The arithmetic of dignity

The arithmetic of dignity | Daily Tribune

The endless debates among labor, government, and employers over minimum and living wages are often framed as technical, legal, or moral disputes about numbers. That framing may be convenient, but it is misleading. Wages do not stand alone. They are determined by productivity, by what businesses can actually sustain, and by the pressures of competition.

At first glance, the issue seems simple. It is presented as a moral contest between underpaid workers and selfish employers who refuse to give more. Labor groups often turn to Scripture to support their claim. In Luke 10:7, “The laborer deserves his wages,” and in Leviticus 19:13, “Do not withhold the wages of a hired worker.” These are not empty words. They speak directly to fairness and human dignity.

But moral clarity does not cancel out economic reality. Wages cannot be set by appeal alone.

The Philippines is a dual economy, with a formal sector on one side and a much larger informal sector on the other. Of about 14 million enterprises, only some 1.2 million are formally registered. The rest, or 12.8 million, operate informally, outside the effective reach of labor laws, taxes and regulation.

Of roughly 50 million workers, only about 10 million in the formal sector directly benefit from mandated wage increases and 40 million are beyond real coverage.

Even in the formal sector, the ability to comply with wage laws is uneven. Around 65 percent of formal sector businesses are micro enterprises that run on thin margins and have very little room to absorb higher costs. In both formal and informal businesses, the cash reserves are limited and the risk of closure is always a constant threat. Wage increases cannot be simply ordered. They depend on what the business can realistically carry.

Push wages beyond what firms can sustain and the outcome is predictable. Margins collapse, working hours are reduced, hiring slows and expansion plans are put on hold. Some businesses shift from the formal to the informal where rules are lighter and hardly complied with. Others close down altogether and jobs are lost. These are not matters of opinion. They are the natural result of going beyond economic limits.

There is also a practical constraint. Minimum wage laws mainly apply to the formal sector, yet even here many firms struggle to comply. A policy that raises wages on paper but pushes jobs into unregulated work defeats its own purpose. A law only matters if it can be enforced. Beyond that, it becomes little more than a wish.

This does not, however, weaken the case for a living wage. It remains a valid and important goal. As Scripture reminds us in James 5:4, “The wages you failed to pay are crying out.” The issue is not just survival; it is whether a person’s work allows a decent life and a real place in society.

The real challenge is not in choosing between minimum wage and living wage. It is in finding a way to connect them in a way that works. The minimum wage has to be based on what businesses can sustain, while the living wage should guide us to where we want to go. Closing the gap means raising productivity, helping small businesses grow, keeping wage increases steady and predictable, and building companies strong enough to create more formal jobs.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that no business that depends on paying less than a living wage deserves to endure. That pronouncement is compelling, but it does not stand without a condition

Businesses must first be able to survive. A policy that helps some workers but leaves many behind cannot claim to be fair. A policy that weakens employers and pushes workers into informality cannot claim to be just.

The real challenge is not how high wages should be or how fast they should rise. It is how to build an economy where higher wages are both possible and sustainable. This is not just about numbers. It is about matching the economic reality with human dignity without destroying the businesses that provide the jobs.

The push to align the minimum wage with the living wage all at once has to stop. Rushing it is not reform. It is recklessness wrapped in moral language. A wage set beyond what productivity can support does not raise one’s dignity. It puts jobs at risk. It hits the smallest and most fragile businesses the hardest while claiming to defend the workers.

If we truly want to lift up the workers, then we have to do the harder work. We need to raise productivity, support businesses so they can grow, and create conditions where higher wages can be earned and sustained.

Anything less is not justice. It is arithmetic without reality, policy without consequence, and advocacy without responsibility.