Our previous post ended with a series of questions to guide our further analysis. Let’s begin with the most important one: What is the role of the worker?
What We Already Know
The worker is a human being, lets get that up front. Humans, as humans, have a few areas in their lives which they are worried about. This is essentially Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs but I’m going to put a different spin on it. As I like to do, our Needs can be broken into three broad categories: Mind, Body, and Spirit. Bodily needs, for example, include food, water, shelter, safety, health, etc. Mental needs include education, stimulation, play, leisure, and work. Spiritual needs include community, family, sacraments, self-esteem and what Maslow calls “Self actualization”.
All three of these categories must be met or in progress of being met. I might structure it like a triple-venn-diagram, with “self actualization”[1] in the middle.
If a worker has a family, he has to be concerned about the minds, bodies, and spirits of his spouse and issue as well. His spouse can help with this task, but the issue cannot until they reach a certain age. The dignity of the human person is the idea that every person deserves to preserve and protect the minds, bodies, and spirits entrusted to their care. It would be cruel to intentionally harm any of these, and indeed it’s possible that many people fail to uphold their duties insofar as these needs are concerned. But from the perspective of a third party, an employer for example, they must be concerned foremost about not hindering their employees pursuits as far as these are concerned. Perhaps even aiding, but I will not list this as a responsibility because resources are scarce, sometimes the best we can do is not hinder.
Because we’re talking about workers, lets spend a little more time on Employers. Employers have some responsibilities relative their workers as well, but it’s a looser responsibility. Employers must not hinder their bodily integrity. They must make a reasonable effort to preserve a workers safety; to provide wages for the workers welfare. Employers must not hinder their mental integrity. They must make a reasonable effort to allow time for a workers recreation, education, and, work. Employers must not hinder their Spiritual integrity, they cannot obligate an employee to forego their Sunday duty.
There is one area where the economic schools clash: Wages.
What Do You Wager
There are three schools of thought with wages. Some refer to it as a transaction: Employer needs x done, and is willing to pay z. Employee is capable of doing x, and is willing to accept z. Everyone walks away satisfied at the negotiated rate for x. This is your basic “supply and demand” function.
Others refer to it as a right: Employees cannot subsist on any less than z, and it is inhumane to offer anything less. This introduces a price floor to the supply and demand function. It might work in some cases, but there are many instances where it introduces problems.
My understanding of Distributism, as far as I could gather from ERN, is that Employers should pay what they called a fair wage. It seems to me this splits the difference. Understand the type of employee you hire, and pay them a fair amount to allow them to meet their needs. This is less about the supply and demand curve and more about the role of the employers as caretakers for their employees. Their employees well being is their responsibility, so they ought to pay a fair wage for their employees well being. Employers ought not impoverish themselves in doing so, and employees ought not take it upon themselves to demand more than what might be considered fair. The problem is that fair is a moving target.
All three of these schools of thought cannot be true, though all agree that employees ought to be compensated for their work. Proponents of the first would argue that the price negotiated is fair because all parties agreed to it. Proponents of the second would argue that the wage is fair because it’s established a universal minimum that employers cannot go below. It’s only the final model where the fair wage is not specified and so clearly subjective. Perhaps this is by design: Employers must, with their Christian Conscience, satisfy themselves that their wages are fair.
This is the key element, and the extremely unsatisfying element to economists: Decisions must be guided by Christian Conscience first, and by pragmatic supply and demand second. There is no rule that I could devise here that I could argue is a “fair wage” in all cases.
Get To Work!
This leaves us with a basic understanding of the employee employer relationship. The particulars of that relationship will have to wait until we understand the principles of distributism a little better. We will revisit this!
AMDG
[1] – I’m going to keep using scare quotes because I don’t like the word but I don’t know what to replace it with.
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 