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

[Pliny]

I can't agree on that principle if I don't know what it means.  I don't know what a "just wage" is and nobody seems to want to define it specifically.

As I mentioned previously, if a boatload of us were stranded on a desert island, we just might not have the resources and talent sufficient even for survival, let alone a "just wage" or a just return on our labor.  Likewise, I don't know--do you--if there is sufficient wealth that could give everyone a "just wage" in our country, and even if so, whether it is just to redistribute it by force.

 

A survival wage is already possible in our economic system. and we have safety nets and programs to help the needy.  Nobody needs to be starving.  Not everyone has to have their own home or apartment.  They can live with family members and friends, share vehicles, etc.  Much can be done with little, and even the poor have much more than those who were making living wages a couple of centuries ago.

 

There should be room for businesses and work that does not produce a "living wage" and those jobs can be done by youth and those who have other means of support.  Not all jobs have to be "living wage" jobs.  And further, it behooves the laborer to be worthy of a "living wage."

 

The other way of thinking of this is to look at the costs.  Why focus on the wage instead of the prices of goods and services?  How about a just price for gas?  A law that makes it $1.00 per gallon.  Or a just price for a McDonald's hamburger.  It should be set at 50 cents.  Let's figure out ways to lower prices and then we don't have to worry about raising wages.  Right?   

 

Aloysius,

 

Be a little specific as to how this works in practice.  What would you change in the US if you had the power to provide living wages to all?  And do you really mean that EVERY job has to be one that provides a living wage?

 

@arfink  

 

Low blow dude!  I wasn't being racist at all.  I only brought up race to demonstrate how much harm minimum wage is doing to the black community and preventing so many youths from working.  Those unemployed are not worth $10 per hour because of their skill level and not the color of their skin, and I never implied such.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Pliny

[4588686]

Pliny,

 

I think that you are taking assumptions about the market that are arguable true in the mathematical models and assuming that those models correspond perfectly to reality.  

 

Some of your claims that turn complicated social phenomena like systemic poverty into neat issues are arguably true in the sense that they are the implications contained in the math used to support modern neo-classical economics but that doesn't mean that they are *really* true.  Does that make any sense?  Does that make any sense?  I just don't know what your background is in mathematis and the relationships between mathematical models and reality.  

[Aloysius]

it's fascinating how government welfare is your answer to prove people do have the ability for subsistence.  fine, that's necessary, we agree that as a matter of justice the government ought to provide that social safety net, because it would be unjust for anyone not to have the means for their subsistence to be met.  we have that through welfare--it would be BETTER if people were getting that through their wages rather than welfare.  that's the principle of subsidiarity.  but if welfare's the only way we can get it done, then welfare is the solution.  that's perfectly fine.  that is the flip side of the coin of subsidiarity--if something can't get done on the lower level, then it should get done on the higher level.

 

there are enough resources for everyone to survive on comfortably on this planet.  that's not even a question.  "wealth" if we're talking about our financial system of money is an abstract concept, but there is certainly MORE than enough resources for everyone.  and one of the most basic principles of Catholic social justice is the universal destination of the resources of the earth--they're meant for everyone, and the systems through which we divide them are judged by how well they ensure that everyone has access to them.

 

there are people who now work for less than they need to survive on, necessitating government welfare.  many work for companies who could afford to pay them more and still turn a profit fine, as is shown by the way these same companies (big international chains are a good example to demonstrate this) operate in countries with much higher minimum wages.  there are people who have to work so much that they are unable to fulfill their family obligations to their children, etc, hence why John Paul II often talks about a "family wage".  the large majority of studies on minimum wage increases show that it does NOT increase unemployment.

 

the principle is this: the freedom to make contracts is subordinate to the principle of social justice that people have the right to the means by which they can fulfill their obligations.  if you pay someone less than what they need to fulfill their obligations (ie subsistence of themselves and their family) and rely on the government to make up the difference, if you could afford to pay them what they need, then you are being unjust.  you're violating subsidiarity.

[Pliny]

So what specifically would you do?  What would you change? Take a flight of fancy.  You're the boss of the country today.

 

I'll in turn say what I would do to provide the best wages for all.

 

And could you answer this question, please?  Do ALL jobs have to pay a "living wage"?

[4588686]

The year may have changed, but the pitiful state of Barack Obama's economy remains. Millions of Americans remain unemployed, many of them for over six months, and businesses face a ever-increasing regulatory and tax burden from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and other ill-advised endeavors by this administration.

Millennials are especially hard-hit. People aged 16-25 have seen the biggest drop in employment of any age group,  as student loan burdens mount and even those lucky enough to have jobs are too often earn too little to support a family. It's clear that Obama's attempt to impose a European-style welfare state on Americans is a colossal failure, but too often conservatives fail to advance concrete, specific alternatives. So here are five things conservatives should start fighting for, pronto, so we have an economy and a society that makes us proud to be Americans.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/07/five-conservative-reforms-millennials-should-be-fighting-for/

 

 

[Aloysius]

oh there's a lot I would do, things that would deserve their own threads to debate.  but you don't, as a Catholic, have to agree with my systems.  But as a Catholic you should be agreeing to these moral principles through which we judge the justice or injustice of a system... and if you did acknowledge those principles, you wouldn't "cringe" at the term "living wage".  I don't have all the answers, but I do insist that Catholics acknowledge the social justice teaching of the Church and seek to incorporate those principles into their political and economic systems.  But let's throw out one idea I'd be willing to argue so I don't seem like I'm just evading by saying that:

 

I would probably craft a smarter minimum wage law that could permit much lower wages for underage dependent workers (easily regulatable through existing IRS systems)--but with built in limits for how many such people can be hired--while raising the minimum wage for adult non-dependents (and studies show that this does not increase unemployment, btw).  unfortunately that can't be crunched into a soundbite (and there are plenty of other things that should be done along with it).

 

and is there room for jobs that don't pay a "living wage" in an economy?  generally, sure there are, for people who do not have subsistence obligations to meet.  it would be an unjust system if employers used such people to replace people who do have such subsistence obligations.  which is why child labor laws make sense to limit that kind of thing.

[Pliny]

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.

 

 

If this is true, then I can in good conscience reject anything a pope says that smacks of socialism, coercion, or what I perceive to be shallow and misguided thinking about economics.

 

What I have yet to determine is whether Catholic doctrine dictates that ALL employers must provide a living wage to every person of every age and status, and a followup to that would be whether it behooves the employer to change the wage according to the number of dependents or other economic factors the laborer has to deal with.

[NotreDame]

“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.

 

Honestly, I have an interview tomorrow morning and I can't step through all of this right now, but I appreciate the response...

 

So my first thought on reading that paragraph is "Gee, what the heck is he talking about..." because he's not describing a situation I'm familiar with in the USA, then I google it and he is actually addressing ALL of the Americas, then he goes on to talk about democratization and the need for the rule of law, human rights, etc...  That would be especially relevant for the northern cone and central american countries who were coming out of civil war, transitioning out of dicatorships, and facing all kinds of internal strife.

 

And since it's a post-synodal document (AKA "group project") from Latin America, that would explain the use of the term "neoliberalism" which is a pejorative term popularized by spanish speaking leftists.  But it's also kind of a joke, since "neoliberals" don't exist in Latin America outside of Chile (with a very, very small contingent in Guatemala) - but hey, having had a little experience with latin american religious, I'm not surprised by anything that comes out of their mouths. 

 

And as a side note, this goes back to the examples I gave earlier regarding mexico.  When you have capital and property confined to a small group, whether that group is marxist, like in Cuba, or "private" like in Mexico, there are moral implications to disregarding the welfare of the poor, who will be a very immobile labor force. 

 

And then there is you projecting again:

 

"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""

 

Hey Aloysius, I realize you have a bad habit of projecting things onto me without any basis, but could you try to stop doing that?  It's annoying and really doesn't belong in a respectful discussion. It's also a tad bit insulting, mmkay?

 

As for the rest, I still don't understand what you guys think a living wage is and I'm walking away from the encyclicals with a somewhat different takeaway, but I'll address that tomorrow hopefully.

Edited February 13, 2014 by NotreDame

[Pliny]

it would be an unjust system if employers used such people to replace people who do have such subsistence obligations. 

 

 

NO NO NO

 

This makes me want to cry.

 

Whenever someone is knocked out of a job, that frees him to be in the labor pool for other employers to bid on his services.

 

That would be like saying it would be unjust to use a machine that would displace workers.

 

 

[arfink]

NO NO NO

 

This makes me want to cry.

 

Whenever someone is knocked out of a job, that frees him to be in the labor pool for other employers to bid on his services.

 

That would be like saying it would be unjust to use a machine that would displace workers.

 

No it would not be like saying that it would be unjust to use a machine that would displace workers. Because human beings are not machines.

 

Also, have you ever been unemployed for longer than 6 months? Go try it. Come back and report on whether being knocked out of a job frees you to be in the labor pool for other employers to bid on your services.

Edited February 13, 2014 by arfink

[Slappo]

and is there room for jobs that don't pay a "living wage" in an economy?  generally, sure there are, for people who do not have subsistence obligations to meet.  it would be an unjust system if employers used such people to replace people who do have such subsistence obligations.  which is why child labor laws make sense to limit that kind of thing.

What about employers replacing people with higher subsistence obligations for those with lower subsistence obligations? If I have two candidates for a job and one has 10 kids and will cost me $30k a year for a living wage, but another only has 2 kids and will cost $20k a year for a living wage and they are both equally qualified...

 

That's the problem with pinning any requirement for a living wage on an employer. From a business perspective it is a stupid decision for me to pay someone more when I can pay someone else who is just as valuable less for the same work (all other things considered equal... staff retention, work ethic, amount of hours required, character and competence of the individual, etc). From the employer's prospective he trying to at least break even. For small businesses this would be absolutely crushing. There would be a necessity to hire based not just on qualifications but on what just/family/living wage would be required to be provided by the employer.

 

A small family casual restaurant or fast food franchise may be able to survive (I.E the employer brings home a living wage after taxes and expenses) off of current minimum wage high school students, but would be morally obligated to not hire the 35 year old with 2 kids that needs more money than minimum wage to survive because he can't pay the 35 year old a just wage while staying in business.

 

 

I really hope you see the economical problems with this idea. Sure maybe big businesses like Apple, Google, and Wal-Mart could handle increased wages (again... maybe), but small businesses would be dead in the water because they are either unjust employers or bankrupt.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Slappo

[Aloysius]

If this is true, then I can in good conscience reject anything a pope says that smacks of socialism, coercion, or what I perceive to be shallow and misguided thinking about economics.

 

What I have yet to determine is whether Catholic doctrine dictates that ALL employers must provide a living wage to every person of every age and status, and a followup to that would be whether it behooves the employer to change the wage according to the number of dependents or other economic factors the laborer has to deal with.

no, it does not dictate that... though such a concept would be consonant with Catholic virtue and perhaps even ideal in an actual Catholic system if we had one... such a thing could likely not work on a large scale; well, maybe it could at an organization like Mondragon actually, but those people definitely get family wages for working there.  but the justice of a system is based on whether people are capable of making such subsistence wages for their families, and when they are not capable of doing so then the government must step in to correct the injustice--that's what governments are meant for, to enforce matters of justice.  ideally we would have a system in which people are capable of earning their subsistence obligations through wages... when the only jobs available to people who do have such subsistence obligations are jobs that cannot meet those obligations, you need a system of justice to enforce against that.

 

NotreDame,

"neoliberal" is a term commonly used outside of the USA to refer to all unregulated free-market-absolutism doctrines.  it's used throughout Europe and the popes would certainly be familiar with it and use it in that way.  I apologize if it seems like I'm projecting again, but it shouldn't be insulting because the term is entirely synonymous with American Libertarianism/Conservativism... if you do not identify your ideology as either of those terms then perhaps I have gotten the wrong impression from you... at this point it's probably not as much projection as it would be confusing your position for Pliny's, since you're both my sparring partners in this thread.

 

 

NO NO NO

 

This makes me want to cry.

 

Whenever someone is knocked out of a job, that frees him to be in the labor pool for other employers to bid on his services.

 

That would be like saying it would be unjust to use a machine that would displace workers.

 

 

cry me a river lol.  it is wrong to exploit underage dependent workers in order to avoid having to pay real adult salaries to real adult people who require those jobs for their subsistence.  you could get a bunch of twelve year olds to work at your restaurant and pay them $5 per day, but that would be wrong.  though the family exemption in our child labor laws I'm perfectly okay with as it does allow family businesses the way the old family farm existed.  ultimately, the idea that you can separate a human being's economic value from their human value is a concept totally alien to the social doctrine of the Church.

[NotreDame]

I'll be totally honest... Right now you guys make so little sense you make me wish I was just trading insults with Hasan again. 

[Slappo]

 

 it is wrong to exploit underage dependent workers in order to avoid having to pay real adult salaries to real adult people who require those jobs for their subsistence.  you could get a bunch of twelve year olds to work at your restaurant and pay them $5 per day, but that would be wrong.  though the family exemption in our child labor laws I'm perfectly okay with as it does allow family businesses the way the old family farm existed.  ultimately, the idea that you can separate a human being's economic value from their human value is a concept totally alien to the social doctrine of the Church.

 

I'm sure you posted this while my post was still in the works, but the problem is that you're assuming this restaurant is highly profitable with those $5 daily wages rather than scraping by. Paying real adult salaries may cause expenses to be higher than revenue, which would force a price increase on goods/services which may cause customer decline which puts the business back in the position of higher expenses than revenue.

 

Your $5 daily example is a bit extreme, but the same could be said with $7.25 hourly wages with no benefit package (a subway or mcdonald's family owned franchise, mom and pop grocery store/restaurant/retail store).

[Aloysius]

What about employers replacing people with higher subsistence obligations for those with lower subsistence obligations? If I have two candidates for a job and one has 10 kids and will cost me $30k a year for a living wage, but another only has 2 kids and will cost $20k a year for a living wage and they are both equally qualified...

 

That's the problem with pinning any requirement for a living wage on an employer. From a business perspective it is a stupid decision for me to pay someone more when I can pay someone else who is just as valuable less for the same work (all other things considered equal... staff retention, work ethic, amount of hours required, character and competence of the individual, etc). From the employer's prospective he trying to at least break even. For small businesses this would be absolutely crushing. There would be a necessity to hire based not just on qualifications but on what just/family/living wage would be required to be provided by the employer.

 

A small family casual restaurant or fast food franchise may be able to survive (I.E the employer brings home a living wage after taxes and expenses) off of current minimum wage high school students, but would be morally obligated to not hire the 35 year old with 2 kids that needs more money than minimum wage to survive because he can't pay the 35 year old a just wage while staying in business.

I'm sorry if I haven't made this clear, but I am not saying that employers must calculate based on how big a family is... I'd only do that in my idealist Catholic utopian island, not say that you have to calculate as an employer based upon that.  John Paul II, the Compendium, and quite a few other sources go through the concept of a "family wage" and what kinds of things could be done to promote it much more in depth.

 

anyway, I was pressed to come up with a specific policy proposal and I did so, I am curious as to what people think about it

I would probably craft a smarter minimum wage law that could permit much lower wages for underage dependent workers (easily regulatable through existing IRS systems)--but with built in limits for how many such people can be hired--while raising the minimum wage for adult non-dependents (and studies show that this does not increase unemployment, btw).  unfortunately that can't be crunched into a soundbite (and there are plenty of other things that should be done along with it).

 

we don't have to go into that if no one likes... but it would distract from everyone railing about how employers can't calculate how much people's families cost... which is true, I agree with that.  doesn't mean the idea of a family wage isn't a matter of justice, it just means we need to work on the proper kinds of systems to actually encourage family wages to exist.