I do now.

Posted by: Michael K. | February 1, 2007 4:39 PM

My mother worked for unions, and never earned the minimum wage.
If business continues to boom in spite of (or even because of) minimum wages increases, then why would business leaders oppose it?
Why not raise the minimum wage to $50,000 per year?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2007 5:53 PM

"Outright false, Wolverine" Wolverine said that a minimum wage earner is more likely to be a teenager living with their parents thatn a single parent. This is empirically true, not patently false. 41% of minimum wage earners live with their parents. 20% are dual earners with no kids. 24% are single earners with no kids.
If we are to understand what Isaiah was talking about when he spoke to minimum wage increases, then we should at least honest about what it entails.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2007 6:13 PM

I know and have known minimum wage workers who are on their own. It is almost impossible to make it. Anyone read or seen the documentary based on Nickeled and Dimed?

Posted by: Daniel | February 1, 2007 6:14 PM

The minimum wage should be raised in the US. I would raise it to a place higher than Congress has -- probably significantly higher. Raising it would not prevent the US from lowering it in the future. So, if, after raising it, there would be reason to believe that lowering it would, overall, be for the best, then the US could lower it again. However, what the Bible says about the minimum wage is irrelevant to what I think the minimum wage should be in the US now. The people who wrote the Bible did not have a particularly good understanding of current conditions in the US. Moreover, they had a less good understanding of ethics than I do. For instance, the authors hadn't read Kant, Mill, Rawls or Sen. And I don't think they had read Aristotle. Moreover, my track-record on making ethical judgments is better than many authors of the Bible. For instance, don t some of the authors advocate the stoning of women for committing adultery?

Posted by: Michael K. | February 1, 2007 6:27 PM

wolverine and kevin, tell someone earning minimum wage in my town of baltimore that most people making minimum wage are teenagers living with their middle class parents and they'll shrug their shoulders and say "so what?" can we really just fall back on the percent of teenagers in the workplace as a reason to not give a much-needed boost to minimum wage workers who put in probably a harder day's work than most of the rest of us? whether conservatives or liberals for that matter hate the poor or love them is also completely irrelevent. i second daniel's reccomendation on Nickled and Dimed, especially those of you who think the system as it currently exists is not hurting poor people. not to mention the fact that the minimum wage is legally intended to be connected to the cost of living. while cost of living has risen, the minimum wage has not. IT IS NOT DOING WHAT IT WAS CREATED TO DO! this is reason enough to raise it.

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 6:31 PM

"Also, there is a parable in Mt. 20 about a landowner hiring laborers, and paying them in an apparently unfair manner (same pay for different time worked). When complaints were made, his response was 'is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?" In other words, he had a right to pay whatever he wanted, as long as it met the agreements made with the laborers.'" That doesn't apply to this discussion because Jesus is talking about eternal reward, not work down here. The point He's trying to make is that people who have been "saved" 20 or 30 years are no more "worthy" than folks who come in just "under the wire," so to speak.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 6:37 PM

"can we really just fall back on the percent of teenagers in the workplace as a reason to not give a much-needed boost to minimum wage workers who put in probably a harder day's work than most of the rest of us? " Yes, because I would argue that this mitigaes against the need to increase the minimum wage. The reasons teenagers are willing to work for $5.15 an hour is because they're, well, teenagers...
Rick mentions that business owners oppose minimum wage because it takes money from the top. This is true. Since those same business people do not want to lose money off the top, they find other places to cut. If they didn't, then we would be justified in raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour.
The truth is that a 40% increase in the wage of one set of earners is going to have an impact on the rate at which those earners are hired. It can't not have that impact, unless you believe money grows on trees.
"No, it isn't "empirically true" -- how many of those minimum-wage earners actually are adults over 21? " The majority are under 24, though I can't find data for ages 22-24. However, if we are trying to benefit the "least of these" in accordance with scripture, why are we targetting 23 year olds who have a place to live?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 1, 2007 6:44 PM

once again kevin ctrl-v's part of my comment, critiques it, and ignores the rest. so, i'll ask again, kevin - what about the 59% of minimum wage earners (by your uncited numbers) who don't live with their parents?

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 6:48 PM

Michael K, The people who wrote the Bible did not have a particularly good understanding of current conditions in the US. Moreover, they had a less good understanding of ethics than I do. For instance, the authors hadn't read Kant, Mill, Rawls or Sen. And I don't think they had read Aristotle. People making minimum wage have likely not read these people. Should we exclude their voices? Or does that violate their utilitarian "ability to make important choices?" Look, Pride is the central Christian sin - all others are derivative. Doesn't matter to you, right? Especially if you've read Nietzsche! You're the Ubermensch, ja? Here's a rational argument for it. Pride is the elevation of Ego and it is the Ego that prevents us from tapping into the unity of the universe, the connection which is our natural ethical state. Given your comment you'll want to know that someone else said it and I read it - if it's just my idea it has no merit, right? I know you've read Sam Harris and he makes this argument pretty succinctly. Aldous Huxley and Vedanta Hindu scriptures do it far better, as does Jiddu Krishnamurti, Huston Smith, Marcus Borg, CG Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Marshall Rosenberg. Yet it's not their saying it that makes it fact. The fact that you're acting like a prick does.

Posted by: HASH(0x12beec6c) | February 1, 2007 6:53 PM

Another fact left unaddressed by those who support raising the minimum wage increase is that a very large proportion of minimum wage earners work at restaurants or bars, where they also receive tips for their services.
I would also add that no one stays at a minimum wage job for very long.
As for Wallis's theology with all of this...has the term "liberal fundamentalism" ever been used to describe it? I propose introducing it into the modern lexicon. I agree with Wolverine that there are very strong similarities between the more conservative fundamentalism despised by Sojo and the kind of exegesis done by Wallis here. There's no nuance. No humility.

Posted by: jesse | February 1, 2007 6:55 PM

Rick, The Mt. 20 parable "doesn't apply to this discussion" because of its context, but the Isaiah passage and the James "fraud" reference do? Boy, talk about cherrypicking your verses to support your position. (BTW, I am well aware of the context and meaning of the passage. Unlike our host, I am also aware of the definition of "fraud." This ain't it.)

Posted by: cs | February 1, 2007 7:11 PM

Wonder what context Isaiah 65:20 (no infant death, long lives) and 65:25 (wolf & lamb feed together) places his citation?
Kinda hard to miss the eschatological implications and place it into 21st century America... you know, since context disqualifies Mt. 20.

Posted by: cs | February 1, 2007 7:16 PM

Anonymous wrote: "People making minimum wage have likely not read these people. Should we exclude their voices? Or does that violate their utilitarian 'ability to make important choices?'" Obviously their voices shouldn't be excluded. I didn't mean to suggest that they should be excluded. In fact, there judgments should be among the most important in terms of what the US should do as far as the minimum wage is concerned.
But my point is that any Bible birth that is relevant to the issue of wages is irrelevant to whether the US should raise the minimum wage now. The people who wrote the Bible didn't have a good idea of the current situation in the US. They didn't even know that the North American continent existed. And their track-record on ethics isn't that great. Moreover, people today are capable of coming up with good ideas on what the minimum wage should be. They can have a petty good idea of the likely consequences of raising the minimum wage.
However, maybe that the authors of the Bible hadn't read the thinkers that I mentioned shouldn't be important in terms of whether I should take seriously what the authors of the Bible wrote about the minimum wage. A lot of people who have read some of those thinkers have some bad ideas about ethics. However, in terms of making good decisions, it probably helps to have read the thinkers I ve mentioned.
Also, what do you mean by "their utilitarian 'ability to make important choices?'" It is problematic to call one's ability to make important choices "utilitarian." As "utilitarian" is often used to refer to the idea that one should always act so as to maximize net happiness, pleasure or preference satisfaction.

Look, Pride is the central Christian sin - all others are derivative. Doesn't matter to you, right? No
Especially if you've read Nietzsche! You're the Ubermensch, ja? It has nothing to do with my having read Nietzsche.

Here's a rational argument for it. Pride is the elevation of Ego and it is the Ego that prevents us from tapping into the unity of the universe, the connection which is our natural ethical state. Given your comment you'll want to know that someone else said it and I read it - if it's just my idea it has no merit, right? Are you saying that pride is worse than murdering millions of innocent people?
I know you've read Sam Harris and he makes this argument pretty succinctly. I've never read anything by Sam Harris.

Posted by: Michael K. | February 1, 2007 7:23 PM

"Boy, talk about cherrypicking your verses to support your position." I never commented on any other passage of Scripture in this discussion. Don't put words in my mouth.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 7:41 PM

Wayne, Sorry, but if you read the parable of the workers in the field, the landowner plainly bases his assertion that his behaviour is "fair" on the fact that they had agreed to the wage beforehand. The fact that a "penny" or a "denarius" was a standard wage at the time does not make this any less of an agreement. Finally, the owner asserts that it's his money he's paying out, and on that basis he is allowed to be generous with those who came later. He does not argue that any lower wage would be insufficient. As I was saying: just go with the first thought that pops into your head. Don't ask what's really going on, and don't pay attention to details... Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2007 7:47 PM

John B. -- I think you misunderstood my position. I stated a fact that people in business generally want to keep labor costs down and you took that to mean that I oppose raising the minimum wage, when in fact I suggested nothing of the sort. (If anything, having been a "minimum-wager" for most of my life except the last 10 years, I would support it.) If Wallis has gone over the top with his rhetoric, his heart is in the right place. We all know that we live today in a society where CEO's, often regardless of performance, make these ridiculous salaries, bonuses and (most outrageously) "golden parachutes" when they are let go for poor results. Does that tie directly to an increase in the minimum wage? Not necessarily. But one thing almost never discussed is Wall Street's involvement in the calculus. Do you know the real reason that health insurance and prescription drugs cost so much? I've already given away the answer -- so that they can keep their stock prices up.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 7:53 PM

Wolverine The reason that it was fair isn't just that it was agreed to by these workers. Everyone in that society agreed to what was a "fair" wage. The employer had the right to short those who worked less and he could have rewarded the others more, based on the social contract. He chose to give each man what he needed. The point is Jesus is using a minumum wage as a basis for this story. It is something every hearer at that time would have understood. This ancient, irrelevant text Michael was refering to seems to have a better basis for ethical/social reasoning than any of the anti minmum wagers on this blog.

Posted by: wayne | February 1, 2007 8:01 PM

Kant didn't read the other people you mentioned. Does that mean he couldn't make as good decisions as you can? Kant had read Aristotle. He hadn't read the others. I think it would have helped him make better decisions if he had. Maybe he would have learned that lying sometimes is good, for instance, if the Gestapo comes to your house and asks whether there are any Jewish people in the house. But obviously I don't know sure that reading those other authors would have helped Kant.

Posted by: Michael K. | February 1, 2007 8:10 PM

As I see it, it's not so much inequality itself that God is concerned about but the way the rich are able to hamstring the poor in the process. The post-slavery sharecropping system that existed in the South was a great example of the kind of economic exploitation that is clearly condemned in Scripture. I was reading a couple of nights ago this reference, which I don't remember right now: "They ... sell the needy for a pair of sandals." But the next verse goes: "Father and son use the same girl and thus profane [God's] holy name" -- suggesting that economic exploitation is as bad as sexual.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 8:43 PM

These concerns are but one footstep in the Christian path. Neither to the left or the right but straight and narrow. Brothers, it is true that God hates inequality. It is true that Jesus commanded us to care for the disadvantaged. It is also true that He said that, "the poor will always be with us."
Our concern for the material poor is something easy to confront. Men are fixers. The idea that we'll fix poverty by making everyone equal has been tried and is illogical until men agree on the definition of poverty (and that is only step one). The sad fact is that we can't expect Christian Justice in an unbelieving world. This opposition to the minimum wage is a Christian issue. Not just because it addresses poverty but because it addresses avarice, greed, and pride as well. We shouldn't have to pass laws to make people do the right thing. I personally believe that folks should be able to make a living wage for their efforts. I do not think, by itself, that it is a Christian issue. A shop owner should not be forced to pay more than he/she wishes. It is up to them. If no one will work for them then they will stunt their business growth and fail.
It isn't the small shop owner we are talking about. It is megabusiness. Megafarms, megashops, worldwide franchises, centralized everything. Outsourcing everything. These folks have lobby power and USE IT. Same goes for National Health. Conservatives are so bought into the system that they always trot out the same old thing that minimum wage hikes actually hurt the people it is supposed to help. This is not a fact. Nowhere can kevin S. or anyone else substantiate that claim. It is the same lie as the welfare cadillac stories. okay. I'm done. In Christ

Posted by: James | February 1, 2007 9:31 PM

wallis is again pandering to his political pals. and his references from the bible are strange at best. and do not support anything about minimum wage. what is he thinking??? and theological fundamentals, whaaaaat? he can't write a column without first putting his face up. then tries to find some passage to back up his premise. bible and minimum wage? where. and if God hates inequality why didn't he make us all equal? clones. where does it say that God hates inequality? this guy continues to work to elevate his political position for some reason. fun to watch but not very constructive. Jim excels in religion. his economic and social views are mostly unfounded opinions. all his statements regarding income, education, housing etc. are without substance. the ramblings of a wannabe expert witness. beginning to sound a lot like jesse jackson.

Posted by: jerry | February 1, 2007 10:08 PM

"I responded that it is at least as applicable as the original verses, and I stand by this." No, it isn't, because that isn't how Jesus taught -- just one point at a time. Saying He's simply talking about work represents taking His words out of the context in which he shared them.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 10:16 PM

Just followed your links, Rick, and was eventually led to a study by the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank with heavy union support. In my estimation EPI is about as credible as Heritage is in yours. So let's call that a wash. Now, let's look at some data compiled by the right-wing partisan nutcases at the US Census: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov25.html What you will find is that among poor persons 16 and over (i.e: eligible to work) the majority will not see their income increased by the minimum wage: only 2.9 million worked full-time 6.4 million worked part-time or seasonally Over 16 million did not work at all. Now, to be fair, some of those 16 million are teenagers and we don't want them working full-time. But I doubt that all of them are teens. If poor adults found steady, full-time work, even at crappy pay, they would be a lot closer to being out of poverty. Most of these poor adults, meanwhile, are not helped by minimum wage increases. For that to happen they would need jobs. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2007 10:23 PM

wolverine, yes, there are people who don't have jobs. and there are people who are not getting paid enough in the minimum wage jobs they have. both are problems. what's your point?

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:30 PM

Now here's the thing we have to keep straight about "poverty" in the US. I'm not saying poverty is good, but it's not always as dire as the word might suggest: Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. The source is Heritage, but I've never seen anyone try to debunk these numbers. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2007 10:38 PM

"If poor adults found steady, full-time work, even at crappy pay, they would be a lot closer to being out of poverty." See my comment about actual pay rates above. Full-time work, especially with health insurance in many cases, is VERY hard to find.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 10:42 PM

ok free marketeers, do you favor doing away with the 5.15 minimum wage? c'mon kevin, really, what's the difference in a $1.50 minimum wage & $50,000? do you not see some measures of value outside the pure 'free-market' economic way of valuing things? theirs are typical unsubstantiated scare tactics (the economy will implode!) and false choices used to resist everything that helps people on the bottom end of the totem pole out. ok, so let's just do away with all government intrusion into the market that is costing us all these jobs for poor people - ok, we'll take away child labor laws, osha safety regulations, overtime, SEC financial disclosures, discrimination laws, truth in lending laws,...all these things that have allegedly (or at least were decried as such before they were passed) caused a loss in jobs and a strain on the economy - that is, after all, the most important thing. we people of faith will just keep our mouths shut & let the invisible hand do its thing.

Posted by: nad2 | February 1, 2007 10:43 PM

No Mingus, I don't place the blame on the poor. At least not all of it. I also blame poor public schools that do not teach basic skills, leaving graduates at a disadvantage in the economy. I blame teachers unions, which have made it difficult to run good schools on a tight budget. I blame an out-of-control immigration policy, which has flooded the job market with unskilled workers. And I blame politicians who sell the minimum wage as a panacea. Wolverine

Posted by: HASH(0x12d3a198) | February 1, 2007 10:45 PM

nobody's selling the minimum wage as a panacea, although you henny-penny conservatives love to shout that.

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:47 PM

right, wolverine, i forgot about the key to "compassionate conservatism" -not only is it the poor's fault, it's also the liberals' fault.

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:49 PM

if you don't want to do away with the minimum wage, then it follows that you should support increasing it with the increasing cost of living, as was the original intent. you can't have it both ways.

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:51 PM

"You're getting warmer. Actually, it's mostly the liberals fault." Excuse me, but how is suburbanization the liberals' fault?

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 10:53 PM

wolverine, do you have ANY idea what it's like to live on $5.15 an hour? have you even done the math? have you ever talked to someone who supports kids with TWO full-time jobs at $5.15 an hour? why aren't "compassionate conservatives" as rabid about corporate greed as they are about a figgin' 2 dollar minimum wage increase?

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:57 PM

make "figgin" = "friggin"

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 10:58 PM

if you favor lowering the minimum wage, perhaps we do need to turn back the child labor laws so the kids can pitch in to keep the lights on in the camper shell of the 1960 family truck/home.

Posted by: nad2 | February 1, 2007 11:01 PM

"Course, that wasn't what we were talking about, but since you asked..." And you totally missed the point. What happened was that, especially in urban areas, after WWII folks with the means to do so escaped the cities and took their financial wherewithal and other resources with them, leaving cities relative islands of poverty -- that suburbanites look down on. The 'burbs of my city are among the "reddest" in the entire state.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 1, 2007 11:04 PM

and the key words in your statement are "by itself"

Posted by: mingus | February 1, 2007 11:05 PM

"People making minimum wage have likely not read these people" This also points out a huge inequality, access to fast internet. Many countries have wide band for many people. The lack of wide band interferes with business development and puts us behind any place in the world that does have fast access and keeps many areas out of the loop. The city of Scottsburg In wanted to get wireless for the city, they went to the various providers and were told it wasn t good economics and would not bring wide band to Scottsburg. Frustrated the city attempted to get it on their own and the various big business interest tried to block it. It finally went to the Republican state legislature which were about block it also when the whole thing got publicity then and only then did they allow to Scottsburg to get it on their own.

Posted by: butch | February 1, 2007 11:08 PM

Rick, What city are we talking about. If memory serves, you are from Boston. The most conservative section of Massachusetts is, well, not all that conservative. At any rate, I still don't see what that has to do with raising the minimum wage. At least I'll admit it when I go on a tangent. Wolverine

Posted by: HASH(0x12e8ffd4) | February 1, 2007 11:13 PM

Butch, Actually, it started under Nixon, stabilized (a bit) under Ford, then blew up under Carter. Then was solved (albeit with some pain) under Reagan. The real story was the death of Keynesian macroeconomics and the Philips curve (which presumed a tradeoff between unemployment and inflation) and the discovery of monetarism, which emphasized a slow, predictable increas in the money supply tied to productivity growth, in order to rein in inflation and improve the climate for investors, increasing long-term employment. Anyone here ever study economics? You really should try it. Explains a lot of stuff. Wolverine

Posted by: HASH(0x12e919d0) | February 1, 2007 11:18 PM

Butch, Fair enough. Not that he's my favorite President, but Carter got dealt a really bad hand. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 1, 2007 11:30 PM

As a small business owner I already cannot afford to hire anyone. To hire someone at 7.00 per hour is to actually pay them 7.00 plus rent them from the government for another 4.00 or so per hour. A 7.00 per hour employee costs me 11.00 per hour after matching social security, medicare, etc... People hire illegals here in Texas to skirt paying taxes and pay them less than what the market demands thereby depressing the wages. I take a risk many of you do not by running a business. I will pay a wage that is fair and reasonable for the market I am in and to ensure good reliable employees. Government extortion to buy votes is deplorable and not biblical. For those that like to quote scripture out of context, 2 Corinthians 8:9 "...for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." Does that mean Jim needs to give up everything he has to be like Jesus?

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 1, 2007 11:41 PM

We live in a country where "poor people" are fat, have two cars, have satellite TV, an Ipod, an X-box, etc... most poverty (most, not all) is a result of poor choices and undisciplined spending habits.

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 1, 2007 11:48 PM

fasternu426 | 02.01.07 - 6:46 pm | # You are not poor and don't know how the other half lives, and I'm not defending min wage with that statement. I to was in business, when I retired I had 60 employees, not a big business but not real small either. I faced the same type of market forces that I had no control of but I believe it is to simple minded to just look at the issue from that point of view. I agree that much of our (all of us) collective choices have led to the spot we are in. This is all to complex for slogans. Wolv, I listened to an interview with Carter where he went over programs he put into effect but since he was not re-elected we cannot know if they would have been good or bad. Feed in stag-flation and Iran and Carter never had a chance. I do suggest what Carter has done since leaving office may give insight into what he may have done with another 4 years, all speculation. I have more serious quarrels with nearly every president than I do Carter, especially in hindsight.

Posted by: butch | February 2, 2007 12:08 AM

fasternu426 If you are interested I'll tell you about a program I started with my employees that showed a positive effect and cost little. esther_opal@yahoo.com

Posted by: ana | February 2, 2007 12:12 AM

Doug, What would the hand-up (as opposed to hand-out) be?

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 2, 2007 12:17 AM

butch "you are not poor and don't know how the other half lives" And you know my history? I was raised in a trailer house by an alcoholic father in East Texas and am well versed in poverty. Most of the "poor people" I know and have known can afford cigarettes but not milk. The cable bill gets paid, but junior doesn't have decent clothes.

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 2, 2007 12:26 AM

Does it matter? Old enough to have kids in college. Does my age disqualify me from knowing about poverty? Does my father and mother growing up as share croppers picking cotton in East Texas disqualify me from knowing about poverty?

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 2, 2007 12:49 AM

Small business owners who can't afford to pay their employees a living wage (minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, people - try living on that for a couple of months) should not be in business. Sounds harsh, but owning a business is NOT a right. Being paid a living wage for working a full-time job IS a right.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 2, 2007 12:56 AM

Indeed. In fact, to heck with the 13th amendment outlawing slavery. Why should we pay people anything at all?
"Where does the goverment get the idea that they can tell a PRIVATE owner that he HAS to pay some HIS employees x amount of dollars? Its his business! Last time I checked we are not socialist country."

Posted by: Carl Copas | February 2, 2007 1:18 AM

It would be assistance at obtaining low interest loans, free credit counseling to clear up problems often caused by predatory lending practices, assistance in building their own homes. All too often the applicants are the victims of their own poor choices. Most are willing to admit that part of their circumstances are of their own doing and are willing to work with us to correct those past decisions. Those are the good ones, the fun ones that make this job worth it, but all to often, they are unwilling to exert themselves or follow through and sadly, we get a little jaded about trying to help those who don't want to help themselves. As a Catholic with a social justice leaning I fully believe that we are called to help the least among us, the "preferential option for the poor". But also as a libertarian, I often find that governmentally imposed solutions often do more harm than good

Posted by: Doug | February 2, 2007 1:22 AM

fasternu426 Get your feelings off your sleeve, you're right I jumped to a conclusion and should not have, in fact I don't like it in others and seldom do it myself. You and I came up in a time when there were many jobs that did pay good wages, not that everyone got them. And it was easier, I offer that it would be much harder for you to come from your background and become a business owner now.

Posted by: butch | February 2, 2007 1:28 AM

The Economic Policy Institute, The State of Working America web page has important facts on poverty. See the summary. Also check then the Comparison with Foreign Countries summary.
Among 19 developed nations U.S.A. is last in childhood poverty, overall poverty, health care coverage, life expectancy, mortality at birth, least days of vacation, greatest gap in inequality, and now about half the poor (43%) live with income of half the poverty threshold. In 1970 the poverty threshold was 48% of median household income, now it is 29%, meaning in 1970 one had to double one's income to go from poverty to median, and today one must triple income to reach median. This records shows how badly our economy has been structured, how it has served only a minority at the top, while most families have been in recession since 2001, and median family income since 1973 has gone up only 15% while productivity for each worker has gone up 80%. Families are also working about 3 months more each year since 1973. So All Those Great Facts. Let's advocate for some radical change.

Posted by: Ben Leet | February 2, 2007 1:50 AM

"The total number of people on the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is many fewer than most people imagine: as of 2005, under 1.9 million workers. Sixty percent work only part-time, and a majority (53 percent) are under the age of 25--most of them students or weekend workers. Within this disproportionately large pool of youth "minimum wagers," two-thirds come from families with at least one other family member earning income. Four-fifths belong to families above the poverty line. In fact, the average income of the family of a young individual earning minimum wage is just over $64,000." Fraudulent Compassion By Michael Novak, Bryan Prior Posted: Monday, December 18, 2006 http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25327,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 2, 2007 1:57 AM

Not luck, brother, prayer! Lots of prayer! :) God does his best work on me when I get out of the way and let him.... Also, surrounding myself with Christian businessmen is a true blessing. Role models are very important, regardless of your age! One fella I do business with is younger than me but still a great role model as to how I will conduct business. Maybe I can be half as good as the people God has put into my life and into my business, I will make it.

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 2, 2007 2:03 AM

Kris I've asked before, what is your connection to the legal system?

Posted by: butch | February 2, 2007 3:14 AM

The first two words of the title clinched it for me: God Hates..... The only two passages I could find that say "God Hates" are: Deuteronomy 12:31 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods. Deuteronomy 16:21-22 21 Do not set up any wooden Asherah pole beside the altar you build to the LORD your God, 22 and do not erect a sacred stone, for these the LORD your God hates.
I don't think he was talking about the minimum wage.

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 2, 2007 3:31 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/01/cia.leak.ap/index.html is a CNN report about the trial of Scooter Libby. If he is found guilty, should he be sentenced to prison, and why (or why not)?

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 2, 2007 5:58 AM

Given the heat and light being generated here some empiricism might help. The UK did not have a minimum wage prior to 1997. All the dire predictions about hurting the poor, increased unemployment and so forth that conservative commentators here are making were made then by British conservative commentators. In fact the employment rate increased and unemployed total and rate both fell. Indeed the UK is a net importer of labor. The UK economy entered it's longest period of uninterrupted growth in history, avoiding the post 9/11 mini recession that America suffered and vastly outstripping the Eurozone. Inflation has been stable and interest rates low by historic norms.
So successful has the MW been that the conservative party dropped its opposition to it within three years of its introduction. Two points - the level is currently set at about $10-11 dollars, and the UK economy is more similar to the US economy than any other western nation - if you exclude Mexico (closer in terms of deregulation, post-industrialisation and so forth), so these lessons are probably pretty generalisable. I wouldn't claim that all conservatives are heartless bastards who want to grind the faces of the poor, as some here wish to parody Jim Wallis as saying. But that doesn't mean that their judgements are necessarily correct, and in this instance the "it only hurts those it's supposed to help" argument is demonstrable nonsense.

Posted by: Ex Pat R | February 2, 2007 7:06 AM

Wolverine: I probably agree with you about zoning laws though a lot of people work out of their homes now, like myself, often below minimum wage. Thanks X pat

Posted by: Joel Kretzmann | February 2, 2007 8:12 AM

Simple question: If raising the minimum wage is such a good idea, then why are we being so stingy with it? Why not raise it to $200 an hour? Then we'd all be well off. Obviously, this wouldn't work, and the destruction wrought by a $200 minimum wage differs from a $7.15 wage only in degree. One or all of the following negative effects MUST result from a raise in the minimum wage: 1. Increased unemployment for the lowest-skilled and/or least productive workers. 2. Price inflation to compensate for higher wage payouts. 3. The complete elimination of certain types of jobs. This includes jobs which will never be created in the first place due to the restriction. If you think you have an argument for minimum wage (i.e. that it won't have the opposite of the stated effect), bring your ideas to the mises.org blog. It's the largest economics research site on the web. A caveat -- if the minimum wage is still far below the going market rate, you will see little or none of the above effects (because no one will be effected by the wage -- imagine if the govt. said the minimum wage must be one cent) . This little statistical trick is often used by minimum wage supporters to show that raising the minimum wage really doesn't have any negative effects. Be wary of that type of claim. As for low-paying jobs, personally, I don't know how I would have gotten where I am without my first few stepping-stone jobs. I'm not very rich, but I'm certainly not poor. I started out with no money and no car ... A final note ... If God hates inequality, why did He make us all so different?

Posted by: Fred Mann | February 2, 2007 10:38 AM

"Any section-eight housing in Ted Kennedy's gated and filthy rich neighborhood? Any affordable housing 'projects' near Mr. Edwards' 'new' mansion? Money that Edwards didn't earn but 'won.'" Are there any in yours? At least those boys are working to make sure that people can have even a ghost of a chance to make it. You can't say the same for the ultra-right. "Jim Wallis and his ultra rich Democrat-liberal buddies have only hurt struggling business owners on their quest to make America a godless-communist country." Grover Norquist strikes again!!!!

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 2, 2007 1:41 PM

Regarding "God Hates Inequality" I thought Progressive Christians like Jim Wallis were offering an alternative to the arrogance and intolerance of the Christian Right. We should speak and act on our religious beliefs instead of pretending that we know God's mind and feelings. Words matter. Reminding people of Jesus's life and teachings regarding the poor is one thing, pretending that we know what God HATES is quite another. No wonder so many of my secular friends tend to view Christian activism of any kind as dangerous.

Posted by: Philip H. Jos | February 2, 2007 1:50 PM

Far above, Kevin S said: Nonsense. After a raise in the minimum wage in 1990, this is precisely what happened. Wages escalated ahead of economic growth, and unemployment increased. In 1991, another increase, another jump in unemployment. Given that these results are predicted by a classic supply and demand model, we should hardly be surprised. I have yet to see anyone contend with the negative consequences of raising the minimum wage. If there are none, then we can safely raise the wage to $50,000 per year. I believe the important phrase in this statement is "ahead of economic growth." This is an accurate argument, and nails one of the reasons economic policy can't be only demand-side. A better, though less applicable argument, would be that the posthumous victory of the Kennedy demand-side tax cuts crushed the economy because supply did not expand to match it - creating significant inflation and recession with a major dip in corporate profits. However, in this case the minimum wage had not been raised in 10 years and was at its lowest point, in real terms, in 50 years. Compounded, the US economy has grown roughly 40% since the last time wages were raised. The hike in the minimum wage was 40%. In the long run, the effect on economic stability should be nil, though in the short run there will of course be friction in the form of a temporary unemployment rise and margin pressure. But in the end the slack capacity in the economy should sustain productivity growth. But there is a far more important issue about the economics of supply and demand here. While real wages at the low end are at their lowest point in 50 years, executive wages are at their highest point in the history of the world. The incredible growth we've experienced has moved many people from upper middle class to upper class and from middle to upper middle class - but it has also shifted those in the lower classes into destitution, lower middle class to lower class, etc. Admittedly, "class" is a moving target and, over time, nearly all boats are rising to some extent. But stratification is more than a moral issue here - I'm not selling egalitarian utopia - it's an economic structure issue. The economy ic driven by both supply and demand. The supply side is, in fact, beefed up hen the rich get richer in relative terms. However, empirical evidence overwhellmingly shows that when the poor get poorer in relative terms, the demand side cannot sustain the capacity increases from extra supply. Too mush supply and not enough demand results in deflation - the problem that plagued the Bush administration for the first three years. It simply does not work in the long run. Reagan benefitted from secular trends, such as real estate appreciation and capital market innovation in the form of securitization, and he made decent investments in expanding America's business resources, as did Clinton. But the ultimate effect of supply side economics for ten years is deflation and social stratification bordering on social darwinism. Above the moral issue here, we've got to consider how corporate profits will handle it when people can't buy products. Mature companies in particular predicate their growth stories on getting consumers to trade up to luxury items - if consumers are pinched they trade down to private label generics instead. It would be irresponsible for a Keynesian system to ignore these disparities for a long time. Competitiveness is important, and it requires us to balance the ability of businesses to operate with the ability of workers to buy their output. There are winners and losers in this system. Wal-Mart, for example, will make out like gangbusters on a minimum wage increase because it's shoppers are mostly in the loer income brackets. On the other hand, a few more of their suppliers may move to China. The important thing for policy is striking the balance, not letting capital create a Marxist powder keg or a 100% planned economy.

Posted by: Daniel | February 2, 2007 2:33 PM

If God hates inequality, why did He make us all so different? --This is a good point. Wallis seems to make the false assumption that income inequality comes through oppression. However, there are other contributors to inequality: 1) some people work harder than others and some are lazier than others; 2) some are more talented, skilled, or intelligent than others and can make wise investments or create products or services that are in demand; 3) some people are just luckier than others.
I'd like to see any verse Wallis can use to support the proposition that "God hates inequality." I don't know of any verse in the Bible that suggests that it is a sin to be rich (its implication) or that workers should be paid a high wage. Does anyone know of any? When the Bible talks about the rich being sinful it is always because they achieved their wealth through oppression and injustice. Earning wealth through hard work and ingenuity is not a sin. Any just economy will have inequality.

Posted by: jesse | February 2, 2007 2:49 PM

"However, in this case the minimum wage had not been raised in 10 years and was at its lowest point, in real terms, in 50 years. Compounded, the US economy has grown roughly 40% since the last time wages were raised. The hike in the minimum wage was 40%. In the long run, the effect on economic stability should be nil, " Well, I think the effect on everything will largely be nil. This will do very little for the poor, and won't really effect businesses (which is why there hasn't been too much of a battle over this). However, the proposal by some on this board is for a $10 an hour minimum wage, or 100%, which would have a much more dramatic effect. "Wal-Mart, for example, will make out like gangbusters on a minimum wage increase because it's shoppers are mostly in the loer income brackets. " Interesting theory. It will be interesting to look at their profits over the next 12 months. Moreover, I think they will benefit from the fact that their smaller competitors are more likely to pay the minimum wage. Someone above said that if you can't pay the wages, you shouldn't be in business. I'm sure