NationStates Jolt Archive

International Maximum Wage

In many parts of the world, the richest few percent of the population controls the more wealth than the other ninety-five percent. This divide between the rich and poor is even greater is only parts of the world.

In order to promote social justice, corporate executives, board members, and other high-income jobs will be allowed to pay no more than ten times the lowest paid worker in said corporation. For example, if a cashier in a restaurant is paid a wage of ten thousand monetary units(MUs) a year, the highest paid employee can earn no more than one hundred thousand MUs per year.

Temporary and contracted employees are included in this calculation, as are foreign workers. All employment benefits are added to a person's earnings. Public sector employees and elected officials are also included.

UN Delegates; endorse this proposal! Help reduce the growing gap between the rich and the poor!

If you like this proposal and you aren't a delegate, write to yours. Then write to anyone you think might be interested.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

Edit: We're up and running again! Look it up and endorse it! Tell everyone! Voting ends on Thursday, and we must have more votes than the last time, which means thirty-five or more.

Good proposal, I endorsed it.

Eh, if someone is unskilled enough to be something like a cashier or a janitor, why do they deserve money they aren't earning?

[/extreme capitalism], nonetheless, I don't think I'll approve this one.

Our committee eagerly approves and endorses this resolution.

Its insane. If somebody flunks out of school and works as a janitor, and can only earn 1000 a month, then its their fault. You shouldn't punish the people who work enough to earn a good salery.

While I can see where the motivation for this proposal comes from I can't see its basis in any kind of reality. Who's to say what the maximum wage would be, isn't that decision itself subject to prejudice? Who's to enforce it? Isn't that also subject to prejudice? Is the time of the United Nations to be wasted peering in the financial records of private businesses? Or do countries themselves have to regulate themselves. If that is the case, then what will other countries do if said country doesnt respect the maximum wage? Are we to go to war with each other over who gets paid what in other countries? I'm not attacking anyone on this, I just don't think the world community with all its wars and international incidents can devote time to checking financial records.

Yours with respect,
Nigel Rightly
Prime Minister of Vendi

Thanks for Xerxes and Ozalia for your support, please spread the word. If we can get this to resolution status, I'll be impressed, as it's pretty socialistic.

Let me address Vendi's issues. First, the maximum wage is specified in the text of the resolution as ten times the wages of the lowest paid worker in an organization. Obviously, this doesn't include volunteers, but does include workers in other countries.

So who regulates this? As with any other UN resolution, it remains up to the country in question whether they willingly follow international law or not. The UN has yet to go to war to enforce any of its resolutions, and I don't expect that it will begin with this one.

Now, doesn't that essentially make this resolution symbolic? No. There are some nations who will follow it, but symbolic aspect shouldn't be ignored either. It would be a strong statement about which direction the world community wishes to take, and as such would open the way for additional resolutions, and put pressure on nations to bring overpaid executives to task.

The remaining concern is not so easy to address, as I must say that it is simple logic and compassion has always guided social welfare in Ienotheisa. However, you might note that this proposal does not require the raising of anyone's wages. It in fact lowers the wages of the highest paid employees.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

May I ask who you think you are to propose enforcing a communistic ideal upon those of whose don't like it?

UN Resolutions should not overstep the Country's right to decide what is best for it's economy and itself. This would almost seem like an attempt to take away a Countries power and give it to the UN.

I agree with rightwing

I would think by now people would realize communism just doesnt work...well maybe it works in this game, I dont know, i havent played long enough.

But think about it, What it the motivation to work hard if the government whether indivudual government or the international government limits how much we can achieve for our effort. what will be the inspiration to do better? Why go to school to be a doctor if we cant earn very much more than the janitor. it just makes no sense.

Its much like taxes. you increase taxes you smother the peoples incentive to work. Which is why i think its kinda funny to see so many nations with a 100% tax rate. In reality if the government taxed 100% of everyone income the government coffers would be empty because no one would feel the need to work, because they wouldnt get any money for it. Its also why decreasing taxes and allowing people to keep more of their money strengthens the economy. People have more incentive to work harder thus pushing the economy to stronger heights.

We do not support this proposal. We believe that, as long as everyone in the nation receives enough money to support themselves and their family, they should be allowed to make as much money as they want, as long as they deserve it.

We do not support this proposal. We believe that, as long as everyone in the nation receives enough money to support themselves and their family, they should be allowed to make as much money as they want, as long as they deserve it.


I FULLY AGREE WITH THIS!!!!

You can not run a free market economy where no greater reward can be offered to companies or individuals who perform well.

I don’t like the idea. Especially when Temporary workers are figured into things. Maybe the people who get paid more actually do more work, or more valuable work. And I would like to know what ‘parts of the world, the richest few percent of the population controls the more wealth than the other ninety-five percent’ before taking any action to stop it.


Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

We not only find this proposal distasteful, but it contradicts the very nature of the Articles of Confederacy upon which Mattikistan is based. If this proposal somehow goes to the voting stage, we will be shocked. If the yays outweigh the nays and this becomes a resolution, Mattikistan will not be able to support the United Nations anymore and will have to withdraw.

Minister for Foreign Affairs
The Confederacy of Mattikistan

I don’t like the idea. Especially when Temporary workers are figured into things. Maybe the people who get paid more actually do more work, or more valuable work. And I would like to know what ‘parts of the world, the richest few percent of the population controls the more wealth than the other ninety-five percent’ before taking any action to stop it.

Exactly. This resolution would not give people the incentive to work, because without rewards what is the point of working harder?

We find the idea behind this proposal understandable, but the execution flawed. Plus, there are thigns to consider. If someone fails to amass large sums of money, then they could not privately fund something on their' own accord. As such, abuse of company resources may rise as a result. Plus, some people deserve to live cheap lives, those whom drop out of school namely. While such a proposal would work in favor of people who are forced into financial dependence (such as immigrants), there are other ways to tackle that issue, ways that do not have the downsides brought upon by this proposal.

The Republic of Aethersonia Rejects this legislation.

You can not run a free market economy where no greater reward can be offered to companies or individuals who perform well.

That is not what this resolution is doing. But it is requiring that if a company is succesfull it has to share the success with all of its employees, not just the leaders. You can get payed whatever you want, you just have to give all your employees a better sallary if you want a better one.

You can get payed whatever you want, you just have to give all your employees a better sallary if you want a better one.

Precisely.

For the rest of you, I don't see why a foolish mistake during one of the most foolish years of any person's life should consign them to the gutter. As the resources exist to lift all people to a decent standard of living, there is no reason any person should be forced to live in poverty--even if they end up working as janitors.

I should state that janitorial work is hard--I've done it. Even though I hold the highest elected office in the Free Common Nation of Ienotheisa, Foreign Relations Representative, I wouldn't go back to cleaning toilets for anything. It's difficult, dirty work, and we should appreciate those who do it enough to pay them a decent wage, even if anyone could do it.

Under a reasonable economic model, this proposal will actually improve the GDP of all nations, because people with less money are more likely to spend if more become available.

Furthermore, this proposal has the added benefit of putting more money into the economies of under-industrialized countries. 'A rising tide lifts all boats'? This proposal really will raise the tide.

RightWing Conspirators should recognize that a world government is almost inevitable, as the world become closer together through new technologies and greater cultural exchange. The binding together of small governments into larger ones is a concept that has dominated history. Sometimes, they break apart, but only because of what is known as, 'the tyranny of the majority.' If you're worried about giving up some of your nation's sacred rights, you shouldn't be in the UN.

This really isn't a communist proposal. It merely gives economic justice to those who most rarely have a voice. If you want to debate the merits of communism, kindly do it elsewhere.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

Introducing a maximum wage is like trying to put a cap on supply and demand... Seriously? Some work just is more valuable than other work, and workers should be paid accordingly. Minimum wage does a similar thing--overvaluing work that might not even merit five bucks an hour. Good or bad, minimum wage creates inflation.

Naturally, there are situations where people are being paid too little or way too much--but imposing massive inflation upon people or devaluing their work is not the way to take revenge on those who abuse the ability to set salaries.

Introducing a maximum wage would only weaken fields which pay well because less and less people would want to work their for the good salaries in the budding industry. New technology would be crippled by their janitors not making as much as their rocket scientists. Not introducing a maximum wage would strengthen fields which pay well and slowly bring high salaries down to standard, middle-class incomes; it would also reward education and help make our technology more friendly to the environment.

While the Holy Empire of the Flying Jesusfish respects this idea in theory as a way to restrict excessive corporate salaries and to encourage the connection between good employee compensation and business success, we feel that this proposition would in fact stifle economic growth.

This resolution fails to consider the differences between owner and worker. It fails entirely to address income earned through stock rather than set salaries. To avoid tremendous loopholes, stock would have to be included in this calculation, but how can a company tell precisely what the stock is worth? Its value fluctuates. Capitalist economies also encourage diversified holdings, so how can these be counted? But since every company in one's portfolio is seperate, the owner could reap the maximum wage from every holding. As this approach became more common, it would entirely undermine this proposal, making it just another piece of useless red tape.

Another concern would be with investment itself. With narrowed differences between compensation, how are people to obtain enough money to invest in a new business? If one does start a business, why should they be compensated as a mere management employee, ignoring the expenses they put into beginning the business and must recoup (while the janitors invested nothing)?

And what about high risk ventures? High risk, high reward. If the business is successful, the investors expect substantial rewards. The investors take huge risks, but the risks do not extend to regular wage employees. If the gamble pays off, why should the investors, who are entitled to a high payoff, have to give their payoff up to the bottom employees? This would clearly stifle the innovation and investment that are essential to any economy.

The Confederate Domains of Leynier refuses to even consider such a quasi-communist proposal. Furthermore we vow to openly defy it if passed by way of "merit bonuses" and any other loophole available. Such a clear intrusion into a nation's sovereignity must be opposed at all costs.

I think it would be much fairer to raise the minimum wage or to implement living wage legislation than to implement a maximum. Look at it this way, people at the top of the payroll don't need the money as much as people at the bottom. Not wanting to pay the workers more, they can just take a pay cut. "Big deal, I'm rich."

Also, ten times is very unrealistic, in most developed countries the gap is about 40 or 50 times, in the USA it's about 75 times.

Professional footballers/basketballers or whatever get paid rediculous sums of money, and they are employees. Does this mean that the owners of the clubs get to pay themselves 10x this wage? Nobody needs this much money to live on. Having said that, this is a propsal that we will vote for

Stock options were included in the proposal, and will of course be counted at the time they are received, based upon their market price.

Multiple jobs must be counted toward a single maximum, to prevent CEOs from hiring their friends at the company maximum and thereby evading the spirit of the law. This isn't included in this proposal, and as such merely represents the spirit and not letter of the law.

Also, a quick calculation of minimum wage pay in the US of 5.15 an hour, calculated out for a year, comes just short of ten thousand--not, I'm sure you agree, a living wage. An executive with an income of one million is actually earning one hundred times this; under this proposal, the most they could make is an effective wage of 51.5 an hour, or a hundred thousand a year. I don't know minimum wage laws in Europe, but let's not misrepresent the one I do.

Of course, the resolution doesn't make an exception for overseas workers. So let's take fifteen cents an hour, the amount liberals like to claim third-world workers are earning from multinational corporations. And a twelve hour a day, seven day work week. The same simple calculation gives me 604.8 dollars per month. You can calculate for yourself what ten times that is.

So executives will not merely cut their own wages. The money has to go somewhere--and it can either go into investment or wages. They can either expand the company, and therefor hire more people, or they increase the wages of those they already employ.

Besides, under labor economics, increasing wages will not increase the cost of the end product, but take away from the profit; under typical capitalist economic systems, reducing the wages of the executives should actually reduce the cost of the product.

What most capitalists fail to understand is that someone will always be willing to run a company for fifty thousand a year, and do as good or better than someone paid millions of dollars, with no real stake in the success of the company.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

Professional footballers/basketballers or whatever get paid rediculous sums of money, and they are employees. Does this mean that the owners of the clubs get to pay themselves 10x this wage?

No. Let me draw your attention to the wording;

"In order to promote social justice, corporate executives, board members, and other high-income jobs will be allowed to pay no more than ten times the lowest paid worker in said corporation... Temporary and contracted employees are included in this calculation."

There are numerous jobs within the sports industry that pay little--under the last line, the people who wash the uniforms have to be included; the people who groom the field, clean the stadium... and not only does the owner get paid ten times the lowest wage, so do the players.

Thank you for your support,
Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

I think this one was a bit socialist. I don't think there should be a limit to how much money you make via a company, but if a company's owner is reportedly embezzeling their company's funds, or if the owner is making billions a year when his workers get nothing, then I think the government should step in. The whole idea of capitalism and the corporation, I support. But I wouldn't let it get out of hand and allow a Shinra (Final Fantasy VII).

May I ask who you think you are to propose enforcing a communistic ideal upon those of whose don't like it?

UN Resolutions should not overstep the Country's right to decide what is best for it's economy and itself. This would almost seem like an attempt to take away a Countries power and give it to the UN.

I concur. No international body should legislate upon another sovereign nation such measures that would act against said nation's right to self-determination.

The leaders of Incercerated Souls strongly approve of the resolution discussed here. We would even consider to make it more strict and go national on this. In one and the same country no one should earn more than ten times the sum the least paid worker is. Actually Mestre Hence, our esteemed leader supremus maximus already had his own salary adjusted to this norm. We sincerely hope this resolution will be at vote so we can approve of it.

Yours sincerely

Billi Burroughs, secretary of State, Incarecerated Souls

What most capitalists fail to understand is that someone will always be willing to run a company for fifty thousand a year, and do as good or better than someone paid millions of dollars, with no real stake in the success of the company.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First
An engineer can make 50k straight out of college. What is there to aspire to? A couple raises and they'd be making as much as the CEO, who therefore won't give them said raises. Why would anyone study a hard, work-intensive subject like engineering when they'll be rewarded barely better than a janitor and have next to no prospects for advancement? What's to motivate them to do their best work if they do enter the field? In fact, the janitor would start off much better, because while the engineer's in college, the janitor's out earning his inflated wage.

All citizens are required to work in the Theocracy of the Gonite Inquisition. They are paid what the great God-Emperor Gone decrees that they should be paid (as interpreted by His most humble and pious Inquisition). Erego, they get paid and they like what they get paid...or else.

As such, this flagrant and outrageous attack on the sovereignity of national self rule is yet another example of the abuses that the UN has tried to force on the world.

The Theocracy of the Gonite Inquisition will not support this measure.

Guaifenasin has a tendency towards communism and likes this idea. However, we must respect our fellow UN members who still wish to give capitalism a chance. We believe it is their right to try their hand at it in their own nations, and do not wish to impose our values upon them.

We will not be supporting this proposal.

Well, only a few hours to go. If I can get a few more endorsements, I'll run it through again, and we'll see what happens. Thanks to those who have given their support to the cause of social justice--and let's not give up!

The proposal currently has thirty-one endorsements.

The Confederacy of South Puyallup condemns this communistic attempt to tie the hands of business owners and will do everything within its power to oppose this proposal.

The Democratic Republic of Meatopiaa is a free and democratic capitalist nation. Using an entity such as the United Nations for restricting how a grass-roots independant business owner conducts his business, especially the business of administrating the fruits of his/her long and hard fought labors, in all nations, is only one step removed from all businesses becoming State Owned and State Run, and the State being the United Nations. In the same vein, the government of Meatopiaa will not yield control of the business of administrating it's employees payscales and benefits.

Meatopiaa opposes this resolution with great emphasis!


...

While Tyrandis is not a member of the United Nations... Let me just put it this way:

Suppose you have a widget factory owner. Suppose the UN sets a maximum wage per hour.

Therefore, the factory owner calculates how many widgets he would need to produce to make that maximum wage. As long as that quota is fulfilled, he doesn't care about creating more.

He does not have the incentive to optimize production rates, causing inefficiency and harm to the overall corporation. He does not have the incentive to create more goods for consumers to purchase because you have capped him off. The economy as a whole suffers.

How is demanding that compensation be equal to effort wrong?

This UN Proposal is nothing but another ploy to make it a puppet of socialism, so the Reds can stuff unwanted policies down the throats of sovereign states.

I'll restart this proposal come Monday, with a few minor modifications. Thanks to the thirty-four people who endorsed it! Less than a hundred more, before the communist takeover of the UN!

Sorry for that, but some people are just so silly about stuff like this. I'll write a new proposal; Chlorophylled People! Genetically modify people to have chlorophyll in their skin, so they can produce their own food with merely a ration of dirt and water each day! Of course, they'll be a funny green color, but we'll only do it to the workers, so that they won't need to be paid as much. Yay! More Profit!

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

This resolution is severely flawed. Let's look at the numbers of a sample nation, I'll call the nation Them, because they call themselves Us and that's a pronoun so that means if they call themselves Us we should call them Them.

I'll assume full time only (because if you really consider the part time worker who only works one hour a year it becomes beyond silly) who works the legal minimum wage in the nation of Them which is 5.15 units per hour. Working for 7 hours a day, 5 days a week, and 52 weeks in a year they will earn 9,373 units in that year. This would put the maximum salary at 93,730 units per year.

Perhaps one might be better served with the following suggestions.

Instead of the "minimum salary" that a person could earn base the number on a "poverty line" or the minimum salary that a person needs to safely live on. (One could argue that the mimimum salary should be above that line, but that is a seperate resolution.)

Increase the multiplier, 25 is probably a better number. (That would place the number for the Them example at 234,325.)

As opposed to outlawing it outright, (or imposing a 100% tax which would effectively do the same thing) simply make a tax that cannot be reduced in any way, of a significant percentage ... say 50% ... which would be used to support those living below the poverty line.

Even then I am still against this because I fail to see the internaitonal aspect to this. This is still micro management of individual nations economies. Therefore I cannot support this resolution or anything similiar to it.

The Peoples Republic of Antor is strongly against this proposal. It is immoral, foolish and above all NOT RIGHT to do such things. Above all, wages are to be dealt with by each individual nation. Because people in land X earn more than people in nation Y but less than union Z. Wages depend on the overall income in an indicidual nation. Therefore, we do NOT approve this proposal. If maximum wages are approved, the Peoples Republic of Antor will be forced to join other nations in leaving the United Nations.

The Peoples Republic of Antor

I'll restart this proposal come Monday, with a few minor modifications. Thanks to the thirty-four people who endorsed it! Less than a hundred more, before the communist takeover of the UN!

Sorry for that, but some people are just so silly about stuff like this. I'll write a new proposal; Chlorophylled People! Genetically modify people to have chlorophyll in their skin, so they can produce their own food with merely a ration of dirt and water each day! Of course, they'll be a funny green color, but we'll only do it to the workers, so that they won't need to be paid as much. Yay! More Profit!

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First
The Holy Republic of the Flying Jesusfish supports this proposal and wishes you were not being sarcastic.

Leylsh will not support this proposal, for many of the reasons so tastefully mentioned by others in the above messages.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya speaks for all communist, socialist, and even remotely socialist states when I say that the idea has been long needed and should not be passed up. What the excessively wealthy do is think of an idea and capitalize it, take advantage of it, and consume all funds from the economy, or they will work a certain amount in a skilled profession, such as a doctor, and then capitalize it for PROFIT, and profits means that you are getting what you deserve for your work AND A LITTLE EXTRA, AND THAT EXTRA IS WHAT THEY TAKE FROM THE SOCIETY THE SUPPOSEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO. Although the money is eventually re-circulated into society, many workers are left in poverty because the money is mostly in the hands of such wealthy people, or the few workers hired by them.

Of course, the best thing for the working class to permanently end unemployment, poverty, social classes, and the ruling class is to have equal wages and givernment controlled enterprise, but this proposal of maximum wage is definitely a step to the communists' cause! I urge everyone to ENDORSE THIS BRILLIANT IDEA, SAVE OUR ECONOMIES AND OUR NATIONS!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

If you are a capitalist nation please leave the UN right now. Yes, Right now.

If you are a capitalist nation please leave the UN right now. Yes, Right now.

On the contrary... capitalist nations, such as the Confederacy of South Puyallup, should unite to undo the harm inflicted on the world by the scouge of Communism.

and what "harm" is this? Your freedom of enterprise isn't free. It allows the ruling class, who obviously do not deserve all the money they get for sitting around and bossing the workers. With that, the right funds are denied to the workers, which creates LESS freedom. Capitalism is basically anarchy in economy. Unemployment, poverty, and unfair wages run rampant. The goal is not to be compensated with your work, but to be compensated and take advantage of a little extra, called PROFIT. Profits dont come out of nowhere, they come from the workers who are shamefully placed at the bottom of the chain. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, all because the capitalists are too meek to set the right laws because they want to preserve free enterprise, despite the cost. Communism in its truest form has only helped the world. The regimes commonly called communist, such as Stalin, Khmer Rouge, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, they are all Stalinists. And all firm Marxists condemn the corrupt politics of Stalinism. So please take the time to learn about a subject before you critisize it. I look to all socialist nations to support me in this fight against conglomerate tyranny!

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Quite honestly I think many of you capitalists refuse this idea not necissarily because you think it is bad, but SOLELY because it is pro-socialist, you dont even consider what act socialism is actually bringing, but simply having it be called socialism naturally would disqualify it. Let's understand something, socialism is pro-democratic, pro-peace, pro-freedom, pro-workers, and anti-social classes. CONTRARY TO WHAT MANY WANT TO BELIEVE, FOR AN EXCUSE TO BASH IT, SOCIALISM IS NOT REMOTELY SIMILAR TO STALINISM. FACE THE FACTS! Refusing a good idea simply because it goes against a certain morale, which has not been proven immoral, is of itself immoral. Did any of you capitalists stop to think that maybe, just maybe, socialism would HELP if you actually kept an open, neutral mind? Honestly, how much of a joke has the UN come to? I'm ashamed to be in the midst of so many prejudice and biggoted nations. The communist nations have been very patient with this ignorance but we only have so much patience. If we take the time to learn about and respect your ideas, you must respect ours.

This is obviously a contentious issue. I get the impression that making any changes to the original proposal, such as increasing the wage limit to twenty-five times, would actually gain only a small amount of support.

I'm open to suggestions from either side, so long as they are reasonable. For example, should I increase the wage limit or not? Does it need to be more clear that I'm capping all wages, not merely those of the owner/board? As I had mentioned before, I will be restarting this proposal Monday--tomorrow. I'll start a new thread, and also mention it here.

You supporters, though, remember; the best way to get this passed is word of mouth. Tell everyone! I can't stress this enough.

The last time, we got approvals from thirty-four nations; Blackbird, Taraguy, Loyal Pawn, Drunken Butterfly, Zimbada, Xerxes855, Kanabia, Nireva, True-wisdom, Tyrendale, The Darkthrone, Nice and evil, DocMan, The Furious, Carna, Robotnika, Cataclypse, Our Most Holy Lord Om, Dalmond, Park Slope-estan, Harry Fung, Hazzalonia, Elite Socialist Order, North Western Kentucky, Priority Alpha, Conceptualists, Boohbahstahn, CGs Bar and Grill, Tramuntana, Unigon, Free Soviets, Gayorstraightia, Bebeu, Akido.

I'll be contacting all of these nations myself, with thanks, and request for them to renew their endorsement. We need less than a hundred! This is not insurmountable!

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

I know it's tempting to turn this thread into a capitalist/communist flame war. I enjoy a good debate myself. However, let's keep this down to the issue at hand, and not get bogged down in ideology.

Refusing a good idea simply because it goes against a certain morale, which has not been proven immoral, is of itself immoral.
"Proven immoral"? and who would do the proving? you? It seems to me that this post is more of a failed attempt at propaganda than an honest attempt to reach out to capitalist nations.

Typically, yelling at your enemies is not the best way to turn them into your friends.

I personally oppose this proposal because it asserts socialist, psuedo-communist ideals upon the whole of the UN. What would you say if capitalist nations forced you to abandon socialist policy?

I understand many of the benefits of socialism and of some parts of the socialist agenda, but my nation wants to decide what to implement within its borders on its own. I believe this issue is a too much for the UN to handle.

I'm not forcing you to abondon capitalism, I'm simply asking you to keep an open-mind and not dismiss it merely because it appeals to socialists. If there was a change in the UN that limited socialism i would certainly not keep as closed a mind as many of you.

I do not believe any changes are necissary to this proposal. I believe that a maximum wage should not be designated to the workers, because the point of setting a maximum wage is to prevent that class from prevailing, and I dont believe that always keeping the workers at a lower power than the ruling class is immoral. I believe that, sadly, the working class will never be as powerful as the ruling class in a capitalist system, so there is no need to limit it more. The same goes for the possibility of increasing the ruling class' maximum wage, it will only give the rulers more power, and the rulers are always, unfortunately, going to prevail over the workers, so there is no need in feeding into your corperate-dominance even more. We have to lessen the evil. I say that we leave the proposition as it is.

...I believe that a maximum wage should not be designated to the workers... and I dont believe that always keeping the workers at a lower power than the ruling class is immoral. I believe that, sadly, the working class will never be as powerful as the ruling class in a capitalist system, so there is no need to limit it more...

Oh, yes, I agree. I've never lived as a capitalist, though I had a student year in a capitalist country. I spend most of my stipend buying food for the homeless, and nearly starved to death myself. The woman who saved me from my own generosity is--and was--actually a owner of a corporation, and she did contribute to the writing of this proposal.

The reason I choose to cap all wages is one of her ideas. The proposal states that no employee may earn more than ten times that of the lowest paid employee. This is so an executive can't merely hire himself on as a janitor, put someone under his control in charge of the company, but with him actually running it, and raise his wages as much as he desires.

Similarly, it prevents the owner from raising the wages of a person under his control, and live as that person's 'guest'. I can hardly imagine the knots one's mind must be tied in to think of the world like this.

However, even I recognize that category of worker will ever be paid more than the 'manager' of those workers, so the cap is not effective, but merely exists to prevent exploitation by the very people the proposal is designed to control.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

International Maximum Wage is officially up again. Drop by the UN, if you're so inclined, and approve it again. There's been no major changes.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

Ugh. Why do people join the UN and then complain about resolutions violating their soverign rights? Every proposal limits sovereignty, either by forcing you to do something, or forcing you to not do something :headbang:


Anyway, about this maximum wage thingie...

Obviously, as a 'Capitalizt' nation, I don't like it, but I also think it takes a highly simplistic view of the world. Let's take a real world example:

I work for a security company contracted to a refinery owned by a multi-national corporation. So, does my pay factor into just my company, or to the refinery owner too, since I'm physically working in his refinery?

And what about the gas stations that sell the gas? Does the part-time college student who works 2 days a week factor in too? That'd kill the part-time market if it did. Even at $6/hour, you're looking at $96/week. Or, just under $5,000/year. That means the man who's in charge of the company, who makes decisions that affect tens of thousands of employees, and potentially millions of customers is making... $50,000/year. Oh, and the on-site firefighters (it's an oil refinery) are likely making less than 50k too.

What about the barge worker who floats down the canal and drops off coke for the refinery furnaces? Does he count too? Or how about the guys who come in once a week to cut the grass and trim the hedges?

Oh, and kiss unpaid internships goodbye too. After all, ten times $0 is... $0.

While, in theory, this proposal could be made to not be a disaster, it needs a lot of work, and would be much longer than the current text. This proposal strikes me as something that seems a neat idea when you first think of it, and stays fine as long as you don't think on it any more. There's too many complications as written (we haven't even mentioned or oil man's private investments with his private money, those count too?) and the 10x figure feels like it was pulled out of thin air.

Ugh. Why do people join the UN and then complain about resolutions violating their soverign rights?

Because for the most part, those rights are limited as a compromise for a more global international concern. When the resolution does not address a global concern and is merely for the sake of global uniformity, then people will (and rightly so) object.

I think that the case can be made that there is no "international" aspect to this resolution. The resolution sets arbitrary standards, not designed with any scientific reasoning, and not taking into consideration the differences among nations, where one nation might have a 75% income tax (higher for the "wealthy") and another nation might not have any income tax whatsoever.

The resolution doesn't need any more work, Glorious Hack, as you have just proved that the resolution will be aiding the world. This resolution will not destroy your entire market-based capitalism, it will not introduce socialism to your "Capitalizt" country, it is MERELY something that also appeals to socialists. tell me, what work does it need? If anything it should even lower the maximum wage, but that is my opinion.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

While Caselonia is an ardently Socialist nation (well, they like to pretend they are, when in reality they're State Capitalist - we have to play the part of the USSR in our region), this is a grossly oversimplified look at economics, especially socialist economics.

Where in many circles of socialist thought are wage caps a major plank? Abolition of wages, for many, of course...but not capping them. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." One who can only perform an entry-level job function simply doesn't need as much as one who provides a vital "professional" function to the State (or for you capitalists, to his/her corporation).

Unlike the capitalist cop-out of "socialism destroys the will to advance", with only a 10-fold increase from rock-bottom poverty being made available, this certainly does stifle the will to advance oneself. In our humble opinion, of course. ;)

The People's Republic of Caselonia does not support this proposal. Were it re-written in a more realistic, concise and clear manner, it would be taken into consideration. Additionally, Voroziniya's points about socialism not equating Stalinism were excellent, and one of the major things that capitalists simply do not understand about socialism.

We look forward to seeing more progressive proposals, but this one we must vote against.

Regards,
Daniel de Valera
Minister of Foreign Affairs
People's Republic of Caselonia ( http://www.rebelradio.net/caselonia )

I don't see why a high-school dropout who gets a job cleaning toilets should get a huge raise, because the guy with the Ph.D. who started the company, and has worked hard at it his whole life, is rather successful and wants to reward himself.

I currently work cleaning toilets, and washing dishes, and after my college education, I'll be a teacher that's not making much more. Even so, I can see why Bill Gates would deserve (much, much) more money from the company he's invested his life in, than the guy hired to clean his office.

If that is your only argument, it is pitiful. The truth is that Bill Gates had an idea and was EXTREMELY lucky enough to get people to improve, fund, and set into action his idea. Now he sits on his desk and makes decisions about what he owns, much like we at nationstates do, and that is not worth more than those whose skills may not be ideas, but may be technology, or construction, or toilet-cleaning!

Also, the doctor worked hard to become a doctor because it was his PERSONAL AMBITION and PERSONAL SKILL. I'm sure your personal skill it teaching, and people should not get less because their personal skill is different. The truth is that all jobs are really necissary cogs in a machine, society simply would crumble if there was no one in the world to clean toilets, as it would if there were no one to run a giant corperation. If this plan succeeds, not only will it empower the workers, the true backpbone of society, but it will make the high hope of money less of a factor, so that people can actually contribute what they are best at and not fail at what pays off.

If you are a firm capitalist I strongly urge you to telegram me and we can have further debates between capitalism and socialism, but for now the proposal must be endorsed.

If you really believe in capitalism, telegram me, unless you are unwilling to take a stand.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

"...personal skill *is* teaching..."

The proposal is outrageous. It is the end of any free-market economy. Let the market decide about the wagues.
It is an Non-UN issue.
And by the way: It isn´t an issue of social security or minimum standards either. While it can be argued that they ought to be minimum standard setting maximum standards is only nonsense. It is a violation of the freedom of the individual.
This is just an issue of envy. And envy is a bad thing. A person is not able to take risks if there is no possibility for gains. Limitting the amount of gains is going to limit the amount of risks people are going to take. As a result of that the economy goes down. Just take a short look to the real world. Look to the dynamic and growin US economy wiht low unemployment and look to the over-regulated countries France and Germany with low growth, high unemployment and not many people being ready to take risks.
It is a countries own choice to ruin its economy. But nobody should be forced by the UN to do that.

Limitting the amount of gains is going to limit the amount of risks people are going to take. As a result of that the economy goes down.

And how do you figure this? typical capitalist propoganda. Obviously no one has been reading my messages so I will explain myself yet again.

Your free-market system is not free! If people are allowed to gain as much as they wish, where does that profit come from? The workers! And if the possible gain increases, then the possible loss for the workers, who are no less important than the rulers, increases. Therefore the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. With that, the rulers dominate all enterprises, the workers suffer, and if the workers suffer they will work less. If the workers work less the economy slides down. Unemployment and poverty will go up.
Think of capitalism as basically anarchy, but in economic terms. They have freedom, but they will be harming others who do not deserve to be harmed. You cannot sacrafice something that could SAVE our economy just because it violates the freedom, the freedom to put workers in poverty for greed.

Additionally, did it ever dawn on your shallow naive capitalist psyche that perhaps you don't always win in risks? It's basically a gamble, and you cannot gamble with economy.

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that less risks equal lower economy. The reason the US's economy is doing so well in comparison to other nations is because:
a. The US has a lot of territory, and is in possession of many natural resources
b. The US has many international allies for trade
c. The US has very rarely been invaded by other countries, therefore its war debt is very low.
d. Because of its high population it has billions of buisness transactions per day, therefore the value of the dollar is increasing.
e. The US's economy ISNT doing very well. It has very rich people, but very poor people as well. It is home to Bill Gates and Donald Trump, but it is also home to 15 million unemployed people and many more oppressed workers. It shows off its modernized technology, giant skyscrapers and multi-million dollar corperations, but people are ignorant to all the suffering and oppression by the workers that were traded-off for it.

Even I don't understand how some people can be so shallow...

You can't hold on to your idea of a "free"-market system if it isn't actually beneficial. You claim that such a proposal would end the free-market system but you are so naive you dont even consider that the free-market system may be BAD, or that it should be changed. It should not be up to the individual how much money he makes if it hurts many, many more workers who are just as important to the nation.

And if you really believe in capitalism, I strongly urge you to contact me through telegram. Upon reading this, not contacting me makes you either a pinko-socialist, or too meek to take a stand, or simply lacking the necissary knowledge to do so.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

And if you really believe in capitalism, I strongly urge you to contact me through telegram. Upon reading this, not contacting me makes you either a pinko-socialist, or too meek to take a stand, or simply lacking the necissary knowledge to do so.

Completely uncalled for. If you want to insult people, why don't you send them a telegram?

Viole Of the First

While we understand and appreciate the intention of this proposal to narrow the gap between the haves and the have nots, it is our opinion that this is NOT the best way to address the problem. Emperor One Bob believes in the principal of raising the standard of living for ALL citizens.

We are considering imposing an excise tax on earnings over a certain limit to be placed into a dedicated scholarship fund for underemployed citizens to receive the education or training they need to improve their standard of living. We believe economic equality can only be achieved by providing the opportunity for those at the bottom of the economic ladder the opportunity to improve through education.

The Empire of One Bob will not endorse this proposal as written.

But not all UN nations will abide by your ideas. Can you honestly say this is not a step towards socialism?

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

Voroziniya,

Hey: You are at Nation states: Just try to be a bit more diplomatic and show some decent standard of behaviour.

Yes, I believe in free-market economy. And seeing your economy I see that yours isn´t working while my is working very well.
We believe in a free market and that it should be an issue between employers and employees to agree on the wagues. Regarding the salaries of managers: It is up to board of directors or the general assemble of shareholders to decide.
Who else than the owners of a company should have the right to decide about that issue.
And by the way: How many managers really do have such high wagues. There may be a higher number in the US but in other countries like Britain or Germany you are talking about a handful of people. There is no need to make laws here. The amount of money this is all about is economically completly insignificant. The US has a GDP of almost 7 billion. A few millions more or less are really peanuts and have no meaning for the general economy or the wagues of employees. With your statement you just show your lack of knowledge of the economy and your ideologic socialist world view.

What a brilliant resolution!

I stand with Voroziniya in calling for all socialist and left-leaning nations to embrace this! It is time the workers (the real "owners" of the company, as the value is created with their labor) are provided for. Obviously 1000 times the lowest salry should be more than enough to satisfy even the most selfish, greedy borgeouis pig! If the CEOs believe their own work is more than 1000 times more valuable than that of their janitor, let them plunge their own damn toilets.

As many delegates have also noted: including temporary and part time workers does skew the results somewhat- resulting in companies hiring more full-time workers with benefits and job security. What a brilliant resolution!

Please explain to me why it is in the UN's best interest to so restrict free market economies. Isn't the a truly free market economy lassez-faire or without any gov't involvement? If we so entirely eradicate one of the last possibilities of a truly free market economy, then isn't that a huge statement from the UN on a very social policy?

The problem I have with this reaching quorum is that it'll pass. It'll pass because people will look at it and will vote for it. Either in their own greed and desire to be in power, or from a desire to hurt those that are in power who are greedy. Surely this isn't helping the greed and corruption which is inherent in corporation. If this goes through then it'll shift much, much more power to the government. This will simply encourage corruption in governments. Believe me if it weren't for the nearly inevitable corruption in government, I would be almost entirely tolerant of communist regimes. This is why communism (and, for that matter capitalism) is failing, greed and corruption. It's a problem common to both of them. It's just in different places.

Not to demean anyone, but I feel almost like I'm on a playground at recess playing "four-square". The kids that do well at this game like it and constantly play it. They treat it like the best thing that has ever happened. Why? Not because it's such a great game, but because it places "number one" at number one. Those that aren't good at it find it and those who play it repulsive. They stay away from it and find things that they are good at (so they can be "number one") and make snide remarks about the stupid, mindless four-square game.

Do either side not like he other because they have real honest belief that theirs is better or somehow more just? No, of course not. They like or don’t like four-square based entirely on how much it serves them. It's self-serving. Those who are rich don't like the idea of having that taken away from them. Those who aren't rich are very interested in taking it away from them.

I'm just wondering if this is sincere or if there is simply "self-elevation" at stake here.

I'm just wondering if this is sincere or if there is simply "self-elevation" at stake here.

Not all people share a strong sense of self-interest. Most communists are bright people, who just can't imagine that capitalism is as good as it gets. Like myself.

We see lots of advantages of communism, none of which involve our own profit on anywhere near a capitalist level. Socialism(which is all we'd live to see) closely the gap between the richest and poorest to a minimal level, so we know we won't make a lot of money. On the other hand, our kids will get free schooling and free healthcare. Also, since socialism tends to be more international, it's less aggressive, and we're more likely to have a peaceful world.

It just seems like a better, more just system.

This time, we made fifty-eight, nearly half of the necessary endorsements for a resolution. I'm willing to give it another try, so if anyone has specific issues they'd like me to correct, now is the time to suggest them. I have been reading everyone's comments, but I'm not going to change anything on the basis of vague criticism, and I'm certainly not going to give up due to unsupported declarations that there must be a better way. You're welcome to make a suggestion, or create your own proposal, but until then you'll have to deal with this one.

Also, if anyone would like to volunteer their help in contacting delegates, I'd be appreciative.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

OK here are my recomendations for the bill:

Drop the notion of minimum possible sallary because that will include people who are just trying to make a little extra money on the side. Instead base the number on the poverty line. (This has the additional benefit that nations with no minimum wage or a minimum wage below the poverty line doesn't force everyone into poverty themselves.)

Allow for overflow, where people who make above the maximum can put the overflow into a retirement account where they can withdraw from it at a later date as long as they don't exceed the maximum sallary limits by withdrawing the money.

I disagree with the overflow idea.

If you simply save the overflow in a retirement account, you're still enjoying that money. perhaps not at the moment, but in the future you are enjoying the benefits of money that you achieved by allowing yourself to earn over the maximum wage.

Remember, this is intended to limit the power of the managers. This is intended to take away their control over the economy, and limit the previously unstoppable and unpunishable oppression. If an overflow policy is used, the managers regain their control and nothing is changed, except for the time for when they spend the money.

The United Socialist States of Voroziniya

I absolutely, positively, and undeniably oppose this resolution. For reasons already stated in earlier posts, and some reasons that I don't have all day to state. Suffice it to say, my capitalist democratic government WILL NOT be forced to change into a communist/socialist republic.

If you are a democratic nation, absolutely do not support this resolution.

If you are 'Borg'... go for it.

First of all--SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM IS MEANT TO BE DEMOCRACY. Dont act like they cant coexist.

Furthermore, the plan wont make your country socialist, it is simply something less capitalist. It won't wipe out your free market system entirely and force you to adopt a worker's government.

There is no minimum wage established in this proposal. The maximum wage is tied to the lowest real wages within the specific corporation, not elsewhere.

The reasoning behind this is simple; the executives are rewarded for raising the wages of the workers, by a corresponding increase in their own wages.

That said, I would have no reservations about supporting a resolution that created a minimum wage, tied to the poverty line. That is not, however, the intention of this one.

Regarding the 'overflow' idea. While it is an interesting one, I disagree. With respect to Voroziniya's prior answer, here's my reasoning:

This proposal is created specifically to limit real wages of the highest earners. A salary of a hundred thousand per year(ten times the US min wage, for a forty hour work week) is more than enough for a person to save for retirement, while wages of ten thousand per year are not. So if the executive in question wants to add another fifty thousand a year for a retirement account, he must simply pay the lowest earners an extra five thousand a year--in a retirement account, or in money.

Also, as I should perhaps make clear in the proposal, money placed in a savings account, retirement account, or stocks is counted during the year it is earned--whether as money or as any of the above--not when it is converted into cash.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

I'm sure your personal skill is teaching
Well, I hope so. I've also liked trying to help.

The truth is that all jobs are really necissary cogs in a machine, society simply would crumble if there was no one in the world to clean toilets, as it would if there were no one to run a giant corperation.
Here we agree. However, being able to correctly run a giant corperation takes much higher level of skill than cleaning toilets does. Those who can, do; those who can't, work for those who can.

If this plan succeeds, not only will it empower the workers, the true backpbone of society, but it will make the high hope of money less of a factor, so that people can actually contribute what they are best at and not fail at what pays off.
Here is where we have a difference of philosophy. I believe that the human nature is competitive, and that people will always want just a little more than their neighbors. People always want just a little more than they have. I don't think that giving people total equality economically is what people truly want.

As a future teacher, I've accepted the fact that, while I'll have great benifits, I'll still spend my life poorer than all my friends who chose engineering, who will have a starting salary double mine. However, I'll still want to lead the best marching band I can, and have concert bands that are the best at competitions. I won't be as money-focused as others, but I'll still be driven by the competitive spirit in all humans.

Not to hijack a constructive thread (and I don't mean that this isn’t hijacking) but...:

As a future teacher...


OOC: You're going to be a music teacher? I ask because you nation name reminds me of the church modes, and subdominant is a name for a degree on the diatonic scale. Of course if you named the nation with this in mind, you already know this...but still...Do you mean church modes? and the 4th scale degree?

Still OOC: consulting my most applicable theory text (Kostka, Payne), the mode for subdominant is called the Lydian mode. I never really paid much attention to the church modes. I was more interested in conventional tonality. Of course, if your nation's name has nothing to do with music, then this all means nothing. It's all just a bad dream. When I snap my fingers you'll wake up and remember nothing of me or my stuffed teddy...

*snap*

OOC, again: Yep, I feel stupid. I just read your nation's info. Of course it's music related...that's awesome. And, believe it or not I know what you mean by the mixo-lydian (at least I think I do). One of the few things I remember from the church modes.

Coming late to this thread, and reading its trials and tribulations, the anti-resolution camp appears (unless I missed it while not concentrating) to have missed a pretty important get-around to this resolution.

However water-tight you try to make it, there's no way to guarantee that a company does not officially dissolve itself into a tiered structure of separate ventures (one for janitorial staff, one for receptionists, one for this, one for that, one for executives) each of which can obey the letter of the law by giving their maximum earner no more than X times their minimum earner and engineer (if applicable) an 'inter-company' transfer instead of certain promotions/departmental transfers, and departmental budgets can be dealt with as if 'outsourcing' to the prefered provider of secretarial services, network maintenance, etc that just happens to be the same company in all but name and legal standing.

There's no way this can be stopped. Co-occupancy of the same building by legitimately separate companies cannot be easily distinguished from a single 'corporate block' trying its damnest to look like it is separate by trying the same trick. It's also easy to go overboard and include half the entire nation as the same corporate structure just because they all shop at the same supermarket, now legally reclassified as a 'supply' depot for all those people.

(Actually, this might well be /beneficial/ to the capitalist nation, as all companies within it are free to sack a whole set of their middle management/whoever en block transfering in another group who have proven to be more economical/productive 'supplier' of services. And there'd be no unemployment as everyone without an employer would be 'self-employed' or (in a generous country) employees of the government's own special "Job Seekers" department.

I'll let you imagine the specifics. Economics may not be my strong-point, but I know business politics and I also know that if there's a loophole it will be exploited.

I believe I covered that loophole already. The first sentence of the last paragraph specifically requires that contracted workers(anyone from another company/individual, hired to provide a service for another company/individual, outside of normal employee relations) be included when calculating the maximum wage. That means; the guy who cleans the floors in the executive offices. It would not include a purely consumer relationship, which is good-for-money, or any service which caters to the public directly.

Thinking on it, however, I believe that I will add a provision for an objective maximum wage, as follows;

"In addition, no worker will earn more than fifty times the UN-calculated poverty line for the country in which the corporation is based."

That should help prevent the most rampant abuse.

Okay, the text has been expanded, but the only real change is the above;

International Maximum Wage

In many parts of the world, the richest few percent of the population controls the more wealth than the other ninety-five percent. This divide between the rich and poor is even greater is only parts of the world.

In order to promote social justice, corporate executives, board members, and other high-income jobs will be allowed to pay no more than ten times the lowest paid worker in said corporation. For example, if a cashier in a restaurant is paid a wage of ten thousand monetary units(MUs) a year, the highest paid employee can earn no more than one hundred thousand MUs per year.

Temporary(workers hired to fill in for an absent employee, or temporarily fill a vacant position) and contracted employees(anyperson from another company/individual, hired to provide a service for another company/individual, outside of normal employee relations) are included in this calculation, as are foreign workers. All employment benefits are added to a person's earnings(stock options, insurance plans, bonuses). Public sector employees and elected officials are also included.

In addition, no worker will earn more than fifty times the UN-calculated poverty line for the country in which the corporation is based.

I go to set it in motion once again. Everyone, please renew your support of this resolution.