What wage is just?

[tafan2]

You very probably do know more about business than most of the popes and bishops. All of them combined I would question, as there are a few with some pretty good business backgrounds, I happened to work a little bit with one of them, he was sharp about financial and business. As good as a couple of CEOs and CFOs that I have worked with.
Never-the-less, that really doesn’t make any difference. They are not trying to teach us about business, but about justice. Big difference. And they readily acknowledge the needs of both the business and the employee. Hence most of your arguments are straw-man arguments. You list your religion as Catholic, you participate in a Catholic forum, I assume you take your religion rather seriously. Hence, it is quite surprising you are so dismissive of the Church’s teaching on a moral matter and even go so far as misrepresenting the Church’s teaching on the matter.

 

[Dracarys]

Fine. Then we can dispense with the claim that workers are always paid for the value they bring to the company and say that workers are paid according to market forces and leave it at that.

Yes but if they listen to your advice their business will fail and everyone is fired.

I don’t know everything, but I do know that worldly success is not everything

Ok, then entrepenurism is not for you.

Most of them do. Especially the smaller employers who get to know their employees on a personal basis and really do want to do what is fair. B

Most employees will never say they are paid “fairly” or that they earn a “living wage” . That is why things work out the best when we let the market do it’s job.

 

[Dracarys]

Never-the-less, that really doesn’t make any difference. They are not trying to teach us about business, but about justice. Bi

That’s great if what they call a “living wage” is not what some posters have said is $17 an hour. The statements by the bishops and the other posters here is really a moot academic exercise because if an employer pays more than what the market allows he won’t be able to compete with other companies. Even if he decides he will stubbornly pay all employees $17 an hour and more even if that employee only earns him $8 an hour not only will he not compete, but his cash out flow will exceed his inflow.

So what is the point? If the entire business fails everyone is fired. Is it any good for the owner to say “well yeah I did have to fire everyone, default on my loans, stiff the landlord, and I can’t feed my family, but hey I did what the bishops told me to do.”

I keep saying that just because someone exists does not mean they deserve $X an hour. They have to be worth their pay plus. That plus is for payroll taxes, profit for the company to pay dividends, expand etc. I’ve said all this already many times.

So if the bishops are on board with minimum wage than I agree, but if they want workers to get paid something above market than Catholic business owners all need to close up shop now as they will be in an untenable situation.

 

[tafan2]

That’s great if what they call a “living wage” is not what some posters have said is $17 an hour. The statements by the bishops and the other posters here is really a moot academic exercise because if an employer pays more than what the market allows he won’t be able to compete with other companies. Even if he decides he will stubbornly pay all employees $17 an hour and more even if that employee only earns him $8 an hour not only will he not compete, but his cash out flow will exceed his inflow.

So what is the point? If the entire business fails everyone is fired. Is it any good for the owner to say “well yeah I did have to fire everyone, default on my loans, stiff the landlord, and I can’t feed my family, but hey I did what the bishops told me to do.”

This is a complete straw man argument with regards to Church teaching on a just wage. A quick summary of what has been presented is as follows:

A worker should be paid a wage that allows him/her to that allows for them to support their material, social, and cultural life, and that of their dependents.
This is done with regard to the conditions of the business and the common good. And taking into account the worker’s function and productivity. A simple agreement between worker and employer is not sufficient to ensure this.

I can provide the exact quotes from church if you want, but they have been posted so many times that it is getting redundant.

You describe the Church’s teaching as the Church only takes into account the employee needs, this way you can easily say “ha ha, the Bishops and popes are business idiots, I am a financial savant, and I know the Church’s teaching is wrong”. But this is your straw man argument. The Church does not take an absolute stand because every employer/employee situation is difference. With many things, the Church provides guidelines enumerating the factors that have to be taken into account in order for people to make a moral prudential judgement.

 

[Dracarys]

and I know the Church’s teaching is wrong”. But this is your straw man argument.

I never made the judgement that the church is “wrong”. Judgements on salvation and such is what I’ve seen done here by others. I just think the way it’s presented the church’s teaching won’t actually work, so all this is an exercise in academics. My Dane friend above insists the livable wage is $ 17 an hour. I know from my experience that there is no way some of my clients could ever pay that and stay open. I have an electrical contractor who pays several times $17 to his electricians, and then sends a hefty bill to his client. But he does NOT pay even $17 an hour to his receptionist.

My argument is realistic not a strawman. Unemployment is at an all time low so your argument that the market is cruel or does not work is antiquated. Right now truck drivers can almost name their price because warehouse are full of inventory with no one to move it.

Perhaps if the bishops actually listed some dollar amounts that can be adjusted for inflation it would help. This vague "living wage’ term is almost meaningless. However, if their amount is ridiculously high (I suspect it would be) then we are back to another unworkable proclamation from the bishops that will be ignored because it can’t work. Kinda like…birth control. (No let’s not get into that. It’s for another forum).

 

[tafan2]

My argument is realistic not a strawman.

Yes, you point is a straw man argument. You have continually made arguments such as "by the bishops and the other posters here is really a moot academic exercise because if an employer pays more than what the market allows he won’t be able to compete with other companies " explicitly saying the Church does not take into account that the situation of the business, but the Church explicitly does so.

Unemployment is at an all time low so your argument that the market is cruel or does not work is antiquated

Another straw man argument, I have never said the market is cruel or does not work. I have said that the market does not always arrive at a just solution, but that is not a blanket statement as you imply. I happen to trust markets quite a bit.

Perhaps if the bishops actually listed some dollar amounts that can be adjusted for inflation it would help.

Here you go again, wanting the Church to take a stand so you can argue how bad it is. Does the Church tell us we can only have 6 beers a night? No, it tells us to drink in moderation. Does the Church tell us we have to put $50/week in the collection basket? No, it tells us we must support the material needs of the Church according to our abilities. Does the Church tell every couple to have 6 kids? No, it tells us a marriage needs to be open to life. In many, many moral teachings the Church gives us guidelines and leaves it up to us to make prudential judgements. The Church is doing the same. I listed them above. What part of the actual Church’s teaching on a just wage do you take exception to? What part do you agree with?

 

[Dracarys]

Yes, you point is a straw man argument. You have continually made arguments such as "by the bishops and the other posters here is really a moot academic exercise because if an employer pays more than what the market allows he won’t be able to compete with other companies " explicitly saying the Church does not take into account that the situation of the business, but the Church explicitly does so.

First I think you don’t understand a "straw man " arguement. You may want to look it up. If the church does consider the business please quote what it says.

said that the market does not always arrive at a just solution,

The market is what it is. If a business pays more than market they will not successful compete. If they pay more than what any given worker contributes the business will fail.

Here you go again, wanting the Church to take a stand so you can argue how bad it is

That’s a strawman. I never said the church’s stand is bad. If the church is not going to give a number or a range of numbers then this proclamation is so nebulous its useless. Why did they even bother? Also does the church require a “just” wage or a “living” wage as most people here are saying. In that case I believe minimum wage is just, so I am good.

 

[tafan2]

First I think you don’t understand a "straw man " arguement. You may want to look it up. If the church does consider the business please quote what it says.

Straw man argument - A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument , while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

302. Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships .[659] The “just wage is the legitimate fruit of work”.[660]

They commit grave injustice who refuse to pay a just wage or who do not give it in due time and in proportion to the work done (cf. Lv 19:13; Dt 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). A salary is the instrument that permits the labourer to gain access to the goods of the earth. “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”.[661] The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence”[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.

I bolded the part you requested.

Also does the church require a “just” wage or a “living” wage as most people here are saying. In that case I believe minimum wage is just, so I am good.

The Church requires a just wage and gives a good definition of it. So what you believe does not necessarily make you “good”, that is not how moral prudential judgements work.

 

[Dracarys]

302. Remuneration is the most important means for achieving justice in work relationships .[659] The “just wage is the legitimate fruit of work”.[660]

They commit grave injustice who refuse to pay a just wage or who do not give it in due time and in proportion to the work done (cf. Lv 19:13; Dt 24:14-15; Jas 5:4). A salary is the instrument that permits the labourer to gain access to the goods of the earth. “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”.[661] The simple agreement between employee and employer with regard to the amount of pay to be received is not sufficient for the agreed-upon salary to qualify as a “just wage”, because a just wage “must not be below the level of subsistence”[662] of the worker: natural justice precedes and is above the freedom of the contract.

In the second line up from the bottom it says the wage can not be “below the level of subsistence of worker.” Subsistence is defined as the action or fact of maintaining or supporting oneself at a minimum level. So the question is can one subsist at minimum wage? Minimum wage is really meant for teenagers, but adult could do this by having roommates to share rent etc. But this is still existing at a “minimum level.” If one is lost in the woods they are said to subsist if they have water, food, shelter and warmth.

Others on this thread have been arguing that one must have a “living wage” which one person said was $17 an hour. Using the definitions above the church should have no problem with an employer paying minimum wage. This is especially true since most workers will get raises as they grow more competent in their job.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Others on this thread have been arguing that one must have a “living wage” which one person said was $17 an hour. Using the definitions above the church should have no problem with an employer paying minimum wage. This is especially true since most workers will get raises as they grow more competent in their job.

If anyone has said Church teaching mandates a minimum of $17/hr, they are wrong. But I think if you read carefully what others have written you will see that when they mention the $17/hr, they are offering their own personal opinion.

And tafan2 does indeed understand what a straw man argument is.

 

[tafan2]

In the second line up from the bottom it says the wage can not be “below the level of subsistence of worker.” Subsistence is defined as the action or fact of maintaining or supporting oneself at a minimum leve

Yes, that is part of the teaching.

So the question is can one subsist at minimum wage?

No, the question before us is “what wage is just?”

The question I have for you is, what part of the Church’s teaching do you accept or reject? If you do not accept it in full, what is a just wage in your opinion?

 

[tafan2]

And tafan2 does indeed understand what a straw man argument is.

Thank you.

 

[Dracarys]

No, the question before us is “what wage is just?”

The bishops have answered this. It is the wage that allows “subsistence”.

 

[Dracarys]

And tafan2 does indeed understand what a straw man argument is.

Yeah it’s any arguement that you two don’t agree with.

 

[Dracarys]

The question I have for you is, what part of the Church’s teaching do you accept or reject? If you do not accept it in full, what is a just wage in your opinion?

I think I can accept the church’s teaching AND determine a just wage. If an employer has thin profit margins it is just for the employee to accept minimum wage to be fair to his employer.

As I said above the bishops only require subsistence level payments. If one gets roommates, eats a lot of Ramen noodles, etc. it can be done on minimum wage. I did that for a full year when I was 19. Did I like it? NO!! So I improved my skills and work ethic and received a raise. That is how it works. I know the Europeans here will be horrified because the government gives them free stuff cradle to grave.

 

[tafan2]

That is only part of the definition. I quoted the entire paragraph, and it came from the popes, not just the bishops. Why do you ignore the rest of the definition? Just picking and choosing what is convenient? The part you chose, in context, obviously sets the absolute minimum requirement that must always be met. It is not necessarily satisfactory as a just wage.

 

[tafan2]

I think I can accept the church’s teaching AND determine a just wage.

It does not appear that you do accept the Church’s teaching. You seem to ignore the part “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”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think I can accept the church’s teaching AND determine a just wage. If an employer has thin profit margins it is just for the employee to accept minimum wage to be fair to his employer.

I think we should give Dracarys a break on this point. He has accepted the principle of a minimum wage as established by law. As long as that law does reasonably provide for the conditions stated in CCC 2434, he is fully in agreement with Church teaching. I agree with him on this point: Church teaching does not mandate that a business operate at a continual loss. My own take on it is that if an employer cannot run his business at a reasonable profit AND pay his employees a just wage, he should get out of that business because it does not have a sustainable model.

 

[Dracarys]

does not appear that you do accept the Church’s teaching. You seem to ignore the part “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”.

Well if your going to throw that in we are back to my original arguement. It’s not that I or other business owners DONT adhear to Church’s teaching. Rather it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so and still keep a going concern. I am assuming that minimum wage will not cover "that man may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily his own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of his dependents” .

If you have dependents you add more to the mix. Don’t expect an employer to pay for kids you can’t afford. That’s on you.

Again, any Catholic employer will have to compete with other companies paying market rate, and if that Catholic employer pays any employee more than what they contribute than everything shuts down. ALL the employees get fired. The debtors and equity owners get shafted. The owner can’t feed his family.

Don’t you guys think beyond the scope of what you see written by the bishops? Do you think it’s just fine that the company shuts down and EVERYONE looses? I am not faulting the bishops, but yes I don’t think they thought this through. It’s simply unworkable for some businesses. For companies with highly skilled employees like my electrical contractor this is not a concern. Although as I said the receptionist earns a fraction of the electricians.

 

[tafan2]

Well if your going to throw that in we are back to my original arguement.

I am not throwing this back in, I am stating the Church’s teaching. It us not impossible to follow, I have been involved with multiple companies who pretty much followed it for all employees.

Why do you keep referring to “the bishops” as opposed to “the Church”? I believe it is telling.