Greed, oppressing the poor and the wage earner

[Guest Robert]

Sadly, what is behind this is an attitude of "looking out for number one" rather than people looking out for each other, as the Lord intended. This, along with greed and a drive to gain as much as possible, not only deprives the working people, but harms the disabled and elderly as well.

What is worse though, is something I have observed: the relegating of certain groups of people to the status of "undesirable" or "in the way". The elderly, disabled, the poor: they all seem to get thrown to the side and classed as "less than human". And this troubling tendency is growing.

[Ezra]

12 hours ago, RobertS said:

What is worse though, is something I have observed: the relegating of certain groups of people to the status of "undesirable" or "in the way". The elderly, disabled, the poor: they all seem to get thrown to the side and classed as "less than human". And this troubling tendency is growing.

You are right Robert.  There does not seem to be anyone who is serious about addressing the plight of all these people, particularly the veterans. There are ample resources, but they are being siphoned off into the wrong hands. Every community should have an Ombudsman looking out for the ones who cannot look out for themselves.

[simplejeff]

They do.  By Law.  But , ... ... ... 

It's happening a lot like it did in germ before wwII.  

Only worse, worldwide.

[*Deidre*]

17 hours ago, RobertS said:

Sadly, what is behind this is an attitude of "looking out for number one" rather than people looking out for each other, as the Lord intended. This, along with greed and a drive to gain as much as possible, not only deprives the working people, but harms the disabled and elderly as well.

What is worse though, is something I have observed: the relegating of certain groups of people to the status of "undesirable" or "in the way". The elderly, disabled, the poor: they all seem to get thrown to the side and classed as "less than human". And this troubling tendency is growing.

Well said, I agree. 

[gdemoss]

One must wonder, why was it so important that the gospel be preached to the poor?  What effect might it have upon them? 

I was poor.  I heard the gospel.  I am now rich!

 

[Guest]

On February 5, 2016 at 11:48 AM, Thallasa said:

 Your education service is declining  , the culture of McDonalds , Starbucks  ,Coca Cola , ra ra girls, and much more, is considered 'trash ' culture here ,as only the lowly educated use them :  so what exactly do you mean  by advancement ? 

 

Meaning, that how lowly we are in society, we still have hope for a future.

Quote

 Who is brain washing you with this stuff  that you think that becoming a manager at Wallmart is one of the advantages of your country  ? This is very low level stuff in Europe ,and probably elsewhere too .

 

No one, now!  I’m finally coming to my senses!

 

Quote

 

You can be a doctor ,architect ,multi millionaire ,the list is endless in Europe, but with LESS HYPE .  It is this lack of knowledge of other cultures , which is killing your country . You  do not have it well, compared to others .

 

 

 

 

Never been one for mass hype—I like excitement and empowerment.  I really know I do not have it well, unfortunately!

 

Quote

 

ety . I think it is time to let go of the idea that the people in the States have it better than most ,for money cannot buy everything . 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes—less hype and more practical and pragmatic help and realism.  We need it better, here.

 

Would love a non-violent, free society—still free that is a dream!  (and yeah, we still have it good in the U.S.)

Edited February 13, 2016 by ethrayn

[Pamelasv]

On 2/8/2016 at 1:27 AM, gdemoss said:

One must wonder, why was it so important that the gospel be preached to the poor?  What effect might it have upon them? 

I was poor.  I heard the gospel.  I am now rich!

 

I wonder if one preached to the monetary poor that they would have a bigger inheritance than any on earth, they would be more receptive to it. 

[Guest Butero]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 4:44 PM, firestormx said:

Malachi 3:5-6

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts. For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

 

The verse above is one of many verses that speaks about God judging those that oppress or in another translation exploit the poor and the fatherless and the wage earner. What qualifies as oppressing or exploiting wage earners or the hireling? Take wal-mart for example.  I personally know people who make so little working full time at wal-mart that they must be on food stamps to make ends meet. All the while wal-mart makes billions and billions of dollars. Would wal-mart meet the biblical qualifications for oppressing the wage earner or hireling?   Where is the line? What I mean is, Peter I believe it was told Ananias " while the money was yours could you not do with it what you will" ? Where is the line between someone ( business owner for example ) doing with what is there's as they see fit and them oppressing/exploiting the wage earner or hireling they employ? With greed being everywhere in the USA today what is the proper biblical model that business should follow that doesn't exploit/oppress the hireling or the poor which God speaks against in so many places.  Personally I have always viewed this through the lens of something FDR ( i could be wrong ) said., which was, Any business that doesn't pay it's employees a livable wage has no right to exist in this country. But is this biblical? 

 

Just curious what others think in these times we find ourselves in what there understanding of not oppressing the poor and the hireling and the fatherless and widow means today from a biblical point of view. 

Thank you

Firestormx

Joseph

I think what it is talking about is someone who cheats workers out of their wages after they have already agreed upon a set price.  I don't think it has anything to do with paying low wages.  The Bible allows for slavery in the law of Moses, and even speaks of servants giving good service to their masters in the New Testament.  If slavery is allowed in scripture, I cannot see where paying low wages would be a sin.  As an employer, you are free to come into an agreement with a potential employee and reach a wage they are willing to work for.  If they take it, there should be no complaining.  They can always leave.  People start a business to make a profit.  They are naturally going to pay as little as possible.  What drives up wages is a lack of willingness of people to work for less than x amount of dollars per hour.  I am a strong believer in letting the free market determine wages.

[Guest Butero]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 8:53 PM, *Deidre* said:

Paying people a livable wage is entirely doable in the US, commensurate upon work experience, education level, etc (not every job position in every industry should pay the same rate but one could still make a livable wage) if there were less unions, less or no outsourcing jobs to other countries, and less greed. The latter is the cause of the two former problems, unfortunately. How to regulate greed? I don't know if the government can do that, but it would be nice if they could. 

You make interesting points.  When you are speaking of low wage earners, they are often unskilled positions, and they are often held as a second income or a first job for young people.  A lot of married women work at Wal-Mart and places like that, while a lot of teenagers hold the jobs at fast food restaurants.  They are entry level positions to most, and if the employees don't advance, they generally leave to take a better job elsewhere.  We used to have sewing plants in my area, and they paid very low wages.  They had to because of all the cheap imports.  When the minimum wage went too high, the jobs were eliminated.  The employees weren't making enough to say it was a "living wage," but most of the people working there were women who were helping with a second income.  Losing those low paying jobs hurt a lot of people.  That is why I oppose a minimum wage.

What I would like to see is the government do away with all corporate taxes, and give as many incentives as possible for businesses to return to this country or remain here rather than going overseas.  That would be a great help to the economy in providing jobs, and of course, more tax revenue with those jobs.  It would make us more self sufficient as a nation.  Some prefer to achieve this same goal through tariffs, but I don't want to start a trade war.  If this country was more business friendly, we wouldn't be losing jobs.  Socialist policies don't work. 

And you are right in that there is no way to regulate greed.  How many times have we heard liberals claim we can't legislate morality, when that is what they attempt to do all the time with their belief system. 

[Guest Thallasa]

7 hours ago, ethrayn said:

 

Meaning, that how lowly we are in society, we still have hope for a future.

 

No one, now!  I’m finally coming to my senses!

 

Never been one for mass hype—I like excitement and empowerment.  I really know I do not have it well, unfortunately!

 

 

Yes—less hype and more practical and pragmatic help and realism.  We need it better, here.

 

Would love a non-violent, free society—still free that is a dream!  (and yeah, we still have it good in the U.S.)

Hello Ethrayn, Good so it is good in the U.S. , but not neccessarily better than anyone else ,as you have said ?