Bainbridge on Minimum Wage, Again

I missed this when it came out, but last week Prof. Bainbridge responded to my post responding to his post questioning whether the minimum wage was consistent with Catholic teachings on the just wage, which seemed to require an individualized assessment of the just wage in any given context.

In his most recent post, he takes issue with my reliance on Economic Justice for All, arguing that (1) it is not authoritative as such because it was undermined by Centesimus Annus (per Neuhaus) and (2) its teachings on the minimum wage are no more than prudential judgments, entitled to less respect than statements of principle.

On (1), I, for one, find Neuhaus's readings of CA to be fairly unconvincing.  But no matter, because I don't think I need to defend the authority of EJFA to make my point.   

On (2), I think Prof. Bainbridge is missing my point, mostly because I did not make it all that clear in my post.  Prof. Bainbridge is looking for an authoritative statement that support for the minimum wage (or the minimum wage increase) is mandatory in the same way that opposition to laws permitting abortion is mandatory (that is, at all times and places).  I agree with him that there is no such statement, as there are with abortion and euthanasia.  Such a statement would be fairly silly, because different societies will have different ways of guaranteeing that a worker receives a just wage.  In a society with a government-guaranteed basic wage, social insurance, public education (or vouchers), a strong labor movement, and universal health care, for example, there would be no need for a minimum wage law at all.

But I take issue with the premise of his argument that the only way someone can fall out of step with the Catholic social tradition is by failing to follow a clearly articulated rule.  It's just not that easy.  Sometimes, the Church says:  "Do X & Y." (e.g., Support laws prohibiting abortion and oppose laws legalizing it.)  Other times, it says, "Apply principles X & Y."

What we have in this area, however, are principles at work in the Church's authoritative teachings on the economy, including the American bishops' discussion of the minimum wage.  (I wouldn't really expect the Vatican to discuss in detail an economic policy so specific to the American experience.)  Among others, those principles are that (1) the unfettered market is not an adequate mechanism to guarantee economic justice to workers; (2) the state has an obligation to foster such justice by monitoring and regulating the operation of the market, provided that it does not trample on subsidiary entities capable of doing the same job; and (3) that in formulating its policy responses to the market, we must focus on the well being of the worst off.  (I'm going to dispense with citations for these principles, because I think they're uncontroversial, but I'm happy to supply them on demand.)

The question in the area of the minimum wage is not whether opponents are breaking any rules set out by the Church's authoritative teaching, but whether they're applying the right principles (the three I've mentioned, among others) or some other principle (e.g., "Maximize aggregate utility." or, perhaps, "Do what's in the best interests of your supporters in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.")  I think I agree with Prof. Bainbridge that it's impossible to tell the answer to this question just from looking at someone's position on the minimum wage in isolation.  But bringing the operative principles into dialog with the precise constellation of economic policies in place and on the table for discussion in our society -- including a nearly exclusive reliance on wages for the employed working class to get the resources they need, along with a weak labor movement -- I find it very difficult to reconcile opposition to the minimum wage as such with the principles I've mentioned (I'm not talking yet here about the decision to raise the minimum wage, which -- I agree with Prof. Bainbridge -- is a question one step more removed).  And that is why, I think, notwithstanding CA, the Catholic bishops continue to unqualifiedly support the minimum wage (and demand its increase), as Prof. Bainbridge observes in his post.  I think someone who would favor reliance on an unregulated market for wages (that is, someone who would oppose the minimum wage) cannot plausibly claim consistency with the aforementioned principles unless he at least proposes and works for the implementation of alternative policies to guarantee that workers receive the material resources to which they're entitled.

For what it's worth, I think the same goes for increases in the minimum wage, but I agree that that argument introduces a number of other considerations.  There's little doubt that, by itself, the current federal minimum wage is not a "just wage," as that term has been defined within CST (except perhaps for those teenagers Prof. Bainbridge discussed in his original post).  From what I've read, a nontrivial number of American working families are dependent upon the minimum wage (or upon wages that are just above the minimum wage and probably tied to the minimum wage, at least indirectly).  But if that is the case, raising the minimum wage seems like one obvious way to remedy the problem.  If, however, you think that raising the minimum wage would do more harm than good (e.g., due to effects on employment), as opponents to the increase claim, that does not let you off the hook within Catholic economic teaching.  To plausibly claim consistency with the principles at work in this area, you must come forward with your own policy prescriptions for guaranteeing that the poorest workers receive a just wage that does not involve reliance on the market to sort it all out.  As far as I can tell, no such proposals have been forthcoming from opponents of the minimum wage increase.