What wage is just?

[Socrates92]

Min wage is quite high in some places so its hard to generalize. In Ottawa (as a single person doing many cost-cutting things like splitting rent, taking transit/biking, etc) I quite easily keep my living expenses well below $12000/yr. In a pinch I could slash at least another thousand off (might have to get better at cooking or something…). Min wage with full time hours currently works out to almost double my costs of living. So it really depends.

 

[tafan2]

It’s amazing that any businesses in Canada are still in business, since our resident business expert has assured us it is impossible to pay all employees such a high rate and stay in business

 

[LilyM]

I know. Amazing too how McDonald’s in Australia manages to pay it’s employees much higher than those in the US and still produce a $,4.50 US Big Mac. Given our resident business expert’s assurances that such ‘charity’ must inevitably in the end lead to skyrocketing prices for the consumer.

 

[tafan2]

I have resisted, for the most part commenting on minimum wage laws on this thread title is about a just wage, as is the article linked in the OP, and it seems to me that as Catholics we need to all understand what a just wage is before discussing the best way to achieve it. As the thread has gone on, I am more convinced than ever that I am right, people on both sides of the minimum wage argument do not understand what a just wage is, and that should be resolved first.

I will say this, in general, I am not a big fan of minimum wage laws. As a blanket number never will work and will penalize as many people as it helps.

OTOH, I am always amazed that the doom and gloom predicted by the political right (which until Trump I was always a definite member) never occurs in other countries and doesn’t occur in this country when the minimum wage is raised.

 

[Dracarys]

us not impossible to follow, I have been involved with multiple companies who pretty much followed it for all employees

Companies that hire high paid, high skilled individuals can certainly follow it. That’s more proof the market works. If you don’t keep your electricians, plumbers, HVAC technicians happy you’ll loose them.

If you are running a small restaurant, dollar store, neighberhood grocery it is impossible to pay your employee more than what they contribute. That is not me ignoring church teaching. It’s not me being mean. It is just MATH. Neither you, the bishops, the pope or any of the saints can deny, ignore, surpass, or overcome basic math.

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

Because I was told the bishops wrote this I guess. There is nothing “telling” about it. No conspiracy here. I’ve probably broken some persnickety Catholic protocall. Sorry, I’ll write church from now on if I’ve offended you.

 

[Dracarys]

will say this, in general, I am not a big fan of minimum wage laws. As a blanket number never will work and will penalize as many people as it helps.

Of coarse I too am against minimum wage. Any artificial intervention in the free market is counter productive. However if the bishops…ER church want to make a point they should give us a number. I would rather read the Internal Rvenue Code than what the bishops or pope does. If the IRC is not clear you can look to the regulations. If it’s still not understood ask for a revenue or private letter ruling. Then there are thousands of pages of tax court presedents. With a little research you will get your answer.

 

[DarkLight]

Part of the problem is how much costs vary across the nation. My DC area costs are way higher than my friends in the Detroit region. A subsistence wage there might not even cover basic housing here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

tafan2:

will say this, in general, I am not a big fan of minimum wage laws. As a blanket number never will work and will penalize as many people as it helps.

Of coarse I too am against minimum wage. Any artificial intervention in the free market is counter productive. However if the bishops…ER church want to make a point they should give us a number.

Why? They made their point quite well without specifying a number. I think you are deliberately misstating the bishops’ position just so you can argue against it. Another straw man?

 

[Dracarys]

Why? They made their point quite well without specifying a number. I think you are deliberately misstating the bishops’ position just so you can argue against it. Another straw man?

You reflexively call everything you disagree with a strawman. I happen to think the bishops and the pope write very vaguely. Personally I would like to see more specificity if they are the creators of church teaching. If the IRS can do it so can they. Why not make themselves clear? If they are going to speak out on things they know nothing about than do it right or shut up.

 

[Dracarys]

Part of the problem is how much costs vary across the nation. My DC area costs are way higher than my friends in the Detroit region. A subsistence wage there might not even cover basic housing here.

If they are going to comment on things out of their expertise then consult with a panel of experts. Come out with a number for each region of the US and then occasionally adjust for inflation. They have access to people who could do it. Again this is just my opinion.

 

[Dracarys]

Amazing too how McDonald’s in Australia manages to pay it’s employees much higher than those in the US and still produce a $,4.50 US Big Mac. Given our resident business expert’s assurances that such ‘charity’ must inevitably in the end lead to skyrocketing prices for the consumer.

McDonalds is a huge company. It’s entirely possible they are taking a loss on labor so they have a presance. I know you and most people think McDonalds is all about fast food sales, but it’s not. They make their real money on real estate because their stores hold valuable space.

From the frachisee perspective in my area they are using automated kiosks to replace order takers. As labor prices rise you’ll see more of this. I just used one in Olga’s Kitchen restaurant.

 

[tafan2]

You obviously do not understand the Church’s teaching on the matter. The have very clear guidelines which make it abundantly clear the “number” would be different in almost every case. On top of that, these teachings have been constant for almost 130 years, a number would not work across time, geography, individual needs, business status, individual capability, etc.
You are simply being obstinate, you reject Church teaching and in your pride say “this is what the Church should say”. I suppose it seems easy to a financial savant such as yourself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Why? They made their point quite well without specifying a number. I think you are deliberately misstating the bishops’ position just so you can argue against it. Another straw man?

I happen to think the bishops and the pope write very vaguely. Personally I would like to see more specificity if they are the creators of church teaching.

Why exactly would you “like” to see more specificity on this issue? I’m thinking it is because if there is the kind of specificity you want, you can argue against (as you have already done). But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you honestly wish to be instructed by the Church. I would sure like that clarified. For now I will assume it is because you want to have a more concrete target to argue against.

If the IRS can do it so can they.

No, the IRS does not “do it.” The IRS does something entirely different, where numerical specificity is the whole point of their rules. It is not the point of this moral teaching from the Church.

 

[Dracarys]

You are simply being obstinate, you reject Church teaching and in your pride say “this is what the Church should say”

All you know how to say is “you reject church teaching,” " you don’t understand church teaching" . What you really mean is since I don’t agree with your interpretation, because you know everything, I must therefore be wrong. That’s just plain arrogant.

Before I read the entire thing the bishops wrote I was prepared to be satisfied with minimum wage, but that was not the number you liked so again your saying I reject church teaching. When I suggest the church come up with a number, again, I reject church teaching.

The bishops wrote " 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. Later they wrote that the standard is “subsistence.” Well the bishops can’t have it both ways. Is it basic subsistence or do you want the employer to pay for the social, cultural, and spiritual life of the employee AND all his kids? Tell me how my client Mrs. Smith who owns a dollar store is going to pay for her employee Mrs Jones’s social, cultural, and spiritual needs PLUS the social, cultural, and spiritual needs of Mrs. Jones’s eight kids. And just what ARE the social, cultural, and spiritual needs of these nine people. What if the Jones family wants to join the yaht club to meet her social needs. Perhaps the Jones family all want lifetime memberships to the museum to enjoy that culture. Finally maybe you want Mrs. Smith to give a big raise to Mrs. Jones so she and all her kids can give more to the church. WOW it looks like Mrs Smith better start selling A LOT more candels and plastic flower arrangements…huh?

 

[Dracarys]

No, the IRS does not “do it.” The IRS does something entirely different, where numerical specificity is the whole point of their rules. It is not the point of this moral teaching from the Church.

And thus we have disagreements like this.

 

[Dracarys]

In my example above I have already made it very clear that my client Mrs Smith cannot possibly pay for the "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 this case the money is not there. But even if it were Mrs Jones contributes $10 an hour to the company. Mrs Smith pays her $7 an hour. As it is Mrs. Jones has been coming in late because one of her kids is always sick. Mrs Jones has also slowed her rate of stocking shelves so merchandise isn’t getting out. Do you guys really expect Mrs. Smith to give Mrs. Jones a raise? What happens if Mrs. Smith lost her mind when she listened to one of you and pays Mrs Jones $11 an hour? Recall Mrs. Jones still contributes only $9 to $10 an hour. Hmm…I’ll let you geniuses do the math.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You think you are arguing against somebody, but nobody is saying anything contrary to what you just wrote above. By pretending that others here are holding positions contrary to what you just expressed above, you are making yet another straw man argument. And before you complain that I throw that term around too loosely, consider what a straw man argument is. It is an argument against a position that your opponent is not even taking. It is an argument against a non-existent opponent. Your opponent is a man made of straw that you set up for the purpose of knocking him down. If you think otherwise, then all you have to do is quote where anyone here said anything directly contrary to anything you wrote in the previous posting.

 

[tafan2]

What you really mean is since I don’t agree with your interpretation,

Let’s review:

The question I have for you is, what part of the Church’s teaching do you accept or reject?

As I said above the bishops only require subsistence level payments.

That is only part of the definition… Why do you ignore the rest of the definition?

Rather it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so and still keep a going concern.

The bishops wrote " 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. Later they wrote that the standard is “subsistence.” Well the bishops can’t have it both ways…

Now, I have provided little or no interpretation, only quoted and ask about the specific texts of Church documents. I admittedlly interpreted your statements about following the teaching to be impossible as rejection of the teaching.

I am not the one being repeatedly vague.

 

[tafan2]

I understand Mr and Mrs Simth’s delima, as does the Church, which is why the Church says that the state of the business has to be taken into account.
You are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, there are some industries which our market and economy does not allow for a proper solution. But that is a flaw in our system, it does not reflect a flaw in Church teaching. The point is , “what is a just wage?”. The second question would be, “how to achieve it as widely as possible?”
Now some people, perhaps yourself, believe a minimum wage is the answer. But they are arguing for a solution before defining a problem.

You seem to be arguing against the existence of a problem.

 

[JimG]

If the definition of a just wage is a wage that is “sufficient for a worker to acquire the means to cultivate his own material, social, cultural and spiritual life and that of his dependents,” then it seems that the wage must be dermined individually for each case, depending on the worker’s situation.

Two men doing the same work, one a 21 year old single person, and one a 29 year old married man with two children, would have different requirements. Is that how Catholic teaching is to be understood?