What wage is just?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tafan2 said:
Please point out what changed.
Click to expand...
You added "Knowing that your new employer would not raise your wage any if for some reason you needed a little more money, but your previous employer had a track record of doing so? "

But, as I said, that doesn’t matter. My current employers mind set is not to reward hard work, education, willingness to learn new tasks, etc. He prefers to stupidly pay someone else more for irrelevant reasons having nothing to do with performance or the job at hand. That is not the place for me in the long run.
 
Last edited:
I understand the qualification. But…
Where is the discrimination? That is the key point. He is not paying you less because you are single, he is paying you a fair market value for your skills. Other employees are paid the same. But some employees are paid a little more based on their needs. Why is that discriminating?
 
I am not sticking it to anyone.
It is a simple law of economics.
No one forces someone to operate a business.
But those who operate a business have a responsibility to pay a wage that is not taking advantage of the working class…
For years, illegal immigrants have been taken advantage of in this country, all for the sake of not paying a fair wage.
Companies have tried to break unions in this country, all for the sake of not paying a fair wage.
 
Dracarys said:
You added "Knowing that your new employer would not raise your wage any if for some reason you needed a little more money, but your previous employer had a track record of doing so? "
Click to expand...
How is that changing my scenario. That was not in my scenario. That was in your response, were you explicitly said you would leave your employer if he paid a given employee more based on need. So I can only assume you would select a new employer who “would not raise your wage if you needed a little more money”, since that was why you left the first one.
 
tafan2 said:
So you would just switch to another employer who paid you $20/hour (my previous example said you were paid the market rate)? Knowing that your new employer would not raise your wage any if for some reason you needed a little more money, but your previous employer had a track record of doing so? Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Click to expand...
No nose cutting required necessarily. That scenario just requires the employee to take a few more personal precautions, whereas the alternative can afford to be a little more careless, knowing that the employer will pick up the slack. On an economy wide level, I would expect the former type of employer to have higher growth and profits, implying an ability to pay more overall. So it’s a tradeoff really, depending won whether you are a low-return, low risk or high-risk, high return type of person. The great thing about the free market is that it can accomodate both types of people.
 
YourNameHere said:
It is a simple law of economics.
No one forces someone to operate a business.
But those who operate a business have a responsibility to pay a wage that is not taking advantage of the working class…
Click to expand...
That is a normative statement, not an economical one…
 
Socrates92 said:
On an economy wide level, I would expect the former type of employer to have higher growth and profits, implying an ability to pay more overall.
Click to expand...
I would not expect that at all. I have been involved in managing several businesses. Without fail, I would say that employee morale one way or another can easily swing productivity by 50%. And I know of business who have a reputation for actually caring about their employees, and they are without fail always with a high employee morale. If a business is broken, a top priority to fix it is always to improve employee morale. That is done by empowering them and showing the business cares about them.

This idea that one pays only the market rate for employees is actually dumb. I have always had lower overall cost structures than competitors and always tried to pay more for the workers than competitors. I want the best workers who know what they are doing to come to me.
 
tafan2 said:
But some employees are paid a little more based on their needs. Why is that discriminating?
Click to expand...
Well anytime you treat someone different than the others it’s discrimination. I discriminate against bad workers by paying my better ones more. I want an employer who pays workers based on work performance because I excell at that. If he stupidly pays this guy more because he has kids what other wacky ideas does he have? Is the one with the kids going to get the promotion over me too? I am not compatible with that employer, and I don’t have a future there. I’ll go to a company that recognizes my work efforts and gives me raises and promotions based on work performance.
 
tafan2 said:
This idea that one pays only the market rate for employees is actually dumb. I hav
Click to expand...
Not at first. If they do well, and they show they can do more complicated jobs, or do jobs faster that makes you more money,so you give them a raise.
 
tafan2 said:
How is that changing my scenario.
Click to expand...
Because you added to your original scenerio with this new limitation. Then you assumed the new employer was paying me the same. Maybe the new employer pays me more because he is not stupid enough to pay people based on criteria outside of the workplace. My old employers track record is to pay more because they have kids. I have no expectation he would pay a single man because he wants more beer money. But then my familial status or what I need money for is none of his business.
 
Last edited:
Socrates92 said:
The great thing about the free market is that it can accomodate both types of pe
Click to expand...
But many of the guys on this thread and the writings of the church don’t trust the free market. They want to artifically circumvent the free market and say no you have to provide for the employees and his dependents social, cultural, and spiritual needs too. What does that even mean? Some members will tell you your not adhearng to church teaching if you don’t do this. I tell them it is not possible to stay in business if I do this, and it may even violate state law if I pay someone more only because they have a wife and kids. Their response? You just don’t want to adhear to church teaching. Sometimes I think I am talking to brainwashed cult members.
 
o_mlly said:
Flip over your cell phone or laptop. Where was it manufactured? Chances are workers that made the appliance are not in the U.S.A. With globalization, capital is mobile. For labor intensive goods, capital will be placed where labor is the least expensive (cp). Is that unjust? Do not those foreign workers also have a right to work and to receive a just wage? …

Hopefully, the next development of Catholic Social teaching will address the new issues affecting workers introduced by globalization and free trade.
Click to expand...
Yes, those foreign workers deserve a just wage but that is not the case.

In order to pay a just wage, the U.S. company must first get a just price for its product or service.

Globalization is the root problem responsible for U.S. workers earning less than a living wage. The solution is in the hands of the U.S. consumer: Stop buying products imported from countries that do not pay their workers living wages.
https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/7-countries-with-horrific-sweatshop-situations/
  • Bangladesh
  • Vietnam
  • Cambodia
  • China
  • Mexico
  • Indonesia
 
The first question is what happens to those consumers who knowingly benefit from the exploitation of human beings? Directly participating in evil kills their souls.
 
abucs said:
I don’t think they have a government mandated minimum wage in Denmark.

I would be more in favour of the way the Danes do it than having government set minimum wages
Click to expand...
My understanding is that in Denmark, all workers are organized by trade unions that bargain salaries with employers. Since they have 100% coverage by their unions, maybe they don’t see the negative aspect of unions that we see in the US.
 
Theo520 said:
My understanding is that in Denmark, all workers are organized by trade unions that bargain salaries with employers. Since they have 100% coverage by their unions, maybe they don’t see the negative aspect of unions that we see in the US.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly. I think with globalization the pressure is on employers and employees to work together. It is interesting to look at the long history of labour organisations stretching back to the medieval guilds. When they have flexed their muscles too much with regards to restricting businesses they tend in the long run to do themselves out of jobs. I think a similar phenomenon has happened with globalization and this is part of a re-alignment in politics with regards to workers.
 
o_mlly said:
The first question is what happens to those consumers who knowingly benefit from the exploitation of human beings?
Click to expand...
I’d change this to “The first question is what happens… knowing formally participate in exploitation of human beings” This would imply that those consumers actually contribute to the exploitation, meaning that said human beings are worse off as a result of that participation (buying the products which produce a paycheck). This is what you have to prove. If you cannot, and if, perhaps those same human beings would be worse off if the company closed up shop, I could just as plausibly argue that by not purchasing their goods, you are exploiting them for the purpose of virtue signalling, thus killing your soul, etc. So I ask again, what do you hope to accomplish by boycotting companies that appear to be exploiting certain people?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top