As catholics should we believe in the efficacy or/and justice of min. wage?

[Abu]

Didymus
Capitalism, like communism or any other secular ideology is anti-Christian.

This sort of prejudice, found among many, is what perverts truth and reality. The term ‘capitalism’ originated with communist Karl Marx.

What seems to be missed often is that the free enterprise system was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and then the Austrian school of economists. There is nothing that can compare with its economic laws – it is the economic approach that has revolutionised the standard of living of billions. Individual morality determines how owners or managers or employees treat each other and the customers, which ethic may derive from a policy set by the firm.

It is misuse of wealth, and lack of love that matters, not the great vocation of the entrepreneur who creates wealth and jobs. Please study the parable of the talents in which Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30).

We are commanded to work and to use our intelligence and other talents to provide spiritually and materially for our brethren. St Paul says: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (See 2 Thess 3:6-15).

Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.

On fixing a wage, in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, Pius XI asserted “the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.” (#72). Even here, this does not consider the effect of reduced employment if the business still operates at all.

 

[CPA2]

This sort of prejudice, found among many, is what perverts truth and reality. The term ‘capitalism’ originated with communist Karl Marx.

What seems to be missed often is that the free enterprise system was developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and then the Austrian school of economists. There is nothing that can compare with its economic laws – it is the economic approach that has revolutionised the standard of living of billions. Individual morality determines how owners or managers or employees treat each other and the customers, which ethic may derive from a policy set by the firm.

It is misuse of wealth, and lack of love that matters, not the great vocation of the entrepreneur who creates wealth and jobs. Please study the parable of the talents in which Jesus lauds the servant who has multiplied talents – “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Mt 25: 14-30).

We are commanded to work and to use our intelligence and other talents to provide spiritually and materially for our brethren. St Paul says: “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” (See 2 Thess 3:6-15).

Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.

On fixing a wage, in Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, Pius XI asserted “the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers.” (#72). Even here, this does not consider the effect of reduced employment if the business still operates at all.

I like your explanatio!

 

[CPA2]

Keep in mind that minimum wage is just that; a minimum platform to start; if the employee is worth more and can convince the employer that he/she is worth more, the employer will pay more. Being that we live in a capitalistic society, most employers don’t want to pay any more then they have to pay. Additionally the minimum wage also prevents unscrupulous employers from taking advantage of teenagers, many of who are easily intimadated by adults and might be hoodwinked into working for sub-par wages.

I guess you would rather have UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES. Governments cannot repeal the laws of economics. Government can only cause a surplus of teenages looking for work if the minimum wage is higher than what business is willing to pay. UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES gain no work experience.

 

[CPA2]

Capitalism, like communism or any other secular ideology is anti-Christian. The Church teaches that workers are entitled to dignity and respect, something that capitalism would trample if left to itself.

You are way off base! Economic growth is based on five things:

1. **Private property
2. Free markets
3. Limited civil government
4. Accumulation of capital
5. An increase in the division of labor**

Both parties to an exchange can benefit so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I guess you would rather have UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES. Governments cannot repeal the laws of economics. Government can only cause a surplus of teenages looking for work if the minimum wage is higher than what business is willing to pay. UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES gain no work experience.

Actually, I think there are two things that need to be taken into consideration here. The first, is that the empirical evidence suggests that in the United States the minimum wage has at best a minimal effect on employment. The minimum wage could have an effect on employment, but it is currently set too low to have a large effect. The second thing is that unemployment among teenagers in not necessarily a bad thing. Many of my teenage students work, not because they have to in order to pay tuition, but because they have car and cell phone payments. Perhaps if they found it more difficult to find a job they might spend less time working and more time studying.

 

[CPA2]

Actually, I think there are two things that need to be taken into consideration here. The first, is that the empirical evidence suggests that in the United States the minimum wage has at best a minimal effect on employment. The minimum wage could have an effect on employment, but it is currently set too low to have a large effect. The second thing is that unemployment among teenagers in not necessarily a bad thing. Many of my teenage students work, not because they have to in order to pay tuition, but because they have car and cell phone payments. Perhaps if they found it more difficult to find a job they might spend less time working and more time studying.

It sounds like we do not need minimum wage laws. Let us vote against politicians who support this socialist legislation. I do not like being lied to by politicians who vote for minimum wage.

What the politicians do not tell us is that the labor unions support minimum wage because the labor union bosses have an excuse to bargain of raising the wages of their union members.

 

[Ender]

How are we to interpret the church’s stance in favor of private property? It seems to reason thus -private property provides incentives towards a more efficient use of resources so therefore it is good.

As a general statement I have no problem with this, but she has neither condemned community property nor supported the right of private property in every case and it is the case by case real instances where the right of private property might or might not hold that she is (rightly) silent.

but I think you say the church can’t reason this way since I interpret your writings to say, “If it is a technical matter, a matter of cause and effect, then the church can’t talk about it”. Yet they seem to use cause-effect rationales in justifying property?

I think that’s a reasonable interpretation, and here’s the point I’m getting at. The Church has her exclusive are of competence: faith and morals, but outside of that she has no special expertise, she has no charism to guide her interpretations in other areas - and the Church as such recognizes this. It is the bishops who get this confused. This is why the Church says nothing about the minimum wage even as she provides general guidelines to govern the fair treatment of workers.

For some arbitrary situation, x, If x presents a moral issue then it significantly affects someone’s life. But it is not true that for all situations,x, If x significantly affects someone’s life then it is a moral issue.

I agree with the second part but I’m not sure I can agree with the first part, and I think that’s because we’re not clear on what distinguishes moral issues from amoral ones.

Pretty much every problem presents us with a moral choice: ignore it or try to fix it, but once the decision is made, the means we choose to apply to the problem are rarely themselves of a moral nature. We of course cannot use immoral means even to achieve a good end, but short of that we may decide for ourselves what approach to take. These guidelines apply no matter how significant or insignificant the problem is, from immigration and health care reform to choosing the best way to treat a child’s scraped knee. This is why I contend that things like the minimum wage and immigration are not moral issues and why the bishops should avoid implying that one approach is preferable to another.

Ender

 

[stinkcat_14]

It sounds like we do not need minimum wage laws. Let us vote against politicians who support this socialist legislation. I do not like being lied to by politicians who vote for minimum wage.
.

The minimum wage is a policy that at the current time has a very minor influence on the economy.

If the criteria for a politician to be in congress is that they must be honest, I don’t imagine that we would have any Democrats or Republicans left in Congress. As to voting out politicians who support socialist legislation does that extend to politicians who support Medicare and other types of socialism? Medicare is nothing but socialism, but I have yet to hear of any politician, on the left or the right who advocates getting rid of Medicare.

What the politicians do not tell us is that the labor unions support minimum wage because the labor union bosses have an excuse to bargain of raising the wages of their union members

I have heard this line, I wonder the extent to which it is true. I am a member of a union, but the minimum wage is basically irrelevant in our negotiations.

 

[Abu]

Ender #9
With regard to the minimum wage the Magisterium has no more insight than anyone else; they would be talking about cause and effect.

Yes. In social teaching, despite breaching their own guidelines on occasion, Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy.

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

Pius XI wrote of “matters of technique for which [the Church] is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office.” Quadragesimo Anno, 41]….“economics and moral science employs each its own principles in its own sphere.” [QA, 42]. The Pope went on to deny that “the economic and moral orders are so distinct from and alien to each other that the former depends in no way on the latter.” [QA, 42]. Woods states: “As A.M.C. Waterman points out, this concession by Pius XI ‘throws doubt on the authoritative character of that very substantial part of Catholic (or at least papal) social teaching which consists not of theological and ethical pronouncements, but of empirical judgments about the economy.’ “ [Woods, p 5].

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.” [John Paul II, *Centesimus Annus, 3. Italics added].

Further, John Paul II adds: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one other. For such a task the Church offers Her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal orientation….” [CA, 43. Italics in original].

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Is the justice of something in anyway determined though, by its non-ethical technical properties?

I doubt there is an issue of justice which purely technical in its nature. This confusion clouds your posts.

…But in theory, although we don’t have to believe in anything like the min. wage, (and I think this ties in with the church not being tied to any secular ideology) still wouldn’t the magisterium have the authority to say “it is right to have min. wages” since they are speaking about ethics and what to do with one’s money and not about technical cause and effect?

no the issues of money and pay are not inside the magisterium’s concern, the respect of life is. If you look at a woman who is never paid but lives well as a daughter, wife, and widow her life is full. The magisterium is in no authority to declare a dollar value for such work.

"…Some things that significantly affect people’s lives are moral but not all things that significantly affect people’s lives are moral issues?

So some moral issues do not significantly affect people’s lives?

please name that moral issue?

And in the end: If, for something, it is a moral issue then it significantly affects someone’s life but never the other way around for everything?

There are many moral neutral issues as health, wealth, baldness, etc these issue affect life but do not affect morals. morals affect all life.

to ender:

How are we to interpret the church’s stance in favor of private property? It seems to reason thus -private property provides incentives towards a more efficient use of resources so therefore it is good.

but I think you say the church can’t reason this way since I interpret your writings to say, “If it is a technical matter, a matter of cause and effect, then the church can’t talk about it”. Yet they seem to use cause-effect rationales in justifying property?

As for the thing I said that was hard to understand here’s what I meant:

For some arbitrary situation, x, If x presents a moral issue then it significantly affects someone’s life. But it is not true that for all situations,x, If x significantly affects someone’s life then it is a moral issue.

I think you will find the private property rights is a reversing of the communist trends from the early twenty century. The church was for warned that communism would result in the loss of religious freedom.

hope that helps

 

[Texas_Roofer]

**The minimum wage causes unemployment among unskilled workers and teenagers. **There is over 50 years of solid economic research to support this statement.

I was willing to hire young and unskilled workers; however it was illegal to pay them what they were worth in the marketplace. The government makes it illegal to pay wages that are below the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is a floor on wages that causes a surplus of young and unskilled workers if the minimum wage is above what employers are willing to pay (the equilibrium wage). Why should I hire unskilled and teenage workers when I can hire skilled and older workers for the same minimum wage?

About 70% of economists surveyed agree that the minimum wage is responsible for an increase in unemployment among the young and unskilled laborers IF that wage is above the equilibrium wage. The minimum wage would have no effect on unemployment if the minimum wage were below the equilibrium wage.

As an employer I experienced a surplus of unskilled workers seeking jobs when Clinton and Congress rapidly increased the minimum wage above the equilibrium level. I did not hire any of these unskilled workers because they were not eworth the minimum wage. I was able to hire graduates of a technical school for the minimum wage.

Government is only capable of producing surpluses of young and unskilled workers through a price floor such as the minimum wage. Additionally, government is only able to produce shortages through price ceilings.

Government is a parasite. It is only able to produce a shortage or surplus of resources through socialist meddling in the economy. Government meddling in the economy is the cause of the misallocation of resources. I am not aware of government producing much good. In the gospel, God told the people of Israel through Samuel something to that effect when they asked for a king. There is no such thing as a free lunch!

Sounds like radio advice? Actually, most economic studies show increases in minimum wage increase GDP and thus increase employment. You need to learn what “supply side” economists do before you assume their work represents all economics. Remember radio people are very, very good at playing with words to misrepresent the truth so be careful about repeating their statements without those hidden caveats…

 

[CPA2]

Sounds like radio advice? Actually, most economic studies show increases in minimum wage increase GDP and thus increase employment. You need to learn what “supply side” economists do before you assume their work represents all economics. Remember radio people are very, very good at playing with words to misrepresent the truth so be careful about repeating their statements without those hidden caveats…

About 70% of economists surveyed agree that the minimum wage is responsible for an increase in unemployment among the young and unskilled laborers (IF that wage is above the equilibrium wage). The minimum wage would have no effect on unemployment if the minimum wage were below the equilibrium wage. This information came out of one of my college economics books and, of course, it was referenced. Most of the other information is based on the economic research of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics.

Show me the study that says that an increase in the minimum wage increases GDP. I am NOT aware of such a report in all of my college economics books.

 

[Abu]

On wage fixing
The Late Scholastics favoured leaving wage determination to the ‘common estimation’ of the market, since any other method is inherently arbitrary and leads to endless complications.

Here, Fr Brian Harrison’s, O.S., *Religious Liberty And Contraception *is helpful (John XXXIII Fellowship Co-op (Australia), 1988, p 22-23), concerning “the practical order: human rights and duties."

“But for a certain norm of action to be a matter of doctrine, it would clearly have to be proposed as a universally binding norm – one which is of certain validity always and everywhere. Thus, we could not elevate to the status of doctrine a norm which is proposed provisionally, and as a subject to possible future correction after future consideration; nor one which is a particular ad hoc decision applying to given circumstances which might turn out to be transitory; nor, finally, one which is a concrete directive designed to give practical force to a doctrine which is in itself too broad or general to have much effect without such further application or specification. (An obvious example of such a doctrine would be the teaching – both natural and revealed – that a labourer deserves a just wage.)”

Everything outside of faith and morals is meant to be learned and developed by non-Magisterial Catholics (and others) in the world of living and acting using reason, without exercising "religious authority”.

Texas Roofer
Actually, most economic studies show increases in minimum wage increase GDP and thus increase employment.

However here are facts (May 2006):
mises.org/daily/2130 :
“Supporters of minimum wage laws do not realize that prior to minimum wage laws the national unemployment rate did fall well below 5%. According to the US Census, national unemployment rates were 3.3% in 1927, 1.8% in 1926, 3.2% in 1925, 2.4% in 1923, 1.4% in 1919 and 1918, 2.8% in 1907, 1.7% in 1906, and 3.7% in 1902.[6] Even today, some states have unemployment rates as low as 3%. Virginia now has an unemployment rate of 3.1%. Wyoming has an unemployment rate of 2.9%. Hawaii has an unemployment rate of 2.6%. National unemployment rates seldom drop below 5% because some categories of workers are stuck with double digit unemployment. Given these figures, it is quite arguable that minimum wage laws keep the national unemployment rate 3 percentage points higher than would otherwise be the case.”
Note:
[6] US Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics p135.

 

[Abu]

Ender
she [the Church] has neither condemned community property nor supported the right of private property in every case

However, Pope Leo XIII asserted private ownership “as a natural right of man” to be held “sacred and inviolable.” (Rerum Novarum, # 22, 46).

Fr Schall comments that John Paul II recognised this right in Centesimus Annus, #42.

In *Does Catholicism Still Exist?, *Alba House, 1994, Fr James V Schall, SJ, writes that the Church has had to acknowledge “that there are certain ways that must be employed if mankind is to meet its economic problems. These ways can be known and imitated, but they must include a juridical system, profit, enterprise, knowledge, exchange, a market, voluntary organizations, a relatively independent economy, private property, and respect for work and excellence.” He says Centesimus Annus contains a frank acknowledgement that socialism has failed on its own terms as witnessed by events in Eastern Europe. But, “The Pope insists that there are always many dangers of greed, selfishness, and materialism in this market system” and is “blunt and frank that man cannot achieve his inner-worldly goods or goals without Christianity….he is dealing with the unity of man in all his aspects, faith and reason, this world and the next, morals and economics.” (p 184-6).

John Paul II acclaimed the free economy that recognises the “fundamental role” of private property and the freedom of mankind to economic creativity, as “the path to true civil and economic progress” within “the fundamental and positive role of business, the market”… “and the resulting responsibility for the means of production.” Centesimus Annus #42].

 

[StillWondering]

I would like to interject the thread by encouraging a upper wage cap on grossly high paying occupations. There is a huge disproportionate on some jobs having huge huge payouts that completely ignores the difficulty of the work. I feel that people should be fairly compensated. This applies to both those in low wage, high workload jobs as well as extremely high way for high workload or demanding jobs.

I am generally appreciated for my opinions, advice, and moral reasoning; however, I will not take offense if anyone flames me for this view. My thoughts on the needs of all to have a home and fair work conditions have been suggested to be communist; however, this is definitely not the case. My family flee a communist nation whose corrupt politician and money ideology cause great anguish. I do wish the same here. However, the world does not have to be either free capitalism or bloody communism. The world is complex and so are the solutions to the worlds economic problems.

 

[gamewell45]

I guess you would rather have UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES. Governments cannot repeal the laws of economics. Government can only cause a surplus of teenages looking for work if the minimum wage is higher than what business is willing to pay. UNEMPLOYED TEENAGES gain no work experience.

No I would rather have properly and fairly compensated teens.

There are no guarantees that any business will employ “x” amount of people if the wages had no level platform to start with.

 

[Abu]

StillWondering
I would like….a upper wage cap on grossly high paying occupations.

Who would set it? Who would police it? How would it be arrived at?
Such a regime smacks of the totalitarian state; it is not free enterprise. Nothing should be done by the State which can be done by an organization in the society – principle of subsidiarity.
Socialism has been condemned in Encyclicals by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI and its disastrous effects were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet Union.

Without the great contribution of the Industrial Revolution, sparked by Catholic economic and social thought and action in the West, we would still be eking out an existence as before that development. Catholic teaching, especially social teaching outlines the morality of this interaction.
It is the economic approach that has revolutionised the standard of living of billions.

Presently salaries in companies are subject to world-wide competition, performance, directors and share holders. What is needed is a great moral formation through families, schools, and in public life – to better use and enjoy the benefits of free enterprise.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

About 70% of economists surveyed agree that the minimum wage is responsible for an increase in unemployment among the young and unskilled laborers (IF that wage is above the equilibrium wage). The minimum wage would have no effect on unemployment if the minimum wage were below the equilibrium wage. This information came out of one of my college economics books and, of course, it was referenced

so what is the reference? that is why this is the stuff of radio, it is a ridiculous statement either it has been twisted or is simply false. Here are your problems 1) Minimum wage is never over “equilibrium wage” 2) no economic justification exists in the private sector for operating any job above “equilibrium wage”. I’ll bet if dig you will find this is a micro argument used to scare people about a macro issue.

Most of the other information is based on the economic research of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics.

Well, I have read most of his stuff. Friedman was very Idealistic however I never doubted his sincerity. yet I do not remember his claim to have data supporting such accusations. In fact I never thought of Friedman as a wild or out of control man.

Show me the study that says that an increase in the minimum wage increases GDP. I am NOT aware of such a report in all of my college economics books.

Only because you asked:" Beginning in the early 1990’s, research by economists David Card and Alan Krueger sparked a debate regarding the employment effects of minimum wage increases. In a series of papers, these authors found that increasing the minimum wage has no—or even a small positive— effect on employment. In explanation of these surprising findings, the authors theorized that there were special characteristics of the low-skilled labor market that allowed employers to obtain monopsony power—a situation in which they would be able to set wages in the overall labor market. Since Stigler (1946), it has been known that under monopsony power, an increase in the minimum wage could increase employment. By contrast, if local labor markets are competitive, it is expected under general conditions, that an increase in the minimum wage will cause employment to decrease and prices to rise." epionline.org/studies/aaronson_06-2006.pdf

This minimum wage concept is really silly, it is political arguing void of economic fundamentals.

…

However here are facts (May 2006):
mises.org/daily/2130 :
"Supporters of minimum wage laws do not realize that prior to minimum wage laws the national unemployment rate did fall well below 5%. According to the US Census, national unemployment rates were 3.3% in 1927, 1.8% in 1926, 3.2% in 1925, 2.4% in 1923, 1.4% in 1919 and 1918, 2.8% in 1907, 1.7% in 1906, and 3.7% in 1902.[6]

your reference is off. these statements are from D.W. MacKenzie writing or posting at the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Even today, some states have unemployment rates as low as 3%. Virginia now has an unemployment rate of 3.1%. Wyoming has an unemployment rate of 2.9%. Hawaii has an unemployment rate of 2.6%. National unemployment rates seldom drop below 5% because some categories of workers are stuck with double digit unemployment. Given these figures, it is quite arguable that minimum wage laws keep the national unemployment rate 3 percentage points higher than would otherwise be the case."
Note:
[6] US Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics p135.

So did it crash from minimum wage increases? in 2007 a year after your author wrote unemployment was virtual unchanged. Even the following year when the credit markets froze unemployment only increased by 1.2% from a very low 4.6 to a low 5.8. Were the late nineties racked with economic despair? In 1996 and again in 1997 minimum wage was increased, and unemployment fell. 1995 it was 5.6, after the first increase 1996 unemployment fell to 5.4, and after another minimum wage increase unemployment fell to 4.9 in 1997 Actual references for wage increases cch.com/press/news/2007/MinimumWageChart.pdf and for unemployment infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Now for any innocent parties I need to caveat this as the facts are employment and minimum wage relationships do not always have the same impact in fact they can be inverse, the relationship is based on the difference between minimum wage and prevailing wages

hope that helps

 

[CPA2]

I agree that the minimum wage concept is “really silly and that it is political arguing void of economic fundamentals.” Is it any wonder that **the concept of the minimum wage comes from the Socialist Platform of 1928 and the minimum wage is now part of the platform of the Democrat Party? ** Socialism never does make any economic sense, does it?

Let us get rid of the minimum wage since “the minimum wage concept is really silly.” Call your Democrat Senators and Congressmen with this message.

 

[Ender]

“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market

, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].This is a terrific citation and makes the exact point relevant to this discussion: the Church hasn’t - and won’t - comment on the minimum wage because it is one of those cases which “must be solved in the domain of facts.”

Inasmuch as the question asked by the OP was not about whether the minimum wage is good or bad but whether there was a Catholic position on it, I think that question has been settled. There is no Catholic position on the issue and your citation explains why.

Ender