NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everyone, I just proposed a new issue in the UN titled "Worldwide Minimum Wage". I'd appreciate if everyone would o check it out. At least look at it, and hopefully we can get something with enough approval to get a quorum and finally have a vote again!

It's considered decorous to link to and post a copy of your resolution for us.

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=minimum


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Taylor Mill
Description: RECOGNIZING that many multinational companies take advantage of cheap labor and employ workers in sweatshops around the world, while paying almost non existent wages to workers in countries much poorer than the ones in which their products are sold,
and
ADMITTING that forcing these companies to maintain shops in wealthier countries or to apply a flat rate minimum wage for the world could very easily become detrimental to countries with weaker economies, it is proposed that:

A new set of laws be set forth requiring a minimum wage to be set for workers employed by a specific company based on the following conditions.

1) The minimum wage will only be required in a certain country when a company produces at least 1% of its total yearly output inside the borders of that specific country. This applies to the total output of the company, regardless of how many factories a company has in a certain country.

2) The minimum wage will be set not at some arbitrary value, but will instead be equal to the HIGHEST minimum wage out of all the other countries in the world in which the company also has a presence.

3) “Having a presence” in a country is defined as meeting the conditions set forth under condition #1 listed above (i.e. producing more than 1% of the companies totally yearly output in a given country)

4) The United Nations is not responsible for determining the minimum wage in any of the countries, but leaves that task up to each countries government.

Approvals: 1 (Taylor Mill)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 126 more approvals)

I like it.

And if none of the countries in which a particular company has factories sets a minimum wage then the company doesn't have to set one?

It's considered decorous to link to and post a copy of your resolution for us.

http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=minimum

I like it.I dont. Whilst some nations do have excessively low wages, there are nations where the cost of living is so much lower. Instead, make a minimum wage no lower than 120% of the national subsistence level, and that'll do the job nicely.

Having said that, the proposal is well reasoned and an intelligent way to approach the issue.

I dont. Whilst some nations do have excessively low wages, there are nations where the cost of living is so much lower. Instead, make a minimum wage no lower than 120% of the national subsistence level, and that'll do the job nicely.

Having said that, the proposal is well reasoned and an intelligent way to approach the issue.

Yah, I have problems with it too, but it's been submitted, and I'd support it as is, for all that it could be improved.

The only problem I can see is that if a company (call it Gemini Imports) has an office in two nations, and they have radically different economies, then one wage might be ten times the wage in the other nation, and with exchange rates and other such factors, it might be absolutely impossible to support that wage in the other nation.

This would lead the company to close that office down and move everything to the first nation, causing huge unemployment.

Random Example (and these are made up figures).

Gemini Imports in Pallatium sets the wage at 50 Guilders per week. This is way above the national average (around 25 Guilders per week).

It opens up an office in Hyrule, where the Rupee is currently trading at 1 Rupee = 500 Guilders.

The minimum wage in Hyrule is 200 Rupees, which means that the minimum wage for Pallatium must now be 500 * 200 = 100,000 Guilders per week.

This is clearly higher than the current wage, so the company must now start paying all of it's employees in Pallatium 100,000 Guilders per week or else be in breach of this.

On that basis alone it is unacceptable.


Further more this is going to discourage companies from setting up offices in certain nations to avoid raises in the minimum wage - or else setup 101 offices that each produce the same, and so bypass the resolution altogether.

So, a nation (A), very rich, has high minimum wage, and a company is producing there. That same company has a factory in a poor UN member (B). So suddenly, the minimum wage in nation A becomes mandatory for nation B if I understand this resolution correctly?

The only way that could be more silly is when it'd wear a red nose and fall down in a bucket of water.

I recommend (for any minimum wage resolution) that a minimum wage is defined as enough to sustain one person and their children living with them for their basic needs: food and clean water, shelter, education, healthcare. Because that's what a minimum wage is for: so having a job means you can actually earn a living.

I recommend (for any minimum wage resolution) that a minimum wage is defined as enough to sustain one person and their children living with them for their basic needs: food and clean water, shelter, education, healthcare. Because that's what a minimum wage is for: so having a job means you can actually earn a living.

How many children are covered by this?

How many children are covered by this?

Indeed, that's not possible to define.

I like the approach, but the problem that I can see is that it will encourage MNC's to move to non-UN nations and export from there to UN nations.

The suggestions made by Ambassador Kildarno appear to me to be a more sensible way of addressing this problem.

Sir Cyril MacLehose-Strangways-Jones III raises an important point. The issue of MNCs operating in poor countries on favourable terms of taxation and so on has been a source of great concern for some time. The UN has introduced solid legislation protecting workers (guaranteeing trades union rights and reasonable working hours and conditions) in the past that has mitigated many of the ill effects of more unscrupulous MNC activity. A modified form of this proposal seems to me to be an appropriate step towards ensuring that fair terms are applied in all UN nations in this regard.

But will the MNCs flee? Perhaps, in which case might it not be wise to include a clause whereby corporations domiciled in UN nations are penalised for any activity in non-UN nations that falls short of the standards set by the UN? This may serve to make moving operations from the UN to non-UN sphere rather less attractive. I understand that this may be a highly contentious suggestion, but I believe it merits consideration.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Having said that, the proposal is well reasoned and an intelligent way to approach the issue.

If this were an issue the UN should be approaching...

I've actually toyed with the idea of writing one of these but abandoned the idea because I don't think it's workable in NS. A global minimum wage would be impossible to implement in RL, imagine the complexities of implementing one here. Better to stick with workers rights, safe working conditions, etc.

If this were an issue the UN should be approaching...

Workers rights? The UN has already delved in to it on previous occasions - quite sucessfully in most of them (notably End Slavery and The 40 Hour Work Week)

I really have to say, there is a huge problem in this resolution. Say, according to this, if a company does most of its selling in first world countries, but none of its producing, it has no "presence" there. Therefore, it could just go produce in countries where there is NO minimum wage and so the highest minimum wage out of all countries where it has presence is equal to zero. So the "minimum wage" it has to pay its workers is zero, therefore eliminating the minimum wage altogether. So you just created a law that basically does nothing.

I really have to say, there is a huge problem in this resolution. Say, according to this, if a company does most of its selling in first world countries, but none of its producing, it has no "presence" there. Therefore, it could just go produce in countries where there is NO minimum wage and so the highest minimum wage out of all countries where it has presence is equal to zero. So the "minimum wage" it has to pay its workers is zero, therefore eliminating the minimum wage altogether. So you just created a law that basically does nothing.

I know, which is why I prefer the idea of a minimum wage being there to ensure subsistence, and also the opportunity for the poor to gain wealth. Hence the 120% I suggested :)

Is this something the UN should be legislating upon? I say yes, employees rights, the right for food and shelter are both important, and this would address these issues.

Besides, I've noticed the NS UN acts more like the RL EU with what it legislates upon.

The bad news with minimum wages is that once you have a price floor above equilbirium prices, then the company may not afford to pay the high price for labor. Therefore, the company must fire people to pay the new high wages, causing unemployement. Either that, or the nation leaves to a non-UN nation, and does not build factories in my nation, causing the same unemployement.

This is not fair. A vote for this will tank your economy.

The bad news with minimum wages is that once you have a price floor above equilbirium prices, then the company may not afford to pay the high price for labor. Therefore, the company must fire people to pay the new high wages, causing unemployement. Either that, or the nation leaves to a non-UN nation, and does not build factories in my nation, causing the same unemployement.
[emphasis added]

I think that's the real, pragmatic problem here. There are so many more non-members than members to do business with. I'm not saying I oppose ot support this, but I'm certain a lot of businesses will flee Powerhungry Chipmunks should it not be able to maintain its own competitive minimum wage.

[emphasis added]

I think that's the real, pragmatic problem here. There are so many more non-members than members to do business with. I'm not saying I oppose ot support this, but I'm certain a lot of businesses will flee Powerhungry Chipmunks should it not be able to maintain its own competitive minimum wage.
Hence my suggestion:

"But will the MNCs flee? Perhaps, in which case might it not be wise to include a clause whereby corporations domiciled in UN nations are penalised for any activity in non-UN nations that falls short of the standards set by the UN? This may serve to make moving operations from the UN to non-UN sphere rather less attractive. I understand that this may be a highly contentious suggestion, but I believe it merits consideration."

VY

well, based on support thusfar, it doesn't look like this issue is going to gain enough support to be brought to a vote. If anyone out there is interested in helping me revise this issue and address some of the concerns expressed in the above postings, I'd be more than happy to try and make this more acceptable and hopefully get it passed in its new form.

Hence my suggestion:

"But will the MNCs flee? Perhaps, in which case might it not be wise to include a clause whereby corporations domiciled in UN nations are penalised for any activity in non-UN nations that falls short of the standards set by the UN? This may serve to make moving operations from the UN to non-UN sphere rather less attractive. I understand that this may be a highly contentious suggestion, but I believe it merits consideration."

VY

Then the companies die from paying too high a wage.

You haven't thought of the company. The company would suffer at this new resolution. It will have high debts, and it will not be able to pay them. The company will have to lay off people to surivie, or just go bankrupt, and no longer exist.

Or...more horrible of all, the companies, needing to surivie, will operate illegaly. Illegal companies will be bad indeed.

Then the companies die from paying too high a wage.

You haven't thought of the company. The company would suffer at this new resolution. It will have high debts, and it will not be able to pay them. The company will have to lay off people to surivie, or just go bankrupt, and no longer exist.

Or...more horrible of all, the companies, needing to surivie, will operate illegaly. Illegal companies will be bad indeed.
I disagree. Companies of a transnational nature wil not be at risk of closure just because they have to pay meaningful wages to their employees.

VY

I disagree. Companies of a transnational nature wil not be at risk of closure just because they have to pay meaningful wages to their employees.

VY

A new set of laws be set forth requiring a minimum wage to be set for workers employed by a specific company based on the following conditions.

Does it say transnational companies? No, it applies to all countries, even those who base only in my nation. Those companies are at a risk of closure.

And, you have no proof that companies of a transnational nature will not be a risk. If they were not at risk of going down if they paid minuium wage, then why would they move to smaller nations to avoid it?

well, based on support thusfar, it doesn't look like this issue is going to gain enough support to be brought to a vote. If anyone out there is interested in helping me revise this issue and address some of the concerns expressed in the above postings, I'd be more than happy to try and make this more acceptable and hopefully get it passed in its new form.

I'll try and do a rewrite for you this weekend taking into account the suggestions above - on the basis you were thinking of adopting my idea. Even if you have other ideas, it might give you some help in composing your own :)

Worldwide Minimum Wage
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Taylor Mill

Description: RECOGNIZING that many multinational companies take advantage of cheap labor and employ workers in sweatshops around the world, while paying almost non existent wages to workers in countries much poorer than the ones in which their products are sold,

and

ADMITTING that forcing these companies to maintain shops in wealthier countries or to apply a flat rate minimum wage for the world could very easily become detrimental to countries with weaker economies, it is proposed that:

A new set of laws be set forth requiring a minimum wage to be set for workers employed by a specific company based on the following conditions.

1) The minimum wage will only be required in a certain country when a company produces at least 1% of its total yearly output inside the borders of that specific country. This applies to the total output of the company, regardless of how many factories a company has in a certain country.

2) The minimum wage will be set not at some arbitrary value, but will instead be equal to the HIGHEST minimum wage out of all the other countries in the world in which the company also has a presence.

3) “Having a presence” in a country is defined as meeting the conditions set forth under condition #1 listed above (i.e. producing more than 1% of the companies totally yearly output in a given country)

4) The United Nations is not responsible for determining the minimum wage in any of the countries, but leaves that task up to each countries government.

It is certainly agreeable to see a proposal for a global minimum wage, but there are better ways, I feel, of formulating it, given the unequal state of the various economies of the nations of the NSUN. Tailoring it to a corporate value, as opposed to a governmental one, is flawed, because it allows to much lee-way in the setting of the wage, due to the limited number of companies it would apply to. If we consider the fact that this will predominantly affect big businesses, who are not responsible for the majority of minimum wage violations, whilst ignoring smaller ones, who often use their low profile to do so.

I would like to propose a a comprehensive set of amendments to this proposal and would welcome comments on it.

Worldwide Minimum Wage
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Taylor Mill

Description: RECOGNIZING that many multinational companies take advantage of cheap labor and employ workers in sweatshops around the world, while paying almost non existent wages to workers in countries much poorer than the ones in which their products are sold,

and

ADMITTING that forcing these companies to maintain shops in wealthier countries or to apply a flat rate minimum wage for the world could very easily become detrimental to countries with weaker economies, it is proposed that:

A new set of laws be set forth requiring a minimum wage to be set for workers employed by a specific company based on the following conditions.

Strike this section and insert:

A new set of laws be set forth requiring that the minimum wage be established as being uniform for all businesses, organisations, financial groups, etc within an individual country, based on the following conditions

1) The minimum wage will only be required in a certain country when a company produces at least 1% of its total yearly output inside the borders of that specific country. This applies to the total output of the company, regardless of how many factories a company has in a certain country.

Strike and insert:

The minimum wage within each country shall be calculated using the national definition of the poverty line within the nation and setting the minimum wage at a level to produce an annual income of not lower than 10% of this amount. The wage shall, in addition, be set at a level of at least 50% of average national income. If this figure violates the previous clause, then the minimum wage shall be increased by the necessary percentage amount required to meet this criterion.

2) The minimum wage will be set not at some arbitrary value, but will instead be equal to the HIGHEST minimum wage out of all the other countries in the world in which the company also has a presence.

3) “Having a presence” in a country is defined as meeting the conditions set forth under condition #1 listed above (i.e. producing more than 1% of the companies totally yearly output in a given country)

Strike and insert:

It shall be required of all relevant organisations, both in the public and private sector, to meet minimum levels of pay. The sanctions for violating this provision shall be left to be determined by each individual nation.

4) The United Nations is not responsible for determining the minimum wage in any of the countries, but leaves that task up to each countries government.

As note, why was this resolution being introduced if this is the case?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

"The minimum wage within each country shall be calculated using the national definition of the poverty line within the nation and setting the minimum wage at a level to produce an annual income of not lower than 10% of this amount. The wage shall, in addition, be set at a level of at least 50% of average national income. If this figure violates the previous clause, then the minimum wage shall be increased by the necessary percentage amount required to meet this criterion."

50% of national average income when? If this minimum wage is supposed to keep up with increases in the national average income then if it increases that average itself (as seem likely) there'll be an automatic spiralling upwards of those two linked values...

50% of national average income when? If this minimum wage is supposed to keep up with increases in the national average income then if it increases that average itself (as seem likely) there'll be an automatic spiralling upwards of those two linked values...

I need to have a pay raise, and thinks this is a great way to do it. It will also make me rich. So what if companies goes banrkrupt having to pay 2 million dollars per hour to a janitor? Fine by me!

I personally will support this propsal, but SLI Sector will not. For obivous reasons.

50% of national average income when? If this minimum wage is supposed to keep up with increases in the national average income then if it increases that average itself (as seem likely) there'll be an automatic spiralling upwards of those two linked values...

My apologies, I should included in the statement that naturally the minimum wage set out here will be evaluated each year based on the criteria of:

a). Consumer Price Index inflation.

b). The change in status of the average national income.

c). The economic status of the relevant national economic factors (i.e. national output, productivity, etc).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

SLI Sector, in response to the majority of your comments, let me clarify that I do not support the current draft but believe that it has the germ of a very good resolution (as stated earlier).

And, you have no proof that companies of a transnational nature will not be a risk. If they were not at risk of going down if they paid minuium wage, then why would they move to smaller nations to avoid it?
And, by the same token, you have no proof that they will be at risk. Regardless, your argument here is bordering on spurious since the minimum wage in a 'smaller' nation will be [b]lower[/i] than in the nation of domicile.

Ambassador Kildarno, I would be most grateful if you were to give serious consideration to my proposal concerning the penalising of corporations fleeing to non-UN nations when composing your draft.

VY

...[b]lower[/i] ...

Don't change your mind about the formatting halfway through the word :p

Don't change your mind about the formatting halfway through the word :p
Damn, I was just about to edit that!

Ambassador Kildarno, I would be most grateful if you were to give serious consideration to my proposal concerning the penalising of corporations fleeing to non-UN nations when composing your draft.

VYOf course, although I'm still pondering how to include that.:)

How about this? It has holes in, but I think it;s a start.

MINDFUL that access to shelter and subsistence are a fundamental human neccessity,

RECOGNIZING that many multinational corporations take advantage of cheap labor and employ workers in sweatshops around the world, while paying almost non existent wages to workers in countries much poorer than the ones in which their products are sold,

ADMITTING that forcing these companies to maintain a presence in wealthier countries or to apply a flat rate minimum wage for the world could very easily become detrimental and unbalancing to countries with weaker economies,

Determines the following

DETERMINED that the net national minimum wage of all member states will be no less than 120% of the amount required for basic subsistence, including but not limited to food, utilities & housing, and to be monitored in line with inflation as a minimum.

URGES member states to implement urgent reviews of companies to ensure compliance by companies based within their borders of this resolution both within the nation and within other nations, and bring about penalties for non-compliance through relevant legal systems.

CALLS for international boycotts of companies who exercise non-compliance.

DETERMINED to remain seized on the matter

1221 characters including spaces.

How do you 'embargo' a company? Would not 'CALLS for international boycotts of companies...' be better?

How do you 'embargo' a company? Would not 'CALLS for international boycotts of companies...' be better?

Probably :)

Consider it done.

I think Hirota hit bullseye on this one. He can be sure of my approval for this. That said, about a minimum wage harming antions or the economy, the truth is thisresolution only would "harm" huge transnationals, as single nation companies have to abide by the laws of their nation anyway. It is only the huge ones who outsource to cut costs which will be affected by this, and you know what? Fine by me. As for nations being harmed, punishing tariffs on companies that do most of their business in the UN yet mst manufacturing outside of it might solve the problem. And as for the companies no being able to make a profit, I'm sure they'll think of something, and if they have to resign themselves to not making over 50% over cost, well, I can live with that.

Then the companies die from paying too high a wage.

You haven't thought of the company. The company would suffer at this new resolution. It will have high debts, and it will not be able to pay them. The company will have to lay off people to surivie, or just go bankrupt, and no longer exist.

And somehow you think that that is worse than people working without a full-time job being able to provide them with the bare minimum required to survive? Companies come, companies go. I don't care about companies that are going bankrupt because they don't invest in their workers. They might contribute to the economy a bit, but they don't serve any purpose for (a part of) their labourers, as they can't pay for their survival with their wages.

As far as I'm concerned, setting a minimum wage relative to a nation's or even region's level of basic needs, you don't hurt your economy but do provide the workers with what they actually need. And remember that it's a minimum wage - a bare minimum, but whatever comes on top of it is a matter of the companies.

Overall, a fine resolution. I knew we'd sometime agree with each other :)

MINDFUL that access to shelter and subsistence are a fundamental human neccessity,

Generally the fundamental necessities (one c, right?) as far as I know (as the "basic goods") are food, clean water, shelter, education and healthcare. Wouldn't it be better to define it like that (or at least, more than now) to prevent loopholes? Either here or below in the first clause.

RECOGNIZING that many multinational corporations take advantage of cheap labor and employ workers in sweatshops around the world, while paying almost non existent wages to workers in countries much poorer than the ones in which their products are sold,

ADMITTING that forcing these companies to maintain a presence in wealthier countries or to apply a flat rate minimum wage for the world could very easily become detrimental and unbalancing to countries with weaker economies,

Determines the following

I'd leave that last line out, as it doesn't fit in with the rest (Determines...DETERMINED). If you use this style, the whole resolution basically becomes one phrase.

DETERMINED that the net national minimum wage of all member states will be no less than 120% of the amount required for basic subsistence, including but not limited to food, utilities & housing, and to be monitored in line with inflation as a minimum.

In this resolution I favour more strong language. Let's mandate it. Aside from the grammatical oddity, it's not something we're determined about. We want it to happen, or urge strongly.

URGES member states to implement urgent reviews of companies to ensure compliance by companies based within their borders of this resolution both within the nation and within other nations, and bring about penalties for non-compliance through relevant legal systems.

CALLS for international boycotts of companies who exercise non-compliance.

DETERMINED to remain seized on the matter

determines, as it also calls and urges. Minor thing, but makes it sound a bit better. This is a very good start though.

Another thing though: we call for a minimum wage. Would it be possible (or wise?) to extend the minimum wage to social welfare, or is that best left to a separate resolution? After all, if you expect companies to provide a minimum wage, why not expect the state (or insurance companies) to provide that for the unemployed?

Why bother? I really don't see the point of 'DETERMINED to remain seized of the matter'. It's not something that is necessary in NSUN resolutions, because you can't forbid a repeal. I'd just lose the line.

Another thing though: we call for a minimum wage. Would it be possible (or wise?) to extend the minimum wage to social welfare, or is that best left to a separate resolution? After all, if you expect companies to provide a minimum wage, why not expect the state (or insurance companies) to provide that for the unemployed?
I think that its best left for another proposal, if only in the interest of getting this one approved. It can be tricky when you try to sneak in extra stuff in a resolution. People don't like it. Trust me, I've tried :D .

While SLI Sector is against this propsal...

We think it should go to a vote. We are against it, but it seems unfair that this issue doesn't get decided by the UN body. This propsal is good, and we should campagin against it (may the best UN delegates win). We should not let the propsal die here on this board. If UN members think we should have a generic min. wage, then so be it. We shall obey.

So, this is a glorified bump.

While SLI Sector is against this propsal...

We think it should go to a vote. We are against it, but it seems unfair that this issue doesn't get decided by the UN body. This propsal is good, and we should campagin against it (may the best UN delegates win). We should not let the propsal die here on this board. If UN members think we should have a generic min. wage, then so be it. We shall obey.

So, this is a glorified bump.

It should get to a vote definitely, I would urge everyone to pressure their Regional Delegate to vote for this.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

It should get to a vote definitely, I would urge everyone to pressure their Regional Delegate to vote for this.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

For this proposal specifically? Or the idea of a minimum wage?

Cause this proposal is economic suicide, and not something anyone should support.

For this proposal specifically? Or the idea of a minimum wage?

Cause this proposal is economic suicide, and not something anyone should support.


How is this economic suicide? People have more money, thus can spend more, thus business is good. It's all about consumer confidence, and if the consumer has that money in their back pocket, they become that much more confident.

Sure it's bad for the owners of companies in one sense - they are probably going to have to spend more money to ensure their employees live, and you know what? I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd have thought it would be in the interests of big business to know their employees are having 3 square meals.

Plus, like I said, if employees have more money to spend, that means more opportunity to sell. But Ultimately, if it means the owners of big companies can only afford 3 cars instead of 4, I don't care.

Anyway, even if it was suicide, my position is that having the opportunity to eat, have a roof over your head, and the opportunity to improves on self is more important than worrying about economy, and I'm a borderline Capitalist (according to my nations UN classification, from time to time).

How is this economic suicide? People have more money, thus can spend more, thus business is good. It's all about consumer confidence, and if the consumer has that money in their back pocket, they become that much more confident.

Sure it's bad for the owners of companies in one sense - they are probably going to have to spend more money to ensure their employees live, and you know what? I don't think that's a bad thing. I'd have thought it would be in the interests of big business to know their employees are having 3 square meals.

Plus, like I said, if employees have more money to spend, that means more opportunity to sell. But Ultimately, if it means the owners of big companies can only afford 3 cars instead of 4, I don't care.

Anyway, even if it was suicide, my position is that having the opportunity to eat, have a roof over your head, and the opportunity to improves on self is more important than worrying about economy, and I'm a borderline Capitalist (according to my nations UN classification, from time to time).

A minimum wage is good. But it should be controlled within the nation. Which is not what this proposal does.

This proposal says that the minimum wage will vary by company within a nation - so that Company A might have a minimum wage of 200 Guilders, and Company B might have a minimum wage of 1 Guilder. Further more if Nation C has a minimum wage of 200,000 Guilders, and I open up a factory there, I am obliged to up my minimum wage in all nations that I own factories.

Its dangerous.

A minimum wage is good. But it should be controlled within the nation. Which is not what this proposal does.

This proposal says that the minimum wage will vary by company within a nation - so that Company A might have a minimum wage of 200 Guilders, and Company B might have a minimum wage of 1 Guilder. Further more if Nation C has a minimum wage of 200,000 Guilders, and I open up a factory there, I am obliged to up my minimum wage in all nations that I own factories.

Its dangerous.

Well, now I know you have not read my draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918187&postcount=33) on it then, which proposes a minimum annual wage of 120% of the annual subsistence costs.

So it is done on a nation-by-nation basis. :)

Edit: Maybe I need to make that a bit clearer in the draft?

Personally, I think that, seeing as all nations in the UN must already guarentee the right to form, join Trades Unions and not be descriminated against we need no more legislation in this respect. I feel that this adaquately ensures decent standards of living (if indirectly) and empowers the people to do so, further legislation is unneccessary.

That's just my Cobdenian Halfpennyworth...

Well, now I know you have not read my draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918187&postcount=33) on it then, which proposes a minimum annual wage of 120% of the annual subsistence costs.

So it is done on a nation-by-nation basis. :)

Edit: Maybe I need to make that a bit clearer in the draft?

You really don't need to.

I thought that people were expressing support for the version posted in this thread (the first post in this thread). I must have missed the bit where everyone moved on to expressing support for another version of it.

So - yes. Yours sounds fine, and I will go read it properly and almost certainly support it.

Again - my apologies for confusion and other such things :}

You really don't need to.

I thought that people were expressing support for the version posted in this thread (the first post in this thread). I must have missed the bit where everyone moved on to expressing support for another version of it.

So - yes. Yours sounds fine, and I will go read it properly and almost certainly support it.

Again - my apologies for confusion and other such things :}

No problem :)

Ok everyone, sorry I haven't been puttting much on this board, but I'm back again to try and work this out. First, thanks to everyone who gave their opinions (whether in support or against), I like some of the ideas proposed here, and I will get to work on revising this issue. Unfortuantely, I am a college student who has final exams coming up at the end of this week, so it may have to wait until after then, but hopefully within the next two weeks I will have a new version up. Also, I forget who said it now (and am too lazy to look back and find it), but thank you to whoever said they were against the issue but would support it to bring it to a vote. I think's that really great, and yeah, that's what I was trying for here, I just wanted to get this issue out and see how people felt about it, hopefully my revised edition will be able to make it in front of the entire UN.

-Until after exams,
Taylor Mill

Ok everyone, sorry I haven't been puttting much on this board, but I'm back again to try and work this out. First, thanks to everyone who gave their opinions (whether in support or against), I like some of the ideas proposed here, and I will get to work on revising this issue. Unfortuantely, I am a college student who has final exams coming up at the end of this week, so it may have to wait until after then, but hopefully within the next two weeks I will have a new version up. Also, I forget who said it now (and am too lazy to look back and find it), but thank you to whoever said they were against the issue but would support it to bring it to a vote. I think's that really great, and yeah, that's what I was trying for here, I just wanted to get this issue out and see how people felt about it, hopefully my revised edition will be able to make it in front of the entire UN.

-Until after exams,
Taylor Mill

And hopefully the final draft will pass the muster.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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