NationStates Jolt Archive

This idea's been brewing in various other discussion groups for a little while now, and so far doesn't seem to have enraged anyone to the point of needing to be changed, and didn't do badly when I trailed it as a proposal with no backing campaign. This despite being written in His Royal Highness's usual verbal diarrhoea. I'm shocked at you all.

Since we seem to have a nice new set of frothing maniacs around, I thought it was time to let the General Assembly loose on the idea before submitting it for real. I'd ask for sane comments only, but I'm not that unrealistic.

Living Wage Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

AWARE that some workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat;

CONSIDERING this situation little better than slavery;

DESIRING that all people should be afforded the luxury of doing more than merely surviving in exchange for full-time work;

DEFINES the Basic Poverty Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of an average weekly commute between home and work, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of such utilities as may be deemed appropriate, less any income or benefits provided to all workers by the nation;

DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all workers with dependents by the nation;

REQUIRES that power and water supply be deemed appropriate utilities;

SUGGESTS that an allowance be made for primary medical care where it is not free at the point of access;

NOTES that the Poverty Lines are defined on an area basis, and sets no limits as to how any nation may define such areas save that they must lie wholly within the nation's boundaries;

REQUIRES that the Poverty Lines be re-evaluated on at least an annual basis;

CONSIDERS a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked;

REQUIRES that no individual in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no individual in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Poverty Line unless that individual has no dependents and explicitly waives this right;

CONSIDERS a person working on average between 10 and 30 hours per week to be in part-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked;

REQUIRES that a person in part-time employment be subject to the same minimum weekly net wage regulations as a person in full-time employment, with the relevant wage levels pro-rated to the proportion of 30 hours per week worked.

EXEMPTS from this requirement workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose;

EXEMPTS also from this requirement convicted criminals who are required to perform work in the course of their sentence;

CONSIDERS a person working on a contractual basis to be equivalent to a person in direct employment for the purposes of this resolution;

DECLARES void any contract specifying a lesser wage or contractual remuneration than is specified above, requiring that either that contract is revised to conform with the above requirements or that national redundancy laws be invoked;

ACCEPTS that individuals may be paid in kind as well as cash, evaluating such payments for the purposes of this act as follows:

* Items which form part of the relevant Poverty Line assessment are evaluated as that part, pro-rated to their proportion of the individual's actual requirements;
* Other goods and services are evaluated as their average market value in the area over which the Poverty Line is assessed;

and URGES nations to ensure that their welfare systems provide at least the equivalent of a weekly wage of 20% over the Poverty Line.

Quintessence of Dust's position on this is undecided for the moment, although I suppose if it helps the Economic Union pass we might have to swallow its bitter pill.

The average of 30 weeks should probably be calculated to include some allowance for leave. I'm not suggesting this be a proposal about leave, but that it be something like 'an average of 30 blah blah over a period blah blah excluding a minimum of blah blah leave'.

My eyes glazed over a little in the final long paragraph: is there any way of making clauses such as '[a]ccommodation is evaluated as the Bread Line accommodation assessment' any less unwieldy. (Incidentally, is 'more wieldy' a thing?)

The amount should probably be indexed to other items not included in the basic basket, such if there are spikes in, say, transportation (which any reasonable 'living wage' would have included), the effect is muted. Maybe your penultimate line about '[o]ther goods and services' somewhat covers this.

Also, is the wage meant to refer to takehome pay? If not, how are you accounting for the wildly different tax burdens at work within the WA?

Finally, and I'd appreciate it if this seemingly trivial concern were treated seriously, even if you disagree with it: bread is not a staple in all countries. A more culturally neutral term would be more appropriate, such as 'Subsistence Line' or 'Poor Line'.

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

I also don't intend on dragging the thread into mechanical waffle, but if there were ever a 'Strong' SJ proposal, surely this would be it.

The average of 30 weeks should probably be calculated to include some allowance for leave. I'm not suggesting this be a proposal about leave, but that it be something like 'an average of 30 blah blah over a period blah blah excluding a minimum of blah blah leave'.
How about counting paid leave as if it was time worked?

My eyes glazed over a little in the final long paragraph: is there any way of making clauses such as '[a]ccommodation is evaluated as the Bread Line accommodation assessment' any less unwieldy. (Incidentally, is 'more wieldy' a thing?)
I've been straining my brain over making this more readable without sacrificing accuracy too. Any suggestions are welcome.

The amount should probably be indexed to other items not included in the basic basket, such if there are spikes in, say, transportation (which any reasonable 'living wage' would have included), the effect is muted. Maybe your penultimate line about '[o]ther goods and services' somewhat covers this.
I'm a little reluctant to encourage transport rather than living near enough to your job that it doesn't matter (i.e. being greener). That said, it's a concern, and I'll try to figure out a generic way to add it in. Any other items I've missed?

Also, is the wage meant to refer to takehome pay? If not, how are you accounting for the wildly different tax burdens at work within the WA?
You're right, I meant net pay. I'll be more specific about that.

Finally, and I'd appreciate it if this seemingly trivial concern were treated seriously, even if you disagree with it: bread is not a staple in all countries. A more culturally neutral term would be more appropriate, such as 'Subsistence Line' or 'Poor Line'.
Sigh. I rather liked the small amount of poetry in the term "Bread Line". If there's support for changing the term, I'll certainly consider it.

I also don't intend on dragging the thread into mechanical waffle, but if there were ever a 'Strong' SJ proposal, surely this would be it.
I'm quite open to changing the strength. "Significant" was just my gut feeling, since the bar is set quite low. Any other opinions either way?

This idea's been brewing in various other discussion groups for a little while now, and so far doesn't seem to have enraged anyone to the point of needing to be changed, and didn't do badly when I trailed it as a proposal with no backing campaign. This despite being written in His Royal Highness's usual verbal diarrhoea. I'm shocked at you all.

Since we seem to have a nice new set of frothing maniacs around, I thought it was time to let the General Assembly loose on the idea before submitting it for real. I'd ask for sane comments only, but I'm not that unrealistic.

OOC: Well, I suppose it's a bit better than any of the previous 'Living Wage' or 'Minimum Wage' proposals that I've seen in these forums. You can take it for granted that Bears Armed (IC) is probably objecting on sovereigntist grounds, but I'll confine myself to constructive criticism here...

Living Wage Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

AWARE that some workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat;

CONSIDERING this situation little better than slavery;
Agreed so far; but if the situation that you're describing is better than slavery, even if that is only a "little better", maybe an anti-slavery proposal should be a higher priority than this one?

DESIRING that all people should be afforded the luxury of doing more than merely surviving in exchange for full-time work;
Very few people would disagree with this...

DEFINES the Bread Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person and a dependent healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average two-person dwelling, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of such utilities as may be deemed appropriate, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent; What if a person's only dependant isn't 'of school age': Could this factor be omitted (as cost=zero in that case) or must it still be counted?
This brings us to one of the points that I've argued against whenver it's cropped up in previous proposals: The automatic allowance for the needs of "a dependant" when calculating the amount needed, regardless of whether a person actually has any dependents or not. At the very least, I tend to consider this factor inappropriate in the case of young trainees, who [probably] shouldn't have any dependents yet.

REQUIRES that power and water supply be deemed appropriate utilities;

SUGGESTS that an allowance be made for primary medical care where this is not free at the point of access;
Okay.

NOTES that the Bread Line is defined on an area-by-area basis, and sets no limits as to how any nation should define such areas save that they must lie wholly within the nation's boundaries;

REQUIRES that the Bread Line be re-evaluated on at least an annual basis;
Probably reasonable: I might comment again later about these points.

CONSIDERS a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment;

REQUIRES that no individual in full-time employment may be paid the equivalent of a weekly wage of less than 25% over the Bread Line;

EXEMPTS from this requirement workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time and effort as they choose;
You've actually provided a definition of the "full-time employment" necessary to qualify for this right, instead of just specifying a minimum wage for everybody without considering this factor: Good! This is a major point that most of the previous proposals on this topic that I've seen ignored.
However...
1/ Shouldn't people only be considered to be "in full-time employment" if they have an actual employer? As the proposal is currently written, even the self-employed, and members of cooperative ventures must somehow pay themselves this much even if their businesses don't actually bring in enough money to do so...
2/ I'd argue that convicted criminals who are required to perform work as part or all of the penalty for their crimes, whether inside prisons (or other establishments) or in the community, should also be excluded from this right.
3/ And maybe people working in their own families's enterprises should also be excluded? For example, there are certainly (however regrettable this may be) going to be cases, in some WA member nations, where the labour of a family's members on their smallholding will only produce enough for bare subsistence -- or a very small amount more -- rather than 25% over that level: What would happen to them under this proposal as it's currently drafted?
4/ There's also the point that some employers (especially in nations with undeveloped or damaged economies) honestly might not be able to pay employees as much as 25% over the Bread Line without taking themsleves below that level. Should they still be obliged to pay at those rates even if that actually gives the employees higher incomes than the employers? (This would admittedly be an awkward point to cover without risking the creation of a serious loophole in the law, so I do realise that you might prefer to consider such cases as too unlikely to be worth considering...)
5/ Oh, and there are some nations out there that have non-monetary economies. I don't know whether any WA nation still gets by entirely on barter, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was so, but there are certainly some (in the "100% tax" bracket) where everybody works for the state and lives on what supplies the state issues to them... and there's also at least one (i.e. Ariddia) that claims to function according to the concept of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability". As these don't set prices for anything, how would they calculate the extent of the required "25% over the Bread Line"?

DECLARES void any contract specifying a lesser wage, requiring that either that contract is revised to give the equivalent of a weekly wage of at least 25% over the Bread Line or that national redundancy laws be invoked;
If we've got to accept the rest of this proposal then including this clause too obviously makes sense.

ACCEPTS that individuals may be paid in kind as well as cash, evaluating such payments for the purposes of this act as follows:

* Food and drink is evaluated as the Bread Line food and drink assessment pro-rated to the proportion of weekly nutritional requirements that the payment provides;
* Accommodation is evaluated as the Bread Line accommodation assessment;
* Utilities incorporated into the Bread Line calculation are evaluated as the Bread Line assessment of that utility pro-rated to the proportion of a week for which that utility is available;
* Educational provision is calculated as the Bread Line assessment of the cost of that education pro-rated to the proportion of standard weekly education for which the provision is available;
* Other goods and services are evaluated as their average market value in the area over which the Bread Line is assessed;
Excellent! This was one of the major points that all previous proposals I've seen on the topic ignored.

and URGES nations to ensure that their welfare systems provide at least the equivalent of a weekly wage of 20% over the Bread Line.
If they have any welfare systems, of course...

Agreed so far; but if the situation that you're describing is better than slavery, even if that is only a "little better", maybe an anti-slavery proposal should be a higher priority than this one?
One of the last things we did in the old UN was enact comprehensive anti-slavery laws. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't face doing that again just yet.

What if a person's only dependant isn't 'of school age': Could this factor be omitted (as cost=zero in that case) or must it still be counted?
This brings us to one of the points that I've argued against whenver it's cropped up in previous proposals: The automatic allowance for the needs of "a dependant" when calculating the amount needed, regardless of whether a person actually has any dependents or not. At the very least, I tend to consider this factor inappropriate in the case of young trainees, who [probably] shouldn't have any dependents yet.
We aren't calculating personal incomes here, or this would be a whole lot easier. We're producing a representative number for an area, sized as may be convenient for a nation's bureaucracy and philosophies, and applying it to everyone there. If a nation really wants to calculate and enforce a minimum wage for everyone individually, they can (it's just a slightly less geographical area, after all), and then they could indeed creatively cost education for the lack-of-child at zero. Frankly I dread to think how many civil servants you'd have to employ to do that, though.

You've actually provided a definition of the "full-time employment" necessary to qualify for this right, instead of just specifying a minimum wage for everybody without considering this factor: Good! This is a major point that most of the previous proposals on this topic that I've seen ignored.
However...
1/ Shouldn't people only be considered to be "in full-time employment" if they have an actual employer? As the proposal is currently written, even the self-employed, and members of cooperative ventures must somehow pay themselves this much even if their businesses don't actually bring in enough money to do so...
I don't entirely agree. Certainly I don't want to exempt the self-employed, because that opens up a rather large abusive loophole whereby everyone ends up as self-employed contractors and the notional employer can still pay them a non-living wage.

Co-operative ventures I'll have to think about, but I'm still inclined to include them. After all, if you can't pay yourselves enough to live on, your business model is pretty fatally flawed. Literally, in this case.

2/ I'd argue that convicted criminals who are required to perform work as part or all of the penalty for their crimes, whether inside prisons (or other establishments) or in the community, should also be excluded from this right.
Good point. I hadn't thought about criminals at all; Gobbannium's got an entirely different approach, and the whole business of work gangs slipped my mind.

3/ And maybe people working in their own families's enterprises should also be excluded? For example, there are certainly (however regrettable this may be) going to be cases, in some WA member nations, where the labour of a family's members on their smallholding will only produce enough for bare subsistence -- or a very small amount more -- rather than 25% over that level: What would happen to them under this proposal as it's currently drafted?
25% over subsistence is a very small amount, in absolute terms. Let's not get carried away here. I suspect that this case is self-fixing, since in families operating at that level, money (and goods and, well, pretty much everything) exist for the whole family rather than for any individual family member. I'll think about it, all the same; the difficulty is in exempting these cases without allowing family-unit sweatshops to flourish.

4/ There's also the point that some employers (especially in nations with undeveloped or damaged economies) honestly might not be able to pay employees as much as 25% over the Bread Line without taking themsleves below that level.
See above about unsustainable business plans.

5/ Oh, and there are some nations out there that have non-monetary economies. I don't know whether any WA nation still gets by entirely on barter, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was so, but there are certainly some (in the "100% tax" bracket) where everybody works for the state and lives on what supplies the state issues to them... and there's also at least one (i.e. Ariddia) that claims to function according to the concept of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability". As these don't set prices for anything, how would they calculate the extent of the required "25% over the Bread Line"?
The same way they do for anything else. "To each according to their absolute most basic need, and about a quarter as much again as a margin for error." That's one of the reasons for picking 25%; it's a relatively easy fraction to handwave about.

If they have any welfare systems, of course...
Of course. That's why it only URGES.

One of the last things we did in the old UN was enact comprehensive anti-slavery laws. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't face doing that again just yet.Yeah, I've had no energy to repass Abolition of Slavery, but there have been so many bad drafts circulating, and my ego is so bloated, that I think I might try again.

On my other points: all of your answers are fine, but I really feel transportation should be included, green or not. Hell, some workplaces allow workers to loan bicycles, if car fumes is your only problem.

-- Samantha Benson
etc.

*snip*

(OOC: I'm rather busy today, so will respond on Monday or Tuesday...)

It is a fine idea, but without editing, in Hvara it probably would not work. Hvara is full of agrarian neo-primitavish communes that do not actually use currency.

I do think workers have a right to get enough funds to stay alive and some extra (if being employed for 30 hours or more). But my nation abolished minimum wages because all citizens have a basic income from the state (given to every citizen enough to live from). The extra income which you get from work is for extra luxury and so it can be much under the bread line (because you get your basic income any way) and health care and education is free. A high minimum wage would destroy our already weak economy, so I hope that the income wage and subsidized income of the state could be somehow combined, otherwise we will certainly have to vote against this proposal. And we would regret that because we like the intention very much.
Regards

But my nation abolished minimum wages because all citizens have a basic income from the state (given to every citizen enough to live from).
Another good point; I'll take Citizens' Income into account in the next draft.

(These are all OOC comments.)

Agreed so far; but if the situation that you're describing is better than slavery, even if that is only a "little better", maybe an anti-slavery proposal should be a higher priority than this one?One of the last things we did in the old UN was enact comprehensive anti-slavery laws. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't face doing that again just yet.

I’m pleased that Quod has decided to do so…

What if a person's only dependant isn't 'of school age': Could this factor be omitted (as cost=zero in that case) or must it still be counted?
This brings us to one of the points that I've argued against whenever it's cropped up in previous proposals: The automatic allowance for the needs of "a dependant" when calculating the amount needed, regardless of whether a person actually has any dependents or not. At the very least, I tend to consider this factor inappropriate in the case of young trainees, who [probably] shouldn't have any dependents et. We aren't calculating personal incomes here, or this would be a whole lot easier. We're producing a representative number for an area, sized as may be convenient for a nation's bureaucracy and philosophies, and applying it to everyone there. If a nation really wants to calculate and enforce a minimum wage for everyone individually, they can (it's just a slightly less geographical area, after all), and then they could indeed creatively cost education for the lack-of-child at zero. Frankly I dread to think how many civil servants you'd have to employ to do that, though.
Ah, I see, it seems that I was mislead by this proposal’s “Living Wage” title and its reference to “the Bread Line”, as both of those concepts would require less money (or other resources) for somebody with no dependents — and more money (or other resources) for people with plural dependants — than they would for people who have a single dependant each. What we are actually talking about here is more of a “Fair Wage” instead, yes?

1/ Shouldn't people only be considered to be "in full-time employment" if they have an actual employer? As the proposal is currently written, even the self-employed, and members of cooperative ventures must somehow pay themselves this much even if their businesses don't actually bring in enough money to do so...I don't entirely agree. Certainly I don't want to exempt the self-employed, because that opens up a rather large abusive loophole whereby everyone ends up as self-employed contractors and the notional employer can still pay them a non-living wage.I see what you’re worried about here, but couldn’t the existing clause about contracts be tweaked to deal with it?

After all, if you can't pay yourselves enough to live on, your business model is pretty fatally flawed. Literally, in this case.But we aren’t talking about just “enough to live on”, are we, but “enough to live on, plus enough to support a dependant on, plus a bit more” instead… and a little bit less than that amount might seem like a perfectly acceptable income to somebody without any dependants.
And it’s all very well talking about “flawed business models”, but what if the nature of the society in which they live honestly means that those are the only “business models” available to them? As your proposal currently stands, their only way of staying in business legally would be to cut their working hours to below 30 per week — and so, presumably, have an even lower income — which would hardly help them would it?
4/ There's also the point that some employers (especially in nations with undeveloped or damaged economies) honestly might not be able to pay employees as much as 25% over the Bread Line without taking themselves below that level. See above about unsustainable business plans.See above for my response.

5/ Oh, and there are some nations out there that have non-monetary economies. I don't know whether any WA nation still gets by entirely on barter, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this was so, but there are certainly some (in the "100% tax" bracket) where everybody works for the state and lives on what supplies the state issues to them... and there's also at least one (i.e. Ariddia) that claims to function according to the concept of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability". As these don't set prices for anything, how would they calculate the extent of the required "25% over the Bread Line"?The same way they do for anything else. "To each according to their absolute most basic need, and about a quarter as much again as a margin for error." That's one of the reasons for picking 25%; it's a relatively easy fraction to handwave about.Yes, but without monetary prices there are no "market prices" so just how do you check that what you’re offering is at least 25% over the Bread Line in order to comply with this law? It might be simple enough if we were only talking about food & drink, and maybe clothing, but what about other factors such as housing or entertainment? What should the exchange-rates be between [for example] cinema tickets, saxophone lessons, bicycles, and getting transferred into a larger apartment?


And now a couple of new questions_

1. What about people who are currently working in profit-sharing schemes, or on a “commission-only” basis? Would that still be acceptable as long as their effective income-with-appropriate-bonuses/commissions at least matched the threshold value, or would they have to have guaranteed wages at or above the threshold level before these other sources of income were taken into account?

2. Over what period of time must a worker’s income (per 30 hour week) match or exceed this threshold? Obviously if they’re on regularly-paid wages from an actual employer then every pay-packet should presumably reach such a level, but what if their income comes in on a less predictable basis? After all, some people (especially the self-employed, or people in jobs that are strongly influenced by seasonal factors) are likely to gain their “wages” at irregular intervals and/or in irregular amounts… Must their income meet the stipulated threshold for every working day? On average, over a complete year? On average during some other length of time, allowing for the fact that different cultures may sub-divide years in different ways or even have ‘years’ of differing lengths?

(These are all OOC comments.)
(And therefore OOC responses)

Ah, I see, it seems that I was mislead by this proposal’s “Living Wage” title and its reference to “the Bread Line”, as both of those concepts would require less money (or other resources) for somebody with no dependents — and more money (or other resources) for people with plural dependants — than they would for people who have a single dependant each. What we are actually talking about here is more of a “Fair Wage” instead, yes?
No, it's more of a "Minimum Wage". A "Fair Wage" would be taking into account the value of the work done (for some value of "value" :-), and could possibly ignore living costs. This is all about making sure that people in work can afford to live and raise a next generation capable of working.

I see what you’re worried about here, but couldn’t the existing clause about contracts be tweaked to deal with it?
Possibly. Unfortunately I haven't had the time I expected to work on this over the weekend (basically I slept pretty much the whole time I wasn't in church!), so I haven't tried to fix the broken bits of this proposal yet.

But we aren’t talking about just “enough to live on”, are we, but “enough to live on, plus enough to support a dependant on, plus a bit more” instead… and a little bit less than that amount might seem like a perfectly acceptable income to somebody without any dependants.
And it’s all very well talking about “flawed business models”, but what if the nature of the society in which they live honestly means that those are the only “business models” available to them? As your proposal currently stands, their only way of staying in business legally would be to cut their working hours to below 30 per week — and so, presumably, have an even lower income — which would hardly help them would it?
I don't think your presumption holds. Members of a co-operative who cut their working hours could raise their hourly rate to compensate or at least to meet the target amount of weekly pay that they were aiming at in the first place. They could also play games with making donations back into the central co-operative pot. With the right sort of co-operative, they could use the voluntary sector exclusion. And so on.

Frankly, it's a co-operative. If they can't find a way around this sort of thing, their members aren't exactly co-operating well, are they?

Yes, but without monetary prices there are no "market prices" so just how do you check that what you’re offering is at least 25% over the Bread Line in order to comply with this law? It might be simple enough if we were only talking about food & drink, and maybe clothing, but what about other factors such as housing or entertainment? What should the exchange-rates be between [for example] cinema tickets, saxophone lessons, bicycles, and getting transferred into a larger apartment?
Different today from yesterday and tomorrow, for one thing. But this is all conceptually stuff that the nation has to be able to handle in some sense already, particularly at the simple level we're talking about. Trying to tell them how to do it would be the mistake.

Also, you'll notice that the resolution doesn't say "market prices", it says "market values". Those still exist without money, the way they've done for millennia.

1. What about people who are currently working in profit-sharing schemes, or on a “commission-only” basis? Would that still be acceptable as long as their effective income-with-appropriate-bonuses/commissions at least matched the threshold value, or would they have to have guaranteed wages at or above the threshold level before these other sources of income were taken into account?
They would have to be guaranteed the threshold amount. Exactly how they are guaranteed the threshold is between them and their employer; it's not beyond the wit of lawyer to draft an employment contract specifying an income of the greater of the threshold or basic-plus-bonuses. And remember this is a low threshold we're talking about; contracts like that aren't going to bankrupt anyone who was operating in a remotely responsible manner.

2. Over what period of time must a worker’s income (per 30 hour week) match or exceed this threshold?
It's deliberately not specified so that national governments can use whatever is convenient to their calendars and bureaucracies.

Why is it only applicable to full-time employees? Why not require it be paid pro rata? Otherwise, isn't there a danger of companies switching to either 29 hpw and outsourcing the rest, or revolving shorter shifts?

Why is it only applicable to full-time employees? Why not require it be paid pro rata? Otherwise, isn't there a danger of companies switching to either 29 hpw and outsourcing the rest, or revolving shorter shifts?

I'm fairly agnostic on this point, so other opinions would be welcome.

The initial intent was to avoid killing off the schoolboy paper round, where the income isn't intended to contribute meaningfully to supporting the family. Yeah, it's exploiting kids, but it's an exploitation the kids can avoid by not applying for the job without much change in financial status.

I'm not wedded to the idea of fixing this to full-time employment only, but it does seem like there's a qualitative difference between full-time and part-time employment as to whether you're expecting to support yourself or just supplement some other income.

Then again, it ought to be fairly simple to work in an amendment... "with the exception of such egalitarian associations which hold all property communally, so long as they are truly egalitarian, and do not rely on supplies, produced communally, being doled out by a leader" (That was in no way a draft, just a suggestion)

Then again, it ought to be fairly simple to work in an amendment... "with the exception of such egalitarian associations which hold all property communally, so long as they are truly egalitarian, and do not rely on supplies, produced communally, being doled out by a leader" (That was in no way a draft, just a suggestion)

Sorry, right at the moment I'm too tired to figure out what this is supposed to be altering.

"Commies can ignore this Resolution"

"Commies can ignore this Resolution"

Really? I thought WA resolutions (once approved) will have to implemented in all WA nations.

Or you want an amendment for excluding the commies? ;)

That would be the opposite of a the ideology ban, interesting. :D

The Hack is responding to the post above him by explaining what the post above *that* is trying to say. You're correct that it would be illegitimate.

"Commies can ignore this Resolution"

I got that, I just couldn't figure out what the Hvarans think communism needs an explicit 'out' for. Everything I could think of it has an implicit 'out' for because of controlling costs.

Anyway, the original draft has been amended to reflect what's been said so far. If people more knowledgeable the me on the subject could check the language around contract working, I'd be grateful.

Outstanding issues:


Turn the "allowances in kind" section into something comprehensible
Self-employed people: having rolled short-term contracts into the rest, I'm no longer sure there's any point in excluding them.
Economically disadvantaged nations: on mature reflection, these are exactly the sorts of sweatshops I'm interested in shutting down.
Still going with the "Bread Line" terminology -- any other requests to change it?
Still going with Full Time Employment only -- again, any other requests to change it.


The point about agrarian communes (or "family farms" as we call them) is worth a little analysis, but that only convinces me that they don't need any special consideration.

We are talking about smallholdings where everyone lives in the same (set of) building(s), eats from the same table, and I daresay worships at the same grove. Going through the elements of the Bread Line, we start with food and drink. Everyone eats from the same table; this is a classic payment in kind, so no actual money changes hands here. Accommodation: again provided, so again no actual money changes hands. Transport: potentially sticky if a nation makes unhelpful choices of area, but an agreement to be able to use the farm tractor/horse/truck/bicycle for work purposes would trigger the "payment in kind" clause again. On reflection, that clause probably ought to refer to the actual weekly commute; I'll fix that later. Utilities: come with the accommodation, dealt with in the same way.

That leaves us with the cost of schooling a dependent child, and the 25% margin. Ditching the education would be a massively retrograde step, and somehow these communities seem to manage to provide it anyway. Costs are met, somehow or other. The margin is pretty much literally beer money, so I can't bring myself to be excited about it either. On the whole, it doesn't seem that this affects family farms more than marginally, or at all in most cases.

-----

I've also been thinking about the issue of dependents. I'm not willing to give up on them entirely, but I take the whining -- err, points that some people have made about not every poverty-line worker having a dependent.

(OOC: I'm assuming that someone has said IC words approximating to what St Ed has said OOC. It makes the roleplaying so much easier, even if I can't then credit Bears Armed with helping to draft this.)

I'll probably actually do this by splitting the definitions up and having two separate REQUIRES clauses, but what would people think to adding something like this?

ALLOWS a person to explicitly waive the dependent elements of the Bread Line calculation provided that they have no dependents;

I'm deliberately not intending to define what "having a dependent" means to allow reasonable national variation. Gobbannium's likely to take a very broad definition; do people think that Reasonable Nation Theory allows me to assume that "you have a wife and/or kid actually living with you who has no other means of support" doesn't need to be stated as a minimal case?

I'm deliberately not intending to define what "having a dependent" means to allow reasonable national variation. Gobbannium's likely to take a very broad definition; do people think that Reasonable Nation Theory allows me to assume that "you have a wife and/or kid actually living with you who has no other means of support" doesn't need to be stated as a minimal case?

I fully agree on this. (In my case having a political refugee from another nation in my house without work).
Nations can work this out, if they want to frustrate it, they can do it, but their citizens will try to achieve what is meant in this proposal, so a revolt or regime change from inside that nation may happen. And I always like people taking the responsibility in their own hands if governments are abusing laws.

Regards

Yeah, I guess there really doesn't need to be an amendment excluding communes, and the bit about communal production, centralized distrabution would almost qualify under a sweatshop of sorts.

Yeah, I guess there really doesn't need to be an amendment excluding communes, and the bit about communal production, centralized distrabution would almost qualify under a sweatshop of sorts.
I'm sorry Ambassador, it isn't tiredness this time, I genuinely can't tell what the hell you're talking about in the second half of that sentence. Could you try again, maybe quoting the relevant bits of the proposal or discussion so far? If you've spotted a loophole allowing sweatshops, I'd very much like to know about it.

Sorry... I was referring to the proposal I made for an amendment regarding communes, but on reflection it is unnecessary. And no, I could not find any loopholes. All in all it seems a fine idea.

I've updated the proposal again in line with my ideas about allowing dependents to be a slightly optional extra. I've also changed the terminology to "Poverty Line" -- "Bread Line" wasn't working any more in the new context -- and radically hatchetted the "payments in kind" section. Better? Worse? Filled with ravening wombats?

When is this chamber not filled with ravening wombats?

The Mission's representatives should be commended for a skillfully crafted proposal.

Is there any chance you could remove the underlining? If you want to record the changes, maybe edit an old version into another post? It just makes it quite hard to read, at least for me.

I approve of most of the changes. I'm still uneasy about the 'full-time' requirement, though. If the intent is just to protect paper rounds etc., couldn't the limit at least be set lower. You could say that for employment of 10-29 hours per week, it has to be paid pro rata.

When is this chamber not filled with ravening wombats?

When it's filled with ravenous wombats.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

The point about agrarian communes (or "family farms" as we call them) is worth a little analysis, but that only convinces me that they don't need any special consideration.

We are talking about smallholdings where everyone lives in the same (set of) building(s), eats from the same table, and I daresay worships at the same grove. Going through the elements of the Bread Line, we start with food and drink. Everyone eats from the same table; this is a classic payment in kind, so no actual money changes hands here. Accommodation: again provided, so again no actual money changes hands. Transport: potentially sticky if a nation makes unhelpful choices of area, but an agreement to be able to use the farm tractor/horse/truck/bicycle for work purposes would trigger the "payment in kind" clause again. On reflection, that clause probably ought to refer to the actual weekly commute; I'll fix that later. Utilities: come with the accommodation, dealt with in the same way.

That leaves us with the cost of schooling a dependent child, and the 25% margin. Ditching the education would be a massively retrograde step, and somehow these communities seem to manage to provide it anyway. Costs are met, somehow or other. The margin is pretty much literally beer money, so I can't bring myself to be excited about it either. On the whole, it doesn't seem that this affects family farms more than marginally, or at all in most cases.

OOC: I wasn't thinking in terms of the family leadership (as 'employer') taking away that "beer money", I was thinking about the possible situation if a bad harvest actually reduced the farm's total income below the level necessary to pay that money out. It seemed that if they could really only afford "bread line + 24%" because of such a situation then they'd legally be required to give up on working that farm (or at least on working it for 30 hours or more each per week), even if they had no alternative source of income accessible.
However, if the income can be calculated as an average over whatever period the government considers appropriate (as you've said in another comment) then that's no longer as much of a problem, because it should thus be possible to balance low income in 'lean' years again higher income in 'fat' ones.

(OOC: I'm assuming that someone has said IC words approximating to what St Ed has said OOC. It makes the roleplaying so much easier, even if I can't then credit Bears Armed with helping to draft this.)OOC: Don't worry, Bears Armed wouldn't want any credit for this: Their IC attitude to this proposal is that they're against it, because in BA employment law isn't even a "national" matter (except with regards to the national government's own employees) as it's handled by -- and constiutionally reserved to the jurisdicition of -- the separate Clans and Free Septs instead. I'm providiing this OOC help because it looks like the sort of thing that might pass, and I'd rather settle as many of the potential sticking points just in case...

I approve of most of the changes. I'm still uneasy about the 'full-time' requirement, though. If the intent is just to protect paper rounds etc., couldn't the limit at least be set lower. You could say that for employment of 10-29 hours per week, it has to be paid pro rata.
OK. I'll have to give some careful thought to the right wording, nothing I'm coming up with off the top of my head quite works. Fortunately I have some headroom against the character limit now that I've hacked the "payment in kind" section down.

I'll edit the underlining out in a moment.

OOC: Don't worry, Bears Armed wouldn't want any credit for this: Their IC attitude to this proposal is that they're against it, because in BA employment law isn't even a "national" matter (except with regards to the national government's own employees) as it's handled by -- and constiutionally reserved to the jurisdicition of -- the separate Clans and Free Septs instead. I'm providiing this OOC help because it looks like the sort of thing that might pass, and I'd rather settle as many of the potential sticking points just in case...
OOC: well, the aim is to do something that shouldn't in practice change the behaviour of BA, unless any of the clans like giving people sub-starvation wages :-)

Wow. Excuse me...my head just went for a swim.

Financial nuances of this kind have never really been my forte - give me human rights any day. Despite that, I can indeed see that this proposal accomplishes its intent competently, and thereby it currently has my support.

So carry on. I'll sit this one out.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

I thank Cerys Coch, Head of the Gobbannaen World Assembly Mission very much. So much different economic systems there are, but a very good written and understandeble proposal is made.
A nice person he must be ;)

The proposal gets our full support.

OOC: well, the aim is to do something that shouldn't in practice change the behaviour of BA, unless any of the clans like giving people sub-starvation wages :-)
OOC: No, they all don't, but they don't necessarily all have actual laws on the subject yet either... and nor do they generally like the idea of surrendering jurisdiction over such matters to the 'national' government. If this proposal demands more than most of the Clans -- including all 12 of the 'Major' ones -- have already legislated for then (constitutionally) the national government can only introduce it into national law for a maximum of one year, and would then have to scrap it -- and, consequently, to leave the WA -- if enough Clans didn't ratify its terms separately during that time...

How's this for an attempt at part-timer wording?

CONSIDERS a person working on average between 10 and 30 hours per week to be in part-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked;

REQUIRES that individuals in part-time employment shall be subject to the same minimum weekly net wage regulations as individuals in full-time employment, with the relevant wage levels pro-rated to the proportion of 30 hours per week worked.

That's fine for me.

Righty ho. I'll submit this (mildly tweaked for character count) on Saturday, when I have time for the telegram campaign.

Erm, don't exactly want to rain on the parade here, but I do have some quite serious concerns. Basically, this is all well and good in developed nations, where the majority of people are indeed earning this much and only a tiny minority would be affected; but can have graver consequences then you think for the developing world - hyper inflation.

Let us take a country where the average wage is the living wage (just for ease, in many developing countries it would be below, with living costs being covered through working more then 30 hours a week). This resolution comes in and they get a 25% pay rise. However, assuming the flow of goods and services remains the same, the result would be a price inflation of25%. So wages have to increase to cover for this, leading to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, therefore to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, etc. What you end up with is hyper inflation, a worth less currency, valueless savings, reduced investment, and all the other related problems

Of course when wages rise there could be an increase in output to accomodate this new wealthier market, but nonetheless price inflation would still be high enough to negate the advatages and cause hyper inflation. It is indeed possible that, due to inherent instability of a country undergoing this cyclic mess would lead to a reduction in investment and output, exacerrbating the problem.

As well intentioned this resolution is, the actual effect will be minimal to developed countries, and complete and utterly devastating to devolping nations. Sorry

The only way round it I can see would be to have to introduction of the living wage introduced over a period of time to counteract the inflationary effects, but even then it would need to be pretty vague...

Let us take a country where the average wage is the living wage (just for ease, in many developing countries it would be below, with living costs being covered through working more then 30 hours a week). This resolution comes in and they get a 25% pay rise. However, assuming the flow of goods and services remains the same, the result would be a price inflation of25%. So wages have to increase to cover for this, leading to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, therefore to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, etc. What you end up with is hyper inflation, a worth less currency, valueless savings, reduced investment, and all the other related problems

There's also cases where the workers don't recieve a wage at all, but room and board. They work for the equivolent room and board, with any extra work they do that is not compensated by that being allotted towards future vacation time. Thus, they can actually, if they work hard enough, enjoy more vacation time than a worker who recieves pure cash. How does this cover such a scenario?

There's also cases where the workers don't recieve a wage at all, but room and board. They work for the equivolent room and board, with any extra work they do that is not compensated by that being allotted towards future vacation time. Thus, they can actually, if they work hard enough, enjoy more vacation time than a worker who recieves pure cash. How does this cover such a scenario?

How can a person who doesn't get paid in money expect to afford to go anywhere on such a vacation?

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

How can a person who doesn't get paid in money expect to afford to go anywhere on such a vacation?

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

By preparing beforehand, specifically in getting people who owe him or her favors that can be traded for all of the necessary preparation for a true vacation. And that's assuming that they would go anywhere, as many people can easily find a way to have a fun vacation in their own area if they tried.

By preparing beforehand, specifically in getting people who owe him or her favors that can be traded for all of the necessary preparation for a true vacation. And that's assuming that they would go anywhere, as many people can easily find a way to have a fun vacation in their own area if they tried.

You're suggesting that people, if they wish to venture at any point outside their homes- excuse me, the homes of the people they work for- they must first beg favors that can be exchanged like imaginary cowrie shells?

That doesn't sound like a "living wage" to me. It sounds like servitude. Oh! But wait, I'm sorry, the Forensathans practice slavery, I forgot. Just got the memo from the Ministry, you see.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

You're suggesting that people, if they wish to venture at any point outside their homes- excuse me, the homes of the people they work for- they must first beg favors that can be exchanged like imaginary cowrie shells?

That doesn't sound like a "living wage" to me. It sounds like servitude. Oh! But wait, I'm sorry, the Forensathans practice slavery, I forgot. Just got the memo from the Ministry, you see.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Our military would have a few things to say about that, considering the barter system is how they are paid. And, up to this point, what I have been describing has been that. If you are not familiar, it is a system of trading goods, services, and favors for other goods, services, and favors that is suspected to have predated money. Our military trades their service to the nation for free room, board, medical care, education, training, and equipment. Their work is more dangerous than what most people do, so they are compensated accordingly.

The barter system is also practiced by civilians and nobility, and even by corporations and nations. When a nation trades iron they have for wood another has, they are using the barter system. Our nation is founded upon the trade of goods and services between the Twelve Houses as well as between the four castes of society. While the nobility sits back and runs major parts of the nation, the military works to defend it and deal with emergencies, the citizens work to do most other jobs and keep the flow of money going, and slaves work to provide extra support to the citizens and nobility in exchange for having all of their needs taken care of. And while you may find it distasteful that we practice it, our noble families are dependent upon it. Without the essential trust that comes from the relationship between slave and master, our noble families probably would have interbred with each other until they degenerated into nothing. If you had taken a look at that information packet we published, even as woefully incomplete as it is, you would know that our noble families frequently turn towards their own slaves when looking for marriage partners.

Finally, there's nothing in our system that prevents a slave from earning money, getting wealthy, or even owning slaves of their own. And that is on purpose; a system of slavery filled with slaves who actually don't find their lot any worse than those around them is a system of slavery without rebellion. Which is also noted in that pamphlet we printed.

(OOC note: Really, read that factbook. You'll find something interesting about how the Imperial Family is selected that should provide some hints as to why these people would have some of those practices.)

Let us take a country where the average wage is the living wage (just for ease, in many developing countries it would be below, with living costs being covered through working more then 30 hours a week). This resolution comes in and they get a 25% pay rise. However, assuming the flow of goods and services remains the same, the result would be a price inflation of25%. So wages have to increase to cover for this, leading to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, therefore to wage inflation of 25%, therefore price inflation of 25%, etc. What you end up with is hyper inflation, a worth less currency, valueless savings, reduced investment, and all the other related problems
But in that situation you had a worthless currency, valueless (i.e. no) savings and negligable investment beforehand, you were just more successful at hiding it all and creaming off the top.

There's also cases where the workers don't recieve a wage at all, but room and board. They work for the equivolent room and board, with any extra work they do that is not compensated by that being allotted towards future vacation time. Thus, they can actually, if they work hard enough, enjoy more vacation time than a worker who recieves pure cash. How does this cover such a scenario?
You noticed the "payment in kind" section, didn't you? What in that fails to address your scenario?

You noticed the "payment in kind" section, didn't you? What in that fails to address your scenario?

The part about them being paid an additional 25%, since that means that people who are living at pretty much what you define as the poverty line and actually having a nice life now have to get extra resources that they actually are not working for.

But in that situation you had a worthless currency, valueless (i.e. no) savings and negligable investment beforehand, you were just more successful at hiding it all and creaming off the top.

Not neccessarily. If the bread line in a certain nation is say, $100 a week, and you get a $90 for 30 hours work (but do 40 hours work to get the required money) you could still have savings. And the cheap labour would encourage investment. However, if his wages rise to $125 (along with the majority of the country), as demand increases for the required goods and supply stays the same, then the people who supply the neccessities will rise their prices in order to increase profit, and the providers of raw materials will do the same. Result is price inflation. So the bread line becomes $125 a week. So wages then have to rise to $156, and so on.

Taking a very basic example. You and your three brothers get $1 a day pocket money. With this you buy apples from me for $1 each each day (let us imagine you need apples otherwise you'll get cooties). You and your three brother go to your mother to get a rise in pocket money of 25c so you can save up and buy a spoon. Now, I still only have four apples to sell, and know that you've had a pocket money rise. So I, smelling greater profits, raise the price of the apples 25c, to $1.25. So you're now no better off. So you get another 25c off mater, and I raise my prices again. And so on and so forth.

That, but on a national scale. I seriously urge you to reconsider submitting this. It is very damaging indeed

I have to add on, I do agree with the intentions of the proposals, but it is currently unworkable. I'll try and think of a way to ensure some form "minimum" wage, and will certainly help write such a proposal. Just that this way...isn't going to work.

How about it be equal to what is necessary for the poverty line, with medical guaranteed and cost of living raises?

The part about them being paid an additional 25%, since that means that people who are living at pretty much what you define as the poverty line and actually having a nice life now have to get extra resources that they actually are not working for.
Ahem. People living at the poverty line are pretty much by definition not having a nice life now.

Not neccessarily. If the bread line in a certain nation is say, $100 a week, and you get a $90 for 30 hours work (but do 40 hours work to get the required money) you could still have savings. And the cheap labour would encourage investment. However, if his wages rise to $125 (along with the majority of the country), as demand increases for the required goods and supply stays the same, then the people who supply the neccessities will rise their prices in order to increase profit, and the providers of raw materials will do the same. Result is price inflation. So the bread line becomes $125 a week. So wages then have to rise to $156, and so on.
That's making some interesting but fundamentally incorrect assumptions. Note to start with that the requirement is on weekly pay, not on hourly pay (except when you're doing part-timers pro-rata, which is a whole other argument). Thus your person's wages are $120 in the first place, so we're only talking about $5 difference. Hardly earth-shattering savings, that.

Second, demand for necessities doesn't increase. We haven't changed a single thing about (for example) the amount of food a nation needs; if you were undersupplied before, starvation and hyperinflation were already with you. There might be some rise in demand for luxuries, since a few more people will be able to aspire to them, but it's arguable that those prices were artificially suppressed to the benefit of the well-off anyway, and I'm not really going to be terribly sympathetic to people in that position.

The flaw with your apple example is that the brothers don't have to buy their apples from you, they can buy them from the competitor who is happy to undercut you. This is how free markets are supposed to correct themselves, isn't it?

Ahem. People living at the poverty line are pretty much by definition not having a nice life now.

Do you have anything to back this assertion? We find nothing about life which suggests people cannot find ways to be happy while still being at the poverty level, other than your delegate's lack of imagination.

One of the things to keep in mind is that, by definition, most of our nation is at the poverty level or even below. Through active use of the barter system, combined with our government not mindlessly raping the land as some would and our government's aggressive social welfare spending, we have a system in place where being at the poverty level does not mean you cannot have a nice life... assuming you do not mind enjoying the simple things. Our own nobility have found that a lot of their own unhappiness with the poverty level comes from a focus on the individual over the community, in that the individual believes they must have the nicest of items and that they should always fill their homes with unnecessary items to show to themselves their station in life. And even those who do focus on the individual can instead set up a system where people are rewarded in the feeling of self-importance in society by the value others place in them as a worker, provider, and person instead of a focus on material wealth.

As such, we see no reason why any nation should have issues with the poverty line. If your nation is having a problem with it, then it is a problem within your society that you have to fix, not a problem with the poverty line itself. As such, we would rather have you spend the time to fix the problems within your own nation rather than try to fix a problem for the entire assembly when that problem may not actually be a problem for members of it, or even necessarily the majority of it.

Do you have anything to back this assertion? We find nothing about life which suggests people cannot find ways to be happy while still being at the poverty level, other than your delegate's lack of imagination.

One of the things to keep in mind is that, by definition, most of our nation is at the poverty level or even below.

DEFINES the Basic Poverty Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of an average weekly commute between home and work, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of such utilities as may be deemed appropriate, less any income or benefits provided to all working people by the nation;

So either a lot of your people aren't eating or drinking enough to stay healthy, or they can't afford a flat, or they can't get to work, or they can't get reliable power or water. So they're unhealthy, homeless, unemployable or without utilities. I can imagine the latter not being nasty, but nice? When your boss's house has more illumination than your entire street?

This is a pretty basic level of survival we're talking about here, and just allowing a bit of growth potential on top. If your welfare system is as agressive as you say, I sincerely doubt that many if any of your citizens are below it.

So either a lot of your people aren't eating or drinking enough to stay healthy, or they can't afford a flat, or they can't get to work, or they can't get reliable power or water. So they're unhealthy, homeless, unemployable or without utilities. I can imagine the latter not being nasty, but nice? When your boss's house has more illumination than your entire street?

This is a pretty basic level of survival we're talking about here, and just allowing a bit of growth potential on top. If your welfare system is as agressive as you say, I sincerely doubt that many if any of your citizens are below it.

Never said our nation was perfect. We have a problem with is homelessness, though that is a question on if a lot of those are homeless because they can't get a home or homeless because they prefer it. One would think that winter would be a problem in such a case, but our hotsprings always jump in population density around winter anyway and we're pretty sure anyone without a home simply uses those as a safe spot away from the elements. It's an issue planned to be addressed as soon as we deal with the possibility of utilizing geothermal power instead of our current coal-burning power plants.

And... the Empress has ordered, against my recommendations, that the objection be withdrawn. She believes the economic hit can be easily dealt with and since the economy is effectively controlled by the government anyway, she's willing to, as she put it, let the Houses "eat the extra cost." I personally disagree, but she is the Empress and her word is law.

We fully expect the House of Rats to be unhappy with this, but they're unhappy with most things the government does anyway, so this will be nothing new.

That's making some interesting but fundamentally incorrect assumptions. Note to start with that the requirement is on weekly pay, not on hourly pay (except when you're doing part-timers pro-rata, which is a whole other argument). Thus your person's wages are $120 in the first place, so we're only talking about $5 difference. Hardly earth-shattering savings, that.
I never said it was a huge amount
Second, demand for necessities doesn't increase. We haven't changed a single thing about (for example) the amount of food a nation needs; if you were undersupplied before, starvation and hyperinflation were already with you.
I'm not talking about a starting position where there is under supply, but where supply and demand are more or less in balance. You are quite correct that undersupply would cause inflation (OoC such as in Zimbabwe). The point is that standards of living will not increase due to this resolution. Increasing the money earned will increase demand for products, as more people can afford to buy more stuff. However, as supply remains the same, demand therefore outstrips supply. Therefore prices rise. The person will be able to buy the same amount of stuff as beforehand, therefore the cost of living increases, and thus wages (should this resolution come in) need to be increased again, leading to a further knock on effect on prices. The only way to increase standard of living financially is to increase supply (thereby reducing prices), which will require (internal and/or external) investment, something a country undergoing hyperinflation wouldn't exactly attract

The flaw with your apple example is that the brothers don't have to buy their apples from you, they can buy them from the competitor who is happy to undercut you. This is how free markets are supposed to correct themselves, isn't it?

Your misunderstanding an analogy - the apples I sell represent the goods and services available in an entire national economy, not those available from one vendor. Thus, for all intents and purposesl, there is no-one to undercut me. It was just an analogy to explain the economic phenomenom now as wage price spiral, which ths would exacerbate.


Put another way. Imagine a nation of 1,000 inhabitants which produces and/or imports 1,000 tons of food a year. The inhabitants need 1 ton of food a year to live. Each member of the population earns an average of $100 a year, once they have paid for rent taxes etc., which they can spend on food. Thus, for demand to equal supply, a ton of food costs $100 a year. Wages now increase, and the average amount a person has to spend on food increases to $125. This is just easier for. Thus demand for food increases, as people can afford to buy more. However, as supply remains the same, in order to reduce demand the prices increase to $125 per ton. Thus there is no increase in the living standards (living standards in this case represented by the amount of food consumed- if you substitute food with any other good the point remains the same) of the people, so the wages have to increase again, so prices increase again.

I like it you trumped my Minumum wage law although I think we should have a "needs asessment team" to see what the needs are in that country. E.g Internet might be a 'need' in a high-tech country where most cheap things are online. But not in another country!

E.g Weather warning systems might be essential in some countries but not in others!

Your misunderstanding an analogy - the apples I sell represent the goods and services available in an entire national economy, not those available from one vendor. Thus, for all intents and purposesl, there is no-one to undercut me. It was just an analogy to explain the economic phenomenom now as wage price spiral, which ths would exacerbate.
Then you are saying that the free market is a really bad mechanism for keeping people alive. I'm not about to disagree with you, there :-)

It's not like that 25% over is significant in the way of extra money anyway. Most of it will promptly vanish into clothing and the like.

I like it you trumped my Minumum wage law although I think we should have a "needs asessment team" to see what the needs are in that country. E.g Internet might be a 'need' in a high-tech country where most cheap things are online. But not in another country!
I think that overcomplicates things too much. This has squeaked in a few characters under the limit for proposals after I tweaked it a bit; I'm not prepared to rip whole sections out in order to add a committee.

We are talking basic survival stuff here, after all. I can't imagine Internet access ever being a necessity anywhere -- you'll notice I haven't included communications facilities in general. Your other example of weather warning gear (presumably for those who live in hurricane zones) is something that would help people survive, but it's whole levels below food and water in the necessities stakes. By all means put together a proposal adding extras in, but let's get the basic necessities passed first!

Wage/price spiral occurs even in communist countries, old bean ;).

Perhaps I can suggest an addendum that would help the problem?

REQUIRES that, within a period of time no longer than that required to counteract any inflationary effects, laws be enated whithin nations to ensure that individuals in full-time employment may be paid the equivalent of a weekly wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

Actually, that's a crap way of wording it.

REQUIRES that no individual in full-time employment may be paid the equivalent of a weekly wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line; such a minimum standard is to be introduced incrementally over a period no longer than that required to counteract inflationary effect;

Sorry, it's just been submitted, and it's right at the character limit. In any case, I wouldn't want to put a loophole like that in, given that allows nations to stave off implementing minimum wage laws indefinitely. Surely the fact that the Poverty Lines don't have to be reevaluated constantly provides enough buffering?

Hmm...any chance of not TGing for now? I appreciate the fear of loopholes, but I feel that saying "a period not longer than that required" should alleviate that problem. After all, if it takes longer for a country to do than the time actually needed, they would be in non compliance ;)

I'll see if I can work out a way of loosing enough characters...

As per the Empress's command, we will be asking our regional delegate to support this.

Cerys does the Happy Quorum Dance!

Congrats!

May the horde of Gobbannium ride swift across the plain for all time.

The government of the Emperor of Urgench congratulates the Gobbannaen w.a. mission and the revered Ambassador Coch on reaching quorum with their statute

I have here the official position of the Forensatha, sent from the Empress herself.

Let's see here... *flips through papers* Blah blah... economic problems for some nations... blah blah blah... some troubles with resolution... blah blah blah no resolution is perfect... more pointless blah blah blahing that I honestly don't care to repeat... bunch of pointless legal crap I can't even say half of without help... We support it.

*tosses papers behind her*

There. Voting in favor.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

My region has discussed the issue, and well with agree with many principles of the resolution, we can not support it with our vote. We do not believe in attempting to force a possible new economic system or new way of governance on other nations. We feel this resolution is to far reaching, and also we feel it is not the place of the world assembly to dictate how a nations economy can function, or how a private business in the country can pay its workers. We wish to leave those matters to the Nations and people themselves.

Thank you

My region has discussed the issue, and well with agree with many principles of the resolution, we can not support it with our vote. We do not believe in attempting to force a possible new economic system or new way of governance on other nations. We feel this resolution is to far reaching, and also we feel it is not the place of the world assembly to dictate how a nations economy can function, or how a private business in the country can pay its workers. We wish to leave those matters to the Nations and people themselves.

Thank you

Please point out where this resolution forces nations into a new economic system, where it changes the way they govern their entire nation, where it dictates how economies can function, and where it dictates how companies may pay employees.

All I see is a change in the amount employees are paid.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

All I see is a change in the amount employees are paid.

Thank you for making our point for us. But one sees what one wishes. I see requests of voiding contracts, as wrongful- Legal contracts in one country. I see demands on a lot of private industry. Some of which could bankrupt an already poor nation.

But for the sake of nut shelling.

REQUIRES that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Povery Line unless that person has no dependents and explicitly waives this right

Direct WA interference in a nations economic system, I fail to see how you can see that as anything else. But as I said what is one thing to one, is something else to another.

Thank you for making our point for us.

Does changing how much employees get paid force a nation into a new economic system? Nope. If they still use a barter system, then they'll continue to use a barter system.

Does changing how much employees get paid force a nation into changing how they govern their people on the whole? Nope. Just adds a piece of regulation that, honestly, is no more invasive than any of the last ones. If they're a dictatorship, they'll stay a dictatorship. They'll just be a dictatorship with people who have a bit more money, which means they could become a prosperous dictatorship if they work at it.

Does changing how much employees get paid change how economies function? Nope. Economies still function the same way.

Does changing how much employees get dictate how companies pay them? Nope. If the companie pays through goods and services instead of money, it continues to pay goods and services instead of money.

How am I proving your argument again?

honestly, is no more invasive than any of the last ones.

And if you recall we have not supported any of those "last ones"

Forgive me if I laugh about your comment on how employers pay them.. Maybe they will just fire 3/4 of their work force? The company is now forced to pay a much higher wage in this poor nation. In order to pay that wage they must now let go of a large part of their work force. SO, now those people who were barely getting by, are starving and penny-less- That is why we believe it is interference in a nations economic system. Get the picture?

And if you recall we have not supported any of those "last ones"

Oh, I can't wait to see what you think of Recognition of Personhood or Diplomat Protection Act.

Forgive me if I laugh about your comment on how employers pay them.. Maybe they will just fire 3/4 of their work force? The company is now forced to pay a much higher wage in this poor nation. In order to pay that wage they must now let go of a large part of their work force. SO, now those people who were barely getting by, are starving. Get the picture?

Not necessarily. They could simply accept that they'll make a bit less profit. There's also the idea of passing the cost along to the wealthier customers. Nothing says they have to fire anyone to cover themselves.

And, even if they fire the workforce, that still doesn't back up any of your claims about why your region cannot support this resolution. The economic and governance systems as a whole remain unchanged.

Oh, and for the part you had to stealth add to your last comment:

I see requests of voiding contracts, as wrongful- Legal contracts in one country. I see demands on a lot of private industry. Some of which could bankrupt an already poor nation.

The voiding of contracts does not change how the nation is governed. The demands in question won't bankrupt a nation, either. Economic theory suggests a runaway inflation effect that essentially devalues the local currency to nothing, even though actual wealth of the nation itself will remain unchanged. Yet our nation, which will be heavily effectedn by this due to how much of our population is at the poverty line, only projects a small hit to our economy. A small hit that we'll recover from in a month. Mainly because we practice a little something called "not being stupid about business practices."

Direct WA interference in a nations economic system, I fail to see how you can see that as anything else. But as I said what is one thing to one, is something else to another.

Interference in a nation's economic system is not equal to forcing them into a new economic system or changing how economies work.

"not being stupid about business practices." Indeed that is why a nation is poor. Very stern logic. Thank you for admitting that does in fact interfere in the economy of other nations though. That is much appreciated.

Interference in a nation's economic system is not equal to forcing them into a new economic system or changing how economies work. Really I thought interfering directly by changing how one pays would be Changing how an economy would ultimately function. And yes good sir, it is FORCING them to change.

As for the slight on a "stealth post" I cant wait to see what else you equate a simple edit to ones statement is next. Illegal? Forgive me for not waiting on bated breath for your response. Also nice dodge on the poverty point, with a simple insult to a poor nation.

Indeed that is why a nation is poor. Very stern logic.

In our experience? Usually that or bad political practices. Or both. Every nation has something to sell and there's always a few suckers willing to buy it. The key is finding a way to sell it and not hurt yourself.

Really I thought interfering directly by changing how one pays would be Changing how an economy would ultimately function. And yes good sir, it is FORCING them to change.

Once again, it's not changing how they're paying. The way they pay is still the same. The only difference is the amount changed, which does not actually change anything about an economy. And, I have already refuted this.

As for the slight on a "stealth post" I cant wait to see how many more posts you can rack up in a month and a half.

OOC: I fail to see what relevance my postcount has on this discussion. Even as a distraction attempt to get the topic sidelined into a discussion of a person's tendency to post a lot while attempting to flamebait and troll without going far enough to get caught, I must admit that the effort on your end lacks the amount of sophistication I am normally used to, in part because I am used to dealing with those who have enough experience and skill in the area to manage to make it look like an artform. For the sake of dealing with a more civilized discussion, I politely request that you leave those attempts to those who are more skilled and areas where they are more likely to have an effect rather than attempt it in here. And, finally, I ask you to accept that some of us do not persona play, but do full roleplaying for this forum and typically prefer it if OOC comments are marked as such.

Oh, and for the record, Forensatha's WA delegate is a 15 year old girl who got the position by default. Keep that in mind as I post, as well as the fact that I am purposefully keeping my posts within a certain vocabulary and educational limit for what would be around equal to the society that Forensatha has.

Also, note the comment on stealth is an IC comment, not an OOC one. There is an important difference.

Also nice dodge on the poverty point, with a simple insult to a poor nation.

Go back and look at what I said again. I didn't dodge.

Where there is true anarchy there will be few employers to be affected by such regulations. Unfortunately, we still find the need to organise economic and agricultural activity into enterprises with leaders and payrolls.

However, it is against the spirit of anarchy to make restrictions on what employers can or cannot pay their workers.

- temporary speaker for Massif Central

While the thought behind this legislation is a good one, Erikobbystan has no choice but to vote against the measure.

Yes, we want to help people not have to worry about working five different low-paid jobs just to stay alive, it is the other parts of the bill that frighten us.

Yes, we would love to pay these people more, BUT why do we have to give them free healthcare? Why should citizens who have worked long and hard to get themselves out of poverty to pay for things like healthcare be forced to pay for another person's healthcare who hasn't worked long and hard enough? All this is going to create is a population of people who don't want to work! People will become lazy and satisfied where they are in poverty.

Also, since when did 30 hours equal full-time employment? There are societies where people work 40 or more with no problems at all. What are they going to do with all of that free time? Get drunk and force the more fortunate to pay for their drunkeness?

Vote NO on this measure!

The Republic of the Mindless Psychos would be fully behind this proposal if not for this one line:

"CONSIDERS a person working on a contractual basis to be equivalent to a person in direct employment for the purposes of this resolution;"

We believe that contracts are still personal agreements settled upon by two parties and they have extenuating circumstances from other jobs. They should not be bound to the minimum wage as if the two parties agree on the price for whatever the contract is for, then it is their choice be it too low of a price or not.

We therefore have decided to vote against this Resolution at this time but would be totally willing to vote for it in the future if it was reformed.

Thank you,

Ian Bartrobbe
President of The Republic of The Mindless Psychos

President Jerzy 'Jay" Novakovich ot The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

The proposal before us is a significant one. Across the world, hard working men and women struggle to put food on their children's plates, heat in their homes, and fuel in their cars.

It will come as no surprise to all, but I feel that most of the worlds conflicts, and many of the crimes that happen in our individual nations, are symptoms of class struggle. When people become desperate, they do desperate things. Who among you would not do whatever it would take to ensure that your families would survive?

This is why I urge all of you, comrades, to support this act. It is true that it will cost companies to pay employees a decent living wage, but it will cost the world more not to.

Thank you."

I'm all for having people being able to work hard and earn a decent wage on which to live, but we're supposed to give them 25% more than that!!!! Think about it; if we force all employers to increase salaries this much, then many people will lose jobs. The government will then have to step in and support them, providing welfare that is 20% more than the people actually need, and they won't even be working!!!!!!!!! Do you know what this does to the tax burden of my people! How about a more realistic compromise, say providing all workers with 10% more than they need and providing welfare at the standards of living mark for only those who truly need it. We don't want people exploiting the system. I mean, who would choose to work if you can make almost as much (25% vs. 20% over basic standard of living) by not doing anything. This legislation has too many flaws for my nation to ever support it. I propose we modify the current bill in favor of a more realistic compromise.

I'm all for having people being able to work hard and earn a decent wage on which to live, but we're supposed to give them 25% more than that!!!! Think about it; if we force all employers to increase salaries this much, then many people will lose jobs. The government will then have to step in and support them, providing welfare that is 20% more than the people actually need, and they won't even be working!!!!!!!!! Do you know what this does to the tax burden of my people! How about a more realistic compromise, say providing all workers with 10% more than they need and providing welfare at the standards of living mark for only those who truly need it. We don't want people exploiting the system. I mean, who would choose to work if you can make almost as much (25% vs. 20% over basic standard of living) by not doing anything. This legislation has too many flaws for my nation to ever support it. I propose we modify the current bill in favor of a more realistic compromise.

I am in full agreement.

I am in full agreement.

I also agree.

Food and utilities? Why not a house, car, and business why you're at it!
If my people want utilities, they can work for it!

I also agree.

Food and utilities? Why not a house, car, and business why you're at it!
If my people want utilities, they can work for it!



Insuring them a decent wage would make it possible for them to do just that, respected Ambassador. Perhaps simple logic does not animate the politics of Jossavia but it does animate this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

BUT why do we have to give them free healthcare? Why should citizens who have worked long and hard to get themselves out of poverty to pay for things like healthcare be forced to pay for another person's healthcare who hasn't worked long and hard enough? All this is going to create is a population of people who don't want to work! People will become lazy and satisfied where they are in poverty.

That is why you focus a lot on how well the rich have it. Don't be afraid to lie about it. People are, my government has found, naturally jealous creatures. If you create the perception that the rich are better off in everything, then the people will be disatisfied with their lot in life and work harder.

If your system requires unhappiness to work properly, then you need to artificially engineer the unhappiness.

Also, since when did 30 hours equal full-time employment? There are societies where people work 40 or more with no problems at all. What are they going to do with all of that free time? Get drunk and force the more fortunate to pay for their drunkeness?

Spend time with their families and more time out shopping, which in turn means more time spending money and a more robust economy as more money reenters circulation.

Okay, time for the next person.

I'm all for having people being able to work hard and earn a decent wage on which to live, but we're supposed to give them 25% more than that!!!!

You know, they really don't pay me enough to do this job. "See the world and meet interesting people," they said. "Learn about new and exciting cultures," they said. "Get to have the best educational opportunities in the world," they said. They never told me the guy would up and die and leave me to deal with lunatics. I really should have accepted the offer for that plantation instead. At least there all you have to do is gardening and there's no chance the owner of the place dies on you and you end up in charge by default.

*inaudible grumbling*

At least I know why that one window lacks any glass. That always did confuse me before I became the delegate.

Anyway, this only requires you pay them 25% more if they're at the poverty line. That means that all of their money coming in goes back out for food, utilities, and other necessities. If you pay them 25% more, that's just more money they have to spend, which means more money they can put back into your economy. In short, doing this right may make your entire nation richer.

Think about it; if we force all employers to increase salaries this much, then many people will lose jobs.

Not true. Most companies adapt by passing the cost along to the customer. Let them pass it along to the wealthy customers, who already have more than enough money. The wealthy might take a short-term hit, but as long as they are smart about investing their money, this can turn around and generate massive profits for them.

Sorry. Knowledge of applied economic theory is an educational requirement back home. It's part of our cultural heritage.

[quotw]The government will then have to step in and support them, providing welfare that is 20% more than the people actually need, and they won't even be working!!!!!!!!![/quote]

This proposal doesn't mandate a welfare change. You don't have to change that.

How about a more realistic compromise, say providing all workers with 10% more than they need and providing welfare at the standards of living mark for only those who truly need it.

That would increase the tax burden on a lot of nations, and some of us use welfare systems that other nations find scary. My homeland does it through the slavery system.

The system is simple: If a person cannot manage to make it on their own, they voluntarily become a slave. Then, they are bought by someone and put to work, typically in exchange for the necessities of life and maybe a little extra spending money. My homeland requires that they be compensated for their work, but often they get educational opportunities that would normally be unavailable. As they gain experience and skills, they end up getting sold to people who can afford to pay them more, allowing some people to ascend the social ranks all the way up to the Imperial Family itself when normally they would never have a chance. And, if they want, they can always buy back their own freedom once they're more secure or even marry their way out of the system.

Of course, some nations are automatically frightened by such a system. This is a very nice compromise on that area.

We don't want people exploiting the system.

That's what police are for.

I mean, who would choose to work if you can make almost as much (25% vs. 20% over basic standard of living) by not doing anything.

Then don't change your welfare system. It's that simple.

Food and utilities? Why not a house, car, and business why you're at it!
If my people want utilities, they can work for it!

I believe the ambassador from Urgench covered this. However, in case their argument does not hold much sway with you and you would rather continue with illogic, I have this argument to offer:

*stands up, walks to the center, and smiles wide*

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed assembly, I have one final thing I want you to consider: *pulls down a diagram of Chewbaca* this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this resolution? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this resolution! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm an ambassador defending a living wage resolution, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that voting room deliberating and conjugating the Child Protection Act... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed assembly, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must vote in favor! The defense rests.

*goes back and retakes her seat*

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I propose we modify the current bill in favor of a more realistic compromise.

Well then, perhaps you should have spoken up during the drafting phase, WHEN IT COULD HAVE BEEN MODIFIED!

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
OOC: See, I can use annoying formatting too.

The WA debating chamber -- hall -- tent -- whatever -- quietens a little as a large screen in wheeled in and a projector set up opposite it. A technician kneels beside the projector in prayer, or possibly adjusting the focus, it's hard to tell. Regardless, it isn't long before the vague blobs of light on the screen resolve into the cheery features of Prince Rhodri of Segontium, Gobbannium's former Ambassador to the World Assembly. The text along the bottom displays the words "Live from Dinas Segontium." The cheers from the Gobbannaen delegation don't even sound all that rehearsed, but they quickly turn into grumbles as the picture fades and breaks up. Angry glares are directed at a pair of junior secretaries, who look sheepish and start pedalling the exercise bikes connected up to the emergency generator again.

The picture returns as Prince Rhodri is looking off-camera, mouthing "Are they ready?" in the exaggerated way he seems to think is subtle. He appears to get an affirmative response, as he turns back to the camera and pastes on a smile.

"Honoured Ambassadors, former friends and colleagues, and those newer amongst you that we regret not having had the opportunity to meet,

"It gives us great pleasure to introduce to you the Living Wage Act, the first piece of legislation put forward by the Principalities of Gobbannium through our mission here in the World Assembly to have reached a formal floor vote. Before we say a few words concerning the resolution itself, we would first like to thank all those who have contributed to what is in front of you today. In both this chamber and others, many have sharpened both the purpose and the wording of this proposal, and while the minutes of this organisation will forever enshrine their incisive analyses, we would like to single out a few names worthy of especial praise.

"First, we are indebted to the redoubtable Felix Dzerzhinsky of the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda, who shared with us his notes concerning the former UN Fair Wage Act. Without them, we would have spent many hours pursuing fruitless lines of thought and wasted much of the time of this assembly. In the debate preceeding submission we would like to particularly thank Samantha Benson and Cocoamok of the Quintessence of Dust and Wierd Anarchists respectively for their challenges to our assumptions, as well as all those others who added to the finished product.

"We must also take a moment to thank the regional delegates who considered this proposal and gave it their approval. We are somewhat staggered and, indeed, humbled to have attracted the opinions of over two hundred nations that this matter is worthy of bringing to the attention of the World Assembly as a whole.

"As to the resolution itself, we believe that this is a small but fundamental step for all nations in the pursuit of proper relations between employers and employees. We are saying in this document that all those who work for a living should be able to live as a result. The resolution doesn't promise riches; it doesn't even promise comfort. It does, however, promise that we all believe that everyone should be able to see light at the end of the tunnel, that..."

The picture dims slightly again as the sound volume reduces. Prince Rhodri carries on talking, albeit inaudibly, apparently unaware of what's happening in the chamber.

What's happening is that Cerys Coch takes the podium.

"What His Nibs is going to spend the next half-hour saying is that this is a damn good idea and you should all vote for it. Which it is, but you don't need to listen for that long. God knows, I didn't want to while he was rehearsing it. Anyway you've heard the arguments we had beforehand. I expect we'll get the usual crowd turning up and repeating them. Please don't kill the newbies, that's my job.

"Let's have a good, clean debate, no biting, gouging or spitting and a minimum of high explosives, you hear me Susa? I'll get round to beating up the individual stupid comments in a minute, apart from Wencee. I wouldn't want to poach, Acting Ambassador Felna :)"

The objectives of this Act have not been made clear and therefore it is difficult to decide whether or no to support it. Whoever proposed it should think about making their rhetoric clearer. Due to this I have voted against the proposal as an incomprehensible proposal is of no use to anyone. If whoever proposed this really believes in what they are saying they should rewrite the proposal and describe coherently what it is intended for, but as it stands there is no real reason for anyone to vote for this proposal and I would urge anyone considering the matter to vote against it until the proposer makes perfectly clear what he or she means by it.

Yes, we would love to pay these people more, BUT why do we have to give them free healthcare?
You don't have to. If your healthcare system isn't free, the resolution suggests (not orders, requires, demands or throws a tantrum) that you build into your minimum wage calculations something to allow for people being ill and having to cough up for it. As it were.

Also, since when did 30 hours equal full-time employment?
It's a reasonable compromise between societies with wildly different working habits. You'll notice it only matters for the definition of when the act cuts in, and the proportions for part-timers. There is nothing whatsoever in the act to prevent employers demanding that employees work 48-hour weeks for their weekly wage. That's a subject for a different resolution, which would be a whole lot more controversial.

The Mindless Psychos;14084285']The Republic of the Mindless Psychos would be fully behind this proposal if not for this one line:

"CONSIDERS a person working on a contractual basis to be equivalent to a person in direct employment for the purposes of this resolution;"

We believe that contracts are still personal agreements settled upon by two parties and they have extenuating circumstances from other jobs. They should not be bound to the minimum wage as if the two parties agree on the price for whatever the contract is for, then it is their choice be it too low of a price or not.
Ordinary contracts of employment are contracts too. Besides, this is an obvious loophole that had to be plugged; Company X, deciding to pay its workers peanuts, fires all its employees and offers to rehire them as contractors. Without that clause, it could offer a lot less, and in the right economic climate -- say, the climate that breeds sweatshops -- could get away with it.

(OOC: in case you think that sounds insanely dangerous for company X, I (amongst others) was fired by my former employer earlier this year and have been rehired as a contractor. Since however this was because my former employer thinks engineers are interchangeable and it's ideologically better to contract out than employ (no, don't ask me, it doesn't make sense to me either), they've hired me and the others back at a considerably higher rate than before. Also we are that good :) )

I'm all for having people being able to work hard and earn a decent wage on which to live, but we're supposed to give them 25% more than that!!!!
Now read it again, actually reading this time. The baseline that we're talking about isn't a decent wage, its a subsistence wage. Enough food and drink to stay healthy. Shelter. Light and heat. Being able to afford to get to work. Support for your husband, wife or child if you have one (but not two). And that's it.

25% on top of that is peanuts, but it's the glimmerings of a future. It means they can probably replace their clothes when they wear out, for instance.

[B]Think about it; if we force all employers to increase salaries this much, then many people will lose jobs.
All of your employers exploit their workforces? It sounds like you're exactly the sort of country this resolution is designed to kick in the nuts. My sympathy for you and yours is rapidly disappearing.

The government will then have to step in and support them, providing welfare that is 20% more than the people actually need, and they won't even be working!!!!!!!!!
While you're taking the dried frog pills for all those exclamation marks, I'll point out that the welfare bit is voluntary on your part. And again, I take offence at you equating need and survival.

If my people want utilities, they can work for it!
They are working for it, that's the point.

The objectives of this Act have not been made clear and therefore it is difficult to decide whether or no to support it. Whoever proposed it should think about making their rhetoric clearer.
The title isn't a clue? Or the bit about "more than merely surviving" given that "some workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat"?

Frankly if the rhetoric of the act makes you read it rather than thinking you know what it contains already, it has succeeded.

The objectives of this Act have not been made clear and therefore it is difficult to decide whether or no to support it. Whoever proposed it should think about making their rhetoric clearer. Due to this I have voted against the proposal as an incomprehensible proposal is of no use to anyone. If whoever proposed this really believes in what they are saying they should rewrite the proposal and describe coherently what it is intended for, but as it stands there is no real reason for anyone to vote for this proposal and I would urge anyone considering the matter to vote against it until the proposer makes perfectly clear what he or she means by it.

Yes. I am definitely not paid enough to do this job.

DESIRING that all people should be afforded the luxury of doing more than merely surviving in exchange for full-time work;

That's the entirety of this resolution's purpose. I do not see how that is unclear.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I am opposed. Paying people in kind instead of cash is a method of economic enslavement. This resolution does more to crush the individual then help them. Very deceptive Gobbannaen.

I am opposed. Paying people in kind instead of cash is a method of economic enslavement. This resolution does more to crush the individual then help them. Very deceptive Gobbannaen.

So you are saying that the primary method of payment for work in my homeland, a method that even is used to pay some of the nobility, is enslavement? Do you have proof that such a system is as you accuse it of being?

I am opposed. Paying people in kind instead of cash is a method of economic enslavement. This resolution does more to crush the individual then help them. Very deceptive Gobbannaen.

OK, I give up. I thought that paying people at all was economic enslavement according to most of the ideologies that use the term without fits of giggles. And the name's Cerys.

Insuring them a decent wage would make it possible for them to do just that, respected Ambassador. Perhaps simple logic does not animate the politics of Jossavia but it does animate this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,


A decent wage yes. Free utilities, no.

A decent wage yes. Free utilities, no.

Where does it mandate that you give them free utilities?

Where does it mandate that you give them free utilities?


AWARE that some workers are paid so little that they can barely afford to eat;

CONSIDERING this situation little better than slavery;

DESIRING that all people should be afforded the luxury of doing more than merely surviving in exchange for full-time work;

DEFINES the Basic Poverty Line as the cost of enough food and drink to keep a person healthy for a week, plus one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of an average weekly commute between home and work, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of such utilities as may be deemed appropriate, less any income or benefits provided to all working people by the nation;

DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all working people with dependents by the nation;

REQUIRES that power and water supply be deemed appropriate utilities;

Which means that utility costs go into the Poverty Line calculation. Nowhere does it say you provide them for free.

The Republic of Lanceopia is a capitalist country. The government does not set wages or prices. The free market determines these things. If a company offers wages that are insufficient then they don't have workers and therefore do not produce goods or services. The Republic of Lanceopia cannot support a socialist program forced upon us. We do not NEED or WANT a collection of countries telling us how much our businesses must pay their workers, thus effecting the price of our products.

I feel that wages must be set at a minimum and that their should be a maximum for a government payed position except the inner-chamber.

The Republic of Lanceopia is a capitalist country. The government does not set wages or prices. The free market determines these things. If a company offers wages that are insufficient then they don't have workers and therefore do not produce goods or services. The Republic of Lanceopia cannot support a socialist program forced upon us. We do not NEED or WANT a collection of countries telling us how much our businesses must pay their workers, thus effecting the price of our products.

And, unfortunately, that is the root of your problem. The government has little say. The only people who do are the rich, who will become richer at the expense of the poor. May the Gods help your poor as well as they only become poorer and poorer until starvation will set in and they will be forced to leave your nation to settle somewhere that they are paid what they deserve in order to survive.

Oh, wait, this resolution will get them the pay they deserve. This system may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. The rich should not be allowed to take advantage of the poor. It should not happen. Pay equality is truly the only option. It's worked for Rutianas for years.

The Republic of Lanceopia is a capitalist country. The government does not set wages or prices. The free market determines these things.
Then consider this as market regulation. Its the only way to impose ethics or morals on something as fundamentally amoral as the free market.

I feel that wages must be set at a minimum and that their should be a maximum for a government payed position except the inner-chamber.
Maximum wages are a whole different subject. If you want to write a proposal about curbing excessive wages, be my guest. This proposal came in less than ten characters under the limit, so even if I fail to get this through there's no chance of adding it here.

Would it be possible that the WA concerns itself only with international (that is, between-nations) matters, and let all internal policies up to the Sovereign Member States? There are a lot of people in the WA who can't stop on creating a sort of world-wide Super-Nation which has to follow a concrete social, cultural and political model. This goes against all the rules not just of the WA, but of the World (NationStates) where we live in.
OOC: are we all playing the same Role-Game...? I'm not sure about it.

Would it be possible that the WA concerns itself only with international (that is, between-nations) matters, and let all internal policies up to the Sovereign Member States? There are a lot of people in the WA who can't stop on creating a sort of world-wide Super-Nation which has to follow a concrete social, cultural and political model. This goes against all the rules not just of the WA, but of the World (NationStates) where we live in.
OOC: are we all playing the same Role-Game...? I'm not sure about it.


Honoured Ambassador, it is hardly "against the rules of the w.a." or of this world to introduce laws which better the lives of billion upon billions of persons. If it were then this resolution would most likely not have reached a vote. The authors of this resolution have written an excellent resolution which is minded to raise the basic living standards of the citizenry of the membership of this organisation, a resolution which is perfectly legal and deeply concerend with common human decency.

What topic could possibly be more international in scope than the improvement of the lives of every single person who's government is a member of this organisation? What is more international than common human decency except perhaps the causes for the need for common human decency?


yours e.t.c. ,

Would it be possible that the WA concerns itself only with international (that is, between-nations) matters, and let all internal policies up to the Sovereign Member States? There are a lot of people in the WA who can't stop on creating a sort of world-wide Super-Nation which has to follow a concrete social, cultural and political model. This goes against all the rules not just of the WA, but of the World (NationStates) where we live in.
OOC: are we all playing the same Role-Game...? I'm not sure about it.

As it has been noted before, the "purpose" or "job" of the WA is whatever the membership decides it is, based on the resolutions passed. If you think your vision of what the WA should be or do is better and should prevail, do a better job arguing your case when resolutions come up for vote and you won't need to worry about it.

Oh, and we like this resolution.

-Irina Misheli, Deputy Ambassador

We are a relatively new member of the WA, but already it seems as though every resolution is passed without meaningful debate. Is this responsible? Doesn't anyone give any thought to the unchecked power that the WA is accumulating?

Or is it simply that most members vote "yes" without reading the resolution? To be sure, increased wage sounds nice, and so do most of the resolutions, but we are sacrificing our autonomy on the altar of "sounds nice." Isn't it our responsibility to petition our delegates to read each resolution more carefully before voting in laws that apply to all of us?

Greater Krakonia is no fan of democracy. Our nation has become a regional economic powerhouse in a very short time without the help of such a supposedly indispensable institution. However, as a member of the WA, we have accepted it on a super-national level.

As our suspicions of democracy as a dictatorship of the majority are being confirmed at the WA, we will eventually be forced to rethink our membership. Please help us in returning a modicum of responibility to the WA, and send a message to our regional delegates by making an example of this resolution.

We urge you to vote "no" on this resolution.

Thank you,

Vladek Jublanzhjek,
Foreign Minister of Greater Krakonia, All Her Irredeemed Provinces, And All Oppressed Expatriate Ethnic Krakonians.

We Snefaldians are a bunch of fuzzy crazies who believe in community support and not raping each other silly with ideas about "profit" and "expense" and "double-bottom bear market half-spin floating Zambian Q-bonds."

We are a society, and a nation, that believes strongly in the idea that each person, when they work, should have the ability to eat, stay healthy, and stay covered on the wages they are paid. Philosophically speaking, this is opposed to capitalism, which is a "me-first" approach to labour and society that our community finds abhorrent and alien.

Therefore, with our fluffy pinko crazy flags fluttering proudly in the wind, created by the diligent worker for the benefit of the society... okay, maybe that's a bit much...

Snefaldia votes aye.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

We are a relatively new member of the WA, but already it seems as though every resolution is passed without meaningful debate. Is this responsible? Doesn't anyone give any thought to the unchecked power that the WA is accumulating?

Some of us on here have been complaining about that. Unfortunately, when it comes to these, a lot of the meaningful debate needs to come before it's even submitted. Which means people need to actually be around and debate how these are being structured during the draft phases.

Or is it simply that most members vote "yes" without reading the resolution? To be sure, increased wage sounds nice, and so do most of the resolutions, but we are sacrificing our autonomy on the altar of "sounds nice." Isn't it our responsibility to petition our delegates to read each resolution more carefully before voting in laws that apply to all of us?

One of the key things about international groups, such as this one, is that you have to sacrifice quite a bit of autonomy. It's part of how the group works.

Greater Krakonia is no fan of democracy. Our nation has become a regional economic powerhouse in a very short time without the help of such a supposedly indispensable institution. However, as a member of the WA, we have accepted it on a super-national level.

My nation is the same. Yet, I am voting in favor. It helps too many nations, even if it does violate their self-rule.

As our suspicions of democracy as a dictatorship of the majority are being confirmed at the WA, we will eventually be forced to rethink our membership. Please help us in returning a modicum of responibility to the WA, and send a message to our regional delegates by making an example of this resolution.

Um, you really need to read up on how delegate votes work. Your call to action will never work. And, besides, why should we throw out something that does some good in the name of national sovereignity?

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I will concede to the proponents of this bill that the welfare notation is optional. However, I will attempt one more time to explain why this bill is faulty in a far more honorable and respectable manner than my opponents.

If your system requires unhappiness to work properly, then you need to artificially engineer the unhappiness.

No, actually my system is called capitalism. It's been proven to be quite sucessful in many nations.

Now read it again, actually reading this time. The baseline that we're talking about isn't a decent wage, its a subsistence wage. Enough food and drink to stay healthy. Shelter. Light and heat. Being able to afford to get to work. Support for your husband, wife or child if you have one (but not two). And that's it. 25% on top of that is peanuts, but it's the glimmerings of a future. It means they can probably replace their clothes when they wear out, for instance.

So now the government's job has been extended beyond merely providing for people's basic needs, but also to supply additional spending allowance? I'm sorry, is the government your parents, because if that's the case, I find your system of government to be far sadder than my capitalist "exploitation." And 25% is hardly peanuts. Think about it, if your minimum standard of living were say, $25,000, you're giving these people an addtional $6,000+ more a year. And you're saying no jobs will be cut? People will either rot in the streets without jobs, or the government will have to step in, tax the heck out the hard-working population at large, and all those horrible rich people who just happen to employ most of these people and use most of the services will have less money to contribute to the economy.

And let's not forget the attacks. My, we take a political game so seriously, gentleman.

Sorry. Knowledge of applied economic theory is an educational requirement back home. It's part of our cultural heritage.

Don't be silly; economic theory is like politics. You can debate it either way. Your theories have no more validity or proof to them then do mine.

All of your employers exploit their workforces? It sounds like you're exactly the sort of country this resolution is designed to kick in the nuts. My sympathy for you and yours is rapidly disappearing.

My sympathy lies only with your people, and your economy. And paying people just a little over (as opposed to an extra quarter of their total salary!) what they need to enjoy a healthy life is hardly exploitation.

While you're taking the dried frog pills for all those exclamation marks

(No Comment)

Let's have a good, clean debate, no biting, gouging or spitting and a minimum of high explosives, you hear me Susa? I'll get round to beating up the individual stupid comments in a minute, apart from Wencee. I wouldn't want to poach, Acting Ambassador Felna

"Stupid?" That sounds rather derogatory. And I really need not discuss the rest.

I will concede to the proponents of this bill that the welfare notation is optional. However, I will attempt one more time to explain why this bill is faulty in a far more honorable and respectable manner than my opponents.

And yet proving that you have no honor and are disrespecting your opponents by your opening statement.

No, actually my system is called capitalism. It's been proven to be quite sucessful in many nations.

And it's successfully destroyed quite a few more. If you're going to have a truly successful capitalist system, then you're likely already regulating it to some degree. The fact that capitalism inherently requires regulation in order to prevent the system from self-destructing due to greed and dishonorable practices of corporations means that something like this is actually necessary.

And, secondly, note that we practice a form of it. The difference is, our form is purposefully heavily regulated to prevent problems from cropping up because of it.

So now the government's job has been extended beyond merely providing for people's basic needs, but also to supply additional spending allowance? I'm sorry, is the government your parents, because if that's the case, I find your system of government to be far sadder than my capitalist "exploitation." And 25% is hardly peanuts. Think about it, if your minimum standard of living were say, $25,000, you're giving these people an addtional $6,000+ more a year. And you're saying no jobs will be cut? People will either rot in the streets without jobs, or the government will have to step in, tax the heck out the hard-working population at large, and all those horrible rich people who just happen to employ most of these people and use most of the services will have less money to contribute to the economy.

Ironically, your entire spiel against it reveals that your form of capitalism is already a failure. What happens if a resource you need, oil for example, gets scarce? From what you're saying, your companies would just fire people to compensate. And as oil gets more scarce, people continue to get fired, eventually reaching a point where your nation would easily have an unemployment rate of 25-30% That's 25-30% of your nation on welfare simply because of the rarity of oil.

Also, unless you have the economic impossibility of your nation being made up mostly of rich people, then they do not use the majority of the services due simply to how small a minority they are. Who does? The poor people, who often would end up having to spend money they need for something else on a service they happen to need more immediately. Raising this doesn't add much money to them, but it does possibly eliminate cases where one need suffers because they have to pay for another.

What most capitalist systems do is raise prices. They pass the cost along. There is nothing about your system which prevents that from being done. And if done right, you won't actually take an economic hit.

]By the way, while I FULLY SUPPORT FAIR WAGES FOR WORKERS, SAY A COMPROMISE AT 5-10% OVER THE POVERTY LINE, ANY WORLD ORGANIZATION THAT DARES TRY TO TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY ECONOMY WILL BE MOVING FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NEXT. AND I WON'T BE PLAYING GAMES LIKE I AM NOW IF THAT ISSUE COMES UP!

Please do not shout. We are not shouting at you, are we? So why do you have to shout at us? Stop, calm down, and realize how foolish shouting like this makes you look.

Also, note that we are not telling you how to run your economy. I am telling you what is wrong with your economy and suggesting ways to fix it. But I'm not telling you how to run it.

And as for universal health care: That's worked in as many nations as capitalism has.

If you feel like quitting, go ahead. I claim your office.

Don't be silly; economic theory is like politics. You can debate it either way. Your theories have no more validity or proof to them then do mine.

Applied economic theory. There's a difference. Economic theory is just thinking about how economies work and coming up with methods of setting them up and keeping them running. Applied economic theory is studying how actual economies work, their strengths and weaknesses, and then using that knowledge to actually repair an economy that doesn't work or to keep one working going.

Don't be silly; economic theory is like politics. You can debate it either way. Your theories have no more validity or proof to them then do mine.

The economy of his nation and my own are doing just fine. in fact, we recently reported record profits in several industries in anticipation of this passing. Our people are so happy they're spending money to celebrate. So this is already benefiting us and it hasn't even passed yet.

"Stupid?" That sounds rather derogatory. And I really need not discuss the rest.

Not any more derogatory than saying your opponents are dishonorable and disrespectful.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I will concede to the proponents of this bill that the welfare notation is optional. However, I will attempt one more time to explain why this bill is faulty in a far more honorable and respectable manner than my opponents.



No, actually my system is called capitalism. It's been proven to be quite sucessful in many nations.



So now the government's job has been extended beyond merely providing for people's basic needs, but also to supply additional spending allowance? I'm sorry, is the government your parents, because if that's the case, I find your system of government to be far sadder than my capitalist "exploitation." And 25% is hardly peanuts. Think about it, if your minimum standard of living were say, $25,000, you're giving these people an addtional $6,000+ more a year. And you're saying no jobs will be cut? People will either rot in the streets without jobs, or the government will have to step in, tax the heck out the hard-working population at large, and all those horrible rich people who just happen to employ most of these people and use most of the services will have less money to contribute to the economy.

By the way, while I FULLY SUPPORT FAIR WAGES FOR WORKERS, SAY A COMPROMISE AT 5-10% OVER THE POVERTY LINE, ANY WORLD ORGANIZATION THAT DARES TRY TO TELL ME HOW TO RUN MY ECONOMY WILL BE MOVING FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE NEXT. AND I WON'T BE PLAYING GAMES LIKE I AM NOW IF THAT ISSUE COMES UP!



Is it absolutely necessary for the honoured Ambassador to yell and shout their logically deficient ideas? Bellowing is hardly civilised is it respected Ambassador?


yours e.t.c. ,

So you are saying that the primary method of payment for work in my homeland, a method that even is used to pay some of the nobility, is enslavement? Do you have proof that such a system is as you accuse it of being?

My apologies I did not know that was the situation in your nation. How about a compromise allowing the workers to select if they are paid in Cash or Kind? If you leave it up to corporations they may just give the workers product instead of cash. Trading 150 rubber baby dolls for rent, tea and some biscuits could be tricky. This would allow some lee-way for each of our economic systems and make the act more palatable and workable. Is it possible Cerys?

My apologies I did not know that was the situation in your nation. How about a compromise allowing the workers to select if they are paid in Cash or Kind?

That's why the part about Kind was put in to begin with. The resolution itself is not intended to actually change how corporations pay their employees, though.

Since when is all caps yelling? How can anyone confer my tone simply from the number of capitals I use? Why can't it simply a point of emphasis, as is bold type? For the record, I modified my previous statement, realizing that it was rather intense and hindered true and honest political debate.

Furthermore, I find it fit to correct a few more points.

note that we are not telling you how to run your economy. I am telling you what is wrong with your economy and suggesting ways to fix it. But I'm not telling you how to run it.

Actually that's exactly what your proposed bill sets out to do, unless you don't consider regulating wages to be a part of the economy.

If you're going to have a truly successful capitalist system, then you're likely already regulating it to some degree.

Opposing one form of regulation hardly means I oppose all regulation.

[QUOTE]And yet proving that you have no honor and are disrespecting your opponents by your opening statement.
[QUOTE]

Questioning the honor of those who call other people's ideas stupid is hardly disrespectful.

As we discovered some time ago bold type and capitalisation do in fact indicate a raised tone of voice in these debates and in our case this was doubly embarrassing since we Urgenchis abhor raised voices and only ever speak in whispers.

Is it really necessary to bold type certain parts of your interventions in any case, honoured Ambassador? Shouldn't the import be self evident? Shouldn't the esteemed Ambassador's arguments be persuasive enough without the need for excessive capital letters?

yours e.t.c.,

Since when is all caps yelling? How can anyone confer my tone simply from the number of capitals I use? Why can't it simply a point of emphasis, as is bold type? For the record, I modified my previous statement, realizing that it was rather intense and hindered true and honest political debate.

OOC: It's been considered yelling since I've been on the internet, about 15 years now


Actually that's exactly what your proposed bill sets out to do, unless you don't consider regulating wages to be a part of the economy.

It sets out to make certain that people, all people, have equal opportunity to be able to eat, pay bills, and actually have a little bit left over afterwards.

Questioning the honor of those who call other people's ideas stupid is hardly disrespectful.

It's disrespectful in Rutianas. I'm sure others see it the same way, but then again, that's a matter of morality and ethics.

Since when is all caps yelling? How can anyone confer my tone simply from the number of capitals I use? Why can't it simply a point of emphasis, as is bold type? For the record, I modified my previous statement, realizing that it was rather intense and hindered true and honest political debate.

OOC: In writing stories, all caps is often used by authors to attempt to mimic the intensity of true yelling. That's why, in roleplaying, it's assumed to be that.

And, yes, there is roleplaying going on.

Anyway, back to IC with me.

Actually that's exactly what your proposed bill sets out to do, unless you don't consider regulating wages to be a part of the economy.

No, my proposed bill seeks to give protections to diplomats. This bill was authoered by someone else.

And, yes, wages are part of the economy. But this will not change your economic system from capitalism to socialism, nor will it make the system collapse any faster than it would otherwise.

Opposing one form of regulation hardly means I oppose all regulation.

I have merely what you have said to use as a guide.

Questioning the honor of those who call other people's ideas stupid is hardly disrespectful.

Accusing them of being both dishonorable and disrespectful is being disrespectful. And I disagree on your comment about honor. People can be disrespectful of an idea without being dishonorable. Sometimes, the wisest of men will propose the most idiotic of ideas. Calling those ideas stupid does not insult the man himself; after all, it is not his wisdom overall that is in question, but merely the wisdom of one part of it. Calling the man himself stupid, however, would be dishonorable; you have no proof of his intelligence, and while one idea may be wrong, he could be frequently right about other things.

My homeland accepts that wisdom is acquired through making mistakes. Thus, the wiser a man is, the more mistakes he has likely made. We do not hold him at fault for the past if his present proves he has learned from it. That is why the common thief today could easily become a respected merchant tomorrow. Thus, we accept that the wisest of men could say the stupidest of things without disproving his overall wisdom.

That's why the part about Kind was put in to begin with. The resolution itself is not intended to actually change how corporations pay their employees, though.

Sorry, friend Forensatha but intent and wording are two different things. The current wording leaves the door open for corporations to make an argument in court that kind or cash may be used as payment regardless of what the poor worker wants. A litigious society will find this a bit of a bugger.

OOC: In writing stories, all caps is often used by authors to attempt to mimic the intensity of true yelling. That's why, in roleplaying, it's assumed to be that.

And, yes, there is roleplaying going on.

Anyway, back to IC with me.



No, my proposed bill seeks to give protections to diplomats. This bill was authoered by someone else.

And, yes, wages are part of the economy. But this will not change your economic system from capitalism to socialism, nor will it make the system collapse any faster than it would otherwise.



I have merely what you have said to use as a guide.



Accusing them of being both dishonorable and disrespectful is being disrespectful. And I disagree on your comment about honor. People can be disrespectful of an idea without being dishonorable. Sometimes, the wisest of men will propose the most idiotic of ideas. Calling those ideas stupid does not insult the man himself; after all, it is not his wisdom overall that is in question, but merely the wisdom of one part of it. Calling the man himself stupid, however, would be dishonorable; you have no proof of his intelligence, and while one idea may be wrong, he could be frequently right about other things.

My homeland accepts that wisdom is acquired through making mistakes. Thus, the wiser a man is, the more mistakes he has likely made. We do not hold him at fault for the past if his present proves he has learned from it. That is why the common thief today could easily become a respected merchant tomorrow. Thus, we accept that the wisest of men could say the stupidest of things without disproving his overall wisdom.




And the wisest of women too we presume honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c.,

The thought that capitolism is the problemAnd, unfortunately, that is the root of your problem. The government has little say. The only people who do are the rich, who will become richer at the expense of the poor. May the Gods help your poor as well as they only become poorer and poorer until starvation will set in and they will be forced to leave your nation to settle somewhere that they are paid what they deserve in order to survive.

Oh, wait, this resolution will get them the pay they deserve. This system may not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. The rich should not be allowed to take advantage of the poor. It should not happen. Pay equality is truly the only option. It's worked for Rutianas for years.

is a flawed concept that I do not accept.

The thought that capitolism is the problem

is a flawed concept that I do not accept.



Capitalism is flawed, capitolism may very well not be, honoured Ambassador, that really may be a matter of conjecture.

yours e.t.c.

Would it be possible that the WA concerns itself only with international (that is, between-nations) matters, and let all internal policies up to the Sovereign Member States?
Apart from the fact that you still have an odd idea of the purpose and principles of the WA that isn't supported by any documents I know of, we are. The humane treatment of people everywhere is an international matter.

We are a relatively new member of the WA, but already it seems as though every resolution is passed without meaningful debate. Is this responsible? Doesn't anyone give any thought to the unchecked power that the WA is accumulating?
Most people couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. Most ambassadors aren't any better, shamefully. Thanks for being a cut above the average, even if that is damning with nearly inaudible praise.

We urge you to vote "no" on this resolution.
I know I snipped a lot out there, but I didn't see any actual arguments against the resolution itself apart from one sentence which suggested that you hadn't read it quite carefully enough. I'm curious to know if you have any, or if you're just presenting the standard sovereigntist line a lot more politely than most can manage.

I will concede to the proponents of this bill that the welfare notation is optional. However, I will attempt one more time to explain why this bill is faulty in a far more honorable and respectable manner than my opponents.
I don't find shouting terribly respectable, ambassador, so I think you're onto a loser here. Also your utter failure to attribute quotes and your intriguing habit of shuffling time don't exactly qualify as honorable. I'd have to say it's a bit of a failure all round on those scores.

No, actually my system is called capitalism. It's been proven to be quite sucessful in many nations.
And if this resolution passes it still will be called capitalism, and it will still be the same system. It's just that one of its abusive excesses, exploiting poverty-line workers, will have been stamped out. Explain to me again why this is a bad thing?


So now the government's job has been extended beyond merely providing for people's basic needs, but also to supply additional spending allowance?
How do you expect me to take your argument seriously when you clearly haven't read the proposal? Seriously, I ought to come over there and punctuate this next bit by smacking you with a wet fish.

It. Is. Not. The. Government's. Job. It's the government's job to ensure that employers provide for people's basic needs plus a bit extra, through a complicated procedure that economic analysists refer to as "paying their wages". Amazing but true.

And 25% is hardly peanuts. Think about it, if your minimum standard of living were say, $25,000, you're giving these people an addtional $6,000+ more a year.
If your minimum standard of living is $25,000 per annum, then your $ is pretty worthless. At that point, $6000+ p.a. is neither here nor there.

And you're saying no jobs will be cut? People will either rot in the streets without jobs, or the government will have to step in, tax the heck out the hard-working population at large, and all those horrible rich people who just happen to employ most of these people and use most of the services will have less money to contribute to the economy.
Oh woe, you're going to have to pay attention to the fact that some of your people weren't being paid enough to live on. Because that's what we're talking about here; the only companies who are going to see their wage bills increase are the ones who were exploiting people by not actually paying them enough to feed and house themselves.

Well wake up, bucko, and look at the human cost of that wonderful capitalism of yours.

And let's not forget the attacks. My, we take a political game so seriously, gentleman.
Who are you calling a gentleman?

Well at least he didn't accuse me of being a politician.

"Stupid?" That sounds rather derogatory. And I really need not discuss the rest.
There's an easy way not to be accused of making stupid comments: don't make stupid comments.

My apologies I did not know that was the situation in your nation. How about a compromise allowing the workers to select if they are paid in Cash or Kind? If you leave it up to corporations they may just give the workers product instead of cash. Trading 150 rubber baby dolls for rent, tea and some biscuits could be tricky. This would allow some lee-way for each of our economic systems and make the act more palatable and workable. Is it possible Cerys?
It's really something for contracts of employment, in my opinion. The position of the resolution is that both cash and kind are valid, and it lays out how to count kind for the purposes of the resolution only. Whether the employee gets paid in cash, rubber dolls or wooden bananas is something that should be in their contract of employment, which is what any litigation within your nation would be based around.

I did think of barring in-kind payments of apparently irrelevant things like rubber dolls, but I couldn't think of a way of doing it that didn't stuff barter systems potentially very badly.

Since when is all caps yelling?
OOC, obviously, and the original question can't have been anything else (HINT):

Since about twenty years ago in my personal experience, and consistently ever since.

Actually that's exactly what your proposed bill sets out to do, unless you don't consider regulating wages to be a part of the economy.
When those wages are essentially a human rights abuse, no I don't consider regulating them to be a significant part of the economy. If you do, perhaps you should consider whether your economic system has crossed the line from being amoral to immoral.

And yet proving that you have no honor and are disrespecting your opponents by your opening statement.
You've entirely lost track of who you were talking to, haven't you?

Questioning the honor of those who call other people's ideas stupid is hardly disrespectful.
It's very disrespectful. You'll notice that I hadn't actually called any specific ideas stupid in that bit of speech you so lovingly quoted. Long and bitter experience lead me to expect that there would be stupid comments. My expectations haven't been confounded; thank you so much for that :(

The thought that capitolism is the problem

is a flawed concept that I do not accept.

And I was talking about capitalism, not capitolism. Unfortunately, I know nothing about capitolism.

Care to explain it to me?

Sorry, friend Forensatha but intent and wording are two different things. The current wording leaves the door open for corporations to make an argument in court that kind or cash may be used as payment regardless of what the poor worker wants. A litigious society will find this a bit of a bugger.

The answer is simple: Make a law and tell them to shut up. The corporations may argue as much as they like, but it is up to the government to have the final say in the matter. If the government does not have that much control over the situation, then the nation has far worse problems than simple questions of what method is used to pay employees.

And the wisest of women too we presume honoured Ambassador.

Of course.

The thought that capitolism is the problem is a flawed concept that I do not accept.

Unfortunately, we have too much proof that pure capitalism is often the problem when capitalist nations have issues with their economy. Like all concepts, it is ultimately a flawed one that requires control in order to work properly. Part of what this resolution does is provide some control.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

As far as I'm concerned, you're system is socialism and it violates the sovereignty of my nation. What's more, if my opinion is so wrong, then why do you feel so intimidated by it? I mean, you could just tell me I'm wrong, although your half-page long comments are making the debate more and more personal. Your bill is going to be passed, and apparently I'm a cruel idiot for daring to see the issue in another light. Some ambassadors have a great deal of anger that I doubt originated in this debate. So much for respecting other's opinions, but I suppose dictatorships aren't very good at that!

As far as I'm concerned, you're system is socialism and it violates the sovereignty of my nation.

If that is how you feel, then so be it.

What's more, if my opinion is so wrong, then why do you feel so intimidated by it? I mean, you could just tell me I'm wrong, although your half-page long comments are making the debate more and more personal.

You confuse intimidation with attempts to discuss at length. If I just said, "You are wrong," you would be confused as to why and you would attempt to challenge it. By explaining why you are wrong at length, I give you the necessary information on which to either accept that you are or form a counterargument as to why you are not. It's done out of courtesy, not out of feeling intimidated.

Besides, if this is how you react to a debate when it's not even your proposal and those talking are being reasonable, how would you react to those who are unreasonable if it were your own resolution up for vote?

Your bill is going to be passed, and apparently I'm a cruel idiot for daring to see the issue in another light.

Which is not what was said, but nice of you to try to characterize it as such.

Some ambassadors have a great deal of anger that I doubt originated in this debate.

Have any proof of that?

So much for respecting other's opinions, but I suppose dictatorships aren't very good at that!

My nation isn't a dictatorship. It's a corporate monarchy, with the Imperial Family elected every three generations by a meeting of the Twelve Houses.

Urgench is not a dictatorship. It's an imperial monarchy.

Not sure what Gobbannaen is, though. But, I'm thinking either a republic or something like it.

The point is, we're not dictatorships. And characterizing us as such is just an attempt to discredit our arguments through association... which is very dishonorable.

Oh, and for the record, you've just gotten owned by a fifteen year old girl. Have a nice day.

Diplomat Asuka Felnap

OOC: Player's age and delegate's age are not the same.

As far as I'm concerned, you're system is socialism and it violates the sovereignty of my nation. What's more, if my opinion is so wrong, then why do you feel so intimidated by it? I mean, you could just tell me I'm wrong, although your half-page long comments are making the debate more and more personal. Your bill is going to be passed, and apparently I'm a cruel idiot for daring to see the issue in another light. Some ambassadors have a great deal of anger that I doubt originated in this debate. So much for respecting other's opinions, but I suppose dictatorships aren't very good at that!

I'm not sure how someone else's system violates the sovereignty of your nation, but I'm sure you see it that way. I'd like to understand why. If Rutianas is a socialist state, and we are, I'd like to know exactly how that threatens and violates your nation. We have no diplomatic dealings with each other. Nor do we trade with each other. In short, we have no contact outside of the WA floor.

Now, to the last comment. If being a dictatorship means not being from your government's chosen system, then Rutianas is proud to be classified as a dictatorship from your point of view.

For the record, we are a socialist state, classified as a Republic by our own people.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

As far as I'm concerned, you're system is socialism and it violates the sovereignty of my nation. What's more, if my opinion is so wrong, then why do you feel so intimidated by it? I mean, you could just tell me I'm wrong, although your half-page long comments are making the debate more and more personal. Your bill is going to be passed, and apparently I'm a cruel idiot for daring to see the issue in another light. Some ambassadors have a great deal of anger that I doubt originated in this debate. So much for respecting other's opinions, but I suppose dictatorships aren't very good at that!
If you're going to start throwing random crap like this around, could you at least try to talk to the right person? I'm the one who had to submit this, if you don't mind. Unfortunately if you did address it to me, you might have to admit that half of what you've written above is wrong, and the other half is histrionics.

My nation isn't a dictatorship. It's a corporate monarchy, with the Imperial Family elected every three generations by a meeting of the Twelve Houses.

Urgench is not a dictatorship. It's an imperial monarchy.

Not sure what Gobbannaen is, though. But, I'm thinking either a republic or something like it.
"Gobbannaen" is an adjective.

The Mission to the World Assembly from the Principalities of Gobbannium (to give it its full title) is an office. Literally. I am its absolute despot, or Permanent Undersecretary as it's usually called.

Gobbannium itself is a monarchic democracy; the people get to vote for which prince or princess gets which top job, and also elect a whole bunch of weasels -- sorry, politicians -- to keep an eye on them and at least in theory advise them. In practice of course all the real ideas come from hard-working civil servants like me.

The point is, we're not dictatorships. And characterizing us as such is just an attempt to discredit our arguments through association... which is very dishonorable.
Oh yes, guilt by association, classic smear tactics that. I don't imagine for a moment we'll get a retraction from the Constantinoplinican Ambassador, though.

"Gobbannaen" is an adjective.

The Mission to the World Assembly from the Principalities of Gobbannium (to give it its full title) is an office. Literally. I am its absolute despot, or Permanent Undersecretary as it's usually called.

Gobbannium itself is a monarchic democracy; the people get to vote for which prince or princess gets which top job, and also elect a whole bunch of weasels -- sorry, politicians -- to keep an eye on them and at least in theory advise them. In practice of course all the real ideas come from hard-working civil servants like me.

Ah! Our information about your nation is sadly lacking. There's a lot of nations in the world and we only have so many people to gather and process information.

Plus, I suspect half of our agents spend more time passed out from alcohol abuse than they do gathering information.

Oh yes, guilt by association, classic smear tactics that. I don't imagine for a moment we'll get a retraction from the Constantinoplinican Ambassador, though.

Agreed. And, if he leaves the WA, I get his office. Do you know how crowded the 20th-floor broom closet can get?

As far as I'm concerned, you're system is socialism and it violates the sovereignty of my nation. What's more, if my opinion is so wrong, then why do you feel so intimidated by it? I mean, you could just tell me I'm wrong, although your half-page long comments are making the debate more and more personal. Your bill is going to be passed, and apparently I'm a cruel idiot for daring to see the issue in another light. Some ambassadors have a great deal of anger that I doubt originated in this debate. So much for respecting other's opinions, but I suppose dictatorships aren't very good at that!


Good lord, the respected Ambassador needs to realise that this is international politics and not a christian social. Sometimes the interchange of opinion on matters of such great moment may become fraught and unpleasant but if so this is merely because the stakes are high and the opposing opinions are strongly held.

We have not formed an opinion on the government of Constantinoplinica's nature based purely on this debate and indeed have had little enough experience with the respected Ambassador for Constantinoplinica to form any sort of opinion on their person. Further experience of the respected Ambassador may well lead us to form an opinion on them but it will not be based purely on the politics their government espouses.


For the record, the respected and esteemed Ambassador for Forensatha is half correct, Urgench does have an Imperial Monarchy, but the executive power is in fact in the hands of elected members of the Imperial diet, we use a pure form of proportional representation to elect our representatives and therefore credit ourselves with as good a democracy as any which exists in this organisation.


yours e.t.c. ,

I'm still panicking about the dreadful economic effects this will have of Cobdenia

Sols Eagle already pays 34% income tax. And anyways, how yould you like to be taxed so the government could pay for food to go to some lazy hobo who cant get a job!

Sols Eagle already pays 34% income tax. And anyways, how yould you like to be taxed so the government could pay for food to go to some lazy hobo who cant get a job!

*draws a O.o on a piece of paper and holds it up*

What does this have to do with the resolution at hand? This resolution is about people who already have jobs.

Sols Eagle already pays 34% income tax. And anyways, how yould you like to be taxed so the government could pay for food to go to some lazy hobo who cant get a job!

*Bob taps a few keys on his laptop and the vote tallies on the big board disappear and are replace with this.*
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/honest_bum-1.jpg

*Bob taps a few keys on his laptop and the vote tallies on the big board disappear and are replace with this.*
http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/honest_bum-1.jpg


O.O.C. I laughed so hard i nearly plotzed! lol lol lol, I'd give him money too!!

Work week should be 40 hours not 30.
If they aren't willing to put in five 8 hour days then yes, they should be scrounging.

The point of the legislation is to provide regulations to wage so that those who are working full time at the best job they can get are at least making enough to live without undue harship.

30/40 is not okay, nor is it enough if you are trying to advance your living conditions by earning a promotion.

, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent,


This shouldn't specify what kind of schooling? Seeing that this would leave a hole for someone to school a dependent in a private, expensive university, which would ascend to a lot of goldogs (Saturni's national currency). It would be more congruent to specify "weekly cost for public schooling" which is pretty low, but pretty effective in some countries, or at least that's what you'd expect.

Also, work week should be defined to at least 35 hours work for full-time, if not 40.

And this should exempt micro-enterprises, as it would lay too much burden on a already-weak capital, and, when you seek employment on a micro-enterprise, you know the liabilities of that choice.

Would wage be defined as net or brute wage? This is really important, because, if it's defined as brute wage, my nation's living wage would be 67% less than what's needed to live. It should be defined as net wage, the wage after all deductions are made, to deliver 100% of the needed wage to the household.

Saturni urges for this changes to the propositions, but encourages and congratulates for the initiative of the proposal.

:salute: Salutations from Saturni,
At deo et rege, ad majorem del gloriam

Once again. Lanceopia is a capitalistic economy, not socialist. My government does not dictate prices or wages, the market does. Lanceopia does not NEED or WANT other nations dictating what wages we should pay our workers. Capitalism regulates itself perfectly fine. If a company does not pay high enough wages then workers do not choose to work there. Government should just stay out of the way and concentrate on what our Constitution states its responsibilities are. Where does the WA think it should meddle in our internal affairs ?

I am very pleased to be at the World Assembly. I was only appointed a few days ago. And would like to thank my predecessor Robert Gate for all his hard work here I know he will be a hard act to follow but I will try my best. My government has given me a deputy – (pointing to the man sat to his left) - William Cooper. I hope that together we will be able to contribute in many debates and discussions and hopefully improve the resolutions that are passed here.

My government thinks that a minimum wage as put forward by this resolution called the Living Wage Act is a good idea. However we are not sure if this should be a WA issue or left to each nation to decide. Some nations might be in competition with nations that are not members of the WA and is it fair to impose these minimums on them while those nations outside the WA do not and will not apply them?

However on the details we would like to make have the following comment. We note the use of the term “Poverty Line” in the last line? I wonder if it should have been “Poverty Lines” the plural so it would depend on whether the person had any dependants, or if it should have just been the Basic Poverty Line. Please can the ambassador from Gobbannaen let us know how this is applied or should be applied if a nation wished to do so?

We have the following comment to make on an earlier discussion with the ambassador from Cobdenia about Money Supply generated inflation. If the economy is closed and supply of total goods can not be increased the market should increase inflation by the same percentage increase in money supply. To use the example 1000 people being paid $100 each with total supply of goods of value $100,000 and increase of the money supply by $25,000 with no opportunity to spend it on anything else or save it would mean an inflation increase of 25%. However in practice this is not likely to happen so the total amount of goods and services might increase and people might save some of it. Also I don’t think the whole 25% would be passed on as price rises which is another way to look at inflation. However this in theory could be an inflationary measure, but I am not sure it is in the real world when such legislation is passed.

We are thinking of voting for this resolution.

Yours

Tancred Lionheart
The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

Once again. Lanceopia is a capitalistic economy, not socialist. My government does not dictate prices or wages, the market does. Lanceopia does not NEED or WANT other nations dictating what wages we should pay our workers. Capitalism regulates itself perfectly fine. If a company does not pay high enough wages then workers do not choose to work there. Government should just stay out of the way and concentrate on what our Constitution states its responsibilities are. Where does the WA think it should meddle in our internal affairs ?

I'm not sure where anyone claimed that Lanceopia was a socialist country. You seem to be attempting too hard to point out that you're a capitalistic country. You sure you're not a closet socialist?

As for where the WA thinks it should meddle in your internal affairs? If it's a matter of international law, and enough people here believe it is, then it's the WA's duty to 'meddle in your internal affairs'.

Please note Resolution #2. It does state that membership is by choice. You can either stay in the WA and work within the system to get what you feel is fair, or you can leave. It is, after all, your choice to belong to the WA or not.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

I'm not sure where anyone claimed that Lanceopia was a socialist country. You seem to be attempting too hard to point out that you're a capitalistic country. You sure you're not a closet socialist?

As for where the WA thinks it should meddle in your internal affairs? If it's a matter of international law, and enough people here believe it is, then it's the WA's duty to 'meddle in your internal affairs'.

Please note Resolution #2. It does state that membership is by choice. You can either stay in the WA and work within the system to get what you feel is fair, or you can leave. It is, after all, your choice to belong to the WA or not.

I am stating that foreign , or any government, dictating wages and/or prices is a socialist system. Lanceopia's Constitution forbids this behavior. WA should not be intruding into the fundamental internal workings of individual nations. This economic basic should be left to the individual nation to decide. This bill attempts to force socialism on my nation and we reject that intrusion.

respectfully
Ambassador Lance

O.O.C. I laughed so hard i nearly plotzed! lol lol lol, I'd give him money too!!

OOC: I must admit when I found that pic online, I never figured I'd end up using it here.

Once again. Lanceopia is a capitalistic economy, not socialist. My government does not dictate prices or wages, the market does. Lanceopia does not NEED or WANT other nations dictating what wages we should pay our workers. Capitalism regulates itself perfectly fine. If a company does not pay high enough wages then workers do not choose to work there. Government should just stay out of the way and concentrate on what our Constitution states its responsibilities are. Where does the WA think it should meddle in our internal affairs ?



I am stating that foreign , or any government, dictating wages and/or prices is a socialist system. Lanceopia's Constitution forbids this behavior. WA should not be intruding into the fundamental internal workings of individual nations. This economic basic should be left to the individual nation to decide. This bill attempts to force socialism on my nation and we reject that intrusion.

respectfully
Ambassador Lance

You're getting your socialism and your communism confused, and you're also getting your social interventionism confused with your command economics.

This resolution is not a hamper on capitalist systems, and the continuing mention of such a system being at odds with this resolution is actually quite silly. In capitalist systems, the onus is on profit and revenue, and wages are compensation for time worked/amount produced/etc.etc. In socialist economic system, the emphasis is not on profit and revenue for the independent businessman, but rather for society in general. The wages rendered to labour are still compensation for said labour. There's no difference in that regard between Snefaldia and Lanceopia.

Where it gets murky, then, is in the details of the society. There was a time in my own country, during our period of industrial expansion, when the average worker had to work 12-hour days to have enough food to feed a family of four, and even that was barely enough to keep them nourished, let alone enough to send them to school.

Now, there's a difference between dictating wages and setting a line. This bill does not go into the Lanceopian or Snefaldian or Gobbanean economies with a pen and adjust all the payroll sheets to one happy number, so that all may live in great communal harmony. What it does do, is set a line that such wages may not go below, a line they must meet, if the average person is to survive.

Now, I don't know about you, but that sounds like it gives a lot of leeway to the employer! If they're a successful businessman, they won't have a problem paying their workers enough to survive on. Happy labour makes happy business, doesn't it? If Mr. Businessman is having troubles, well then he lets some people go, cuts his payroll down to meet the needs of everyone else and goes along producing widgets or whatever it is he does.

The bottom line, though, is that this is absolutely not socialist wage-setting on behalf of the World Assembly. It is, however, about having the basic decency that all citizens in WA countries are being paid enough to eat and feed and clothe and house their families. That's basic human decency.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens
Growing Bunny Ears

Work week should be 40 hours not 30.
If they aren't willing to put in five 8 hour days then yes, they should be scrounging.

The point of the legislation is to provide regulations to wage so that those who are working full time at the best job they can get are at least making enough to live without undue harship.

30/40 is not okay, nor is it enough if you are trying to advance your living conditions by earning a promotion.

Except part of the idea is also to improve their standard of life. Eight hours a day is a very long time, and it can easily leave them with little ability to do anything else during the day.

Once again. Lanceopia is a capitalistic economy, not socialist. My government does not dictate prices or wages, the market does. Lanceopia does not NEED or WANT other nations dictating what wages we should pay our workers. Capitalism regulates itself perfectly fine. If a company does not pay high enough wages then workers do not choose to work there. Government should just stay out of the way and concentrate on what our Constitution states its responsibilities are. Where does the WA think it should meddle in our internal affairs ?

The WA thinks it should meddle in certain internal affairs because it is responsible for helping out the citizens of all empires.

Also, your economic system is already a failure, it sounds like. With no regulation, there is nothing stopping the companies, as a whole, from paying poorly to everyone. Add this to businesses driving competition out of the market until they completely own it before raising prices extremely and you have a very interesting question as to how the market system is going to survive. The result of such a system is that, usually, the abuses of it create a situation where the economy collapses and the nation itself ends up on the verge of anarchy.

But, then, what do I know? I only studied this since I was five years old.

I am stating that foreign , or any government, dictating wages and/or prices is a socialist system. Lanceopia's Constitution forbids this behavior. WA should not be intruding into the fundamental internal workings of individual nations. This economic basic should be left to the individual nation to decide. This bill attempts to force socialism on my nation and we reject that intrusion.

It's not socialism. Quite a few capitalist nations make it a point to regulate wages and even prices to some extent. They're perfectly aware that in actual practice, capitalism and communism both tend to lead to the same eventuality when used as economic systems. Thus, if you want a stable capitalist system, you have to control it. Otherwise, the corporations will abuse it until the system collapses.

I am very pleased to be at the World Assembly. I was only appointed a few days ago. And would like to thank my predecessor Robert Gate for all his hard work here I know he will be a hard act to follow but I will try my best. My government has given me a deputy – (pointing to the man sat to his left) - William Cooper. I hope that together we will be able to contribute in many debates and discussions and hopefully improve the resolutions that are passed here.

Welcome! And don't be afraid to stick around. Also, don't take anything said personally. We're a tough crowd here, trying to balance the good of our nations against the good of the world. It requires us to be a little rough in handling people.

My government thinks that a minimum wage as put forward by this resolution called the Living Wage Act is a good idea. However we are not sure if this should be a WA issue or left to each nation to decide. Some nations might be in competition with nations that are not members of the WA and is it fair to impose these minimums on them while those nations outside the WA do not and will not apply them?

Unfortunately, there's nothing to be really done except deal with it and move on. Those nations outside the WA may continue along as they like.

However on the details we would like to make have the following comment. We note the use of the term “Poverty Line” in the last line? I wonder if it should have been “Poverty Lines” the plural so it would depend on whether the person had any dependants, or if it should have just been the Basic Poverty Line. Please can the ambassador from Gobbannaen let us know how this is applied or should be applied if a nation wished to do so?

It uses the definition in the resolution.

We have the following comment to make on an earlier discussion with the ambassador from Cobdenia about Money Supply generated inflation. If the economy is closed and supply of total goods can not be increased the market should increase inflation by the same percentage increase in money supply. To use the example 1000 people being paid $100 each with total supply of goods of value $100,000 and increase of the money supply by $25,000 with no opportunity to spend it on anything else or save it would mean an inflation increase of 25%. However in practice this is not likely to happen so the total amount of goods and services might increase and people might save some of it. Also I don’t think the whole 25% would be passed on as price rises which is another way to look at inflation. However this in theory could be an inflationary measure, but I am not sure it is in the real world when such legislation is passed.

OOC: Actually, traditionally, in the real world it usually is an inflationary measure unless there are also controls on prices. In the United States, if you track every time Minimum Wage has raised, you'll also find a price raise in response. However, distributed across the system as it is, the price raise is usually lower in amount than the wage raise. Thus, it's usually been ignored as an inflationary measure, since the net benefit is usually higher than the net detriment.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I'm still panicking about the dreadful economic effects this will have of Cobdenia

I keep telling you Ambassador, just recalculate your Poverty Lines less frequently than once per day and you'll be fine!

Work week should be 40 hours not 30.
If they aren't willing to put in five 8 hour days then yes, they should be scrounging.
Obviously I disagree. I also think that a 30-hour week fits with the 25% over starvation quite well. If we were dealing with a 40-hour week, I'd be expecting a concomitantly higher reward.

Would all the people getting hysterical over this please go back and look at the definitions again? We are dealing with poverty here; this resolution is not promising anyone comfort, just survival.

The point of the legislation is to provide regulations to wage so that those who are working full time at the best job they can get are at least making enough to live without undue harship.
No. The point of the legislation is to provide regulations to wages so that those who are working full time at the only job they can get are at least making enough to live at all. At these levels they will still be living in hardship, and it applies to the worst as well as the best of jobs. Frankly if it only applied to the best job they could get, it would be worthless.

This shouldn't specify what kind of schooling?
No, since nations' schooling systems vary so much. Leaving it open like this means that it's up to national law to define what schooling means. I doubt terribly many nations will insist on defining it as a full-scale university education. What it doesn't do is leave it up to the individual employee to define; as I've pointed out before, the Poverty Lines are calculated for areas, not individuals.

It would be more congruent to specify "weekly cost for public schooling" which is pretty low, but pretty effective in some countries, or at least that's what you'd expect.
Except that in Gobbannium, a "public school" is a very expensive private school, so using attendance of one as a poverty baseline would be pretty silly. Much better to leave it to the nation to define.

And this should exempt micro-enterprises, as it would lay too much burden on a already-weak capital, and, when you seek employment on a micro-enterprise, you know the liabilities of that choice.
If you can think of a way of doing it in six characters, I'll be fascinated. I'm still not convinced that it's a reasonable thing to do, though. If the micro-enterprise, workers' co-operative, new start-up or whatever you want to call it can't afford poverty wages, it's surely fundamentally misconceived?

Would wage be defined as net or brute wage?
Net, as it says. Repeatedly. Sorry, there's a misprint in the OP which omits the first usage of "net"; I'll edit it to match the version at vote.

Edit: Whoops, somehow the entire "part-time employment" section never made it into the original post. Now fixed.

Macwick;14090776']My government thinks that a minimum wage as put forward by this resolution called the Living Wage Act is a good idea. However we are not sure if this should be a WA issue or left to each nation to decide. Some nations might be in competition with nations that are not members of the WA and is it fair to impose these minimums on them while those nations outside the WA do not and will not apply them?
Yes. We do not think it is ever fair to exploit people to a level where they cannot actually survive in order to feed your industries. The fact that others do it doesn't make it right.

However on the details we would like to make have the following comment. We note the use of the term “Poverty Line” in the last line? I wonder if it should have been “Poverty Lines” the plural so it would depend on whether the person had any dependants, or if it should have just been the Basic Poverty Line. Please can the ambassador from Gobbannaen let us know how this is applied or should be applied if a nation wished to do so?
It should indeed have been "Poverty Lines", implying whichever one is relevant. This is a mistake, and does allow nations to choose the Basic Poverty Line always and still claim compliance. If this wasn't all part of an essentially optional part -- it only "urges" nations to provide welfare, not ordering or compelling them -- it would be quite serious. Thank you for the catch, though I wish you'd spotted it before submission!


I am stating that foreign , or any government, dictating wages and/or prices is a socialist system.
Then you have a weird definition of socialism that includes almost all non-libertarian societies.

Lanceopia's Constitution forbids this behavior.
Then you're going to be put in the interesting position of changing your constitution (and incidentally growing a tiny, almost vestigial conscience) or leaving the WA.

This bill attempts to force socialism on my nation and we reject that intrusion.
No it doesn't, except in your strange world where anything that isn't pure free market is socialist. It does, however, force you to accept that workers don't survive on magic alone.

It does, however, force you to accept that workers don't survive on magic alone.

Careful, now. There might be some nation that actually uses magic out there.

Careful, now. There might be some nation that actually uses magic out there.

Yes, but the Ardchoilleans only seem to give people jobs as punishment in the first place. Just ask Dicey Reilley.

N.T.
etc.

Yes, but the Ardchoilleans only seem to give people jobs as punishment in the first place. Just ask Dicey Reilley.

N.T.
etc.

Actually we use magic in Flibbleites too, we just don't flaunt it like the Ardchoilleans do.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The ambassador to the WA for Avarahn is not as versed in economics as other ambassadors are , therfore he would like to ask what does 25 % over the pverty line actually means ??

does it mean an extra wage pay of 25 % of the poverty line ??


Thank you.

Let's say the total cost to meet the poverty line is $10,000 per year (chosen because that is the cost in GDP to equip, train, house, and feed the typical Forensathan soldier, who honestly should probably be paid more). Under this, raising their pay by 25% would mean they have to be paid $12,500 per year.

Economically, this shouldn't have that much of an effect for your nation (unless, you know, you don't regulate the economy, in which case this will have a huge effect).

free markets!

The People's Republic of Nimtiam would like to thank the Gobbannaen WA Mission for their compassion for those workers who do not have the opportunity to prosper and so are left with barely any means to survive.

A straight free-market economy may be good when viewed in full, but provides no protection for the basic human rights of the individual. Any nation that subscribes entirely to a free-market system is not a society and is not a government. It is a collection of people looking out for themselves, where power is used for personal gain, nothing more.

REQUIRES that no individual in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no individual in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Poverty Line unless that individual has no dependents and explicitly waives this right

This bill just calls for massive hyperinflation: if EVERYONE gets payed above the DPL then the price of everything will go up, increasing the value of the DPL, this will make a deadly cycle of hyperinflation. This cannot be allowed since it would collapse the global economy.

This bill just calls for massive hyperinflation: if EVERYONE gets payed above the DPL then the price of everything will go up, increasing the value of the DPL, this will make a deadly cycle of hyperinflation. This cannot be allowed since it would collapse the global economy.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We wish to bring this assembly's attention to the wise words of the representative of Marektopia. This is the truth: that if wages are dictated by government fiat instead of "what the market will bear", wages will be artificially increased. Wages will no longer be tied to the amount of value they produce. Because this fair exchange is broken, money will flow in one direction faster than goods and services flow in the other. The result will be a devaluing of money--if the Kawaiian unico can be earned for less work done, its value decreases.

The inevitable result of this system will be the onset of unstoppable inflation and the collapse of the market system. This legislation is an economic suicide pact for the WA.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We wish to bring this assembly's attention to the wise words of the representative of Marektopia. This is the truth: that if wages are dictated by government fiat instead of "what the market will bear", wages will be artificially increased. Wages will no longer be tied to the amount of value they produce. Because this fair exchange is broken, money will flow in one direction faster than goods and services flow in the other. The result will be a devaluing of money--if the Kawaiian unico can be earned for less work done, its value decreases.

The inevitable result of this system will be the onset of unstoppable inflation and the collapse of the market system. This legislation is an economic suicide pact for the WA.



The fact of the matter is that so called "free markets" and labour deregulation have never universally proved efficacious. Indeed "free markets" have always involved a base level of exploitation and vast levels of income inequality.

There is no proven link between the introduction of a minimum wage and inflation to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The fact of the matter is that so called "free markets" and labour deregulation have never universally proved efficacious. Indeed "free markets" have always involved a base level of exploitation and vast levels of income inequality.

The respected Khan states the obvious. The "free market" is necessarily a fallible system, because it is created and maintained by fallable beings such as ourselves. The exploitation and inequality which he decries is an inevitable result of such fallibilities.

Where the writer of this proposal fails is in acknowledging such fallibility. The WA cannot legislate Utopia; the best we can do is mitigate the failures of mortal existence as best we can. The author of this legislation no doubt has good intentions, but as the representative of Marektopia pointed out, the end result in spite of that will be a world far less better off than before.

There is no proven link between the introduction of a minimum wage and inflation to suggest otherwise is scaremongering.

We await disproval of the representative from Marektopia's claim. It is based on common sense and an understanding of basic economics, is it not?

The respected Khan states the obvious. The "free market" is necessarily a fallible system, because it is created and maintained by fallable beings such as ourselves. The exploitation and inequality which he decries is an inevitable result of such fallibilities.

Where the writer of this proposal fails is in acknowledging such fallibility. The WA cannot legislate Utopia; the best we can do is mitigate the failures of mortal existence as best we can. The author of this legislation no doubt has good intentions, but as the representative of Marektopia pointed out, the end result in spite of that will be a world far less better off than before.



We await disproval of the representative from Marektopia's claim. It is based on common sense and an understanding of basic economics, is it not?


This resolution does not legislate for utopia, all it does is rectify some of the worst offences and abuses of certain systems which allow the poorest of persons to slip below a level of income which can support a basic living standard. The difference is profound.

We have no need to dispute the thesis of the respected Ambassador for Marektopia, economics is a living field of study in which numerous and diametrically opposed theories compete for status with each other. We are simply pointing out that to make claim that one theory is incontestably correct is simply not compatible with good sense or reality.


yours e.t.c. ,

Paying people for being poor? This is simply madness.
If you give people the opportunity to live without having to strive for greatness you'll be left with a nation of lazy basic income people content with their government funded housing and food. This would cost Nations too much money.

Its socailism gone haywire.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We wish to bring this assembly's attention to the wise words of the representative of Marektopia. This is the truth: that if wages are dictated by government fiat instead of "what the market will bear", wages will be artificially increased. Wages will no longer be tied to the amount of value they produce. Because this fair exchange is broken, money will flow in one direction faster than goods and services flow in the other. The result will be a devaluing of money--if the Kawaiian unico can be earned for less work done, its value decreases.

The inevitable result of this system will be the onset of unstoppable inflation and the collapse of the market system. This legislation is an economic suicide pact for the WA.

I don't see where people are getting the "government dictates wages" part because it's not the case. The only thing the government is dictating is that such wages must be paid. Wages are absolutely tied to the value they produce, because there's nothing to prevent the employer from paying labour more than the most basic poverty wage- something that is, I think you realize, the bare minimum to stay alive, etc. etc.

There's no such thing as an "endless cycle of hyperinflation" in open economic systems because there's always a mechanism to adjust the market, and there are any number of factors that can do this. "Unstoppable" just means "we don't know what the hell we're doing here," and besides I dispute this will cause any sort of inflation.

We await disproval of the representative from Marektopia's claim. It is based on common sense and an understanding of basic economics, is it not?

Except in the case that is assumes infinite, unending inflation, and that every single person, at the present time, is being paid less than the amount of the proposed DPL..

The Marektopians assume that the DPL will be a gigantic increase. It doesn't take into consideration divisions in labor and pay, and is rather simplistic in its analysis of how wages are going to affect prices across the board. Simply shouting "INFLATION! ARGH, INFLATION!" doesn't mean a damn thing.

Paying people for being poor? This is simply madness.
If you give people the opportunity to live without having to strive for greatness you'll be left with a nation of lazy basic income people content with their government funded housing and food. This would cost Nations too much money.

Its socailism gone haywire.

This is the sort of unmitigated stupidity that makes me wish my nation was a declared nuclear state with a hair-trigger.

Not all of us live in societies where we have the ability to claw our way out of the crushing poverty or ceaseless animosity of developing economy. Not all of us are privileged enough to have governments that care for their people instead of corporations, though so I guess it's a moot point.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

This bill just calls for massive hyperinflation: if EVERYONE gets payed above the DPL then the price of everything will go up, increasing the value of the DPL, this will make a deadly cycle of hyperinflation. This cannot be allowed since it would collapse the global economy.

Not really. For one thing, there are ways of pulling it off that don't actually cause inflation. Ways which I have said repeatedly to others and for which you can easily access the recordings of.

Your point has already been refuted. Have a nice day.

Paying people for being poor? This is simply madness.
If you give people the opportunity to live without having to strive for greatness you'll be left with a nation of lazy basic income people content with their government funded housing and food. This would cost Nations too much money.

Its socailism gone haywire.

Socailism
noun

1) The philosophical teachings of the ancient philosopher-prophet Socail
2) The belief that one's life is not fulfilled unless they have fought in a war against something.
3) An extinct warrior religion.

I sincerely doubt this has anything to do with socailism.

In any case, everything you've said was already dealt with. There are ways to make people strive for more, ways to make sure it's not too expensive, and ways to eliminate any inflation.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

We would like to thank the ambassador from Gobbannaen for their comments.



It should indeed have been "Poverty Lines", implying whichever one is relevant. This is a mistake, and does allow nations to choose the Basic Poverty Line always and still claim compliance. If this wasn't all part of an essentially optional part -- it only "urges" nations to provide welfare, not ordering or compelling them -- it would be quite serious. Thank you for the catch, though I wish you'd spotted it before submission!


I am sorry I didn’t take part in the earlier discussion it is a failure of our delegation here at the WA. Hopefully with a deputy we might be able to take part in more discussions earlier. We note your answer that each nation, if it chooses to comply with this section as it is optional, can choose which Poverty Line or Lines to use.

We would like to thank the ambassador from Forensatha for their comments



OOC: Actually, traditionally, in the real world it usually is an inflationary measure unless there are also controls on prices. In the United States, if you track every time Minimum Wage has raised, you'll also find a price raise in response. However, distributed across the system as it is, the price raise is usually lower in amount than the wage raise. Thus, it's usually been ignored as an inflationary measure, since the net benefit is usually higher than the net detriment.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC In the UK I don’t think there has been an inflationary effect of the introduction of the minimum wage and the increase to it every year.

Yours

Tancred Lionheart
The Republic of Macwick’s Delegate to the WA

This is the sort of unmitigated stupidity that makes me wish my nation was a declared nuclear state with a hair-trigger.

Not all of us live in societies where we have the ability to claw our way out of the crushing poverty or ceaseless animosity of developing economy. Not all of us are privileged enough to have governments that care for their people instead of corporations, though so I guess it's a moot point.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

I have treated you with no disrespect and I would like to be granted the same courtesy.

Just because not all of us have the same societies does not mean you can force others to follow in the steps you want. This could possibly be an Issue but a WA Resolution is not necessary.

I have treated you with no disrespect and I would like to be granted the same courtesy.

Just because not all of us have the same societies does not mean you can force others to follow in the steps you want. This could possibly be an Issue but a WA Resolution is not necessary.



How on earth has the honoured and respected Ambassador for Snefaldia disrespected you honoured Ambassador?

It was the respected Ambassador for Tamzaria's callous and disrespectful words regarding the poor which did the dishonour.

In any event if this organisation does assent to this resolution then it will have the right to make your nation comply with it.

yours e.t.c. ,

How on earth has the honoured and respected Ambassador for Snefaldia disrespected you honoured Ambassador?

It was the respected Ambassador for Tamzaria's callous and disrespectful words regarding the poor which did the dishonour.

In any event if this organisation does assent to this resolution then it will have the right to make your nation comply with it.

yours e.t.c. ,


I do not disrespect the poor, I wish to try and raise them from their problems. But giving them everything on a platter is NOT the way to go about it.

Two wrongs do not make a right Ambassador Urgench, we are all equals here and I would like to be treated as one dispite my opinions. If he has a problem with me I would prefer he address me in private rather than in front of the WA members present.

I do not disrespect the poor, I wish to try and raise them from their problems. But giving them everything on a platter is NOT the way to go about it.

Two wrongs do not make a right Ambassador Urgench, we are all equals here and I would like to be treated as one dispite my opinions. If he has a problem with me I would prefer he address me in private rather than in front of the WA members present.


The honoured Ambassador has disrespected those who are economically disadvantaged elsewhere in this debate and this disregard for human dignity is what has earned them the odium of a public rebuke. If the honoured Ambassador does not like to be told that they are wrong to talk of others as inferior in some way in no uncertain terms then they should spout such foolishness elsewhere than in this debate.

We mean to say, if the honoured Ambassador is intitled to be obnoxious then why is noone else?

yours e.t.c. ,

I do not disrespect the poor, I wish to try and raise them from their problems. But giving them everything on a platter is NOT the way to go about it.

Point out where this actually does that. 25% over poverty level is pretty much crap.

The honoured Ambassador has disrespected those who are economically disadvantaged elsewhere in this debate and this disregard for human dignity is what has earned them the odium of a public rebuke. If the honoured Ambassador does not like to be told that they are wrong to talk of others as inferior in some way in no uncertain terms then they should spout such foolishness elsewhere than in this debate.

We mean to say, if the honoured Ambassador is intitled to be obnoxious then why is noone else?

yours e.t.c. ,

I have merely stated that this is not a problem for the WA, these are internal problems amongst nations. The diversity of societies within the WA makes the idea of fixing a set minimum wage, especially for struggling economies, a bad idea, it could easily cause more harm than good. I personally would like this in my own nation, it COULD very well help.

But to force it upon others, others who may be negatively affected, it too dangerous.

And lets not have this debate dragged into name calling.

I have merely stated that this is not a problem for the WA, these are internal problems amongst nations. The diversity of societies within the WA makes the idea of fixing a set minimum wage, especially for struggling economies, a bad idea, it could easily cause more harm than good. I personally would like this in my own nation, it COULD very well help.

But to force it upon others, others who may be negatively affected, it too dangerous.

And lets not have this debate dragged into name calling.


No one has called any one any names honoured Ambassador. But it would be no surprise to find that the honoured Ambassador imagined things which bore no relation to fact.

It is heartening to see that the honoured Ambassador has responded to the requirement of this debate to propound a proper argument against this resolution ( however in error it may be ) now, but it does not change the fact that their earlier contribution was offensive and was responded to as such by the honoured and respected Ambassador for Snefaldia.

yours e.t.c.,

I have merely stated that this is not a problem for the WA, these are internal problems amongst nations. The diversity of societies within the WA makes the idea of fixing a set minimum wage, especially for struggling economies, a bad idea, it could easily cause more harm than good. I personally would like this in my own nation, it COULD very well help.

But to force it upon others, others who may be negatively affected, it too dangerous.

And not forcing it upon them will never have them solve the problem or help those economies adapt.

In any case, the problem you're talking about is moot. Have the companies eat a little loss in profit for a bit. While they lose out on the short-term, the long-term gains of a happier and more-productive workforce will net them profits far beyond the cost. In addition, those companies can use this as good PR to advertise and sell their products elsewhere.

There. Problem solved.

And lets not have this debate dragged into name calling.

It hasn't, yet.

25% over the poverty level is not "crap," ambassador. Furthermore, since when should the WA have such control on all its members' economies? If this legislation was forcing employers to provide for their employees' basic needs, that is one thing. But forcing my country to adapt a minimum wage well over what the people actually need to live happy and healthy lives is socialism. Let's think about this; the poverty line is set at providing all needed utilities, adequate food, water, even fuel for the commute to work. Forcing any nation to go beyond that, to actually force employers to provide excess wealth for even the most unmotivated of workers reaks of socialism. And forcing your personal taste in economic policies on all nations is tyranny. I propose you change your minimum wage requirements to the point where all workers are able to meet basic needs. We shouldn't be trying to force nations to redistribute wealth and alter their economic systems simply because a few nations think it might be in the world's best interests to do so.

25% over the poverty level is not "crap," ambassador. Furthermore, since when should the WA have such control on all its members' economies? If this legislation was forcing employers to provide for their employees' basic needs, that is one thing. But forcing my country to adapt a minimum wage well over what the people actually need to live happy and healthy lives is socialism.

The Constantinoplinican people don't need food and shelter to live happy and healthy lives? What exactly can they buy with the pittances I assume they're being paid at work?

Let's think about this; the poverty line is set at providing all needed utilities, adequate food, water, even fuel for the commute to work. Forcing any nation to go beyond that, to actually force employers to provide excess wealth for even the most unmotivated of workers reaks of socialism. And forcing your personal taste in economic policies on all nations is tyranny.I propose you change your minimum wage requirements to the point where all workers are able to meet basic needs. We shouldn't be trying to force nations to redistribute wealth and alter their economic systems simply because a few nations think it might be in the world's best interests to do so.

Do you feel the cognitive dissonance yet, because the resolution does exactly what you suggest it should be, and isn't doing what you say it shouldn't.

N.T.
etc.

25% over the poverty level is not "crap," ambassador. Furthermore, since when should the WA have such control on all its members' economies? If this legislation was forcing employers to provide for their employees' basic needs, that is one thing. But forcing my country to adapt a minimum wage well over what the people actually need to live happy and healthy lives is socialism. Let's think about this; the poverty line is set at providing all needed utilities, adequate food, water, even fuel for the commute to work. Forcing any nation to go beyond that, to actually force employers to provide excess wealth for even the most unmotivated of workers reaks of socialism. And forcing your personal taste in economic policies on all nations is tyranny. I propose you change your minimum wage requirements to the point where all workers are able to meet basic needs. We shouldn't be trying to force nations to redistribute wealth and alter their economic systems simply because a few nations think it might be in the world's best interests to do so.




Why does the honoured Ambassador continue to labour under the misapprehension that this resolution has anything to do with economic systems? All it does is draw up the most exploited and disadvantaged onto a fairer more even playing field.

We suggest the honoured Ambassador look carefully at the actual vote for this resolution and note that thousands of Ambassadors have voted for this resolution and it can hardly therefore be characterised as the "personal tastes" of " a few nations".

And why does the honoured Ambassador continue to shout?


yours e.t.c. ,

25% over the poverty level is not "crap," ambassador.

Try buying a two-story house and car with only 25% over poverty.

Furthermore, since when should the WA have such control on all its members' economies?

And we're back to baseless accusations that this takes over control of economies.

Does it affect them? Yes. Does it alter one aspect? Yes. Does it control them? No.

If this legislation was forcing employers to provide for their employees' basic needs, that is one thing.

"Basic needs" also include health care, which this resolution noticeably doesn't cover. Where do you think that extra 25% is going to go? It's going to likely go to paying for medicine or doctors visits that get put off due to having to choose between visiting the doctor or eating.

But forcing my country to adapt a minimum wage well over what the people actually need to live happy and healthy lives is socialism.

You know, it is very childish to have to yell your points at people instead of simply saying them. Since you don't seem to obey polite requests, I'm not going to be polite. Now, are you going to stop yelling, or do I talk to some people about forcibly changing your uniform to a diaper, baby bonnet, and pacifier?

Secondly, you obviously have no concept of what socialism is. If this were socialism, you'd be required to provide them with free health care, free education, and a lot of other free items as part of their employment package.

Let's think about this; the poverty line is set at providing all needed utilities, adequate food, water, even fuel for the commute to work.

For one week. It doesn't state that employers have to provide enough money so that their employees can visit the doctor if they need to, replace clothes if they need to, or deal with any emergencies that crop up.

Forcing any nation to go beyond that, to actually force employers to provide excess wealth for even the most unmotivated of workers reaks of socialism.

If they're that unmotivated, then fire them. There's always someone else who will do the job and you can always hunt down someone more motivated.

And, once again, not socialism.

And forcing your personal taste in economic policies on all nations is tyranny.

Which is why this doesn't force a personal taste in economic policies on all nations.

I propose you change your minimum wage requirements to the point where all workers are able to meet basic needs.

Don't need to. If they can't afford food, then there's always the local forests. Even with our construction of cities, close to two-thirds of Forensatha is forested land. There are some people who live their entire lives in those forests, living off of the land and the abundance of nature that we have worked hard for centuries to protect and even now fight to preserve. During winter time, those same people take employment at the local hot springs and get to enjoy being warm all winter while having something to do and access to all of the food and medical care they need. In addition, if they really wanted to, Forensatha has about three different social welfare programs to choose from, with each one offering a series of advantages to those who do take them. And one of those systems produced our current Emperor.

We shouldn't be trying to force nations to redistribute wealth and alter their economic systems simply because a few nations think it might be in the world's best interests to do so.

They're not altering their economic systems, and the wealth redistribution is only temporary at best.

Constantinoplinica's response:

Try buying a two-story house and car with only 25% over poverty.


Who says everyone needs a two-story house? I'm sure that they're plenty of happy families that do fine in smaller houses, not to mention all the single people who certainly don't need more than an apartment. It sounds like you're trying to make everyone middle class, which is in fact, honored ambassador, socialism.

And why does the honoured Ambassador continue to shout?

Bold type is shouting? I was told all caps was shouting, which I then stopped using. So, basically, any form of emphasis should be equated to rude shouting. oookkkkaaaayyy. is this better? or does the question mark add too much emphasis? sorry.

Why does the honoured Ambassador continue to labour under the misapprehension that this resolution has anything to do with economic systems? All it does is draw up the most exploited and disadvantaged onto a fairer more even playing field.

Once again, this is code word for redistribution of wealth. AKA socialism.

"Basic needs" also include health care, which this resolution noticeably doesn't cover. Where do you think that extra 25% is going to go? It's going to likely go to paying for medicine or doctors visits that get put off due to having to choose between visiting the doctor or eating.


Why didn't you simply include health care under your definition of the poverty line, ambassador? 25% more will go far beyond health care. And unless they're buying new suits every week, they certainly don't need this much for clothing.

They're not altering their economic systems, and the wealth redistribution is only temporary at best.

Temproary or not, the redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Forensatha has about three different social welfare programs to choose from, with each one offering a series of advantages to those who do take them. And one of those systems produced our current Emperor.


This is where its all headed up to, isn't it?

Now, are you going to stop yelling, or do I talk to some people about forcibly changing your uniform to a diaper, baby bonnet, and pacifier?

That is really unfitting for a civilized political debate. But, fine, I'm the baby, even though I freely express my "wrong" opinions and suggest compromise. Are we going to suppress free speech next?

Constantinoplinica's response:



Who says everyone needs a two-story house? I'm sure that they're plenty of happy families that do fine in smaller houses, not to mention all the single people who certainly don't need more than an apartment. It sounds like you're trying to make everyone middle class, which is in fact, honored ambassador, socialism.



Bold type is shouting? I was told all caps was shouting, which I then stopped using. So, basically, any form of emphasis should be equated to rude shouting. oookkkkaaaayyy. is this better? or does the question mark add too much emphasis? sorry.



Once again, this is code word for redistribution of wealth. AKA socialism.



Why didn't you simply include health care under your definition of the poverty line, ambassador? 25% more will go far beyond health care. And unless they're buying new suits every week, they certainly don't need this much for clothing.



Temproary or not, the redistribution of wealth is socialism.



This is where its all headed up to, isn't it?



That is really unfitting for a civilized political debate. But, fine, I'm the baby, even though I freely express my "wrong" opinions and suggest compromise. Are we going to suppress free speech next?




The honoured Ambassador was told bold type and capitalisation, both or either ,were indicative of a raised voice. But we will not bother to question the honoured Ambassador's barbarous habits again since they seem so violently attached to them.


The honoured Ambassador's thesis that any redistribution of wealth is socialism is absurd. This would mean that all government taxation was socialism. It would mean that customs duties were socialism. It would mean that charity is socialism. The list is endless.


Though it is not the policy of the government of the Emperor of Urgench, it is mystifying to us that the honoured Ambassador for Constantinoplinica uses the term "socialism" as though it were an insult or a slur. We suspect that the honoured Ambassador's nation is activated by strong biases against a particular form of politics and believes that the rest of this organisation shares this bias and that by erroneously attaching this epithet to this resolution they will insure its downfall.

Unfortunately none of the presumptions the honoured Ambassador has made about the resolution at vote or about the character of those voting upon it are correct and thus they are driven to ever increasing desperation in their attacks on this statute and its proponents.

We suggest the honoured Ambassador calm down and stop wildly accusing all and sundry of patently silly things.

yours e.t.c. ,

Who says everyone needs a two-story house? I'm sure that they're plenty of happy families that do fine in smaller houses, not to mention all the single people who certainly don't need more than an apartment. It sounds like you're trying to make everyone middle class, which is in fact, honored ambassador, socialism.

You completely miss the point. I was pointing out the amount was crap, not any want to make people middle-class.

Bold type is shouting? I was told all caps was shouting, which I then stopped using. So, basically, any form of emphasis should be equated to rude shouting. oookkkkaaaayyy. is this better? or does the question mark add too much emphasis? sorry.

OOC: Overuse of emphasis is usually also used to indicate shouting. Underlining and italics can also be used in that way. Not to mention the presence of exclamation marks, with each one after a point usually used to indicate greater emphasis. English is a problematic language in that way.

Anyway, back to IC.

Once again, this is code word for redistribution of wealth. AKA socialism.

Got proof of that?

Why didn't you simply include health care under your definition of the poverty line, ambassador? 25% more will go far beyond health care. And unless they're buying new suits every week, they certainly don't need this much for clothing.

Because health care is, in some nations, either limited or expensive. Forensatha's is still limited, due in part to the fact that the House of Cats tends to focus more on physics than biology. And clothing itself can also be expensive, depending upon the nation and its social requirements.

I note you don't address emergencies in this part.

Temproary or not, the redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Then capitalism is a form of socialism, since capitalism utilizes the temporary redistribution of wealth in order to operate. The rich invest money in something made by people less rich, then use it to make a profit. Temporary redistribution of wealth, but in the end it gets the job done.

This is where its all headed up to, isn't it?

Considering one of our systems is slavery and another is our military, I seriously doubt it.

That is really unfitting for a civilized political debate. But, fine, I'm the baby, even though I freely express my "wrong" opinions and suggest compromise. Are we going to suppress free speech next?

This is a civilized debate? Considering your earlier accusations against people in this debate, I assumed that you agreed to the suspending of the normal rules of civilized debate.

*snaps fingers, watching as two men that are six foot five inches in height and look like they bench-press cars for fun walk in*

And, honestly, it's in how you express your opinions. Secondly, I love how you try to equate calling your use of yelling acting like a baby to the suppression of all free speech. But, since you continued to do it...

Say, did you know the Twelve Houses have been doing selective breeding over the centuries since our nation was established? These two walking walls of muscle are from the House of Dragons, chosen because they're big, burly, and tend to break people's arms in six places and tie those arms in a knot if someone resists what they're doing.

*sends the two guards to take the delegate from Constantinoplinica out and redress him as a baby, with them making it a point to destroy his clothes so he can't change back*

Here's hoping he doesn't resist.

Though it is not the policy of the government of the Emperor of Urgench, it is mystifying to us that the honoured Ambassador for Constaninoplinica uses the term "socialism" as though it were an insult or a slur. We suspect that the honoured Ambassador's nation is activated by strong biases against a particular form of politics and believes that the rest of this organisation shares this bias and that by erroneously attaching this epithet to this resolution they will insure its downfall.


Each nation is entittled to run their economy in the manner they see best. All citizens in my nation will be adequately provided for; however, based on the track records of various economic systems, and a basic understanding of human nature, my nation has developed in a economic manner that is radically different than that of my other WA brethren. While I respect their right to run their economy as they see fit, I merely ask that would do the same for me.

ps. Everyone is biased. The question is only, do you have the right bias?

Each nation is entittled to run their economy in the manner they see best.

You're quite correct, however the manner they choose must comply with WA resolutions. If you were to take the time to read certain documents such as the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/27783/page=faq#WA) and WA Resolution #2 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13835552&postcount=4) you would know that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Say, did you know the Twelve Houses have been doing selective breeding over the centuries since our nation was established? These two walking walls of muscle are from the House of Dragons, chosen because they're big, burly, and tend to break people's arms in six places and tie those arms in a knot if someone resists what they're doing.

*sends the two guards to take the delegate from Constantinoplinica out and redress him as a baby, with them making it a point to destroy his clothes so he can't change back*

Here's hoping he doesn't resist.

Is that a threat? Because people with my "flawed" political views tend not to take kindly to that. *armies assemble for war*

You're quite correct, however the manner they choose must comply with WA resolutions. If you were to take the time to read certain documents such as the FAQ and WA Resolution #2 you would know that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative


I am aware of that, which is precisely why I am fighting this bill so strongly.

Is that a threat? Because people with my "flawed" political views tend not to take kindly to that. *armies assemble for war*

OOC: Dude, seriously, knock it off with putting everything you type in bold. It's fucking annoying.

Is that a threat? Because people with my "flawed" political views tend not to take kindly to that. *armies assemble for war*

*sighs*

You're really willing to go to war over this? Tell you what. Show up in the East Pacific. If we don't show up within three days, just start shooting in random directions so my military knows what direction to head. Might want to use mortars just so it can be heard. And ignore any cities you come across down there; they're all abandoned anyway, so feel free to take out a building or two for target practice while waiting.

Actually we use magic in Flibbleites too, we just don't flaunt it like the Ardchoilleans do.
So do we, but trust me, you really can't survive on magic alone in Gobbannium even if you can get it to work at all.

This bill just calls for massive hyperinflation: if EVERYONE gets payed above the DPL then the price of everything will go up, increasing the value of the DPL, this will make a deadly cycle of hyperinflation. This cannot be allowed since it would collapse the global economy.
So reevaluate the DPL only once a year. That should leave you plenty of time to fix an economic system that is fundamentally stuffed anyway.

Seriously, this is alarmist. First, there is more than enough slack built into the timings in the resolution. Second, if you actually put up a significant number of peoples wages, enough that your markets reckon that there's money to be squeezed out of people, then you had a significant number of people starving. Shouldn't you be addressing that?

Paying people for being poor? This is simply madness.
So don't implement the welfare bit. You're only urged to, not required to. I'll think the less of you for it, but I already think the less of you for posting somethat is either a smear or an indication that you haven't actually read the proposal.

Any serious questions?

Furthermore, since when should the WA have such control on all its members' economies?
Since its inception. You do remember all the bold print in the charter you signed (OOC: or in RL the button you pressed) when you agreed to do whatever the WA said as a condition of membership? No? You really do need to learn to read things more carefully, old bean.

By the way, please attribute your quotes. It took me a while to work out who you were talking to.

If this legislation was forcing employers to provide for their employees' basic needs, that is one thing.
That would be exactly what it does.

But forcing my country to adapt a minimum wage well over what the people actually need to live happy and healthy lives is socialism.
It doesn't, and it isn't in any case.

Let's think about this; the poverty line is set at providing all needed utilities, adequate food, water, even fuel for the commute to work. Forcing any nation to go beyond that, to actually force employers to provide excess wealth for even the most unmotivated of workers reaks of socialism.
It might reek of it too, except that it doesn't. The Basic Poverty Line is set at the bare minimum such that people aren't starving, aren't homeless, have access to water and power, and can get to work. That is not a comfortable existence in any book; it's bare survival. You'll notice that it doesn't include things like clothing (a more significant issue than you might think at this wealth level), shoes, car ownership, or a hundred other things that you seem to consider making for comfort. The 25% over gives a worker the glimmer of a possibility of saving up for such things, though frankly car ownership isn't likely for anyone near the poverty line.

And forcing your personal taste in economic policies on all nations is tyranny.
Nope. Every resolution, every last one, forces the author's personal taste in whatever sort of policies it addresses on all member nations. Are you saying that the WA should never pass resolutions, because if you're going down that sort of ultra-sovereigntist line then I'm just going to laugh at you.

Bold type is shouting? I was told all caps was shouting, which I then stopped using. So, basically, any form of emphasis should be equated to rude shouting. oookkkkaaaayyy.
OOC: Yes. Think of it this way; emphasis is supposed to be used to emphasise things (obviously enough), saying that those particular words are important and you really must read them. Emphasising entire sentences, or worse still entire posts, says that every word that falls from your character's lips is important. This makes you look more than a bit arrogant, and increases the chances that people will decide that your opinions really aren't worth paying any attention to.

Why didn't you simply include health care under your definition of the poverty line, ambassador? 25% more will go far beyond health care. And unless they're buying new suits every week, they certainly don't need this much for clothing.
You have a hopelessly inflated idea of what the Basic Poverty Line buys, haven't you?

Temproary or not, the redistribution of wealth is socialism.
Or capitalism. Or any number of other -isms. Face it man, you're wrong. When in hole, stop digging.

Each nation is entittled to run their economy in the manner they see best.
Yes indeed, every nation is entitles to starve their peasantry. In the event that this resolution passes, they will no longer have that freedom. I'm still looking for a down side to this.

All citizens in my nation will be adequately provided for;
Based on what you've said in this chamber, I have to seriously doubt that, Ambassador.

I don't see where people are getting the "government dictates wages" part because it's not the case. The only thing the government is dictating is that such wages must be paid. Wages are absolutely tied to the value they produce, because there's nothing to prevent the employer from paying labour more than the most basic poverty wage- something that is, I think you realize, the bare minimum to stay alive, etc. etc.

The problem is wage pull inflation - as wages increase prices increase. This is complemented by cost push inflationation. Whilst the inflationary problems will not really be felt in a developed country where the majority already do enjoy wages over the 25% above the poverty line, it is where they do not that problems happen, something I tried to explain earlier, but was ignored. It's basic wage pull inflationary, an economic theory, I grant you, but widely accepted - to deny it is like denying gravity, which, let us be in no doubt, is technically still a theory. IRL The reasons why minimum wages do not cause major economic effects when introduced is that the minimum is set in such a way that only a fraction of people find their wages rise because of it. If the majority find their wages rise because of it, then you get an increase in inflation. Yes, over time, the hyperinflationary effects would die down, but it would take time. Furthermore, this would not neccessarily just be an increase of 25% in poor countries - it could be much higher (with living costs being met through working extra hours, spouses working, etc). It was for this reason that I suggesting the wording be changed to allow for a phasing in to counteract the effects, but was ignored. As it stands, this is an incredibly flawed piece of legislation that will ruin the economies of developing nations for years to come.

There's no such thing as an "endless cycle of hyperinflation" in open economic systems because there's always a mechanism to adjust the market, and there are any number of factors that can do this. "Unstoppable" just means "we don't know what the hell we're doing here," and besides I dispute this will cause any sort of inflation.

I agree, but the time taken may be problematic, and cause further problems and damage to a developing economy



Except in the case that is assumes infinite, unending inflation, and that every single person, at the present time, is being paid less than the amount of the proposed DPL..

Agreed, but where a sizable, even a majority, is living below the 125% of basic neccessity level of wages for a 30 hour week, I have grave concerns.

The Marektopians assume that the DPL will be a gigantic increase. It doesn't take into consideration divisions in labor and pay, and is rather simplistic in its analysis of how wages are going to affect prices across the board. Simply shouting "INFLATION! ARGH, INFLATION!" doesn't mean a damn thing.


Could well be a gigantic increase in developing countries. Bear in mind that this is a both based on a 30 hour week, AND is net earnings. Furthermore, one has to think about the public sector - it's not all about evil corporations. If a government in a developing country pays a policeman £100 a week for forty hours work, with living costs coming to £100, it'll have to raise it to £160. Where is a government going to get the money from? It can't raise taxes, after all, as that will bring net earnings down. To say tax the corporations I would take as being foolhardy, as these countries need all the investment they can get - and that investment will raise the living standards. Even taxing the rich would cause problems with investment

Furthermore, there is a problem with true communist countries. From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs and all that malarky. Not that I agree with it, but ideologically, this would cause problems. It's each according to their needs, afterall, not each according to their needs, and an extra 25%!

All in all, it's too "one size fits all", except it's being applied to suits, not gloves. It'll be a very good move for developed, liberal countries. But for those countries saddled with poverty, not at all.

Now excuse me whilst i look for loopholes.

Is that a threat? Because people with my "flawed" political views tend not to take kindly to that. *armies assemble for war*


The honoured Ambassador has completely lost their composure. This is not the General forum in which nations shout and abuse each other and threaten dire consequences like petulant teenagers. They should remember this and behave with some decorum. We suspect the honoured Ambassador's superiors will be highly displeased that they have imperiled their nation with the possibility of war over a minor disagreement about the finer points of statutory income regulation.


yours e.t.c.

Against definetley.

Maybe there should be some sort of clause that protects economically fragile nations from any financial or economical troubles they might run in to due to this resolution. Maybe there should be a WA fund to aid poorer nations that barely have an economy. It seems to me that the opposition to this resolution is complaining that it would cause massive economic failure and a fund would take care of that.

Could well be a gigantic increase in developing countries. Bear in mind that this is a both based on a 30 hour week, AND is net earnings. Furthermore, one has to think about the public sector - it's not all about evil corporations. If a government in a developing country pays a policeman £100 a week for forty hours work, with living costs coming to £100, it'll have to raise it to £160. Where is a government going to get the money from? It can't raise taxes, after all, as that will bring net earnings down. To say tax the corporations I would take as being foolhardy, as these countries need all the investment they can get - and that investment will raise the living standards. Even taxing the rich would cause problems with investment

All in all, it's too "one size fits all", except it's being applied to suits, not gloves. It'll be a very good move for developed, liberal countries. But for those countries saddled with poverty, not at all.

Now excuse me whilst i look for loopholes.

Considering that in poor countries lots of people do not have a job, that in those cases it is normal for people with a job to support many others. Considering if you give a policeman only 100% of the poverty line, the police know how to take more than that. So it is not advisable to pay a policeman not enough. The same is for people in the administration, the judges, the military.

So I think a minimum wage as in this proposal is not that bad even for those poor countries. It will at least give the companies that make profits to have workers who have some extra to support what they have to support so corruption will be going down, even as it will give an inflation of 25% a year. Such inflation would be in really poor countries not so bad. Inflation in those realy poor countries are at least on that, but mostly much higher. And corruption is one of the things that makes societies poor. So I think this proposal has two good things for poor countries. Better wage for the underclass, less corruption.
So My vote still stands in favor.

Regards

PS: Cobdenia is looking for loopholes because they are a poor nation? Sad, but our nation has programs for poorer nations than ourselves. Feel free to telegram us in that case.

We are a wealthy country, growing wealthier, due to sensible policies that allow for reasonable inflation and wage inflation, and prevent it from getting out of hand.

However, we've found many loopholes. For a start, it doesn't include the self employed, or subsidence farmers, which covers the majority of Cobdenia. Especially the latter, whom, due to the fact they farm their own food, own their own shacks, and have their own water supply, can thus live on £0 a week, thus, as 25% of £0 is £0, will cause no increase to them, or their standard of living.

We are a wealthy country, growing wealthier, due to sensible policies that allow for reasonable inflation and wage inflation, and prevent it from getting out of hand.

However, we've found many loopholes. For a start, it doesn't include the self employed, or subsidence farmers, which covers the majority of Cobdenia. Especially the latter, whom, due to the fact they farm their own food, own their own shacks, and have their own water supply, can thus live on £0 a week, thus, as 25% of £0 is £0, will cause no increase to them, or their standard of living.


If the income of these farmers is 0 honoured Ambassador how do they pay for seed crops, fertilizers, pesticides machinery or tools?

yours e.t.c. ,

Dear spokesman of Urgench.

The farmers of Cobdenia are known to work their farm in a way that might be considered old fashioned in this modern world. They do not use fertilizers, machinery or such. Tools and seed crops can be traded with other farmers for other things.

CEO Tom of the Corporation leading Wartom this week.

Dear spokesman of Urgench.

The farmers of Cobdenia are known to work their farm in a way that might be considered old fashioned in this modern world. They do not use fertilizers, machinery or such. Tools and seed crops can be traded with other farmers for other things.

CEO Tom of the Corporation leading Wartom this week.



Forgive our ignorance but is the honoured Ambassador for Wartom familiar with the agricultural system of Cobdenia in a personal way or are they speculating on the matter?

We should point out that if the honoured Ambassador is correct on the workings of the Cobdenian agricultural system then this system qualifies as a form of primitive communism. We make no judgement on the utility of such a system but we are surprised that such a system exists in the famed Raj of Cobdenia the animating political philosophy of which being ( according to our understanding ) rather more economically liberal.


yours sincerely,

The Ambassador for Wartom are not familiar with Cobdenia at all, but have chosen, on the grounds of Cabdenia's own statement, that it is as we have said. We might be wrong, but it seems plausible as Cobdenias farmers would be unable to farm if the earned 0 cash and needed tools as well as fertilizer and other chemicals which does cost a lot.

CEO Tom, Corporate Leader of Wartom.

We refer the honoured Ambassador to our comments above.

In any case do these farmers never seek to augment their income by offering their meagre surpluses ( when they occur ) for sale? Or do they never likewise increase their income by offering their labour to better off farmers?


yours e.t.c. ,

Say, did you know the Twelve Houses have been doing selective breeding over the centuries since our nation was established? These two walking walls of muscle are from the House of Dragons, chosen because they're big, burly, and tend to break people's arms in six places and tie those arms in a knot if someone resists what they're doing.

*sends the two guards to take the delegate from Constantinoplinica out and redress him as a baby, with them making it a point to destroy his clothes so he can't change back*

Here's hoping he doesn't resist.

Dude, seriously, knock it off with putting everything you type in bold. It's fucking annoying.

Just so I'm not the only one accused of offensive hostility.

Just so I'm not the only one accused of offensive hostility.



Good lord, a harmless prank ( unfunny to us, as is most barbaric humour ), and an expression of exasperation at the increasingly loud and violent outbursts of the respected Ambassador are to be considered offensive hostility?

How absurd. The respected Ambassador is clutching at straws we fear.

And does the respected Ambassador have any legitimate arguments against the resolution at vote or just more histrionic display and wild speculation?

yours e.t.c.,

Just so I'm not the only one accused of offensive hostility.

OOC: You found my request that you stop putting your entire posts in bold to be "offensive hostility?" Sounds to me like you need to grow some thicker skin.:rolleyes:

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the honoured and revered Gobbannaen W.A. mission on their marvelous victory. Their work in alleviating poverty does them great credit.

May the Horde of Gobbannium ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.

sincerely,

It was for this reason that I suggesting the wording be changed to allow for a phasing in to counteract the effects, but was ignored. As it stands, this is an incredibly flawed piece of legislation that will ruin the economies of developing nations for years to come.
I didn't ignore you, you just didn't convince me. You still haven't. The problems with your analysis are twofold.

First, you assert that in developing countries, many people will have their wages uplifted by this resolution. I disagree. Don't forget that the Basic Poverty Level is set incredibly low. People below it are starving, homeless or can't get to work. In most circumstances, that's going to equate to "dying". Neither the number of people nor the amount of money concerned are going to be large. That push pressure is much lower than you assert.

Second, you keep acting like the BPL is constantly updated. It isn't. Nations have to update it once a year at least, which is ample time to put counter-inflationary measures in place. It would take a degree of economic ineptness beyond even Gobbannium to turn that into a hyperinflationary spiral.

Could well be a gigantic increase in developing countries. Bear in mind that this is a both based on a 30 hour week, AND is net earnings. Furthermore, one has to think about the public sector - it's not all about evil corporations. If a government in a developing country pays a policeman £100 a week for forty hours work, with living costs coming to £100, it'll have to raise it to £160.
Wrong. I've explained this one to you before. The limit is based on a 30 hour week, but it's a weekly wage, not an hourly one. You only have to raise your policeman's wages to £125, not £160, for his forty hours work. Personally I'd recommend raising it a lot higher anyway, since your policeman has probably had to be taking bribes to survive.

Furthermore, there is a problem with true communist countries. From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs and all that malarky. Not that I agree with it, but ideologically, this would cause problems. It's each according to their needs, afterall, not each according to their needs, and an extra 25%!
Oh luxury, that 25% over the bare minimum! Curious how, once they were reassured about the payment in kind part, none of the communal countries around have complained about this.

All in all, it's too "one size fits all", except it's being applied to suits, not gloves. It'll be a very good move for developed, liberal countries. But for those countries saddled with poverty, not at all.
Obviously I disagree. I went out of my way not to make assumptions about how nations work, and you're yet to convince me that what you're saying isn't a hysterical hyping up of a small inflationary pressure.

However, we've found many loopholes. For a start, it doesn't include the self employed, or subsidence farmers, which covers the majority of Cobdenia. Especially the latter, whom, due to the fact they farm their own food, own their own shacks, and have their own water supply, can thus live on £0 a week, thus, as 25% of £0 is £0, will cause no increase to them, or their standard of living.
This would be "found" in the sense that you read the bit of the early drafting discussion where I explained why I didn't think subsistence farmers were caught by the act, and that I didn't want them to be?

The self-employed are covered to a degree, in that their individual contracts have to conform to the regulations. In practice I doubt it will affect anyone except those trying to dodge the regulations by trying to turn all their employees into contractors.

Just so I'm not the only one accused of offensive hostility.

You're getting off easy. No one's defenestrated you yet. Please quit tempting me.

We already have minimum wages, so we voted yes. And yep, it passed.

Welcome to the elite: the WA resolution writers elite.

The Trilateral Federation is most pleased to see that this resolution has passed. We only regret that we were not able to convince our region to see it our way on this one.

The lights dim slightly, and on the screen Prince Rhodri can still be seen pontificating away.

"...and so in conclusion, we would like to urge all responsible members of the World Assembly most vigorously to--"

There is a pause as the Prince is handed a sheet of paper. He looks a little puzzled, and glances quizzically to someone off-camera. Apparently the dubious information is confirmed, because the Prince shrugs and turns back to the camera.

"Ah. In conclusion," he says again, "we would like to thank all those who voted in favour of our proposal and enabled its passage into law. We were well aware that many of those who hold their sovereignty dear would not consider this legislation to be appropriate to the World Assembly -- a position with which we naturally disagree, or else we would not have moved the proposal in the first place -- and that therefore the passage of this Act was no certain matter. The final margin was in fact slightly better than we had anticipated, but we confess to having done no great statistical analysis on which to base that expectation.

"This is, as we said to start with, but a small step on the road to seeing that the poorest amongst our nations are properly looked after. While we do not anticipate further common ground on the matter of basic wages, we look forward to the possibility of investigating what minimum standards of welfare and education we should hold ourselves to, and in particular hope to see the legislation that was passed by our predecessor organisation concerning properly balanced industrial relations reintroduced after suitable debate and emendation.

"We hope that it will not be long before we are able to rejoin our fellow ambassadors in the debating chamber, and wish you all a good night."

Congratulations on the passage of this bill, and on the weakening of my nations economy. We have already suffered job loses and our Category of economy has dropped from very strong to , to strong with fears of a continued drop. We will now be lifting restrictions on environmental protection, and to begin more mining of resources; to ensure a stable economy during this forced transition.

Congratulations on the passage of this bill, and on the weakening of my nations economy. We have already suffered job loses and our Category of economy has dropped from very strong to , to strong with fears of a continued drop.

Forensatha is willing to offer your nation assistance in stabilizing its economy. We only ask a couple of minor things as repayment: A trade treaty and a military nonaggression agreement.

Forgive our ignorance but is the honoured Ambassador for Wartom familiar with the agricultural system of Cobdenia in a personal way or are they speculating on the matter?

We should point out that if the honoured Ambassador is correct on the workings of the Cobdenian agricultural system then this system qualifies as a form of primitive communism. We make no judgement on the utility of such a system but we are surprised that such a system exists in the famed Raj of Cobdenia the animating political philosophy of which being ( according to our understanding ) rather more economically liberal.


yours sincerely,

I was exagerrating a bit. Cobdenia's agricultural sector is quite complicated, and varies a lot whithin the princely states, although in the provinces it is generally more westernised. In, for example, Chotawallah (a princely state), subsidence farming is the norm, as it is part of the culture and hold religious significance - the Cobdenian government, and more precisely the Provincial Government of New Hailsham (under whose suzereighnty Chotawallah is under), has no wish to interfere whithin the local religion, except in the case of truly deploarble practices, such as suttee, or the ruler being anti-British - which is why the Resident in Bukku replaced Nawab It-tipjip Joqtol with Nawab Positgon Yem last year

However, in most princely states, and certainly in the provinces, cash crops are the main stay, especially tea, cotton, flax and hard core pornography. This was a deliberate policy on behalf of the government to delevope this aspect, although mechanisation is taking a while to take hold, largely due to the cheap (for that do not read exploited) labour, and the cost of traction engines, threshing machines, and those whirly things that make that "fut fut chug chug fut fut" noise.

OOC: Due to forum bug I use this nation to post for Altear (http://www.nationstates.net/altear)

[i]
....
"This is, as we said to start with, but a small step on the road to seeing that the poorest amongst our nations are properly looked after. While we do not anticipate further common ground on the matter of basic wages, we look forward to the possibility of investigating what minimum standards of welfare and education we should hold ourselves to, and in particular hope to see the legislation that was passed by our predecessor organisation concerning properly balanced industrial relations reintroduced after suitable debate and emendation.
.....


Please forgive me as I come from a simple background, but what in this act helps our poorest nations? In fact I would go so far as to say this act ensures that the poorest nations among us are going to be kept in such a state.

This act asks us to force our struggling industry to pay more than our market will bear, when they cannot the industry will leave and our citizens will receive a handout.

Where is the handout from the rich nations? Will they subsidize this act they have pushed through? It is very easy for them to tell the struggling nations to spend money, but Altear cannot spend money it does not have. Are we to go begging for loans to support this? Sounds to me like the only ones who benefit are the large prosperous nations.

We call for a strong nation to immediately propose to repeal this act.

To the rest of the World Assembly: Please do not force the weakest of us to leave the safety of the Assembly due to the fact that it is too expensive to belong.

Please forgive me as I come from a simple background, but what in this act helps our poorest nations?

It's an easy misreading, given that His Nibs was speechifying even more impenetrably than normal, but it's the poorest people amongst our nations that benefit. That's got to be a plus.