Not a very theological or philosophical response but wanted to chime in :) I think for me a living wage is one that leaves a person with enough extra time and/or money to enrich their life outside of work with hobbies, a social life, or time to spend with their family. I was thinking about this yesterday as I was working on a sewing project that it feels like even getting to have hobbies has become a total privilege; material is expensive, time is limited, and battling with myself all evening to stay away from my phone and tv. Having the ability to set boundaries with your work and with yourself to preserve your precious extracurricular time is really important I think.
Work to live, not live to work, eh sis?! As a friend of mine said recently, "I try to be so good at my job that I can ask for all the flexibility I need."
But on the other hand, as my brother-in-law says, "If you're not replaceable, you're not promotable!" 😉
I am late to the party but am enjoying the discussion! I think there are two things to be considered, at least in the American economy. First, if the job does not offer reasonable healthcare, the wage would have to be significantly higher to compensate for the lack. Second, the consensus is that in order for housing costs to be considered affordable, the cost should be no more than a third of one's income. So if a job pays three times the median housing cost for its area and offers reasonable healthcare then everything else should likely fall into place. Of course, housing costs are out of control right now and that is a whole other discussion that we could have, but I see this as a good baseline to start with.
I would have to say that defining a Living Wage would have to vary according to the circumstances of living. A Living Wage today would look very different from anything Leo envisioned in 1891. Here and now, in our current US existence, I don't see that anything without a good healthcare plan could be truly considered a Living Wage, for example.
But I do think that Leo lays out good basic principles. In dollar amount, a living wage should cover reasonable living expenses within a 40-hour work week. I'd even push a bit further to say that paid time off should be offered for at minimum certain basic needs: medical appointments, religious holy days, family emergencies, and such.
And, I'd say work should not intrude on personal time. (Emergency situations, Joe is out sick and we need coverage, can be an exception but mostly, no.) Interestingly, I feel that life intruding on work is less of a problem. I think it comes down to the fact that family and outside life are the reason we work and should always be the number one priority. Like with my Diaconate ministry -- it's been made clear to me from the beginning (I believe it's even in Canon Law) that family obligations outweigh ministry when they come into conflict. I guess I feel that work should not outweigh ministry or family in that respect.
Here I'd assumed you changed from Thursday this week because of the Holy Day.
😅🤣 gosh I wish I could take credit for being that good!
Not a very theological or philosophical response but wanted to chime in :) I think for me a living wage is one that leaves a person with enough extra time and/or money to enrich their life outside of work with hobbies, a social life, or time to spend with their family. I was thinking about this yesterday as I was working on a sewing project that it feels like even getting to have hobbies has become a total privilege; material is expensive, time is limited, and battling with myself all evening to stay away from my phone and tv. Having the ability to set boundaries with your work and with yourself to preserve your precious extracurricular time is really important I think.
Work to live, not live to work, eh sis?! As a friend of mine said recently, "I try to be so good at my job that I can ask for all the flexibility I need."
But on the other hand, as my brother-in-law says, "If you're not replaceable, you're not promotable!" 😉
I am late to the party but am enjoying the discussion! I think there are two things to be considered, at least in the American economy. First, if the job does not offer reasonable healthcare, the wage would have to be significantly higher to compensate for the lack. Second, the consensus is that in order for housing costs to be considered affordable, the cost should be no more than a third of one's income. So if a job pays three times the median housing cost for its area and offers reasonable healthcare then everything else should likely fall into place. Of course, housing costs are out of control right now and that is a whole other discussion that we could have, but I see this as a good baseline to start with.
I would have to say that defining a Living Wage would have to vary according to the circumstances of living. A Living Wage today would look very different from anything Leo envisioned in 1891. Here and now, in our current US existence, I don't see that anything without a good healthcare plan could be truly considered a Living Wage, for example.
But I do think that Leo lays out good basic principles. In dollar amount, a living wage should cover reasonable living expenses within a 40-hour work week. I'd even push a bit further to say that paid time off should be offered for at minimum certain basic needs: medical appointments, religious holy days, family emergencies, and such.
And, I'd say work should not intrude on personal time. (Emergency situations, Joe is out sick and we need coverage, can be an exception but mostly, no.) Interestingly, I feel that life intruding on work is less of a problem. I think it comes down to the fact that family and outside life are the reason we work and should always be the number one priority. Like with my Diaconate ministry -- it's been made clear to me from the beginning (I believe it's even in Canon Law) that family obligations outweigh ministry when they come into conflict. I guess I feel that work should not outweigh ministry or family in that respect.