The Rich And The Poor - Lds Statements

[MormonFreeThinker]

Actually, most claims are false and have no merit to them. In this day and age it is probably impossible, at least in this country, to exploit the worker.

 

LOL you have never worked at Walmart, and pay the bills and rent with that. Most Walmart employees are not happy in Walmart, but they have nowhere else to go. 

 

Remember what Elder Holland said? he said, ""the poverty that holds them captive and destroys so many of their dreams"

 

So you do not believe what the apostle of the Lord is saying? 

Edited October 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, most claims are false and have no merit to them. In this day and age it is probably impossible, at least in this country, to exploit the worker.

 

There are essentially two business models in the US we can choose from, the Walmart model and the Costco model. You choose.

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/costco-profits_n_3359033.html?utm_hp_ref=business

[pogi]

I absolutely disagree with this statement. 

Being wealthy is morally wrong when others are poor.

 

Wealth is relative.  If you own the computer that you are typing on and can afford internet access, you are rich in the eyes of many.  Does that make you immoral? 

Edited October 27, 2014 by pogi

[ksfisher]

I am talking about the rich, the scriptures talk about the rich, they can afford to pay their employees better. In my first job, it is a small business, I earned 8.50 an hour, not 7.25 an hour. Many rich guys pay you 7.25 an hour, that is what some people like Maria Fernandez earn, and they have to get three jobs.  

 

2 Nephi 9:30 But wo unto the rich, who are rich as to the things of the world. For because they are rich they despise the poor

Proverbs 22:16 He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want. NIV One who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and one who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty.

 

The Gospel Principles manual is talking about the rich that pay very poorly 

 

"Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should. Satan says, “Take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor” (2 Nephi 28:8 ). Taking unfair advantage is a form of dishonesty." Gospel Principles, (2011), 179–83

 

While I agree with your basic premise, the Gospel Principles manual is not talking about "the rich that pay very poorly.  For context, here is the entire paragraph that you've partially quoted:

 

To Cheat Is Dishonest

We cheat when we give less than we owe, or when we get something we do not deserve. Some employees cheat their employers by not working their full time; yet they accept full pay. Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should. Satan says, “Take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor” (2 Nephi 28:8). Taking unfair advantage is a form of dishonesty. Providing inferior service or merchandise is cheating.

Chapter 31: Honesty

 

The quote is referring to cheating someone out of something that they've earned or getting something that you didn't deserve.  The quote also does not define how much an employer "should" pay an employee.

 

The lesson is teaching about honesty, not wages. 

[cinepro]

LOL you have never worked at Walmart, and pay the bills and rent with that. Most Walmart employees are not happy in Walmart, but they have nowhere else to go. 

 

Remember what Elder Holland said? he said, ""the poverty that holds them captive and destroys so many of their dreams"

 

So you do not believe what the apostle of the Lord is saying? 

 

I'm not a fan of poverty, but I'm also not a fan of unworkably fanciful economic notions that have no basis in reality. 

 

I'm also mystified by your comment about Walmart workers.  It seems to imply that it is Walmart's job to make sure their employees are "happy".  Assuming what you say is true about "most" of them (CFR on that ), why is that Walmart's fault?

 

And I hate to break it to you, but before you start talking about fair wages and greedy corporations, you need to address the issue of jobs disappearing.  The question isn't whether or not someone will work at McDonalds for $8/hr or $15/hr.  The question is how much longer will McDonalds need any people working for them when such great strides are being made in automation?

 

The day isn't too far off when a McDonalds can be nothing more than a huge walk in vending machine (with the hamburgers made with higher quality!)  What happens to the jobs economy when the jobs just disappear?  What will self driving cars do to transportation jobs like cab drivers and truck drivers? There are approximately 3.5 million truck drivers in the USA.  How many will be out of jobs in 15 years?  Quibbling over minimum wages and fair wages for low skilled workers is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic (and if you're successful in making the wages go higher, you make it sink faster).

Edited October 27, 2014 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

Yes.  It is a matter of selfishness more than wealth.  Money is not the root of all evil.  Love of money is the root of all evil.

Still, the sooner we get rid of money the sooner the love of it will go away too.

[The Nehor]

Actually, most claims are false and have no merit to them. In this day and age it is probably impossible, at least in this country, to exploit the worker.

Oh wait....you were serious. It is easy to exploit a worker. With job numbers falling the employer has more and more power and the relationship becomes less equal. Put in someone with a limited skillset without an easy way to find or relocate to another job and you have people trapped. Cinepro may have it right. If automation starts taking a lot more jobs we may see a glut of workers who are desperate and easily exploited. Maybe when the baby boomers are all retired we can get closer to a fair division of power between employer and employed.

I say this as someone who could probably grab another job within a month if I needed it but I am fortunate. Many do not have that level of security.

[ksfisher]

Still, the sooner we get rid of money the sooner the love of it will go away too.

 

Are you volunteering to be the first to get rid of his money?  Let me tell you where to send your's to...

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

If we are looking for specifically LDS statements, the first place to look is the Book of Mormon. Interestingly, the term "true Church" (which does not appear in the KJV a single time), appears only twice in the Book of Mormon. The first time the term is used is in 2 Nephi 9, which says only that God has spoken from generation to generation to people who will be "restored to the true church and fold of God". The second time the term "true church" is used, in 4 Nephi 1:24, we actually get a description of what the "true church" actually is. To wit: 

 

"And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in a pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world. And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more a common among them. And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ."

In other words, the implication of these verses is that the "true church of Christ" is a society in which we wear humble apparel, have all goods and substance in common, are not divided into classes, and do not use "religion" as a false pretext to get personal gain. In the Book of Moses, Cain says: "Truly I am Mahan, the master of this great secret, that I may murder and get gain." To the contrary, Joseph Smith taught that the "great secret" is to know that God -- or, better, the Council of the Gods, plural -- are real, physical, tangible, living human beings who we can embrace, the true Treasures In Heaven than are worth far more than mere money. King Benjamin's address (and Holland's fantastic GC talk) should, for us LDS at least, completely dispense with the notion that we can evade our duty to help the poor by blaming them for their own poverty. We're all beggars in need of grace.  

Edited October 28, 2014 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[strappinglad]

As pogi said , wealth is relative. $7.50 an hour would be a massive amount of money to someone in areas of the world where $7.50 a DAY is the norm. I remember when the standard family house in my area was about the size of today's new home living room. And they raised 6-10 children in that home.

I agree that there is a widening divide between the very rich and the working poor. Even the middle class are struggling to maintain a lifestyle that the Kings of the Middle Ages would have given their squire's right arm for.

[MormonFreeThinker]

While I agree with your basic premise, the Gospel Principles manual is not talking about "the rich that pay very poorly.  For context, here is the entire paragraph that you've partially quoted:

 

It is not out of context, the Gospel Principles manual clearly says that some employers "are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should" 

 

The scriptures talk about the rich, and some of them " despise the poor" 2 Ne. 9:30 

 

Do you believe in the scriptures? Do you believe that all the rich people care about the poor or their employees? 

[The Nehor]

Are you volunteering to be the first to get rid of his money?  Let me tell you where to send your's to...

I will when Zion comes. Right now I need to keep sufficient for my needs.

[The Nehor]

 The day isn't too far off when a McDonalds can be nothing more than a huge walk in vending machine (with the hamburgers made with higher quality!)  What happens to the jobs economy when the jobs just disappear?  What will self driving cars do to transportation jobs like cab drivers and truck drivers? There are approximately 3.5 million truck drivers in the USA.  How many will be out of jobs in 15 years?  Quibbling over minimum wages and fair wages for low skilled workers is just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic (and if you're successful in making the wages go higher, you make it sink faster).

I am a little dubious about this. I remember sitting as a kid in a Sunday School class and being told that by the time I was an adult robots would be running fast food places and this example was used as to why I had to go to college. It still has not happened and I am not a young adult anymore. I hope it happens. The sooner we move to a post-scarcity economy the better. Then we can either become a utopia or a hellhole depending on our choices. I am a pessimist so I expect a hellhole but I have been wrong before.

[rodheadlee]

Don't employ other people.  It is the only safe way.

Just treat them like the golden rule says. Treat them how you would want to be treated. Wealthy people keep me employed. I do better work and more of it when I am appreciated. It doesn't always have to be directly to my paycheck, I get most of my meals paid by my employer. and an occasional tank of gas. I don't get lied to and they respect my work.

Edited October 28, 2014 by rodheadlee

[rodheadlee]

Wealth is relative.  If you own the computer that you are typing on and can afford internet access, you are rich in the eyes of many.  Does that make you immoral? 

Only if you cheated someone out of some money to buy your computer or paid slave wages to your workers to afford your goodies. It's not rocket science..

Edited October 28, 2014 by rodheadlee

[katherine the great]

There are essentially two business models in the US we can choose from, the Walmart model and the Costco model. You choose.

SEE http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/costco-profits_n_3359033.html?utm_hp_ref=business

I choose the Winco model.http://wincofoods.com/about/an-employee-owned-company/

[pogi]

I really like the social business model:

 

 

Social business is a cause-driven business. In a social business, the investors/owners can gradually recoup the money invested, but cannot take any dividend beyond that point. Purpose of the investment is purely to achieve one or more social objectives through the operation of the company, no personal gain is desired by the investors. The company must cover all costs and make profit, at the same time achieve the social objective, such as, healthcare for the poor, housing for the poor, financial services for the poor, nutrition for malnourished children, providing safe drinking water, introducing renewable energy, etc. in a business way.

 

The impact of the business on people or environment, rather the amount of profit made in a given period measures the success of social business. Sustainability of the company indicates that it is running as a business. The objective of the company is to achieve social goal/s.

 

Clarifications on Social Business

 

I am not opposed to making profit. Even social businesses are allowed to make profit with the condition that profit stays with the company; the owners will not take profit beyond the amount equivalent to investment. Social business is a new category of business. It does not stipulate the end of the existing type of profit-making business. It widens the market by giving a new option to consumers. It does not intend to monopolise the market and take the existing option away. It adds to the competition. It brings a new dimension to the business world, and a new feeling of social awareness among the business community.

 

When we approach the concept of social business from the philanthropy side, it looks very convincing and logical. Why should everything in philanthropy be given away? If some of these goals can be achieved more efficiently and sustainably in a (social) business format, then why not take that route? After all our purpose is to achieve the social goal.

 

But when you approach it from the orthodox business side, it tends to look a bit out of tune. Why on earth give up profit? Why should anyone run a business without profit? I understand the surprise perfectly.

 

Let me clarify: I am not asking any businessperson to give up any of their businesses. Nor am I asking them to convert some of their businesses into social business. The idea of "giving up" something creates this shock wave. I am not asking anybody to "give up" anything. All I am saying, if you are worrying about a social problem (while totally engaged in your routine business) I have a message for you, you can make a significant contribution in resolving the problem. If you put your mind seriously into it, you may even open the door to eliminate the problem globally. You can do both: conventional business and social business.

 

It is all upto you to decide whether you want to do a such thing or not. Nobody will raise an accusing finger at you if you do no such thing. But you may feel happy if you do it. I am suggesting a way which may make you a happier person.

 

A Learning Process

 

It is a great learning process. You are doing things which you never did before. You are thinking in a way which you never did before. You are surprised to see you are enjoying it a lot. You start digging into your experiences to see what is relevant for the task. You check through the reservoir of technology that you are familiar with, start contacting the pool of experts that you have gotten to know in your business, to achieve your new goal. You start exploring a new world which was totally unknown to you. You realise that you are now wearing "social business glasses" on your eyes, you see things which you never saw before. You start sensing that your eyes were fitted with "profit-maximizing glasses" all along, while you thought these were your natural eyes in your economic world.

 

Now when you turn your eyes to your own profit-making businesses you start noticing things which you never noticed before. You bring new-gained experiences from your new business to your old businesses. Slowly you move towards becoming an multi-dimensional person, rather than a robot-like person.

 

Some people ask me why can't you run businesses with some profit and some social benefit "doing well by doing good", as it is popularly described.

 

Of course, it can be done. I am never against it. But I am trying go to the ultimate point where you don't make any profit for yourself at all. This is easy to identify, easy to handle in day to day decision making.

 

When you mix profit and social benefit it gets complicated for the CEO. His thinking process gets clouded. He does not see clearly. More often this CEO will take decision in favour of profit, and exaggerate the social benefit. Owners will go along with it. Social business gives a clear unambiguous mandate to the management. There is no balancing act involved. If you can agree to take a "small" profit, you can also persuade yourself to take zero profit. Once you get there you get rid of all old ways of thinking. You prepare yourself to explore a new world, a new way of seeing things, and doing things in a different way. When you were in the world of a "small profit" you were still operating in the old world, with old ways of doing things, only restraining yourself here and there.

 

Another way to put the same question is: Why can't you allow thee investors in social business to get a small fixed profit say, 1% dividend. My answer is the same. I may describe this situation by saying something like this: you are in a "no smoking" building, you are arguing "Why can't I be allowed to take just one small puff ?" Answer is simple it destroys the attitude. In Ramadan, Muslims are not allowed to eat or drink until the after the sunset. Why not take a sip of water during the day? It destroys the strength of the mental commitment. You lose a lot for a small favour.

 

Social business is about making complete sacrifice of financial reward from business. It is about total delinking from the old framework of business. It is not about accommodation of new objectives within the existing framework. Unless this total delinking from personal financial gain can be established you'll never discover the power of real social business. Some times you can set up a technically correct social business with the purpose of making profit through your other companies by selling products or services to this social business company. This will be a clear sabotage of the concept. There may be many other subtle ways by which one can weaken the concept and practice of social business. A genuine social business investor must make all efforts so that he does not walk into this trap unwittingly.

 

Capitalism has created poverty by focusing exclusively on profit. It built a fairy-tale of prosperity for all. This never happened. That's why Europe decided to entrust the government to take care of poverty, unemployment and health. They were smart enough to figure out the emptiness of capitalism in solving these problems.

Author's Summary on Creating a World Without Poverty

 

While free market capitalism is thriving globally, almost unopposed now, and bringing unprecedented prosperity to many, half of the world lives on two dollars a day or much less. Eradication of poverty remains the biggest challenge before the world. Colossal social problems and deprivations, mostly poverty-related and very unevenly distributed around the globe, continue to shame us everyday. Obviously the free market has failed much of the world. Many people assume that if free markets can’t solve social problems, then governments can. After all, the government is supposed to represent the interests of society as a whole. But decades and even centuries of experience has shown that while government must do its part to help alleviate our worst problems, it alone can not solve them.

 

Fortunately for us there is a keen desire among many to lend a hand through charity, for addressing the problems of poverty and other social problems. Charity is rooted in basic human concern for other humans. These days concern is usually expressed in the shape of non-profits and NGOs which may take various names and forms. Then there are aid organizations sponsored by rich governments' bilateral and multilateral. Nonprofits and aid organizations are trying to keep the problems within some control. But charity is a form of trickle-down economics; if the trickle stops, so does help for the needy. On the other hand multilaterals like World Bank focus only on growth as the means of helping the poor, but can not see that the poor people can be actors themselves. There are serious questions about the type of growth that can help the poor. As another response to the global social problems some businesses are identifying themselves with the movement for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and are trying to do good to the people while conducting their business. But profit-making still remains their main goal, by definition. Though they like to talk about triple bottom lines of financial, social, and environmental benefits, ultimately only one bottom line calls the shot: financial profit.

 

I always believed that poverty can be totally conquered in our own lifetimes if the right approach is adopted. I based my belief on the inherent ability of the poor that can be unleashed once they are given the opportunity to help themselves. This I have proved in action through my three decades of experience with Grameen Bank. The concept of microcredit did not exist before I initiated Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which basically recognized that credit without collateral is a fundamental right of the poor. Our success with this in my own country has been widely replicated all over the world including in some of the richest countries; and the Nobel Peace Prize 2006 for Grameen Bank and myself is one recognition of that success. The story of Grameen Bank has been told in my earlier book: "Banker to the Poor". In this new book I have described the further evolution of Grameen System. But more importantly I have introduced and elaborated here my broadened concept of social business, that the Grameen experience has led me into.

 

Grameen allowed the poor to be an actor in the free market and to enjoy some of its fruits to try to come out of poverty. It is fundamentally a business model, pure and simple, but a social business. There can be other social businesses. They are just like any other business; but for social objectives and not for personal gain or dividend. I have tried to show in the book why social business can succeed in addressing social problems where other means mentioned above have failed. social business should not be confused with the term social enterprise which is used in a more encompassing sense and includes NGOs, personal initiatives, charities, etc., and may include social business too.

 

Social business introduces a totally revolutionary dimension to the free market economy. It does not interfere with the mechanism through which the normal Profit Making Business (PMB) works and prospers capitalization, expert business management, competitiveness etc., but investors here do not receive any dividend, though they can recover their investment if they want to, to reinvest in other social businesses or PMBs. The satisfaction gained in achieving the stated social goals are the only motive behind the investment, and the business will be evaluated according to that standard. Essentially it is a non-loss, non-dividend business aimed at social objectives education, health, environment, whatever is needed to address the problems faced by society. The profits here remain with the business and help it to grow further. The whole thing is based on the premise that entrepreneurs need not be motivated only by the profits they personally receive, but can also be motivated by social goals and may enjoy success there with equal satisfaction. The important thing is not to mix up a Social Business with a PMB. In fact the inclusion of Social businesses alongside PMBs in the business world will give the free market capitalism a larger, nobler and a more fulfilling purpose. Its advantages over straightforward charity are many efficiencies, continuous use with each turnover, competition with PMBs following the same rules, utilization of business innovations being some of the most important ones.

 

There can be two types of social business. Type One focuses on businesses dealing with social objectives only, as has just been mentioned. Type Two can take up any profitable business so long as it is owned by the poor and the disadvantaged, who can gain through receiving direct dividends or by some indirect benefits. There are various ways how the ownership can go to the poor. The two types can be mixed together in the same social business as has happened in the case of Grameen Bank. In a similar mixture of the two types, a socially beneficial rural toll road or bridge can be built by a company as a social business whose ownership will belong to the poor. On the other hand a huge project such as the Deep-Sea Mega Port in Bangladesh, which I have been advocating for, which will be used by several countries in the whole region and can potentially change the economic face of Bangladesh, can be built as a social business owned by the poor women of the country.

 

Is this an utopia? Will there be social businesses outside the realm of microcredit? Who will invest in such social businesses? I could answer these questions confidently in my new book, not only because I have faith in my idea and on the ability of the entrepreneurs to have social motives as well as profit making motives; but also because I am seeing this actually to happen at this very moment. I have devoted a good part of the book on the details of the first such social business we have started Grameen Danone Company which went into operation in early 2007. The idea of the company was born over just a casual lunch I had with Franck Riboud, the Chairman and CEO of Groupe Danone, a large French corporation a world leader in diary products. It took just that time for me to convince him that an investment in a social business is a worthwhile thing for Danone shareholders. Even though it will not give any personal dividend to them, he agreed to the proposition even before I fully explained it to him. It took somewhat more time to fix up the modalities, the product (a fortified sweet yogurt for the poor malnourished children of Bangladesh at a price they can afford), the financing, tax and regulatory issues, new yard sticks for evaluating business and many other such details. And I have devoted many pages of the book on these details to show how all these things can be taken care of. The yogurt "Shokti Doi" (Energy Yogurt) is already in the market.

 

The Grameen System has invested in a second social business this time an Eye Hospital where the poor can have eye treatment and cataract operations at a very low cost and all others in the small town and the villages around will have an excellent medical facility where there was not any like that before.

 

Social business is a new concept and its practice is just beginning. As my book reveals, it has to make a lot more exploration while gaining more experience. There are challenges to be faced and solutions to be developed. For example, we had to invent a totally innovative marketing system to keep the market fragmented so that the low cost "Shokti Doi" is reserved only for the poor children and does not disappear in the urban market for the well to do. I have also touched upon other issues such as how can the ownership of the Type Two social business be transferred to the poor, or how can the wonderful opportunities offered by IT be best deployed for social business.

 

One thing is very clear to me that with social business taking off, the world of free market capitalism will never be the same again, and it then will really be able to deliver a deathblow on global poverty. I am sure, many business wizards and successful business personalities will apply their abilities to this new challenge the challenge of creating a poverty-free world within a short time. At the moment we are seeing merely the line of horizon. Soon a good part of business genius, creativity and innovation of the world will devote itself to this new goal of social good. A whole new stock market with its new indices will thrive in the financial capitals of the world motivated by this new incentive. It will accelerate the process of poverty eradication to an unthinkable pace using the same market mechanism which accelerated the global prosperity for the rich in the first place.

 

http://www.muhammadyunus.org/index.php/social-business/social-business

Edited October 28, 2014 by pogi

[Storm Rider]

It is not out of context, the Gospel Principles manual clearly says that some employers "are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should" 

 

The scriptures talk about the rich, and some of them " despise the poor" 2 Ne. 9:30 

 

Do you believe in the scriptures? Do you believe that all the rich people care about the poor or their employees? 

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with the term "some", but drawing wider generalizations is invalid.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

The day isn't too far off when a McDonalds can be nothing more than a huge walk in vending machine (with the hamburgers made with higher quality!)  What happens to the jobs economy when the jobs just disappear?  

 

Even if jobs disappear (which I doubt), most low-paid workers have two or three jobs. 

Let me ask you again, Is it better for a single mother to have 2 or 3 low paying jobs? or one modest paying job?

 

Why do you ignore what the manual of the church says? I though you believed in church manuals. 

 

"Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should"  Gospel Principles, (2011), 179–83

 

The solution is 

 

"Honorable employment is useful. It provides goods or services which make the world a better place in which to live. Honorable employment is also remunerative. It provides enough income so that we may be self-sufficient and able to support our families, while leaving us enough time free to be good fathers and church workers."

 - President Howard W Hunter 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/10/prepare-for-honorable-employment?lang=eng

 

Church News 

“There is a great deal of chance or serendipity or even luck to success in business, in politics, in science, in academics, in investments, in winning and losing.” - Mitt Romney 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/no-obstacle-too-great-for-young-single-adults-in-arizona?lang=eng

 

See Deseret News 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865602791/Mitt-Romney-I-think-we-ought-to-raise-the-minimum-wage.html?pg=all

Edited October 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[busybee]

I absolutely disagree with this statement. 

Being wealthy is morally wrong when others are poor.

So are all the members of the Twelve and First Presidency morally wrong then??? They have all worked very hard throughout their lives and most have some degree of wealth.

[cinepro]

Even if jobs disappear (which I doubt), most low-paid workers have two or three jobs. 

 

 

I"m not sure what you "doubt" about jobs disappearing.  It can certainly be argued that some industries grow their number of jobs while other industries shrink, but certainly specific industries can lose a great many jobs.  It happened with US manufacturing, and it will happen with jobs for low-skilled/ low-wage workers if they insist on forcing companies to pay them more than an economically justified wage.  It's not a matter of fairness, honesty, or kindness.  It's like gravity.  

 

Just look at the Church's early efforts to institute economic systems that tried to introduce creative interpretations of common economic principles.  Great in principle, and a disaster in practice.

 

One solution to the problem that I think could work would be for someone to create some sort of standard for a "Fair Wage", and then certify companies and give them a sticker they can put in their window (much like the LA County health department does to let consumers know how a restaurant did on their last health inspection).  Then consumers could choose whether or not they want to eat at a restaurant that pays a "Fair Wage", or one that doesn't. They could even take automation into account (and grade companies that automate lower).  That would be a great, non-government solution to the "problem" that would be far more effective than any thing else that's been suggested. 

[The Nehor]

I think we should build robots to do all the boring stuff. Then we can degrade and abuse them at will until they rise up and destroy us and then: problem solved.

[MormonFreeThinker]

t will happen with jobs for low-skilled/ low-wage workers

 

That is offensive, I used to work at Walmart, there are a lot of good workers with many skills. Some associates have more skills than the managers. 

I know more Math than the Walmart managers. 

 

Is it better for a single Mother to have 3 low paying jobs? or one job that pays fairly? 

 

Why do you ignore what the church manuals are saying? 

 

"Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should" Gospel Principles, (2011), 179–83 

 

 pay them more than an economically justified wage.  . 

 

You must be joking, why do single Mothers like Maria Fernandes have three jobs? It is because the rich (lWalmart and McDonalds) do not pay them enough.

The scriptures say that the rich need to help the poor.  What is the best method to help the poor? 

 

The Ensign gives you the answer 

 

"The young man kept his job, and the grateful employer even raised his wage a bit to help the man better support his mother." 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/12/portraits?lang=eng

Edited October 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Calm]

"I used to work at Walmart"

 

Key phrase:  "used to"

[MormonFreeThinker]

No it isn't. That statement is no were in scripture

 

Why do you want life to be easier for the rich? and harder for the poor?

7.25 full time is not enough for the food, rent, and the bills. 

 

Do you really want single mothers to have two or three jobs just to survive? 

 

The scriptures tell us to help the poor, and the rich need to help the poor, not make their lives harder. 

 

"Honest people work hard during all the hours for which they are paid. Honest employers pay those who work for them according to what the employees deserve." 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-fundamentals/chapter-26-honesty?lang=eng

 

For example, Costco is an honest employer, Walmart is not very honest. 

Edited October 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker