What Is a Just Wage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you not think that a high minimum wage would put many small companies out of business, and encourage large companies (e.g., McDonalds) to use robots/kiosks instead of hiring actual people? This is actually happening, BTW. Several of the fast food chain restaurants in our city have kiosks.

How would a “teenage” secondary wage work? It seems like age discrimination to me. If an adult worked at McDonalds, they would receive $15-20/hr, while if a teenager worked at McDonalds, he would receive $8/hr? Or would the teen do very menial work at the McDs, e.g., wiping down tables (and using chemicals to do this, so it probably has already been questioned) or bringing the bags of food out to the customers. But this gets back to the idea of different jobs should pay more money, which rankles some people who want “just wages” because they consider all work valuabbe.

After following this thread from the beginning, I honestly feel like the economic system we have in the U.S. is really good and encourages healthy competition and allows almost anyone to get a job and earn a living wage.

I think problems arise when people receive a poor education for various reasons (and sometimes that reason is “personal choice”) and therefore can’t acquire a job that pays a living wage.

I also think that a problem arises when the traditional family is broken. The highest poverty levels in the U.S. are among single mothers, and the children of those single mothers.

Finally, I do accept that certain CEOs of large companies and certain owners of small companies truly do live like caliphs while their lowest-level employees struggle along on an inadequate wage, but don’t have the hours available to get an education and find a higher-paying job.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the problem from a global perception…


The total value of world income is closing in on $70 trillion (£43.9tn) per year, and there are seven billion people in the world, so the average income is heading towards $10,000 (£6,273) per person per year. Easy. 29 Mar 2012

Just as a matter of interest, if you were lucky enough to take home ten thousand U.S. dollars per year, you would be in the top 16 percent of the richest people on the planet.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/

This might be a starting point when looking for a global just wage. I know there is so much more to be taken into consideration.
 
Last edited:
It says right there in that paragraph from the Catechism. “Both the needs and contributions of each person must be taken into account”.

Nothing about a just wage implies that it should be regulated by the government, and neither does it imply that an employer must continue to employ someone who contributes very little that could not be performed by the employer or a machine. The passage is an appeal to employers to support their employees just as much, if not more, than the employees support the business. If an employee is struggling, it is the job of their manager to motivate and help them to be more productive.
 
I think it would be a terrible thing to put a government in charge of regulating wages. What would happen is that a greedy crook would run for office and then take all the money.
 
Just a personal note–MY wages have finally gone up as a result of the tax cuts. 🙂

I’ve worked for the same hospital for 27 years, and in the last eight years, we only received two raises, and they were 1% (that’s ONE percent), which essentially amounted to no raise after taxes.

It’s pretty frustrating, but it’s the same in hospitals all around our area, and also for many other companies who are not hospitals. At least I got two one percent raises. My husband works for a Fortunee 500 Company, and he and his co-workers have had NO raises for at least ten years.

That’s one reason why I have a very difficult time with teachers demanding a 12% raise and bigger benefit packages. Doesn’t seem right somehow, especially when they have all weekends and holidays off (I’m working two out of three of the summer holidays, and that includes the weekends surrounding the holidays.)

But that’s OT. My point is, when the corporate tax cut came through, I ended up with a pretty nice increase in salary! It’s not a raise from my company, but an encouraging donation from my country, and I’m very grateful! It has enabled me to put more of my paycheck towards debt repayment, and usually I still have a few dollars left of my paycheck by the time I get my next paycheck. This is awesome, as for years, I’ve been in the hole by as much as $200, and usually around $50.00, before I finally get my next paycheck. Now I have a little breathing space.

I hope with all my heart that nothing happens to cancel that tax relief, and I hope that even more tax relief will be forthcoming. Taxes absolutely kill the economy, and really don’t help the poor people that are supposed to get that help. By the time the administrators of the various GOVERNMENT charitable programs are paid, and the overhead costs of administering the program are paid, there’s little money left. Meantime, many of the private charities and churches are able to give a large percentage of their monies to the poor and challenged people who desperately need help.

If we want just wages, we should seek lower taxes across the boards.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
If we want just wages, we should seek lower taxes across the boards.
Click to expand...
The available data indicate that this principle just doesn’t pan out. While I’m pleased that your employer was voluntarily altruistic, tax cuts won’t guarantee higher wages without a mandate attached. I’m not necessarily advocating for that approach, (I haven’t explored it enough), but we can’t naively count on corporate altruism.
 
Which brings up a bit of a conundrum… Suppose the following:

The employer is not, under any circumstances, obliged to continue to employ someone under the moral precept of a just wage
Continued employment is, nonetheless, advantageous to said unproductive employee, such that it is preferable to the next best alternative (unemployment and starving)
The employer cannot justify paying the employee at what most would consider a just wage, such that that employee is able to “fittingly” provide for his family, etc.

Many would argue that continuing to employ someone at some level below some given level (often called a “living wage”) is immoral. But given that even this low level is preferable to non-employment, which the employer is not culpable for, the argument seems to go that the employer is committing an injustice towards the employee while at the same time voluntarily improving the lot of said employee.
 
Well, now, I don’t know about that. I’m taking home around $50 more per paycheck, maybe a little more. That’s important money to me.

Not sure if the article I posted came through, but to the company that is able to expand, the 25 or so people that get hired will probably be pretty pleased that the tax cuts are the reason they got hired.

And even if a tax cut helps the rich, that’s great! When rich people get more money, many of them either (1) invest it into businesses, which means more jobs for the non-rich like me and my non-rich friends or (2) spend it on themselves, which means more work for all the people who are making the goods that the rich people are buying!

Did you know that when the federal income tax became the law of the land, Rose Wilder Lane (Laura Ingalls Wilder’s only child) QUIT her job so that she wouldn’t have any income to be taxed! She was a Libertarian to the max, and believed that individual freedom is the most important right of Americans.

I’m not that extreme, but I do believe that lower taxes would stimulate the economy in the U.S. I also believe that many of the government-run programs would operate more efficiently and serve people better if they were owned and run by private citizens.
 
Trickle-down economics has never been proven to work…

The idea that you allow a wealthy person the ability to retain more of his capital and somehow that has a direct or indirect correlation towards helping the middle class…is simply asinine.

We are witnessing more and more individuals becoming working poor. It is no surprise that a pasquinaded populist managed to get himself elected to the White House. But more serious is the amount of educated individuals that find themselves struggling or just one paycheck away from financial ruins. An example is the amount of individuals that walk into a medical facility seeking assistance with poor or no insurance is staggering. Many of these individuals are working, often times multiple jobs.

It is insensitive and unchristian to label these people as just uneducated folks working menial jobs. Just look at Uber. They have the audacity to point out how many working professionals are also working as Uber drivers. Many of those are teachers; they even supported a campaign that offered $5,000 bonus to the school with the most active drivers.

Uber has a $70 billion valuation and nearly four hundred thousand drivers. It’s founder has a ten billion net worth. How has his wealth help the middle class? I guess you can make the argument that all those people are working harder than their parents. Just remember, All of those drivers are independent contractors with no company provided health insurance. Hence, what happens when they require medical attention? You will pay for their medical coverage.

I cannot believe how people can defend an ideology that has only degraded the middle class.
 
Leo2014, you sound really angry at wealthy people.

Why?

Can you tell us about the experiences you have had with wealthy people you know? They must have treated you badly. I’m sorry.

I’ve been very fortunate that all the wealthy people I know have been kind and generous and very humble. The wealthy people that I know personally have given away millions to worthy causes, charitable organizations, churches, and friends. They have started companies that have given jobs to literally thousands of people. They have donated the funds to build and maintain parks, libraries, museums, low-cost housing, churches, and schools. They have paid bills for families in crisis, and helped the poor in so many practical ways. They have made our city a much better place to live.

Is this only true in my city? In all other U.S. cities and towns, do the rich people hoard their big money and send out the hounds to chase the poor people away? Do they earn all their money by crime rather than starting up and maintaining companies? Is there no Public Television in your cities? No parks? When your church needed building funds, did no one step up with a giant kick-starter donation, forcing your church to raise the funds over 50 long years from the dollar bills given each week by the “middle class?”

II just don’t get this animosity towards the rich, but again, I’ve never had bad experiences with them, and I’m guessing that you or others have.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
II just don’t get this animosity towards the rich, but again, I’ve never had bad experiences with them, and I’m guessing that you or others have.
Click to expand...
I work part time for a care company that pays minimum wages. The home has signs saying the staff should be caring and compassionate, which we try to be. Meanwhile, the boss is sitting on £40 million, and seems to show little compassion towards his staff on minimum wages.
 
When you say “care company,” what does that mean? My first thought was a day care (caring for babies and very young children while their parents are at work). My second thought was a medical clinic or a hospital. Is either of these guesses correct?

Also, are you not in the U.S.? You use the pound sign instead of the dollar sign.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
When you say “care company,” what does that mean?
Click to expand...
It’s a care home for the elderly in the UK, they never have enough staff mostly because of the low wages. The buzzers are often going for half an hour, just for residents to get help going to the toilet. The residents pay a fortune to stay there, many of them had to sell their home.

A friend of ours went there after a stroke, and I agreed to drive their bus part time. This is something I would have done as a volunteer, but I won’t volunteer for a company where the boss is worth £40.

I take her to mass in the bus, and no matter how tight the boss is, I can’t take money for going to mass.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
I take her to mass in the bus, and no matter how tight the boss is, I can’t take money for going to mass.
Click to expand...
Why can’t you? You’re charging for the driving service, not for attending Mass itself…
 
Last edited:
Eric_Hyom said:
That might be because money rushes up to the billionaires, and a small amount is allowed to trickle down
Click to expand...
The rich always get the larger distribution of the wealth, of course. In a system based on mutually beneficially (capitalism) exchanges, the rich are those who can perform the most, and therefore receive the most benefit. it’s still a mistake to denigrate the (relatively speaking) “small amount.” Residents of North Korea might not agree with your definition of small.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top