We’re still
reeling in disbelief here at CESJ global headquarters . . . and we’re almost
out of fish line. And as for the pole .
. . well, we’re talking to him next week, and we’ll see what he has to say. But enough of bad fake Marx Brothers jokes. On to the point of today’s Horror Special . .
. the wage system!
In The Cocoanuts, a comedy about land
speculation in Florida during the land boom of the 1920s, Groucho plays the man
in charge of a hotel . . . who is not paying his workers. Instantly, Groucho is in top form as the
fast-talking, slow-paying, semi-lovable scalawag (funny to watch, not so funny
to be watched) who has to convince his employees that they don’t really want to
be paid, do they? They don’t want to be
wage slaves, do they? And what makes wage slaves? Why, wages, of course! Groucho won’t enslave you to wages because he
won’t pay you any!
Of course, that
being said (if you could keep up with it, that is), what really makes wage
slaves is being without capital ownership in any significant degree. With capital carrying out most production
these days, and the market rate of wages declining in value relative to the
cost of capital, what locks people into the wage system in which most people
get the bulk of their income from wages is lack of access to capital credit,
not the wages, per se.
Does that mean we
are against wages?
 |
| G.K. Chesterton |
Hardly. A just wage is mandatory in any system. Non-owning labor must be compensated fairly;
we have never said anything different.
In common with such luminaries as Karl Marx, Dorothy Day, G.K.
Chesterton, and Pope Leo XIII, we call for the abolition of the wage system,
not the abolition of wages.
Where we differ
from the usual run of social justice advocates (many of which may not be
entirely clear on what constitutes “social justice” . . .) is how we define a
just wage. In keeping with the general
rules laid down by, e.g., Thomas
Aquinas, we define the just wage as the rate determined by the free market.
Having said that,
however, confusion sets in. Is the free market
rate of labor the sole determinant of a just wage? Ordinarily, yes. Given equality of bargaining position, full
knowledge, and so on — free market, remember? — the market rate of labor will
approach true justice. As Pope Leo XIII
explained, “Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in
particular let them agree freely as to the wages.” (Rerum
Novarum, § 45.)
What about the
exceptions, however? What happens when the
free market rate is insufficient for the worker to meet ordinary expenses, or something
interferes with the free market in labor, e.g.,
when the propertyless laborer is forced to take less than justice demands
simply because he is in a bad bargaining position? Leo XIII addressed that, too:
 |
| Pope Leo XIII |
[T]here underlies a dictate of natural justice more
imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages
ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner.
If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder
conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is
made the victim of force and injustice. In these and similar questions, however
— such as, for example, the hours of labor in different trades, the sanitary
precautions to be observed in factories and workshops, etc. — in order to supersede undue interference on the part of the
State, especially as circumstances, times, and localities differ so widely, it
is advisable that recourse be had to societies or boards such as We shall
mention presently, or to some other mode of safeguarding the interests of the
wage-earners; the State being appealed to, should circumstances require, for
its sanction and protection. (Ibid.)
Thus, when strict
— that is, commutative — justice is insufficient, something else must be added,
as commanded by “a dictate of natural justice.”
This creates a
seeming paradox, however. If strict
justice is violated by interfering in free agreements, how is it possible to
call what results “a dictate of natural justice”?
Very simple,
actually. Charity is the soul of
justice, completing mere justice and bringing it into conformity with nature: “natural
justice.” Thus, where in strict justice
an employer owes his workers only the free market rate, in natural justice he
owes them strict justice completed and fulfilled by charity.
Not surprising,
this is precisely what Pope Pius XI said should be the guide for determining a
naturally just wage. As he explained in Quadragesimo Anno,
 |
| Pope Pius XI |
Let, then, both workers and employers
strive with united strength and counsel to overcome the difficulties and
obstacles and let a wise provision on the part of public authority aid them in
so salutary a work. If, however, matters come to an extreme crisis, it must be
finally considered whether the business can continue or the workers are to be
cared for in some other way. In such a situation, certainly most serious, a
feeling of close relationship and a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail
and function effectively among employers and workers. (§ 73.)
Since the present system of economy is
founded chiefly upon ownership and labor, the principles of right reason, that
is, of Christian social philosophy, must be kept in mind regarding ownership
and labor and their association together, and must be put into actual practice.
First, so as to avoid the reefs of individualism and collectivism. the twofold
character, that is individual and social, both of capital or ownership and of
work or labor must be given due and rightful weight. Relations of one to the
other must be made to conform to the laws of strictest justice — commutative
justice, as it is called — with the support, however, of Christian charity. (§
110.)
The calculation
of a naturally just wage is thus very simple, at least in theory. First, whatever the free market rate happens
to be in strict justice. If that is
insufficient, enough should be added in charity to ensure that the worker is
able to meet ordinary expenses adequately, thereby fulfilling and completing
the requirements of natural justice, that is, justice completed and fulfilled
by charity.
But does it end
there? By no means. There is a serious problem with paying
workers more than the free market rate of wages. It increases costs to the consumer (who is
usually the worker under another hat), and builds an entitlement mentality.
And the popes
recognized this problem. As Pius XI
noted especially, what he said about the just wage applied in the current state
of society, not the reformed and restructured society that was his goal. As he said, “the present system of economy is founded
chiefly upon ownership and labor” [emphasis added], he necessarily implied
different rules apply when the economy is more justly arranged, and workers
(and everybody else) can gain income from both labor and capital. As Leo XIII had already pointed out, that would be a more just system:
 |
| People pay most attention to what they own. |
Many excellent results will follow from this; and,
first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided. For, the
result of civil change and revolution has been to divide cities into two
classes separated by a wide chasm. On the one side there is the party which
holds power because it holds wealth; which has in its grasp the whole of labor
and trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the
sources of supply, and which is not without influence even in the
administration of the commonwealth. On the other side there is the needy and
powerless multitude, sick and sore in spirit and ever ready for disturbance. If
working people can be encouraged to look forward to obtaining a share in the
land, the consequence will be that the gulf between vast wealth and sheer
poverty will be bridged over, and the respective classes will be brought nearer
to one another. A further consequence will result in the great abundance of the
fruits of the earth. Men always work harder and more readily when they work on
that which belongs to them; nay, they learn to love the very soil that yields
in response to the labor of their hands, not only food to eat, but an abundance
of good things for themselves and those that are dear to them. That such a
spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth
of the community is self evident. And a third advantage would spring from this:
men would cling to the country in which they were born, for no one would
exchange his country for a foreign land if his own afforded him the means of
living a decent and happy life. These three important benefits, however, can be
reckoned on only provided that a man's means be not drained and exhausted by
excessive taxation. The right to possess private property is derived from
nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the
interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether.
The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it
were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair. (Rerum Novarum, § 47.)
And how to bring
about this state of affairs? Capital Homesteading
suggests one way.
#30#
