What do you think?
Rate this book
Economic Justice: Selections from Distributive Justice and a Living Wage
During the first half of the twentieth century, John A. Ryan developed and promoted moral arguments for reforming the economy of the United States. He was an advocate of minimum wage legislation and child labor restrictions, and he was very much involved in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Closely connected with lawmakers, Ryan's influence has been extensive in American public policy. This volume brings to readers pertinent selections from Ryan's classic works. It will be particularly relevant to today's readers concerned about the place of religious faith in economic policy. The Library of Theological Ethics series focuses on what it means to think theologically and ethically. It presents a selection of important and otherwise unavailable texts in easily accessible form. Volumes in this series will enable sustained dialogue with predecessors though reflection on classic works in the field.
208 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1996
26 people want to read
About the author
John Augustine Ryan
61 books3 followersJohn Augustine Ryan was a Catholic priest, professor, moral theologian, advocate of social justice and author.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 17, 2023
A FINE EDITION OF THE CATHOLIC WRITER’S MAJOR WORKS
Editor Harlan R. Beckley wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “John Augustine Ryan developed and promoted moral arguments for reforming the economy of the United States throughout much of the first half of the twentieth century. He published his first book, ‘A Living Wage,’ in 1906 and his last article, ‘Roosevelt and Social Justice,’ in 1945. Although he never gained the national recognition granted leaders of the Social Gospel Christian realism. Ryan’s career overlapped all of Walter Rauschenbusch’s leadership as the foremost proponent of the Social Gospel, as well as much of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realist criticism of the Social Gospel and the American economic system. Virtually ignored by his Protestant contemporaries, Ryan’s primary influence was among Roman Catholics and within the Roosevelt Administration. He was much more closely connected with the makers of national economic policy then was either Rauschenbusch or Niebuhr.” (Pg. ix)
Ryan explained in his Preface to ‘Distributive Justice,’ “In the preface to the first edition of this book, I attributed to ‘the majority of the American people’ the opinion that ‘the first cause of industrial unrest is unjust distribution of wealth and income,’ but added that there exists no general agreement concerning ‘the precise nature and extent of the injustice.’ These propositions are still true. The necessity still remains of reforming the bad distribution through a better understanding of its nature and causes. The aim and method of the present edition are… ‘to discuss systematically and comprehensively the justice of the processes by which the product of industry is distributed.’” (Pg. 3)
He stated in the Introduction, “Distributive justice is primarily a problem of incomes rather than of possessions… It deals with the morality of such possessions only indirectly and under one aspect: that is, in so far as they have been acquired through income. Moreover, it deals only with those incomes that are derived from participation in production. For example, it considers the laborer’s wages, but not the subsidies that he may receive through charity or friendship. Its province is not the distribution of all the goods of the country among all the people of the country, but only the distribution of the products of industry among the classes that have taken part in making them.” (Pg. 5)
He asserts, “interest cannot be conclusively justified on the ground of either productivity or service. It is impossible to demonstrate that the capitalist has a strict right to interest because his capital produces interest, or because it renders a service to the laborer or the consumer. A part, probably a small part, of the interest not received can be fairly justified by the title of sacrifice. Some present owners of capital would not have saved had they not expected to receive interest. In their case interest may be regarded as a just compensation for the sacrifice that they underwent when they decided to save instead of consume.” (Pg. 53)
He clarifies, “To the assertion that profits are immoral, a sufficient reply at this time is that Socialism has already ben shown to be impracticable and inequitable. Consequently the system of private industry is essentially just, and profits, being a necessary element of the system, are essentially legitimate. The question of their morality is one of degree not of kind. It will be considered under two principle heads: The right of the business man to obtain indefinitely large profits; and his right to a certain minimum of profits.” (Pg. 76)
He says, “While the formula of needs must be flatly rejected as a complete rule of distributive justice, or of wage justice, it is valid and indispensable as a partial standard. It is a partial measure of justice in two senses: First, inasmuch as it is consistent with the admission and operation of other principles , such as productivity and sacrifice; second, inasmuch as it can be restricted to certain fundamental requisites of life, instead of being applied to all possible human needs. It can be made to safeguard the minimum demands of reasonable life, and therefore to function as a minimum standard of wage justice.” (Pg 112-113)
He explains, “A living wage for all workers is merely the MINIMUM measure of just remuneration. It is not in every case complete justice. Possibly it is not the full measure of justice in any case? … The problem of complete wage justice can be conveniently and logically considered in four distinct relations, as regards: The respective claims of the different classes of laborers to a given amount of money available for wage payments; the claims of the whole body of laborers, or any group thereof, to higher wages at the expense of profits; at the expense of interest; and at the expense of the consumer.” (Pg. 126)
He begins his ‘Living Wage’ essay, “The thesis to be maintained in this volume is that the laborer’s claim to a Living Wage is of the nature of a RIGHT. This right is personal, not merely social… it belongs to the individual as individual, and not as member of society; it is the laborer’s personal prerogative, not his share of the social good; and its primary end is the welfare of the laborer, not that of society. Again, it is a natural, not a positive right; for it is born with the individual, derived from his rational nature, not conferred upon him by a positive enactment. In brief, the right to a Living Wage is individual, natural and absolute.” (Pg. 161)
This book will interest those studying Catholic Social Justice thought.
Editor Harlan R. Beckley wrote in the Introduction to this 1996 book, “John Augustine Ryan developed and promoted moral arguments for reforming the economy of the United States throughout much of the first half of the twentieth century. He published his first book, ‘A Living Wage,’ in 1906 and his last article, ‘Roosevelt and Social Justice,’ in 1945. Although he never gained the national recognition granted leaders of the Social Gospel Christian realism. Ryan’s career overlapped all of Walter Rauschenbusch’s leadership as the foremost proponent of the Social Gospel, as well as much of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realist criticism of the Social Gospel and the American economic system. Virtually ignored by his Protestant contemporaries, Ryan’s primary influence was among Roman Catholics and within the Roosevelt Administration. He was much more closely connected with the makers of national economic policy then was either Rauschenbusch or Niebuhr.” (Pg. ix)
Ryan explained in his Preface to ‘Distributive Justice,’ “In the preface to the first edition of this book, I attributed to ‘the majority of the American people’ the opinion that ‘the first cause of industrial unrest is unjust distribution of wealth and income,’ but added that there exists no general agreement concerning ‘the precise nature and extent of the injustice.’ These propositions are still true. The necessity still remains of reforming the bad distribution through a better understanding of its nature and causes. The aim and method of the present edition are… ‘to discuss systematically and comprehensively the justice of the processes by which the product of industry is distributed.’” (Pg. 3)
He stated in the Introduction, “Distributive justice is primarily a problem of incomes rather than of possessions… It deals with the morality of such possessions only indirectly and under one aspect: that is, in so far as they have been acquired through income. Moreover, it deals only with those incomes that are derived from participation in production. For example, it considers the laborer’s wages, but not the subsidies that he may receive through charity or friendship. Its province is not the distribution of all the goods of the country among all the people of the country, but only the distribution of the products of industry among the classes that have taken part in making them.” (Pg. 5)
He asserts, “interest cannot be conclusively justified on the ground of either productivity or service. It is impossible to demonstrate that the capitalist has a strict right to interest because his capital produces interest, or because it renders a service to the laborer or the consumer. A part, probably a small part, of the interest not received can be fairly justified by the title of sacrifice. Some present owners of capital would not have saved had they not expected to receive interest. In their case interest may be regarded as a just compensation for the sacrifice that they underwent when they decided to save instead of consume.” (Pg. 53)
He clarifies, “To the assertion that profits are immoral, a sufficient reply at this time is that Socialism has already ben shown to be impracticable and inequitable. Consequently the system of private industry is essentially just, and profits, being a necessary element of the system, are essentially legitimate. The question of their morality is one of degree not of kind. It will be considered under two principle heads: The right of the business man to obtain indefinitely large profits; and his right to a certain minimum of profits.” (Pg. 76)
He says, “While the formula of needs must be flatly rejected as a complete rule of distributive justice, or of wage justice, it is valid and indispensable as a partial standard. It is a partial measure of justice in two senses: First, inasmuch as it is consistent with the admission and operation of other principles , such as productivity and sacrifice; second, inasmuch as it can be restricted to certain fundamental requisites of life, instead of being applied to all possible human needs. It can be made to safeguard the minimum demands of reasonable life, and therefore to function as a minimum standard of wage justice.” (Pg 112-113)
He explains, “A living wage for all workers is merely the MINIMUM measure of just remuneration. It is not in every case complete justice. Possibly it is not the full measure of justice in any case? … The problem of complete wage justice can be conveniently and logically considered in four distinct relations, as regards: The respective claims of the different classes of laborers to a given amount of money available for wage payments; the claims of the whole body of laborers, or any group thereof, to higher wages at the expense of profits; at the expense of interest; and at the expense of the consumer.” (Pg. 126)
He begins his ‘Living Wage’ essay, “The thesis to be maintained in this volume is that the laborer’s claim to a Living Wage is of the nature of a RIGHT. This right is personal, not merely social… it belongs to the individual as individual, and not as member of society; it is the laborer’s personal prerogative, not his share of the social good; and its primary end is the welfare of the laborer, not that of society. Again, it is a natural, not a positive right; for it is born with the individual, derived from his rational nature, not conferred upon him by a positive enactment. In brief, the right to a Living Wage is individual, natural and absolute.” (Pg. 161)
This book will interest those studying Catholic Social Justice thought.
Displaying 1 of 1 review