NationStates Jolt Archive

After a short break, I'm back, and ready to promote my proposal once again. It's in the UN even now--so go vote on it.

In many parts of the world, the richest few percent of the population controls more wealth than the other ninety-five percent. This divide between the rich and poor is even greater in other 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(anyone from another company/any 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 person may earn more than fifty times the UN-calculated poverty line for the country in which the corporation is based.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

I do not believe that low wages on one end are necessarily caused by high wages on the other. If a company, as a whole, makes billions off of one employee's brilliant idea, does he not deserve a good share of it?

So. Still trying to destroy various capitalist countries' economies, are you?
Still trying to demoralise the higher-ranking workers and low ranking-workers with ambition, are you?
Still trying to force a huge number of nations to leave the UN, are you?

Good luck :p.

No, No, a thousand times No.

Please stop trying to push your simplistic and unrealistic economic model as a social program. Frisbeeterians receive monetary rewards comensurate to their contribution. If a brilliant scientist comes up with a patent that brings billions to the coffers of her company (and therefore her nation), why should she not receive benefits befitting her brainstorm? If a salesman lands a contract to supply foreign nationals with life-giving foods or medicines, should he not receive a commission for his efforts? Why should we apply an arbitrary 10x limit to such compensation when the contribution may be 1000x or 1,000,000x the contribution of a cashier or a dishwasher?

This is arbitrary and capricious wealth-redistribution, and Frisbeeteria stands firm in its opposition.

Ecopoeia is a member of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance, yet we will not lend our support to this proposal. We have no wish to enforce our economic models on others.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

While The Republic of The Grand Dysreich has no objections to an nation implementing such a policy within their own nation, we believe that such a policy forced upon others by a group of nations is tyranny.

Our nation believes in the principal of the market and this has allowed our nation to have fast economic growth and also for a rising standard of living. Any caps on pay are a distortion of the market which will damage our economy and also affect the individual liberties of citizens of a nation state.

Equality of outcome is not desirable only equality of opportunity, this proposal is a step towards equality of outcome. This proposal shall be opposed by us.

I must also put forth my disapproval for this. In some nations, workes are aid very low wages, and 10 times that low amount still may not be enough for an executive to make thier living. This proposal would have an extremely negative impact on all UN member's economies, and throw all of their citizens into a state of poverty.

I do not support this proposal, and will encourage my Region's Delegate not to approve it.

The United Federation of Hersfold
UN Member
Founder, Part123

Ah, lovely. It's nice to know I'm doing something right. Typically, if I wanted to enforce socialism on people, I'd be trying to pass resolutions demanding free healthcare, education, housing, and government subsidies for food. Yes, ten times is an arbitrary number; but any number that would have an effect is necessarily arbitrary. Any restriction of a free market is arbitrary.

Then, of course, equality of opportunities can never be possible without equality of outcome. There will always be better schools, better connections, and better opportunities for the rich, while the poor must work hard for any gain. The only way to have equality of opportunity is to have equality of wealth; the only way to have equality of wealth is to limit income.

A person can have no use for thousands or even hundreds of times the wealth of the average person. Not only that, the majority of such money will not reenter the economy. Without inflated wages for executives, more money goes to the people who will spend it, improving the economy.

Also, the average scientist working for a corporation does not own the results of their research, and will make only minimal profit from any extraordinary results they achieve.

Yours in Friendship,
Lady Viole Of the First

We are not a member of the United Nations -- and we soon wouldn't be, if we were -- but we feel obliged to suggest that this sounds like the idea of a going-nowhere cleaner who is angry at the executives, and wishes he or she could do something to hurt them...

instead of a maximum wage for high earners, the DSH has a 95% tax rate on any income above a certain point per annum.

Then, of course, equality of opportunities can never be possible without equality of outcome. There will always be better schools, better connections, and better opportunities for the rich, while the poor must work hard for any gain. The only way to have equality of opportunity is to have equality of wealth; the only way to have equality of wealth is to limit income.

A person can have no use for thousands or even hundreds of times the wealth of the average person. Not only that, the majority of such money will not reenter the economy. Without inflated wages for executives, more money goes to the people who will spend it, improving the economy.
There is only one statement of fact in the two paragraphs above (the bold portion) Every other statement in this justification is the unsubstantiated opinion of the poster, and cannot be backed up by 'real world' or NS justifications. Stating unsupported syllogisms as fact does not make them fact, whether one uses the phrase 'of course' or not.

Sorry, Ienotheisa. Your argument leaks like a sieve.

instead of a maximum wage for high earners, the DSH has a 95% tax rate on any income above a certain point per annum.

Whilst we do not feel punitive taxes are necessary, this is indeed a far more effective way of 'capping' income, should some nations feel that to be important.

Cave Canem would never subscribe to such a scheme, but Hirota raises a valid point - the tax rate mechanism means a separate piece of income capping legislation is unnecessary.

UN Delegate for Cave Canem

The problem, as some say, is that the Devil's in the details. Ironically it is the lack of details that causes me to worry enough about the resolution so as to be unable to support it.

The problem with the resolutions are the assumptions it makes as to how exployment works. There are always exceptions to assumptions. These exceptions, however, can have a drastic impact on the simplistic nature of the resolution as written.

One of the basic assumptions is the notion of steady long term employment. While this is true for some people, it is not a universal norm for all. Many people to various degrees deivate from this norm, some in subtle ways, and some in not so subtle ways. The result requires something known as income averaging.

For example, let's take the case of the person who runs a tourist shop in a highly seasonal tourist location. If the tourist season is only 4 months out of the year, this person is making most of his income in those four months. The other 8 months he may not be earning any income at all. Or let's take a fisherman whose season might be only one month. He might make almost all his income in that month, and little else for the other 11 months. What about a professional athlete who might be otherwise gainfully employed for the season, and more importantly, might only be "employed" for 10 years out of his lifetime!

I am a firm believer in the merit of ones own work. The more you work the more you deserve to earn. The more you are of value to someone, the more that someone should compensate you for that value. Sadly, it is often the case that in some corporate systems the people at the top might be paid more but they do less ... far less.

If someone came to me and told me he could eliminate a wad of waste in the Tzorsland goverment and he actually came through on his promise, then he deserves a smaller wad of money. If someone came to me and told me that he was the head of a big company and deserved a big wad of money because the company was doing well, I would throw him out the door, because the big wad of money should go to the people who made the company do well, not the one who happens to be on top, unless it was through his own efforts that the company has done well.

Instead of trying to limit the tops of companies who are literally wasting their own money on their lazy good for nothing heads, we should be trying to raise the standard of living for the workers who are actually making companies rise or fall.

We do not agree with this proposal in its current form. Powerhungry Chipmunks disagrees with both the figure of ten (as in ten times) and with the absoluteness of the proposal. In order to truly accomplish a free market economy you must have people who are paid very high amounts of money, whether this payment is warranted or not.

We understand the dislike of incredibly extravagant numbers and would probably even support a resolution restricting them to reasonable figures. But the figure of ten is not anywhere near sufficient. The proposal we would support might not even establish a set coefficient for wage, since, as pointed out, such a number is arbitrary.

I noticed also that you failed to counter my earlier argument, Ienotheisa.

In some nations, workes are aid very low wages, and 10 times that low amount still may not be enough for an executive to make thier living. This proposal would have an extremely negative impact on all UN member's economies, and throw all of their citizens into a state of poverty.


This will not work. Many nations already have a social equality system operating, such as Hirota apparently does. And if the executive does not have a need for his money, it is always possible that they could give the excess to charity - something which cannot be done if they have little money.

Another side effect of this could be the exact opposite of my earlier argument - rather than falling into poverty, the executive could raise wages to help out him or herself - and then have their company fall into bankruptcy because they cannot generate enough profit to cover the cost of wages. Or, huge layoffs will occur, blowing the unemployment rate through the ceiling. Or, there will suddenly be too much money in circulation, and massive inflation will occur, sending your nation into an economic depression.

You now have 4 sound reasons why not to send in this proposal - national poverty, mass bankruptcies, massive unemployment, and economic depression. Please reconsider your position on this matter and withdraw your intent to submit this proposal before you throw the UN into a state of chaos.