We left off our journey through Pope John XXIII’s letter with an emphasis on balance between individuals and communities, between the principles of Subsidiarity and Solidarity. We pick up this week with the pope noting that science and technology have made is possible for the “public authority” to more directly react to imbalances between branched of the economy or between different regions. Since they have more ability, governments ought to be all the more responsible. Once again, the pope then immediately cautions against excess by teaching that it is “a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of productive activity.” In other words, the increased capabilities of government regulation ought not lead to mass dependence on government or the taking away of individual initiative. He writes that “there can be no such thing as a well-ordered and prosperous society unless individual citizens and the State co-operate in the economy. Both sides must work together in harmony.”
John XXIII turns next to the reality that “millions of workers in many lands” live “in utterly sub-human conditions.” He speculates that this could be from incomplete development. As speculation, that is not an official teaching. He does teach, however, that there is grave injustice when “in some of these lands the enormous wealth and unbridled luxury of the privileged few stands ins violent, offensive contrast to the utter poverty of the vast majority.” There’s also the way that “a notable percentage of income is absorbed in building up an ill-conceived national prestige, and vast sums are spent on armaments.”
As the popes before him, John XXIII also clearly teaches that “the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accord with justice and equity.” This concept of the Just Wage is a center-piece of the Church’s social teaching. People often argue that if both company and worker agree to the wage, then it is fair. The major problem is that this does not account for the massive difference in power between company and worker. A man who is desperate will agree to unfair wages because it is better than nothing. A large company, knowing this desperation and knowing it can find workers elsewhere, can leverage that situation to pressure a worker into accepting an unjust wage. Even though we know such a principle can never be perfectly enforced in every business, the teaching is clear. In the tradition, depriving a worker of a just wage (even if they agree to it) is called a “sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.” Employers and companies should be aware of this and act with knowledge that they will be judged for every contract. When necessary, it is the place of the government to intervene and prevent such abuses from taking place.
An important aspect of this is to remember that the specific numbers involved will vary based on location, circumstances, cost of living, etc. Those with more dependents should be paid more and those with less need less, but no one should be paid less than enough to provide for themselves in their particular circumstances. A flat-rate minimum wage may not be the best way to enforce this (especially when that minimum is set across very different regions and situations), but it is better than nothing. I feel I must stress what is being taught here: it is gravely evil to underpay someone. The argument “it’s a beginner job, they should move up” is not convincing. The most menial of jobs is still work. It is work that must be done by someone. That someone deserves to be paid a living wage because they are human. Their dignity is eternal and rooted in the divine image, but the profit margin of a company means less than nothing to God. A company should strive to be profitable but never at the expense of its workers’ dignity. I think we’ll be surprised at how many people miss heaven not because of lust or pride, but because of this sin.
Turning back to the pope’s own words, he advocates that “workers should be allocated shares” in the company “for which they work, especially when they are paid no more than a minimum wage.” The idea is simple: their work is essential to the company’s success, so they should share in the fruits of that success. Pius XI taught and John XXIII reiterates that property and work should both be valued. Simply owning something does not entitle a person to all the profits because it requires labor to make property fruitful. So both should be valued. We’ll pick up this idea next time.