My good friend Mark Sargent, Dean of the Villanova law school, leading corporate law scholar, and general good guy, sent me an email earlier today following up on my living wage post. Mark brought Catholic social thought's just wage doctrine to bear on the problem. I liked Mark's comments so much that I asked him if I could post his email. He kindly consented; so with no further ado, herewith Dean Sargent on just wages:
The Sanders/Graham exchange on the Santa Monica Living Wage proposal raises questions that are very familiar in the debate in Catholic Social Thought over the concept of the “just wage.” While the concept has its origin in pre-modern notions, it was amplified in the industrial era both in papal encyclicals and the theoretical literature to give weight to the CST concept of the dignity of labor. It is often invoked by modern Catholic theorists and activists in debates over minimum wage policy, and thus may be relevant to the Santa Monica question.
1. At first blush, the CST just wage tradition would seem to support the Living Wage proposal. In fact, it would even seem to refute Prof. Sanders' argument that some consolation can be drawn from the fact that low wages are often paid to people not dependent exclusively on that wage. In the CST tradition, a just wage is one that enables a parent to stay home with the children, which is obviously something that reflects the centrality of the family in Catholic social teaching, particularly under the principle of subsidiarity. Wage policy that undermines family structures can't be a good thing, in the CST view.
2. Upon closer examination, however, the just wage concept is a statement of basic principle that would allow prudential judgment leading to a counterintuitive application of the CST principle. An example of this is my colleague Michele Pistone's argument that traditional CST opposition to "brain drain" emigration of educated elites from developing countries is misguided, because such emigration creates a very significant flowback of financial and human capital to the home country. With respect to the Living Wage question, the argument would be twofold: first, the imposition of such a minimum wage requirement on employers in a local market subject to significant competition from outside that jurisdiction is likely to result in fewer jobs, particularly with employers who are marginal competitors. The less needy also may derive unintended benefits (i.e., tipped employees). That hardly serves the goals of just wage theory. Second, the unworkability of a high minimum wage, however, does not eliminate the social responsibility to develop alternative mechanisms that would put low-income workers into something like the position they would have been in had a just wage have been paid. That alternative mechanism may be the EITC or some other tax change that benefits the poor. The key point is that we can't be simple-minded in arriving at the "just wage"; we need to recognize that the goal may be achieved through a means other than high minimum hourly rates. But we do need to do more about achieving that goal!
3. I draw less comfort than Professor Sanders from the observation that most minimum wage earners are not depending exclusively upon those wages for family support. Many of those families are depending upon two minimum or near-minimum salaries to live. That's not easy, as Barbara Ehrenreich showed so painfully in her well-known field study, Nickel and Dimed. I don't think Professor Sanders intends to dismiss that dilemma (and I am sure he is aware of it), but it's not like hotel maids are the wives of professionals looking for pin money. The problem of two-earner families that can’t make a decent living is a real one, and one of major concern from a CST perspective.
Thanks Mark. I knew I should work just wage theory into the discussion, but I also knew I would only be exposing my ignorance! I'm glad to have provided a forum for Mark's very thoughtful comments.
