Hugh Hewitt at the Napa Institute: Of Catholics and Chick-fil-A

Talk radio guy and “friend and ally of Rome” Hugh Hewitt has a piece in The Examiner.

Here in the heart of America’s wine industry, the Napa Institute brings together a few hundred Catholics in the company of many of the faith’s senior prelates and a raft of the country’s Catholic public intellectuals. [To give you an idea of what sort of prelates, the Bp. Morlino of Madison is there this year. The Extraordinary Form is on the Mass schedule as well.  Why have I not been to this?] The beautiful Meritage Resort is full, and the winery tours and golf are wedged in between various seminars, keynote addresses and a Mass schedule designed to please even the most rigorous monk or nun — and there are quite a few religious in attendance.

The conference theme of “The Next America” has the attendees looking far forward on topics of religious freedom, Catholic higher education and Catholic evangelization, but the presidential campaign is the buzz of the cigar and wine gatherings that begin late and go later. The Aspen Institute may have better mountain views, but the Roman Catholics know their viticulture and their Cohiba from their Romeo y Julieta.

And their politics. It is in the blood.

The mainstream media have pushed the absurd “Mitt Romney had a bad day in London” theme in a typical over-the-top-we-must-save-the-president frenzy, but to zero impact on these voters, who are supremely indifferent to gaffes as news. Not even the real political news — “You didn’t build that!” — or the real news of a sputtering economy and dreadful 1.5 percent GDP growth or the massacre in Aurora, Colo., make for much conversation on the patio and in the hallways.

Chick-fil-A, by contrast, does. Who knew that the Democrats’ war on a chain restaurant would move quickly through the new media into the awareness of most Americans on the center-right, mostly skipping the clueless mainstream media?

[...]

Incredibly, the mainstream media are finding it hard to get a comment out of President Obama on Chick-fil-A, so busy are they trying to turn Mitt Romney’s “disconcerting” statement into a major campaign story, even as the president’s “You didn’t build that!” metastacizes into the soundbite that ate the president’s re-election. Romney is off to Israel and Poland and his lead in the Rasmussen tracking poll is growing despite the best efforts of the Manhattan-Beltway media elite to block for Obama with a two-day assist from Fleet Street. The reason Romney has the momentum is that the country’s voters are very good at discerning meaningful moments and data from manufactured ones, even if the elite media Bigfoots are not.

The economy’s lifelessness; the “You didn’t build that!” exclamation; and now the attack on a job creator and force behind 1,600 restaurants, employing who knows how many thousands of people, for what is in essence a thought crime against the Left — these are real issues that have defined the president’s summer. It’s not just engaged Catholics and their church leadership, but wide swaths of previously indifferent voters are waking up to the lethal combination of the president’s incompetence and his supporters’ maximalist ideology. [Ah that unbeatable combo of ignorance and arrogance.]

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at

Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.

WDTPRS kudos.

And check out Mr. Hewitt’s recent book The Brief Against Obama: The Rise, Fall & Epic Fail of the Hope & Change Presidency.

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Fr. Z KUDOS, Just Too Cool, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Hugh Hewitt at the Napa Institute: Of Catholics and Chick-fil-A

  1. Hugh Hewitt seems like a good guy, and he is a unifying factor between all manner of conservative individuals of the Judeo-Christian heritage. I appreciate him immensely and the work that he does for America.

  2. everett says:

    I had the opportunity help out a bit at the conference and hear some of the talks. I certainly thought of you while helping. One of the masses this morning was a “Solemn Pontifical Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in the Extraordinary Form” celebrated by “His Excellency, Most Reverend Salvatore J. Cordileone”. Here’s a picture which might work: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s720x720/550974_399940400054695_1840069869_n.jpg

    There were some excellent talks, particularly one on Thursday by Archbishop Chaput, and a pair of top-notch ones from Fr. Barron. The text of Chaput’s talk can be found here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/07/6013

    They had three talks each morning, and in the afternoon had breakout sessions featuring some of the speakers, and others who were there, such as Bishop Morlino. I attended one of Bp. Morlino’s on Thursday afternoon, and he talked about a wide variety of things, including the hermeneutic of rupture and continuity, the HHS mandate, and a whether it’d be acceptable to vote for a hypothetical candidate who 100% supported abortion, homosexual marriage and the stripping of religious liberty.

  3. Cathy says:

    Interesting, while we don’t have control over how government spends the portion of our earned income that they take, we our still able to vote with our dollars. I have stopped spending my money at several stores and avoid purchases of certain products due to the stores/manufacturers support of immoral agendas. I find it refreshing to see a popular fast-food chain attacked for its intolerance of that which is intolerable and the subsequent support by the general population. We still have a vote with our dollars, there is a Chick-fil-a opening close by, I plan on supporting them often!

  4. drwob says:

    @Fr.Z: Bp. Morlino sat in choir at the Solemn Pontifical Mass (EF) celebrated by Archbishop-elect Cordileone this morning at the Napa Institute (although we weren’t able to attend the conference, we did attend the Mass, since our son served). The Mass was held in the Estate Cave, was very well attended, and was enthusiastically received by the conference attendees (more so than last year, I would say).

    Bishop Cordileone’s homily was excellent. He built on the theme of Jesus driving out the money changers from today’s Gospel reading to emphasize our need to be willing to take a stand and make a difference in our own cultural struggles today. First and foremost, he said we must defend the liturgy and protect the sense of the sacred, because this is the source of our strength. He said that he firmly believed that the Catholic Church was essential to addressing the challenges facing the U.S. today (religious freedom, attacks on traditional marriage, etc.). Not, he pointed out, by virtue of any special merits on our part, but because the Christian religion is essential to saving our culture, and because the Church is Christ’s instrument for defending and spreading our religion (I paraphrase from memory).

    Please pray for him as he takes on the formidable challenge of leading the Archdiocese of San Francisco, and pray for us in Oakland that we get a good, solid, orthodox bishop to work with him.

  5. Gratias says:

    Hugh Hewitt is a great talk show host. He was Catholic but is a Protestant convert now, so he knows us.

    Thank you for the great news that ++Cordileone offered yet another Solemn High Mass and that Bp. Morlino assisted in choir. Brick by brick. Ladrillo por ladrillo (sp).

  6. Mike Morrow says:

    August 1 (Wednesday) is Chick-fil-A Appreciation day. See the story in the Baptist Press at:

    http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38338

    I’ve never been all that wild about fast food chicken-this and chicken-that, but I’ll be there Wednesday.

  7. Gratias says:

    Hugh Hewitt has a feel for USA politics. Perhaps the “you didn’t build that” Freudian slip and the Gay marriage agenda vs Christian Chick Fill-A might be more powerful than we imagined. The Obama war on the Catholic Church is enough to make Evangelicals nervous.

    I have always thought that the main reason Bill Clinton lost the house and Senate in 1994 was his pushing Gays into the military. The country has changed now, but we shall see by how much.

  8. ReluctantLiberal says:

    Two things:

    First, I think it’s misleading to describe Romney’s trip to Great Britain as a matter of gaffes. He made numerous mistakes (including insulting GB to the extent that their PM felt compelled to retaliate), and generally provoked mockery and dislike among the British press. Given that Britain is one of the US’s closest allies, this should raise real concerns about Romney’s ability to handle foreign policy.

    Second, how many of the people on this blog feel that they would like to work in a long term position at a Chick-fil-A? How many people feel that the kind of job they’re likely to get at a Chick-fil-A would advance any other career goals? The low wage, dead end jobs that Chick-fil-A produces seem to me more like a strike against it than anything in its favor. So can we not call Chick-fil-A a job creator? I’m not sure if all the people who follow this blog go in for the decidedly Catholic idea of a living wage, but I think we can all agree that we don’t want an economy where Chick-fil-A is our model for new jobs. [These types of jobs are needed for young people who are entering the work force and others who need that level. But liberals would prefer to have them on the doll, I suppose, lest they learn responsible work habits at an early age and so that other people can pay for them.]

    That said, I think the technically-legal-but-ethically-awful moves that are being made against Chick-fil-A should be opposed and denounced. The rule of law means nothing if a business can be shut down based on the private whims of public officials. [True!]

  9. LisaP. says:

    The left wants to equate gay rights to marriage with the rights of folks of all ethnic and racial backgrounds to equal access to economic and educational opportunity. This story is meant to evoke memories of lunch counter demonstrations, because it is restaurant related. All the equivalencies are absurd, including the “the right did it then and the right is doing it now” lie that our public school system works so hard to make sure many Americans still believe (ask your average high school student which party opposed civil rights legislation in the 60s, I’m guessing you’ll get at least an 80% error rate). But this is what they are trying to evoke by making this an issue. They need to pull back into the fold those liberals who are quietly going to vote out Obama because their financial situation is bleaker than they’d like. They make these folks feel guilty with this stuff — what, you’d vote in those bigots just to strengthen your 401K a bit? What kind of person are you? It’ll work on some.

  10. LisaP. says:

    Oh, and love the restaurant, they obviously treat their employees well because I see little turnover and not as much stress as other places. The food is good quality, tasty, and not gimmicky. And we support them (when we can afford to eat out, a few times a year) simply *because* they are so countercultural as to close on Sunday.

    Hope you don’t mind a link to this song about them:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OwZGmYV-1I&feature=related

  11. TMKent says:

    How convenient for the participants! Many will be able to go directly from the Napa Institute to the Supreme Convention in Anaheim. I hope Archbishop Chaput is among the homilists / speakers this year.

  12. Suburbanbanshee says:

    I don’t think most people think Romney made a gaffe.

    It’s been obvious that the London Olympic Committee is only organized and on the ball in certain spots; UK newspapers have been happy to point this out. Meanwhile, Romney and his Salt Lake City folks made their Olympics run like clockwork (despite 9/11).

    The embarrassment is on the useless people on the Committee, as with any other convention or large event; and of course, the public face of such things is usually composed of useless people who love to get on camera and whine about being misunderstood. The only unfortunate thing for Romney is that some of these useless politicians are people he’ll have to work with — but of course, a lot of them may be out of office by the time he’s elected.

  13. Mary Jane says:

    LUV Chick-fil-A! Their lemonade is amazing. Gonna go there on the 1st to show support.

  14. LisaP. says:

    “I don’t think most people think Romney made a gaffe.”

    I hope not. This one has me perplexed. Someone asked him a question. He answered it honestly in a way no one really disputes has accuracy. So essentially, folks are saying he should have obfuscated on answering the question, or lied diplomatically — to what end? Cause if someone’s your friend, you tell him everything he wants to hear on every little subject? I seriously don’t get how this is an issue with anyone.

    What I could get is some good, old-fashioned competitive spirit — my game is better than your game stuff. Which seems to be how London took it — “Oh yeah? Well, at least we’re not out in the middle of nowhere”. Good natured competitive ribbing. How come no American ribbing back? Where’s the Americans making jokes about bad teeth or boiled meat? So sad, no fun at all seems to be being had.

  15. ReluctantLiberal says:

    Liberals do not want most people on welfare. They want people who need welfare on welfare. But mostly they want people to not need welfare. I read many liberal blogs (though liberal doesn’t really do justice to the diversity of thought and opinion on those blogs), and I’ve never seen anyone advocating that welfare be given to people who weren’t in financial distress.

    Obviously you don’t have time to answer every question you get, and I’d rather go unanswered than be booted as an obnoxious troll, but if you don’t mind, I’m wondering why you think liberals would want more people to need financial assistance?

  16. thefeds says:

    Dear Fr. Z,
    Speaking of EF Mass at Napa, yesterday’s celebrant at that Mass was none other than San Francisco’s Archbishop Designate, Salvatore Cordileone, who, by the way owns a Say The Black, Do The Red” coffee cup! Our (Diocese of Oakland) loss is SF’s gain.

  17. Johnno says:

    What are you even talking about ReluctantLiberal ?

    Who is holding up Chick Fil A employees as some amazing aspiring career path?

    If I had to choose between unemployment and being a Chick Fil A employee in order to live, I’d certainly take it. But frankly I’d rather work for Chick Fil A that I would a comfy career job as Obama’s secretary. I’d also rather be unemployed than would I sweep the floors of a Planned Parenthood clinic…

    Minimum Wage jobs exist for students, and young people or even down on their luck folks looking to earn money while studying or just to honestly work and eat. I have no idea what led you on this tangent…

  18. StJude says:

    There was no gaffe in what Romney said. He was right.

    on a side note.. I will be at Chick-Fil-A on wednesday. Having an opinion isnt a crime.. liberals are out of control these days.

  19. LisaP. says:

    Reluctant,

    For the record, I’d work at a Chick-fil-a if there were one here, even though I’m an old lady with a college degree and kids, because I could get extra cash to support our family goals without leaving the kids in child care. Labor at Chick-fil-a seems to be treated with more equity and dignity than other fast food places. Wish it were available near me.

    You can work your way up to nearly $20 an hour at Chick-fil-a, by the way. My husband is making $13 with no benefits rights now, again old guy with a college ed and great work record.

    For the welfare question, if you’re interested, look into Chester-Belloc on distributivism. If you are a reluctant liberal, you may find it interesting.

  20. ReluctantLiberal says:

    Lisa,

    I will admit, my impression of Chick-fil-A is still above working at a Walmart or McDonalds type establishment. And I’ll also admit, since I’m looking for work, that I would also take a job working full time at Chick-fil-A. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that I shouldn’t have to work at a Chick-fil-A and neither should you or your husband. We all would work there, but that job isn’t highly paid enough or highly skilled enough to really suit our needs or abilities. The economy doesn’t just need more jobs, it needs better jobs. And holding up Chick-fil-A as a model of job creation seems to me to be sending the wrong message.

    I am familiar with both Chesterton and Belloc (I’ve read four or five of Belloc’s books and well over twenty of Chesterton’s), and I never could quite imagine what Distributivism would actually look like. Chesterton seemed pretty happy to advise everyone to own their own cow, but that seems impractical given how specialized the economy is. I don’t really see the day when people are assembling i-Phones on their kitchen table or brewing broad spectrum antibiotics in the bathtub coming anytime soon. If you have a more specific suggestion, I’ll look into it. But for now, Distributivism is to me some broad general principles that I like and some practical suggestions that seem pretty… unworkable.

    @StJude
    Romney was absolutely right. But sometimes telling the truth is a very poor way to conduct a foreign policy, especially when you seem to be telling the truth on accident and to no useful purpose. It’s like going to a friend’s concert and telling them that their acting was terrible. It might be true, but if it’s unintentional, it’s still a gaffe.

  21. LisaP. says:

    Reluctant,

    I don’t know about CF being a poor model for job creation — the fact is those are good, honest jobs. I think I’d rather be on the side that holds up low wage but useful work as a model of job creation than the side that holds up legions of new IRS agents as the same, wouldn’t you? ;) Wages isn’t everything.

    I won’t argue with you one bit about distributivism ever being a working proposition, but I don’t think it’s because it couldn’t work, but because our society is dead set against it and that’s not going to change.

    Funny you pick the examples you do — my husband is working on getting a resin casting home business to be viable. It wouldn’t be our own cow, it would be our own small scale manufacturing, and it would follow a model he found working in Japan. But the obstacles are overwhelming, and it’s all about the way our economy is set up, not about the production work itself.

    Your medical example I also find interesting, there is a researcher at Harvard who is trying to cure Type 1 diabetes and possibly many other auto-immune diseases by using the TB vaccine to short-circuit the auto-immune malfunction that causes them. She has had success, only in mice, and it may not work. But essentially what she posits is that a large dose of a vaccine already widely and long-term in use could partially or totally cure Type 1 diabetes. She has been working on it for ten years with $10 million, and she’s at best halfway to discovering if she’s on the right track or all wrong. She seriously has to go through that convoluted a system. In a distributivist world, she could indeed line up a bunch of volunteers in her garage and know if she had the cure within a year, with less than $1000 expenses.

    We could go small interests, but I totally agree that we will not. We can’t imagine it, much less want it, much less move towards it, much less fight those who would stop it. Never happen. But I find the concept that welfare programs give the population a sense of security that prevents them from actively stopping labor exploitation very prescient.

  22. Sissy says:

    Reluctant Liberal asked: “why you think liberals would want more people to need financial assistance?”

    It’t simple: votes

  23. AnAmericanMother says:

    Reluctant,
    Actually Chick-fil-A has a pretty good path to management for those with the talent and gumption to make it. If you have degrees and/or experience you can go in through corporate. If not, you can work your way up into managerial and thence into corporate, or into owning a franchise.
    Plus it’s a good product, a cut above your average fast food place. There are salads and grilled chicken for those who don’t want to eat the iconic fried chicken sandwich (but it’s very good. And the peach shakes are heavenly. Real ice cream, real peaches.)
    I’m planning to eat there on Wednesday to show my support.

    And yeah, there’s a certain class of liberals (or perhaps we could call them socialists, or old-time Tammany ward-heelers) who want people dependent on government largesse, so that they can count on their votes. What did you think the old “spoils system” was, anyhow?

  24. ReluctantLiberal says:

    @Johnno
    Sorry, I missed your question the first time around. The article Father Z quotes called Chick-fil-A a job creator. And students may need jobs, but college graduates need more jobs. I am so sick of governors and business owners bragging about all the minimum wage jobs they created. It’s something of a bandaid, but this country needs real jobs with wages that can support a family.

    @Lisa
    An honest job is different from a good job. Chick-fil-A does produce honest jobs, but not many good ones. And I think the dichotomy between cashiers at Chick-fil-A and IRS agents might be a false one.

    @Sissy
    I think that’s really uncharitable. It’s kind of like saying that conservatives are passing voter ID laws to keep minorities from voting. Sure a handful of people probably ARE supporting voter ID laws to keep minorities from voting, but there are lots of much more justifiable reasons to support voter ID laws, and it would be really unfair to conservatives to assume that they all (or even most) support something for the worst reason imaginable.

  25. LisaP. says:

    No, Reluctant, there is no difference between an honest job and a good job. There is certainly a difference between some honest jobs and an interesting, profitable, fun, fulfilling, etc. job. But a good job is one where you do useful and moral work for an honest wage. There actually aren’t a ton of those out there these days.

    I think we’re looking at a fundamental difference in perspective, fairly literally. Conservatives see a nation with a dearth of jobs, and see anyone creating honest work as lighting a candle in the darkness. They are appreciative, especially as they know the lighting of the candle usually comes at a cost. But the POV you describes sees that candle as — what? A mockery of full daylight? Worse than useless? Just a false promise of true sunshine?

    Chick-fil-a is not preventing any other entity or family from creating jobs that compete for their labor, therefore raising wages to a level you like better (and I’m assuming you also think more satisfying work is a goal, also?). Why get mad at Chick-fil-a?

    (Oh, and I’m happy to grant you that it’s a bit slimy to make the IRS agent comparison, but I honestly couldn’t think of a cleaner example of jobs created, or allowed to be created, by the current administration — can you ?)

  26. Sissy says:

    Reluctant Liberal: What is your explanation for Democrat policies dating back at least 60 years that appear to be designed to keep people in poverty rather than encourage them to support themselves? I’m sorry you think my explanation is uncharitable, but the only other possibility is that the leaders of the Democrat party are very, very slow to learn from their mistakes. The disgrace of the “War on Poverty” policies are well-documented, even by Democrats. So what’s your explanation of decades of failed policies creating multi-generational poverty if there is no motivation to help ensure a reliable voting bloc?

  27. AnAmericanMother says:

    My comment went into moderation, probably because of my predilection for paragraphs and the link to Chick-fil-A’s employment website.
    There are two paths to a good position at Chick-fil-A – through corporate for those with the required education or experience (and the website has openings for people with degrees and/or experience) – or through the franchises. Either path can lead into management. A friend started as a fry cook and made her way up to owning 3 fast-food franchises (not CFA, but the principle’s the same). Of course, she’s an eager beaver and a go-getter and could sell walk-in freezers to Eskimos.
    I will make the observation that far too many young people take the attitude that somebody owes them a job commensurate with what they believe their qualifications to be. Sometimes you have to take an entry-level job and work up. I was in the right place at the right time and landed a job right out of school — my daughter, on the other hand (in this economy), even though she has a good biology degree, worked a part time job at PetSmart until an animal husbandry position came open at the local science museum. It’s part time, but if she ‘gives satisfaction’ it will go to full time with benefits. She is a hard worker and a far more pleasant person than her mother, so it should.

  28. ReluctantLiberal says:

    There’s way too many points in the air for me to cover them all, so I’ll just to hit the big ones.

    I don’t have any big beef with Chick-fil-A as a company. I think it is a slightly better than average fast food chain, but that still makes most of its employees underpaid and severely underutilized. What I do have a beef with is a business model where Chick-fil-A is above average.

    Like I said, low wage jobs are a bandage. They cannot and will not solve our problems. I do care that college graduates are getting their degrees and then being forced to work at Circuit City as a cashier. That does bother me. But besides my sympathy for the poor schlub who happened to graduate in the wrong year, funneling grads into low wage, hourly jobs is bad for the economy. People lose skills they don’t use after three or four years, which means every college grad who’s forced to work below their skill level is going to earn a lot less income over the long term.

    Sissy, your evidence assumes your thesis. The past thirty years have mostly been comprised of tax cuts and welfare reforms (that made welfare harder to get) that have made the gap in wealth between the rich and the poor as wide as it has ever been. Or at least that’s how I read recent history. I think the policies you seem to be advocating make people poorer, but I don’t think for a second that you want them to. I don’t mind you thinking you’re right, but I mind very much that (as Chesterton would say) you don’t seem to be able to imagine how you might be wrong.

    And finally (and most importantly), I dislike President Obama and the Democratic party. I have no intention of defending either (except where they happen to be right). I can say without exaggeration that I think President Obama is a lying, pandering, war criminal. Him and half his administration belong behind bars for human rights abuses and shredding Constitutional rights. The Democrats in Congress are a bunch of hypocrites. President Bush would have been impeached for sure if he’d tried half of what Obama’s been praised for doing.

  29. Michelle F says:

    I’m not fond of Chick-fil-A’s food, and I don’t know anything about their business model (except they are closed on the Lord’s Day), but I know a battle line in the War Against Morality when I see one, so I and a friend of mine will be eating at our local Chick-fil-A restaurants on Wednesday, 01 August, and as regularly as possible from now on!

  30. LisaP. says:

    Fair enough, Reluctant.

  31. Sissy says:

    Reluctant Liberal, I’m not trying to pick an argument with you over which came first, the chicken or the egg. There is plenty of blame to go around to all political parties over legislation that addresses poverty. Common sense solutions are very rarely attempted, unfortunately. My entire life of legal practice was spent in pro bono representation of the poorest of the poor: Haitian foster children. Since my clients were children, they could not come to the office; I had to go to them. So, I’ve spent more hours than I can count in the very worst projects you could possibly imagine. I’ve seen firsthand both the good and the bad of government interaction with the permanent poor. And therein lies the rub: most poor people in the US are not permanently poor. Most people who are poor at one time or another move up and cease to be poor. I am one of those. But there is a core group of people in the US who are born into poverty born of dependence on the government and they never rise above it. It is that core group of permanently poor who are most negatively affected by wrongheaded and counterproductive policies.
    My original comment, to which you took great exception, was addressed to the motivation for those policies which create dependence. I suggested that currying favor with special interest groups for purposes of achieving reelection is a prime motivator for just about everyone in the political class. I think that is so self-evident a fact that only a very idealistic and naive person could fail to apprehend it.

  32. robtbrown says:

    ReluctantLiberal,

    1. Circuit City no longer exists with stores, so there are no cashiers. Its brand was purchased, and it is now only an online retailer. Of course, that is what business has going for it–good companies do well, bad companies go out of business. There are certain sad too big to fail exceptions, incl GM and AIG (which seems to have been propped up by the govt only because it had insured so many bets by Goldman Schmucks).

    2. Few people leave college and immediately walk into a good job. Most start at the bottom. My niece worked as a receptionist at a doctor’s office until she finished her Masters’ in Audiology. I know a guy who graduated with a degree in Business, then worked in a Radio Shack. He left to take a job with a small computer company, just taking orders over the phone. The small company turned out to be Dell, and he retired at 38. Dick Grasso, former head of the NYSE, started as a lowly clerk.

  33. wmeyer says:

    I don’t have any big beef with Chick-fil-A as a company. I think it is a slightly better than average fast food chain, but that still makes most of its employees underpaid and severely underutilized. What I do have a beef with is a business model where Chick-fil-A is above average.

    I would commend your attention to the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, two of our best living economists. In their very approachable texts you will learn why and how your assessment is stunningly incorrect.

    Like I said, low wage jobs are a bandage.

    No, sir, low wage jobs are opportunities for workers with low skills to earn an honest living, and to gain experience.

  34. Sissy says:

    wmeyer: So true! There are positions at Chik-fil-A in our area that pay $20 an hour. The conditions are clean, pleasant, and workers are treated with respect and dignity. I know a few “mature” folks who enjoy working there. I am always amazed when I hear young people fresh out of college saying that they “wouldn’t work there” about some perfectly respectable, decent business because they feel it is beneath them. In my own family there are a few younger adults who say things like “I’m looking for a job I can enjoy.” Well, good luck with that. I’m grateful I was raised in a family that did not sneer at the concept of honest work. When I was a little girl, there was a period of time when my father was working three part-time jobs simultaneously. They were all manual labor and paid on the low end. But he was very proud to be able to provide for his family. Eventually, he became a partner in one of the businesses, and he ended up owning the company outright. That is how people rise from poverty to a comfortable, stable lifestyle.

  35. acardnal says:

    ReluctantLiberal, there is nothing wrong per say with relatively low pay for low skill jobs. They provide opportunities as a second job for supplemental income, student employment, and a first-time employment position to gain necessary job skills and work force discipline. Some use the experience to become managers and some use the money to attend school to improve their job opportunities.

  36. LisaP. says:

    Out of curiosity, Reluctant, what do you consider to be a good job?

    Not being snarky, I think we may have a fundamental disagreement there.

  37. Pingback: Chick-fil-A Gay Marriage Intolerance Equality | Big Pulpit