What wage is just?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
leonhardprintz said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree.
A living wage for a teen living at home is different than the one paying for the house.
 
leonhardprintz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Given the way some here use the term, I am uncertain what exactly is meant.

Coughing up a specific number for a living wage without any information tells me that they do not have a grasp of the concept.
 
Pattylt said:
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.
Click to expand...
I assume what you mean is all the posters who say " any wage agreed on by employer and employee is just. ". Of course you are correct in what you say, so one can only assume that any employee working has “agreed” to the wage, despite no negotiation. Hence the premise that posters have given “any agreed wage is just” is not only directly contradicted by Church teaching, but it is absurd on the surface, as it implies there is no unjust wage, an unjust wage is impossible.
 
JimG said:
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?
Click to expand...
Someone who takes stock in a company in lieu of wages is then technically no longer just an employee, but a part-owner. The duties of a company towards shareholders are somewhat different to those of an employer towards employees.

Certainly some companies operate this way, and it benefits some who take the option very well. Equally some find that the company does not run profitably enough to make the stock they own provides a viable income for them and suffer as a result.
 
Socrates92 said:
Agreeable, or agreed-upon? Could you link to the verse you are referencing?
Click to expand...
Catholic Social doctrine, like all doctrines, develops. Our social doctrine has developed to respond to changes in economic systems.

Note the development of Catholic Social teaching during the Great Depression:
Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman. Quadragesimo Anno (“After Forty Years”), Pope Pius XI, 1931, #71.
Click to expand...
Three points. With the experience of massive and prolonged unemployment, the just wage is the right, not of “every workingman,” but of the “fathers of families” and the “adult workingman.”

Secondly, the teaching now recognizes that the just wage is not paid merely at the discretion of employers but that “existing circumstances” control.

Thirdly, the teaching moves to a passive voice as to the where the obligation falls to correct those “existing circumstances” which impede a just wage. Previously, the teaching simply made the employer responsible for paying the just wage: “Among the most important duties of employers, the principal one is to give all workers what is justly due them.” Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII, 1891, #20.

The teaching further develops, after experiencing the collapse of world economies, that the just wage for some results in the unemployment of others. The just wage is that wage that offers “greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work.” Sufficiency and full employment, often at odds, are both attributes of a just wage.
In determining the amount of the wage, the condition of a business and of the one carrying it on must also be taken into account; for it would be unjust to demand excessive wages which a business cannot stand without its ruin and consequent calamity to the workers. Quadragesimo Anno (“After Forty Years”), Pope Pius XI, 1931 #72.
Click to expand...
For everyone knows that an excessive lowering of wages, or their increase beyond due measure, causes unemployment. This evil, indeed, especially as we see it prolonged and injuring so many during the years of Our Pontificate, has plunged workers into misery and temptations, ruined the prosperity of nations, and put in jeopardy the public order, peace, and tranquillity of the whole world. Hence it is contrary to social justice when, for the sake of personal gain and without regard for the common good, wages and salaries are excessively lowered or raised; and this same social justice demands that wages and salaries be so managed, through agreement of plans and wills, in so far as can be done, as to offer to the greatest possible number the opportunity of getting work and obtaining suitable means of livelihood. Quadragesimo Anno (“After Forty Years”), Pope Pius XI, 1931 #74.H
Click to expand...
cont’d
 
Note the development of Catholic Social teaching after globalization:
Workers and farmers in this country and around the world need living wages; access to health care; vacation time and family and medical leave; a voice and real participation in the workplace; and the prospect of a decent retirement. Work must be an escape from poverty, not another version of it. A Place at the Table, U.S. Catholic Bishops, 2002, VI.
Click to expand...
Yet we desire even more than this; our dream soars higher. We are not simply talking about ensuring nourishment or a “dignified sustenance” for all people, but also their “general temporal welfare and prosperity”. Evangelii Gaudium (“Apostolic Exhortation on The Joy of the Gospel”), Pope Francis, 2013, #192.
Click to expand...
Flip over your cell phone or laptop. Where was it manufactured? Chances are workers that made the appliance are not in the U.S.A. With globalization, capital is mobile. For labor intensive goods, capital will be placed where labor is the least expensive (cp). Is that unjust? Do not those foreign workers also have a right to work and to receive a just wage?

In effect, the sufficient wage agreed to by the foreign worker has become the sufficient wage for the domestic worker. The two countries have living standards that are dramatically different. The foreign worker’s basic human needs are the same but probably do not include the same or as many items as our domestic worker.

Hopefully, the next development of Catholic Social teaching will address the new issues affecting workers introduced by globalization and free trade.

While the ideal to strive for is just wages and full employment in the entire world, we know we will always have the poor with us.
 
Last edited:
I think you are misunderstanding the point.

The point is one needs formal training in order to get certification for skilled jobs. This is for both professional and vocational jobs.

Even vocational schools demand a fair bit of money for training.
 
leonhardprintz said:
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?
Click to expand...
Isn’t that a given? Or is the average Joe a completely objective, selfless creature in your mind? Defining terms is important - I’m not sure why anyone would take issue with it unless they were extremely unconfident in their arguments.
 
No wage is “just” - wage labour should be abolished. As things stand, though, I would support the highest wage that the working class can pressure capital into allowing them.
 
Anrakyr said:
People argue cause I’m in poverty I shouldn’t have internet but even the UN thinks that’s a basic right.
Click to expand...
Do some of your friends think you misallocate your scarce resources?

This is a main reason why our library system is so important, it provides the poor with free access to the internet and other essential information.
 
It’s the Protestant Work Ethic.

Poverty is seen as a reflection of poor morals and wealth is a sign of good morals.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure that poverty and wealth are seen as a result of bad or good morals, but they might be viewed as a result of good or bad decision making.
 
The mindset of many Americans and social policy in general has been shaped by the Protestant Work Ethic which was embraced by early settlers and many of our founding fathers.

The manifestation of this work ethic can be seen in the English Poor Laws and the concept of the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor.

Protestant work ethic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
Ah…

I guess I have to disagree then, as it isn’t a Protestant vs. Catholic thing…at least in today’s day and age. I’ll be honest, I don’t know any non-Catholics that really even subscribe to such a thing.
 
As a small business owner I see no reason in the world why you should take my money just because you work for me.
Click to expand...
You’ve just described wage labour here. So you’re against paying people a wage at all? You want to own slaves?
 
Last edited:
Regular_Atheist said:
You’ve just described wage labour here. So you’re against paying people a wage at all? You want to own slaves?
Click to expand...
You know very well he’s speaking of being forced to pay a higher wage than the skills or availability of workers demand for the market. You’re just in attack mode.
 
Honestly I thought it was a troll. I did wonder if that’s what he meant, but it’s clearly not what he typed so I was legitimately confused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top