My wife just mentioned this to me, and it has me wondering. If the church really wants mothers to stay at home, then why do many full-time church employees seem not to be paid enough to make that happen?
A case in point is one full-time church employee who my wife knows. I’m going to keep the details a bit fuzzy, for privacy reasons. This person works as a skilled laborer in a job position requiring some expertise. He has several years experience in his work, and his job also requires him to supervise other church employees in his field and perform various administrative tasks.
He has a wife and four children, and lives in a mid-sized city in the West. He makes a little over $30,000 per year. To make ends meet, his wife works as well.
We’ve wondered on this blog about what the Proclamation means, about whether women should feel they are able to work outside the home, and so forth. We’ve discussed how we might try to get parents to spend more time with their children and less time in the office.
Whatever our answers to these questions, one thing seems clear to me: if we are serious about our claims — “fathers . . . are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families; Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children” — then the very least that the church should do is provide sufficient salaries to its own full-time male employees (especially those with children) so that their wives do not feel compelled to work for financial reasons. (The same probably applies to its female employees, though there may be counter-arguments based on different readings of the Proclamation).
Now I don’t know the nuances of church pay, and perhaps others can fill me in here. Is there already some sort of support system in place? If so, is it working? Is my wife’s acquaintance an outlier? Or is it the norm for full-time church employees to feel that the husband’s income alone is not enough to support a family?
And if this is the case, then could it be remedied? Would it make sense to give additional pay per child, if the spouse is not working? (Frank, would the economics on that make sense?). (Are there counter-examples? Matt tells me that Seminary teachers are paid more than high school teachers. Why? And why not extend this to laborers, professors, security guards, other full-time employees?).
If the leaders and members of the church are really serious about putting the principles of the Proclamation in place, this seems to be one place where the church could take a big step forward.
For privacy reasons as well I won’t reveal the location for this story, but someone I know was told that Church employees were expected to use the welfare system rather than expecting pay raises.
The obvious issue is that people take these jobs thinking they can support their families. If there weren’t such a long list of people wanting the jobs I suspect the problem would resolve itself via supply and demand.
Um, Larry… is that snark? Please tell me you were kidding, because that’s just awful.
Silus,
I’m not kidding.
I share your wife’s chagrin, Kaimi, this has bothered me for a long time. I think it’s terrible, just terrible. I wouldn’t object to my tithing being used to pay these people a decent wage.
I went a few times to help the janitor, because I thought our womens bathroom was a sty. Boy, that guy works hard for his money. I couldn’t keep it up, but I always pick up when I’m in there and add a few things I think should be in a bathroom. (No charmin)
My comment is completely unscientific, merely anecdotal, and thus nearly worthless. However… My dad was a seminary teacher and he and my Mom raised 7 of us without her ever having to leave the home to work. Granted things were tight and my Mom was creative but it worked. From what my Dad tells me, most seminary/institute teachers are able to make ends meet with out their wives having to leave the home (though many wives teach piano, etc in the home). I would be curious if there is any empirical data out there. For example does the Church pay less for comparable jobs? Are the faithful expected to take pay cuts to serve the Church? As far as seminary, teachers are paid above public school teachers’ slaries (at least as pegged by Utah salaries and then increased per a a cost of living calculus depending on the state you are in). Also, my dad is in DC as the institute director for the last 3 years of his career. One of the reasons (besides of course his spectaular abilities) is the difficulties the church has in paying what a family needs to survive in a place like DC. Thus, they turn to older employees who have a little more of a cushion, less expenses with kids gone etc. to fill these expensive posts.
I might add that the quality of food they would get there is probably substantially healthier than what they might ordinarily get.
I wouldn’t even object if the Church let it be universally known that such were the case, and that the objective was another step in building a Zion society. Done on the cheap, though, it really bothers me.
Why should the church have difficulty paying people more who live in places where the cost of living is higher? Did not the missionary program move to just such a system in the early nineties? It’s just a matter of priorities. I know of churches whose part-time organists are on the health plan, but that’s fodder for another post.
Stanford lost a great institute director, in part because the church refused to pay him a living wage for the Bay Area.
I am sympathetic to the plight of those working for CES. For some reason I am less sympathetic to those working at the COB. They made a choice to work for the church. It is a job. It should be treated like any other job.
I do think that the “business” side of the church sometimes thinks it should get a good deal because it is the church.
Just anecdotes here.
I worked with several software engineers who now work for the church. The pay is not competitive for their field. At least in their team’s case, this is a major factor in the inability to attract talent. A few talked openly about their decision being prompted as a necessary change for this time in their lives — a sort of sacrifice, like a mission, except you get paid. Without that aspect of the employment, I doubt any of them would have taken the job. I don’t think any of their wives are employed, but that probably has a lot to do with their financial habits prior to taking the church job.
On the flip side, benefits are great at the church, at least the medical and vacation benefits. Also, job security is very high. Add on to that the ‘intangible blessings’* of helping to build the kingdom, and it makes sense that the church can offer lower salaries.
* I put this in quotes not to suggest that they don’t exist, but that I don’t know how to specifically quantify or describe them. I bet that most church employees include them in their job compensation in some way.
Clark hit it on the head. There are many people who think that working for the Church would be a wonderful (no matter what they are doing), and they are willing to be paid less. There really is no market incentive for the Church to pay people more.
We just started working for the Church and took quite a large paycut.
My dad works in SLC and has stories about people who are planning to retire being asked to serve a mission by continuing in their present job without pay.
Sorry to post again, but I didn’t see Matt’s post in time. The medical benefits are very good with the Church, and that is worth a lot to my family. We’ve always had less than adequate coverage, and the Church’s coverage is much better. It saves us at least $6000/year.
I do think that there are a lot of people who get a lot out of the “intangible benefits,” at least at the beginning of their employment with the Church.
ARJ,
1. Only in part.
2. And currently he works at BYU, so perhaps a net loss for the Bay, but not so clearly a loss for the Church.
Market forces aside, if the Church increased employee compensation it would have to either cut spending somewhere else or find another source of revenue. Where would you cut? (I can think of a few places, but listing them could hijack the thread). Or (to steal a thought from Frank’s thread), how much more you would you be willing to pay to see Church employees paid enough to survive on one salary?
LL,
I would give up BYU sports for it.
:P
I believe there is some rationale floating around that the Church intentionally pays lower salaries in an effort to keep the member-employees on the ‘humble’ end of the material spectrum. Probably just armchair quarterbacking from the High Priests though.
A couple of points –
The low pay is a normal part of working at any not-for-profit, particularly churches. It is viewed as a call/job so pay is lower.
I worked for the church in the welfare department years ago. I remember coming into a meeting with a person from the COB chastising us because welfare service employees were surveyed and it was found that 70% either had a second job or their wives worked. We were told to trust in the Lord and that the second jobs were a sign of our lack of faith. He warned us that the prophet would not be pleased as well. Needless to say, the numbers reached the prophet and he declared an across the board 15% pay raise for all employees, commenting that we could not be expected to survive on unreasonable wages. I learned alot about the church beurocracy that day and truly knew the prophet was inspired.
Malachi 3:5
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wagesdow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts
For verses/scriptures about wages:
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=wage&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Search
It should be pointed out that ALL ideologically-fulfilling jobs pay less than market. Places like the ACLU, Sierra Club, Family Research Council, Institute for Justice, RNC, DNC, etc., get job candidates with much higher talent-per-salary-dollar quotients. The Institute for Justice only pays about $50,000 and still gets applications from attorneys making over $150,000.
It may be true that non-profits pay less, but does any other non-profit emphasize single-income household budgets to the degree that the Church does? Do they ‘expect’ their employees to support their families on the wage they provide? I would guess that your average Red Cross or ACLU employee knows and accepts that their lower salary means that the spouse will also have to work.
Does the Church have a responsibility to pay more based on the single-income model?
Matt, and other market-advocates,
Yes, but is the church really willing to accept the market prices. After all, we aren’t willing to accept many other market practices (working on Sunday, for example). If we’re supposed to be doing something different than “the world” then why accept worldy standards for wages, especially if it seems that those wages will drive mothers into the workforce and the church seems to have stated that that is often a bad development.
When I was a student at BYU I worked for the church and am now a business owner. I have a couple of comments.
– The church typically does pay below standard wages, but does not force anyone to stay with them. When hired you know how much you will get paid, this is not a surprise.
– Typically, the church employee does see their job as a calling.
– If the church has a large employee pool at this wage, as a business, why would they pay more?
– If an employee wants a higher wage, they are free to find better work.
– “To make ends meet, his wife works as well.”
I feel that the prophetic suggestion for the wife to stay home means that families should live more frugally, husbands find better employment, not expect the church to increase wages.
– “Or is it the norm for full-time church employees to feel that the husband’s income alone is not enough to support a family?”
How much should the church pay? Typically, people spend as much as they make. Who’s to say that making $10,000 more a year, would let the wife stay home and the family would live within a budget?
It was difficult to see the church act like a business, but I now firmly believe that the church is inspired, as well as, a business.
One method to increase wages of Church employees would be to charge more competitive prices at Church schools. For some reason, BYU tuition seems to be held artificially low by tying its tuition costs to the University of Utah, which is one of the least expensive public schools in the nation. If BYU’s tuition were closer to that of Notre Dame, or other private religious schools, they would be relieved of tens of millions of dollars every year which church members pay in tithing to subsidize the education of BYU students.
The Church could triple current tuiiton costs and still be well below the national average for private universities. While this would increase the burden on students, they would still get a great education for less money than most students going to private universities. The increase in tuition could also be used to pay for more scholarships for LDS students from poor countries to receive an education. BYU is alread highly selective in their admittance requirements (12 million LDS, with only 20-30 thousand students in Church schools). There would still be plenty of demand to attend BYU even if the tuition were increased to more competitive levels. The excess money could go to paying more competitive wages to Church employees.
I have worked for the Church and have relatives that currently work for the Church. In the mid ’90s, the Church did an across-the-board pay increase, though I am not sure if that raised everyone to market value. My job was ‘recreational’ and not because I needed it, though the increase was a welcome surprise. My relative still has their spouse work outside the home as it is a financial necessity based on their low pay. Benefits are excellent, though what good are great benefits if you have to go on welfare to eat! (Oh, and the Christmas card from the 1st Presidency & semi-annual discount at Deseret Book is nice, but doesn’t make-up for lousy pay!)
I can understand the rationale that tithing funds are sacred and require careful disbursement, though I can also see the benefit of paying a wage that is at or above market. I know several seminary/institute teachers who are forced to work a second job and/or have their wives work outside the home.
I guess I would also be in favor of sacrificing sports at BYU for better pay!
Alex,
Even if lots of poorer students got scholarships, your proposal would make a BYU education look like it was reserved for the rich. Which the church doesn’t want to do. it might have to raise tuition substantially at some point, but its not going to do it until the figurative pistol is being held to the head.
As a U of U guy, I would be happy to see BYU sports sacrificed even if it didn’t result in higher wages.
Let’s hear from some BYU sports fans on this issue, how about?
Also, rumor is that the football and basketball programs don’t use tithing funds, but ah don’t know the truth of it.
Currently, the cost of sports at BYU are close to breaking even. BYU actually spends very little overall money on sports. Though that may quickly change if the football and basketball teams can’t produce a winning record soon!
You’ll have to find another pot-o-gold than sports to increase pay.
I’m not my father’s biggest fan, and he’s the staunchest atheist now alive, but he worked two and three jobs when necessary so that my mother could stay home with us. And he didn’t complain.
The key is to obtain higher wages so that both mother and father can spend meaningful time with their kids. It won’t help a family if the mother has to act as both mother and father while the father is working 16 hours a day and sleeping the other 8 hours. Children need to have a proper influence from their father in the home. Not just a figure head that they never see.
I don’t know about all church employees, but most of the seminary teachers I have known have a second/3rd job. Which makes sense. Just like a teacher they typically have 3-4 months off in the summer. One teacher i knew did construction, another had a side job installing custom closets. It increased his workload, but not tremendously.
Also, there are more benefits to church service than the pay. Where else can you have someone pay you to study and teach the gospel
There sure are a lot of really nice cars in the church’s employee parking lot so things can’t be that bad. Seriously though, my uncle works there in the IT department and he tells me every time he posts a job opening he gets hundreds of resumes. If the total package is so bad (salary, benefits, pension, etc.) why do they get so many applicants?
Part of it is that all salaries in Utah are depressed because more LDS folks want to live there than the job market could otherwise support. But perhaps the Church pays less even when compared to the Utah market?
I’ve found that most of the time people can make it on one income. They just have to be willing to make the sacrifices. And you have to have been willing to make the sacrifices previously. You can live on $30K, but if you’ve got debt payments it might be impossible.
I can’t tell you how many people I know who were making debt payments after they had children for spending just a little too much before kids. Ridiculous that going out to eat a few too many times can add up.
Spending money that you don’t have DOES rob you of your future.
If previous spending isn’t the culprit, maybe they think they are entitled to having a certain type of house, 2 cars, clothes, etc. They could live on $30K. It might require a condo instead of a house. It might require other sacrifices. But it is possible.
.
Elder Oaks had the following to say about pay at BYU, which can probably be extrapolated to other Church employment.
I have also been very uneasy about trying to match other universities on a dollar-for-dollar basis in the salaries paid at BYU. We have a unique sponsorship and a sacred mission. Each of us should feel a special relationship with our sponsoring Church, our Board of Trustees, and the sacred mission we have to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as well as our professional subjects. Generations have taught at BYU for less than they could have been paid in other employment, and we stand on the foundations laid through their sacrifices. Those foundations of Church sponsorship, spiritual mission, and personal sacrifice are essential to what sets us apart and makes us worthy to survive. As we strive for excellence in terms recognizable in the world of scholarship, we must not lose touch with the spiritual endowment that qualifies us for leadership.
I wish I had a formula for balancing the countervailing pressures of market and sacrifice. We must not lose the spirit of sacrifice in employment at Brigham Young University, but neither must that sacrifice be exploited or become an excuse for unrealistic compensation policies in the university. After nine years of worrying over this problem, I have now left it behind for President Holland as one of the problems I have been unable to solve or ameliorate. I suspect that the only feasible solution is to be explicit about the issue, but to leave it to be balanced and resolved in the hearts and minds of individual faculty members and administrators.
Full text is here.
To suggest that the temples to sweat do or do not spend “tithing” funds is an accountant’s fiction. Money is fungible, and money that goes into the football and basketball sideshows (whatever its source–tithing, fat cat boosters, ticket sales, over-priced concession stand sales, TV, etc.) is not available for something else–whether it’s scholarships for needy students or increased salaries for seminary teachers.
It may not provide any net increase in the tuition component of university income, but tuition should be quintupled, and financial aid given to less wealthy families so they can afford to send their children there. It makes no sense for someone with a half-million dollar income on Wall Street to be able to send a child to school at BYU for $3,000 a year.
I like how Elder Oaks balances compensation and sacrifice. However, I think it was at about that time that Pres. Bensen, in outlining the responsibilties of a faithful priesthood holder, placed the resposibility to provide for one’s family at the top of the list. There is nothing farther from the spirit of consecration than the individual being powerless to determine what his/her own needs are.
The above comments from seem to leave out non-member faculty. BYU has had some great non-Mormon faculty members. Should they view their jobs at BYU as an LDS Church calling? Should BYU concentrate on hiring only LDS scholars? I don’t think that those that I know that teach and work at BYU view it as their calling. They view it as their job. They have callings in their wards.
As far as dealing with the Church from a business perspective goes, my experience is to ignore the fact that it is a church. This is a bit hard when meetings start out with a prayer, but treat the business like a business and don’t let it the business interactions get in the way of your testimony.
One method to increase wages of Church employees would be to charge more competitive prices at Church schools
Indeed, BYU could become an LDS version of USC. The Church gave that some serious thought in the 1970s before rejecting that approach.
BYU could cut sports. Until the programs sank into losing streaks, they generated net revenue (some really interesting econometrics there — which is how I learned that instead of the usual statistics, if properly measured, only about 15% of the University sports programs generate real revenue rather than the 50% number sports boosters usually promote). A better idea would be that BYU humbles itself and recruits Norm Chow for football.
The real issue is the social dynamic that comes about when a Church job pays better than market or equal to market with extrinsic benefits. It suddenly makes not getting a Church job an entirely different kettle of fish than it is when they pay below market. The social issues are extremely interesting.
On the other hand, poverty should not go hand in hand, though our lay clergy approach really does affect the idea that wealth should follow Church jobs (or at least less of a sacrifice).
I have to chuckle (if not roll my eyes) every time I see the statement “living wage”. I am reminded of a survey I read about in which they asked people at a very basic salary level ($20,000) a year, if they had financial problems. 99.9% said yes. They then asked them how much salary would they require in order to live comfortably, without financial problems; not pie in the sky, but realistically.
When you averaged out all the answers it came to about double the salary. If they could only have that, they would be free of debt, and have no financial problems. They then went and asked people earning $40,000 a year if they had financial problems. 98% said yes. They asked them the same question. Not surprisingly, the answer was the same. If they could just have double the salary….
They went to people earning $80,000 a year. Over 90% reported having financial problems. But if they could just have double the salary…
Do we see a pattern here?
Having spent many years of my life in third world countries, I believe that it is possible to live on much less money than we do, if we will reduce our covetousness and the expectation that we have to have many consumer goods.
I can’t remember where I saw the study, but according to a statistical analysis of money and happiness they showed that increases in income generated statistically significant returns in happiness until you reach about the 60k mark. After 60k more money doesn’t make you quantifiably happier. Now this is nationwide. In utah I would imagine it would be a lot less.
In many places the rising cost of housing generates disparate effects on income. For example. I just recently moved to vegas. My house payment is double that of someone who moved there 5-10 years ago for a comparable size house.
In utah it might be quadroupled or more (ie paying 25k for a house up by the Provo temple -now selling for 250k plus). So to have the same standard of living I need to pay a lot more than someone who has been there for a while.
Just a thought
I think #41 nailed the issue. I recently read that Utah households making over $100k/yr have more credit card debt on average than households that make under $50k/yr. Why should that be? A family making over $100k/yr shouldn’t have any credit card debt if they manage their money well. But the truth is we tend to live a little outside their income no matter what we make. Raise our income and we’ll just buy a bigger house or a boat that once again puts us back in the same debt situation… and the wife “has to” get a job to support the family.
Personally, having spent much of my career working in developing countries in South America and Asia (16 countries at last count) I don’t think church employees or any of us that live in wealthy countries have much to complain about. Having two cars, a big house, a DVD player, telephone, and a refrigerator full of food isn’t normal in this world. According to the World Bank 42% of the worlds population lives on less than $2/day.
Kaimi (Comment 22),
Church wages don’t drive women into the workforce, lifestyles drive mothers into the workforce. David Rodger’s comment 41 is exactly right. People who choose to work for the church should, one would hope, be less concerned with pleasing the crowd in the great and spacious building.
There are some great comments here. I pretty much agree that the issue is more one of lifestyle than income, once one gets above some subsistence threshold. Also, Utah housing prices have been pretty stagnant for about ten years. Vegas has exploded though.
But the question was does the church pay its workers enough to live. I wasn’t considering the teachers in that question, more the janitors and groundskeepers. I think they get slave wages and I don’t think it’s fair. We can philosophise all we want about covetousness or materialism, but when you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul, to buy shoes for your kids and deciding what food you can live without, it gets down to a real subsistence level.
Everybody has the right to a hyacinth to feed their soul, even people in third world countries. The fact that others have it worse does not negate the need for a reasonable salary. I suppose janitors and groundskeepers nation-wide don’t make a mint, but I feel sort of guilty that I do okay and those people who clean the toilets I use on Sundays are poor. I don’t see why we can’t pay them a decent wage. It’s real easy to decide other people just need to live more carefully, looking at it from the outside. It’s real easy to judge. I often feel sorry for you young people coming up, it’s a lot harder nowadays than it was when I was raising my kids and it wasn’t easy then to make ends meet. I don’t know how a lot of people do it.
There is something else that came up, I don’t know if it’s true, I thought we were a rich church, but are we going broke? Can we not afford to pay these people better? I suppose the administraters know what they’re doing, in the long run, it’s their responsibility. But to glibly say let them have church welfare, geez, have you ever been on church welfare? It’s not all that terrific. That’s just, just, unacceptable.
annegb,
You should probably get clarification from the person making the welfare comment above. It wasn’t clear to me if they meant government welfare or church welfare.
Ah, I’m never quite clear. You’ll see, if you ever get senile yourself. I forget who I’m mad at, or even that I was mad. Not that I’m mad. Being in a fog isn’t as bad as you might think. Nothing sticks. Life is always interesting. :)
I think any kind of welfare sucks. I think it’s easy to say, “shop at DI, eat generic, go without,” not so easy to do. Although, totally different topic, but the poorest American is probably among the richest of the world’s people.
Matt,
Yes, some measure of decisions will be based on lifestyle choices. But that doesn’t explain why church employees are expected to be more willing to make lifestyle sacrifices than non-church employees.
We’re not talking about yachts and country-club memberships. I’m talking about an increase from $30,000 to maybe $40,000, contingent on a spouse remaining home to care for the kids. If the church prioritizes stay-at-home spouses, why not make this easier?
Random John (#47): Your original remark (#1) seemed so improbably that I ignored it. However, since it continues to draw interest and comments, I guess I should say something.
It may be that some particular boss made that recommendation. You can find someone who has said almost anything. Nevertheless, having worked for the Church for more than 30 years, having been in several Utah bishoprics in which there have been a number of Church employees, and being related to several others, I have never heard of anything like what your acquaintance reported. I highly doubt that the Church policy is that its employees are to take welfare of either kind. If it is their policy, they’ve certainly done an excellent job of keeping it secret, even from their employees. That would be a strikingly ineffective policy. Besides, Church employees get pay raises almost every year–not large ones, but raises nonetheless, raises that in the long run compound nicely. That is further evidence that there is no policy to substitute welfare for raises.
“I’m talking about an increase from $30,000 to maybe $40,000, contingent on a spouse remaining home to care for the kids.”
That would be a mess! I can’t imagine trying to manage a fair salary system that varied salaries when a spouse remained in the home? What about spouses who work from home, say part-time? Can the stay-at-home spouse volunteer their time? How much is ok? What if the spouse stays home but the family got a large inheritance? What if the spouse works but the couple is separated and don’t share resources? What about single parents? What if the children have all moved out?
This would be a HR nightmare trying to police peoples lives and would only create more problems and frustrations. The only option is to pay a competitive salary for each position based on market forces, supply and demand, for each particular job. If vacant jobs are easily filled and attrition rates are low (which is the case in the church) then salaries are probably sufficient. The church pays less but is very stable and pays a pension which is rare these days unless you work for the government. Unemployment is very low in the US yet people still flood church headquarters with resumes when jobs open up so all in all the church must be doing fine. It’s not a matter of whether the church can afford to pay more, it’s a matter of paying what the market will bare.
The welfare comment is non-sense. My father has worked for the Church my entire life and earned a modest by decent salary. No doubt he could have made more money elsewhere — or perhaps not; he is an art historian — but I think he stayed because he absolutely loves his job and because he think that it contributes to the kingdom.
anngb wrote: ” I thought we were a rich church, but are we going broke?”
We are not a rich church. This is a myth. We are a church with a hefty revenue stream, be we are also a church with a huge financial commitment, mainly to buildings. Furthermore, the Church’s financial commitments are growing more rapidly than its revenue streams.
The Proclamation is obviously slogan, not policy. And who cares what Dallin Oaks says? When I was at BYU, he, as president, said something to the effect that the students were unimportant visitors that come and go. Now how much do you think I contribute to BYU after Dallin poisoned the well like that? My iconoclastic flippancy aside, the fact is for most Americans, the stay-at-home mom is no longer an economically viable model. I happen to be blessed to barely support a wife and five kids on one paycheck, but it’s a lot harder than it used to be. With good family planning, my kids are spread out at ages 22, 19, 14, 12 and 4, and that probably makes it possible. I believe the mass of working women is one major cause forcing more women to work, as more workers means cheaper labor. In other words, even if the church paid, or were able to pay (I don’t know which is the case) conpetative wages, most moms would still have to work. But the causes are irrelevant to what people have to do to support thier families.
Kaimi,
The church should only pay $30,000 if they are able to get good people at that price, because there are sufficient workers who can get by on that. It’s not only families who are willing to do with less (or more, as the case may be) that would consider that job, but people who need less: singles, childless couples, empty-nesters, semi-retireds, etc.
If you’re saying that the church should pay people based on their number of dependents, so that fathers with children get two or three times the salary of single men and women doing the same job, I think you could make a decent, though difficult, argument.
But arguing that every position should be paid a salary sufficient to sustain a family of five (eight? twelve?), as you seem to be doing, seems more difficult still.
Most moms don’t have to work outside the home (though many do) as your own case shows. But what does that have to do with how much the Church pays its employees? Please stick to the topic at hand. There are plenty of forums for those who want to dismiss the Proclamation, attack Brother Oaks, and so on. This is not one of them.
The topic is “Do Church Salaries Drive Mothers into the Workforce” and my post #53 is completely relevant. Both the Proclamation and statements by Dallin Oaks were cited before my post.
Oh, and to answer your other question. The reason it’s fair to expect church employees to make more lifestyle sacrifices than non-church employees is because they are willing to pay a premium — in the form of lower salaries — to work for the church and to do something they care about.
Private companies must pay more to get people to do work they don’t care about. That is why private law firms pay salaries exorbitantly higher than the ACLU or Institute for Justice to get the same quality of attorney.
That’s an excellent point Matt, although I’m not sure saying it is that they don’t care about the work. It’s more supply vs. demand again.
BTW – regarding BYU isn’t there a certain lack of consensus among the people in charge regarding what it should be? I certainly think the supply/demand issue there could easily allow the church to raise fees. Heavens I think they could double them without trouble and the offer scholarships based upon whatever criteria they want. Yet they seem to want to let kids in without much bias. Further they still discourage a lot of research among staff.
I wonder if the day will come that they’ll have to make some hard decisions regarding BYU.
If Church employees were paid more than comparably productive other employees at other firms, there would be excess demand to work for the Church. Who decides who gets the plush Church job? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
And remember, you can’t just take the most able, because then you have ousted less productive workers altogether, which does not solve the problem, because you are now dealing with different workers and so haven’t helped the original workers at all.
Similarly, suppose Church jobs paid the same as non-Church jobs. Well then still more people would want to work for the Church, because of the spiritual side benefits. So you have excess demand. If two workers want the job, who gets it? In a market, we fix this by giving it to the one who will work for less. Typically without the price mechanism, it becomes nepotism or favoritism or some other nasty cronyish thing.
And suppose you assign the job randomly. You might as well just hand the money out randomly at that point, for all the reward you are giving to hard work.
Market prices are one of the better _institutional_ safeguards against corruption. They aren’t enough by themselves, but they are a good start.
Jack (#38),
Just a clarification on relative timing regarding (BYU) President Oaks’ comment in #36. That quote is from a BYU commencement address in August 1980. Ezra Taft Bensen did not become President of the Church until the end of 1985.
No one is forcing people to take a paid job for the Church. Certainly if they feel they cannot live on what they are making, they are free to go elsewhere, which is how almost all jobs work.
I took a job with the Federal government. I am making much less than I could elsewhere, but I was willing to make the tradeoff for other benefits that were important to me.
I knew the situation before I took the job, and I would say the same thing happens for those who are employed by the Church.
I have a hard time feeling sorry for those who choose a career path that isn’t financially rewarding, because the choice is there. Certainly those folks didn’t say, “Hey, I want to be a teacher and make lots of money doing it” If they wanted to make lots of money, they should have chosen a different career or a different job.
On a different note, I am living on much less than many friends who make much more, but have more financial problems. More money does not mean a better financial situation.
Frank,
If market forces are that employees work on Sunday, should the church follow those market pressures? If market forces would dictate that Monday evenings be work time, should the church follow that trend too? If the market suggests that openly gay employees should be hired, should the church follow suit?
If not, then why should it follow what the market suggests about wages? If the church is somehow about being different than the world, why follow along with exactly what the market dictates?
Matt, and other “that’s just the way it is” people,
Imagine a world in which the church told people that they should eat healthy foods — whole grains, fresh fruits, and so forth. And it made that an important point of doctrine. And in that same world, the church operated a number of cafeterias which distributed candy bars, soda pop, and the like to those who ate there.
Would you see any reason to change the cafeterias to conform to the doctrinal point?
All,
Yes, extra money won’t be a cure all. However, it will make finances easier for at least some families; it will keep at least some mothers in the home.
All,
I’m amazed that I’m in a minority arguing this point. Where on earth are the “defend families” crowd? I thought that this would be a slam dunk. It seems like folks are willing to go to war when it comes to defending the family against perceived threats like gay marriage, but everyone is strangely silent when it comes to protecting families from the harshness of the market.
The market is not family friendly. The market does not give a damn whether your family lives or dies.
I’m here proposing we think about a way to try to keep more mothers of young children in the home, and everyone on this blog seems to think that “the market” should take priority. What a messed up, messed up perception.
All right, Kaimi, I’ll bite. Here’s my position:
1) I give the church the benefit of the doubt, even to piddly details like salaries. Several reasons given here help persuade me that there are probably good reasons for the current Church approach.
2) I don’t have much sympathy for middle class people who feel forced to have the wife work outside the home because their salary is otherwise inadequate.
3) Still, if the church announced that it was giving higher wages to fathers with children whose wives weren’t working, I would be delighted. That would be great.
Mostly, though, I think private institutions are ill-suited to make traditional family financially easier, at least directly. The push has to come through personal family sacrifice, or government effort.
“I’m here proposing we think about a way to try to keep more mothers of young children in the home, and everyone on this blog seems to think that “the market” should take priority.”
Kaimi, you’re talking about the Church, not the market.
We’re on to you…
The government is making an effort — so much so that Julie Smith only had to pay 0.39% of her income in taxes. Many of the proposals circulating to simplify the tax code, however, would eliminate many of these deductions and would be less “family-friendly.” A consumption tax, for example, while it might have the virtue of encouraging saving, would be less progressive than the current system.
I have to agree with those who point out that most people will adjust their spending to whatever amount they earn. I was a missionary when they shifted to everyone paying the same and giving out cost of living stipends. I always had way more than I needed, enough to give a generous fast offering and still accumulate a sizable cash hoard. Other missionaries I knew were always running out of money before the end of the month. There are many different behaviors among people, all of whom view themselves as frugal.
Still, the church salaries do seem niggardly. Then again, Catholic school teachers make far less than their public school counterparts — lately they’ve been regularly going on strike here in NYC. Maybe LDS church employees need to form a union in order to collectively bargain for better treatment.
A bigger problem is the ambiguity of what is a calling and what is a job (or what should be a calling and what should be a job). Just to give one example, (which was previously discussed on another thread which I didn’t contribute to because I was away from the computer for several days) consider the plight of musicians in the church. Why do we have a school of music at BYU training people for jobs that don’t exist?
Professional musicians in general have invested many more hours in their training than almost anyone else, and are somehow expected to play for free. That the Orchestra at Temple Square, for example, is a voluntary group is scandalous. How are these people supposed to support their families? I’m all for musical missionaries, but let’s send them out in the field to help teach in wards where they have to use recordings of hymns, and let’s pay the professionals, maybe not at NY Philharmonic rates, but something approaching what they deserve.
If we paid the organists, then we would have an incentive for people to develop their talents and we would have people who could do the job and the spirit of the meetings would improve immeasurably.
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.”
The amount of economic ignorance in this thread is remarkable.
1. Church employees choose to work for the Church.
2. They choose to work for the Church because the package of salary, benefits, working conditions, environment, security and intangible benefits make it worthwhile.
3. All we really require to live on is food, shelter and clothing. All else is discretionary spending. We can choose to eat prime rib, drive a Lexus, and have HDTV. Or we can eat hamburger, drive an old clunker and have no TV. That is up to us, and Church salaries are adequate to provide a modest living, but not to pay for a lavish lifestyle.
4. If Church employees were paid much higher than people with comparable jobs in the marketplace, there would be an outcry about the “favoritism” in Church hiring, and jealousy toward those who are employed by the Church. I have actually seen this happen overseas, where Church employment, in some cases, pays more than the local marketplace for reasons which are too convoluted to mention.
5. Spare me the “living wage” argument. What an American would view as a living wage would mean the lap of luxury for most of the populations of the world.
6. It’s all about lifestyle.
I apologize if I expressed my feelings too strongly.
But when we pay more than the marketplace in an attempt to level the field, we open up a whole ‘nother can of worms. If we pay more for stay at home mothers, should we pay more for a sick child, or aging parents who require care, or because the employee has leukemia, or any of a hundred other issues which are so subjective that they defy anything but a subjective analysis? And when we do, will those who do not share that subjectivity feel they have been fairly treated?
David’s already covered most of the important ground, but let me just answer a couple of Kaimi’s arguments:
“Yes, extra money won’t be a cure all. However, it will make finances easier for at least some families; it will keep at least some mothers in the home.”
Yes it will. So how much money does it take in personnel costs to buy one extra stay at home mom? If salaries are gender neutral, this will be a lot more. In any case, that number may be way too high to justify the program cuts the Church would need in other things. Them’s the tradeoffs.
I realize that as an NYC lawyer, perhaps $30,000 seems like way too little to live the way one should, but you are simply wrong. Millions of families do it. And on one income. And many of them are actually quite happy.
You have also completely ignored my explanation of why this policy creates excess demand. If two people apply for the job, who gets it? The market answers this question in a way that helps prevent corruption. Your scheme encourages corruption.
“If market forces are that employees work on Sunday, should the church follow those market pressures? If market forces would dictate that Monday evenings be work time, should the church follow that trend too? If the market suggests that openly gay employees should be hired, should the church follow suit?”
You are confusing “market forces” with “profit maximization”. If by “market forces” you mean that the Church would make more money or the saints would, then I’d say the answer is we benefit more from obedience to God than from making more money. We are not profit maximizers but joy maximizers. The market is fine with that. “Market Forces” are no dark, night-time marauder come to strip away our souls. “Market Forces” are currently driving you to seek out academic employment instead of new york living, presumably to make less money in a lifetime. The market is fine with that. And it is fine with people trading off Sunday work for less money too. The silliiness is to expect that you shouldn’t have to pay for the benefits you get. Of course we might not make as much money by not working Sunday, but that sanctifies the sacrifice.
“If not, then why should it follow what the market suggests about wages? If the church is somehow about being different than the world, why follow along with exactly what the market dictates?”
The Church can pay whatever it wants, but it cannot expect that offering a higher salary will generate the same number or quality of applicants. Better jobs bring out better applicants, driving out the current employees and those like them instead of helping them.
Perhaps you think the Church should ignore how productive workers are when hiring; accept a worse seminary teacher and ignore benefits to the kids, in order to help the seminary teacher’s kids. That is a costly option, requiring cuts in other programs, but is open to them. A job that requires low ability but pays good wages and has high spiritual benefits would be swamped with applications. Who gets the job? As noted above, this is already a problem in other countries.
Pehaps you think it is a trivial one, I am promising you that it is not. It opens the doors to corruption and rumours of corruption. There is meaning in the phrase “an honest wage”, and it is not unrelated to the market wage. And remember, unless the policy was to explicitly favor fathers with stay-at-home wives, it may not even help much.
And since Church salaries are enough to live on, I see no reason to pursue such a policy. Some salaries, like for janitors, may not be a very good living, but fathers of families should get some skills and not be in those jobs.
Frank and others,
Give me a little credit here. I know how ecomics works. I understand that any raise will skew the market. It will create artificial demand, yada yada yada. People will make decisions based on some altered equilibrium and not on the equilibrium that would naturally result from market forces of supply and demand.
I don’t care. I think that allegiance to families comes before allegiance to the market.
There are a _lot_ of market-skewing forces already at play that I don’t generally hear people complaining about. Mortgage deductions and child deductions and charitable deductions for taxes all skew the market. This creates some amount of cross-subsidization to people who don’t have kids or mortgages or charities. It creates artificial demand for kids and mortgages and charities. And we don’t really care about that.
For that matter, _tithing_ is an artificial force on the market and skews decisions about labor allocation. Why not just set church donations at whatever the market will bear? But we seem to think that the principle of tithing is more important than keeping some pristine market.
(How does tithing affect labor allocation decisions? Simple — it enters into the labor-versus-leisure calculus. If my marginal utility for one more unit of labor is 10 utils, and my marginal utility for one unit of leisure is 9.5 utils, then in a tithing-free world, I will work that unit. But in a tithed world, I will choose leisure over work. So our pristine labor market is all mucked up. Someone should have told Malachi this before he went and messed with the market).
So if we’re willing to endure market distortions to help promote mortgages and charities, and we’re willing to endure market distortions created by tithing, then why not endure the market distortions that would be required to keep more mothers in the home?
And let me also state that if there’s one thing that basic economic theory tells us, it’s that an increase in pay _will_ put some mothers back in the home. The idea that everyone will just spend more money is just not economically sound — given the shape of every demand curve, there will be people on the margins for whom the added monies will be enough to keep them home.
That is, there is some subset of people who are on the margins, who are choosing between the extra marginal utility they will receive from money from working, versus the extra marginal utility of staying home. And these mothers will stay home if their husbands are paid more. With any significant increase in pay, that’s all but guaranteed to happen. (Back me up here, Frank).
Now, the exact number of how many will stay home depends on the elasticity of the demand curve for extra income. It’s theoretically possible that my suggested policy won’t make a bit of difference, which it wouldn’t if the curve is perfectly inelastic. But I think that we can all agree that it’s not perfectly inelastic. In fact, my hunch is that it’s quite elastic. (Given the strong decreasing marginal utility for money, we can probably assume that the change in utility is pretty drastic between 30,000 and 40,000; it would be quite a bit smaller between 40,000 and 50,000; so the incentive to work outside the home will drop). And if it is elastic, then a change in policy such as the one I’m suggesting will put a _lot_ of mothers back in the home.
Yes, there are rationing issues. I think we can deal with them. If we are _already_ rationing — as numerous comments here seem to indicate — then we can just keep as we’re already doing.
(P.S. I’m puzzled about the dual corruption/inspiration counter-arguments. So the current system is inspired and should be kept; but we also must keep it because otherwise church officials would become corrupt?
Can’t we can count on the inspired nature of church callings and church leadership to counter the possibility of corruption?)
I mentioned one group that is highly skilled, yet gets paid nothing.
For their market rates, check here:
http://www.agohq.org/profession/indexsalary.html
Adam,
$30,000 is not middle class. It’s barely above the poverty level.
Isn’t the median wage about $60,000 now?
When I first married my first husband, he made $400 a month and we thought we were loaded. Our rent was about $50, hamburger was 35 cents a pound, gas was 35 cents a gallon, and I swore up and down I would never pay a dollar for toilet paper.
Now I’m old and loaded and I would pay a lot more than I do for my Charmin.
Kaimi,
I totally agree that paying higher salaries will decrease female labor supply. The elasticity is probably not high enough to make it worth axing other programs. By the way, is there any reason why this logic should not extend to non-Church employees? Why not hand out checks at tithing settlement?
As for the economics, mortgage deductions are justified on the grounds of the externality benefits of home ownership. Thus they correct a distortion (supposedy). Tithing is a purchase I make. If I view it as a tax it is distortionary, but I am happy paying more tithing like I am happy buying eggs. If you do not feel that way, then yes, tithing distorts your labor supply.
But these are simply not the argument I was making. I am saying there is excess supply for the CES job. Who gets that job? Thus there are 2 choices:
1. Currently, the job is allocated to the most capable. This is the market way. But if you do this under your program, you pretty much undo the whole goal. You will not be raising salaries for a fixed group of workers, you will simply be hiring workers who would be making more regardless. The old, less able workers you would have hired now go work somewhere else, at the lower salary their ability affords.
2. Something else. In developing countries, public sector jobs carry these extra premia, and thus there is a huge incentive to allocate them based on “who knows who”. You think this isn’t a problem because leaders are inspired. There are 2 problems:
a. You still haven’t told me who gets the job. Random job allocation is problematic because you are distributing money randomly, something sure to inspire resentment and not exactly in line with gospel principles.
b. I was ward financial clerk for a while. The Church may trust its leaders, but it watches every dime. This is because there really is an urge to spend money badly. Your program would give new impetus to that desire. Elder Oaks will not be in the personnel office doing the hiring. A Church employee with an out-of-work brother-in-law will.
That is why I think this is not likely to be a good idea. These costs would be worth bearing if the benefits were large enough. But I don’t think that elasticity is as high as you think it is. Thus you could pour a lot of money in with little effect. And I still don’t know if you mean to pay women and single men less. If not, this program will cost way more than the benefits accrued.
I don’t think it is worth coming up with a new random employee hiring program, specifically designed to hire underqualified applicants who won’t teach as well or run programs as well, so that I can make program cuts elsewhere, in order to _slightly_ decrease women working outside the home. If I thought the decrease could be achieved cheaply, then in principle that might be fine. How many only less competent CES instructors is it worth to have one woman stay home from work? It could well be worth one. It probably is not worth 40.
Also, I do not view the labor market as a place to run a welfare program. We have that already, it is called the welfare program. Mixing them up can be very costly to everyone involved.
I think that 60,000 is well above median income in the US.
I have mixed feelings here. I think my initial response is- well if you are working in a job where you can’t support a family on a single income AND you are able to get a job that pays better, then I think you are the one under obligation to go out and get the better job.
I do think it would be nice if people in positions both in and out of the church that do not make a living wage had the opportunity to do so. Should the Church, because it believes mothers should stay at home, pay 40,000 a year to a janitor in a market where janitors are paid 18,000? Or should it just pay 18,000 with the understanding that not everyone in the workforce is married or supporting a family?
And as Nate pointed out- although the Church has a large income stream- we have a very large set of expenditures. Paying Church employees more would mean we have to cut something else. So what would it be? The only suggestion that seems realistic is raising BYU tuition.
Why not sell BYU to the members?
Assessing fees for ark-steadying could provide for temples all over the world all by itself.
(But that’s ark-steadying too, isn’t it.) (Back to the drawing board.)
Hey, let’s capitalize on the insight from Kaimi’s #71 and let the government address the issue for all US employees, and not just those working for the LDS church! What we need is a hefty tax deduction (or better yet, tax credit) in the IRS code for marrieds where only one spouse is employed full time. This will skew the market to favor one-income families, and it can be touted that this incentive is good for society because it has the potential to strengthen families, allow more parental involvement in children’s schooling, volunteer time, etc. It fits right in there with deductions for children and mortgages. Do we have T&S readers in all 50 states that can lobby their legislators? Kaimi, you’re brilliant!
Great idea in #71. It will also force wage increases for the remaining workers due to the smaller workforce. I’m sick of the USA’s declining wages. Thanks Mark.
Kaimi,
Frank’s comment delt with this, but it was the same thought I had while reading your reply and I don’t want it to get lost in the shuffle. You appear to be making the argument: If the church cares so much about mothers being with their children, why doesn’t the church pay mothers to stay home so they don’t have to work? Is that right?
Re: #78: There is a tax benefit for one income families (or at least where one earner makes much more than the other earner). Republicans started calling this the “marriage penalty”, but it really only penalizes marriages where both earners make a similar amount of money. Bush reduced the penalty/subsidy in 2003, but it still exists for most marrieds (i.e., those above the 15% tax bracket).
Kaimi,
Working for the Church is optional.
No one forced these people to work for the Church.
A bit about me:
I currently work for the federal government. I took a large paycut to take the job. However, the guy they hired right along with me is making about $20,000 more to do exactly the same job.
Does this mean I should get a raise? Not at all. I agreed to work for the salary I am making now, and he agreed to work for the salary he is making. If I feel it’s unfair, no one is forcing me to stay.
Many people are shocked that my wife doesn’t work, when we make very little for the area in which we live. Nor do we have any children at the moment. Would we be financially better off with my wife working? Of course we would. Do people wonder why my wife doesn’t work? Of course they do. However, the decision is hers to make, and ours to make. We just do without a lot of things that most other people have. I don’t clamor for a raise in pay, because the decision to work for my salary was mine, and no one else’s.
The same goes for Church employees. Instead of questioning the Church about why they don’t pay more, why not question the employees who complain about not making enough, and ask them why they don’t seek a higher paying job?
It strikes me that you feel it is the Church’s fault for paying people a salary that the employee readily agrees to work for.
It would seem that all the Puritanical posts about women in the labor force (i.e. it’s all greed and people should just learn to make do with less) are ignoring a few of societal trends that are well developed in the last 25 years.
First, the growth in housing prices that has drastically outpaced inflation. Though this trend is certainly not uniform throughout the country, it has put a tremendous strain on family budgets throughout the nation, comparative to housing prices in earlier eras. The burden of this trend falls disproportionately on younger workers whose incomes are smaller and more unstable while the benefit is derived by older families with generally higher incomes.
The second trend is the eroding wages of the American worker indexed for inflation. I don’t have the exact statistics in front of me but I have read a number of articles that say that the wages of the median American worker are the lowest since the late sixties. This wage deflation is particularly significant for less skilled workers, and combined with rampant inflation in health care costs presents a strain on many household budgets.
In the face of these trends it seems short sighted to take a one-sided blame the victim approach. I am sure that there are a great many women in the labor force who would prefer to spend their time in the home, particularly those on the low end of the wage spectrum. However, many of these women are forced into work outside of the home outside out of economic necessity rather than for slothful and avaricious as some posters seem to suggest.
Hardly.
“U.S. workers’ pay rose last year — but more slowly than prices. After adjusting for inflation, average hourly wages for production and nonsupervisory workers fell 0.8 percent — the first such decline since 1994, Labor figures show.”
The first such decline for 10 years; primarily due to the escalation of oil prices last year. In fact, one of the solutions offered for Social Security is to index Social Security to the CPI, and not to wages, because wages have gone up faster than prices.
Additionally, those are averages which are going up. But individuals go up much faster than the average, because each year highly paid individuals retire, and lower paid individuals are hired (because much of salary increases are tied to seniority or promotion).
I am not claiming that every family who has more than one parent working is avaricious. But there is much information out there which indicates that we are too much influenced by the consumer society.
I think the point made by David Rodger earlier about the inherent subjectivity of “need-based” salaries (going beyond married fathers to include family illness, etc.) highlights the problem of asking the Church to abandon market forces and instead pay some minimum amount to allow mothers to stay at home.
How much is that? Is it the same for all families? Who decides the right amount? Should they make enough to pay for eating out every day? One day a year? Steak or beans and rice? What about buying a new minivan? 2-year old minivan? 8-year old station wagon? What about paying for college for the kids? State university or private? Piano lessons?
This scheme would presumably also lead to the elimination of any pay raises not related to inflation. If you’re paying what the employee needs, there is no need to pay more as he gains seniority. And when the kids turn 18, should the employee get a pay cut?
The issues involved are far too complex to be decided centrally by Church leadership. Instead, the Church can pay based on market forces. People who want good healthcare, a pension, no overtime, no working on Sundays, a good work environment, and other intangible benefits can choose to apply for a job. If they can’t live a lifestyle that will allow them to support a stay at home mother, then they can seek employment elsewhere. The Church cannot and should not make those kinds of personal decisions for its employees/applicants. There are too many variables and there is too much subjectivity.
I haven’t read through all of the posts so maybe someone else has brought this up.
I would be interested in seeing a comparison of church salaries to GA and mission president salaries/disbursements (including income from book deals, etc.) If we saw a big disparity there might be room for improvement. In seems to me that, along with sacrifice, equity is an important principle of the doctrine of consecration.
I am impressed that the church functions so well on limited resources. I think the true test of whether there is room for improvement is whether everyone is making equal financial sacrifices from the top down.
J-Stone — all interesting points about decisionmaking, all ultimately red herrings.
A church committee somewhere decides on a number, and they go with it. It doesn’t have to be perfect, and it certainly won’t be perfectly calibrated for everyone, but it’s something.
So they say “Brother Jones, if your wife stays home to care for your kids, we’ll pay you $3000 per kid for the first three kids, and $1500 per kid thereafter, up to a total of $12,000.” Or whatever. Some formula, and it won’t be perfect.
At that point, Brother and Sister Jones make the decision. For some people, this won’t be enough, and they’ll send their spouse to work anyway. For some, it will. For some, it’s probably more than what they would have required to have their spouse stay home.
It’s not so hard.
Michael Stone (the Stones seem to be out in force on this thread),
Yes, someone agreed to work for the pay given. That doesn’t mean that it might not be better for everyone involved if they were paid enough to keep their spouse at home.
re #77
that’s the funniest thing i’ve read in a long time
Kaimi-
Red herrings? You make it sound like the consideration of problems that arise from a change in policy is a distraction from weighing the change in policy. What you suggest isn’t simply deciding on a different number to pay; you suggest abandoning salary determination based on typical market forces to give a “child bonus” based not on job performance or capability, but based only on the perceived need of the employee. This is a substantial shift, and introduces all of the problems I listed. Right now, those questions about lifestyle are left to the employee to answer. Those considerations will inevitably enter the debate if there is a “need-based” bonus given to fathers.
Your suggestion that a church committee simply pick a number and let the families decide whether to take the job doesn’t make sense. How is that different than the current system, aside from the fact that you would be paying childless employees less than the ones with children? Obviously the church has already decided on a number, and people can choose whether to work or not knowing that number.
Your argument seems to be, “Pay them more, but I don’t know how much. I only know that whatever they are making, it isn’t enough.”
My point is that moving to any system other than a market-based one for determining salaries opens up a Pandora’s Box that will cause more problems than it will solve. That is unwise, especially when you don’t even have a firm grasp of whether there is a real problem or what its magnitude is.
FYI according to the census bureau the Median income (for a 4 person household) in the US in 2003 was $65,093 up from $62,732 in 2002, and $49,687 in 1995. In Utah the Same Stats were $62,032 in 2003, $59,864 in 2002, $41,505 in 1995. See http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html.
For a really interesting statistic, look at wage rankings by state
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income03/state_ranking.htm
Gosh I love statistics. It almost makes me wish I hadn’t given up my dream of being an econometrician. Sigh… Monte Carlo studies, standard deviations, endogeniety, reviewing SAS commands until dawn. Oh the good old days.
Jonathan,
I’m amazed at your continued denial that there could be any problem.
The _market_ is one in which the number of two-income families outnumbers one-income families by three to one. (See http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/pub/famee_0697.htm ). So, by simple operation of market forces, your janitor or groundskeeper’s market-based salary is one that _assumes that his wife is working too._
And you’re okay with this?
Kaimi,
Doesn’t your argument only work if they have no choice of where to work, or what career to work in. If market forces don’t determine wage rates, then how does one differ between what you are recommending and communism. The result being that he who makes less money will do less work – human nature. Then a cycle begins.
This additional problem with “child bonuses” just occurred to me:
Imagine the church paid a bonus similar to what Kaimi suggested in #87 to fathers whose wives stayed at home, say up to $12,000.
The church has an obligation to spend tithing money as efficiently as possible, I think we would all agree.
You are with HR for the church. Two individuals apply for a job: a father with 4 children and a single man. They are equally qualified. The job would normally pay $30,000/year. Both are willing to work for that salary. However, if you hire the father, you will actually have to pay him $42,000/year due to the child bonus.
Since both could perform the job equally well, don’t you have an obligation to hire the single man, since that would save $12,000/year in tithing funds and make the church more efficient?
Such a policy would essentially introduce discrimination against fathers. For the church to operate most efficiently, it should and would only hire women and single men, since they could perform the same job for much less.
And the kicker? The father would have been willing to take the job at $30,000/year. But the policy would discriminate against him, and he would lose the job, against his own desires.
I see no possible way around this problem, other than to pay everyone equally.
Jonathan,
Umm, it’s pretty simple: You don’t decide based on your criteria. You decide without regard to child bonuses.
This is not all that hard, and it’s done all the time. (For example, a company may offer a more expensive maternity leave to women, but nevertheless hires without regard to this cost difference).
So the answer is pretty simple: HR won’t pay any attention to chiod bonuses in making hiring decisions.
By the way, you haven’t addressed the point I raised earlier, which is that the market wages _assume_ that the family is two-income. So why is it that we should we pay the wages that the great and spacious building suggest?
Larry,
I see no reason to blindly adhere to a market that is based on the underlying assumption of a two-income, working-mother family.
And another point — employers pay extra incentives all the time to employees to induce behavior that they think is good for some reason. This is not controversial.
My old employer paid for college for employees, up to $2000 per year. This may not have been “market rate” but it was a nice perk and it allowed the employer to help support its employees’ education, because that employer thought that that was a good idea.
Another employer that I’m aware of pays $2000 to each new employee for the purpose of buying a computer, printer, and fax machine to keep at home.
Employers may give stock options, because they want employees to feel like they are part of the company. They may subsidize adoptions, or match funds that you contribute to charity or to your alma mater, or whatever else.
Employers do this kind of stuff all the time. So what’s so controversial about stay-at-home mom subsidization?
Kaimi,
In theory I might agree with you but the problem becomes one of supply – demand, even under your scenario. By increasing the salary, you also increase the demand for the position, which in turn adversely affects the family because the competition is greater, therefore chances of getting the job decrease, inevitably throwing the mother into the work force to ensure financial security. It seems like an unsolvable problem, no matter which way you look at it. (Assume instead of 4 children, they have 6).
Arbitrary rules don’t work. I think the issue of rent controls in New York bore that out. (Maybe not a useful comparison but you get the idea.)
With regards to incentives, they are done on a cost-benefit basis. The result is always intended to improve the bottom line, if even on a delayed basis.
There is another alternative. We could do more to help the janitors and they could have less janitors and they could make more money. I don’t know about the rest of the guys.
I just have this terrible guilt that they are poor. All the market analysis talk is beyond me. It doesn’t seem fair. They’re working for me, for you. They don’t need a yacht, they need parity.
Although, I can’t remember who made this point, sorry, but it’s true, they could quit and go to work somewhere else. Maybe they’re happy, and we’re arguing for nothing. But I still like everybody, even if I’m arguing. LOL
Kaimi-
You ignored my point about the obligation the church has to work as efficiently as possible. In our scenario with the $12,000 child bonus, the church shouldn’t ignore the fact that an applicant is a father. If the church can find sufficient employment for $12,000 less per year for each position, it should hire the single applicants. To not do so would be irresponsible and wasteful.
If you believe that the church would be justified in hiring the more expensive father, why? It would cost more tithing money for little or no added benefit. If the father was slightly more qualified than the single applicant and would therefore win out in a blind application process, presumably he would be less qualified than a more experienced single applicant asking for $40,000, and the church would still save $2,000..
So why hire the father? Only to subsidize stay-at-home moms? If that is the only purpose, then (as mentioned by a prior commenter) why stop at church employees? Why not hand out checks on Sunday to subsidize all families whose mothers feel like they must work? I see no more justification for paying above-market wages to church employees than I see for cutting a check for the same above-market amount to employees of other organizations. Both amount to taking tithing money to pay someone more than their job is naturally worth.
As for your comment about the market assuming that the family is two income: The market doesn’t assume anything. The market determines wages based on the suppy and desire of qualified labor and the quantity and intensity of demand for that labor.
While it is the case that three times as many households have two incomes than one, it is also the case that the vast majority of them make dramatically more than is required to sustain life. The church has no obligation to pay any of its employees more than is required to sustain the lives the families of its employees at a subsistence level. Food, shelter, and clothing. The pension and healthcare plans are a bonus. Everything else is lifestyle.
I know plenty of families in El Salvador that, were they permitted to enter the United States, would gladly take a job for the church and promise that the mother would never work outside the home. And all that for standard, U.S. market-based salary. And I think they would do just fine, even at $30,000/year.
well, sometimes you can be kind of stuck up. (you know who you are)
Kaimi,
How do market wages assume two income? I don’t see a trend anywhere that companies pay less because the employee’s spouse should be working to provide the other half of the necessary funds to live on.
Additionally, the idea that Employee #1 right next to me gets paid more based solely on the fact that he has kids when I don’t, is a blatant form of discrimination. What if it’s not my fault I don’t have children? Do I get a sympathy bonus for trying? the federal government already doesn’t cut me any slack for being childless, and you expect me to agree to a system that then allows the Church as an employer to throw it back in my face as well?
I still am amazed that you feel that the Church is shortchanging its employees.
From a sheer standing of fairness, examine Scenario #1:
Employee #1: A father with 6 kids interviews for a job offering $30,000.
Employee #2: A single man with no kids interviews for a job offering $30,000.
Employee #3: A married man with no kids (and the inability to have them) interviews for a job offering $30,000.
All three men get the job. All three are making $30,000.
What is unfair about that? All 3 men agreed to work for the proposed salary for the position. Neither one was forced to take the job. The Church is happy, because it got three new employees it wants. Employee #1 is happy, becuase he got the job he wants, Employee #2 is happy because he got the job, and Employee #3 is happy because he got the job he wanted.
Now, let’s look at Scenario #2.
Employee #1: A father with 6 kids interviews for a job offering $30,000.
Employee #2: A married with no kids, but a pregnant wife, interviews for a job offering $30,000.
Employee #3: A married man with no kids (and the inability to have them) interviews for a job offering $30,000.
All three men get the job.
Employee #1: Gets paid $42,000. ($3,000 each for the first three, plus another $1500 each for the next 2. Apparently Child #6 isn’t worth any additional money to the Church, so he’s really just a drain on the family’s economy.
Employee #2: Gets paid $30,000. Finds out Employee #1 gets a kid bonus, and goes home to start workign on a family, while complaining that it’s not fair that he makes less at the moment just because he hasn’t been married long enough.
Employee #3: Gets paid $30,000. Finds out Employee #1 gets paid $12,000 more just because he has children, realizes Employee #2 will get a bonus when he has a kid next year. And to top it off, the guy is incapable of having children, so has no hope of ever receiving the bonus.
Employee #1 is getting paid $12,000 more than he agreed to work for. He didn’t ask for it. He didn’t need it. The Church is spending $12,000 on a guy who didn’t even ask for it, and would have taken the job at $30,000.
How is this scenario fair? More importantly, how is this more equitable and fair than the first scenario.
Jonathan,
1. I guess we just disagree. I don’t think that the church is required to be efficient or profitable, particularly in cases where efficiency goes against the Lord’s work. I’m surprised that you think it’s that important. If an empirical study showed that lowering tithing to 8% would cause an increase in total tithing payments (because more people would pay at that rate), and that that change would be most financially profitable, should the church do that? If it could be shown that temples in poor countries are money losers, should the church stop building them? What of the funds spent in various political campaigns against gay marriage? I’m suggesting nothing more than spending some money to defend the family. That’s an approved use. Why not try putting eternal principles above market performance, efficiency, profitability?
2. The market sets its wages based on the lowest amount that people are willing to work for. And the vast number of two-income families means that market wages will be driven down by those people who don’t need to survive on a single income, and who can thus accept lower wages.
So our janitor (outside of the church) _can’t_ demand a $40,000 a year job. If he tries, he will be told “well, Sam down the road here will work for $30,000.”
The reason why Sam is willing to work for $30,000 is that his is a two-income family, like 3/4 of the workforce. He doesn’t need to support a family on his income alone, and so he’ll work for less.
Therefore, the out-of-the-church market wages are driven down by the supply of two-income workers.
That’s what I meant by saying that the market assumes two incomes. You’re right that there are a lot of people who will be willing to take a janitorial position at $30,000. There’s a whole market full of them, and the vast majority are working at that rate _because_ their wives are working out of the home. That second income is a major factor in the very creation of the market rate.
Which is why, if we’re postulating that mothers shouldn’t be compelled to work outside the home, we need to disregard that market rate.
Michael,
1. A master gave one servant five talents, another two, and a third one. How is this equitable and fair?
2. I’m working at my old employer, and going to school. I get paid $2000 for schooling, plus my salary. My co-worker just get s a salary. How is that fair?
3. I’m at my job now. I get paid salary. Plus, when I contribute $500 to my alma mater, my employer kicks in $500. My co-worker, who doesn’t contribute to her alma mater, gets no extra money. Again, not fair.
4. I commit one sin in my entire life. I repent, receive the atonement, and go to the celestial kingdom. My neighbor commits a thousand sins. She repents, receives the atonement, and goes to the celestial kingdom. Again, not fair.
5. My two-year-old gets food all over her dress. She gets cleaned up and scolded a little. My seven-year-old gets food all over his shirt. He gets sent to his room. Not fair, he tells me.
It seems that employment and pay often really aren’t “fair.” And the Lord also doesn’t seem concerned about being “fair” as you seem to be defining it.
Differently situated people are treated differently. That’s the way of the workforce, when we really look at it, and that’s the way of the Lord.
The three employees are situated differently, so they are treated differently. Pretty simple.
Michael,
Also, your discussion of “is it my fault?” and “sympathy bonus for trying” misses the point altogether.
The point is to keep mothers in the home. The presence of a mother in the home is something which the Prophets have repeatedly emphasized as important.
Given that point, your own questions are answered pretty easily. No, no bonus for trying. No, we’re not going to say it’s anyone’s “fault” he doesn’t have kids.
Is it discrimination? Sure. We discriminate on all sorts of grounds. We discriminate on grounds of intelligence, productivity, personality, and good looks. This is as good a reason as any to discriminate — in fact, it’s better than most.
Certain types of employment discrimination are banned by state and federal laws. As long as we’re not running afoul of those, we’re fine. (And the church is exempt from some applications of antidiscrimination laws because of its religious status — see, e.g., Amos v. Presiding Bishop).
Kaimi:
I guess your point is that life isn’t fair, and perhps life isn’t fair because God isn’t fair. Or God isn’t fair because we are all different. So in theory, if we had a perfect understanding of all of our differences, maybe we could recognize that life really is fair.
All of that may be true. However, I think fairness is an ideal we should strive for, to the extent you can make a system more fair, I would say that you have achieved something desirable. Therefore I think it is fair to advance on argument based on fairness in this situation.
Come on, deep down don’t we all really believe, or at least want to believe that God is fair. I mean after all we believe in a system of rewards and punishments. We believe that God is just and justice and fairness are certainly related if not one in the same. Even the atonement, though maybe not entirely fair, has a concept of fairness to it. You don’t partake of the atonement for nothing. If you do, what is all this I hear in church about repentance and enduring to the end. God isn’t arbitrary, I think He is fair, or at least He values fairness.
I am definitely interested in how fair the compensation system is in the church, just as I am interested generally in seeing a more perfect world with more fairness.
So enough of this, “tough life isn’t fair” blather.
Why this thread is still alive I don’t know, but since it is I might as well add fuel to the fire:
I just read all these posts, and I feel that based on the majority of opinions a group of you (led by Kaimi) should get together and go protest outside of the COB with sings that say ‘lds workers need a living wage’ (though you should come up with somthing more cleaver than that). IMO, this is no different than a bunch of members of the ACLU going and picketing outside of McDonald’s for those poor workers who can’t feed their families. They applied for the job, the were qualified and accepted it, no one needs to barge in and fight for them because we think they can’t fight for themselves.
As mentioned by Jonathan and others, those who choose to work for the church chose to do so and know what they’re getting into — my guess would be that some of the ‘intangible’ benefits would be working for a company where the employees and employer alike are held to standards of integrity. The idea that the Church should compensate members extra (on a per child basis or any other) so that their wives can stay home is ridiculous. The extreme is that we get people having more kids just so that they can have more money for themselves (like the mothers who get formula with their food stamps and then pawn it on ebay.) Also, this would create an idealistic image of working for the church and wives might begin to say ‘if only my husband could work for the church, all our problems would be solved’. (In my town, my husband happens to work for the large well-established company, with good benefits, and I get this ALL the time.)
And not to mention if the church raised salaries they would no longer attract the most righteous (those who find joy in sacrifice)! And we would look worse to the outside by paying people to follow the guidance of the church…and oppress their wives by keeping them at home.
What’s most problematic to me would be the Church setting policy (and backing it with cash incentives) that the wife must stay home. To my knowledge, while there’s an obvious preference for SAHMs, this is still a personal decision that needs to be made on an individual basis. Does anyone know a mother with children 17 or younger who is employed by the church? Now that’d be an interesting perspective. Being a mormon working mother in the COB would be quite a challenge, that is if they don’t have a policy which prevents it (like for temple workers). Moreover, is there a place in the church for mothers who work by choice (for personal reasons to fulfill individual needs/desires), and not because of finanicial necessity? That last one is probably a topic for another time, but one worthy of discussion nonetheless…I think too often these women (myself included) feel unnecessary guilt as if “thou shalt not work outside the home” were a commandment, and not following it is a sin.
Kaimi,
How do you know Sam is a two-income family?
Maybe he is a one income family that drives an ’87 Honda, instead of a ’05 Explorer?
As for mothers being compelled to work outside the home, I would ask a few questions about the family you know.
Do they have cable or satellkite?
Do they have cell phones?
How much do they spend at Christmas time?
How often do they eat out?
What is their grocery budget per month?
How much do they spend on clothing? Do they buy name brand?
How many vehicles do they own? How new are their vehicles?
Your argument seems to be based on the fact that the Church should give a handout to people with kids, just because you say so. You have no economic basis, no hard figures or facts, no analysis of the repurcussions of enacting any child subsidy system.
You act as if the current system is flawed and that you know what should be done, but you don’t give anything specific.
A far better system, which is taken from your idea, is that the Church should instead refuse to allow employees to have a spouse that works outside the home. That would ensure that the mothers stay in the home. If, as you suggest, the employees couldn’t subsist on the one salary, they would leave. If the Church lost too many employees, it would be forced to increase pay, in order to attract enough employees that would live on one income. For instance, if no one came forward to accept the job at $30,000, then the offer would be raised, until the candidates would agree to work for the proposed salary. This way, the Church has employees with enough to live on, and mothers could stay at home, and the market will have put the salaries to a level for single income families, based on the new policy of only allowing single income families to work as employees.
This should make everyone happy. Market plays a role, mothers stay home, and family has enough to live on.
It is a much simpler system that assigning an arbitrary amount as yet undetermined for employees with kids.
mployee #1: Gets paid $42,000. ($3,000 each for the first three, plus another $1500 each for the next 2. Apparently Child #6 isn’t worth any additional money to the Church, so he’s really just a drain on the family’s economy.
Employee #2: Gets paid $30,000. Finds out Employee #1 gets a kid bonus, and goes home to start workign on a family, while complaining that it’s not fair that he makes less at the moment just because he hasn’t been married long enough.
Employee #3: Gets paid $30,000. Finds out Employee #1 gets paid $12,000 more just because he has children, realizes Employee #2 will get a bonus when he has a kid next year. And to top it off, the guy is incapable of having children, so has no hope of ever receiving the bonus.
Hmm, sounds like the US Military pay scales. At least the way they used to work.
I’m with Kaimi on this one. Lots of employers already offer bonuses to workers with kids–child care subsidies. My previous employer offered such a benefit, and we milked it for all it was worth. Workers with no kids didn’t get the benefit, but I don’t recall any of my coworkers begrudging me the extra cash. In fact, those who fought to get the subsidy included in our contract were mostly unmarried non-parents. The benefits maxed out at two children, and both parents had to be employed outside the home. The Church could simply add this to its (already generous) benefits, but drop the requirement that the mom (or dad) work. At the margin, this would reduce the number of moms in the workforce. Do Kaimi’s opponents think that the Church shouldn’t be offering dental coverage? A 401(k) plan?
Slightly off topic, but… I’ve been following this discussion for a while now. As far as I can tell, the following thinking seems to underlie most of these posts:
1. The only reason most people work is for money.
2. Women should never need to work, or even want to work.
3. We have a theological imperative to make as much money as possible, or at least to choose careers that pay enough that our wives should not have to work, and this should be the primary consideration in career choice.
Is this really the way most people think about these things? Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to just be a man of leisure sometimes too, but i also enjoy intellectual and social fulfillment from my career, and these are in the end far more important for me than the pitiful wages i get.
If these views are really widespread, I guess that would explain why 90% of my ward is at HLS or HBS. They’re definitely a different crowd than i associated with in college, and i’m honestly not sure if this viewpoint is more common at BYU than non-church schools, not having attended there myself.
Nearly all the perspectives here seem to be from male lawyers (which must make it easier to criticize those further down the earnings ladder for cable, cell phones, cars and Christmas). Not a lot of female viewpoints. I think working or staying home are both fine (my mom was kind of in between), but i’m certainly not going to try to talk my wife out of attending medical school. it’s something she wants to do for herself and the community, using her God-given talents in a way complementary to motherhood. Isn’t it common to want careers for reasons other than financial?
And does me choosing a low-paying career then mean i have violated some sort of commandment, because there were more lucrative options available? I’d hate to think that was the case…
Kaimi, you seem to almost deliberately distort my argument that the church has an obligation to spent tithing money efficiently. I am not talking about “maximizing profit” or getting a monetary return on investment in third-world temples. Tithing, and indeed the church offices and church employees, exist not to benefit church employees, but to benefit progression of the kingdom of God. Therefore the church administration, including its employees, have an obligation to spend the tithing money most efficiently (meaning, getting the most done in achieving the temporal and spiritual goals using the tithing money received).
What I’m talking about isn’t closing down “unprofitable” temples, or tweaking the revealed tithing rate of 10%, so don’t try to portray my argument as that. I am talking about not spending more money than is necessary to administer the church. That includes not paying a father employee $42,000 when another equally qualified single employee will gladly do the same job for $30,000. To spend the extra $12,000 is wasteful and accomplishes nothing for the church.
The second part of my argument, which you did not address, is that the only justification for paying the extra $12,000 is to subsidize SAHMs. Yet if the church subsidizes SAHMs for church employees earning market rate, why should they not also subsidize SAHMs for non-church employees earning the same amount?
And what would members in third-world countries think of their tithing money going to American families at $12,000 a pop so the mothers can stay at home in a house with a television, a car, a yard, a telephone, and more expensive food than is required to survive?
Jonathan–
Your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Church should pay the absolute minimum the market will allow and have zero benefits. How do those third-worlders feel about Church employees getting a a flouride treatment when their teeth are rotting away in the slums of Sao Paulo? I speculate that the church pays above the poverty level (even if it could fill its positions with salaries at the poverty level) because it wants employees who are skilled and who are not overly concerned with financial ruin. It offers a dental plan (even if it doesn’t have to)because it wants its employees to be healthy and not distracted by chronic pain. Furthermore, it does both these things because it is right to do so. What is so difficult to accept about the Church extending an increasingly common benefit (child care money) without attaching the condition that both parents work outside the home (consistent with a prominent doctrinal message)? This is slightly different from Kaimi’s idea of offering the money only to single-earner families, but it would certainly lead to more moms feeling capable of staying at home. Maybe you’re put off by an implication that the Church *should* do this–as though we were dictating what policies must be adopted in order for the Church to be non-hypocritical. Think of it instead as a gentle suggestion: the Church *could* do this. Many Church policies originated in such gentle suggestions percolating up.
Jonathan writes,
“Tithing, and indeed the church offices and church employees, exist not to benefit church employees, but to benefit progression of the kingdom of God.”
Exactly. And this means paying for stay at home mothers, which the prophets tell us will advance the kingdom of God.
Jonathan writes,
“To spend the extra $12,000 is wasteful and accomplishes nothing for the church.”
The Proclamation on the Family states:
“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.”
If that $12,000 keeps a mother at home, then it does something for the Kingdom of God.
Michael,
“How do you know Sam is a two-income family?”
Because, as noted above, three-quarters of the workforce are two-income families. They’re the majority, they’re cheaper, and they’re setting market rates.
Because market rates are set on the assumption that the spouse can always work outside the home, these market rates reflect worldly priorities which our leaders have told us are wrong. They are a corrupt indicator of what the LDS church should consider a proper wage.
Michael also asks why not do this for non-church employees —
Hmm, not necessarily a bad idea. At the very least, however, we should do it for church employees. If Intel or Bank One or some other worldly employer drives a stay at home mother into the workforce, that’s not a good thing, but we expect nothing better from them.
More should be expected from the church.
‘me’ –
If you could look back at the last few lines of my post #107, I’d like to take the discussion in the direction of figuring out whether your
“2. Women should never need to work, or even want to work.” is part of church doctrine or church culture. I personally hope it’s just the culture, but there are so many ways the culture can get in the way of what we actually believe (or what’s required to get to the celestial kingdom). I like the term ‘cultural contamination’ because it reminds me that the culture can be bad for the church, and I like to stick to pure doctrine.
I recently moved from a ward similar to the one you speak of in the Boston area. Ironically, we moved here (to the West Coast) partly (in addition to my husband’s job) so that I would feel less pressure to continue with my career and thus, be in a better place to start a family. Needless to say, we got what we were looking for and more… the pressure to stay home is astounding. People have no idea how to relate an educated, free-thinking woman or why I might want to work for work’s sake…and unfortunately, I have no idea how to relate to them. Aside from the fact that we’re mormon and mothers we have little in common. As it is right now, I’m pursuing an advanced degree I might never use, and my career of choice, if I choose to keep working part-time, probably won’t even cover childcare costs.
Sure, you could call this a luxury, being able to work for personal fulfillment and enjoyment, because my husband has a good job and we can live on one income. Luckily, my husband is supportive of my interests and pursuits, and realizes I’m not really the type who could be completely happy ‘just’ being a mom. Whether what I ultimately choose to do to get a break from my kids and stimulate my mind may or may not bring in money, though I don’t think that necessarily matters. I recently read a book that says moms that stay-at-home in these days aren’t simply housewives but the family’s CEO. If it is church policy that mom’s should stay at home unless ‘financially forced’ to work, I do think that’s clearly one way the Chruch is oppressing women from fully developing their talents…
Dan, Anne, “me”,
Thanks for your support and comments. I was starting to get a little worried. I still find it mind-boggling that there’s such opposition to a simple idea to keep moms in the home. And some of it is empirical-ish (Frank’s thoughts that it just probably won’t work) but most of it seems to be based on the idea that markets are more important than God — utterly mind-boggling.
Ryan,
I understand that we all expect God to be fair, or at least to not be arbitrary. However, God gives us different blessings or gifts, and he does so according to our needs, and for our benefit. He doesn’t arbitrarily decide to reward one person over another. But if one person has a greater need, that person may receive more blessings. The man with a thousand sins receives more forgiveness, numerically, than the man with one sin. This isn’t “fair” in a strict “how much have you given me” sense. But it is just and proper.
If I were suggesting some arbitrary designator — people whose last names end with F get extra cash — then the suggestion could rightly be criticized as arbitrary.
But I’m not. I’m suggesting that some families are more in need of financial benefit than others. Particularly families with young children and a stay at home mother. And it is entirely fair and just to give those families greater financial benefit.
“Fair” and “unfair” are easy terms to bandy about, but are often devoid of content. Fairness generally requires treating similarly situated parties similarly. But when parties are not similarly situated, dissimilar treatment may be warranted. That’s not “unfair” behavior — it reflects the different positions of the different recipients. Just like the different positions of the person with one sin and the person with a thousand — one simply needs more forgiveness than the other, and God won’t hold it back because it would be “unfair” to give greater forgiveness to one party than to another.
Emma,
I think that women who want to work outside the home should generally be free to do so. That’s a decision between the woman and God.
It’s the mothers who feel forced into the workplace (because their income is needed to make ends meet) that I’m worried about.
“And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.” — D. & C. 42:33
Based on the responses so far, this vision is a long way off.
Perhaps the church should ask all of its employees to donate their labor as a free will offering. At the very least, its lawyers and money managers could work pro bono. :)
Emma,
I appreciate your comments. I’m glad to see there are others who feel this way too. The
issue of working/stay at home moms seems to be a little more contentious than I would
like it to be. My wife has said she’s felt a fair amount of hostility from women in our
ward about her choice to pursue a career. This is utterly foreign to us after having been
in singles wards in this area for years, in her case since her baptism. Last year the
bishop of our ward gave a lesson to the RS in which he stated his concern that many of the women in the ward saw themselves as appendages to their husbands, and challenged them to do something (not necessarily work) to assert their individuality, develop their talents, and seek fulfillment outside of (and in addition to) their family responsibilities. Apparently the lesson generated a lot of bad feelings, and many saw it as an attack on stay at home mothers. Knowing the bishop, i cant believe those were his intentions at all. of course, i wasn’t actually there.
On the other hand, i’ve heard a lot of people in the church make quite negative comments about SAHMs as well, so it cuts both ways. A little more tolerance and creative thinking on both sides is in order i guess.
I agree it is unfortunate when women who really dont want to are forced to work for financial reasons. However, there seems to be a distinct sense in these postings that all dual-income families (by necessity, not choice) are simply living beyond their means, which i think is a dangerous judgement to make. sometimes there’s no way around it. My salary would probably just cover the rent on its own, with nothing left over. I admit that if it was very important to my wife to never work, i would feel a lot more pressure to pursue a more lucrative career, cause one income in my field would never cut it (which was point 3 in my previous post).
Then again, i’m also thankful to have the freedom to pursue all sorts of crazy things for a career, rather than being a serf or subsistence farmer or something.
Kaimi,
There are lots of behaviors that are more or less susceptible to economic pressure. This is certainly one of them. But the idea that this is going to be worthwhile seems a little over the top. I realize that, when asked, people prefer to say that they needed to have a second income to “make ends meet”, but talk is cheap. Yous seem to think it is worth $12,000 of the Church’s money to get an extra stay at home mom. If that were really all there was to it then maybe t would be worth pursuing. But I still am unclear on a few things:
1. Does the family only get this money if the mother stays at home?
2. Are salaries of single people amd women going to be raised as well?
3. If not (2), this is pretty clearly going to be attacked as gender-based wages. In fact, if they did this now I would expect you would be one of the people getting mad about it.
4. Either way, this clearly is going to make these jobs cash-cows for married families. In which case, maried men will flock to these jobs. I still have not seen you address how the Church employees are going to decide who gets the job, since they can’t lower the wage. This is non-trivial because it can easily undo everything the program was designed to accomplish.
A story for your consideration:
My wife’s aunt worked outside the home for the church at the Church Office Building. Once she shared an elevator with President Monson, and took the short time available to tell him that she would like to be a SAHM, but had to work to make ends meet. She asked him what she could do.
President Monson replied, “You don’t have enough faith.”
She quit her job, and they have found a way to make it work.
hambone,
Nice… especially “Church Office Building” capitolized.
What’s your point, she didn’t have enough faith, or President Monson was insensitive? What is SAHM?
oh, duh, never mind. I figured it out.
annegb,
SAHM=stay-at-home-mom. Hambone’s point was to have a little fun with urban legend.
A couple of things to consider:
1. The child care benefits offered by some employers are largely tax driven. Employees can divert part of their pre-tax salary to a fund out of which they can pay child care costs. Both parents must work as a condition of receiving the tax benefits. If the Church were to offer to divert salary to a child care fund without requiring both parents to work, there would be no tax benefit and hence no incentive for anybody to participate.
2.In response to the comment “Why not hand out checks on Sunday to subsidize all families whose mothers feel like they must work?” the Church actually provides its own tax incentive for SAHMs (probably unintentionally). This relates to the earlier comment about how tithing distorts the labor market. In a market-based Zion (i.e., made up entirely of tithe-payers), all of the activities that SAHMs do (e.g., child care, housekeeping, tutoring, etc.) escape tithing. If they hire those activities out, the service providers would have to pay tithing on their receipts. Hence, the incentive is for moms to stay home.
re: #77, #88 (Sheri Lynn, Julie in A.)
Yes, #77 is hilarious. But beyond the humor, it might even work. I entered “ark-steadying” in a Google search, and the very first listing was T&S!
Jay (#90),
Nice “PROC COMMENT”. I’m surprised I didn’t see any “WARNING:” or “ERROR:” messages in your SAS Log.
(Apologies to the rest of you that don’t use SAS software.) Let me know if you find a way to use PROC COMPARE to quickly sort out the different sides of the arguments. It would save me a *lot* of time when reading these T&S threads. :)
I don’t want to spawn or get drawn in to further debate on this topic. My simple take is that Kaimi’s basic idea will work when we successfully follow the United Order. However, I think trying to apply it for Church employees while we are part of a larger interactive market system would lead to many of the problems cited above. We just aren’t there yet, as stated by Bill in #118. (On the other hand, if the Church really does pay below market rate for non-profit organizations, that is something that could be remedied.)
Frank,
I’m not sure if the reports of seminary teachers getting higher pay, and people flocking to those jobs, are true. Other comments have said that there is already high competition for these positions and a number of applicants.
The church already chooses between applicants. It will just continue that process.
I don’t know how much the idea that individual employers lower wages until they hit equilibrium applies in real life. I know that for my job, there are lots of applicants for every open position. The employer chooses the applicants it likes best. The best-qualified person gets it.
Kaimi,
I agree with what you say, but that will undo your program, because the Church will pick the most qualified. Here is a simple way to see why. Suppose there are two kinds of people, less and more qualified. Less can earn 35K and more can earn 47K in the private sector. Both value a Church job enough to give up 10K in salary.
1. Old regime: Church offers 30K, only the less skilled apply, and one gets the job.
2. Kaimi regime: Church offers 30K plus 12K in financial incentives to dads. Less and more skilled apply, more gets the job. Less goes to work for 35K in the private sector but has not been benefited by the program. More now makes less money. Net effect on wife employment is likely to be rather small, if any. The Church is out 12K but the job is done better. The family benefits program is essentially just a roundabout way of hiring better workers.
Now perhaps what you want is to force low-skilled workers out of Church employment, but I don’t think so.
Also, if these payments go to all who have mom stay at home anyway, as well as switchers, that means you have to pay a huge amount of money to moms that would stay home anyway to get a few switchers. This is one of the reasons it may not be financially viable.
Frank, you hit the nail on the head. As much as the church could try to thwart the market, the reality is, as a large employer in America, it has interdependence with the free market. Any actions it takes with regard to salaries will ultimately find an equilibrium based on market forces. I don’t believe this because I value the market more than God; it is because the free market is a reality, and workers will adapt to it.
It is too short-sighted to imagine the effects of a policy on current employees; what matters is its ultimate effects on the labor pool. I know that many people do not seek church employment because they get a higher salary elsewhere (like me). With a SAHM bonus, those people might then be interested, and so people like me would just be trading one higher salary for another.
The Proclamation is says that women are primarily responsible for nurturing their children. THat is doctrine. The church also encourages women to: be educated, fulfill church callings, go to the temple, go visiting teaching, go to Enrichment, serve others in the ward or in the community, go out on dates with their husbands, etc.
It is rarely possible to do everything 24/7 with all children all the time. I have no problem with moms who are getting an advanced degree because they want to.
But why do you think I’m “just a mom.”
Being a SAHM is not “oppressing me from fully developing my talents.” I can’t tell you how much I have learned in the past 7 years. I’ve pushed myself, stretched, both physically, and intellectually. I have developed so many, many talents.
Motherhood is what you make of it. I’ve chosen to give my children the benefit of all my talents, and I don’t regret a minute of it.
Telling women they are “just a mom” perpetuates the sexism that says that traditional feminine roles as worth less than traditional masculine roles.
Since whether or not a woman works is not dependent on how much a husband makes or their financial status, I think raising a father’s salary would not change a wife’s employment status significantly.
While houses are more expensive these days, they are also bigger, have more bathrooms, etc.
Most women who work don’t have to, or they didn’t have to, except they made choices in the past or continue to make choices that necessitate it.
If you go to school to be a doctor and have $200,000 in student loans, you may have to work to pay for the loans. You have the consequence of previous choices.
Sometimes you simply cannot afford to stay home, but maybe it is because of poor choices of the past.
Maybe you have medical bills and feel that paying them off is more important. Maybe you have family members who you help and you feel that working is the best option.
But usually it is a CHOICE, and telling others that there is no choice is a lie. Any woman who is working simply needs to say, “I looked at our options and have decided that me working is the best choice for our family.” And if you REALLY believe that it is the best choice, then you won’t feel guilty. You won’t feel pressured. You won’t feel like you are committing a sin.
However, if you can’t state your decision without that confidence, then maybe you haven’t made the best decision.
I don’t know, JKS, I did a sort of informal survey in my ward, and out of about 100 women (give or take the move-ins, move-outs), 60 work part or full time, another 10 have businesses in their home, day care, and the like, and only 30 of us stay home. Like I said, we, oh, no I didn’t say that here, never mind, well, do mind, we live in a repressed area, where the families with children truly struggle to pay their bills and feed their kids.
My friend down the street’s husband worked as a custodian for the church for years, and she didn’t work, but of course when her son went on a mission and the girls got married, they just had to have the money. They didn’t go expensive, either. She enjoys her job, I don’t think she’s one who complains, but others are simply forced to work. One woman has 6 kids, a full time job, and callings. She’s a wonderful person, always cheerful, but I honestly think she has to work as her kids get older and need more expensive stuff. I feel really sorry for her, like I said, she’s great, but she’s thin and always tired.
I was lucky to get to stay home, sometimes we were pretty poor, but we made it. I knew I couldn’t handle a job and a family, and my kids really appreciated that I was home for them. Even when my daughter went to high school and drove herself, I decided to stay home and hold down the fort. She needed me here and so did the others. I couldn’t give what I can give if I was exhausted bringing home an income.
I strongly believe that the mom needs to be home, even after the kids leave. But I don’t judge those who are in dire circumstances today, I admire and respect how hard they work.
This was all about the church’s low wages forcing the mom out of the home. I don’t know about that, but I do still feel that there should be wage increases. I think times are tougher for families than they were when I was raising my kids. Everybody deserves a decent wage.
I have been bewildered throughout this entire discussion at how people can call for wage increases when they have no direct knowledge of church wages. What are the wages now, in what (specific) ways are those wages inadequate, and to what level do you propose they be increased? If the answers to those questions are “I don’t know, I don’t know, and I don’t know”, then how can you say you support wage increases based on the idea that “times are tougher”?
annegb, you initially seemed to be disagreeing with JKS, but the information you provided seems to support her contention that it is a choice to work outside the home. In the two examples you gave, you mentioned that the first woman (whose husband worked for the church) only began working outside the home when it came time to help her son with his mission and her daughters with their weddings. The second “has to work” because her kids need more expensive stuff.
In both cases, as you’ve described them, the women made the choice to work because there were certain material benefits (beyond mere subsistence) that they wanted to provide for their children. I’m not disagreeing with that desire. I would like to help my children with their missions, college, and weddings. I would hope all parents could. My choice of job and my wife’s decision to work or not work will impact to what extent we are able to provide those and other benefits to our children. But those are choices, not necessities.