What wage is just?

[o_mlly]

Regarding the first, the John Paul II says in Centesimus Annus: “This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the “free consent of the parties … ””

This incomplete citation is out of context. The correct context is, as I already posted, SJPII is recalling Rerum Novarum’s teaching to clarify the temporal (contingent) condition, i.e., the state’s abhorrent policy of laissez faire:

1. The Pope [Leo XIII] immediately adds another right which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the "free consent of the parties… It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene …

Leo XIII teaching laid the foundation for the principle of solidarity. The doctrinal teaching, a teaching, not contingent to any particular time or state, is that a just wage is always an agreeable wage.

Regarding both of them, the first two quotes from encyclicals all include defininitions of a just wage: “especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or her family”, “remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future.” Neither of your definitions of a just wage is included. You have yet to cite one church document that supports you two definitions of a just wage.

Then you have not been reading my posts and citations. And, apparently, little good comes from repeating myself.

No one disagrees that workers and employers have a right to receive and to pay just wages.

Sufficiency in 1892 was an issue. Less of an issue then was the ability of employers to pay what society determined was sufficient. Leo XIII addressed only the issue of his time. His time has past. To stress the contingent issue of sufficiency over the doctrinal issue of agreement as definitive for a just wage is wrong-headed. And to claim that agreement is not the primary constituent in a just wage is not Catholic teaching.

Church teaching, as it should be, does not define a just wage, only its attributes. The teaching circumscribes and illuminates free market operations with moral concerns. The gritty part is left to others to work out.

One such moral principle for others to work out is balancing sufficiency with capability. One cannot morally be required to do what one cannot do. Employers are not required to pay sufficient wages (as defined by societal laws) if those wages would bankrupt. Therefore, sufficiency can only be contingent to determining a just wage. Welcome to the real world.

 

[Anrakyr]

Employers are not required to pay sufficient wages (as defined by societal laws) if those wages would bankrupt. Therefore, sufficiency can only be contingent to determining a just wage. Welcome to the real world.

Well maybe they shouldn’t hire what they can’t afford. People argue cause I’m in poverty I shouldn’t have internet but even the UN thinks that’s a basic right.

I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.

 

[tafan2]

This incomplete citation is out of context. The correct context is, as I already posted, SJPII is recalling Rerum Novarum’s teaching to clarify the temporal (contingent) condition, i.e., the state’s abhorrent policy of laissez faire :

1. The Pope [Leo XIII] immediately adds another right which the worker has as a person. This is the right to a “just wage”, which cannot be left to the "free consent of the parties… It was said at the time that the State does not have the power to intervene …

Leo XIII teaching laid the foundation for the principle of solidarity. The doctrinal teaching, a teaching, not contingent to any particular time or state, is that a just wage is always an agreeable wage.

Seriously, you blame me for quoting out of context? I assumed that since John Paul II mentioned them, and the Compendium mentioned them, you would eventually get it through your head. But, I will include the first sentence from the immediately following paragraph.

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called “unbridled capitalism” was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity

It should be seen that JP II is saying that it is just as important today. He is lamenting that the end of unbridled capitalism did not solve the problem.

And to claim that agreement is not the primary constituent in a just wage is not Catholic teaching.

Show me where the Church says that it is the primary constituent. It seems to me that as time has gone on, this has been stressed less, and the other requirements are stressed more (as I have shown from ample sources).

Church teaching, as it should be, does not define a just wage, only its attributes. The teaching circumscribes and illuminates free market operations with moral concerns. The gritty part is left to others to work out.

Of course, but the Church gives lots of guidance: eg, “Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future.” and especially “Remuneration for labour is to be such that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good”.

Note, we are missing in these recent guidelines the part about the agreement between parties Although I grant it is still a requirement for a just wage, I deny it is the primary requirement.

One such moral principle for others to work out is balancing sufficiency with capability . One cannot morally be required to do what one cannot do.

Why keep bringing this up? I have acknowledge it more than once, and have provided evidence it is inline with Church teaching.

 

[tafan2]

cont.

In short, you have inconsistently claimed the following
An agreed upon salary between an employer and employee is a just wage.
An agreed upon salary between an employer and employee is the primary feature of a just wage.
A salary which meets the government/society laws is a just wage, and the employer has no concern beyond this.

All of the above is false. You have provided no evidence that supports your claims. You change you claims due to this lack of evidence. You deny what appear to me to be most of requirements that the Church places on a just wage.

Good day, I am done until you come up with something new. Nothing we say at this point to each other will make any difference at all. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[vz71]

I reject your reality and substitute it for my own.

Well at least we know you are not arguing from church teaching or logic.

 

[o_mlly]

Feel free to have the last word.

Anrakyr, tafan2 is not too happy with what you’ve posted so far, “In short, you have inconsistently claimed the following” (whatever that means). It appears tafan2 may type faster than tafan2 thinks. Let’s hear your last word.

 

[vz71]

How exactly do we define a just wage?
Church teaching says we should pay a living wage, but that is different for every individual.

As an employer, I can only determine a living wage if the employee is willing to tell me their living situation.
Since most are unwilling to share, my next option is to tell them what the job pays and let the employee decide if they want to take the job.

It boils down to whatever is agreed upon by both employee and employer.

If both freely agree, there is no problem.
The wage is just.

 

[JimG]

How exactly do we define a just wage?
Church teaching says we should pay a living wage, but that is different for every individual.

Yes, exactly so. A living wage for a married man with two children is different than a living wage for a married man with ten children or for a single man or a single woman or a single mother. If an employer paid each person a family wage based on the consideration of what it would take to support their families, that employer would be in serious violation of U.S. labor law.

 

[o_mlly]

It boils down to whatever is agreed upon by both employee and employer.

If both freely agree, there is no problem.
The wage is just.

True. And that is the only way wages ought and can be justly determined. I suspect the posters who will not accept the truth of the claim persist in the delusion that only employers use unfair leverage in wage negotiations. Not true.

The U.S. auto industry was destroyed by excessive union demands in the 70’s and 80’s.

Employers will always try to make a profit or minimize losses. The auto unions monopolized the available labor to the U.S. auto makers and used that leverage to demand wages exceeding their workers’ productivity. Car makers passed on the cost of those excessive wage demands as price increases to consumers. Increase in prices results in a decrease in the quantity demanded. A decrease in the number of cars sold means a decrease in the number of auto workers employed. Yes, those who continue to hold onto their jobs enjoy higher wages in the short term. But at what cost? The immediate cost is the loss of jobs by their fellow workers. What about their right to work?

In the longer term, once capital has been depleted, it is not replaced. The plants shut-down and everyone is now unemployed.

 

[vz71]

Yes, those who continue to hold onto their jobs enjoy higher wages in the short term. But at what cost? The immediate cost is the loss of jobs by their fellow workers.

The cost the business can pay is as much a factor in the just wage as the employee needs are.

Too many only consider employee needs at the expense of the employer.

 

[Anrakyr]

Too many only consider employee needs at the expense of the employer.

In all honesty its not “at the expense” as much employers shouldn’t require more hands then they can pay. I don’t think employers should be gouged to all hell but they should be preapred that if the job takes up a majority of the employees time and effort they should be compensated accordingly.

 

[vz71]

I don’t think employers should be gouged to all hell but they should be preapred that if the job takes up a majority of the employees time and effort they should be compensated accordingly.

That is called a just wage.
And I think you will find almost everyone in agreement with that.

 

[JimG]

How large must a business be before it must pay a living wage? I’m sure the law has specifications about this but does the Church? How about a small, home based business with only one or two employees? Or a home based business with no employees? Do the business owners have to pay themselves a living wage no matter the net profit of the company?

There were some tech start ups–I think Google was one–which at inception could not afford to pay a living wage or even a moderate wage. The employees agreed to take most of their compensation in stock (before the IPO.) That was a risk which could have gone wrong. As it was, it ended up making the early employees rich. Was the initial lack of a living wage unjust?

 

[vz71]

How large must a business be before it must pay a living wage?

Before you can get an answer, what exactly do you call a living wage?

 

[JimG]

A wage sufficient to support a family. I think that was what Rerum Novarum had in mind. But it also envisioned a one income family.

 

[vz71]

A wage sufficient to support a family.

Why does a teenager living at home with no dependants need with that?

 

[Socrates92]

The doctrinal teaching, a teaching, not contingent to any particular time or state, is that a just wage is always an agreeable wage.

Agreeable, or agreed-upon? Could you link to the verse you are referencing?

 

[JimG]

Why does a teenager living at home with no dependants need with that?

He doesn’t. But that’s pretty much my point. The teenager doesn’t need a family wage. He probably doesn’t need an adult minimum wage. A living wage, in the Church’s view, seems to depend on family circumstances. But employers do not take family circumstances into account. If they did, they would be violating federal law with respect to paying equal wages for equal work. My very first employer paid married men more for the same job than single men. Now, that would be illegal.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Enough to pay for a place to live (with utility expenses), food, clothes, means of transportation to work, phone and internet access.

The quality of these specific categories is a moving target of course, but if you can’t survive on that wage, or if you loose significant nescessary items (such as phone or internet access - which are indispensible today) then it doesn’t constitute a living wage.

I’m not sure why you’re asking the question in the first place. You believe people are asking for more than what they need?

 

[Pattylt]

Part of my confusion in reading all these posts is the assumption that this living wage is negotiated. It is true for many management positions but most wages are determined by the company ahead of anyone applying for the job.

If the job pays $14 an hour but isn’t posted before the application process then a potential employee is going in blind. If five applicants come in and then walk out saying “too low”, how likely is the company to raise the wage? Or would they just advertise to more people?

If someone is really hurting for work, how likely are they to demand the wage be higher?

One other issue is when higher wage pressure begins? Often a skilled job stays unfilled for quite a while before management realizes they need to offer higher wages. This creates the problem of currently employed people in the same position either being really upset that a new employee is starting at a wage sometimes higher than their own or management realizes he must adjust the entire wage structure…often after a period of time and much grumbling. I have witnessed all these issues during my career in a hospital lab.

Eventually wages go up and management finds a way to budget for it but sometimes the bad feelings over unfair situations takes a long time to settle down.

Wages depend on so many variables…skill needed, entry level or experience, cost of living in the area, competition for the workers, etc.
Maybe we do need a base minimum wage as a starting point for an unskilled worker just starting out but there is no way to regulate beyond this minimum. I don’t think minimum wage needs to be a living wage, just a starting point and I don’t think government needs to be involved beyond that. But! I also don’t want to hear companies complaining about worker shortages and positions unable to be filled! Pay more and you’ll fill them. I dealt with whiny managers trying to tell us how they couldn’t possibly pay more…until, of course, they did.