What wage is just?

[LeafByNiggle]

I have never seen the Catholic Church say any employer must pay his employees so much money that the business ceases to be a going concern.

How did I imply the Catholic Church says any employer must pay his employees a certain amount? Are you reading some other thread?

Secondly let’s say a Catholic employer was dumb enough to pay his employees beyond what they are worth. He is then competing with other business owners of other or no faith who will outbid him on price. Again, the result is the same with the Catholic company shutting down.

There is no moral basis for that argument. First of all, the use of the expression “beyond what they are worth” implies there is an agreed-upon standard of what an employee is worth. Of the many possible interpretations of this phase, I will assume that the measure you mean is the wage an employee can command in the marketplace. I submit that this is an immoral measure in some cases. In particular, consider what wage a coal miner could command in the bad old days of the late 19th and early 20th century when there was an excess of desperate workers. By the measure of “what they could command in the marketplace”, they were being paid what they were worth. This is what happens when wages are set solely on the basis of the unrestricted free market. This situation has been explicitly condemned by Church, as seen in CCC 2425:
CCC 2425:

…She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy… solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

…continued…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing:…

In particular, the issue of a just wage has been addressed in Catholic teaching, which also gives a more moral definition of “what an employee is worth”:
CCC 2434:

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. “Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

Your argument amounts to “if I don’t do it, my competitors will, and I will go out of business.” First of all, you don’t know if that is true, and secondly, even if it is true, disobeying God cannot be excused by saying “if I don’t do it someone else will.” There have been many martyr saints who have rather allowed themselves to be killed than to disobey God. By comparison, saying “I might go out of business” seems like a very weak excuse.

Besides, there is a practical solution to the dilemma of having immoral competitors out-compete you. Have laws that require certain minimum standards to protect employees from the worst of the abuses. This is what has been done, and things are much better now because of it.

Do not assume that I am for raising the minimum wage, or even for any specific minimum wage. I am not. But I do defend the general principle of things like having a minimum wage to provide just regulation of the marketplace, and in particular, a just wage.

 

[Dracarys]

There is no moral basis for that argument. First of all, the use of the expression “beyond what they are worth” implies there is an agreed-upon standard of what an employee is worth. Of the many possible interpretations of this phase, I will assume that the measure you mean is the wage an employee can command in the marketplace. I

Actually I only meant the amount of utility an employee contributes to his employer. There most certainly IS an agreed upon standard an employee contributes to the company. In fact accountants have to spend a semester in the difficult class called cost accounting.
You critisize business yet you know absolutely nothing about it. .

It’s basic math. If an employee contributes $10 of value to a company the employer will go broke if they pay him $17 an hour.

particular, the issue of a just wage has been addressed in Catholic teaching, which also gives a more moral definition of “what an employee is worth”:

I could have saved them the words. No company will pay any employee a cent more than what their labor contributes. That is why janitors don’t get paid what the CFO does. Any company that does do this will incur a deficit and will then cease to be a going concern since money in MUST exceed money out. Get it??

In addition any Catholic company that does this will consistently be outbid by other companies who use the free market as their guide to paying wages. So if the Catholic company gets no customers, they get no revenue, and thus they close resulting in the firing of everyone.

There have been many martyr saints who have rather allowed themselves to be killed than to disobey God. By comparison, saying “ I might go out of business ” seems like a very weak excuse.

Using that logic no Catholic would ever go in business since their setting themselves up to fail.

Besides, there is a practical solution to the dilemma of having immoral competitors out-compete you. Have l

Immoral competitors? Are you serious? Why are they immoral for simply following general practices of business? I assure you that there are many MORAL business owners within our Protestent, and Jewish brothers and sisters. How dare you sit in judgement with your accusations? Who put you in charge?

 

[Dracarys]

Have laws that require certain minimum standards to protect employees from the worst of the abuses. This is what has been done, and things are much better now because of it.

So what are you, the church, and many of the posters on this thread complaining about? We do have minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, volumes of OSHA regulations, anti discrimination laws, and employer payroll taxes. WHAT MORE DO YOU ALL WANT?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Have laws that require certain minimum standards to protect employees from the worst of the abuses. This is what has been done, and things are much better now because of it.

So what are you, the church, and many of the posters on this thread complaining about? We do have minimum wage laws, unemployment compensation, volumes of OSHA regulations, anti discrimination laws, and employer payroll taxes. WHAT MORE DO YOU ALL WANT?

I oppose efforts to undo all these things. Are you satisfied with the laws in this respect? Or do you want to see them rolled back and repealed?

LeafByNiggle:

There is no moral basis for that argument. First of all, the use of the expression “beyond what they are worth” implies there is an agreed-upon standard of what an employee is worth. Of the many possible interpretations of this phase, I will assume that the measure you mean is the wage an employee can command in the marketplace.

Actually I only meant the amount of utility an employee contributes to his employer. There most certainly IS an agreed upon standard an employee contributes to the company. In fact accountants have to spend a semester in the difficult class called cost accounting.

If wages were set by the amount of utility an employee contributes to his employer, the coal miners I spoke of in the 19th and early 20th century would have been paid much more because the coal mine owners were getting much more utility out of those workers than they were paying them. They paid not one the basis of utility but on the basis of what they could get away with. And the situation was such that they could get away with a lot. And that is how the coal barons got so rich so fast.

I am glad that you brought up the “utility” measure, because that is the one that is most in line with CCC 2434 cited in my previous posting. It would be great if that were the basis upon which employees were paid.

particular, the issue of a just wage has been addressed in Catholic teaching, which also gives a more moral definition of “what an employee is worth”:

I could have saved them the words.

OK, next time they update the Catechism, be sure to let them know you are available.

…contined…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

continuing:

No company will pay any employee a cent more than what their labor contributes. That is why janitors don’t get paid what the CFO does.

I don’t think that is the reason. The reason is that there are more people qualified to be janitors than CFOs. That doesn’t mean a CFO contributes more value. It just means that what he has is rare. If it were the other way around, and only a very few people were qualified to be janitors, but lots of people could be CFOs, even if the jobs remained the same, the janitors would be commanding 7-figure salaries and CFOs would be making minimum wage. These wages are set primarily by supply and demand, not by calculated value to the company.

In addition any Catholic company that does this will consistently be outbid by other companies who use the free market as their guide to paying wages.

Not if we maintain our labor laws that make such bids illegal.

There have been many martyr saints who have rather allowed themselves to be killed than to disobey God. By comparison, saying “ I might go out of business ” seems like a very weak excuse.

Using that logic no Catholic would ever go in business since their setting themselves up to fail.

Besides, there is a practical solution to the dilemma of having immoral competitors out-compete you. Have l

Immoral competitors? Are you serious? Why are they immoral for simply following general practices of business? I assure you that there are many MORAL business owners within our Protestent, and Jewish brothers and sisters. How dare you sit in judgement with your accusations? Who put you in charge?
[/quote]

 

[Dracarys]

I oppose efforts to undo all these things. Are you satisfied with the laws in this respect? Or do you want to see them rolled back and repealed?

Of coarse you do. You’ve never had to spend half your day filling out government and insurance forms. Again you are long on crtisism, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

wages were set by the amount of utility an employee contributes to his employer, the coal miners I spoke of in the 19th and early 20th century would have been paid much more beca

I am not in the coal business, but there are expensive costs like transportation to consider. I think the coal miners are unionized. Ultimately I will certainly not rely on your opinion as to the truly equitable pay. You are anti business owne

, next time they update the Catechism, be sure to let them know you are available

Seriously, they should have (name removed by moderator)ut from the business community and regular citizens. No, not me.

 

[Dracarys]

That doesn’t mean a CFO contributes more value. It just means that what he has is rare.

A good CFO is worth their weight in gold. To say they don’t add more value than a janitor once again proves you don’t know what you are talking about.

Not if we maintain our labor laws that make such bids illegal.

But the labor laws are in place. If anything they expand every year . Regardless that has nothing to do with how bids are submitted or received.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I oppose efforts to undo all these things. Are you satisfied with the laws in this respect? Or do you want to see them rolled back and repealed?

Of coarse you do. You’ve never had to spend half your day filling out government and insurance forms. Again you are long on crtisism, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

I noticed that you did not answer my question of whether you would like to roll back labor laws.

As for knowing what I am talking about, I am talking about the subject of this thread, which is “What wage is just.” For questions on morality I turn to the Catechism, not to the business school.

wages were set by the amount of utility an employee contributes to his employer, the coal miners I spoke of in the 19th and early 20th century would have been paid much more beca

I am not in the coal business, but there are expensive costs like transportation to consider. I think the coal miners are unionized.

Yes, they are unionized - because of the very same laws that you apparently want repealed that forced the coal barons to stop interfering with the workers’ right to unionize.

Ultimately I will certainly not rely on your opinion as to the truly equitable pay.

That is fine, since I have given no such opinion.

You are anti business owner

No, I am a business owner and entrepreneur myself. I am not anti-business. I am pro Catholic morality.

, next time they update the Catechism, be sure to let them know you are available

Seriously, they should have (name removed by moderator)ut from the business community and regular citizens. No, not me.

You have a very erroneous view on how Catholic teaching is formed, and it is not by polling the laity. It is by Scripture, Revelation, and Tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Dracarys]

noticed that you did not answer my question of whether you would like to roll back labor laws.

I am used to them, but I would eliminate the redundancy and flow of paperwork that wastes my time.

For questions on morality I turn to the Catechism, not to the business school.

It’s always easy to critisize others who are in the trenches from the academic tower in the Vatican. The pope and bishops seem to have no knowledge of anything other than theology. The pope called money devil’s dung so I guess instead of stinking up the church I won’t put any dung in the collection basket. He uses meaningless sond bites like “build bridges not walls”. What? the US can’t defend itself? “Pay a living wage”. Then he does not definie this amount. He says it without looking at the financial situation of individual employers. In the end this is all a moot academic argument since competitors are not going to participate. Wages are dictated by supply and demand, and no company that wants to survive can or will pay a worker more than what they contribute.

You have a very erroneous view on how Catholic teaching is formed, and it is not by polling the laity. It is by Scripture, Revelation, and Tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It is grievous error to pass judgement on morality when you know nothing about the subject at hand.

 

[Dracarys]

No, I am a business owner and entrepreneur myself. I am not anti-business. I am pro Catholic morality

Yet you don’t want other businesses to continue. Are you trying to eliminate competition? Do you pay your workers more than what they make for you?

 

[LilyM]

Those who are thumping the tub on behalf of employers may want to prayerfully consider the scriptural parable of the workers. The one where an employer hires some workers at the beginning of the work day, some in the middle and others at the last hour. The employer pays them all the same wage - presumably the value of a full day’s work - even the ones who worked less than a full day.

Is this meant to be just a nice but vague motherhood statement about how God is generous to all of us and therefore we are all supposed to be generous to each other? There are already many such in the Gospels, and I don’t see this as just being one more.

Or is it possibly, among other things of course, a practical example - directed specifically at employers - of how they are to view and treat employees? I see no reason to exclude its being such and every reason to suppose that this is one of the teachings of the parable.

Note that there is no indication that the employer truly needs every single one of the workers he hires, nor that he pays the later ones (at least) strictly according to the value of their work to him. Instead, he has compassion on those who are honestly looking to support themselves by their labour, and realises that sometimes they cannot despite their best efforts. Also realises that in such cases they are at least partially dependent on of employers like himself. And so pays each worker a full days wages, which presumably corresponds on some level to what each worker needs for himself and his dependents to exist for the day.

Even taken as a purely motherhood statement, the parable bids those who work hard for their reward not to be envious, as some of the workers were, of the fact that others may achieve the same or more with less labour. I would suggest employers, most of whom no doubt work very hard, to not be guilty of the same attitude towards their employees.

 

[Dracarys]

Those who are thumping the tub on behalf of employers may want to prayerfully consider the scriptural parable of the workers. The one where an employer hires some workers at the beginning of the work day, some in the middle and others at the last hour. The employer pays them all the same wage - presumably the value of a full day’s work - even the ones who worked less than a full day.

I take it to mean the money belongs to the master and he can pay out however he so chooses. It’s up to the employer.

 

[Dracarys]

Note that there is no indication that the employer truly needs every single one of the workers he hires,

Sure it’s his money, and he is free to commit financial suicide by hiring people who don’t produce in accordance with what they cost in wages. Just don’t expect people who actually want to have a going concern to be that stupid.

 

[YourNameHere]

Will you work for slave wages, Joe?

 

[Dracarys]

Will you work for slave wages, Joe?

Slaves don’t get paid anything, and slavery was outlawed. If Joe does not like his wages he is free to acquire new skills, and seek employment with higher wages. We no longer have indentured servitude, and US citizens are free to move from state to state. Joe is a smart guy, and he can do what is necessary to better his circumstance. You can’t always prevent bad things from occurring, but you can control your reaction to what occurs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LilyM:

Those who are thumping the tub on behalf of employers may want to prayerfully consider the scriptural parable of the workers. The one where an employer hires some workers at the beginning of the work day, some in the middle and others at the last hour. The employer pays them all the same wage - presumably the value of a full day’s work - even the ones who worked less than a full day.

I take it to mean the money belongs to the master and he can pay out however he so chooses. It’s up to the employer.

The master is more generous than he had to be. That’s what is unusual, and in the context of this story, he represents God, not General Motors. Don’t assume the liberties exercised by the master in the parable are being affirmed for all human businesses.

 

[YourNameHere]

With the civic war, slavery was outlawed in the south. But slavery went on in the north as the Irish and other immigrants were paid little for their services.
Over the years slavery has continued by those who capitalize on illegal immigrants. They know these people can’t complain lest they be deported.
Don’t give me this seek new skills malarky.
Those who abuse the working man will one day have to explain their rhetoric to St. Peter, before God gives them the down elevator to Hell. Hopefully, that money they saved by exploiting others can do them some good down there in that hell hole.

 

[Dracarys]

Don’t assume the liberties exercised by the master in the parable are being affirmed for all human businesses.

That is your opinion. Don’t be so arrogant as to assume you know the mind of God. I have noticed that you often claim something is true merely because you believe it is so. There are many lessons in the Bible that apply to everyday life. Jesus told soldiers to be content with their pay.

I believe this lesson is also meant for employees to understand that their employer’s money belongs to him, and he owes them only what is agreed upon. If he gives others more or less it is his option.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Don’t assume the liberties exercised by the master in the parable are being affirmed for all human businesses.

That is your opinion. Don’t be so arrogant as to assume you know the mind of God. I have noticed that you often claim something is true merely because you believe it is so.

Isn’t that exactly what you did when you “arrogantly” claimed the parable was about it being “up to employer” to pay out whatever he wants? But maybe we should both step back from offering our personal opinions on the meaning of parables and look to more authoritative commentaries on scripture. So, I will look for theologians who say the “master” in the parable represents God and you look for theologians who say the master represents employers. Are you up for the challenge?