What is a decent minimum wage?

[markomalley]

I don’t often agree with MM, but this should have been the answer to the question and it was largely ignored. The Catholic Church has fairly clear and consistent teaching on the issue of a just wage in the social encyclicals beginning with Leo XIII.

As MM points out here, the primary wage earner, according to the teachings of the Church, ought to be able to support the entire family on the salary being earned. Not only that, they shouldn’t just be scraping by and surviving, they should be living in a manner that is “becoming” (to borrow from Pius XI), or as MM points out (following Leo XIII) “comfortably”. And beyond that, they should be capable of saving money against the possibility of the loss of employment.

The only thing I would add to MM is that Pius XI also makes clear that it is the job of the State to make sure that those who want employment can find such work. (for Pius XI, see Divini Redemptoris, or, obviously, Quadragessimo Anno).

salaam.

Perhaps you could provide some quotes from Divini Redemptoris or Quadragessimo Anno that support your position.

My point in my entire post (you only quoted a small portion of it) was to lay out that that an adequate minimum wage is sort of impossible for the State to set. In other words, what would be a decent minimum wage for a man supporting a wife and six kids should be significantly different than a minimum wage for a sixteen year old working after school in order to have some money to go out on a date on Saturday (or to buy the latest x-box game).

In our current environment and our current legal structure, such a thing would be viewed as discriminatory. It would also be against the idea of commutative justice (paying one person $4 an hour and another person $15 an hour for performing the same amount and kind of work would be a violation of justice). So, although on the surface, that appears to be what Rerum Novarum calls for (paying per need rather than per work), could Rerum Novarum actually be saying that (since it would violate justice)? Or, could Leo be getting at something else altogether?

Didn’t get any hits on the above earlier. But I appreciate you, Badaliyyah, mentioning the post.

 

[vz71]

let’s not bring up that old saw about"socialized medicine"

Agreed. It is off-topic.

It’s UNIVERSAL health care and everyone gets it…

For someone that does not want to bring up socialized medicine, you spend a lot of time on it.

Repeat after me Canadians live 2.5 years longer than Americans and it’s not that we are health freaks altho we did win the most golds at the Winter Olympics-Not bad for the second largest country in the world with a teensy population of 33,000,000 million people.

Go ahead freak out-give this uppity Canadian your worst-but you can’t argue with stone fact,

Were the post actually on topic, I would feel a need to refute it.
But as it sits, it is nothing but a red herring.
The minimum wage support is crumbling, so let’s change the topic.

 

[LilyM]

The minimum wage in Ontario is $10.25hr,Employers screamed about it but nobody got laid off.Wages ARE tax deductable:and let’s not bring up that old saw about"socialized medicine"It’s UNIVERSAL health care and everyone gets it and no one loses their homes and if you have an energency that requires a same-day cat scan you’ll get it.I’m tired unto death of the horror stories you people have been told by your insurance companies who are soiling their drawers at the thought of universal health care for America.It ISN"T a commie plot.
It benefits everyone not just those who are fortunate enough to have health care.What happens to you or your family if you lose your job or if you develop a terrible sickness and no insurance company will touch you.?
The bottom line is that Canadians live 2 and 1/2 years longer than Americans BECAUSE of universal Health Care.You are the only country in the Industrialized civilized First World without universal health care.That is a disgrace for the wealthiest country in the world.And please quote me no exceptions to the rule or about a proven liar who went on American media(paid for by American Health Insurance Companies) claiming she could not get treatment in Canada-you should read HER agenda,Or Danny what’s his face premier of Newfoundland who sought treatment in the States.GONE in the next election.Contrary to popular AMERICAN opinion Canadians in general are satisfied with our level of health care-WHICH IS NOT FREE,we pay more taxes than Americans but of all G 8 countries we are the most solvent and have the best fiscal prognosis of any nation on earth…

Repeat after me Canadians live 2.5 years longer than Americans and it’s not that we are health freaks altho we did win the most golds at the Winter Olympics-Not bad for the second largest country in the world with a teensy population of 33,000,000 million people.

Go ahead freak out-give this uppity Canadian your worst-but you can’t argue with stone fact,

Amen! and Australians, with our equally socialised medicine, are doing even better than Canucks. Among Western nations, if memory serves we’re only second to Andorra.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Agreed. I’m with you 100%, the supply of labor greatly influences the price, no doubt about it. I’m just saying it isn’t the only factor. Wealth produced by the job also plays a big role.

Also, the competitiveness of the labor market also plays a big role. For example, baseball players before 1976 were exploited because of a unique law that gave team owners monopsony power that they were able to use to drive down wages.

eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boal.monopsony

 

[Darkbloom]

But as it sits, it is nothing but a red herring.
The minimum wage support is crumbling, so let’s change the topic.

Agreed. I think this thread has run its course, and each of can decide for ourselves which side carried the day.

 

[jmcrae]

Agreed. I think this thread has run its course, and each of can decide for ourselves which side carried the day.

My question is certainly answered. Do you believe that an adult human being who works 8 hours a day, five days a week, should be able to afford to pay for food, housing, and clothing?

A lot of people are saying No, he should not - he should be grateful to be allowed to work, without also expecting to be allowed to stay alive under his own power, as well. That is far too much to demand of an employer. He should beg on the streets (where he will be told “Get a job, you bum!”), or receive support from his family (who probably sent him out to work because they were tired of supporting him … ).

I was really surprised by that, to be honest with you. I thought that people would have said that, of* course* working is about being able to take care of yourself with the wages that you earn. You should not have to both work and beg on the street corners or beg from family members for the where-with-all to survive from day to day.

 

[Darkbloom]

My question is certainly answered. Do you believe that an adult human being who works 8 hours a day, five days a week, should be able to afford to pay for food, housing, and clothing?

A lot of people are saying No, he should not - he should be grateful to be allowed to work, without also expecting to be allowed to stay alive under his own power, as well. That is far too much to demand of an employer. He should beg on the streets (where he will be told “Get a job, you bum!”), or receive support from his family (who probably sent him out to work because they were tired of supporting him … ).

I was really surprised by that, to be honest with you. I thought that people would have said that, of* course* working is about being able to take care of yourself with the wages that you earn. You should not have to both work and beg on the street corners or beg from family members for the where-with-all to survive from day to day.

Nobody said anything nearly as coarse as what you say here. It’s all an appeal to emotion and very pathetic.

If a person works a job where he or she simply don’t generate enough wealth to pay all the bills, should an employer really be forced to make up the difference?

A person getting $7.50/hr working fast food isn’t generating $25.00/hr in wealth with the employer pocketing the other $17.50. They’re making something like $8.50 - $9.00/hr. So, in effect, employers now have to pay more for someone to work than they actually bring in. That is A) unsustainable, B) guaranteed to cripple the economy and lead to unemployment, and C) antidemocratic.

 

[cynic]

A person getting $7.50/hr working fast food isn’t generating $25.00/hr in wealth with the employer pocketing the other $17.50. They’re making something like $8.50 - $9.00/hr. So, in effect, employers now have to pay more for someone to work than they actually bring in. That is A) unsustainable, B) guaranteed to cripple the economy and lead to unemployment, and C) antidemocratic.

There’s no way of measuring how much wealth a particular worker “generates” (unless it’s the self-employed) Even for manufacturing workers, how do you determine how much they contribute to a retail price in comparison to R&D, marketing or sales employees? All you can say is that some jobs require specialized skills and greater responsibility than others, and therfore, morally, the rates of renumeration should differ.

 

[toufell]

i agreed with darkbloom…

 

[vz71]

My question is certainly answered. Do you believe that an adult human being who works 8 hours a day, five days a week, should be able to afford to pay for food, housing, and clothing?

A lot of people are saying No, he should not - he should be grateful to be allowed to work, without also expecting to be allowed to stay alive under his own power, as well.

Fair enough, but it should be noted that a lot more people are saying yes, he should be able to support himself. But it is not the place of the state to force an employer to do this. It is the preponderant responsibility of the individual to make certain his marketable skills will support the lifestyle of his choice.

 

[vz71]

There’s no way of measuring how much wealth a particular worker “generates” (unless it’s the self-employed)

Yes there is.
Employers do it every time they decide what exactly to compensate for a position.
They also do this every time they review an employees performance for a raise.

 

[jmcrae]

Fair enough, but it should be noted that a lot more people are saying yes, he should be able to support himself. But it is not the place of the state to force an employer to do this. It is the preponderant responsibility of the individual to make certain his marketable skills will support the lifestyle of his choice.

Without laws ensuring this, they won’t do it. Look at the state of, for example, web site development.

This should be a highly paid, skilled job, but it isn’t, because employers get around minimum wage laws by making it a contract (ie: self-employed) position, and then pay as little as they can get away with, which, when you have a lot of graduates working for free while looking for experience, and in a tight economy, means that to do web development, you might get $25.00 a day for it, if you’re extremely lucky.

I took training in web development, thinking it would lead to a secure income, and I was very disappointed. I’m actually finding that doing low-skill secretarial work pays a hundred times better than high-skill web development, because it’s a regulated profession with standard wages set at a level that people can live on - plus, there is nobody trying to “break into” this business by working for free - all of the competition is looking for a living wage, so they have to pay living wages.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Without laws ensuring this, they won’t do it. Look at the state of, for example, web site development.

This should be a highly paid, skilled job, but it isn’t, because employers get around minimum wage laws by making it a contract (ie: self-employed) position, and then pay as little as they can get away with, which, when you have a lot of graduates working for free while looking for experience, and in a tight economy, means that to do web development, you might get $25.00 a day for it, if you’re extremely lucky.

I took training in web development, thinking it would lead to a secure income, and I was very disappointed. I’m actually finding that doing low-skill secretarial work pays a hundred times better than high-skill web development, because it’s a regulated profession with standard wages set at a level that people can live on - plus, there is nobody trying to “break into” this business by working for free - all of the competition is looking for a living wage, so they have to pay living wages.

Best to find a skill that people want and are willing to pay for, than to add to the oversupply of a skill. If enough people find other jobs (than web development) the rate may well go up. In my opinion it isn’t that great a skill and anybody with a bit of computer sense can make their own website. And its kind of fun and many do it for a hobby.
Secretarial work is tedious, and few are willing to tolerate it, so it pays better.
It is called supply and demand. If the government regulates it by artificially setting the supply or demand, they will get it much more wrong than if the market regulates it.

Who told you the world owes you a living. You owe it to yourself to find a skill you enjoy and the someone is willing to pay for.

 

[jmcrae]

Best to find a skill that people want and are willing to pay for, than to add to the oversupply of a skill. If enough people find other jobs (than web development) the rate may well go up. In my opinion it isn’t that great a skill and anybody with a bit of computer sense can make their own website. And its kind of fun and many do it for a hobby.

Right, and then when things go wrong, they want to get an expert to fix it for free, or very cheaply.

Who told you the world owes you a living. You owe it to yourself to find a skill you enjoy and the someone is willing to pay for.

I don’t think the world “owes me a living” but I do think that if I work, then I should be paid for that work. People should not be allowed to profit from my labour without compensating me for it. Otherwise, what’s the point?

 

[CPA2]

Economics cannot define the term, “need.“ “Fairness” is another word that economics cannot define. Additionally, accounting cannot define fairness as an operational criterion for cost-allocation. Fairness is a lofty objective rather than an operational criterion.

Trying to define fairness and needs is like trying to change a tire on a moving automobile. Assume, for example, that I own a grocery store. I want to help the “needy” people who are in a rush. Therefore, I dedicate a cash register for people who are “legitimately” in a rush. What happens? The line clogs up because everyone is in a rush! I know in my heart what “needy” means, but it is a concept that I cannot enforce without assuming the role of judge. Fairness and needs are not quantifiable.

 

[sidbrown]

Economics cannot define the term, “need.“ .

But what about if you are starving to death, don’t you need a bite to eat?
Or what about if you are dying of thirst in the desert, don’t you have a need for a glass of water? Otherwise you will drop dead.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Economics cannot define the term, “need.“ “Fairness” is another word that economics cannot define. Additionally, accounting cannot define fairness as an operational criterion for cost-allocation. Fairness is a lofty objective rather than an operational criterion.

While economics cannot define fairness precisely, it is a horrible mistake to assume that fairness is unimportant in economics. Unlike profit, there is no doubt that fairness is difficult to measure. And although fairness is to some extent subjective, there are times when almost all of us can agree on whether or not something is fair. For example, if someone’s car is broken down on a deserted road with no other cars around and I offer to give them a 20 mile ride for $200. Most people would argue that I would be acting in an unfair manner.

Trying to define fairness and needs is like trying to change a tire on a moving automobile. Assume, for example, that I own a grocery store. I want to help the “needy” people who are in a rush. Therefore, I dedicate a cash register for people who are “legitimately” in a rush. What happens? The line clogs up because everyone is in a rush! I know in my heart what “needy” means, but it is a concept that I cannot enforce without assuming the role of judge. Fairness and needs are not quantifiable.

Fairness and needs are not easily and perfectly quantifiable, but that doesn’t mean we should never try. For example, I have some friends who work for the state government. Many of these people start working real hard when they get close to retirement. The reason is simple, if they teach summer courses, or courses at the local community college, they increase their retirement income. Making an extra $5000 can generate over $1000 a year extra in their retirement income every year for the rest of their lives. They are gaming the system, which many people see as unfair. So fairness is an important concept, although we do have to be aware of both the problems of measuring fairness and the consequences of trying to make things more fair.

 

[thegreypiper]

My question is certainly answered. Do you believe that an adult human being who works 8 hours a day, five days a week, should be able to afford to pay for food, housing, and clothing?

**Where do you come up with magic number of 8 hours a day? **

A lot of people are saying No, he should not - he should be grateful to be allowed to work, without also expecting to be allowed to stay alive under his own power, as well. That is far too much to demand of an employer. He should beg on the streets (where he will be told “Get a job, you bum!”), or receive support from his family (who probably sent him out to work because they were tired of supporting him … ).

What kind of a job does he have? Do you really believe that a street sweeper deserves the same pay for 8 hours of work as an auto mechanic? Or a dentist?

I was really surprised by that, to be honest with you. I thought that people would have said that, of* course* working is about being able to take care of yourself with the wages that you earn. You should not have to both work and beg on the street corners or beg from family members for the where-with-all to survive from day to day.

What you are talking is essentially Marxism, with no concept of the laws of supply and demand, thinking an economy will behave nicely according to the dictats of pay czars and green czars and job czars – oops, who does THAT remind me of? – an utter fantasyland – an economy is no more controllable than a hurricane – all you can control is people – and that’s why all types of Socialism, whether Euro, or Soviet, or National* contain at the least the seeds of dictatorship, tyranny, and democide.

*Yes, Nazis are socialists.

 

[Darkbloom]

There’s no way of measuring how much wealth a particular worker “generates” (unless it’s the self-employed) Even for manufacturing workers, how do you determine how much they contribute to a retail price in comparison to R&D, marketing or sales employees? All you can say is that some jobs require specialized skills and greater responsibility than others, and therfore, morally, the rates of renumeration should differ.

I am personally involved in calculating how much wealth my employees’ work generate every week. I know from experience it can and is regularly done.

 

[Darkbloom]

People should not be allowed to profit from my labour without compensating me for it.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed? Who should decide who is allowed to do what and for how much? Even if you had perfect knowledge of this - and you or no individual does, the market does - do you really think it moral to use the force of government to enforce what you think should be allowed?

Free markets is the economic system of free people. You can’t have the later without the former.