Catholic Charities USA seeks minimum-wage hike

[rlg94086]

Feel free to start a thread on those issue if you like. Chicago made a comment about the worth of a person in regards to minimum wage, which is what this thread is about.

A person’s wage is not based on their worth, but rather the worth of the job they do. That’s how wages are determined. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the items you mentioned. It isn’t even a Republican versus Democrat issue - unless you think Democrats are communists who think everyone should be paid equally.

I am making a parallel example of justifying who is worth more.

I see Republicans put more value of a child in a womb but not outside of the womb. Put more value based on their tax breaks and program cuts, that wealth is more valuble.

Democrats say a child in the womb is lesser than a person outside of the womb.

Either way our government and perhaps society as a whole is not showing a continuous ethic towards life.

 

[chicago]

Fair enough. At this point I think our disagreement lies with you saying the current attitude in America is like the Calvinistic attitude you describe, while I disagree. I don’t think (majority of) people are saying the poor “aren’t worth it.” They just feel there are more efficient ways to help them.

Unfortunately, I’m not the most articluate proponent of the concept concerning America’s Calvinitic culture. I think that it ultimately goes much deeper than what we’re merely touching upon as a sort of outgrowth in some particular matters. One of the real experts is Cardinal George, who has written extensively on the topic (although mainly academically, not popularly, sadly) and beleives that this underlying reality (which I honestly don’t think is denialable, ultimately) is genuinely one of the most signifigant problems which faces our nation and it’s culture. It becomes a real challenge as to how we, as Catholics, are to view things in contrast and leaven the culture in which we live with something better and unique. I sincerely wish that he’d devote more attention to getting his message out, though.

 

[rlg94086]

And, yet, I beleive that a truly Catholic view takes a different tact, recognizing “just wages” as a response to the inherant dignity of man and his work rather than simply “letting the market decide”.

But that is different than saying someone is “not worth it.” I agree a person should be paid a just wage, that is why I said society/market, not just market.

chicago:

While I don’t disagree with this in and of itself, I would say that there needs to be a certain basic base off of which we’re working. Which gets us back to the whole idea of “why a minimum wage”.

It sure does, doesn’t it. What should that certain base be? What is a just wage for the whole country? The world?

 

[hoosiertoo]

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Only in the case of coercion.

Justice is a matter of following agreed-upon rules, not of ensuring results.

Within the framework of society, the confusion between the rules of justice and our “feelings” about justice must be cleared up. For instance, economic poverty, which often moves us emotionally, is not necessarily a consequence of personal or societal injustice. That is why, when one person in a dire situation merely appeals to another person’s sense of justice, nothing has been corrected. Instead, the person should appeal to other values – such as mutual aid, voluntary solidarity, and so forth – to redress human suffering not caused by legitimate cases of injustice.

…the idea of … “collective responsibility” is dubious at best. If someone does something wrong, it is up to him, and not to the members of his family, clan, neighbors, or fellow countrymen, to make reparations….There is no justice when reparations are exacted from innocent people. - Christian Michel

Wages are basically price exchanges. The general rule governing exchanges can be represented as follows;

Value for the Buyer > Price > Seller’s cost

Basically, a just price is the one on which both the buyer and the seller agree. By misunderstanding the meaning of the fundamental inequality between value, price and cost, some economists have incorrectly maintained that the exchange itself must be fundamentally unequal; if the exchange is freely agreed upon, then it must be beneficial to both parties, or the exchange would not take place.

Note that the exchange must be “freely” accepted. Exchanges that result from an act of coercion should be regarded as acts of extortion and exist outside the bounds of a market economy.

Is being remunerated for work a case for which individual consent doesn’t apply? It is often commonly assumed that workers are remunerated because they work, which is to say that work has intrinsic value. It does not. When human beings are free, it is never work which they remunerate, it is a product or service. That work may be performed to provide the product or service is merely accidental. If Joe Mechanic could figure out a way to repair my car while sleeping, I would not be paying him to sleep – I would be paying him to repair my car. Similarly, I am not paying Joe Mechanic to work; I am paying him to repair my car.

When they are not imposed by authorities, prices – remember that “wages” and “prices” are essentially the same thing – constitute the most reliable information available to guide us in productive relations with others and with natural resources. Prices are established because human beings exchange the products of their work for the goods they need to live. Controlling (wages and) prices, therefore, is a way for governments to control our lives.

Justice consists in giving to each one his due; therefore, we pay the agreed upon price for a service or as a compensation for a prejudice of our own doing…On the other hand, if…higher (wages) are imposed by government-regardless if they are beneficial to the poor-they cannot be in compliance with justice and the financial sacrifices (so imposed) have dubious moral value, since they are imposed by violence.

I would maintain that wage and price controls are immoral in and of themselves.

Grateful acknowledgement to Christian Michel, from whose essay “What is a Just Price?” I paraphrased freely. Journal of Markets and Morality, 2 No. 2 Fall, 1999 pp 182-196

 

[josephdavid]

The demonization of capitalism, a concept that is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. Industrialized capitalist countries have enacted all sorts of worker, consumer, and environmental safeguards since the turn of the 20th century, and civil rights have a strong tradition. As with any human endeavor, there is ample room for improvement. Global capitalism, on the other hand, needs to catch up and has serious flaws that must be addressed. Yet, the Church is not opposed to capitalism in general. The Church opposes “unbridled” or “primitive” capitalism. According to Pope John Paul II, “what is being proposed as an alternative [to primitive capitalism] is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. **Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.” ** The Holy Father has affirmed this “new capitalism” as “an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector… It would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy’, ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy’ (Centesimus annus, 1991).” Capitalism rightly understood is not only compatible with Catholic social doctrine, it may be the strongest force for social and environmental justice.

 

[josephdavid]

The demonization of capitalism, a concept that is frequently misunderstood and misrepresented. Industrialized capitalist countries have enacted all sorts of worker, consumer, and environmental safeguards since the turn of the 20th century, and civil rights have a strong tradition. As with any human endeavor, there is ample room for improvement. Global capitalism, on the other hand, needs to catch up and has serious flaws that must be addressed. Yet, the Church is not opposed to capitalism in general. The Church opposes “unbridled” or “primitive” capitalism. According to Pope John Paul II, “what is being proposed as an alternative [to primitive capitalism] is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. **Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.” ** The Holy Father has affirmed this “new capitalism” as “an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector… It would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a ‘business economy’, ‘market economy’ or simply ‘free economy’ (Centesimus annus, 1991).” Capitalism rightly understood is not only compatible with Catholic social doctrine, it may be the strongest force for social and environmental justice.

 

[hoosiertoo]

**Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied." **

Am I to assume that you believe a minimum wage to be one of the “appropriate controls” by the “forces of society and by the state?”

I disagree.

(Wages) are established because human beings exchange the products of their work for the goods they need to live. Controlling wages and prices, therefore, is a way for governments to control our lives.

If in fact the government mandates wages, there is coercion of one party to the exchange. There is still the freedom on the part of one party to reject the exchange, but there is no freedom on the part of the other.

If as the provider I were to reject the exchange because I do not agree to the price (as I am free to do) then the job applicant has no recourse as he is prohibited by law from offering his services at a lower price than the minimum wage - or, more properly, I am prohibited by law from paying him a wage he is willing to accept and that I am willing to pay.

Therefore, the minimum wage is unjust.

The same would be true of setting a minimum price for anything. Widget manufacturers are in trouble. The goverment has mandated that since widget manufacturers are the backbone of the economy, that widgets can’t be sold for less than $1.00.

As a seller of widgets, I must sell each widget for a minimum of $1.00. As a buyer, I may not feel that the widget is worth a dollar, but the seller is prohibited from lowering his price to a level I might find acceptable in order to make the exchange. So, the widget goes unsold. What has really been gained?

Of course, the scenarios are simplistic. In reality, if there is truly a demand for widgets, they will sell on the black market for their actual value even as legitimate sellers can’t move them at the official price, leading to a host of other societal ills.

The same thing happens with the price of labor. There is a black market for labor just as there is a black market for commodities for which there is a demand that can’t be met legitimately.

In the case of services, barter networks spring up that are completely outside the “official” economy. “I’ll paint your house if you’ll fix my car.” Or “I’ll give you $25.00 off the books if you’ll mow Mr. London’s yard” - a four hour job which would pay $1.00 dollar less than the minimum wage, but has a lot of other advantages for both parties, which should be obvious.

 

[jman507]

When it comes to the US raising the minimum wage, I guess you could argue the legitamacy of it. Personally, I’d say can be of good use, if it is used to keep employers from cornering the market and driving down wages, in the same way it can regulate the economy to try to keep monoploies out. Right now, with unemployement being so low, I don’t think it is really needed for that nationally. Whatever, not the point I’m concerned with.

I think one important thing in this situation to be concerened about is, what is it going to do? Even if you say the government should be able to use it, it is very important to know if it is prudent to raise it, espcially if your reason for doing so is it is going to help the poor.

 

[Listener]

I decided to look in the Baltimore Catechism to see what it would have to say about a question such as this. Here is what I found. This was printed further down on the page after question 261. What does the seventh commandment forbid?..(b) Employers who defraud laborers by not paying them a just, living wage keep what belongs to others and are guilty of grave injustice not only to the employee but also to members of his family. This injustice can cause serious sins in the domestic life as well as in the social life of a community.
This really makes me see why Catholic Charities would want the minimum wage raised. They get to see the results of all of the greed in our country. Why did I want to quote from this old catechism instead of the current one? Well, it is because a lot of the people on these forums seem to want to go back to the 1950’s. I thought some of them might like to see what people were actually taught in the 1950’s!

 

[hoser]

I decided to look in the Baltimore Catechism to see what it would have to say about a question such as this. Here is what I found. This was printed further down on the page after question 261. What does the seventh commandment forbid?..(b) Employers who defraud laborers by not paying them a just, living wage keep what belongs to others and are guilty of grave injustice not only to the employee but also to members of his family. This injustice can cause serious sins in the domestic life as well as in the social life of a community.
This really makes me see why Catholic Charities would want the minimum wage raised. They get to see the results of all of the greed in our country. Why did I want to quote from this old catechism instead of the current one? Well, it is because a lot of the people on these forums seem to want to go back to the 1950’s. I thought some of them might like to see what people were actually taught in the 1950’s!

Yeah whatever. So how is a just waged defined and by whom? This still doesn’t mean that our federal (or state) governments ought to demand that businesses pay their employees whatever the government deems appropriate. If I wanted to live in a communist country I would move to one.

 

[boppaid]

Yeah whatever. So how is a just waged defined and by whom? This still doesn’t mean that our federal (or state) governments ought to demand that businesses pay their employees whatever the government deems appropriate. If I wanted to live in a communist country I would move to one.

You say “yeah whatever” but you do realize you’re responding to the Catholic Catechism, don’t you? Again, it says "(b) Employers who defraud laborers by not paying them a just, living wage "… to me that just seems so cut and dry. LIVING WAGE. That means that they can live on it. I don’t think one can live off of $7 / hour.

 

[rlg94086]

You say “yeah whatever” but you do realize you’re responding to the Catholic Catechism, don’t you? Again, it says "(b) Employers who defraud laborers by not paying them a just, living wage "… to me that just seems so cut and dry. LIVING WAGE. That means that they can live on it. I don’t think one can live off of $7 / hour.

The answer to whether someone can live on $7/hour is dependant on location and life circumstances. Some areas are much cheaper than others. Teenagers living at home or young adults sharing an apartment don’t require the same as a family of four. How about a spouse looking for a part-time job just to bring in some extra fun money?

Does an employer need to be forced to pay all of the above examples the same “living wage” as a main breadwinner raising a family?

 

[hoser]

You say “yeah whatever” but you do realize you’re responding to the Catholic Catechism, don’t you? Again, it says "(b) Employers who defraud laborers by not paying them a just, living wage "… to me that just seems so cut and dry. LIVING WAGE. That means that they can live on it. I don’t think one can live off of $7 / hour.

And of course you don’t deal with the issue. What is a “just, living wage?” Do you ever think about these issues? First I want you to give me what a “just, living wage” is and then we can further this discussion.

 

[chicago]

The answer to whether someone can live on $7/hour is dependant on location and life circumstances. Some areas are much cheaper than others. Teenagers living at home or young adults sharing an apartment don’t require the same as a family of four. How about a spouse looking for a part-time job just to bring in some extra fun money?

Does an employer need to be forced to pay all of the above examples the same “living wage” as a main breadwinner raising a family?

The bishops at the time of that catechism would likely have replied, “Yes!” Sheen, for example, was a proponent of paying a common “family wage” to all.

 

[rlg94086]

The bishops at the time of that catechism would likely have replied, “Yes!” Sheen, for example, was a proponent of paying a common “family wage” to all.

I have a lot of respect for Bishop Sheen. Can you cite a source for that? I would understand him being an advocate of equal pay for equal work, but that is a different issue. I think there are jobs that would not and should not require a “family wage.”

 

[hoser]

The bishops at the time of that catechism would likely have replied, “Yes!” Sheen, for example, was a proponent of paying a common “family wage” to all.

No one is able to tell us what a “fair wage” or “family wage” is. So what is it? Is a fair wage for a 17 year old fast food worker the same as a 37 year old married factory worker?

If a business wants to pay their employees what they deem a very good “fair” or “family” wage then great, but I don’t care what you say, the government whether federal or state should not force businesses to pay their employees what the government deems as a “fair” or “family” wage.

 

[john1863]

Since any wage increase will naturally be passed on to the consumer…what’s the problem? I don’t care if it’s a Mom and Pop store or a multi-billion corporation.
In my opinion, all other arguments are nonsense.
Let’s cut CEO’s (publically owned) salaries as our dear President suggested about two weeks ago.

John

 

[chicago]

I have a lot of respect for Bishop Sheen. Can you cite a source for that? I would understand him being an advocate of equal pay for equal work, but that is a different issue. I think there are jobs that would not and should not require a “family wage.”

I well recall reading his mention of it in a book at one time. I don’t think it was a book of his, but something else of which he was but being cited. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the book as I was only briefly browsing, yet I found that bit notable, especially considering it’s author. Perhaps I wrote down the title of the book somewhere and will eventually come across it. Presumably, the good bishop did not speak of it only once. Therefore, it ought to be findable. But, for now the best I can do is relate what I read; which was his commentary upon how some employers could wrongly bring the level of pay down by hiring single people, who might not have the same costs of living as a married man. Thus, he reasoned, that the family wage must be the norm for all in order to not undermine the needs of that most basic unit of our society.

 

[chicago]

No one is able to tell us what a “fair wage” or “family wage” is. So what is it?

The problem isn’t that no one can tell us what a “fair or family wage” is. Rather, it is that such is difficult if not impossible to define clearly in hard numbers and across the board. But the principle remains and ought to be accepted as something to strive towards for the norm in economic justice.

Is a fair wage for a 17 year old fast food worker the same as a 37 year old married factory worker?

Not necessarily “the same”, but at some certain minimal level of sustanence.

If a business wants to pay their employees what they deem a very good “fair” or “family” wage then great, but I don’t care what you say, the government whether federal or state should not force businesses to pay their employees what the government deems as a “fair” or “family” wage.

Where we differ is that you say, “if a business wants to pay”. Justice and morality makes this, however, something not of mere desire but necessity.

Ultimately, it is no different than any other law which government may need to uphold as a base level below which we can not cross, lest we devolve below our own dignity of humanity.

That said, I would agree that where the real progress is to be made is with noble businessmen who take the couragous steps of raising the bar and forcing their competition to come up to meet them. It shouldn’t HAVE to be reliant upon government to require this.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, it’s an interesting argument, but I disagree. The problem is that the “family wage” is not a clear quantitative amount. If the employer still hires a lot of singles, would he then be accused of still not paying a “family wage” since he hasn’t hired many heads-of-household?

I think some jobs are worth more than others (market value, societal value, etc) and those will attract people raising a family. Now, if someone can prove that there are too many “single wage” jobs and not enough “family wage” jobs, I would agree there is a problem. Since no one can even give a “family wage” amount (especially nationally) without just picking a number arbitrarily (as the minimum wage increase seems to be), I don’t think it is the right way to go.

Conduct a study and get back to me.

In the meantime, I think the onus is on the employer to determine a fair wage based on his moral compass, the market, his P&L and/or his contracts with organized labor (if that applies).

I well recall reading his mention of it in a book at one time. I don’t think it was a book of his, but something else of which he was but being cited. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the name of the book as I was only briefly browsing, yet I found that bit notable, especially considering it’s author. Perhaps I wrote down the title of the book somewhere and will eventually come across it. Presumably, the good bishop did not speak of it only once. Therefore, it ought to be findable. But, for now the best I can do is relate what I read; which was his commentary upon how some employers could wrongly bring the level of pay down by hiring single people, who might not have the same costs of living as a married man. Thus, he reasoned, that the family wage must be the norm for all in order to not undermine the needs of that most basic unit of our society.