How Do We Calculate a Just Wage?

[Ender]

I’d maintain that the ‘justness’ of a wage is relative to the economic conditions and intent of the employer.

Just so. I believe there is a great risk in buying into the concept of a “just wage.” It is an invitation to abuse and inefficiency to consolidate decision making power in the hands of a few at the cost of removing it from those most affected by the decisions. We already have a Pay Czar who believes he has the authority to impose his idea of a fair salary on the top executives of companies who have taken bail-out money from the government. This is a concept that needs to be vigorously opposed. The fact that there are problems with the way things are done now and could use some improvement is no reason to believe that we are somehow protected from making things worse simply because our intent is pure.

Ender

 

[Trader]

Who says the Church opposes using market forces to determine wages? Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee, or group of employees, if they have organized into a union. Unionized workers have a contract with their union also. Each party in a contract has both rights and responsibilities set forth in the contract, even if that contract is not written. Contracts freely entered into by both parties are the most fair way to determine wages.

The Church itself is a major employer. I have lots of friends and relatives who teach in Catholic schools. I do not know of any Catholic school that does not use the market to determine wages. Teachers are paid based on their qualifications and experience, and at least in some cases, on their performance. They do not get an automatic raise if they have another child and they do not have their wages cut when a child moves out. Can you imagine any employer who would cut the salary of a worker whose child died, because his cost of living was now lower?

For many years I worked in sales. One year my sales were so much above the other 50 sales people in my company that only one person had even half my sales, and he was my boss. Would if have been just to pay me the same as the lowest producer? I was single at the time and saved a substantial portion of my pay because I realized, even at a young age, that I worked in a cyclical industry that was poorly managed and that the good times would not last. It was the steel industry in the 1970’s.

One low cost fringe benefit I would like to see employers offer would be classes in money management. There are many people who make more than enough to provide for their families, but fail to do so because they also make choices that are foolish, immoral, or even criminal. Our public schools and broken families have not done a good job in teaching spending discipline to their children. I don’t know how they could, because public schools and broken families are some of the best examples of how not to manage scarce resources.

 

[cynic]

That’s a very good point.

I’d maintain that the ‘justness’ of a wage is relative to the economic conditions and intent of the employer.

As an example, in Detroit there are two similar business in operation; they make the same widgets and employ roughly the same number of people. One pays $8 an hour; all that they can afford to pay their workers and keep them all employed. The other business is more efficient, they could pay their workers $10 and hour for the same work, but decide to pay them the same $8 an hour. They know that they’ll be able to do so since work is so scarce in the Detroit area.

Which wage is more ‘just’?

A similar business in Chicago, where the times are not as bad, pays workers $11 an hour for the same work under the same conditions; they have to, as they have trouble finding anyone to work for $8 an hour. (Let’s assume that the cost of living in certain parts of Detroit and certain parts of Chicago is roughly the same)

How does the ‘justness’ of the Chicago wage compare to the other two?

IMO the business that could be paying $10 is not acting justly. This is not a high or excessive wage, even for that kind of work.

I also see that you buy into the notion that businesses commonly pay “all that they can afford”, when most do not, prefering to maximize return to investors, or put aside capital for future expansion (not in itself bad, but should not be at the expense of basic living conditions of employees)

 

[cynic]

People can survive living in one bedroom buildings with 20+ people so therefore anythning more than that is a luxury.

Wow, such a sentimental concern for your countrymen.

I guess it’s what you define as a need. If mere survival is the only genuine need then concentration camp conditions might suffice.

If however, the ability to move ahead (not to mention basic dignity) count then they will not, as these require some spare time, spare income, and probably a minimum degree of privacy, bathing/hygiene etc.

 

[royal_archer]

Wow, such a sentimental concern for your countrymen.

I guess it’s what you define as a need. If mere survival is the only genuine need then concentration camp conditions might suffice.

If however, the ability to move ahead (not to mention basic dignity) count then they will not, as these require some spare time, spare income, and probably a minimum degree of privacy, bathing/hygiene etc.

I’d hardly compare a barracks to a concentration camp. Although I have never been to a concentration camp, I have lived in barracks. while not luxurious, they are suitable for living. However your comments show just how spoiled we as a society have become.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I’d hardly compare a barracks to a concentration camp. Although I have never been to a concentration camp, I have lived in barracks. while not luxurious, they are suitable for living. However your comments show just how spoiled we as a society have become.

Are you saying we SHOULD all live like we are in a 3rd world nation? I won’t worry about it, if forced into a situation like that I can OD on sleeping pills.

 

[cynic]

I’d hardly compare a barracks to a concentration camp. Although I have never been to a concentration camp, I have lived in barracks. while not luxurious, they are suitable for living. However your comments show just how spoiled we as a society have become.

Yeah a rent free army barracks probably, when you received 3 free meals a day, training, and medical care, all thanks to the taxpayer. That is supposed to compare to sweatshop living dorms in Asia, where people live communally just to survive. We’ve all been spoiled for a long time then.

 

[royal_archer]

Are you saying we SHOULD all live like we are in a 3rd world nation? I won’t worry about it, if forced into a situation like that I can OD on sleeping pills.

I never said should. However it probably isn’t a good situation for those who are inclined to violence against themselves and others.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I never said should. However it probably isn’t a good situation for those who are inclined to violence against themselves and others.

But it soulds like it’s implied.

 

[royal_archer]

Yeah a rent free army barracks probably, when you received 3 free meals a day, training, and medical care, all thanks to the taxpayer. That is supposed to compare to sweatshop living dorms in Asia, where people live communally just to survive. We’ve all been spoiled for a long time then.

I can’t see any rational reason for you to try to tie barracks style living to Asian sweatshops. Instead we should be considering the money saved through more modest living accomodations and how that money could be better spent on other things. Niow adays we are so concerned with giving everyone all the standard luxuries that we forget the difference between need and luxury.

 

[aspawloski4th]

I can’t see any rational reason for you to try to tie barracks style living to Asian sweatshops. Instead we should be considering the money saved through more modest living accomodations and how that money could be better spent on other things. Niow adays we are so concerned with giving everyone all the standard luxuries that we forget the difference between need and luxury.

Ask a 100 different people the definition of need and you are guarenteed a 100 different answers. Ofcourse mine is the correct one!

 

[royal_archer]

But it soulds like it’s implied.

No it’s not and there is no basis for that assumption.

 

[royal_archer]

Ask a 100 different people the definition of need and you are guarenteed a 100 different answers. Ofcourse mine is the correct one!

And that list of “needs” gets much longer when someone else is writing the check.

 

[aspawloski4th]

No it’s not and there is no basis for that assumption.

Well thats why I asked!

 

[cynic]

I can’t see any rational reason for you to try to tie barracks style living to Asian sweatshops. Instead we should be considering the money saved through more modest living accomodations and how that money could be better spent on other things. Niow adays we are so concerned with giving everyone all the standard luxuries that we forget the difference between need and luxury.

This is a thread on what a “just wage” might be. My opinion was a just wage should pay the rent of a room in a house, with others, since that’s the most modest long term accomodation available. You said this was a luxury, which implies that a just wage needn’t be high enough to afford this. They could live in barracks. Too bad that a local homeless shelter is the only real equivalent, and that’s funded by ratepayers or charities.

 

[royal_archer]

This is a thread on how to calculate a “just wage”. I proposed a just wage should afford someone the rent of a room in a house, with others, since that seems to be the most modest long term accomodation available. You said this was a luxury. They could live in barracks. A local homeless shelter is the only real equivalent, and that’s funded by ratepayers or charities.

We have so many single people who do not need a multi room house but just need a place to stay while working their way up to a better job. But there are so few affordable options unless someone wants to resort to living off others. Wouldn’t it be nie if there were more options for low income people who want to pay their own way but don’t want to pay for the extras.

A just wage takes into consideration what it takes for people to live a decent life. The problem is that it is hard to purchase those necesities for a decent life when what is frequently marketed in primarily luxurious accomadations. While barracks may be the extreme minimal, we must balance benefit to cost for more luxurious accomodations. We must also consider a just wage to be that necesary to support a moddest lifestyle, not a median lifestyle.

 

[cynic]

. The problem is that it is hard to purchase those necesities for a decent life when what is frequently marketed in primarily luxurious accomadations. .

Developers aren’t going to invest in barracks. With a house there is an asset worth something once they’re finished renting to tenants.

 

[aspawloski4th]

When we are talking a minimal justwage, we are talking that for minimal work. Anything above minimal work deserves above the minimal just wage.

 

[Ender]

This is a thread on what a “just wage” might be. My opinion was a just wage should pay …

In all of this talk about the needs of the employee, where is the recognition of the problems of the employer? I think it is simply irrational to insist that all businesses who provide minimum wage, entry level jobs, should be singled out to solve the financial problems of the poor. Companies like IBM, Ford, and GE would be pretty unaffected by the imposition of “just wages” - which at this point is coming to mean simply a higher minimum wage - but what would happen to businesses like your local Burger King, Bunky’s Car Wash, and the Piggly Wiggly?

Insisting on a “just wage” is like voting to eliminate cancer. Some problems can’t be solved by wishful thinking. If you think about what would happen if we were to arbitrarily raise wages - which is also what happens when the minimum wage is raised - it is that a number of jobs are simply lost to machines. Flown out of an airport in the last few years? Did you go to the counter and deal with a person - who has to be paid a just wage (plus benefits) - or did you use one of the automatic check in machines … which just requires relatively inexpensive maintenance? The same is true in grocery stores that now have automatic check out machines. All of these machines have replaced people because the machines are cheaper.

In a free market, the market itself will determine the value of the work being performed and that is a value that cannot be arbitrarily set. Yes, there are abuses by some (probably few) employers but venial behavior on their part does not argue for foolish behavior on ours.

Ender

 

[JimG]

It will be decided by the Pay Czar.
Subject, naturally, to the law of unintended consequences.