What Is a Just Wage?

[Socrates92]

As I said, do you Iive here? No? Then you have no idea.

Hmm, so economic principles are also geography based now.

 

[Pup7]

It’s doing serious damage here.

The Bitter Lesson From Seattle's Minimum Wage Hike | Investor's Business Daily

Property is also artificially priced here. It’s not because of inflation. I would think a broker would know this, and I have direct access to one. Rent has skyrocketed in the last two years as well. I would think locals - and I know a lot of those - would understand what’s happening here.

But you keep right on believing you know everything there is to know about every place you’ve never lived.

 

[Cyril]

Look, you wanna talk the macro or the micro you need to fork over the location. You want to debate the whole or the one be my guest.

 

[Cyril]

They tried that excuse in Canada when we raised the min wage too 14$/hr. Your article fails to mention that min wage was created to match living standard which changes. Its easy to blame the base wage but with employers like McDonalds (cause you have that there too) giving everyone part time to avoid paying benefits this is what happens.

 

[Socrates92]

$10 says you didn’t actually mute it.

 

[TheOldColonel]

What one agrees to recieve is a just wage.

 

[Cyril]

No idea why people want to dispute experience. It’s arrogant.

Personal experience is bias and falls into logical fallacy.

 

[Brendan]

Why should an honest day’s work that the employer is going to need to have done and that represents a major portion of the employer’s workforce be something “not meant to be long-term or sustaining”? Where does the employer get off deciding that the employment they offer doesn’t need to pay a sustainable wage when it obviously is not an unsustainable business enterprise?

I had a paper route when I was a young teen. I think that I can safely state that job choice was not meant to be long term. Neither I, nor the local paper, expected me to work at that for more than a few years. And neither I, nor the local paper, expected me to sustain myself in any way other than pocket money.

And, in terms of sheer numbers, the carriers certainly outnumbered the reporters, editors and press operators.

That did not mean that the enterprise was not sustainable. The paper is still in business, albeit, the role that I once had has been replaced by digital media.

 

[blackforest]

Why would it gnaw at your conscience? Is there pre-existing plight a result of your actions somehow?

No, their existing plight is, however. It would (hopefully) gnaw at your conscience if you’re Catholic.

What does “their share of taxes” mean in your mind (also, I suspect you meant to use the euphemism “fair share” - but correct me if I’m wrong on that)?

For what other phrase would “fair share” be a euphemism?

I live in a state with purportedly the lowest corporate tax rate. There’s fortunately a movement to challenge that. Corporations will often come into communities on the condition that they do not belong to the city, so as to avoid paying local taxes. And they still do everything they can to monopolize a market. These efforts to play dirty and reduce competition would make Adam Smith roll in his grave. People think that they are capitalists when they defend these practices, but believe me, they’re not.

Higher wages on their own do not benefit businesses, unless they are the by-product of better productivity.

They actually do, although the effect isn’t seen directly. If all people are only making enough to spend money on it the necessities, where is the spending that keeps the local economy going? A community with more spending money amounts to more customers.

 

[blackforest]

The poor need to pay for food, rent, childcare, clothing, gas, insurance, and bills. Money to do that has to come from somewhere. Higher wages? More taxpayer-funded welfare? Another source that I’m overlooking? I’m not being snarky - I’m open to ideas because I’d genuinely like to see this problem solved.

Would anyone like to take a stab at this?

 

[Socrates92]

No, their existing plight is, however. It would (hopefully) gnaw at your conscience if you’re Catholic.

You’ll have to elaborate why that would be the case. Their existing plight > pre-existing plight. You’ve stated that the donut shop owner is also not capable of providing more, so it’s not even a question of going beyond justice out of charity (which would be an interesting debate). I don’t normally feel guilty for improving someone’s circumstances.

They actually do, although the effect isn’t seen directly

For what other phrase would “fair share” be a euphemism?

It’d be a euphemism for a concept, rather than a phrase per se. Namely, the concept of taking what has been rightly earned through entrepreneurship and industry under the mistaken idea that the fruits somehow belong to someone else.

As per the second link you posted, I have to agree with you 50%. Corporate welfare is a problem. However, I’d argue that bargaining for lower tax burdens is not corporate welfare in the same vein as normally understood - I’m thinking about other monopoly-forming gov’t-granted barriers to entry (ie: licensing requirements, onerous compliance costs, etc.) In as much as lower taxes encourage productivity, and productivity improves the lot of the employed and wider community, these tax privileges do not actually harm anyone, selfish motives aside. In the current system of excessively high business taxes, you are right that this gives lucky corporations a monopolistic advantage over companies that cannot command tax privileges. But this is more an argument for lower business taxes across the board.

Higher wages on their own do not benefit businesses, unless they are the by-product of better productivity.

Really? Can I work for you? I’d like to start my entry level job at 200K/year - I promise I’ll use most of it to buy my own services through your company. Joking aside, this is the type of Keynesian nonsense that ruins countries. All else being the same, what makes you think transferring funds from profits to wages would raise demand overall in a community? It might change the types of demand - lower income individuals buy different things than those making more. It might also increase current consumption at the expense of saving, as low income people tend to save a smaller percentage. But you’re not actually increasing the total funds in a community. Money itself is also meaningless - it’s the goods themselves that are important - so there are also inflationary effects to consider when you try to simply wave higher numbers into existence.

 

[blackforest]

You’ve stated that the donut shop owner is also not capable of providing more . . .

I acknowledge that some donut shop owners may not be in a position to offer a living wage, (assuming that we’re accepting living wage as being synonymous with a just wage - over 300+ posts into the thread, no one has wanted to tackle that question). Those who do have the means to pay employees justly and instead build their profits would be in a state of sin.

I don’t normally feel guilty for improving someone’s circumstances.

Do you mean for not improving someone’s circumstances?

I can’t say whether or not you’d be improving someone’s circumstances; it would depend on the circumstances from which they came. But you are called to do everything you can to pay a just wage.

Namely, the concept of taking what has been rightly earned through entrepreneurship and industry under the mistaken idea that the fruits somehow belong to someone else.

Um, they do belong to someone else, the employees entitled to a wage - a just one, according to the Church - for the fruits of their labors.

In the current system of excessively high business taxes, you are right that this gives lucky corporations a monopolistic advantage over companies that cannot command tax privileges. But this is more an argument for lower business taxes across the board.

I think it’s an argument for more consistent taxation. Lower income people will shop at a welfare queen like Walmart rather than a local business because the former can keep its prices lower. Local businesses are shouldering the burden for what the big corporations won’t pay.

Really? Can I work for you? I’d like to start my entry level job at 200K/year - I promise I’ll use most of it to buy my own services through your company.

Cute - but off target. Widescale higher wages will result in a broad population of people with more expendable income.

Joking aside, this is the type of Keynesian nonsense that ruins countries. All else being the same, what makes you think transferring funds from profits to wages would raise demand overall in a community?

I had to cut a lot of your quote out due to character limits.

It’s a lot more complex than that, I’m afraid. We are indisputably a consumer-based economy; however, even savings are of benefit when they eventually go to higher ticket items like homes and college degrees.

I there are other economic advantages to good wages that directly benefit the employer. You keep your good help, saving money on training. Underinvestment in labor comes with its own perils. There’s been some great research on this topic.

 

[Arkansan]

Commutative justice requires that employers pay a wage sufficient for the decent support of a single individual. Distributive justice requires further that fathers be paid enough to support their families, though it would seem that employers in the modern US could be excused from that obligation, owing to the unjust laws making such a program explicitly illegal (the Civil Rights Act). Still, just employers should covertly prefer family men in the awarding of bonuses, insofar as that can be done without exposing their business to legal peril.

 

[DarkLight]

The question is more - what happens if no one will agree with you for a wage that allows you to cover your own basic needs? Right now the answer in the U.S. is the welfare system will cover the rest.

 

[TheOldColonel]

If no agreement is reached, then the parties conclude negotiations. New opportunities must be sought.

 

[Theo520]

Hmmm, I don’t know. 71% of the population living in “urbanized areas” (defined in your article as 50,000+) still seems pretty significant. And it’s definitely more than 50%. Tell me about transport. I hate buses too, which is why I bike everywhere. If you “seriously cannot live without a car,” how did he manage for five years?

You don’t know what you are talking about.
suburban areas are made for cars, they don’t have public transportation.
Only dense major cities have reliable public transportation, if you live in the right places.

 

[DarkLight]

What if there are no new opportunities to seek out?

 

[Vanny]

I do agree with your point about healthcare. I don’t know what the solution is(above my pay grade) but a lot of people are in “job Lock” because they can’t afford to give up their benefits, especially if they have a family.
I had to turn down a job I was offered and would have like to have taken, here in my town, because it offered no health insurance,(small business) and take a job I’m less happy with, but had health insurance, and other benefits. (I live in a small town where the choices are limited.)
I did read a similar article that stated employers started offering benefits around WWII.

 

[TheOldColonel]

For the able-bodied, such a conclusion is the product of a lack of imagination, lack of will, pride, or mere sloth.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

If you do the same job in China or America, you should get the same wage.