NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently, I put up a new resolution and I hope it doesnt die out fast.

soooo.... http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal/start=100 .....check it out. voting ends jan 4. Happy disscusion. :)

Link to proposal: http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Global%20Min%20Wage%20and%20Profit%20Mar

Global Min Wage and Profit Mar

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

Proposed by: Nhillos


Description: As I see the many resolutions of the past, most, if not, all are focused on moral and (heaven forbid) practical ideas. Another common thing among these resolutions is that they all cost the governments money. Seldom is this money ever given back in any form, so i beleive a new type of resolution is in order.
--
This resolutionhas two parts. One part creates a global minimum wage, while the other part sets a profit margin standard for industries.

======

PART 1
-Estimate minimum wage established.
-I estimate 2-3 US dollars per hour.
-Reducing wages of employees down to new minimum wage is not manditory.
-Increasing wages to meet new standard is madatory.

===

Now you may wonder, "well, what is preventing the companies from just makeing HUGE profits?"

===

PART 2
-All non-government companies are to report finacial reports to anyone who requests it.
-Pofit margins for all companies must not exceed 2%.
-ANY underspending that creates surpluses greater than 2% must be given (and lodged in financial report) to employees proportionally.

===

I believe there will be two great results from this resolution. One, incentive for oversea job shipping will virtually dissappear. And two, poorer countries will have better paid workforces and therefor, more tax money.



Voting Ends: Sun Jan 4 2004

I just want to know where the cleaver comes in... does every household get one? Do we all get to chop meat with added efficiency? What gives?

Profit margen 2%, rest should be given to employers. Grump....that destroys the entire capitalist idea. Well actually not the capitalist idea, but a fundamental part of the economics of the market. Sort of like, do something good with your money....but not TOO good :P.

Actually I would rather have that there be found some ways that employers get paid in shares of the company or for a good part based on the same amount the shareholders get in intrest. That would be a good motivator. And it would also make you feel responsable for the company. Because it feels a little bit like your own business, or your own team.

It sort of combines the idea that the workers are part of the company, and not people to be exploited. This to please the commies. But at the same time it can please the capitalist. We all know that your own business is a hell of a motivator to work hard and efficient. And if you get paid by performance, even if it is performance of a large team, you are still motivated to do your best to make that team work as well as you can.

The only thing that is a bit worring for the lefties might be that there is a possibility of a business not making profit at which point the workers would starve to death. That is something the capitalists haven't really dealt with (nice way of pointing it out to them). On the left scale of the specterum however nice safty nets are built in. I understand that the capitalist theory builded a bit on the idea that people that don't make it die out, but I do want to note that it was focussed on higher infancy deaths. Dying adults kinda tend to start very undesirable riots.

I do not like the last 2 provisions in Part 2 of this resolution proposal. Companies should be able to make as much profit as possible without it being taken away, limiting this distorts incentive and thus lowers efficiency. Profits that would be given to the government, could be used for research and development, enabling efficiency and progress or be given to employees for raises, or just be spent improve the economy.

There is also the possibility of raising government corruption with money being taken away.

Furthermore, with lower profits, employers will be less likely to give their employees raises, which somewhat contradicts the purpose of this proposal.

Minimum wages are fine, everyone should have enough to survive and perhaps purchase some luxury items.

We will not approve this proposal and will vote against it if it reaches the floor. If it passes, we will resign from the UN.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

While we sympathize with the impulse behind this proposal, it seems impractical.

Where are the incentives for investment and development? Within limits, such things are socially useful.

2% is also a low rate of return; such a low rate would encourage cost cutting and possibly reduce the wage rate; li could reduce overall employment. Because there would be little cusion for emergencies, bankruptcies and economic dislocation would increase.

I've never thought minimum wage should be set globally. There are just too many factors in what the "living wage" is, and never mind that all of the MW proposals we see in NationStates all reference an imaginary currency and are made without much in the way of research.

The living wage changes from one city to the next. It changes from one county to the next. How can anyone expect to even attempt to define a proper living wage for entire United Nations? Do you really believe that the price of goods and services never changes with region, culture, or time?

Another economically destructive purposal, you need money to make money and a country's economics are based on how much money people have this in turn is derived from the money major corperations have. If corperations don't have money they can't grow thus there is no incentive to hire, thus people have less money, and with the other side, if the people have less money they can't buy goods and services from the corperations. The simple fact is you limit how much money a corperation can make and you cause a major economic downturn. Thats the last thing everyone needs.

Another economically destructive purposal, you need money to make money and a country's economics are based on how much money people have this in turn is derived from the money major corperations have. If corperations don't have money they can't grow thus there is no incentive to hire, thus people have less money, and with the other side, if the people have less money they can't buy goods and services from the corperations. The simple fact is you limit how much money a corperation can make and you cause a major economic downturn. Thats the last thing everyone needs.

Actually you don't need money to make money, where did the first coin come from ;).