Inclusion at church

Ruth at Wheelie Catholic lays it all out: Why everyone ought to be included in parish life, and how to make it happen.

I’ve edited my initial reaction. Too grumpy. What I was actually trying to say:

I agree entirely with Ruth. I also think there is a deeper problem with the way our church communities are built. The difficulties facing disabled catholics are in many ways just part of a larger problem. (Well, several larger problems — Ruth has since written about “fighting to get out the front door”. But at least some of the issues disabled catholics deal with, other folks are suffering from, too.)

Also it should be observed that no one intends it to be this way — many people are working very hard to build up their parish community, and they deserve a lot of credit for their efforts.

And I’m going to stop there, lest I lapse back into my grumpiness, which won’t do anybody any good. My sympathy if you subject to the original rant.

Darwin Catholic has a good little observation.  Read “No Visible Means of Support” here. If you watched the Lord of the Rings or the Narnia films, go take a look for sure.  Also good for general economics and historical-fiction / fantasy geeks.

The Living Wage: Is something better than nothing? – from my old blog

2nd in the series, again just for background. Originally posted august 18, 2007:

A common justification for not paying workers a living wage goes something like this: “If I didn’t hire these people, they would be unemployed. It is better for them to have something, even if it is not an ideal wage, than to have nothing at all.”

I didn’t see any treatment of the “something is better than nothing” argument in the Catechism; the Church is emphatic about the need to pay workers a living wage. The Catechism does list several factors that employers must take into account when setting wages, and one of those is the “state of the business” (CCC 2434).

There are situations in which the state of the business might not allow employers to pay a living wage. Imagine, for example, if our family farm (previous post) were to suffer a dust bowl or a depression. The farm operates at a loss; even the owners are living on less than they need. Certainly in that scenario, the owners are not guilty of any injustice if they are unable to pay their workers a living wage — they cannot pay themselves a living wage!

But one cannot use the “state of the business” clause to justify paying inadequate wages under “business as usual” conditions. When the farm recovers from this temporary calamity, or the various workers find some other more profitable line of work, it is understood that the return to normalcy includes all workers earning a living wage.

This is a radical way of thinking for corporate America (and corporate elsewhere), where the market price is considered the acceptable wage under all conditions. There are many firms today which are reporting profits to shareholders, and paying sizable salaries to management, but which are not paying all workers a living wage.

The church tells us this is not acceptable. To say that a company which acts this way is “building the economies of the developing world” would be like saying that a parent who indulges himself while feeding his child concentration-camp rations is “helping his child grow”.

I think the Church is asking us to do something that is both radically big and very very small.

To pay a living wage, even if that wage is higher than the going market rate, is a big change. It costs. It means a company cannot rely on the investment capital of those whose idea of “normal” is to pay workers as little as possible in order to maximize profits, no matter how little those wages are. It likely means owners and managers must sacrifice some of their own salary in order to ensure all workers can earn a living.

On the other hand, making sure your workers can have food and shelter and clothing — how much is that too ask? Would you consider it unreasonable to ask your own employer for enough of a salary to provide for your basic needs? The moral mandate of the living wage boils down to common decency.

Under normal business conditions, the “something is better than nothing” argument is deceitful and cruel. It is an excuse to take advantage of other people’s vulnerability and poor bargaining power, in order to grow rich at their expense. Is it hard to pay a living wage? In a time and a place when the wider culture says it is normal not to pay one, yes, it is hard to go against that practice. But it isn’t meant to be. The living wage ought to be business-as-usual.

The Living Wage: An example to illustrate the concept – from my old blog

Originally posted on my old blog, August 8, 2007:

I find it easier to understand economic (and accounting) concepts by beginning with small — though realistic — scenarios. So here I am opening with a possible living wage scenario, but an intentionally uncomplicated one.

Also, I am at this time making no prescriptions. So nobody get huffy and tell me that I don’t understand the implications of minimum wage laws or what is wrong with our welfare system or any of that. If you must know, my personal opinion is that the living wage issue is far more pressing in certain other countries than it is in the United States. We have social justice problems here, of that I am sure. But primarily they are, in my opinion, of a somewhat different (though related) type.

But today, living wage. And just an introduction to what it seems to be about. That’s all. If it isn’t helpful, other people might have something more useful to you elsewhere.

****

Imagine you own a farm. Some of your produce directly feeds your family, and then you sell your excess crops to purchase those things you don’t make yourself. In addition to yourself and your family members, you employ some hired hands to assist you in the work. It’s going well — you and your family have all that you need and enjoy a few extras as well. You consider yourself a successful farmer.

Now one of your hired hands is a guy named Bob, and he’s an ordinary local guy, a good enough worker. He does work that you need done around the farm — if Bob didn’t do it, someone else would have to do it instead. Bob works hours that everyone agrees are “full time”.

You pay Bob the going wage. You comply with all the relevant laws regarding his employment. Bob is happy — even grateful– to have the job you give him, for the pay you offer. Part of your view of the success of the farm is having good workers like Bob who are happy to work for you.

Now imagine that Bob, who does all that you expect of him, and who earns a wage that everyone agrees is fair, does not make enough money. The wage you pay him is not enough to pay for Bob’s basic needs. We aren’t saying “Bob can’t afford an MP3 player” or “Bob can’t eat steaks every week”. Bob’s wages force him to choose between, say, owning a pair of socks, or having a bowl of beans and rice for dinner — he can have one or the other, but not both. If he manages to have both, it is by the charity of others.

Furthermore, it is not some extraordinary personal expense that is causing this problem. His counterparts on the other local farms all share his plight. As a result they, like Bob, suffer physical loss — the toll of inadequate nutrition, shelter, clothing, and so forth. Some kind of aid program is required in order to supplement the farm workers’ wages so that their basic needs are met.

***

The essence of the catholic social teaching on the living wage is this: You, the farm owner, cannot count yourself as sucessful, if your success depends on someone else’s deprivation.

CCC 2427: “The development of economic activity and growth in production are meant to provide for the needs of human beings”. An economic activity which is pursued without meeting that end simply is not a successful economic activity.

CCC 2434: “Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.” The fact that Bob, and his counterparts elsewhere, agree to the wage, does not mean that you, the farm owner are on solid moral ground.

This doesn’t mean you have to run the farm at a loss. CCC 2432: “Those responsible for business enterprises . . . have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment.”

But what it does mean is that you the owner are wrong to be taking home profits for your own consumption, above and beyond your own legitimate needs, if it means leaving your workers to go without basic necessities as a result.

****

Catholic social teaching is, therefore, radically different than the going assumption in the wider culture, that if it’s legal and mutually consented to, it is acceptable.

The reality is that inadequate wages cause physical harm. Poor nutrition, exposure to the elements, unclean water supplies, all these things lead to disease and death. So if your profit model depends on some of your workers not being able to afford the essentials of life, your profit model depends on literally harming another person. That’s wrong. Even if your workers live far away, and are used to this suffering, and everyone else in their city suffers the same and always has — no, you may not profit off their willingness to suffer.

And I think that’s about the heart of it.

Putting up some background articles

I’m going to post a set of three living-wage articles I wrote last year for my old blog.  My first economic-issues post may refer back to them, so I wanted them here in case it was helpful.  Am going to keep comments closed for now, as I’m still in the blog-building process.

Enjoy.

Welcome to my blog-under-construction

Thanks for coming by!  This blog goes live the first Friday of July, 2008.  I’ll be doing a rotation of once-weekly posts on history, economics, and education — if that interests you, go ahead and bookmark now, and check back in a couple months.

Take care,

Jennifer.