I Cringe When I Hear The Term "living Wage."

[Slappo]

Also I never said a living wage was meaningless, what I've said is the lack of clarity and substance behind the term makes the term impractical.

 

"Everyone should be paid what they need".

 

Well what the heck does that mean...

[Pliny]

The living wage is not a meaningless concept. Your examples that you give are what I would largely call corner cases, because you either are positing the example of a highly irresponsible person who happens to also be willing to work or a highly unfortunate person who got very unlucky and is also willing to work. Christian charity does, I think, require us to aid those who get into those situations, but those situations obviously do not apply to the concept of a living wage.

 

 

Can you please tell me what IS the living wage?  Come up with the dollars please.  It doesn't have to be exact.  

 

Or does it vary from person to person?  And from region to region?  And can it be lowered or raised depending upon output?  A famine or some other catastrophic event could disrupt production, and if not much wealth can be created, not much can be paid out, regardless of decrees about "living wages."

 

Do employers have to pay according to individual needs?  John is single and McDonald's can pay him $9 per hour, but Mary has 10 children so she gets $30 per hour for the same work?

 

How do you set the wages?  By a board of government bureaucrats? 

 

Catholic social teaching is really not terribly concerned with who gets the profit at the end of the day, but with human dignity. Profit and private property are not absolute rights. Every man is owed, due to his human nature, the things which he needs to survive. And if a man has children, even if he was irresponsible and had 10, he and his children are also owed what they need to survive. It doesn't matter if the poor man is deserving or not, the preferential option for the poor is not optional.

 

 

You presume that every employer is sitting on a mountain of gold bricks and he can hand out whatever wage he likes, but greedily keeps it all to himself?  It's not that way at all.  Profit margins are slim, usually, besides the risk employers take by possibly losing some or all of their investment.

 

Of course I haven't said there should not be charities to help the needy.  But a business is not a charity.  And a wage is simply a price.  If you want to buy a house that has a market value of $100,000, but the lady who owns it wants $250,000 because she has bills and needs some retirement money, will you pay it?

 

The real injustice in our current system in the US is that we have diverted much of our resources to those who are not seen as greedy, thanks to "the rich" who are used as scapegoats, but to the teachers unions, the overpaid government workers, unemployment benefits for a year or more, and for other waste and corruption.

 

It's not the employer's problem to solve.

 

If employers will not bear this burden in exchange for labor, and if we choose not to support this burden by means of our taxes and government intervention, then we as Christians have the responsibility to bear the burden ourselves, directly. Unfortunately I don't see this happening much, and certainly not at the scale we need to ensure that large numbers of people do not go hungry or homeless.

 

 

Once again, I think we do need to help the truly needy, and I think it is best done privately, instead of institutionalizing poverty via government programs.

 

[arfink]

Arfink,  I have to agree with the spirit of Pliny's reply here... The "living wage" might not be a "meaningless concept", but your reply has failed to shed any light on what it's meaning is.

 

Also, as an aside... I'm not sure your view of private property is aligned with the encyclicals I'm reading from Pope Leo XIII and JPII.  Have you read those lately?   Pope Leo says in only the 6th paragraph:

 

For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own.

 

This directly contradicts what you said was catholic teaching and it's reiterated by JPII in both his encyclicals.

 

Yes, but that a thing is a natural right does not make it absolute. The right to life for example is absolute, and cannot be denied to anyone for any reason, while the right to property is not absolute. Your rights to your property, for example, can be superseded by another man's right to life. The preferential option for the poor is primarily concerned with human dignity, by which is generally assumed to mean those natural rights which are absolute.

 

Before Slappo gets twisted into knots over how employers are supposed to pay for people who have wage garnishment and such, the reason why I excluded those cases from the living wage is because you don't have an absolute natural right to be debt free. You have a natural right to life, meaning you need food and shelter, and of course your wife and children do too. How this is to be provided is left to the imagination of the laity of course, because specifics of how it's to be done need to be hashed out based on local norms.

[arfink]

Can you please tell me what IS the living wage?  Come up with the dollars please.  It doesn't have to be exact.  

 

Or does it vary from person to person?  And from region to region?  And can it be lowered or raised depending upon output?  A famine or some other catastrophic event could disrupt production, and if not much wealth can be created, not much can be paid out, regardless of decrees about "living wages."

 

Do employers have to pay according to individual needs?  John is single and McDonald's can pay him $9 per hour, but Mary has 10 children so she gets $30 per hour for the same work?

 

How do you set the wages?  By a board of government bureaucrats? 

 

 

You presume that every employer is sitting on a mountain of gold bricks and he can hand out whatever wage he likes, but greedily keeps it all to himself?  It's not that way at all.  Profit margins are slim, usually, besides the risk employers take by possibly losing some or all of their investment.

 

Of course I haven't said there should not be charities to help the needy.  But a business is not a charity.  And a wage is simply a price.  If you want to buy a house that has a market value of $100,000, but the lady who owns it wants $250,000 because she has bills and needs some retirement money, will you pay it?

 

The real injustice in our current system in the US is that we have diverted much of our resources to those who are not seen as greedy, thanks to "the rich" who are used as scapegoats, but to the teachers unions, the overpaid government workers, unemployment benefits for a year or more, and for other waste and corruption.

 

It's not the employer's problem to solve.

 

 

Once again, I think we do need to help the truly needy, and I think it is best done privately, instead of institutionalizing poverty via government programs.

 

You ask a lot of questions which the church doesn't bother to answer by speaking of a living wage. If you need to ask a dollar amount then you're missing the point.
 

[NotreDame]

Before Slappo gets twisted into knots over how employers are supposed to pay for people who have wage garnishment and such, the reason why I excluded those cases from the living wage is because you don't have an absolute natural right to be debt free. You have a natural right to life, meaning you need food and shelter, and of course your wife and children do too. How this is to be provided is left to the imagination of the laity of course, because specifics of how it's to be done need to be hashed out based on local norms.

 

So there's a right to life, as you point out, but not a right to a living wage?
 

[arfink]

Can you please tell me what IS the living wage?  Come up with the dollars please.  It doesn't have to be exact.  

 

That's a rather trollish trap, if I do say so myself.

 

Or does it vary from person to person?  And from region to region?  And can it be lowered or raised depending upon output?  A famine or some other catastrophic event could disrupt production, and if not much wealth can be created, not much can be paid out, regardless of decrees about "living wages."

 

Yes, the living wage does change. Yes we still need to do the hard work to analyze and figure out what that should be.

 

Do employers have to pay according to individual needs?  John is single and McDonald's can pay him $9 per hour, but Mary has 10 children so she gets $30 per hour for the same work?

 

I would hope an employer would care enough about their people to do this. I've worked for employers who did.

 

How do you set the wages?  By a board of government bureaucrats? 

 

Sure, if nobody else can be bothered.

 

You presume that every employer is sitting on a mountain of gold bricks and he can hand out whatever wage he likes, but greedily keeps it all to himself?  It's not that way at all.  Profit margins are slim, usually, besides the risk employers take by possibly losing some or all of their investment.

 

You presume a lot about me. I'm currently self-employed as a sole-proprietor of my own business. That you believe I think this way is your own business of course, but you should already know I do not. I call troll.

 

Of course I haven't said there should not be charities to help the needy.  But a business is not a charity.  And a wage is simply a price.  If you want to buy a house that has a market value of $100,000, but the lady who owns it wants $250,000 because she has bills and needs some retirement money, will you pay it?

 

Of course businesses are not charities, but why should we force the work of helping the poor onto charities? Are we not all called to do this? If I was in the position to be an employer I would be seriously considering this well before I hired someone. I will not take the life-blood, the human toil and hours of another man without compensating him properly, and if I can't afford to hire someone to work for me then I'm just not going to do it. I've worked crummy low-wage jobs that were utterly soul-sucking, and it is totally unjust. That we live in a society which can condone such business practices is very sad to me. And yes, I have negotiated prices of my own business services and products to the financial situation of the person who is buying from me. It seems perfectly just to me.

 

The real injustice in our current system in the US is that we have diverted much of our resources to those who are not seen as greedy, thanks to "the rich" who are used as scapegoats, but to the teachers unions, the overpaid government workers, unemployment benefits for a year or more, and for other waste and corruption.

 

It's not the employer's problem to solve.

 

I disagree, it is everyone's problem, employers included.

 

Once again, I think we do need to help the truly needy, and I think it is best done privately, instead of institutionalizing poverty via government programs.

 

Until I can see consistent results which prove this is true, I will disagree with you.

 

[Pliny]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say because sentence structure. Come again?
 

 

I don't know what you mean to be a "living wage."  Does it mean enough to just barely support survival, or does it mean a three bedroom house, two cars, the best health coverage, etc. I wish I could get a handle on this concept.  

 

But regardless--my question pertained to whether there was the overall wealth to fund this scheme. Does simply saying "pay everyone a living wage" cause sufficient wealth appear to do so?  I'm presuming you think it is already there, but how do you know that?

 

What you really want, it seems, is wealth redistribution.

 

Could you find some enthusiasm for REDUCING wages to those who are supported by tax dollars and who are paid above market rates and sometimes for jobs that are of dubious value to the taxpayers?

[arfink]

I don't know what you mean to be a "living wage."  Does it mean enough to just barely support survival, or does it mean a three bedroom house, two cars, the best health coverage, etc. I wish I could get a handle on this concept.  

 

But regardless--my question pertained to whether there was the overall wealth to fund this scheme. Does simply saying "pay everyone a living wage" cause sufficient wealth appear to do so?  I'm presuming you think it is already there, but how do you know that?

 

What you really want, it seems, is wealth redistribution.

 

Could you find some enthusiasm for REDUCING wages to those who are supported by tax dollars and who are paid above market rates and sometimes for jobs that are of dubious value to the taxpayers?

 

I do not presume to say where the wealth will come from, as even PHDs in economics can't agree on that. But I can say that it cannot come from causing unnecessary suffering to workers, by depriving them of homes or of sustenance.

 

For myself, if I were to become an employer, I would consider a living wage to be one which put a roof over my employee's head and that of his family, but not a horrible slummy one. And one which pays for them to eat, not sumptuously, but not on rice and beans.

[Pliny]

And I think you would be doing a great service to an unemployed youth and to yourself by paying him $5.00 per hour while he learned valuable skills, helped you grow your business, became less of a burden to his family and society, and acquired some self-esteem.

 

But YOU'RE FORBIDDEN TO DO THAT.  And that's unjust to you and to him, but your kind of thinking has caused this ridiculous and sad situation.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 13, 2014 by Pliny

[KnightofChrist]

DANCING IS FORBIDDEN! 

[arfink]

And I think you would be doing a great service to an unemployed youth and to yourself by paying him $5.00 per hour while he learned valuable skills, helped you grow your business, became less of a burden to his family and society, and acquired some self-esteem.

 

But YOU'RE FORBIDDEN TO DO THAT.  And that's unjust to you and to him, but your kind of thinking has caused this ridiculous and sad situation.

 

No, I'm not forbidden to do that. There are lots of ways for an unemployed youth to learn valuable skills from me which do not involve me taking advantage of him. Internships have already been discussed of course. Apprenticeships and contract work are also available. Why do you keep exploding over the minimum wage?
 

[arfink]

I have some comments I'll leave here, and then I think I need to step back for a while.

 

Concerning the original post, I am sorry you cringe when you hear the term living wage. Concerning unfettered free market capitalism, it has been tried and found wanting. Our current system of economic controls reflects this. I am under no illusions about my ability to change anything the government does or to convince anyone of anything in particular where economics are concerned. In as much as I function as an employee or businessman I intend to adapt to the system at hand rather than to complain about why it isn't set up exactly in the way I prefer. I don't much care for certain aspects of our current system, but that's just too bad for me.

 

As a Catholic, when I take employment I intend to provide pecuniary benefit to my employer to the best of my ability. If I ever should employ anyone I intend to know his or her situation well enough to provide them with what they need in exchange for their labor. That's that. I firmly believe that it is the employer's job to be concerned with those things, and if I'm ever in the position to be an employer, I'm resolved to do just that.

 

What he rest of the business world chooses to do is of course not my decision to make, but it is my place to hate such mistreatment of human beings and to help the unfortunate as I can.

[Pliny]

No, I'm not forbidden to do that. There are lots of ways for an unemployed youth to learn valuable skills from me which do not involve me taking advantage of him. Internships have already been discussed of course. Apprenticeships and contract work are also available. Why do you keep exploding over the minimum wage?
 

 

I haven't "exploded" over it.  It's just one example of a failed economic policy that supposedly is helping, but instead causes unemployment for those who need it most.

 

And the "internships" are not helping the 35% unemployment rate for black youths.

 

If they were worth $10 an hour they would be at jobs paying that, but they are not, so they are sitting around doing nothing or getting into trouble.  It is not exploitation or taking advantage of someone to pay them what they are worth (relative to what they produce--not "human" worth).

 

Or do you think they are better off being unemployed than being "taken advantage of" for a lower than minimum wage?  I don't.  And that low wage would not be permanent but a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

 

That's why I cringe about the idea of somehow decreeing a "living wage" since that doesn't happen by decree but by trading goods and services voluntarily.  

 

What you want is coercion and in the case of wages, a coerced floor to wages causes a surplus of labor, i.e., unemployment, i.e., injustice cloaked in the name of justice.

[arfink]

I haven't "exploded" over it.  It's just one example of a failed economic policy that supposedly is helping, but instead causes unemployment for those who need it most.

 

And the "internships" are not helping the 35% unemployment rate for black youths.

 

If they were worth $10 an hour they would be at jobs paying that, but they are not, so they are sitting around doing nothing or getting into trouble.  It is not exploitation or taking advantage of someone to pay them what they are worth (relative to what they produce--not "human" worth).

 

Or do you think they are better off being unemployed than being "taken advantage of" for a lower than minimum wage?  I don't.  And that low wage would not be permanent but a stepping stone to bigger and better things.

 

That's why I cringe about the idea of somehow decreeing a "living wage" since that doesn't happen by decree but by trading goods and services voluntarily.  

 

What you want is coercion and in the case of wages, a coerced floor to wages causes a surplus of labor, i.e., unemployment, i.e., injustice cloaked in the name of justice.

 

So now we're going full racist? Black people aren't worth $10 an hour? Never mind that minimum wage isn't $10 an hour.

 

Let me put it to you bluntly: the vast majority of people who work for minimum wage are not idiots. Most are not mentally retarded. Most of them are not addicts. Most of them are trainable, but are not being trained. Most of them are capable of so much more, but have literally nowhere else to go.

 

I am reminded of Ebineezer Scrooge when he asked "Are there no work houses?"

 

The floor may well be coerced if you take it quite literally, but for good reason. If you take out the bottom there is no end to which crooked men will go to abuse people who are, by simple virtue of being poor, easy targets for exploitation.

[Aloysius]

“More and more, in many countries of America, a system known as “neoliberalism” prevails; based on a purely economic conception of the human person, this sytem considers profit and the law of the market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the respect due to individuals and peoples. At times this system has become the ideological justification for certain attitudes and behavior in the social and political spheres leading to the neglect of the weaker members of society. Indeed, the poor are becoming ever more numerous, victims of specific policies and structures which are often unjust.” - John Paul II

 

the reading of such a quote with conservative blinders would be something along the lines of "yes, but we don't consider profit and the law of the market as our only parameters, we acknowledge charity and such as well".. in the context of John Paul II's many statements on this matter, that wouldn't hold water, he consistently attacks the idea of neoliberal economic policies.

 

there are so many countless more, these popes specifically state they're against such ideologies, specifically critique them by name, and still sometimes American conservative Catholics act like they're not disagreeing with them... I believe even Tom Woods would admit he's in disagreement with the social encyclicals of the popes, he'd just say it's okay to disagree with them on such matters (which is to some extent true, to some extent not--their moral principals, such as the concept that any system in which people work for less than a subsistence wage--which they do define relative to the ability for basic needs to be met, often calling it a family wage because it's based on the idea that people have a right to access to that through which they can fulfill their obligations to their families... actual endorsements of specific policies by popes you can certainly disagree with, but the idea that it is unjust to have less than a living wage is totally absolutely unequivocally Catholic doctrine) it's readily apparent.

 

I'm not interested in convincing you to support higher minimum wage laws or whatever at the moment... I realize you have a deeply ingrained economic ideology that seems like a kind of "natural" economics to you (which is what is called "neoliberalism"), I'm far more interested in driving home the point that a "living wage" is a matter of Catholic morality--that situations in which people are not receiving wages that could support their subsistence and that of their families are unjust situations.  I'm not asking that you agree that government is the answer to that, or that any specific system is the answer to that, I'm asking that you acknowledge this principle of Catholic Social Justice Doctrine, because it is a matter of Catholic teaching on morals from time immemorial about what the nature of a just wage is and, indeed, what the nature of the sin that cries to heaven for vengeance is.  can we not at least agree on this principle of justice, even if we disagree on specific systems or programs meant to combat that?