I really need to read this.

I also want to say that this is a great example of the reason I love this blog, and why I think it's important. There are so few people out there that would even attempt to approach this encyclical with any real objectivity. Everything this pope says, indeed, everything anybody says is judged by its usefulness in shoring up one's own preconceived opinions. So, thank you for this, and for all the other posts thst you have written in a similar spirit.

AMDG

I meant, people elsewhere on the internet, not the commenters here

Thank you, Janet. I strive to do that, and it's good to know that it comes through.

Louise, I've had my reservations about some of the things Francis has said and done, but have pretty much been won over now. To some extent the reservations arose from distortions in the media and for that matter in the Catholic commentaries, so it helps a lot to read him directly. I may not even now find him as entirely simpatico as Benedict, but that's ok--I mean, one has to expect that not every pope will appeal personally to one in the same way.

To both of you and anyone else who hasn't read it: it is kind of forbiddingly long, and not equally inspiring. You might try reading just the first chapter. I think you'll be impressed. And challenged. And really I think the best of it is in the first two chapters (though I have a few pages to go).

Very good choice. "Did not our hearts burn within us?" is another reference that comes to mind.

Unless there's something really striking in the last 20 or so paragraphs, which I haven't read yet, I think I'd say the heart of it is in the first two chapters.

Right. Those, and others as well. I pasted the whole thing into an Open Office doc so that I could highlight things as I read, and a number of passages are marked because they produced that reaction in me. That's one reason it's taken me so long to read it, too--I only have that copy at home, and Open Office is really not the most comfortable way to read it, even on a computer.

Janet, that is why God made 4-pt. font. And magnifying glasses.

I thought it was probably possible to do that with the Kindle, but it was too technical for me.:-)

Louise, This is the paragraph I'm printing this weekend:

The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. Whenever our interior life becomes caught up in its own interests and concerns, there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor. God’s voice is no longer heard, the quiet joy of his love is no longer felt, and the desire to do good fades. This is a very real danger for believers too. Many fall prey to it, and end up resentful, angry and listless. That is no way to live a dignified and fulfilled life; it is not God’s will for us, nor is it the life in the Spirit which has its source in the heart of the risen Christ.

I find the part about the danger to believers to be so true. So often I see daily Mass-goers who are so permanently angry or so permanently listless, and I admit that I've been known to suffer from both of those conditions myself, although not all the time.

AMDG

I think you'll like it. Aside from the good stuff that Janet has been talking about, you may find it interesting that there are a couple of paragraphs that sound sorta...postmodern. I guess it's Communion-and-Liberation-speak. Nothing against C&L but Giussani (sp?) is sometimes kind of obscure.

I read it on the Vatican site, not exactly hurriedly, but excitedly. I want to read it again prayerfully and slowly, but am waiting for the one I ordered from Amazon to arrive. I really prefer paper; not only can I curl up with it but I can underline it. Man, I love this pope. I keep thinking that I am going to wake up and it turns out to have been just a dream...

I never thought of Benedict that way, Robert. I usually found him lucid, and C&L speak somewhat obscure.

Here, btw, is an instance of what I was thinking of in my remark earlier. It's from a section called "Time is greater than space."

"Giving priority to space means madly attempting to keep everything together in the present, trying to possess all the spaces of power and of self-assertion; it is to crystallize processes and presume to hold them back. Giving priority to time means being concerned about initiating processes rather than possessing spaces. Time governs spaces, illumines them and makes them links in a constantly expanding chain, with no possibility of return."

To which I added the note: [??]

I meant to reply yesterday to Janet's comment about anger and listlessness. I'm a little bit surprised to hear that said about daily Mass-goers, but anger has certainly been a pretty visible part of Catholic life for as long as I've been in the Church. I associate it with traditionalists on the one side and progressives on the other. Sort of a mirror of our general social division.

But that doesn't seem to be what Francis is talking about, exactly. I can see in myself, mostly in my past self, the same combination, but with me it had to do with a general sense that life was difficult and the Church, as an institution, was not helping. At all.

That description of the psychology of consumerism is perfect.

Well, you probably have a point. The people I'm thinking about are mostly older, more traditional people whose anger stems more from the changes they have seen in the Church-some I agree with and I don't, and liturgical abuse that they see.
That isn't want Pope Francis is talking about in that second paragraph, but I think it is what he's talking about in your C&L-ish quote.

AMDG

I suppose I'm probably a J, too, but then.... Actually I've gotten to a point where I don't even want to think about things like this, because they start me trying to classify myself, decide whether I like the classification, then feel bad if I don't, generally become even more introspective and self-conscious than I already am, which is not pleasant.

I'm truthfully not entirely sure what he means in the C&L-ish quote, but it does vaguely sound like he might mean something like that.:-/

That's a good quote, Janet.

Thanks.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular, but yeah, I did stay away from your blog as part of my general avoidance of the scuffling while reading EG.

I don't really agree with your view of the whole situation, not surprisingly, but I'll leave it at that, since debate would probably not get anywhere.

It is very interesting to me that Weigel has become a great rah-rah for Francis, even though Weigel's record on social justice issues is so tied to the Catholic neocon program.

There is no 'Catholic neo-con program'.

It is doubtful you could find anything written by Fr. Neuhaus, Dr. Weigel, or Mr. Novak that discussed issues with a level of particularity which would actually place them in the midst of contemporary policy disputes here, there, or the next place.

Circumstances in which a term like 'Catholic neo-con program' would make minimal sense would include the following:

1. It was established that command economies, or economies dominated by state enterprise and pervasive mercantilism (like that of Mexico ca. 1964 or Argentina) were normal and free enterprise was deviant.

2. It was established that it ought be one's default judgement that every item on the wish list of those in the education and social work trades was desirable and that anyone who objecting to much of anything was behaving illegitimately.

I almost agree with that statement as you've modified it, Robert, especially as regards those who would have seen Catholic social teaching as discredited. An identification of it with socialism would discredit it in other eyes. I don't think that there was or is any danger of Catholic social teaching being *identified* with the "global capitalist system" (or anything else), though it seems there are some who would like that. Nor do I think Francis has closed any door, though I think he has accurately described part of what's happening.

What I see is a constant wrangle over the proper relations of commerce, government, markets, etc., which might be healthy if the participants actually listened to each other. I don't know where in history you would ever find a system that was not "unjust at its roots," though the degree, livability, and stability vary a lot.

I specifically think that some Catholic proponents of the market underestimate the actual distress a substantial part of the global population experience that the distressed can do nothing about themselves, that requires the assistance of virtuous people in the world, and when that fails, some kind of intervention by the state. If Francis closed the door to anything, I'd say it is that underestimation. He certainly didn't close the door to markets. Or to the primarily personal nature of our responsibility. I acknowledge that there can be and should be wrangling about what are genuine needs, how much we can expect people to take care of their own needs, how much and how we can depend on the virtue of others, and how much and what kind of intervention by the state is needed and what kind is precluded.

This is all very vague, of course, but I agree with you, Mac, that we should listen to each other, rather than label each other and dismiss each other because "they" are "them."

I don't know where in history you would ever find a system that was not "unjust at its roots," though the degree, livability, and stability vary a lot.

The theocratic government administered by Moses. And the social systems prescribed in Mosaic Law seem very just and maybe workable, although I don't know if they were ever really practiced.

AMDG

"You cannot reconcile the social encyclicals with the social thought of Ayn Rand or Herbert Spencer. The trouble that Catholic Republicans have to confront is that their politicians and fellow partisans often talk like they thought Herbert Spencer delineated the principles of proper social policy (even though Republican policy is nothing like that)."

Very true. I don't have time at the moment to say much, but you made me think of this piece in Crisis which I read yesterday. Somewhere in there, I think closer to the end than the beginning, she goes into that area.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same aspects, but I don't really have time to explain. For the most part I'm thinking about the division of property and and the Jubilee which would keep any family from being permanently in poverty, and other things like that.

AMDG

Robert: I was not talking about the Church's credibility among intellectuals and activists, but among the poor a'nd working class, whom you rightly note are victims of corporate capitalism. Sirico and the neocons have done all they can for thirty years to feed this system, and are well-funded by corporate wealth to do so. And since 1991, with CA, they have striven to identify Catholicism with capitalism, and have succeeded in many people's minds, not least the thousands of priests who accepted Acton's offer of an all paid holiday at one of their conferences, held in classy hotels. I do not see this struggle as "we are all basically in agreement and only disagree with a few prudential judgements, so let's be nice." I view those who feed the global corporate socio-economic system as enemies. Enemies, first, of the poor and of workers, and thus enemies to anyone in solidarity with those who suffer. Don't worry, I am a Christian and strive to love my enemies.I do not advocate violence, but more than one pope has warned about the wrath of the suffering.

The point is not to be "nice," but to exercise charity. This requires assuming your opponent to be operating in good faith and good will, and to treat their views as they themselves understand them.

It did. I was replying to Daniel's "so let's be nice."

Daniel,

re: letter carriers--I bet.

re: "when I see them funded by corporate money," This presumes that all corporate interests are always nefarious or at least inimical to the common good. I'm just not sure you can draw that conclusion. But, you may know more than I do about such things.

The budget of Acton is now fairly bloated. It is still about 1/4th that of the Cato Institute, about 1/5th that of the Southern Poverty Law Center (which does no serious work), about 1/5th that of the Center for American Progress (of the Sorosphere), about 1/5th that of the American Enterprise Institute, and about 1/10th that of the Heritage Foundation. It has, however, raced ahead of the Discovery Institute, the Mackinac Center, the Heartland Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, with a budget between 1.5x and 2.5x any of these.

Charity Navigator and the summary documentation provided by the institute itself are not clear on who their donors are. There have been some newspaper reports on a donation here and there. They appear to have had a rapid increase in revenues in recent years and put much of the additional inflow into their endowment. The Institute itself reported that 41% of their revenue arrived from two sources. The Bradley Foundation (which I believe is now defunct) was a donor in the past and the DeVos family (who founded AmWay) are reportedly donors either directly or through their foundations. The IRS form 990 indicates Fr. Sirico is overpaid.

I am still lost about your 'corporate money' angle. Corporate foundations are famous for passing cash out without much thought to who gets it (a long running complaint of starboard publicists). Should I stop watching public television?

More on Sirico: "The connection between Acton Institute and the wealthy Garza family of Monterrey, which was the source of Acton's financing is little known, is this connection interfaces with the Legionaries of Christ, founded by the disgraced late Marcial Maciel, sexual predator and fraudulent priest. The long-time Vicar General of the Legion, Fr. Luis Garza, is the son of Alejandro Garza Lagüera, the founder, financier, and director in 2000 of Acton Institute. Luis Garza's brother-in-law, Alfonso Romo Garza, is known as "the global seed king" as his company (Seminis -- now part of Monsanto) owns 70% of the world's vegetable seeds. Acton is an "Independent Think Tank," which has a mission, "To litter the world with free-market think-tanks [which must be]…independent… of corporations, independent of governments, independent of political parties and even independent of universities." (quotation by Atlas Corp. -- partner company with ACTON -- CEO, Alejandro A. Chaufen) And these "think tanks" have also proved to be independent of the legitimate hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The Acton Directors who followed Alejandro Garza Lagüera were: Frank Hanna, III; Frank Hanna, Jr.; and then Robert Sirico. The Hanna Family has been connected with the Legionaries of Christ for decades, and they continue to broker partnerships and to benefit personally from the Legion's many front organizations. Today, Sirico earns a six-figure salary plus perks as President of the Acton Institute. His Saint Philip Neri House, an oratory where young men go for spiritual discernment has been "in formation" for 14+ years, but has never received official recognition from the Oratorians. Why has no one "followed the money"?
And yeah, I'm sure the decision by wealthy Grand Rapids Calvinsts (also the Maijer family, who own a chain of big box stores in the Midwest) to fund a guy out to reconcile Catholicism with libertarian economics is just a casual thing , just tossing money around...

I am not getting your point. The Acton Institute took contributions from two families which also had a connection to the Legionnaires of Christ.

So let's see

Acton >> Hanna / Garza >> Legion >> Maciel.

Acton is tainted by a thrice removed connection to a priest who had a history of sexual misconduct.

You would have done well on Jim Garrison's staff.

You know, "Art", you think I would have learned years ago that conversation with you is futile. Most of the time I have no idea what you are saying and when I do I think you are wrong. To dismiss my analysis of the ways the neocons deliberately "edited" CA, omitting what challenged them, changing words and phrases to match their agenda, adding parenthetical words not justified by the original text, etc, as mere disagreement with someone else's reaction to the encyclical is, well, dense. Change your alias to "Art Denso". Please.I'm out of here...

It depends on what the word "deceptive" means in this context. If it is inclusive of a good-faith belief on their part that the modifications they made of CA actually reflect an accurate interpretation of the document, then "deceptive" is more like "erroneous interpretation."

If they know what they are saying is misleading and they do it anyway for some ulterior motive, then they are culpable and that is much worse, and worthy of strong denunciation. Or, if they modified the text without telling anyone they were doing so, that would be very bad.

This reminds me of some interpreters of Vatican II who distinguish between the majority of the bishops and the "conservative" minority and then say we only have to listen to what the majority contributed. Or like Gustavo Gutierrez did on Theology of Liberation. He found language in drafts of GS that were more in line with his thinking, that were taken out before promulgation, then said that this is the real mind of the Council, if the minority had not forced it to be taken out.

In any case, it is better to read the documents as written and to accept the plain sense of the words as a challenge to our own opinions.

I fail to see how Fr. Sirico's association with LC in any was affects an interpretation of his writings or of Acton. The writings stand or fall on their own merit, no matter what the motivation of the producers.

Full disclosure: I wrote a couple of reviews for Markets and Morality in times past. This is not an endorsement of the Acton project. I was invited to to them for reasons unknown to me. I generally don't agree with libertarians and disagree with Acton on some things. I don't believe in the invisible hand and I'm as skeptical about supply-side economics as Pope Francis.

Exactly.

However, there is definitely something amiss in the Nogelhaus editing of CA. It is highly tendentious to say the very least.

Really? Much of the text of the social encyclicals has little precision or leads you to odd lacunae. It would take quite an effort to get the text so demonstrably wrong that you would accuse someone of being 'deceptive' (and I've been waiting for some time for either one of you to get down to brass tacks).

Did you read Daniel's piece from CetT? It contains specifics. If you don't think those are tendentious to say the least, nothing else is likely to convince you. Remember, we're not talking about what they said about the text, but about their editing of the text itself.

You would like an assessment of your friend's 1994 missive? You ask, I tell.

1. The first four paragraphs are gas, concluding with a genetic fallacy (a Daniel signature).

2. The next is a verbatim quotation from the encyclical. DN is very taken with this component thereof:

This may mean making important changes in established life-styles, in order to limit the waste of environmental and human resources, thus enabling every individual and all peoples of the earth to have a sufficient share of those resources.

This is a conditional statement and the practical implications of it even when applicable are less than precisely delineated. It would pass right by me, but I gather I am Denso, or whatever.

Now, DN is exercised that RJN says this:

“Talk about changing established life-styles in order to achieve justice or sustain the planet is a commonplace in political rhetorics…. The single use of that language in Centesimus Annus does tend to stick out…. It has, in short, all the appearances of being a throwaway line. Should we all consume less, and, if so, of what? And how will that help include the poor within the circle of production and exchange?.... The sentence about ‘changing established life-styles’ is most likely a vestigial rhetorical fragment that somehow wandered into the text.”

If you asked me (and implicitly you did), I would say that the Holy Father had a half-formed thought that he did not think it a priority upon which to elaborate. The question of how the phrase got into the text is not ripe, so RJN's remarks are ill-judged.

That's about all. I am not seeing how a vague reference to changing consumption patterns vis a vis natural resources could be a 'central theme of his papacy'.

3. The paragraph succeeding that is a dubious characterization and the paragraph succeeding that is a complaint that Fr. Neuhaus and Dr. Weigel did not render the encyclicals verbatim in their respective books. The succeeding paragraph is a complaint about an editorial choice - substituting an explanation for a brief text for the precise text. I am not sure why they did that, but it does not mislead.

4. His next paragraph complains that Weigel an Neuhaus do not quote this paragraph:

A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support himself, his wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice".

Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called "unbridled capitalism" was pressing forward, should not have to be repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the work-place and fair pay; and this is the case despite the International Declarations and Conventions on the subject and the internal laws of States. The Pope attributed to the "public authority" the "strict duty" of providing properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure to do so violates justice; indeed, he did not hesitate to speak of "distributive justice".

It does not occur to DN that perhaps they did not because this leaves the faithful Catholic businessman rather at loose ends and requires some elucidation. They either do not have the materials or the time and the space to do that.

--

5. DN's next paragraph complains...

You will not know, reading the abridged version, that the Pope praises cooperatives (C.A. 16) or says that “the worker movement is part of a more general movement among workers and other people of good will for the liberation of the human person and for the affirmation of human rights” (C.A. 26).

It would not have occurred to me that RJN or Weigel had an issue with Mondragon or Solidarity or the Histadrut. I would wager it did not occur to either of them either.

--

6. Then he complains...You will not know that the Pope quotes St. Thomas Aquinas: “…the Church replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all” (C.A. 30). Nor will you know that John Paul II says that “the human inadequacies of capitalism and the resulting domination of things over people are far from disappearing” (C.A. 33).

But the whole paragraph reads as follows: While the Pope proclaimed the right to private ownership, he affirmed with equal clarity that the "use" of goods, while marked by freedom, is subordinated to their original common destination as created goods, as well as to the will of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Gospel. Pope Leo wrote: "those whom fortune favours are admonished ... that they should tremble at the warnings of Jesus Christ ... and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for the use of all they possess"; and quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, he added: "But if the question be asked, how must one's possessions be used? the Church replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all...", because "above the laws and judgments of men stands the law, the judgment of Christ"

Which is a reminder that economic activity (and the use of property) has to be ordered to moral principles, not that all property is common property.

Given that RJN once said that as far as he could see the quantum of "moral slobbery" in this world was as far as he could see pretty stable over time, I cannot figure why you would hold to the view that the deficiencies in any set of social relations would have 'disappeared'.

7. DN further complains that they do not quote this passage: You will miss entirely the Holy Father’s fierce denunciation of economic oppression: “Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people. Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man” (C.A. 43).

Did it occur to you that perhaps RJN and GW were not altogether sure what the referent to this passage was? It seems to be a reference to the use of coolie labor, but I cannot be sure.

--

8. And he complains, The encyclical also, of course, praises the role of “free human creativity in the economic sector,” albeit “circumscribed by a strong juridical framework” (C.A. 42). But this appreciation of economic freedom is balanced by the current of criticism that runs through Centesimus Annus, a current mostly edited out of the neo-condensation of the encyclical.

Because RJN and GW are all for a 'weak juridical framework'? For court systems which lose your files and run on bribes?

--

9. More complaint:

The encyclical reads, for example, in one key passage, “We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of so-called ‘Real Socialism’ leaves capitalism as the only model of economic organization” (C.A. 35). This is rather straightforward.

No, it is not. The paragraph in question goes on to discuss international development and it is not clear what the Pope has in mind.

--

10. Another complaint:

Here is how the passage reads after neo-conservative editing: “It is unacceptable to say that the defeat of ‘real socialism’ leaves [the present operation of capitalism] as the only model of economic organization.”

They are assuming that the Pope is referring to actual practice and not ideal types. That might be presumptuous, but it is not unreasonable. (They should have footnoted the passage rather than using brackets).

While the Pope indicates that a modified form of capitalism, one in which market forces are balanced by the demands of the common good, can meet the standards of justice, he also clearly indicates that other forms of economic organization can also meet these standards. The neo-conservatives, though, believe that capitalism is the only game in town and here do not hesitate to add their own words to “correct” the Holy Father. As Rev. Neuhaus states elsewhere “despite his disclaimer, capitalism is ‘the only model of economic organization’.”

No, the Pope clearly indicates nothing. He vaguely alludes to something undefined.

--

10. The next paragraph is a windy accusation. The last three are gas.

Gee Art Denso, I have been thoroughly chastised. What was I thinking? Obviously your explanations are so obviously reasonable that I must rethink my criticisms.

As they say, NOT.

I have seldom seen such a tendentious exercise in mental gymnastics. Your "criticism" of my analysis is so rich I hardly know where to begin. I will limit myself to one example:

"7. DN further complains that they do not quote this passage: You will miss entirely the Holy Father’s fierce denunciation of economic oppression: 'Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people. Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an abuse in the sight of God and man' (C.A. 43).

Did it occur to you that perhaps RJN and GW were not altogether sure what the referent to this passage was? It seems to be a reference to the use of coolie labor, but I cannot be sure."

Yes, "coolie labor", that must be it. What in the world could the Holy Father be talking about? While everything that is clear now was not necessarily so in 1991, that sounds to me like a pretty clear description of the modern socio-economic system, the one Francis describes as "unjust at its root". "Illicit exploitation, speculation, or the breaking of solidarity among working people"? Nope, I have no idea what he was talking about. We certainly have never seen any examples of this sort of thing, shy of coolie labor. Boy, those popes are dense and hard to decipher, no?

You are exactly like those Catholic pundits wringing their hands over just what "torture" means. You are a piece of work, Denso.

In a kind of weak defense of Novak and company, I think they were not hiding what they were doing--they were presenting a reading of CA that they thought better brought out the heart of the document. I think they were wrong about it, although I'm not sophisticated enough or well-read enough to get into the minutiae of economic theory.

I also think that it is always a wrong (and this IS my field) hermeneutic to interpret an ecclesiastical document by divining some kind of underlying real focus that is somewhat different from the obvious meaning based on what the author of the document would have said had he not had his hands tied by powerful men in the hierarchy or curia.

Another version of this is to discern a ghost writer for a passage you don't like and then say "You can ignore that because it is the ghost writer, and not Bishop X [or Pope Y]'s own thought." People did that with Chapter 2 of Veritatis Splendor. Ugh, to also use a common popular phrase these days (like Daniel did when he said, "NOT.").

You need to interpret Church in light of the overall thrust of the writings of the given prelate, according to the tradition on that subject, and in accordance with Tradition as such, and in light of good, solid theology.

I also think it is madness to think that Bl. John Paul II allowed throw-away lines in his writings. Once again, ugh!

I'm working tonight and don't have time to read that, but it looks very interesting. I am not, btw, a cultural radical. At least I don't think I am--I'm not sure what it means. Maybe it will be clear when I read the piece.

It doesn't take all that long for me to reach a point of boredom and impatience with debates about the nature of the good society etc. In the end all societies have severe defects--which does not mean some aren't a lot better than others--and the debates begin to seem rather airy.

that sounds to me like a pretty clear description of the modern socio-economic system,

Only to a loon, Daniel. In a 'modern' economy, only a small minority work in agriculture (many and perhaps most proprietors), only a modest minority work in construction (many of the skilled tradesmen), and only a modest minority work in extractive industries, and only a modest minority work in manufacturing (skewed to skilled tradesmen). There may never have been a time when fewer people were in danger of being killed on the job.

People work about 1900 hours a year; as opposed to the 2700 which would have been the norm at the end of the 19th century. They've never been more mobile or faced fewer search costs in looking for employment. Even in my lifetime work rules have gotten noticeably more lax.

Well, Daniel, in the world in which I live, the following shares of the workforce are employed in wage jobs which incorporate little skill development and often lack fringe benefits if it's a small employer (the metrics are courtesy the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

9.0%: Sales (e.g. cashiers, counter)

5.4%: Food Service

3.3%: Personal Care
(Orderlies, nursing assistants, .....child care workers, &c.)

2.8%: Buildings and grounds

2.3%: Materials handling
(e.g. shipping and receiving, .....sanitation, &c.)

1.5%: Transit
(e.g. bus drivers, delivery truck drivers, parking lot attendants, &c)

That amounts to about 24% of the workforce, many of them not the primary earner in their households, many of the remainder quite young, and many of the remainder with abiding deficits of what it takes to build human capital.

If you or the Holy Father fancy you can live in a world where no one has a crummy job, you are bound to be disappointed. Any society more complex than an agricultural village has a division of labor, and that is going to be true in a command economy and it is going to be true if the mode of organization is private enterprise nestled in a nightwatchman state.

Now, what sort of common provision you have and what sort of income redistribution you have make for interesting questions, as would be the costs and benefits of certain sorts of labor standards. These things are hardly elucidated in the passages you quote.

No, the comparison is very relevant. There is a secular trend in which labor is less physically taxing and hazardous.

There have been some changes in income distribution over the last generation and changes in the share of income sluiced to labor as a factor of production. Currently, about 62% of personal income is distributed in the form of employee compensation. It has been higher in the past (and was at its peak during the 2d World War), but tends to fluctuate between 60% and 73%. I think we have been over these issues before here.

There is the journalist's narrative and their is the social reality. I will wager you in almost every case the latter is less florid than the former (bar in those cases where the press is protecting one of their mascot groups).

--

By the way, you are not drawing out the implications of DN's remarks: the work-a-day world in this country is some sort of dystopian hell hole. It is not.

Rob,

There was advertising in this country prior to 1920. There was also consumption. Mass production of consumer goods likely was a novelty, though manifest prior to 1920. Mass production of capital goods and raw material processing was not.

Since no one ever suggested that the fact that work was physically less taxing was the only measure of progress, I am not sure why you find the rejoinder necessary.

Mass consumption could not exist and mass advertising was not necessary until mass production got into full gear through the 'teens and after WWI. The emphasis of mass advertising when it touched on work reflected the trend towards "labor saving," "modern conveniences," and "efficiency."

There's no doubt that the papal writings have more than just physical concerns in mind when they speak of the economy. But that seems to be what you keep bringing it back to.

But that seems to be what you keep bringing it back to.

I do not choose the subject matter here.

but it's hard, really, to call it "mass" until Fordism changed it all.

No it is not.

"No it is not."

Again, "there seem to be an awful lot of seemingly well-informed people who disagree."

Again, "there seem to be an awful lot of seemingly well-informed people who disagree."

The well informed people might just explain why ol' granddaddy's sheet metal factory was not engaged in 'mass production' but Henry Ford was (or maybe he was not but then suddenly was in 1920).

"The well informed people might just explain why ol' granddaddy's sheet metal factory was not engaged in 'mass production' but Henry Ford was"

Simple: the refinement and subsequent widespread use of a lil' ol' thang called the assembly line to produce consumer (as opposed to industrial) goods.

There are a great many people whose increases (if any) have not kept up with the cost of living. I know a lot of them personally, and what's more, I am one.

So what? The contentions concerned the compensation of wage earners in general, not people you know. Compensation practices for CEOs are a long running scandal. However, the people who receive such largesse are a tiny minority in the workforce at large.