NationStates Jolt Archive

Believing that the betterment of the quality of life around the world is the primary goal of all nations in this governing body, and,

Knowing that wage rates are directly relational to the quality of life, and,

Believing that equal value merits equal pay, and,

Assured that nationality, race, gender, and religion have absolutely no bearing on value, all the while,

Observing continued labor abuse across the globe,

The Republic of Turd Furguson puts forth this resolution for approval:

1.A standard wage rate will be set by an appointed labor rights committee.

2.UN nations not performing at this standard shall have a pro-rated tariff placed on all exports based upon their wage level.

3.UN nations performing at this standard shall engage in trade without involvement of the UN.

4.UN nations trading with non-member nations who do not perform at par will have a tariff placed upon all imports originating from said country.

I know it is long and not as dynamic as moral issues like abortion and capital punishment, but I think it might be a good idea.

By "standard wage rate", do you mean that all wages for everyone will be equal (in which case even I am not left-wing enough to support this)? Or is it a minimum wage, in which case you should call it that.

Also, a standard wage or minimum wage may not work worldwide because things are cheaper in some places than others.

I thought we already had some minimum wage legislation?

In my proposal I stated that wages will be set with consideration of GNP and efficient labor in mind.
I meant that each country will have a rate given to them based on these measures.
The GNP and efficient labor should help account for price level differences.
As for minimum wage, I don't feel it should apply to minimum wage alone, I believe it should apply to the economy as a whole.
If this supercedes any previous resolutions, I am sorry, I am new.

wouldn't this cause run away inflation?

I'm not sure how it would cause runaway inflation.
Explain.

In my proposal I stated that wages will be set with consideration of GNP and efficient labor in mind.

Where?

As for minimum wage, I don't feel it should apply to minimum wage alone, I believe it should apply to the economy as a whole.

What do you mean? How can one standard wage rate (the proposal says the committee sets "a standard wage rate" not "standard wage rates") be applied to the whole economy unless you're proposing that everyone be paid the same?

This is all extremely vague.

If (as it seems) you're proposing a flat wage rate across the board, I'll warn you that even in my ultra-pinko region there are very few nations that adopt this - and most of those are non-monetary economies.

I am sorry, it was my intention to put GNP and Efficient Labor in there, i must have omitted it by mistake. I will need to amend my proposal.

I mean by standard wage rate an average across the board, a wage rate does not have to be separated into individual positions, just like a team batting average doesn't equal a single player's average.

And my apologies for being vague, I can see no way that I could post all facets of this resolution into the resolution with any sort of brevity and with my limited economic knowledge.

2.UN nations not performing at this standard shall have a pro-rated tariff placed on all exports based upon their wage level.

Who will establish these tariffs?

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
[UN Nation: Terminated California]
Founder, Democratic Underground region

So you want all nations to have at least certain average wage? That seems like a particularly bad idea to me. First, it doesn't ensure that the "betterment of the quality of life" is enjoyed by everyone, because dictating a high average does not necessarily mean that those at the bottom of the pile are paid well. Second, if a nation's average wage was £100 too little, where is the money going to come from to pay each person an extra £100? This will only punish poor nations.

Knowing that wage rates are directly relational to the quality of life,

Um, not necessarily. The Abbatine Sufis, a cult of solitary mystics scattered around Rehochipe's wildernesses, own no possessions apart from those essential to their survival, and are generally regarded as being among the happiest people in the nation. By contrast, a highly-waged stockbroker working 16-hour days seven days a week would have a rather low quality of life.

Studies taken in the West over the past few decades have indicated that while GDP per capita has increased significantly, happiness has shown, if anything, a decline. 'Quality of life' is a very intangible quality.

That is a good point about the bottom percentage still might not be paid well, so maybe a minimum wage could be added?
As for poor countries that is addressed with efficient labor. Efficient labor is a economic coefficient that helps economists account for the education and technological abilities of a labor force, third world countries that have much lower pay scales due to lack of upper level jobs and less education would benefit under my plan through the measurement of efficient labor.
As for the Abbatine Sufis, I am sure that they have very poor health coverage, live in squalor, and do not have access to many anemnities other citizens might. While they may be happy, their quality of life is most certainly very low.

If you want your resolution to go to vote I suggest that you make it bland and boring because it seems that is the only thing that is getting passed through. :?

Thank you if you are saying my resolution is not bland or boring.
There are too many details to be worked out in the limited detail provided by this simulation, unfortunately. But I am new to this and have definitely been grateful to nationstates for providing this forum for me to discuss my ideas.

It's an interesting idea, however, I feel that the conservative portion of this site may disagree with the idea because it looks a wee bit communist. You may wan't to make it more clear that it is based on INDIVIDUAL accomplishment/efficiency, and then you would probably get more conservative votes (they hate lazy people) but, then might lose some liberal votes (they think no one is better than the other). It's dificult to take a true bipartisan view on this subject, but as an independent (middle-man), it looks kinnda cool. If it were based on Individual efficiency, I would most likely vote for it.
Good luck