NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, your support is appreciated. U.N. members, please feel free to provide feedback and discussion.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Variable Minimum Wage
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.
Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant

Description: The plight of the world's poorest workers is a severe and worsening problem. In many economies, poor workers command wages of under $1US/day, barely enough to support life, and wildly insufficient to support life with any sort of dignity.

At the same time, we recognize that developing nations cannot afford to have their economies stifled by minimum wage laws that would be appropriate to wealthy nations. Some incentive for international investment, in the form of reduced labor costs, must remain in these countries, or their potential for long-term economic growth will be crippled.

We therefore propose an International Variable Minimum Wage, to be keyed to each country's current level of development:

Immediately upon passage of this resolution, and each year thereafter, every U.N. member shall determine, to the best of their ability, the median yearly income among working members of their economy.

The minimum wage in each nation will be set to an hourly rate of *not less than* 1/5000 of the nation's median yearly income. For example, a relatively wealthy country with a median income of $20000US/year shall have a minimum wage of not less than $4US/hour. A poor country with a median income of $1000US/year shall have a minimum wage of not less than $0.20US/hour ($2.40US for a 12-hour workday).

Nations are free to set a minimum wage in excess of this amount, if they so desire.

Like the other minimum wage threads... What happens in a nation with a 100% tax rate?

Like the other minimum wage threads... What happens in a nation with a 100% tax rate?

Minimum wage laws apply to gross income.

Of course, most nations with a 100% tax rate have, by necessity, essentially abandoned their monetary system. For this reason, the resolution will have essentially no effect on them. However, such governments must provide for the needs of their citizens in other ways (that is, if they intend to have any citizens left who have not starved to death), so the fact that this resolution does not apply to them is not a serious flaw.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

There is no valid reason to impose ANY sort of restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Thus, this bill (and, by association, its creator and supporters) is an amoral piece of asswipe.

The problem with wages is companies don't want to pay them and the employees want as much as possible.

Ithuania: In the interest of international amity, the Community of Gurthark has elected to ignore your slur; however, we will respond to the rest of your post. If tens of millions of people are working 12-hour days for near-starvation wages, that is a valid reason to do *almost* anything to alleviate the situation. Certainly requiring employers to pay at least the (still quite amazingly low) wage of $0.20US/hour in those countries is well within the bounds of the acceptable.

Oppressed Possums: We're not entirely sure what your point is here. Yes, workers would probably happily take the highest wages offered, and yes, employers would probably offer the lowest wage they could get away with. What bearing does that have on this law?

If your idea is simply that there is something wrong with a wage-based economy, note that this law does not in any way prohibit that. If there's no median income in your country (because you do not have a monetary system, for example), it does not create a minimum wage.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Ithuania: In the interest of international amity, the Community of Gurthark has elected to ignore your slur; however, we will respond to the rest of your post. If tens of millions of people are working 12-hour days for near-starvation wages, that is a valid reason to do *almost* anything to alleviate the situation. Certainly requiring employers to pay at least the (still quite amazingly low) wage of $0.20US/hour in those countries is well within the bounds of the acceptable.
No, it's not. There is no valid reason to place limitations on the agreements individuals may enter into, period. Ever. End of story.

Ithuania, do you have any sort of argument for this claim? On a purely intuitive level, it seems that people who are working long hours and not able to make enough money to eat nutritiously deserve our consideration and assistance more than the Shoes4U Coporation facing the prospect of having to pay an entire 20 cents for an hour of someone's life.

We recognize that sometimes intuitions are in error, but we're uninclined to discard them unless we're given a good reason, or at least *some* reason, to do so beyond, "No, that's always wrong."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Ithuania, do you have any sort of argument for this claim? On a purely intuitive level, it seems that people who are working long hours and not able to make enough money to eat nutritiously deserve our consideration and assistance more than the Shoes4U Coporation facing the prospect of having to pay an entire 20 cents for an hour of someone's life.

We recognize that sometimes intuitions are in error, but we're uninclined to discard them unless we're given a good reason, or at least *some* reason, to do so beyond, "No, that's always wrong."

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

A year's supply of Centrum costs $40. You could afford this on 12 cents a day.

Ithuania, do you have any sort of argument for this claim? On a purely intuitive level, it seems that people who are working long hours and not able to make enough money to eat nutritiously deserve our consideration and assistance more than the Shoes4U Coporation facing the prospect of having to pay an entire 20 cents for an hour of someone's life.
I agree...just don't violate the rights of employers to make agreements in the process.

An individual's rights are subordinate to nothing.

There is no valid reason to impose ANY sort of restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Thus, this bill (and, by association, its creator and supporters) is an amoral piece of asswipe.

This might be true in a situation of mobile labour and immobile capital. In a third world country, however, capital is mobile and labour is not, forcing labour to take ridiculously small wages to stave off starvation. In some ways, you could consider this a coerced agreement- work for pennies or starve isn't really a choice, is it?

There is no valid reason to impose ANY sort of restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Thus, this bill (and, by association, its creator and supporters) is an amoral piece of asswipe.

This might be true in a situation of mobile labour and immobile capital. In a third world country, however, capital is mobile and labour is not, forcing labour to take ridiculously small wages to stave off starvation. In some ways, you could consider this a coerced agreement- work for pennies or starve isn't really a choice, is it?

Both capital and labor are mobile. There are other companies you can work for. Unless of course it's a state-monopoly.

Both capital and labor are mobile. There are other companies you can work for. Unless of course it's a state-monopoly.

In a third world country, labour is almost entirely immobile. Take EPZs for example. These are often the only source of work in a region. You don't have the money to relocate. So you have to work doing mindless manufacturing at a subsistence wage, or, if you're a women, sell your body. Nice choice.

Both capital and labor are mobile. There are other companies you can work for. Unless of course it's a state-monopoly.

In a third world country, labour is almost entirely immobile. Take EPZs for example. These are often the only source of work in a region. You don't have the money to relocate. So you have to work doing mindless manufacturing at a subsistence wage, or, if you're a women, sell your body. Nice choice.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's an EPZ? And if there IS a monopoly it is because of one of two possible reasons:

-The monopoly is maintained through physical force
OR LESS LIKELY
-The state is so anti-business no corporations are willing to invest there

Either way the government is probably to blame and a minimum wage is only gonna make it worse.

probably[/i] to blame and a minimum wage is only gonna make it worse.

An EPZ is an Economic Protection Zone: in short, a free-trade zone in a country that is never taxed and that the government has no control over (thus even if a nation has labour laws, they don't apply in EPZs) they're often created by WB restructuring plans. They're generally fenced compounds where basic manufacturing takes place.

You don't actually need a monopoly here- the EPZ is controlled by a small group of owners who build it/maintain it, they're subcontracted by MNCs to do basic manufacturing. The wage in the EPZ is constant, though you might have several different contracts within it.

The labour markets in third world nations are such that you can drop the price to subsitence levels and still attract employees, which is what these contracters do.

The conditions in EPZs are well documented and terrible. 16 hour work days, 7 days a week are common. There are no safety regulations. It is difficult to ever leave, and coercive tactics are common. EPZs do not educate employees or leave them with any meaningful skills, and do nothing to further industrialize a nation.

An EPZ is an Economic Protection Zone: in short, a free-trade zone in a country that is never taxed and that the government has no control over (thus even if a nation has labour laws, they don't apply in EPZs) they're often created by WB restructuring plans. They're generally fenced compounds where basic manufacturing takes place.

You don't actually need a monopoly here- the EPZ is controlled by a small group of owners who build it/maintain it, they're subcontracted by MNCs to do basic manufacturing. The wage in the EPZ is constant, though you might have several different contracts within it.

The labour markets in third world nations are such that you can drop the price to subsitence levels and still attract employees, which is what these contracters do.

The conditions in EPZs are well documented and terrible. 16 hour work days, 7 days a week are common. There are no safety regulations. It is difficult to ever leave, and coercive tactics are common. EPZs do not educate employees or leave them with any meaningful skills, and do nothing to further industrialize a nation.

It seems like those EPZs are mercantilist leftovers. It also seems like they are engaged in price-fixing. I don't understand this whole deal about prices being constant.

What if another corporation builds afactory in an EPZ and pays 50% more and attracts all the labor? Can they do that?

If not, then who grants the EPZ a monopoly over trade there?

It seems like those EPZs are mercantilist leftovers. It also seems like they are engaged in price-fixing. I don't understand this whole deal about prices being constant.

What if another corporation builds afactory in an EPZ and pays 50% more and attracts all the labor? Can they do that?

If not, then who grants the EPZ a monopoly over trade there?

The labour market is such that there is no need to compete for labour. For every person you hire, there's ten more that are starving. There is no competition for labour.

They don't engage in price fixing, so much as they all can pay the absolute minimum price people will still work for. Moreover, if people start asking for more, an EPZ recquires so little capital investment (all you really need is a shack near a port) that it's generally cheaper to simply move down the coast to a slightly poorer nation.

It seems like those EPZs are mercantilist leftovers. It also seems like they are engaged in price-fixing. I don't understand this whole deal about prices being constant.

What if another corporation builds afactory in an EPZ and pays 50% more and attracts all the labor? Can they do that?

If not, then who grants the EPZ a monopoly over trade there?

The labour market is such that there is no need to compete for labour. For every person you hire, there's ten more that are starving. There is no competition for labour.

They don't engage in price fixing, so much as they all can pay the absolute minimum price people will still work for. Moreover, if people start asking for more, an EPZ recquires so little capital investment (all you really need is a shack near a port) that it's generally cheaper to simply move down the coast to a slightly poorer nation.

If there are 10 people starving for each worker that means there is mass UNEMPLOYMENT. A minimum wage is the LAST THING YOU WANT in this scenario. And as long as they don't use physical force to maintain monopolies, then they are within their rights.

It seems like another corporation should just go there and pay slightly more, attracting all the workers. Hmm...

If there are 10 people starving for each worker that means there is mass UNEMPLOYMENT. A minimum wage is the LAST THING YOU WANT in this scenario. And as long as they don't use physical force to maintain monopolies, then they are within their rights.

It seems like another corporation should just go there and pay slightly more, attracting all the workers. Hmm...

the last thing that you would want is a national minimum wage. Since this proposal aims at a universal minimum wage, it wouldn't discourage investors, as they would have their costs increase no matter whwere they went.

You could start a factory, pay more and attract more workers, but why would you? These people are desperate just to survive. You can easily attract all the people you need no matter what you pay them. If you can get away with paying subsitence wages, why wouldn't you? The quality and education of your workers doesn't matter, since you're only doing basic manufacturing anyways.

If there are 10 people starving for each worker that means there is mass UNEMPLOYMENT. A minimum wage is the LAST THING YOU WANT in this scenario. And as long as they don't use physical force to maintain monopolies, then they are within their rights.

It seems like another corporation should just go there and pay slightly more, attracting all the workers. Hmm...

the last thing that you would want is a national minimum wage. Since this proposal aims at a universal minimum wage, it wouldn't discourage investors, as they would have their costs increase no matter whwere they went.

You could start a factory, pay more and attract more workers, but why would you? These people are desperate just to survive. You can easily attract all the people you need no matter what you pay them. If you can get away with paying subsitence wages, why wouldn't you? The quality and education of your workers doesn't matter, since you're only doing basic manufacturing anyways.

You would pay higher wages because you have to compete with other companies. Of course if there is a labor SURPLUS that means the people are being OVERPAID as it is.

Also, how would a Universal Minimum Wage work? Each country has its own unique economy... the world isn't globalized enough to pass such broad-reaching legislation without inviting economic disaster.

stupid server

You would pay higher wages because you have to compete with other companies. Of course if there is a labor SURPLUS that means the people are being OVERPAID as it is.

Also, how would a Universal Minimum Wage work? Each country has its own unique economy... the world isn't globalized enough to pass such broad-reaching legislation without inviting economic disaster.

In a sense, there already is a labour surplus, which is why there isn't any competion. However, the employees aren't being overpaid, as if the were paid less, they would starve. No one will work for less than subsistence.

This proposal is seeking a variable minimum wage. I would imagine in RL the WB could determine the appropriate level for a nation.

While TedHughes supports the principal of a minimum wage, and have instituted one in our own country, we see no reason to force all UN member nations to adopt this system. A minimum wage set to an international standard can only result in fiscal policies that do not represent the individual circumstances of member nations.

You would pay higher wages because you have to compete with other companies. Of course if there is a labor SURPLUS that means the people are being OVERPAID as it is.

Also, how would a Universal Minimum Wage work? Each country has its own unique economy... the world isn't globalized enough to pass such broad-reaching legislation without inviting economic disaster.

In a sense, there already is a labour surplus, which is why there isn't any competion. However, the employees aren't being overpaid, as if the were paid less, they would starve. No one will work for less than subsistence.

This proposal is seeking a variable minimum wage. I would imagine in RL the WB could determine the appropriate level for a nation.

Then they should have less children. This is the Classical Growth Theory in action... I think Sub-Saharan Africa is the last place in the world that it still applies... every other country is moving to the New Growth Theory.

A minimum wage will only make things worse if there is such high unemployment. No matter what it is. Right now there is a 'natural' minimum wage, i.e. subsistence.

A year's supply of Centrum costs $40. You could afford this on 12 cents a day.

Two points here:

1) Multivitamins do not make for a nutritious diet. For one thing, they do not contain carbohydrates (which are admittedly fairly cheap, even for the very poor) or protein (which is not).
2) If you're making 80 cents a day or so, out of which you have to pay for carbohydrates, protein, clothes, and shelter, 12 cents a day is quite an awful lot of money.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

1) Multivitamins do not make for a nutritious diet. For one thing, they do not contain carbohydrates (which are admittedly fairly cheap, even for the very poor) or protein (which is not).

Read some of the new studies on carbs, buddy! The cheaper carbs, like brown rice and black bread, are actually better for you.

And you can buy protein supplements that minimize calories. Use enough of those and with any luck you can be making millions in NYC :lol: .

Also, how would a Universal Minimum Wage work? Each country has its own unique economy... the world isn't globalized enough to pass such broad-reaching legislation without inviting economic disaster.

The proposal text attempts to address this question. Minimum wage n a country is keyed to that country's median income (specifically, it is an hourly rate greater than or equal to 1/5000 of the median yearly income of the country's workers). We would not suggest that $5.25 US/hour would be an appropriate minimum wage for a struggling economy.

Again, as specifically stated in the proposal, for countries where subsistence-level work is common (which tend to have median incomes around the $1000/year mark), the proposal would set the minimum wage to 20 cents per hour. Countries with much stronger economies would be held to a higher minimum wage.

Then they should have less children. This is the Classical Growth Theory in action... I think Sub-Saharan Africa is the last place in the world that it still applies... every other country is moving to the New Growth Theory.

A minimum wage will only make things worse if there is such high unemployment. No matter what it is. Right now there is a 'natural' minimum wage, i.e. subsistence.
Obviously a minimum wage isn’t going to help producers; it’s not supposed to. However, if you create a situation where they have no choice but to pay a relative minimum wage to someone, especially a wage as reasonable as the one proposed here, I don’t see why this would be a problem.
I think for capitalism to be justified, there must be at least an opportunity for advancement. What kind of system forces you to work to just barely survive, for the rest of your life? Is this acceptable?

Then they should have less children. This is the Classical Growth Theory in action... I think Sub-Saharan Africa is the last place in the world that it still applies... every other country is moving to the New Growth Theory.

A minimum wage will only make things worse if there is such high unemployment. No matter what it is. Right now there is a 'natural' minimum wage, i.e. subsistence.
Obviously a minimum wage isn’t going to help producers; it’s not supposed to. However, if you create a situation where they have no choice but to pay a relative minimum wage to someone, especially a wage as reasonable as the one proposed here, I don’t see why this would be a problem.
I think for capitalism to be justified, there must be at least an opportunity for advancement. What kind of system forces you to work to just barely survive, for the rest of your life? Is this acceptable?

If many people are still unemployed, it follows that corps can't afford to hire them (remember trasnportation costs, etc.) If it were profitable, more of them would be hired. Raising their wages isn't gonna decrease their unemployment.

Also, how would a Universal Minimum Wage work? Each country has its own unique economy... the world isn't globalized enough to pass such broad-reaching legislation without inviting economic disaster.

The proposal text attempts to address this question. Minimum wage n a country is keyed to that country's median income (specifically, it is an hourly rate greater than or equal to 1/5000 of the median yearly income of the country's workers). We would not suggest that $5.25 US/hour would be an appropriate minimum wage for a struggling economy.

Again, as specifically stated in the proposal, for countries where subsistence-level work is common (which tend to have median incomes around the $1000/year mark), the proposal would set the minimum wage to 20 cents per hour. Countries with much stronger economies would be held to a higher minimum wage.

There is no valid reason to impose ANY sort of restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Thus, this bill (and, by association, its creator and supporters) is an amoral piece of asswipe.

This might be true in a situation of mobile labour and immobile capital. In a third world country, however, capital is mobile and labour is not, forcing labour to take ridiculously small wages to stave off starvation. In some ways, you could consider this a coerced agreement- work for pennies or starve isn't really a choice, is it?

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

There is no valid reason to impose ANY sort of restrictions on the agreements employers and employees may enter into. Thus, this bill (and, by association, its creator and supporters) is an amoral piece of asswipe.

This might be true in a situation of mobile labour and immobile capital. In a third world country, however, capital is mobile and labour is not, forcing labour to take ridiculously small wages to stave off starvation. In some ways, you could consider this a coerced agreement- work for pennies or starve isn't really a choice, is it?

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

It's the same situation you were arguing yesterday in terms of leaving society if you don't want to pay tax- these people have a choice, but it's a choice between barely surviving and death. If this is a choice, then so is the choice between paying tax or refusing and being prosecuted.

Moreover, often people in these nations have no rights anyways- kind of ironic that foreign MNCs have more rights than individual citizens within their own nations.

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

It's the same situation you were arguing yesterday in terms of leaving society if you don't want to pay tax- these people have a choice, but it's a choice between barely surviving and death. If this is a choice, then so is the choice between paying tax or refusing and being prosecuted.

Moreover, often people in these nations have no rights anyways- kind of ironic that foreign MNCs have more rights than individual citizens within their own nations.

The third world right now doesn't have any rights. They have to get richer before they can afford to think about human rights. This isn't being cynical, this is how the world works.

Being poor and without rights will breed lots of ironies. Like how the Libertarian Cato Institute is the only American think tank that is guarenteed free speech privileges in distinctly non-libertarian China.

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

It's the same situation you were arguing yesterday in terms of leaving society if you don't want to pay tax- these people have a choice, but it's a choice between barely surviving and death. If this is a choice, then so is the choice between paying tax or refusing and being prosecuted.

No, it's not.

If I have a choice between barely surviving and death, then no matter which option I choose I will not have something that is mine taken away from me by someone else. That's not true if my choice is between paying taxes or going to jail.

1) Multivitamins do not make for a nutritious diet. For one thing, they do not contain carbohydrates (which are admittedly fairly cheap, even for the very poor) or protein (which is not).

Read some of the new studies on carbs, buddy! The cheaper carbs, like brown rice and black bread, are actually better for you.


Indeed, as stated the problem is not primarily the carbohydrates (although even cheap carbohydrates can add up when combined with other expenses) but proteins. Although the human body can synthesize *some* amino acids, you need a wider range of source materials than black bread and brown rice to survive.

And you can buy protein supplements that minimize calories. Use enough of those and with any luck you can be making millions in NYC :lol: .

You certainly can...although if you're taking these supplements, you're well out of the 12 cent a day range, of course.

We in Gurthark agree that, in an ideal world, it might be an excellent idea to put the world's poorest workers on the diet, exercise, and supplement plan offered by a typical gym or health spa. However, we do not believe such a proposal would gain widespread backing at this time. :wink:

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

The third world right now doesn't have any rights. They have to get richer before they can afford to think about human rights. This isn't being cynical, this is how the world works.


Surely this is an exaggeration. While there are some things wealthy societies can and should guarantee their members (like access to higher education) that poor countries simply cannot, there are some basic rights (due process, freedom from religious persecution, and so forth) that even extremely poor countries owe their citizens.

The Variable Minimum Wage proposal attempts to address both sides of this duality. While undeveloped and developing countries cannot afford to guarantee their workers the standard of living enjoyed by even the poorest members of wealthy societies, they can guarantee them *something* approaching a living wage, without further damaging their economies.

Gurthark, what does: "Omnes Pro Unum; Unus Pro Omnium" mean?

Gurthark, what does: "Omnes Pro Unum; Unus Pro Omnium" mean?

I think it's "All for one; one for all", though there is traditionally an "and" in betwee.... Omnes pro unum et unus pro omnium :).

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

Great, and now you understand him completely. Quite a character, that guy.

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

Great, and now you understand him completely. Quite a character, that guy.

Is that sarcastic or serious? I'm a tad confused.

Gurthark, what does: "Omnes Pro Unum; Unus Pro Omnium" mean?

I think it's "All for one; one for all", though there is traditionally an "and" in betwee.... Omnes pro unum et unus pro omnium :).

That is correct. The Community of Gurthark strives to be a community in the truest sense of the word: A place where each individual cares for the welfare of the society, and the society supports the needs of each individual. Our motto represents this.

[OOC: It also represents my complete lack of Latin training; this was cobbled together using a couple of online dictionaries and Latin grammar lesson plans. If anyone knows for a fact that it's ungrammatical, please send me a telegram and I'll fix it.]

Of course, in practice, we realize that we can acheive at best an approximation of this ideal. This is why, for example, we have not completely abandoned a capitalist economic system: Many people will do better work for the society if they have *some* profit motive to do so. Similarly, we have a police force, although we've been able to control crime exceptionally well without the use of lethal weapons.

We do feel that we have acheived a reasonably good approximation, and we're constantly striving to improve it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

A quote about Ithuania: "movies and computer games are strictly censored for violence, and the tenet of free speech is held dear".

How does that work then?

Gurthark, what does: "Omnes Pro Unum; Unus Pro Omnium" mean?

I think it's "All for one; one for all", though there is traditionally an "and" in betwee.... Omnes pro unum et unus pro omnium :).

That is correct. The Community of Gurthark strives to be a community in the truest sense of the word: A place where each individual cares for the welfare of the society, and the society supports the needs of each individual.

[OOC: It also represents my complete lack of Latin training; this was cobbled together using a couple of online dictionaries and Latin grammar lesson plans. If anyone knows for a fact that it's ungrammatical, please send me a telegram and I'll fix it.]

Of course, in practice, we realize that we can acheive at best an approximation of this ideal. This is why, for example, we have not completely abandoned a capitalist economic system: Many people will do better work for the society if they have *some* profit motive to do so. Similarly, we have a police force, although we've been able to control crime exceptionally well without the use of lethal weapons.

We do feel that we have acheived a reasonably good approximation, and we're constantly striving to improve it.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

That's some pretty damn cool philosophy you have there!

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

Great, and now you understand him completely. Quite a character, that guy.

On a side note, I love that you have a black market in Information Technology. I have this great image of software engineers -- al la Dilbert -- touting their wears on the street.

Contents: Official Outsider Communication

###########Begin###############

Greetings to all Outsiders:

This great nation, brought forth by the Great One to enlighten human beings from their weaknesses, The Theocracy of Hewhocaresnot, supports Variable Minimum Wage Proposal. Our Ministry of Commerce has always supported fair and equitable wages for all our great citizens.

Our citizens, during the education process of 2 to 14 years old, get tested frequently by our Ministry of Education. By the time our citizens graduate from schooling at 14 years of age, The Ministry of Defense puts them in a military slot for the next mandatory 6 years. At age 20 the Ministry of Commerce, assigns them their lifetime occupation slot. Then they work until the retirement age of 85. At 85, they are no longer required to work and live in their respective glorious surroundings in there habitation block.

We do not have wage discrimination in our society, because we take care of our citizens from the cradle to the grave. We have eliminated social injustices by choosing everything for them. Our citizens have many hours of free time to pursue their own scheduled 4 hour recreation time block, as determined by our Ministry of Public Welfare.

The wage system has been predetermined by our Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Commerce. Starting at age 25, and for every subsequent 5-years until the age of 80, every citizen recieves a 5% wage increase. Every occupation starts at a different pay-scale. For example at the low end, "Menial Labor" at age 20 earns the equivalent of US$10,000 annually, at age 25 US$10,500, and so on. In the mid-range is the "Skilled Civil Servant" category of US$25,000 at age 20. On the high end, "Cardinal of the Church" $112,350 at age 45. You must take into account that these numbers are before state mandatory deductions for Housing, Food, transportion, Medicine, Civil Protection, etc. Which amounts to approximatly 80-85% of this income. The remaining 15-20% may be spent by the citizen at their free-will, most purchase luxury items such as black & white TVs, AM radios, tobacco, alcohol, and chocolate. At age 85 citizens recieve as take-home pay of 7.5% as retirement income, of course you have to remember that we supply at no cost to these aged citizens their basic habitate, food, clothing, recreation, education, and entertainment.

Respectfully yours by the Great Church of Hewhocaresnot,

Cardinal Nathaniel West
Ministry of Outsider Relations

##############End#######################

This communication has been approved by the Internal Political Ministry of the Church of Hewhocaresnot, & the Office of Grand Bishop Drahcir Rekcaw.

We do not have wage discrimination in our society, because we take care of our citizens from the cradle to the grave. We have eliminated social injustices by choosing everything for them. Our citizens have many hours of free time to pursue their own scheduled 4 hour recreation time block, as determined by our Ministry of Public Welfare.

The wage system has been predetermined by our Ministry of Finance & Ministry of Commerce. Starting at age 25, and for every subsequent 5-years until the age of 80, every citizen recieves a 5% wage increase. Every occupation starts at a different pay-scale. For example at the low end, "Menial Labor" at age 20 earns the equivalent of US$10,000 annually, at age 25 US$10,500, and so on. In the mid-range is the "Skilled Civil Servant" category of US$25,000 at age 20. On the high end, "Cardinal of the Church" $112,350 at age 45. You must take into account that these numbers are before state mandatory deductions for Housing, Food, transportion, Medicine, Civil Protection, etc. Which amounts to approximatly 80-85% of this income.


While we in Gurthark believe that a just nation must allow its citizenry more self-determination than this would seem to, and while we think your economy could benefit from some form of merit increase available to those who show late-blooming potential, the current legislation has no bearing on these issues, so we would like to consider your economy as a test case.

Probably, as stated, your pay scale will have to be changes slightly to comply with the new IMVW, if it passes. Let us suppose that your country has, on average, a 40-hour workweek (which we feel is appropriate for a country so evidently wealthy) and that $25,000 represents your median wage. Then the minimum wage this law would require for your country is $5/hour, and the minimum yearly salary would be $10,400. Therefore, your poorest workers would be due a 4% raise.

Of course, these are speculations: Is "Skilled Civil Servant" the median-paying job, or is $25,000 the median salarty for the entire population? If $25,000 is your median wage for 20-year olds (rather than for the entire population), then your poorest workers would be due a more substantial wage increase. Assuming your median worker is a civil servant at 40 (who therefore makes $28,940), you would need to offer a minimum wage of $5.79, or (again assuming a 40-hour workweek) a minimum salary of $12,043, which would be a substantial (20%) raise for your poorest workers. Of course, if you have a median income of almost $30,000, you are already an extremely rich country by almost any standards.

Note that your tax rates have no bearing on this one way or the other. We are calculating gross wages, using gross incomes.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

A quote about Ithuania: "movies and computer games are strictly censored for violence, and the tenet of free speech is held dear".

How does that work then?

The first part of that sentence isn't true...I don't know what I did to get it put there, but it doesn't actually happen.

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

A quote about Ithuania: "movies and computer games are strictly censored for violence, and the tenet of free speech is held dear".

How does that work then?

The first part of that sentence isn't true...I don't know what I did to get it put there, but it doesn't actually happen.

On the gun control bill if you choose the third options by the NRA guy that happens. I just dismiss it.

You might have accidentally clicked it... once I accidentally clicked to ban Harry Potter when I meant to click the other one...

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

That's certainly not the case- rights can be suspended and alienated by governments- ie. prison.

Alas, with only a few hours left and only 20 endorsements, this proposal seems almost certain to expire before reaching quorum. We may resubmit it at some future date, after further consultation with our government, our people, and our allies. We welcome suggestions for an amended version from all those who support the basic spirit of this proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

That's certainly not the case- rights can be suspended and alienated by governments- ie. prison.

If you commit a crime, you VOLUNTARILY give up your rights. There's a difference.

Alas, with only a few hours left and only 20 endorsements, this proposal seems almost certain to expire before reaching quorum. We may resubmit it at some future date, after further consultation with our government, our people, and our allies. We welcome suggestions for an amended version from all those who support the basic spirit of this proposal.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark

The Most Serene Republic of Moderate Anarchists regrets that it cannot support the proposal by the Community of Gurthark at this time.

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

That's certainly not the case- rights can be suspended and alienated by governments- ie. prison.

If you commit a crime, you VOLUNTARILY give up your rights. There's a difference.

That must be why there are so many criminals queuing up to give themselves in and face a jail term then.

So because someone else decides that he wants to live, my rights are violated in order to take care of him? That's hardly just, or fair, or ethical.

Unless I get to decide whether someone else lives or dies, don't violate my rights to provide for his living.

So, you're worried more about the abstract philosophical concept of 'rights' than you are about people actually dying needlessly? Wow, that's just lovely.

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

Fine then. I'll live in my world where people don't die needlessly, and you live in your world where you have the right to allow people to die needlessly. Just don't ever come to my world, and I'll make sure I never stray into yours.

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

That's certainly not the case- rights can be suspended and alienated by governments- ie. prison.

If you commit a crime, you VOLUNTARILY give up your rights. There's a difference.

If paying taxes isn't consensual, how can you say going to jail is? I don't WANT to be imprisoned- thus my right to free movement has been denied= I don't WANT to pay taxes- thus my property rights have been denied.

Individual rights are sovereign, supreme, and subordinate to nothing.

That's certainly not the case- rights can be suspended and alienated by governments- ie. prison.

If you commit a crime, you VOLUNTARILY give up your rights. There's a difference.

If paying taxes isn't consensual, how can you say going to jail is? I don't WANT to be imprisoned- thus my right to free movement has been denied= I don't WANT to pay taxes- thus my property rights have been denied.

If you commit a crime you've violated someone else's rights, therefore you forefit your own.

People who pay taxes have committed no crime. However a state IS justified in FINING someone for an offense they have committed.

If you commit a crime you've violated someone else's rights, therefore you forefit your own.

People who pay taxes have committed no crime. However a state IS justified in FINING someone for an offense they have committed.

Your argument assumes that we have an inherent right to property, which I don't agree with. Private property is clearly a social construction, so whether property is a right an in what sense it is a right must be determined by society. Thus if society decides taxes do not violate your right to property, they don't, ipso facto.

If you commit a crime you've violated someone else's rights, therefore you forefit your own.

People who pay taxes have committed no crime. However a state IS justified in FINING someone for an offense they have committed.

Your argument assumes that we have an inherent right to property, which I don't agree with.
Then you are wrong.
Private property is clearly a social construction,
Obviously not.

Then you are wrong.

That was well argued...
:roll:
Private property is clearly a social construction,
Obviously not.[/quote]

Then how do you explain social groups without concepts of private property (i.e. certain native American tribes, certain fundementalist sects). If different groups have different ideas of property, then, as a tautology, property is a construction.