What Is a Just Wage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think that to disobey the Magisterium on just wages would constitute at least a venial sin. A Catholic small business owner would certainly be committing a much less grave sin than the wealthy CEO who refuses to pay just wages in order to hoard the profits. (Costco is a striking model of how to run a large corporation while treating employees justly). But Catholics of all stripes should be figuring out how to live with this tension.
 
I don’t look down on anyone. I was continuing the joke started by the poster I responded to. There’s a trend to contrive fancy titles for simple entry level jobs and the joke points out the absurdity of that trend.

My grandma was a janitor. She herself laughed at the nonsense title the school gave her: domestic engineer.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, to be fair, that sounds like the kind of joke we’d have made at that sort of job. “Overnight maintenance associate” - I was a night janitor.
 
With all due respect, you seem to not be considering the part of CCC that states “taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.”
  1. You seem to be stating that a living wage is given regardless of the role and productivity of the employee, then IMHO, that violates the spirit of the CCC. Just so we are clear: If a business could possibly hire someone that drives $10 per hour of value, but your definition of a living wage (for argument’s sake) is $20 per hour, then you would want the business to hire no one? Does that support the common good?
  2. Another example: Suppose I just started a donut shop. I’m working on thin margins, but I’m seeing business pick up and could invest in an additional employee to grow, but can’t supply a wage that supports a family of four. Does Blackforest recommend:
    a) hire no one until the business supports $20 per hour wages
    b) Hire the person at $20 per hour, even if that means reducing my own pay below $20 per hour
    c) Stay out of the donut business
    d) some other option (be specific)
    I don’t see how options a, b, or c meet the spirit of the CCC and support the common good.
I would think if I am doing all I can to pay my employees the most I can, based on the state of the business, then I don’t see a sin of any kind here. Its when I can pay more based on the state of the business, and the role / productivity of the employee, but choose not to that I am violating the spirit of the CCC.

Your examples seem to revolve around large corporations, but as I said before, most businesses are not large corporations. You are solving for the exception.

Blessings,
 
PetraG said:
Explain why the wage gap we have is necessary so that wages can be “sustained,” please.
Click to expand...
The wage gap itself is irrelevant. The actual wages are determined by whatever business plan and environment a particular company operates under. However, both in the case of the CEO, and min wage workers, their wage is determined by how much growth they provide to the economy, through the business. It’s not based on some existing pile of cash sitting in a locked room somewhere. Paying someone more than they are providing (however this is calculated) is the definition of an unsustainable business.
 
Another thing is, that income and wealth themselves are not really the best metric to use to evaluate one’s share of the economy’s resources. Whether you are worth $60Billion or not, there is no way you can personally consume anywhere near $60B worth of goods. And believe me, anyone who is worth $60B is not just locking their cash up in a safe - they are investing it in something or someone. Whether or not it is his intent, the multibillionaire is going to be helping someone even if he operates only in his own self-interest of increasing his “worth”.
 
Hmm, even large corporations don’t necessarily operate on large profit margins. True, they do have larger reserves to draw upon, typically, giving the appearance of being able to support above-market wages. But this is largely because they are more adaptable.

Ex: Walmart can’t really afford to pay $14/hr to everyone they otherwise would have afforded to pay $11/hr, but they can afford to take the short-term hit, while they adapt the business by investing in increased automation.
 
Just to stir the pot, I’m going to question the idea of focussing completely on the corporations obligations towards its employees. This mindset suggests that the employee has zero bargaining power. This might be true in some cases, but there is no reason why it has to be true in all cases, or even most cases in the Western world. I’ll argue that there is no intrinsic reason why the average North American worker can’t treat his finances with a business mindset, rather than a paycheque-to-paycheque mindset. Currently, the U.S personal savings rate is just under 3%, the Cdn almost 4.5%. This is an absurd average. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t be in the 20%, 30%+ range, and I’ll argue the reason is unwillingness of individuals to take personal responsibility for their own finances.

Why is this relevant? Back to the bargaining question. Everyone is acting as if employees are always a captive audience at the mercy of whatever the boss wants to pay them. They forget that employment is just another transaction. The employee is selling his labour, skill, expertise, time, etc, and the employer is selling the compensation package priced in terms of labour, etc.

Also, the criteria of “living wage” seem so arbitrary. For example, I get the impression that most people consider a vehicle a necessity to “live fittingly” (or whatever term is used in the CCC). Looking at how absurdly overpriced cars, insurance, gas, repairs, etc are, I would say this is a ridiculous blanket assumption. Just forgoing that alone saves me a good 15-20% of my yearly income. (3-5x what the ave. Cdn saves, and up to 7x what the ave. American saves) Factor in the effects of earning a reasonable return of say, 8% on that, and the difference is huge. If someone asks me if I’m making a living wage, I’ll probably pinch myself and say, “yep, feels like I’m living”.
 
Is the janitor working at the mom-and-pop worth less than the janitor working for a corporation, assuming that all else is equal? (working conditions, efficiency/work ethic, hours of work, etc)
 
Is everybody in the same profession entitled to the exact same wage?
 
I wouldn’t call it unnerving. However, we should be clear-eyed about the cost of declining to run such a business. In the interests of not paying a worker something less than his dignity and needs call for, we are perhaps left with the same man having no work and no money at all. I’m not wholly convinced that the would-be employer has chosen the kinder option here, or the lesser evil.
 
Socrates92 said:
Also, the criteria of “living wage” seem so arbitrary. For example, I get the impression that most people consider a vehicle a necessity to “live fittingly” (or whatever term is used in the CCC). Looking at how absurdly overpriced cars, insurance, gas, repairs, etc are, I would say this is a ridiculous blanket assumption. Just forgoing that alone saves me a good 15-20% of my yearly income.
Click to expand...
Most of the US doesn’t have the luxury of not needing a car. You don’t need a brand new car (I haven’t bought one in years), but you do need a serviceable one. And the answer isn’t “move” - I’ve lived in plenty of cities without reliable and accessible public transportation, so it has nothing to do with “living fittingly” and everything to do with being able to work in the first place.

Most of the US is rural. Most do not live in major cities, nor do most work in major cities.

The moment when this dawned on my British husband was totally worth a Polaroid. I wish I had one. The recognition that showed on his face was pretty much priceless.

The rest of your posts were very good. But this isn’t negotiable to most of America, and it has nothing to do with status or perception of status. It has to do with simply being able to get to work. (Oh, and to things like grocery stores and doctors and other basic services. Forgot about those.)
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
Most of the US is rural. Most do not live in major cities, nor do most work in major cities.
Click to expand...
Most of the US, geographically speaking, or most of the US population-wise? Assuming I’m reading it correctly, this article seems to suggest that only about 14% live in rural areas. I don’t think that 14% has a significant affect of the average - USDA ERS - Population & Migration

If you read my argument carefully, I’m simply arguing that a significant portion of people don’t need a car. I’m having difficulty finding exact stats breaking down the demographics of the labour force by area, but a significant percentage are young, healthy, live in urban areas, and are physically capable of biking to work, and therefore poor transit shouldn’t be an issue. For groceries, bike trailers are a thing - not a problem if one lives within 15km of a store, and plans ahead to only have to shop every week or two. Where there’s a will, there’s often a way. Protip: bikes are also faster than cars in downtown areas during rush hour. Flying past 50 cars stopped at a light is one of my favourite things.

The bike vs. car thing is a pet talking point of mine, but it’s just one thing. We can nitpick about how feasible it is or isn’t for different people, but average CDN and US savings are ridiculously low given our average incomes. We could learn a lot from China (Loading...)
 
Yeah, that’s another thing. The way the “just wage” debate is often framed seems to suggest that the employer is responsible for his employees’ personal affairs. Which would suggest that he would need extensive information, as well as control. What if an employee simply uses his wages irresponsibly - should the employer have control over how he spends them, simply to ensure that they properly cover a certain standard of living? One’s material wellbeing depends not just on what he earns, but how he spends it, after all.
 
I don’t see how it’s a lesser evil, given that the employment has the direct effect of improving the worker’s lot compared to his next best alternative. It’s as if you needed $2000 for something urgent, and I offered you $1000, only to be accused of choosing to perform a “lesser evil.” It’s absurd. Offering you the $1000 isn’t evil at all, lesser or greater.
 
Socrates92 said:
40.png
Pup7:
Most of the US is rural. Most do not live in major cities, nor do most work in major cities.
Click to expand...
Most of the US, geographically speaking, or most of the US population-wise? Assuming I’m reading it correctly, this article seems to suggest that only about 14% live in rural areas. I don’t think that 14% has a significant affect of the average - USDA ERS - Population & Migration

If you read my argument carefully, I’m simply arguing that a significant portion of people don’t need a car. I’m having difficulty finding exact stats breaking down the demographics of the labour force by area, but a significant percentage are young, healthy, live in urban areas, and are physically capable of biking to work, and therefore poor transit shouldn’t be an issue. For groceries, bike trailers are a thing - not a problem if one lives within 15km of a store, and plans ahead to only have to shop every week or two. Where there’s a will, there’s often a way. Protip: bikes are also faster than cars in downtown areas during rush hour. Flying past 50 cars stopped at a light is one of my favourite things.

The bike vs. car thing is a pet talking point of mine, but it’s just one thing. We can nitpick about how feasible it is or isn’t for different people, but average CDN and US savings are ridiculously low given our average incomes. We could learn a lot from China (Loading...)
Click to expand...
I’ve lived in seven states and have been in all but three US states. I’ve driven across the US on the southernmost route (I-10) from CA to MS (then up I-85 to Raleigh), across I-40 from CA to NC, and from SC to WA via I-90 and a few others across the heartland.

Most of the US is rural. When I say “rural” I don’t just mean out in farm country. I’m meaning also that most of the US does not live in Chicago, NYC, San Francisco…most of the US does not have the advantages of city life. Most of the US is suburban or otherwise NOT metro urban.

Most of the US does not have access to reliable and frequent public transportation.

Most of the US requires a car.

Most of the US is not living in or near a major city.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top