What wage is just?

[Theo520]

They loudly denounced Henry Ford with that argument when he decided to pay his workers more.

You should read up on that fairy tale, it’s likely not as you imagine or have heard.

Ford did not increase wages out of the kindness of his heart, he did it because he had very high staff turnover which was costing him money. He raised his wages to reduce his costs since a stable and experienced workforce was also much more productive.

 

[vz71]

Okay first just cause its a pet peeve don’t read much more into something then that but you do know you can multi-quote someone within one post right?

Not possible on the phone I use.

 

[Peeps]

I would be more likely to have sympathy for your support of a higher wage if you were forthcoming about your skills and qualifications and willing to defend your reasons for desiring a higher wage other than to say, “I’m poor and I want more money.”

I work two jobs, and I use the second job to pay for things like going out to eat and going on day trips out of town for fun (my husband and I love flea-marketing!).

By working a second job, I am able to stretch my paycheck to keep making large payments on our large credit card debt (we were stupid, I admit!) that started out at $26,000, and the student loan that we took out for our daughter, that started out at $40,000. (She paid back her $80,000 student loan, so we don’t think she’s slacking).

Both of our daughters have advanced college degrees (Doctoral-level), and both have good jobs in the fields that they received their degrees in. Also, they both work multiple jobs. My younger daughter’s husband has an Associates Degree and mutliple mechanic certificates, and he works multiple jobs.

Now I do not know you, and you may have some type of physical or psychological condition (e.g., PTSD after servingi in the military) that makes it impossible for you to work even one job, let alone multiple jobs.

And you certainly have no obligation to answer my questions about your skills and qualifications. It’s possible you have several advanced degrees, but hate the fields that you studied and want to find some kind of work that doesn’t hurt your body, mind, and soul. I get that. A lot of people hate their factory jobs because their legs hurt all the time, or hate their office jobs because they feel like cogs in a machine.

But it would be helpful to know what skills and qualifications you possess, and if you don’t have any, then I would ask why on earth you think you deserve to have a living wage if you didn’t prepare to earn a living wage.

Again, you may have good reasons–perhaps you are part of a minority that faces constant prejudice and discrimination, and I can understand why it’s hard to complete school or training when you are constantly butting up against such hatred.

Or perhaps you had a series of family tragedies that disrupted your schooling or training–people falling ill and dying over many emotionally-draining months, a terrible natural disaster that destroyed your home, an addiction in the family, a crime that required months of time in court, a mental illness. You yourself may not be the person who experienced any of these things (although you may have), but it’s very draining when close family members suffer through these castastrophes.

But if the only reason you will give for thinking you deserve a living wage is that you are poor, and you don’t present any “plan” for moving out of poverty (other than wanting the government to give you a living wage)–I don’t know how to help you, and if you are this way with your job counselors, I don’t know how they can help you.

You’ve GOT to help yourself!

 

[Elf01]

But it would be helpful to know what skills and qualifications you possess, and if you don’t have any, then I would ask why on earth you think you deserve to have a living wage if you didn’t prepare to earn a living wage.

I don’t think it’s just for a person to have to work more than full time to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

 

[Peeps]

What is “full time”?

In the 21st Century, “full time” is 40 hours per week, or 8 hours a day, for five days.

A stay-at-home mother works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and usually receives no wage other than the joy of raising her children herself.

A farmer has always and STILL works 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There’s always something, and farmers often eat and sleep when they can because the milking, plowing, planting, breeding, won’t wait!

A doctor will work 24 hours at a stretch, sometime more. Yes, they are well-paid, but they earn it–oh, do they earn it!

A student will often work long hours for many weeks in order to complete their degree.

Actors and other entertainment professionals work 18 hours or more at a stretch, and they work on weekends and holidays. While everyone else in NYC is enjoying Christmas, actors are on Broadway doing two shows for the holiday crowds.

My brother routinely puts in 48 hours at a stretch when one of the big machines in his factory goes down. He repairs them, and doesn’t quit work until he can make that machine produce again.

I see nothing wrong or “unjust” about a person working more than whatever full-time is to earn a living wage. During the history of the U.S., “full time” used to be a lot longer than 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

Work is good, not “bad” or “evil.” We were created to work, not sit around. How many people work 40 hours at their “job,” and then come home and spend their entire weekend “working” in their yard?! (I hate yard work!). Or cooking big meals for the family? (I don’t like cooking!) Or re-doing their house? (My husband and I are definitely not do-it-yourselfers!)

 

[Anrakyr]

We were created to work, not sit around.

I thought we were created to know love and serve God in this life and be happy with him in the next.

Not burn out at 65 wondering where the time went.

To answer your question again for the third time I’m under the poverty cap. I can’t find work where I am without losing what little I have.

 

[YourNameHere]

There is no justification for keeping wages low. Excuses can be made to try to justify, but they would just be excuses not to pay a living wage. They are the same excuses that have been used over and over and over again to try to justify low wages.

 

[Socrates92]

There are so many people on this form who seem to want to justify unjust wages for people.

I don’t think so. I thought the debate was about defining what a just wage (and by contrast, an unjust wage) was. ;/

 

[Socrates92]

Peeps:

We were created to work, not sit around.

Are those mutually exclusive things? Certain important individuals (for example, St. Benedict, St. Joseph, and Our Lord) seemed to think otherwise.

 

[Anrakyr]

Saint Thomas Aquinas pointedly said he never wanted to work too. What’s your point?

 

[Socrates92]

Exactly. I think this might be a big obstacle for many people. Assuming that one is willing to work overtime, it is often difficult to do so, as overtime laws in most countries and industries disincentive the employer from granting extra hours - requiring people to juggle two jobs, and still not get time-and-a-half. Things would be so much simpler if we could just slash overtime laws altogether.

 

[Socrates92]

Saint Thomas Aquinas pointedly said he never wanted to work too. What’s your point?

? I think my point was obvious. Saint Thomas might have been lazy - that’s fine. Most saints had their weaknesses. Good on him for acknowledging his fault.

 

[Socrates92]

I don’t think it’s just for a person to have to work more than full time to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

Haha, I’m just picturing Adam pulling this one out of his hat after God let him know that he’d be living by the sweat of his brow. “No problem God. You do mean 40/hrs a week, right?”

 

[Anrakyr]

? I think my point was obvious. Saint Thomas might have been lazy - that’s fine. Most saints had their weaknesses. Good on him for acknowledging his fault

He wanted to write not work. He was a scholar.

Haha, I’m just picturing Adam pulling this one out of his hat after God let him know that he’d be living by the sweat of his brow. “No problem God. You do mean 40/hrs a week, right?”

Adam didn’t live in post agrarian post industrial world where education is a must to run the complexity we have.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Some things included in the “poverty cap”

In the US a big one is owning a good car.

Decades ago one could pick up a decent used car for $1K or less (my first car cost $350 bucks and needed a big of front end work that cost me another $300) When the car broke down, you or someone you knew could do the repairs. Saturday afternoons would see many cars in the driveway or lawn while the shadetree mechanics put on new brakes or changed the fuel pump or even rebuilt an engine.

Today, it is nearly impossible to find a good used car. Period. You either buy from a dealer, a “certified used car” - in my search this winter these started out at $7K or you go to a “used car lot” filled with cars that were bought at auction. I’ve bought two of these auction cars in the past 3 years, both have needed major ($1200 - 2,500) worth of repair within the first WEEKS of ownership.

Sure, some people know a guy who can get good used cars, however, these guys are getting old, out of the game and the cars they do find are snapped up so fast!

When you are in poverty, you do not have the luxury of spending months shopping around. You need a vehicle!

Last choice is to go to a “your job is your credit” sort of lot. This is going to cost (based on my years of outreach helping people budget as a ST V de Paul member) $500 - 700 per month in my area for the car payment plus full coverage insurance (required because there is a note on the car). This is a lot of money when someone is working a low wage job.

Heaven forbid your car breaks down, needs tires, etc.

For people who work at an $11 per hour job, they are going to be spending a huge portion of their take home pay just to own a car. If there is no public transit, or you have to live out from town (because rent is much cheaper out there), this is a trap.

So, maybe you cannot move because you at least have a friend who will take you to work or have access to a bus if you live where you are.

Moving costs a brick of money. First/last plus a deposit. This is IF you can pass a credit check. Some people are trapped in the place where they live because they could never pass a credit check in a new rental.

Work another job? Great idea but what if you do not have a car and that bus does not run at night and on weekends. How are you going to get to the job?

The working poor are not there because they are lazy. In a decade of sitting with hundreds of people each year, the people who do work are working very hard. Middle aged? Who is going to support you while you go back and get training in a new job?

The poverty cap is a real thing. Until you live it in the modern economy, it is difficult to understand.

 

[Anrakyr]

That and anyone on any kind of assistance gets say 1000 a month. If they make more then that they lose it all plus have to pay taxes on that amount. Without even getting into the bills portion of where ones money goes you can literately make your life worse by taking some 11 an hr job just to get off welfare.

The only logical leap is to spend you time as you can finding a job that pays you for your worth to lift yourself out.

Poverty cap or ceiling is one of the many reason we need Universal Basic Income.

 

[tafan2]

I have to agree with @YourNameHere. I do not see people wanting a good definition for a just wage. There are people on this thread who have argued both of the following to points:

1. Minimum wage laws are either bad all together, or certainly should not be increased
2. Employers have no personal responsibility for providing a just wage beyond following the government laws

You put those two arguments together and one can only come up with the idea that people want to justify unjust wages.
If you read all of the Church documents, you can come up with one conclusion for sure: employers have a moral obligation to pay a just wage. So yes we should be discussing what a just wage is. But people will not accept that teaching of the Church. Catholics will not accept that teaching.

I find this thread fairly distressing. I have never been a big supporter of increasing minimum wages. Admittedly, that is for somewhat selfish reasons. I have had, and still have 3 to go, teenagers who need to work summer jobs to save for college and during college work parttime and summer jobs. I loathe the idea of them going into debt for a degree. So far this has worked out well for our family, but I have always thought a drastic increase of a minimum wage law would make it very difficult for my kids to get the jobs they rely on.
This is all fine, in my mind, because a minimum wage laws will not solve the just wage problem, employers need to come and understand their responsibilities. This thread is making me consider that I have been wrong, a minimum wage increase is not perfect, but it appears that no one is likely to address that problem on a personal moral basis. So there may be no choice.

 

[o_mlly]

The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church was not published as a letter to the Pope …

Sorry, you are wrong. The Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church (CSDCC) was published as the “Letter of Cardinal Angelo Sodano to His Holiness Pope John Paul II.”

And the form of all teachings are indicative of the weight of the authority for the teachings it contains. This report is just a compendium; just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a compendium.

When the Catechism was released, Cardinal Ratzinger offered some interesting comments about its authority. He insisted that the Catechism was not “a kind of new ‘Superdogma,’.

”Rather, it was simply a compendium of doctrines that have been taught by the Church. Naturally, these doctrines possess a wide variety of authoritative weights, and the inclusion of a doctrine in the Catechism does not alter its weight. … The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess.” Joseph Ratzinger, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Optimism of the Redeemed,” Communio 20 (1993): 469-84, at 479.

So too with the CSDCC. One should be skeptical when lectured by another on the Great Books, and waves only their copy of the Cliff Notes as all one ever needs to know about those great books.

So you should examine the footnote of your reference from the CSDCC if you truly wish to understand the teaching. Why do you refuse to read the footnote in your own citation – [662] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum : Acta Leonis XIII , 11 (1892), 131?

Now, Rerum Novarum (“New Things”) is an encyclical and the specific teaching we discuss now is predicated on those new things that are particular to 1892. The teaching has two components – doctrinal and contingent. The contingent relates to the “new things” unique to 1892 – the unregulated clash between labor and capital. SJPII in Centesimus Annus reminds us exactly what that *new contingent thing was:

It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to ensure the fulfillment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This concept of relations between employers and employees, purely pragmatic and inspired by a thorough-going individualism, is severely censured in the Encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal and necessary reality.

The caveat in Rerum Novarum beyond the free agreement of employer and employee as necessary to a just wage is that a workman’s wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. Pope Leo’s injunction is not aimed at a moral obligation of employers but of the state. In 2019, that contingency has been addressed; the state has acted.

Today, the employer has no moral obligation to pay a wage higher than what is agreeable to the community as “sufficient”. The employer and the employee still must freely agree if the wage is to be just. That doctrinal component continues.

 

[tafan2]

I am sorry, I will never put more weight on my own, and certainly not your’s, economic analysis than on a teaching that comes from the Vatican, despite that the teachings in the book carry a variety of authitative weights (which I have already acknowledged). I will give my intellectual assent to the Church’s teaching, even when I know they are not being taught infallibly.

 

[YourNameHere]

Laws usually come about because responsible people do not want to act in a responsible manner.
We have speed limit laws, because for every person who is happy to drive 70 miles per hour, there is someone out there who feels the need to drive 90 miles per hour.
Minimum wage laws are necessary to force good people to do the correct thing.