What wage is just?

[LilyM]

leonhardprintz:

I actually referred to the basic living expenses that would need to paid: Housing, food, clothing, phone and internet access

Why is internet access considered part of basic living expenses?

What Catholic principle specifies this?

Not all principles have to be specified in Catholic teaching to be true.

Here in Australia one of our leading court cases about wages, decided about a century ago, specified that a worker should be able to support themselves and their family on a full-time wage - and buy a daily newspaper. Because if a citizen is to be expected to participate in the political and social life of their community (as we all should) then that means keeping up with current events - and prefeably by means that are more reliable than word-of-mouth. A century ago that meant newspapers, these days it means internet.

Most jobs are advertised online, and a large chunk of educational resources are also most accessible by online means. People who have no internet access are seriously disadvantaged in terms both of getting and keeping a job and an education.

As a lawyer I have the traditional wall full of books in my office - but in all honesty most of them are out of date almost as soon as they are printed. The cheapest, easiest and best way to access current case law and legislation is online. And the cheapest, best and easiest way to communicate with courts, other lawyers and clients, given our lawyerly obsession with confirming things in writing, is email. Internet is an essential tool of my working life, and of most every job.

 

[vz71]

Not all principles have to be specified in Catholic teaching to be true.

If we are to follow a living wage as a Catholic teaching, then we should follow Catholic teaching in defining it.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Not all principles have to be specified in Catholic teaching to be true.

If we are to follow a living wage as a Catholic teaching, then we should follow Catholic teaching in defining it.

Good - I’ll stop taking insulin for my diabetes then, no Catholic teaching specifically referring to it that I am aware of.

Clearly we can use secular guidance, not to mention our own common sense, to nut out the finer points of some issues.

 

[vz71]

Clearly we can use secular guidance, not to mention our own common sense, to nut out the finer points of some issues.

I see.
Pull out the Catholic teaching when it suits.
Then throw it away when it threatens to no longer support our wants.

 

[Convert3]

and prefeably by means that are more reliable than word-of-mouth. A century ago that meant newspapers, these days it means internet.

Because the Internet never lies!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

and prefeably by means that are more reliable than word-of-mouth. A century ago that meant newspapers, these days it means internet.

Because the Internet never lies!

The internet contains a wide variety of opinion and sources of information . For that reason alone you can learn more from it than from Betty over the back fence.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Clearly we can use secular guidance, not to mention our own common sense, to nut out the finer points of some issues.

I see.
Pull out the Catholic teaching when it suits.
Then throw it away when it threatens to no longer support our wants.

And where does the Church exactly teach that $5 or $7 an hour is a perfectly acceptable wage?

How exactly is anyone working a 40 or 50 hour week supposed to support themselves, even in ‘frugal comfort’, on that amount if money as Rerun Novarum strongly indicates they should be able to do?

Where exactly does the Church say employers should prioritise the profitability or continuance of their business above their obligation - given that they have the option not to employ anyone if it is too costly to do so - to pay a living wage to those who they do choose to employ?

I am in no way throwing church teaching, and in no way going any further beyond it than anyone who argues any of the above.

 

[Dracarys]

Also your maths is wrong. Someone earning 160K a year would take home £95836 after tax. That is a take home amount of 60% of their total earning, so 40% went in tax. Not ‘more than 50%’ like you said.

You can calculate it here:

Are you including the “national insurance” tax and the VAT?

Again, people who ‘dont have children’ are not paying for my maternity leave. I have been paying into the system via national insurance contributions for the past 10 years, as has my husband. THAT is paying for my maternity leave. That is how the system works

I thought you said one can not opt out of national insurance? If they can that is good. If they cannot then others are paying for your kids.

You keep flip flopping all over the place with this entire topic. According to you, either people in welfare states are ‘lazy entitled brats’ who should be ‘thanking rich people’ for paying for them OR they are paying income taxes, hidden taxes, complex, convoluted taxes every which way to fund these ‘outrageous’ demands.

The complex tax system structure I listed for the UK was from an outdated source. After spending time reading it does look like UKs tax system is comparable to the US except for that VAT. However, the problem remains that we in the US have to pay for a large military that defends the UK and the rest of Europe.

I also get to sleep at night knowing that I dont have to shop around to find an employer who wont treat me like garbage. As a baseline standard I get:

A minimum wage
28 days guaranteed paid holiday days per year
As much sick leave as I need (first 3 days at full pay from my employer and statutory sick pay from the gov after that per instance of sickness)
A year’s maternity leave (6 weeks at 90% pay from my employer and the rest as statutory maternity allowance from the gov)
The option to split that paid maternity leave with my husband if I want
My job must be held open to me on return from my maternity leave
Full entitlement to any holiday days I accrue during that maternity leave on my return
Paid time off for all maternity related appointments

This is the list of free lunches you described.Your employer is stuck paying you six weeks of maternity and they have to keep your job open. If someone who worked for me was gone for a year I would not be willing to take them back. First I had to train a new person to do their job and when you come back I will have to spend time and money to get you updated.

Then you get as much sick leave as you want which is mostly paid by the government. First, all these government benefits are being paid by someone. Secondly it sounds like if I had a company there I could have an employee who I had to keep on my books while she had her maternity leave, but she would be an employee in name only. When do you people get any work done?

 

[Dracarys]

So here’s my suggestion–all Catholics who own businesses or companies and are in the position of determining the wages of their employees should pay a “living wage” according to their area of the country (yes, a living wage in NYC will be much higher than a living wage in a small town in Northern Illinois!) to all the adults who are employed by their company.

I keep telling you all that its the market that sets wages. If the other non Catholic companies pay cheaper wages their products will be more economical and people will buy the cheaper products. I don’t think you understand what a large factor wage expense is to a company.

 

[Dracarys]

There is nothing subjective about this number as such. Its easy to calculate the cost of living when you stipulate what an adult human being needs at the very least. Living Wage Calculator

I did not see any consideration in this method for the employer. Why are they always forgotten in your consideration? Some profit margins are very thin and it may be impossible for a company to meet your requirements. It’s also possible that the owner of the company would not be able to have the things and experiences he wants if he paid all workers $17 an hour. Business owners put in long hours, and risk their capital so they can have a better than average lifestyle. The owner should not have to apologize for that. You do realize that the worker is not just getting paid the $17.00 an hour right? Here in the US there are payroll taxes, unemployment, benefits, etc.

It is not the job of the employer to cater to his workers. The employer offers a job and the employees who want that job must present credentials that they are qualified to do the work. Once they are working they must perform the tasks or be fired. It is the market that sets the wage not your “living wage” theory and not the Catholic Church. If the wge is too low the employer will loose qualified employees.

I have not discussed any particular company. I rarely would because that requires one to know all aspects of a case.

I’m simply pointing out a moral principle and defending it.

Well I am discussing companies. Are you telling me that in Denmark fast food employees are paid the equivalent of $17 an hour? What do you people pay for a Big Mac there?

 

[LilyM]

In Australia, McDonalda employees, seem to be started off at about $12 an hour US. McDonald’s hourly wages are on the low side - 10 years ago I was earning about 14 us per hour for unskilled work.

A Big Mac costs about $4.20 US, which seems to be not much higher than US prices.

Mind you I’ve only been able to quickly Google most of this, but it seems to be right.

 

[_Ruby]

Are you including the “national insurance” tax and the VAT?

Yes, the calculator I provided quite clearly shows the final take home amount is inclusive of both National Insurance and Income Tax deductions.

VAT is just tax added to some goods and services, everyone pays it on some purchases, so its not an undue burden on the rich. Its the same tax states in the US add on to goods you buy in shop. Many essential items like food, health related goods etc are not subject to VAT. This Link outlines them: VAT rates on different goods and services - GOV.UK

I thought you said one can not opt out of national insurance? If they can that is good. If they cannot then others are paying for your kids.

_Ruby:

The National Insurance tax covers things beyond just maternity though, it also covers state pensions. My childless neighbours may well claim state pension longer than I do on account of not having to work so long to support them. If my neighbour and I agree to contribute £20 pounds each for food and alcohol at a party and I drink £5 worth of alcohol, has my neighbour paid for it, or have I simply just used my portion?

If someone who worked for me was gone for a year I would not be willing to take them back. First I had to train a new person to do their job and when you come back I will have to spend time and money to get you updated.

Then you get as much sick leave as you want which is mostly paid by the government. First, all these government benefits are being paid by someone. Secondly it sounds like if I had a company there I could have an employee who I had to keep on my books while she had her maternity leave, but she would be an employee in name only. When do you people get any work done?

And If someone you hired quit their job to have a baby, you will still have spend money to hire and train someone to do their job in their absence. With maternity leave, you’re getting 7-8 months notice that arrangements will need to be made to cover the position. If i decide to quit my job now, my notice period is 3 months (usually it would be 1 month for more junior positions), as it stands, my employer is getting double the amount of time to plan than they would if i just handed in my notice today.

Funnily enough, as far as keeping me updated goes - My HR team emailed me yesterday to inform me that I also get 10 optional ‘keeping in touch’ days to come into the office during my maternity leave and catch up with company. Fully paid of course.

You get sick leave because employers dont want to encourage sick people coming into work and infecting others. If I come down with a stomach bug, the company’s profits are protected far better if I stay home and recover rather than spread it to 10 other people by coming into work. Again, if im off longer than 3 days in a row and fall into the government paid sick leave, that is what my Income tax payments have been contributing towards, so again, I have paid for it.

 

[LilyM]

Can’t go without responding to your heartfelt pleas on behalf of the employer. In other words the business owner.

I have just been reading some interesting stats. Small businesses in particular, which tend to be presented as a special case even among busineses, ‘backbone of the economy’ and all that.

In the US one-fifth of small businesses fail in their first year and half of them fail within five years.

Which doesn’t say much about the viability of small business as a reliable way of generating long or even medium term revenue for the owner. Compare it to other investments - how many people would put money into a house if they knew that they had 50-50 odds of losing that house within five years?

Investing in small business really doesn’t seem to be much more than a gamble. Like buying shares. And so the question is - why should small business owners be given special consideration simply because they unwisely bet more than they could afford to lose? As the saying goes, you pays your money and takes your chances, in business almost as much as in the slot machines of Vegas.

 

[Elf01]

If McDonalds cannot pay more to their employees, let them go out of business.
I have never seen any sign posted at a McDonald that said, only school kids need to apply for work.

Not to mention if the school kid requires a job to pay for college I think a loving wage would be appropriate.

Wrong. I have been saying all along that wages are set BY THE MARKET. Employers will loose good employees if they don’t pay enough. Employees won’t earn more than what utility they add to their employer. Burger flippers don’t get paid what brain surgeons do.

If it’s the only wage on offer people will take it.

You don’t really think things through very well. First millions of people rely on cheap inexpensive fast food. You want to deprive them of that source?

Secondly McDonalds is a legal business that has every right to survive and not have egotistical idealist tell them how much money they can make or spend.

You’re the one telling people who want more money to get a new job, train or move. We’re telling employers to pay a living wage or get out of business.

Why is internet access considered part of basic living expenses?

Most job hunting and communications about it are done online in my experience. I do see phone and internet access as basic needs in the current climate. Also transport. While I may not have them as immediate goals it is something I would work towards.

 

[vz71]

I am in no way throwing church teaching, and in no way going any further beyond it than anyone who argues any of the above.

One should never use a secular value to interpret church teaching.

If we are to condemn others for not paying a ‘living wage’ we must know precisely what the church means by ‘living wage.’

 

[ewohdrol]

Yep. Minimum wage for someone over 18 in Australia is $17.80 an hour. Besides housing prices and health - cost of living is pretty similar to the US. Yet…no where near as many people living in poverty.

Thus working 40 hours a week can give a person a simple lifestyle without living under the poverty line. If businesses cannot afford this they are not really viable businesses.

I get surprised how people object to paying for peoples’ lifestyle choices. Isn’t that what tax is all about? There are lots of things my taxes go towards that I will never utilise - it is just part of being in a democratic society surely?

 

[vz71]

I get surprised how people object to paying for peoples’ lifestyle choices.

Is this a typo?

 

[ewohdrol]

No why would it be? This is what living in a cultured and sophisticated society entails. Where members focus on the comminity and stop only focussing on their own personal needs.

Tax payers covered my university degree, maternity leave and extensice health care. I am glad I didn’t need to find money at these fragile moments of my life.

Now I pay considerable tax (above average earner). I know much of this is going towards other individuals expenses that I am not accessing. There are many things my tax will provide for others that I won’t need. But I also know if I fall on hard times there are safety nets available to help me out.

 

[vz71]

No why would it be?

Because it runs counter to Catholic teaching.

 

[ewohdrol]

How exactly? The bit about looking out for others? The kindness aspect? The part where the unfortunate are provided for?