If the argument is that we should keep cheap labor as opposed to increasing automation, I think it leads down a path we do not want to go. Yes, we can perhaps add millions and millions of jobs to the economy if we allow people to be paid .50/hour. Certainly those level of wages are effective in other countries in warding off automation and saving lots of jobs.
Lets be very clear, this is directly contrary to current Catholic teaching.
The argument is that $11/hour is not “cheap labor.” Minimum wage legislation removes those workers willing to work for anything less. Those workers have their right-to-work violated. The naive who promote minimum wage force automation.
Let’s be very clear. A federally mandated “just wage” as in “minimum wage” is just false.
Which I have acknowledged on this thread.
Note the phrase - “establish a rule of pay”. Not “employers can pay workers the bare minimum that the workers might be desperate enough to agree to with no rules at all other than supply and demand”. We had unbridled market economy with workers’ pay and conditions being determined just as you describe in the 1800s - workers were miserably exploited, which is why there are unions, laws on working conditions, laws against slavery and child labour and so on.tafan2:
The argument is that $11/hour is not “cheap labor.” Minimum wage legislation removes those workers willing to work for anything less. Those workers have their right-to-work violated. The naive who promote minimum wage force automation.
Let’s be very clear. A federally mandated “just wage” as in “minimum wage” is just false.
QUADRAGESIMO ANNO
66. The just amount of pay, however, must be calculated not on a single basis but on several, as Leo XIII already wisely declared in these words: “To establish a rule of pay in accord with justice, many factors must be taken into account.”[45]
- By this statement he plainly condemned the shallowness of those who think that this most difficult matter is easily solved by the application of a single rule or measure - and one quite false.
Ah yes, a fantastic way to induce child starvation and prostitution in certain areas of the world.
Usually areas where the adults are equally (or almost equally) starving and forced into prostitution to support themselves. Lack of legitimate work all round, not specific to children.LilyM:
Ah yes, a fantastic way to induce child starvation and prostitution in certain areas of the world.
I don’t see such a post acknowledging that a just wage is complicated and a two-sided issue. What I also don’t see is a post on your solution – only a one-sided “sky is falling” on the poor workers.
Perhaps it is you who need to take note. We are in the 21st century and no one has posited a just wage will come about with a return to the 19th century practices.
I would refer you to post 62. I will also point out that the title and the OP of this thread is not about a minimum wage, it is a question about what constitutes a just wage. The article linked in the OP never mentions a minimum wage, it only discusses the Church’s teaching on a just wage.
As to me being a one-sided “sky is falling”, that is not quite accurate either. I have specifically said that wages have kept up with inflation, and even exceeded inflation by a little. But I have lamented the wide-spread problem of people not understanding what is meant by a just wage and there are many employers who do not pay such.
OK, let’s look at it (edited to meet word count limit on posts).
No, this post still does not defend the full and balanced teaching on just wages. It ends once again with emphasizing only employers obligations.
There it is again – those evil employers. Perhaps it is you who do not understand what is meant by a just wage.
Take a breath and read it again slowly. Do you hold the contrary to be true?: Whatever is not agreeable to the employer and employee is just. Now that’s absurd.
You have conveniently replaced “you would be wrong.” with …, but I will grant it was not a clear denunciation, as I have not really addressed minimum wages in this thread. But if you expect only one of my posts to present a full and balanced presentation on just wages, that is quite unfair. You will find posts where I presented both sides of the arguments. Its a discussion, most of the time, only individual comments are addressed in any given post.
I never said all employers, or even most of them are evil. I simply said that many do not pay a just wage. And even that does not make them evil, likely just misinformed, as in believing “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just”.
What kind of logic is that? The contrary of “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is not what you stated. Lets break it down to logic. The statement “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is a basic “A implies B” form. With A being “whatever is agreeable to the employer and the employee” and B being “is just”. A implies B is false, which we can agree the church explicitly rejects, does not mean “not A implies B”. Which is the statement you claim I am making.
Yes on the first sentence. No on the second. Because it is not the ONLY criteria which is fundamental to justice. Although I suppose I would agree that any unjust wage is exploited labor, so perhaps we agree. Although I do not think that is your meaning.
I do not find such posts. The reference to post #62 failed to do so.
Wiggling around what was posted will not do. Is it evil to pay an unjust wage? Yes. Does one who does so commit an evil act? Yes. The culpability for such acts is a different issue and going there is a deflection.
Yes, it is the contrary. Look it up: Two statements that cannot both be true. And you are confused in your logic. Only the contra-positive of a statement has the same truth value. The truth value of the converse and inverse do not.
I did not claim every wage is just. I claimed in order to be just the employer and employee must freely agree so as taught in Rerum Novarum. That component is necessary. Absent that agreement, the wage is unjust. The encyclical continues to teach that this necessary condition may not be sufficient if labor is exploited, i.e., taken unfair advantage of, which is obvious and merely common sense. An unfair agreement is never a just agreement.