NationStates Jolt Archive

Before anyone says anything...yes, I know there's a typo in the version I submitted. That's okay, it's only a test submission to assess Delegate support like I do with most of my proposal ideas.

Title: Minimum Wage Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Texan Hotrodders

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the importance of wages and other forms of income to providing the means of acquiring the basic necessities that are needed to sustain the lives of sovereign persons.

NOTING that some member states may find it appropriate to either set or decline to set a minimum wage or other form of income to their citizens for good reasons, such as in the case of a communist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all goods are shared, or a capitalist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all persons within it have gainful employment.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to set a minimum wage for their people or decline to set a minimum wage for their people as is appropriate to the economic circumstances of their nation.

ENCOURAGES nations to ensure that all persons residing within the member nations of this body have the means to provide for their own well-being, whether through individual economic opportunity or collective cooperation.

Umm, I'm a bit perplexed at what this proposal actually does TH.

Read it through 3 times and it does nothing, beyond what nations can do on their own now without this. We can already decide on minimum wages ourselves whether this is passed or not and it seems to me to be a bit of a waste of paper. If I'm reading it wrong however, please let me know.

By my reading this resolution does absolutly nothing. To me is seems to say you can set a minimum wage if you want to, but you do not have to.
:confused:

Although if you think about It's impossible to object to it on any other grounds then the fact that it has no effect whatsoever. It's greatest weakness is also its greatest strength!!!! :eek:

Umm, I'm a bit perplexed at what this proposal actually does TH.

Read it through 3 times and it does nothing, beyond what nations can do on their own now without this. We can already decide on minimum wages ourselves whether this is passed or not and it seems to me to be a bit of a waste of paper. If I'm reading it wrong however, please let me know.

It's a TH resolution. If it did anything more stringent than encourage something or protect nation's rights, I would be inquiring into whether the account was hijacked. :p

When I saw the title, I thought that Texan had gone banana's.
But I see he is in good form, heading of those who wish to remove the basic rights of nations...

What everyone else has said, it doesn't actually do anything, so the whole resolution is rather pointless.

On the other hand, a resolution calling for a minimum living wage, ensuring that all workers are paid enough to fund their food and housing, would be most welcome.

Umm, I'm a bit perplexed at what this proposal actually does TH.

Read it through 3 times and it does nothing, beyond what nations can do on their own now without this. We can already decide on minimum wages ourselves whether this is passed or not and it seems to me to be a bit of a waste of paper. If I'm reading it wrong however, please let me know.

Yes, yes. It's just like the old "Scientific Freedom" thing. The UN is going to tell people what to do despite the fact that they can already do it. It's also like "Nuclear Armaments," which did nothing except...oh, I don't know...protect nation's rights on a particular issue? Well, now that the "it only tells us to do what we can already do" bit is out of the way, I would like to see legitimate arguments against the content rather than irrelevant nonsense. Somehow, people seem to be having trouble coming up with legitimate content-based objections to my proposals lately, so I'm not going to be holding my breath here.

What everyone else has said, it doesn't actually do anything, so the whole resolution is rather pointless.

On the other hand, a resolution calling for a minimum living wage, ensuring that all workers are paid enough to fund their food and housing, would be most welcome.

Take heart! If ever those vile capitalists (;) ) take over the UN, the Minimum Wage Act could be in place to prevent them from removing the minimum wage from all nations.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

For ideological reasons, we would prefer a universal standard for any minimum wage act, yet we are cautiously supportive of many of the basic tenants of this proposal. Compadria shall submit a fuller reply later.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would like to see legitimate arguments against the content rather than irrelevant nonsense.

Perhaps some of us would like the UN to act more strongly in the interests of getting everyone access to decent living standards. Even if we are not to require that nations ensure citizens' well-being, it would be preferable not to actively endorse governments' abilities to leave their citizens out in the cold, so to speak.

Perhaps some of us would like the UN to act more strongly in the interests of getting everyone access to decent living standards. Even if we are not to require that nations ensure citizens' well-being, it would be preferable not to actively endorse governments' abilities to leave their citizens out in the cold, so to speak.

Your nation has the ability to leave its citizens out in the cold, but it does not. My nation also does no such thing. We are both socialist nations, and one of us has a minimum wage while the other does not. Yet our citizens are all provided for. It is clear that a minimum wage is not necessary to ensure the well-being of all citizens, at least not in every nation. As the proposal notes, it is possible to provide that well-being through a variety of economic models that are not socialist like our own. Why then would you propose that we refrain from endorsing a nation's right to provide for its citizens using its own unique approach?

We recognise that there is more than one method, and are quite prepared to support the notion that a resolution should merely attempt to have nations provide for their citizens and, for now, leave the choice of the method up to them.

What we aren't happy with is how weakly this proposal supports such a notion, and the fact that it is yet another resolution which takes no concrete action except for preventing future action. If the point you want to convey is that it would be good if nations ensured their citizens were provided for, but that minimum wages aren't the only way to do this, then why not make the focus of the proposal a specific urging to nations to fulfil this duty in whatever way they see fit, rather than slipping in an effective ban on minimum wage legislation and relegating what you claim to be the main aim to a single minor clause, which isn't even the focus of the title?

We recognise that there is more than one method, and are quite prepared to support the notion that a resolution should merely attempt to have nations provide for their citizens and, for now, leave the choice of the method up to them.

What we aren't happy with is how weakly this proposal supports such a notion, and the fact that it is yet another resolution which takes no concrete action except for preventing future action. If the point you want to convey is that it would be good if nations ensured their citizens were provided for, but that minimum wages aren't the only way to do this, then why not make the focus of the proposal a specific urging to nations to fulfil this duty in whatever way they see fit,

I can certainly re-structure the clauses to make the apparent focus different, if you like.

How about this?

Title: Minimum Wage Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Texan Hotrodders

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the importance of wages and other forms of income to providing the means of acquiring the basic necessities that are needed to sustain the lives of sovereign persons.

NOTING that some member states may find it appropriate to either set or decline to set a minimum wage or other form of income to their citizens for good reasons, such as in the case of a communist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all goods are shared, or a capitalist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all persons within it have gainful employment.

ENCOURAGES nations to ensure that all persons residing within the member nations of this body have the means to provide for their own well-being, whether through individual economic opportunity or collective cooperation, which may include either setting a minimum wage or declining to set a minimum wage.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to set a minimum wage for their people or decline to set a minimum wage for their people as is appropriate to the economic circumstances of their nation.


I re-ordered the last two clauses and added an emphasis on minimum wage to the ENCOURAGES line.

rather than slipping in an effective ban on minimum wage legislation and relegating what you claim to be the main aim to a single minor clause, which isn't even the focus of the title?

I didn't claim any main aim, as far as I can remember.

I can certainly re-structure the clauses to make the apparent focus different, if you like.

How about this?

My basic objection remains - this prohibits future legislation of a certain type, and does so in a proposal which, at first glance, seems to support the implementation of a minimum wage.

As a rough outline, this is what I'd go for if action is not to be forced (ignore the specific wording I've used, this is more about structure and approach - except for the title):

"Quality of Life Act" or "Ensuring Living Standards" or "Provision of Basic Needs"

Recognising that the citizens of UN nations require various goods and services of a certain quality to survive with an acceptable quality of life,

Believing that societies have an obligation to ensure that all citizens have, or have the means to obtain, a minimum quality of life,

Recognising that for different societies, different actions will be appropriate to ensure that this obligation is not breached, and that in some societies, this obligation has already been or can be fulfilled without the need for governments to force any involuntary action on the part of any members of society. Possible solutions include minimum wages voluntarily adhered to or enforced by government, direct provision of goods to citizens by producers or by government, provision of money by governments to citizens, and sharing/charitable effort by individuals and/or non-governmental bodies.

Urges all nations to fulfil the obligation stated above,

[Possibly something here delineating some basic needs that will hopefully be provided for]

I didn't claim any main aim, as far as I can remember.

Sorry - what I meant was that from your argument to me, the justification for the proposal seemed to be about urging nations to provide for their citizens.

The problem with Mandating a minimum wage is that you then have to provide a formula to define just what that minimum wage should be. Since we all have different currencies with different exchange rates this can be problematic. If you mandate it but don't provide a formula then governments will be free to set their nation's minimum wage at one cent an hour. I think this is why we don't have a minimum wage act on the books now. Roathin had some good suggestions on a formula to use, but I don't have time to go and look them up.

My basic objection remains - this prohibits future legislation of a certain type, and does so in a proposal which, at first glance, seems to support the implementation of a minimum wage.

You know quite well that I'm not willing to remove the clause that effectively prohibits future legislation, so let's move on to the other objection. The title is as descriptive as I can make it, considering that the underlying issue addressed in the proposal is the minimum wage.

As a rough outline, this is what I'd go for if action is not to be forced (ignore the specific wording I've used, this is more about structure and approach - except for the title):

"Quality of Life Act" or "Ensuring Living Standards" or "Provision of Basic Needs"

Recognising that the citizens of UN nations require various goods and services of a certain quality to survive with an acceptable quality of life,

Believing that societies have an obligation to ensure that all citizens have, or have the means to obtain, a minimum quality of life,

Recognising that for different societies, different actions will be appropriate to ensure that this obligation is not breached, and that in some societies, this obligation has already been or can be fulfilled without the need for governments to force any involuntary action on the part of any members of society. Possible solutions include minimum wages voluntarily adhered to or enforced by government, direct provision of goods to citizens by producers or by government, provision of money by governments to citizens, and sharing/charitable effort by individuals and/or non-governmental bodies.

Urges all nations to fulfil the obligation stated above,

[Possibly something here delineating some basic needs that will hopefully be provided for]

That's a very nice proposal, and if you fine-tune the draft and campaign for it I will support it.

Here's the deal. If you make the proposal you've written above into a resolution (perhaps with some minor changes, but it looks really good the way it is), I'll forgo making the Minimum Wage Act a resolution.

The problem with Mandating a minimum wage is that you then have to provide a formula to define just what that minimum wage should be. Since we all have different currencies with different exchange rates this can be problematic.
It would be possible to define a minimum wage along the lines of "the smallest possible amount of money required to fund a person's needs for housing, food and clothing, earned from working 40 hours a week." OK, the wording would have to be improved, but the basic point is that by working 40 hours per week you'd get enough money to live by. This formatting would also stay true to TEx's original point that not all nations require a minimum wage: in a nation where food, clothing and housing do not cost anything, no money is required to pay for them, and hence this resolution wouldn't apply.

If a proposal with a text like this would be brought up, it would have my full support.

It would be possible to define a minimum wage along the lines of "the smallest possible amount of money required to fund a person's needs for housing, food and clothing, earned from working 40 hours a week." OK, the wording would have to be improved, but the basic point is that by working 40 hours per week you'd get enough money to live by. This formatting would also stay true to TEx's original point that not all nations require a minimum wage: in a nation where food, clothing and housing do not cost anything, no money is required to pay for them, and hence this resolution wouldn't apply.

If a proposal with a text like this would be brought up, it would have my full support.

I have a copy of Roathin's definition handy, and will add it if _Myopia_ does not accept my proposition.

Yes, yes. It's just like the old "Scientific Freedom" thing. The UN is going to tell people what to do despite the fact that they can already do it. It's also like "Nuclear Armaments," which did nothing except...oh, I don't know...protect nation's rights on a particular issue? Well, now that the "it only tells us to do what we can already do" bit is out of the way, I would like to see legitimate arguments against the content rather than irrelevant nonsense. Somehow, people seem to be having trouble coming up with legitimate content-based objections to my proposals lately, so I'm not going to be holding my breath here.

Sorry I spoke. I promise to never comment on your proposals again :(.

Sorry I spoke. I promise to never comment on your proposals again :(.

The fault is mine, dear. I was annoyed about something Reformentia did and was in a bad mood, so I was snippity with you. That was a mistake, and you have my apology. :(

You know quite well that I'm not willing to remove the clause that effectively prohibits future legislation, so let's move on to the other objection.

Heh. And you know I'm not going to like any re-write you suggest that doesn't.

The title is as descriptive as I can make it, considering that the underlying issue addressed in the proposal is the minimum wage.

But you must realise that for those too lazy to read the proposals thoroughly(i.e. a large portion of the electorate), it is misleading.

That's a very nice proposal, and if you fine-tune the draft and campaign for it I will support it.

Here's the deal. If you make the proposal you've written above into a resolution (perhaps with some minor changes, but it looks really good the way it is), I'll forgo making the Minimum Wage Act a resolution.

Damn. I'd love to do it, but given what I ought to be getting done in RL, the last thing I should be doing is spending more time on NS. Can I open this deal up to anyone who wants to take my draft and run with it?

Heh. And you know I'm not going to like any re-write you suggest that doesn't.

You have me there. :)

But you must realise that for those too lazy to read the proposals thoroughly(i.e. a large portion of the electorate), it is misleading.

I know. I wish more UN members were more active and informed so that it would be obvious to them. I also wish I could make a better title, but I don't see any way to do that. :(

Damn. I'd love to do it, but given what I ought to be getting done in RL, the last thing I should be doing is spending more time on NS. Can I open this deal up to anyone who wants to take my draft and run with it?

There are a few people I would trust to act as your proxy in this, but I would really prefer to have your intelligence and perspective behind it.

I'm flattered, but it'd be plain irresponsible for me to try and make time for this now. I could take the offer to UNOG - send me a TG telling me exactly what arrangement would be ok and I'll try and deal with it tomorrow (have to go now).

what a totally pointless proposal. And i was excited.. :rolleyes:

its not pointless actually..

its dangerous..


this resolution is ANTI- MINIMUM WAGE ACT.

in your own word it will " effectively prohibits future legislation that seeks to mandate minimum wages for all U.N nations"

you sneaky little!!

I hope you fail miserbly.

what a totally pointless proposal. And i was excited.. :rolleyes:

Pointless proposal...pointless comment. It's two of a kind, folks! That beats my Ace high.

the title of your proposal is completely misleading and wrong. whoever in chrage of it should delete your proposal until you change your title to something like "anti- minimum wage act"

Thank you. My respect and appreciation for Reformentia just went higher.

I i will make sure i will keep hammering in how misleading you are being in every single one of my post if this proposal ever gets through to a vote.

despicable really.

the title of your proposal is completely misleading and wrong. whoever in chrage of it should delete your proposal until you change your title to something like "anti- minimum wage act"
Psh!

If the UN required titles to be 'accurate' I'd have long ago been uniformally recognized as "His Sexiness Who Rocketh Your Socks".

Or, at least "The Always Preceder of Hotness/Botheredness".

;)

The fault is mine, dear. I was annoyed about something Reformentia did and was in a bad mood, so I was snippity with you. That was a mistake, and you have my apology. :(

No worries. I was feeling a bit down this morning when I read your comment and wrote out the response, so guess I probably did over-react just a bit :).

It didn't help either that this was the second thread in two days I responded to and was basically told my comment was unwanted. Is it just me or is the UN forum not as much fun as it used to be 6 or so months ago. It seems the days of good friendly debate are disappearing and sniping, name calling (Starcra II for example) ect is becoming more frequent. I am finding myself starting to choose my words very carefully here now and reading anything I post through several times to try to make sure it sounds as Neutral as possible, even while stating my stand on something.

Anyway, I've raved on enough about a totally off topic subject for one post.

Good luck with your proposal. I probably won't vote for it but as one lousy vote doesn't mean much, that won't matter at all ;):).

I think that Anti-minimum wage legislation is even more inappropriate than minimum wage, as that makes it sounds like the UN is banning minimum wage legislation. This act (which I admit to having only scanned through), ensures the rights of soveriegn nations to impose a minimum wage as they see fit. It would utterly inappropriate for a developing nation, such as Ateellalay, to impose such a thing because they have no companies and everyone is subsistance farmers or hippy stoners or unemployed. It also acts a discouragement for investment into developing nations by MNC's, who might as well locate in a non UN nation.

Plus the fact that these soughts of resolutions, that affirm national rights, act as an written but uncodified constitution; limiting the power of the UN and, effectively, marking out the playing field.

And hopefully this sought of thing will prevent all those daft proposals that always seem to crop up about the same bally subject

in my nation, minimun wage is 405 bevos an hour. 1 bevo= 1 US dollar. yet income tax is 101%. :D

a ensures the rights of soveriegn nations to impose a minimum wage as they see fit


which totally defeats the whole meanning of "minimum wage"



:rolleyes:

ENCOURAGES nations to ensure that all persons residing within the member nations of this body have the means to provide for their own well-being, whether through individual economic opportunity or collective cooperation, which may include either setting a minimum wage or declining to set a minimum wage.

That strikes me as if it is encourages nations to impose a minimum wage or some other such legislation. Therefore the title is apt.

Anti-minimum wage would ban minimum wage, or DISCOURAGE minimum wage

ENCOURAGES nations to ensure that all persons residing within the member nations of this body have the means to provide for their own well-being, whether through individual economic opportunity or collective cooperation, which may include either setting a minimum wage or declining to set a minimum wage.

That strikes me as if it is encourages nations to impose a minimum wage or some other such legislation. Therefore the title is apt.

Anti-minimum wage would ban minimum wage, or DISCOURAGE minimum wage
But should the resolution pass, it will make passing a resolution actually defining a minimum wage much much more difficult.

Wage Act might be a more fitting title than Minimum Wage Act?

As a rough outline, this is what I'd go for if action is not to be forced (ignore the specific wording I've used, this is more about structure and approach - except for the title):

"Quality of Life Act" or "Ensuring Living Standards" or "Provision of Basic Needs"
Although I agree with the sentiment, this one to ohas the problem that it does not in fact do anything, only urges.

Might it perhaps be possible to combine the ideas of both of you into a single resolution, establishing a minimum living wage, and urging nations to ensure their citizens have the means to obtain a good quality of life?

The whole point was that we both want to recognise that there is more than one way of ensuring citizens are provided for. I don't want to require a minimum wage (for starters, such a concept would be utterly irrelevant to nations which don't function with money, e.g. anarcho-communists) - I would not be averse to requiring that all nations ensure that people are provided for, but I don't see how this could effectively be achieved. For starters, acceptable living standards would have to be defined (especially tricky in NS given the variety of species and lifestyles), and then we'd have to take into account the fact that some nations simply wouldn't be able to provide this, especially during certain times e.g. famine.

All in all, I'd prefer to urge nations to provide (and perhaps condemn those who fail to), and leave it open for the future if someone can come up with a feasible proposal requiring that decent living standards be provided.

As to the current proposed text, I do think the title should attempt to reflect more closely precisely what it is that the text does: "National Sovereignty on/for Wages" are possibilities which fit the character limits, as is "National Wage Systems" modelled on PC's taxation resolution name, or "Rights of Nations on Wages". Alternatively, as with the UNCoESB or UNWODC, a longer name may be abbreviated e.g. National Sovereignty Guarantee on Minimum Wages - NSGMW.

I agree with Myopia, so won't repeat the arguments.

The resolution as proposed does next to nothing, however it makes it difficult to propose a resolution that actually does do something (whether that's establishing a minimum wage or minimum quality of life, or the opposite).

For a true social justice resolution, it would be necessary to mandate to nations to provide a minimum wage in the form of each citizen having access to the four basic goods (healthcare, shelter, food and education), either financially or otherwise.

I don't want to require a minimum wage (for starters, such a concept would be utterly irrelevant to nations which don't function with money, e.g. anarcho-communists) - I would not be averse to requiring that all nations ensure that people are provided for, but I don't see how this could effectively be achieved. For starters, acceptable living standards would have to be defined (especially tricky in NS given the variety of species and lifestyles), and then we'd have to take into account the fact that some nations simply wouldn't be able to provide this, especially during certain times e.g. famine.
I believe I outlined at least a partial solution for this before:

"the smallest possible amount of money required to fund a person's needs for housing, food and clothing, earned from working 40 hours a week." (And healthcare, which I forgot).

If a nation doesn't use money, then the whole point of wages is redundant: if your needs of food, housing, clothing and healthcare are provided for without charge, then you don't need to be paid. Also, due to the varying circumstances in different nations, the minimum wage would be different as costs are different; in a similar way the definitions of a standard of living could probably be written in a way that takes into account local variations.

Personally, I don't think a solution could be found for establishing a general living standard in a way that all of NS nations could agree on. Which is why I would want a definition of minimum wage to be included in the resolution, even if it is the absolute minimum by which a person can live by (in a system that uses money, anyway. I would be willing to make amendment for times of crises, if people want it), and write an encouragement for higher living standards than the bare minimum in the resolution.

Title: Minimum Wage Act

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed By: Texan Hotrodders

The NationStates United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the importance of wages and other forms of income to providing the means of acquiring the basic necessities that are needed to sustain the lives of sovereign persons.

NOTING that some member states may find it appropriate to either set or decline to set a minimum wage or other form of income to their citizens for good reasons, such as in the case of a communist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all goods are shared, or a capitalist state that has no need of a minimum wage because all persons within it have gainful employment.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to set a minimum wage for their people or decline to set a minimum wage for their people as is appropriate to the economic circumstances of their nation.

ENCOURAGES nations to ensure that all persons residing within the member nations of this body have the means to provide for their own well-being, whether through individual economic opportunity or collective cooperation.

The statement of principle is one that Compadria disagrees with. Capitalist states that enjoy full employment are even more in need of a minimum wage as the lack of demand for a workforce means that companies will not feel the need to pay an adaquate wage if they don't need to. This means that many will turn to benefits as a supplement to their meagre income, placing more strain on the government purse, requiring either a raise in taxation or borrowing and thus potentially resulting in economic turbulence.

The minimum wage is essential, because it recognises that the individual has a right to be payed a minimum amount for their work, thus protecting them against exploitation. Opting out of the minimum wage would only lead to greater poverty and weaker consumer spending, weaker growth, a decline in living standards and people working longer hours, adversly (for many) affecting their health. The right to work and receive adaquate renumeration for the work given is not just a human right, but an economic asset.

Certainly we would agree with the final point, but in light of our stated opposition to the other clauses, this is rather empty.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria

Long live well-paying Compadria!

The good people are in agreement with many others that this resolution does absolutely nothing, though we most certainly understand and respect that a Minimum Wage requirement can be a useful tool for combatting abuse of the working classes.

The good people of Discordinia also understand and respect that a Minimum Wage requirement can also have the unfortunate, though unintended effect of increasing the income gap between economic classes. Have you ever considered a Maximum Wage?

Ultimately, the good people of Discordinia would not support this resolution - primarily because it would appear to be a piece of useless legislation.

Keep trying.

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

Wage Act might be a more fitting title than Minimum Wage Act?

I dunno. The proposal specifically addresses the issue of a minimum wage, not wages in general. That was a good thought, though. :)

As to the current proposed text, I do think the title should attempt to reflect more closely precisely what it is that the text does: "National Sovereignty on/for Wages" are possibilities which fit the character limits, as is "National Wage Systems" modelled on PC's taxation resolution name, or "Rights of Nations on Wages". Alternatively, as with the UNCoESB or UNWODC, a longer name may be abbreviated e.g. National Sovereignty Guarantee on Minimum Wages - NSGMW.

1. The "National Sovereignty on/for Wages" is a good way to ensure that the proposal never passes, considering the unfair negative connotation given to national sovereignty by many members.

2. "Rights of Nations on Wages" is too awkward and I don't think it is quite fitting given that the focus of the proposal is on minimum wages in particular. If the proposal were about wages in general, I would probably use the suggested title.

3. "National Wage Systems" has the implication of a level of socialized economy that would off-putting to the free-marketeers, since they would see wages as the product of an agreement between indiciduals rather than as a product of national policy. It is better than the previous two; however, and I will consider using it.

4. "National Sovereignty Guarantee on Minimum Wages" - NSGMW would also require me to put the words national sovereignty in the proposal text, which I think would be a kiss of death. So no.

Upon reflection, I don't think this is worth it. I won't propose anything like it without heavy revision.

I dunno. The proposal specifically addresses the issue of a minimum wage, not wages in general. That was a good thought, though. :)



1. The "National Sovereignty on/for Wages" is a good way to ensure that the proposal never passes, considering the unfair negative connotation given to national sovereignty by many members.




It might have a negative connotation but this is EXACTLY what your proposal does. it is negative because your proposal is negative. It forbids future resolution from imposing minimum wage requirments for all U.N nations. All the "urging" and "encouraging" will not save you from this misleading proposal.

so instead of having a title that is more true to the content of your proposal, you are using a misleading one to get more votes. :shakes head:

It might have a negative connotation but this is EXACTLY what your proposal does. it is negative because your proposal is negative. It forbids future resolution from imposing minimum wage requirments for all U.N nations. All the "urging" and "encouraging" will not save you from this misleading proposal.

so instead of having a title that is more true to the content of your proposal, you are using a misleading one to get more votes. :shakes head:
Hmm...what are those cannons called again?

...not "D.I.S.R.E.G.A.R.D. cannons"...

...not "D.I.S.C.O.U.N.T. cannons"...

...I wonder...





Seriously, even the more hardened trolls of 2004-2005 had more positive, less pointed things to say than this when oppossing a proposal. Lighten up!