Concern for economic justice often leads to calls for increases in the wages of poor workers. We have argued that such calls are misguided and are likely to create an economic system that is less just than would be the case if market-determined wages prevailed. As shown in the first section, some strands of Catholic social thought argue that the just wage is the wage agreed to by employers and employees in open markets. At a more practical level, we have shown that both economic theory and considerable empirical analysis show that wages set above market-clearing wages have adverse effects on the least-skilled workers in a society.

Further, we have seen that the return to job experience tends to be substantial; so, the initially low wages received by a low-skilled worker increase as the worker acquires human capital through job experience. By foreclosing the low-skilled worker from obtaining job experience, increases in the minimum wage prevent the person from obtaining a higher paying job when older. The impact of a living wage would fall hardest on the least-skilled workers and would reduce their long-term opportunities for higher wages.

While the focus of empirical literature has been young workers, we have also presented evidence that the adverse effects of minimum wages apply to older, low-skilled workers, as well. Further, minimum-wage laws affect the decision of whether to obtain more education. Again, the impact of this decision is more likely to be negative for young people from poorer families. The opportunity for part-time employment enhances the possibilities for young people to obtain more education. Part-time employment also permits one spouse to obtain additional funds without having to commit to full-time employment and the adjustments in family life that full-time employment requires. Flexibility in labor markets enhances the opportunities for many individuals and households. Modern economies are dynamic. Thus, a more dynamic approach to economic justice is needed to prevent well-intentioned proposals from harming many of the people whom the proposals are meant to help.

Finally, we encourage Christian scholars—both theologians and economists—to actively pursue answers to three questions: (1) How can justice be understood as a dynamic process? (2) How (and in what domains) do markets serve the cause of justice? (3) How can the unique processes and limitations of markets, governments, and intermediary institutions be harnessed to provide real help for the poor?

Christian scholars do well to remember Jesus’ realistic assessment that, “The poor you always have with you” (John 12:8). They should also recall the Old Testament passage from which Jesus was quoting, which adds, “Therefore I command you, You shall open wide your hand to the brother, to the needy and to the poor, in the land” (Deut. 15:11). In light of this, scholars might take special note of Old Testament provisions for the Jubilee that focused especially on ending long-term, intergenerational poverty.

We believe that it is not the particular means used—that is, redistribution of land—but the need for a dynamic focus on poverty relief that calls for reflection.