Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Rerum Novarum Part V, Considering the Question of Wages
"43. We now approach a subject of great importance, and one in respect of which, if extremes are to be avoided, right notions are absolutely necessary. Wages, as we are told, are regulated by free consent, and therefore the employer, when he pays what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond. The only way, it is said, in which injustice might occur would be if the master refused to pay the whole of the wages, or if the workman should not complete the work undertaken; in such cases the public authority should intervene, to see that each obtains his due, but not under any other circumstances.
44. To this kind of argument a fair-minded man will not easily or entirely assent; it is not complete, for there are important considerations which it leaves out of account altogether. To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self-preservation. "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread." Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work. "
Kevin Tierney: It would be good for us to consider the relationship between owner and worker before we continue. Let me give two scenarios. I work at Microsoft, I simply put my hours in, get my paycheck, and there really isn't much interaction with my boss, we know very little of each other. The other scenario is I do these same things, but there exists between the boss and the worker a personal relationship. This is not to say the distinctions between me being the employee, and the boss being the boss evaporate. They are still there, but there is a working respect for each other, we know each other, and appreciate each other. Which scenario would one want to work in? Obviously the latter, as you feel you are genuinely part of that company achieving success.
Covering this aspect, we must also take into account that for those working, they are working because they need to make a living. Any agreement between employer and employee that neglects these two facts breeds no real productivity, but injustice. Therefore, it should be a policy for wages to be negoiated upon working at the company, and for the responsibilities with those wages to also be discussed.
"47. 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. "
Kevin Tierney: Outlined here is the fact that rather than truly bring about the utopian societies they once intended, the revolutionairies have polarized society. This is what we see in America today. Rather than taking steps to end the "Two Americas" we see steps taken to really benefit one group or the other. Nowhere is it considered to look at both aspects, and see where both can benefit by those who constantly advocate the "Two americas" story. Many times their answer is simply greater state involvement. The State is geared (by it's very nature) to simply stopping the conflicts, in that it's resources are limited. Therefore, the conflict still boils under the surface, just waiting for the opportunity to rise again. Othertimes it is to punish business, or punish the worker, each plan bringing about the same result, prolonging the inevitable.
Leo's solution is rather than having people frown upon the "wealthy class" give them opportunities to advance into that class. The politics of guilt can bring about no true solution. Simply blaming everything on one class or another doesn't solve anything. Rather, the State should place an emphasis not on taking what people earn, but on letting people keep what they earn. This would allow true advancment between the have's and the have nots, because those who do not have as much, could then keep what they earn, and better utilize it to make a better living for themselves. This of course entails great responsibility, something which also must be stressed in society. All too often, we face two extremes, the fact that the individual puts his rights over that of society, and that of society that puts it's rights over the individual. There must be a give and take of both issues. The society must respect man's right to private property and ownership, while the individual must respect the common good of society. When considering the taxation system, these things should be considered.
"43. We now approach a subject of great importance, and one in respect of which, if extremes are to be avoided, right notions are absolutely necessary. Wages, as we are told, are regulated by free consent, and therefore the employer, when he pays what was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to do anything beyond. The only way, it is said, in which injustice might occur would be if the master refused to pay the whole of the wages, or if the workman should not complete the work undertaken; in such cases the public authority should intervene, to see that each obtains his due, but not under any other circumstances.
44. To this kind of argument a fair-minded man will not easily or entirely assent; it is not complete, for there are important considerations which it leaves out of account altogether. To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self-preservation. "In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread." Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First of all, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey. Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality. The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work. "
Kevin Tierney: It would be good for us to consider the relationship between owner and worker before we continue. Let me give two scenarios. I work at Microsoft, I simply put my hours in, get my paycheck, and there really isn't much interaction with my boss, we know very little of each other. The other scenario is I do these same things, but there exists between the boss and the worker a personal relationship. This is not to say the distinctions between me being the employee, and the boss being the boss evaporate. They are still there, but there is a working respect for each other, we know each other, and appreciate each other. Which scenario would one want to work in? Obviously the latter, as you feel you are genuinely part of that company achieving success.
Covering this aspect, we must also take into account that for those working, they are working because they need to make a living. Any agreement between employer and employee that neglects these two facts breeds no real productivity, but injustice. Therefore, it should be a policy for wages to be negoiated upon working at the company, and for the responsibilities with those wages to also be discussed.
"47. 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. "
Kevin Tierney: Outlined here is the fact that rather than truly bring about the utopian societies they once intended, the revolutionairies have polarized society. This is what we see in America today. Rather than taking steps to end the "Two Americas" we see steps taken to really benefit one group or the other. Nowhere is it considered to look at both aspects, and see where both can benefit by those who constantly advocate the "Two americas" story. Many times their answer is simply greater state involvement. The State is geared (by it's very nature) to simply stopping the conflicts, in that it's resources are limited. Therefore, the conflict still boils under the surface, just waiting for the opportunity to rise again. Othertimes it is to punish business, or punish the worker, each plan bringing about the same result, prolonging the inevitable.
Leo's solution is rather than having people frown upon the "wealthy class" give them opportunities to advance into that class. The politics of guilt can bring about no true solution. Simply blaming everything on one class or another doesn't solve anything. Rather, the State should place an emphasis not on taking what people earn, but on letting people keep what they earn. This would allow true advancment between the have's and the have nots, because those who do not have as much, could then keep what they earn, and better utilize it to make a better living for themselves. This of course entails great responsibility, something which also must be stressed in society. All too often, we face two extremes, the fact that the individual puts his rights over that of society, and that of society that puts it's rights over the individual. There must be a give and take of both issues. The society must respect man's right to private property and ownership, while the individual must respect the common good of society. When considering the taxation system, these things should be considered.
