What wage is just?

[tafan2]

Yes, it is. And it certainly seems strange to most people. Same job, same skills, etc, yet they receive a different amount of pay. The fact that it seems strange, even unfair is an indictment if us, our society, not the Church’s teaching. As recently as 50 years ago, it would not have seemed strange to people that an employee’s needs should be on of the factors determining a person’s pay.

 

[JimG]

In the very first job I had, the employer paid married men about 10% more than single men, because they had a family to support. But that was just during the training period. After that, earnings were commission based. But I think that the differential if tried now, would violate labor laws and union contracts.

 

[Dracarys]

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…

The requirement of "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. "is far different from “subsistence”… Which is it? I know you will deny it, but these are two different standards.

Yes, it is. And it certainly seems strange to most people. Same job, same skills, etc, yet they receive a different amount of pay. T

That has potential lawsuit written all over it. You can not discriminate based upon familial status. The fact that the young guy has no family can not be a consideration in your payment to him. Secondly, to adhere to church teaching employers will simply seek to hire young people with no kids. Does that make any sense? It is far easier to simply choose to hire someone with no kids than have two people on your books doing the same job at different pay with the only difference being that one person is older and has a family. I am not an attorney, but I am pretty sure you are violating federal law if you do that.

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.

Well your a step ahead of some in this thread. Others have said that if Mrs. Smith can’t pay Mrs. Jones more money she should just go out of business. If we change the scenario to say Mrs Smith’s store is in a great location and she makes plenty of money is Mrs. Smith now entitled to become wealthy or does she have to give Mrs. Jones a raise? There is now plenty of money going around, but Mrs. Jones still only contributes $10 an hour of utility to the company. It still makes no sense to pay Mrs. Jones a cent more than what she contributes.

By pretending that others here are holding positions contrary to what you just expressed above, you are making yet another straw man argument.

I am not pretending anything. I am presenting you with scenarios and asking questions. You say its fine for the bishops to write in a vague manor. While I am in business, and I need guidance with specific issues. Your the one making judgements. I am just presenting real life problems that come up every day.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

By pretending that others here are holding positions contrary to what you just expressed above, you are making yet another straw man argument.

I am not pretending anything.

I told you what I thought you were pretending and I stated how you could prove me wrong, but couldn’t do that either. All you had to do was to quote somebody who was disagreeing with anything you wrote in that post.

I am presenting you with scenarios and asking questions.

As I said, I don’t answer irrelevant questions. You have to show first that my position requires that the question be answered.

You say its fine for the bishops to write in a vague manor.

I didn’t say vague. I said not specific on numerical amounts. That’s not the same thing as vague, which makes this another straw man.

While I am in business, and I need guidance with specific issues.

It sounds like you have all the guidance you want on this issue.

Your the one making judgments.

If you mean judgments of the appropriateness of the bishops’ statement, then yes. Guilty as charged. If you mean judgments of how that statement applies to particular situations, such as what the minimum wage should be in such and such a place, no, I have not made any judgments like that. Nor have I accused any one person - especially not anyone on this forum - of not following the guidance of the Church, which makes this yet another straw man.

I am just presenting real life problems that come up every day.

Yes, there are problems that come up. And some of those problems impact decisions about a just wage. But the Church already recognizes that those problems are a factor in coming to a decision. So your concerns are addressed.

 

[Dracarys]

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

You obviously read far more church teaching than I. Does the church ever write that if you are going to have a wife and 12 kids you as the man need to acquire skills, and knowledge so that you can provide for your wife and kids material, social, cultural, and spiritual life? Or is it always one sidedly the employer’s responsibility to pay for their employees simply because they exist?

St. Paul kept up his skills as a tentmaker so I am sure he was paid according to the utility he provided. He said if you don’t work you dont eat. In Paul’s era employers did not give a free ride to anyone, so when Paul said one has to work he meant you needed skills and you had to put those skills to use to earn a wage.

 

[Dracarys]

As I said, I don’t answer irrelevant questions. You have to show first that my position requires that the question be answered.

How are they irrelevant? It’s pretty arrogant that you present and support church teaching but think you are above explaining how it works in the real world. I am not at all happy with what the bishops wrote, but for some reason you see no contradiction in saying an employer must provide “sufficient for a worker to acquire the means to cultivate his own material, social, cultural and spiritual life and that of his dependents,” and then saying the suport need only be subsistence.

My Mrs. Jones scenario is quite real. Are you going to tell her that her situation is “irrelevant”. There are probably millions of Catholic business owners in this situation. Are they irrelevant too?

I didn’t say vague. I said not specific on numerical amounts. That’s not the same thing as vague, which makes this another straw man.

Yeah “not specific” is not even close to “vague” . Right. Once again when you don’t want to deal with something or you disagree you simply default to calling it a strawman. That is a cop out.

 

[Dracarys]

It sounds like you have all the guidance you want on this issue.

Nope. I’ve presented both economic, business, and legal reasons why the bishops statements are not functional. It’s not that I don’t want to follow church teaching, but rather I can not and still stay in business.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

As I said, I don’t answer irrelevant questions. You have to show first that my position requires that the question be answered.

How are they irrelevant? It’s pretty arrogant that you present and support church teaching but think you are above explaining how it works in the real world.

It’s not arrogance. It is humility. I don’t consider myself enough of an authority to tell other people how Church teaching applies to them specifically.

I am not at all happy with what the bishops wrote

For the record, the quote about cultivating…spiritual life, etc. is not from some letter the bishops wrote, like the Justice for Immigrants letter. This quote about a just wage is directly from the Catechism, which is what the whole universal Church teaches - not just the US bishops.

, but for some reason you see no contradiction in saying an employer must provide “sufficient for a worker to acquire the means to cultivate his own material, social, cultural and spiritual life and that of his dependents,” and then saying the support need only be subsistence.

That’s because I don’t say that and the Church does not say that. You need to be more precise in quoting from the Catechism. Don’t say it in your own words because you change the words and change the meaning. Quote the exact words from the Catechism when you make claims about what it says.

My Mrs. Jones scenario is quite real. Are you going to tell her that her situation is “irrelevant”.

It is quite relevant for her, but not relevant for understanding what CCC 2434 means.

I didn’t say vague. I said not specific on numerical amounts. That’s not the same thing as vague, which makes this another straw man.

Yeah “not specific” is not even close to “vague” . Right.

It is close, but not the same. If you are going to quote me, don’t add anything to it to make it mean more of what you want to attack. That is a (you know what).

 

[tafan2]

The requirement of "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. "is far different from “subsistence”… Which is it? I know you will deny it, but these are two different standards.

Do you lack reading skills or are you just being obstinate. The bishops give the complete standard and then say that it must not be below subsistence levels, ie that makes it a minimum requirement, because the part that you quote is stated "in view of " other factors, which you love to ignore so you can continue your straw-man arguments. For example:

Does the church ever write that if you are going to have a wife and 12 kids you as the man need to acquire skills, and knowledge so that you can provide for your wife and kids material, social, cultural, and spiritual life? Or is it always one sidedly the employer’s responsibility to pay for their employees simply because they exist?

This has been answered multiple times. It is not one-sided. “in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop”. Obviously the function and productiveness of the worker is one of the conditions that Church (not just “the bishops”) teaches as part of its definition of a just wage. Its been bolded once before so you would not be able to miss it, yet you ignore it. Why? Again, lack of reading skills or obstinance?

That has potential lawsuit written all over it. You can not discriminate based upon familial status.

Show me one legal precedent that says an employer cannot consider the employee’s needs in determining compensation. One speck of evidence for this claim of yours. Sorry, you might be a CPA, but I am doubting your legal knowledge. Indeed, employers used to do it all the time. It still often happens to some extent. It should happen more.

 

[Dracarys]

Don’t say it in your own words because you change the words and change the meaning. Quote the exact words from the Catechism when you make claims about what it says.

It is quoted above. I used the exact relevant terms.

It is quite relevant for her, but not relevant for understanding what CCC 2434 means.

It’s very relevant to my example. I then later updated the scenerio. If you are no longer interested in the topic simply withdraw.

It is close, but not the same. If you are going to quote me, don’t add anything to it to make it mean more of what you want to attack.

The dictionary lists nonspecific as a synonom for vague.

 

[Dracarys]

This has been answered multiple times. It is not one-sided. “in view of the function and productiveness of each one , the conditions of the factory or workshop”. O

Your the one who can’t read. That is not what I asked. I want to know if the church ever demands that men and women with multiple dependents have to take it upon themselves to get the skills or knowledge needed so they can support their many children. You can’t just be a baby maker and not have the funds to support your family.

Show me one legal precedent that says an employer cannot consider the employee’s needs in determining compensation.

I looked it up and it’s not a federal crime, but California, District of Columbia and several other states do not allow discrimination based in familial status.

https://www.workplacefairness.org/marital-status-state-law

I would certainly encourage anyone who is single to sue their employer if the only reason another employee is making more money is due to them having kids. The ONLY fair criteria to use when determining an employees pay is work performance.

 

[YourNameHere]

The argument that a fair minimum wage will cause businesses to go out of business is the same old lame excuse used forever to justify sticking it to the working class.
Historically speaking in this country, even before slavery was outlawed in the south, employers in the north were abusing Irish immigrants by paying them low wages.

 

[Dracarys]

My understanding is that the requirement of "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. "is the ceiling and subsistence is the floor. Is that correct?

If that is the case then it suddenly becomes the responsibility of wealthier employers to worry about their employees AND their kids social, cultural, and spiritual lives. How can any employer be expected to even know what compensation is needed for that? I guarantee the eployees amount will be far far different from the employers. There is also no way employers are going to consider dependents in that calculation.

My original economic math arguement still applies. Any employee, with or without kids, is only worth what he contributes to the company. ANY employer, be he wealthy or just getting by, can not violate that basic mathematical principle.

 

[tafan2]

That is not what I asked.

If is exactly what you asked:

Does the church ever write that if you are going to have a wife and 12 kids you as the man need to acquire skills, and knowledge so that you can provide for your wife and kids material, social, cultural, and spiritual life? Or is it always one sidedly the employer’s responsibility to pay for their employees simply because they exist?

I answered the second question explicitly. And of course it had allready been addressed, and even emphasized. I assumed the answer to the first, by simply implication, was immediately obvious to the most casual observer.

 

[Socrates92]

I would certainly encourage anyone who is single to sue their employer if the only reason another employee is making more money is due to them having kids. The ONLY fair criteria to use when determining an employees pay is work performance.

I don’t entirely agree as I don’t think the only measure of economic value of work is current work performance. For example, it is quite possible that a married man, identical to another single man in every other way, is less likely to shop around for alternate employment, as he is less able to absorb instability. If this is an actual statistical phenomenon, then it should be possible to place an actual dollar value on this increased security (for the employer), which would show up in a wage/salary difference.

I also don’t support the idea of suing an employer over perceived unfairness as I think this is a direct violation of property rights which are basic to any free-market mindset. If a single guy thinks he is being unjustly discriminated against based on his single-ness, he should leverage his increased flexibility to either negotiate a raise, or earn more working for a competitor. Placing the onus of proof on an employer to show that he is not engaging in discrimination (which I think is a pretty ill-defined term - although I’d like to hear a lawyer’s take on this) just adds unnecessary additional liabilities on the practise of business. I think my attitude is also more in line with the parable of the workers in Matt 20:1-15.

 

[Dracarys]

The argument that a fair minimum wage will cause businesses to go out of business is the same old lame excuse used forever to justify sticking it to the working class.

Why do you want to “stick it” to the employer class? I believe in letting the market set wages, but I understand the church does not use that standard. Ok, but there still exist the layer of compensation where no employer can ever pay any employee more than what that employee produces in utility.

The exact break even amount is where the dollar amount paid out for an employee meets what that employee contributes.

 

[Dracarys]

For example, it is quite possible that a married man, identical to another single man in every other way, is less likely to shop around for alternate employment, as he is less able to absorb instability.

It could also be argued that a single guy can live cheaper on Ramen noodles if he has to (I did this) while the married guy will demand ever increasing wages because his wife and kids nag him.

Single people have more flexible schedules and can work late or on weekends. Married people are bogged down in family obligations.

also don’t support the idea of suing an employer over perceived unfairness as I think this is a direct violation of property rights which are basic to any free-market mindset. If

Yeah I am not a big fan of lawsuits either, and if it were me I would choose not to sue. But I would really resent that familial status is in any way a criteria for pay.

 

[Dracarys]

answered the second question explicitly. And of co

Refresh my memory with what you perceive as an “answer.”

 

[tafan2]

I would certainly encourage anyone who is single to sue their employer if the only reason another employee is making more money is due to them having kids. The ONLY fair criteria to use when determining an employees pay is work performance.

You need to do your homework, those laws are to protect the opposite: ie discrimination against an employee due to his/er family responsibilities. It is not discriminating against them to pay them more because they have greater need.

 

[tafan2]

Refresh my memory with what you perceive as an “answer.”

I will type real slowly so you can keep up.

Or is it always one sidedly the employer’s responsibility to pay for their employees simply because they exist?

Answer:

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 am out of here for a bit. This is really getting no where. If someone has some other argument or opinion about the definition of a just wage, perhaps I will be back.