Opposition to the vital wage in Colombia comes from the political right and economic orthodoxy, who view it as a market price and production cost, prioritizing profitability over workers' dignity. This approach ignores workers' basic life needs, treating them as market externalities. Recently, a decree benefited 98,000 soldiers and 8,000 resident doctors, but faces lawsuits to overturn it.
The vital wage extends beyond a salary adjustment; it is a constitutional right under Article 53 of Colombia's Political Constitution, intended to ensure workers live with dignity. According to Jorge Coronel López's analysis, resistance from the political right aligns with economic orthodoxy, which sees wages as a commodity whose price must be minimized to safeguard competitiveness and capital profitability.
This perspective treats workers as an accounting factor, subject to labor market conditions, without accounting for life's reproduction—such as food, housing, and care. "The market pays for work hours, but does not address that working people need to eat, live, rest, care for, and be cared for," the author explains. It also tolerates unemployment and informality as mechanisms to keep wages low, viewing them not as system failures but as disciplinary tools.
Orthodoxy faces ethical and social challenges, as its framework clashes with the social state of law. While 98,000 soldiers and 8,000 resident doctors celebrate the newly decreed vital wage for this year, opponents push lawsuits to annul it, focusing on economic cost rather than social justice. This debate marks the full implementation of Article 53, underscoring the tension between profitability and human well-being.