Should people who support raising wages start their own businesses that pay wages they feel are appropriate?

[Lilllabettt]

"In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. 'Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good.” Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages" CCC 2434. 

I think in this instance referenced above we are turning Family Responsibilities Discrimination on its head. The reason why Family Responsibilities Discrimination exists is to protect caregivers from negatives (passed over for promotion, demotion, harassed, terminated) due to their family/care-giving responsibilities.

I don't have any historical references on hand to defend what you are saying (women were denied fair-wage based on the idea they didn't "need" it). They might exist, but it seems to me an illogical assumption to make. Everyone needs a wage or source of income to survive. And, even a careless observer will recognize the destitute state of women throughout generations who have been left widows, single mothers, and/or orphans without a provider. I could imagine a businessman giving such a weak, ridiculous excuse, but I cannot fathom that being what he truly thought. 

However, ... I do know of several cases where women were denied a fair wage because they did need it but were presumed due to the possibility of pregnancy and leave that it would not be a profitable decision for the business. Obviously, this is unjust and even if it did not violate a law pertaining to FRD it violates Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which are federal).  It seems more reasonable (though unjust) for the businessman to overlook giving women a fair or high wage due to the perceived liability of pregnancy or weak physical/mental strength. Hence, the legal acknowledgement of FRD and the federal laws mentioned above. Obviously, this assumption by businesses is all wrong and a huge reason why JPII acknowledged in his Letter to Women the great profitability women bring to business, even with perceived liabilities (though they are not) of leave and pregnancy. The humanity, empathy, and sensitivity women possess and bring to their work are a huge asset for a business and for the world. Business should morally and (I would argue) for the sake of positive corporate culture adjust itself to the realities of its workers (i.e. women have children) and provide for women to be both mothers and employees. 

However, back to FRD... there is no federal law that expressly prohibits FRD. It might be in some states or counties, but it is not in mine. And for all anyone knows the business could have an anti-nepotism policy (prohibiting spouses or family members from working in the same company/department) and that might be the reason the employer inquires. 

And, while some employers might find it in their best interest (being a public, corporate entity with no soul which employees hundreds of workers viewed as valuable based upon their utility) to not ask about marriage status as it could be perceived as them trying to discriminate unjustly against their pawns... that is not the case of my business. We are a privately held, family business  with 10 employees that we view as valuable because they are human beings. We look out for their best interest and take an interest in their lives and families because we care about them and realize that if we have to choose between a more efficient day or their good or their families' good... we choose them, trusting that the return on that investment will come in time. Our employees are our friend and (we consider) family and from a  business perspective, our finest assets. Looking out for them and their families is of concern for us and that is not illegal and justice demands it. 

And too, since I am the only single employee (and a female as well) I would be the only one that would presumably complain about not being given a wage to support an entire family (that I don't have). But, I am not... I am championing my employees who I love and respect being given a wage that helps them to support their families in this economy while I am given a wage according to my own family status, skill, time, and merit. It is just. 

There are some logical problems with your argument.  Thing is I don't have the energy right now. If you operate a company with a policy of wage discrimination against employees based on marital status I  suggest you consider a legal retainer. 

 One thing I will do for your benefit,  and for the benefit of anyone reading,  is point out the gross oversight in the education of women who "don't have a historical reference" for women being let go, being  denied wage increases or promotions etc.  because it was assumed as women they did not need a job and/or  money as much as men.  Pardon me,  but good freaking grief.  

For a starting point,  look into the shifts in the labor force following the end of ww2. As a starting point. 

 

[Winchester]

Well I think sex based wage discrimination is immoral. I think the idea of compensating providers more, and  firing non-providers first will always lead to discrimination against women.  I also have a problem with the idea that a single person's work has less value and should therefore be compensated less. 

but the question of whether everyone deserves a living wage is separate from whether some demographics  should be paid more than others. 

Maybe if it's actually that. But I suspect it's almost always secondary to production. 

A "living wage" is far more subject to the monetary policy of the ruling class than any private employer. The erosion of the value of the dollar is thanks to the State,  not the market. 

[Not A Real Name]

Soon the US dollar won't be worth anything, so I say pay the people in material goods, like peanuts.  Well...macadamia nuts...after all, we're not savages. 

[TotusTuusMaria]

There are some logical problems with your argument.  Thing is I don't have the energy right now. If you operate a company with a policy of wage discrimination against employees based on marital status I  suggest you consider a legal retainer. 

I have no wage policy that discriminates based on marital status. What I have is a wage policy that takes into account the dignity of my employees and the necessity for them and their families (whether they are married or not) to live comfortably materially and so forth in our economy.  As an employer, the Church has told me that this is just and what must be done. 

Taken from http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-minimum-wage-and-catholic-social-teaching

Seriously, this is Catholic Social Teaching. 

"Since Rerum Novarum, the Church has fervently held that the basis of determining a just wage should be the concept of the “family wage.” The family wage is one sufficient for a working man to support himself, his wife, and his children. While the Church acknowledges that all members of the family have a contribution to make to the well-being of the family, she nonetheless insists that the norm of stable family life is founded upon there being one principal breadwinner for the family, the father; as Pius XI wrote: “Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately” (QA 71). John Paul II also advocated the family wage, seeing it as a protection against treating human beings themselves as a commodity, to be evaluated solely on the basis of their productive potential.

Perhaps the single greatest difference between the outlook of most modern economic thought, whether conservative or progressive, and the Church in matters of social justice is in the understanding of what constitutes the basic economic unit of society. Modern economic thinking tends to see the individual as the basic economic unit: Wages are accounted to people as individuals, on the basis of their productivity, without regard to “external” factors such as their families. Indeed, such an approach has been enshrined in many states’ employment laws. If an employer, having two employees doing the same job, were to pay one employee more than another on the basis that the first had a large family and the second was single, that employer might find himself in trouble with the authorities. But the Church recognizes that human beings are essentially social in their nature: Humanity is not a collection of individuals in autonomous isolation from one another, but a society, which has the family as its fundamental building block (CCC 1879–1882). Thus, John Paul II wrote, any concept of wages that does not take the family into account is “purely pragmatic and inspired by a thoroughgoing individualism” and “is severely censured” by the Church (CA 8)." 

 

Edited November 9, 2015 by TotusTuusMaria

[Era Might]

The question assumes that the person is in a position to start their own business. Isn't that the defining privilege of the capitalist, he has the capital to get others to make the capital productive. That's precisely what makes someone "working class," no privileged access to capital, and so must sell their labor for the interests of others. Even if a person does get the capital and start their own business, that doesn't solve the problem of inequality in labor (i.e., that the working classes are in a dependent position and, unless they act collectively to make demands, are at the mercy of the employer).

Sorry, I've been reading 19th century socialist philosophy, so it's on my mind.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im pretty familiar overall with catholic social teaching but have never seen those "family wages" quotes. it's at odds with another pope who said something more of an individual is the focus....

"wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."

[Nihil Obstat]

im pretty familiar overall with catholic social teaching but have never seen those "family wages" quotes. it's at odds with another pope who said something more of an individual is the focus....

"wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."

Depending on when that was said, it was quite likely just assumed that a wage-earner is also the head of a household, supporting a wife and children.

[TotusTuusMaria]

im pretty familiar overall with catholic social teaching but have never seen those "family wages" quotes. it's at odds with another pope who said something more of an individual is the focus....

"wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner."

In Catholic Social Teaching the common good is always greater than the individual. 

The individual does not lose his dignity or great worth and is deserving of private property and a proper environment worthy of his dignity, but in the hierarchy of things... the common good is higher. But, it is higher in part because of the great dignity of the individual. 

[TotusTuusMaria]

The question assumes that the person is in a position to start their own business. Isn't that the defining privilege of the capitalist, he has the capital to get others to make the capital productive. That's precisely what makes someone "working class," no privileged access to capital, and so must sell their labor for the interests of others. Even if a person does get the capital and start their own business, that doesn't solve the problem of inequality in labor (i.e., that the working classes are in a dependent position and, unless they act collectively to make demands, are at the mercy of the employer).

Sorry, I've been reading 19th century socialist philosophy, so it's on my mind.

The Compendium for Catholic Social Doctrine recognizes that the worker has just claims and obstacles in the face of the problem of the exploitation of workers but also that there exists "ideological manipulation" by socialists and communists towards those workers and their claims.

"Work is the 'essential key' to the whole social question and is the condition not only for economic development but also for the cultural and moral development of persons, the family, society, and the entire human race" (CCSD, 269). All of humanity was given the dominion mandate. We were all created to be part of the "working-class," and that work holds great dignity for us. It is a privilege to be able to work. 

"Human work has a twofold significance: objective and subjective. In the objective sense, it is the sum of activities, resources, instruments and technologies used by men and women to produce things, to exercise dominion over the earth, in the words of the Book of Genesis. In the subjective sense, work is the activity of the human person as a dynamic being capable of performing a variety of actions that are part of the work process and that correspond to his personal vocation: 'Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the ‘image of God’ he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to selfrealization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work'" (CCSD, 270)

And, anyone who starts their own business is naive to think that it will be successful without them working harder than any employee that they have on their team.  In our country today it is simply a matter of willing it, working for it, and grace to start a business. This whole idea of inherited income or idk what being what entrepreneurs start companies off of is not true in my experience. My friends who are entrepreneurs have taken out loans, been rejected by tens of dozens of angel investors before they found the one (OPM), and/or worked several jobs for years saving for their capital. Any person could do what they do but not many people have what they have (and its not money... it is something all have potential for)... an idea, the fortitude, perseverance in the face of continued failure, and will. 

The inequality in labor can go both ways, and this constant pitting against one and the other is what leads to division within a business and the breakdown of that business and even a society. Both must be respected for their roles in providing for the common good, and both must keep in mind that the end of work is man, no matter how monotonous or alienating the work might be... its end is always the very being that is working... man. And, the common good is the greatest good. Greater than the business, greater than self... If we keep this in mind then there is respect, team-work, and great opportunity for prosperity and a foreshadowing of happiness. 

 

 

Edited November 10, 2015 by TotusTuusMaria

[Era Might]

The Compendium for Catholic Social Doctrine recognizes that the worker has just claims and obstacles in the face of the problem of the exploitation of workers but also that there exists "ideological manipulation" by socialists and communists towards those workers and their claims.

"Work is the 'essential key' to the whole social question and is the condition not only for economic development but also for the cultural and moral development of persons, the family, society, and the entire human race" (CCSD, 269). All of humanity was given the dominion mandate. We were all created to be part of the "working-class," and that work holds great dignity for us. It is a privilege to be able to work. 

"Human work has a twofold significance: objective and subjective. In the objective sense, it is the sum of activities, resources, instruments and technologies used by men and women to produce things, to exercise dominion over the earth, in the words of the Book of Genesis. In the subjective sense, work is the activity of the human person as a dynamic being capable of performing a variety of actions that are part of the work process and that correspond to his personal vocation: 'Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the ‘image of God’ he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to selfrealization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work'" (CCSD, 270)

And, anyone who starts their own business is naive to think that it will be successful without them working harder than any employee that they have on their team.  In our country today it is simply a matter of willing it, working for it, and grace to start a business. This whole idea of inherited income or idk what being what entrepreneurs start companies off of is not true in my experience. My friends who are entrepreneurs have taken out loans, been rejected by tens of dozens of angel investors before they found the one (OPM), and/or worked several jobs for years saving for their capital. Any person could do what they do but not many people have what they have (and its not money... it is something all have potential for)... an idea, the fortitude, perseverance in the face of continued failure, and will. 

The inequality in labor can go both ways, and this constant pitting against one and the other is what leads to division within a business and the breakdown of that business and even a society. Both must be respected for their roles in providing for the common good, and both must keep in mind that the end of work is man, no matter how monotonous or alienating the work might be... its end is always the very being that is working... man. And, the common good is the greatest good. Greater than the business, greater than self... If we keep this in mind then there is respect, team-work, and great opportunity for prosperity and a foreshadowing of happiness. 

 

Regardless of whether a person who owns a business "works harder" than anyone else (which is subjective, they may do different work than laborers, but all are still workers and working hard), I don't agree with that quote, that we are all created to be part of the "working-class," otherwise it wouldn't be a class. But I do agree that anyone in a business is a just another worker...just because a capitalist owner works doesn't make him part of the working-class. I also disagree with the idea that what separates capitalists and workers is just willpower. What separates them is economic and social reality. Even if everyone had all the willpower and the world, as long as there is a system of class, where there is one class that benefits from the labor of many, and many who work for the benefit of a minority, then that is a system of power and exploitation, or more benignly, an unequal system where the working class is dependent on the owning class. It doesn't solve the problem for the working class to have dreams of becoming the owning and ruling class, because that simply means they want to switch places with their rulers (an implicit recognition of the unequal position).

If it's true that all in a business are workers, then all are owners, too...which is the point of socialism, that the majority should not serve the interests of the minority, but the common good should be directed by everyone involved. I think this is just as important when it comes to the  management class. The idea that we need managers to do things efficiently and productively is wrongheaded IMO. Managers are good for fitting people into the interests of the bosses and rulers...by focusing them on one task, whatever. Management only prevents people from actually putting their talents and interests to work in a company, because it's not good for the rulers to have people actually doing what they're good at...the people have to do what they're told to do.

Capital is not a mystery, and not merely economic. Capital does reproduce itself...that's its essential function. If your family knows how to navigate the world of universities, you're going to pass on that capital to your children. If you have political connections, your kids will benefit from that capital. That has nothing to do with work...if people are working in a business, then all should have an interest in that business, and that's impossible when the business is owned or ruled by capitalists and managers. It's the same principle of political democracy...when it becomes a system of politicians, then the people just become servants to the will of politicians. The power is in the people...sure, politicians "work hard," but that doesn't justify any special claim to power. They are merely figureheads, nothing more, and as Thoreau said, the purpose of all government is to make all government irrelevant (of course, anarchists would argue that you can't make government irrelevant with government).

[Socrates]

There are some logical problems with your argument.  Thing is I don't have the energy right now. If you operate a company with a policy of wage discrimination against employees based on marital status I  suggest you consider a legal retainer. 

 One thing I will do for your benefit,  and for the benefit of anyone reading,  is point out the gross oversight in the education of women who "don't have a historical reference" for women being let go, being  denied wage increases or promotions etc.  because it was assumed as women they did not need a job and/or  money as much as men.  Pardon me,  but good freaking grief.  

For a starting point,  look into the shifts in the labor force following the end of ww2. As a starting point. 

 

If employers want to take into account their employee's family needs when compensating them, that is a good and noble thing, and it's not the place of the government to tell them not to.  

I'm not saying they should be required by law to do so either, but government should just butt out and stop trying to micromanage everyone's affairs.