What wage is just?

[tafan2]

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.

Are you seriously claim

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.

Read what I wrote. No, my point is both statements are false. “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is false. “Whatever is not agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is also false. That is why your logic is faulty. Perhaps I should not have put it in logic terms, I thought that would be most clear.

I claimed in order to be just the employer and employee must freely agree so as taught in Rerum Novarum. That component is necessary.

Agreed that is a component. Which in no way implies “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just”.

I do not find such posts

I will list posts which covered both the employer side of the issue, post that address, in your words that it is a “complicated two-sided issue”. I do not expect these to be satisfactory to you, since you claim to have searched for them. To be they are extremely obvious to me.

Post 32, I provide a quote from the Church’s official teaching on the subject that says “in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop”.

In post 34 I point out that wages overall have exceeded inflation.

In post 41 I point out that the value of the production should be taken into account.

In post 57 I point out that a person who has acquired no skills and has acquired a few children is also morally at fault.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you seriously claim

?

Read what I wrote. No, my point is both statements are false. “Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is false. “Whatever is not agreeable to the employer and employee is just” is also false. That is why your logic is faulty. Perhaps I should not have put it in logic terms, I thought that would be most clear.

The parties agreement is a necessary condition to a just wage. Absent that agreement, all wages are unjust. The claim that what is necessary may not always be sufficient does not negate that truth. Furthermore, as I stated before this is the 21st century, not the 19th in which Rerum Novarum was written. In the U.S. there may be some underground economies where wage-takers still exist but such wage earners no longer exist in the main, that is there is no perfectly elastic supply of labor. The caveat to a just wage in Rerum Novarum no longer applies in the U.S. Labor which is free to participate or not participate cannot be exploited. If you believe that is not true, evidence from the BLS that such a labor market exists in the U.S.

 

[tafan2]

?

Sorry, somehow that response got cut off. I meant to write: Are you seriously claiming that anyone one who sins is evil? I asked this question in response to your statement: ""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. " which was written in response to my denial I was calling employers evil.

 

[tafan2]

Furthermore, as I stated before this is the 21st century, not the 19th in which Rerum Novarum was written

To the best of my memory, I have made no citations or quotes from Rerum Novarum and have not relied upon it for my arguments. To be sure, I consider it an outstanding encyclical, it was a great gift to the church that is still largely relevant today, as the many times it is referenced in the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church attests to.

 

[YourNameHere]

Hard times make for taking tough, low-paying jobs.
My great grandfather had an engineering degree from M.I.T., but during the Great Depression, he could only get work as a truck driver.

 

[o_mlly]

The caveat to a just wage in Rerum Novarum no longer applies in the U.S. Labor which is free to participate or not participate cannot be exploited. If you believe that is not true, evidence from the BLS that such a labor market exists in the U.S.

In contrast, we find evidence that low-income workers have higher elasticities of labor supply than other workers, especially in the component of their labor response that reflects movement in and out of the workforce.

Review of Recent Research on Labor Supply Elasticities
Robert McClelland
Congressional Budget Office
October 2012

In our free labor market – a market in which labor is free to participate or not participate – the claim stands: Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just.

 

[tafan2]

Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just.

May I ask how you define a wage as agreeable between the employer and employee?

 

[LilyM]

o_mlly:

The caveat to a just wage in Rerum Novarum no longer applies in the U.S. Labor which is free to participate or not participate cannot be exploited. If you believe that is not true, evidence from the BLS that such a labor market exists in the U.S.

In contrast, we find evidence that low-income workers have higher elasticities of labor supply than other workers, especially in the component of their labor response that reflects movement in and out of the workforce.

Review of Recent Research on Labor Supply Elasticities
Robert McClelland
Congressional Budget Office
October 2012

In our free labor market – a market in which labor is free to participate or not participate – the claim stands: Whatever is agreeable to the employer and employee is just.

Firstly, where did your quote say “free”? It said “higher elasticities”, which may translate to more freedom, but far from absolute.

In any case "free to participate’ does not mean “having equitable bargaining power compared to the employer”. Which is essential to justice between employer and employee.

I may be disadvantaged by reason of things like being young, being old, living in a rural area where there is limited choice of employers, having limited access to education or transport, having limited opportunity to access legal advice about work contracts and entitlements.

If so, then my ability to effectively bargain over pay and conditions with an employer or potential employer, so that I receive a wage which is genuinely commensurate with the hours and effort I am expected to put in - as well as being in line with the Church’s teaching on the dignity of labour - is limited indeed.

And if I am disadvantaged in one or more of those ways, and my bargaining power is limited by that disadvantage, of course I am open to exploitation, since an unfair deal can be foisted on me. Such is the nature of contract law in general, and employment contracts are no different.

And having “higher elasticities of labor supply” hardly means “immunity to undue pressure from employers such that no unfair deal can be forced on them”

 

[o_mlly]

May I ask how you define a wage as agreeable between the employer and employee?

Rerum Novarum definition:

1. Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages

 

[o_mlly]

Firstly, where did your quote say “free”? It said “higher elasticities”, which may translate to more freedom, but far from absolute.

In any case "free to participate’ does not mean “having equitable bargaining power compared to the employer”. Which is essential to justice between employer and employee.

What does “equitable bargaining power” mean? Is it a power greater than “sufficient” to decline to work?

I may be disadvantaged by reason of things like being young, being old, living in a rural area where there is limited choice of employers, having limited access to education or transport, having limited opportunity to access legal advice about work contracts and entitlements.

Why would the impediments of accident or place and person fall on employers rather than the community? The social welfare system cares for our truly disadvantaged. The argument that the worker who can improve his employment opportunities but does not becomes entitled to special treatment is not Catholic teaching: “Let him who will not work, not eat” (2 Thess 3:10).

 

[Markus23]

I think to have many options is just. The average wage at a small startup and big international company will have a huge difference. however, both of these options should be present on the market. A person should consider personal and professional qualities and make the best possible choice at the moment.

 

[Peeps]

I think there are times when we must work at a job not to earn a living wage, but to earn a record of good work that we can use to find higher-paying work at a later time in our lives.

When someone has never worked before, and has no record of good work habits and an ability to get along with others, and has no training in the skills needed to do a certain job, it doesn’t make sense that they would start out with a salary comparable to someone who has proven through experience that they have good work habits and the ability to get along with others, and has put forth the effort to obtain the schooling and the training to do the job.

In the U.S., most of us have to start at the bottom with a “teenage wage” and work our way up to a living wage. And I see nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that many people never bother to get any training or education past their teenage years, and so they aren’t qualified to move out of the “teenage wage” into the living wage.

And people on this forum seem to be saying that this doesn’t matter–that a person qualifies for a living wage because they have NEED OF IT.

That kind of thinking encourages indolence and lack of self-improvement and ambition. It does not help people to improve their lot in life, but only helps them to make money that they really aren’t entitled to.

In fact, perhaps it one reason why American school test scores are so low compared to the test scores in many other countries in the world. Those people KNOW that they have to work hard and continually learn more and more in order to one day qualify for a job with a living wage, while in the U.S., we know that we will get all kinds of freebies and “gimmes” whether we work for them or not.

If this is what the Catholic Church teaches–that an employer should pay a living wage to everyone whether they are qualified for it or not–I disagree.

I don’t think that’s what the Catholic Church teaches. I think the Catholic Church teaches that we who have much should willingly give from our abundance to those who have little, and HELP THEM to get to a point where they, too, can earn enough to be able to live without help from others and actually be able to help others.

 

[Anrakyr]

I think there are times when we must work at a job not to earn a living wage, but to earn a record of good work that we can use to find higher-paying work at a later time in our lives.

Time out, putting in your dues? Great concept but while your invisible dues pile up they have less value the air miles.

The problem is that many people never bother to get any training or education past their teenage years, and so they aren’t qualified to move out of the “teenage wage” into the living wage.

In order to work in this market you have to have a college education leaving many of us in crippling debt. My rent right now is lower then my loan repayments every month. I need a living wage stat.

And people on this forum seem to be saying that this doesn’t matter–that a person qualifies for a living wage because they have NEED OF IT.

Well yeah.

That kind of thinking encourages indolence and lack of self-improvement and ambition.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs little brother. And I’m entitled to live and pay my bills. Right now as we speak I’m trapped under the poverty cap. If I make too much I’ll lose all the cheaper services I have. It’s lottery better to do nothing.

I don’t think that’s what the Catholic Church teaches

You’d be wrong. Social justice comes before anything else, it’s one of the amazing things about the church.

 

[vz71]

In order to work in this market you have to have a college education leaving many of us in crippling debt.

This is just plain untrue.

 

[Anrakyr]

Student debt in Canada totals about $28 billion. Both in absolute terms and per capita, that is tiny compared to the roughly $1.5 trillion owed by students in the U.S.

I don’t know who you think is not in debt but someone owes 1.5 trillion

 

[vz71]

And I’m entitled

No one owes you a thing.
My business is not a charity to serve you.

If you will not serve the business, the business will not serve you. No business will long stand paying more than the work is worth.

 

[Anrakyr]

You do when I work for you, that’s kinda the point.

 

[vz71]

In order to work in this market you have to have a college education leaving many of us in crippling debt.

Let me reiterate.
This is untrue.

 

[vz71]

You do when I work for you, that’s kinda the point.

When you work for me, you do exactly the job I expect for the pay we agree to.
Otherwise you or I are free to alter the employee/manager relationship.

As the business owner, I owe you no more than the work is worth.

It is not my problem if you are in debt up to your eyeballs. It is my problem to pay the just wage for the work done.

Of you want more, you have options.

 

[Anrakyr]

I just cited you American debt load for post secondary education, do you need the year too?

As the business owner, I owe you no more than the work is worth.

Then get a robot to do it. My time is worth money.