NationStates Jolt Archive

The nations of the world assembled,

RECOGNIZING that some workers, particularly in developing nations, face low salaries and poor working conditions,

AWARE that it was the intent of the previous act to ameliorate this,

INFORMED of the inherent economic inefficiency in creating a minimum wage and its inhibiting effect on economic growth,

DESIRING to allow these nations to develop at the fastest speed possible, thus allowing for more wealth for all their citizens, and to afford developed nations these same benefits, and recognizing that a minimum wage results in unemployed workers who do not participate in the production of wealth, a necessity for a country's long-term growth,

DECLARING that countries which desire to impose a minimum wage continue to be allowed to do so,

CONSIDERING welfare not to be the responsibility of the employer, but of the state,

NOTING our time-honored principle of national sovereignty and considering this to be an issue fit for the many nations to decide for themselves,

DO REPEAL the Living Wage Act.

There it is, but I'm not quite satisfied with the language. Anyone have any suggestions/arguments?

I strongly support the repeal as nations do not need all these trade unions and workers union interfering in large businesses and corporations, workers get paid for what they work for.

The nations of the world assembled,

RECOGNIZING that some workers, particularly in developing nations, face low salaries and poor working conditions,

AWARE that it was the intent of the previous act to ameliorate this,
You've spent two clauses directly reinvigorating the rationale that helped this resolution pass in the first place. If you're going to acknowledge the legitimacy of some of the resolution's arguments, do it quickly and very selectively. Select, optimally, one point of argument, giving a matter-of-fact acknowledgement or approval and move on. Most of those who read the proposal will not be looking for a line by line recap of how much this repeal agrees with the proposal (such as, for example, the forum--where long responses combatting every couple of lines are not uncommon). When you dwell too much on the narrative created in resolution you're repealing you diminish your ability to create a new narrative, one in which the proposal needs to be repealed.


INFORMED of the inherent economic inefficiency in creating a minimum wage and its inhibiting effect on economic growth,

DESIRING to allow these nations to develop at the fastest speed possible, thus allowing for more wealth for all their citizens, and to afford developed nations these same benefits, and recognizing that a minimum wage results in unemployed workers who do not participate in the production of wealth, a necessity for a country's long-term growth,
Okay, you need to prove this claim. I don't really know on the first read whether it's true or not, but I know you're not proving it. You need to ask yourself, "Why does a minimum wage result in unemployed workers?" And that needs to be your argument. There’s a real rationale behind that very question, don't get me wrong (just look at RL's Friedmann, et al and their explanation of the Great Depression), but you have to somewhat walk us through that rationale. Don't just state the rationale's end result or we (the WA voting body) will get lost.
DECLARING that countries which desire to impose a minimum wage continue to be allowed to do so,
DECLARES is not the right verb for this clause because it's in the preamble. The preamble is passive. Some people have been kind of nitpicky with me about this point and object, saying "but how come REAFIRM and DESIRE are permissible in the preamble? What's so different about a verb like DECLARE?". Because REAFFIRMING and DESIRING are actions performed passively and in response to a context. Let me explain.

Your proposal is like a play. The preamble (all the -ING clauses, by the way, in case you've never heard that term used that way...though it's kind of a misapplied word in this case since repeals typically only have one clause that isn't a preambulary clause) are setting the scene in which your action, in this case a repeal, will make sense. Actually, you need a scene in which the action of repealing the resolution doesn't just make sense, but a scene in which a repeal is imperative. DECLARING doesn't establish the setting in which the action of your proposal-play, but is primarily an action in and of itself. You don't declare something that's in the background (in RL: the Declaration of Independence didn't say "we declare that men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but rather declared independence and justified such a declaration with a context of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being obvious, even self-evident). REAFFIRMING and DESIRING can be verbs whose primary purpose is to set the stage.

And yes, of course (I was getting there, mods...), since the only thing a repeal is allowed to do is nix the old legislation--under no circumstances introducing new WA policy--using a DECLARING would introduce new policy in a repeal and would be, technically, illegal.

CONSIDERING welfare not to be the responsibility of the employer, but of the state,This is non sequitur. It could be a genius argument, but it's out of place. Are you implying that minimum wage is a form of welfare?

NOTING our time-honored principle of national sovereignty and considering this to be an issue fit for the many nations to decide for themselves,As a longtime advocate of national sovereignty, I'll give you this advice: never use the phrase "national sovereignty" in a proposal.

First off, I don't think anybody outside the forum (and Gatesville) will understand the full meaning of the phrase, much less it's "time-honored" status in the WA. Secondly, national sovereignty is a powerful argument because of the principles upon which it is founded: liberty, representative government, collaboration, flexibility to respond to national exigency. These are principles and arguments that have weight and power with the audience (at least with the nat sov audience). You must connect your proposal directly to these principles, not dilute the potency of the national sovereignty argument with the middleman of the words "national sovereignty". I can explain that a little better if given some time, but the basic idea is pretty simple: show that it's a national sovereignty proposal, don't just say that it is.

Hey this is the first one I'm for. I'm with you on this issue. You would have my vote.

You've spent two clauses directly reinvigorating the rationale that helped this resolution pass in the first place. If you're going to acknowledge the legitimacy of some of the resolution's arguments, do it quickly and very selectively. Select, optimally, one point of argument, giving a matter-of-fact acknowledgement or approval and move on. Most of those who read the proposal will not be looking for a line by line recap of how much this repeal agrees with the proposal (such as, for example, the forum--where long responses combatting every couple of lines are not uncommon). When you dwell too much on the narrative created in resolution you're repealing you diminish your ability to create a new narrative, one in which the proposal needs to be repealed.

I see your point; perhaps it would be better to combine them like so: "RECOGNIZING that some workers, particularly in developing nations, face low salaries and poor working conditions and aware that it was the intent of the previous act to ameliorate this,"?


Okay, you need to prove this claim. I don't really know on the first read whether it's true or not, but I know you're not proving it. You need to ask yourself, "Why does a minimum wage result in unemployed workers?" And that needs to be your argument. There’s a real rationale behind that very question, don't get me wrong (just look at RL's Friedmann, et al and their explanation of the Great Depression), but you have to somewhat walk us through that rationale. Don't just state the rationale's end result or we (the WA voting body) will get lost.

Good suggestion. I wasn't sure just how much emphasis to put on this, since I don't want to bog down the proposal in what is really an argument in defense of the proposal, but it seems I do need to have a little substance there. I was going with the line of argument that a minimum wage does not actually cause employers to pay their workers more (since are not actually given any more money by which to do so), but merely to fire ones they can no longer afford at the artificially raised labor price, thereby causing unemployment and more people to go on the dole, decreasing overall economic efficiency and improvement.

DECLARES is not the right verb for this clause because it's in the preamble. The preamble is passive. Some people have been kind of nitpicky with me about this point and object, saying "but how come REAFIRM and DESIRE are permissible in the preamble? What's so different about a verb like DECLARE?". Because REAFFIRMING and DESIRING are actions performed passively and in response to a context. Let me explain.

Your proposal is like a play. The preamble (all the -ING clauses, by the way, in case you've never heard that term used that way...though it's kind of a misapplied word in this case since repeals typically only have one clause that isn't a preambulary clause) are setting the scene in which your action, in this case a repeal, will make sense. Actually, you need a scene in which the action of repealing the resolution doesn't just make sense, but a scene in which a repeal is imperative. DECLARING doesn't establish the setting in which the action of your proposal-play, but is primarily an action in and of itself. You don't declare something that's in the background (in RL: the Declaration of Independence didn't say "we declare that men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", but rather declared independence and justified such a declaration with a context of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being obvious, even self-evident). REAFFIRMING and DESIRING can be verbs whose primary purpose is to set the stage.

And yes, of course (I was getting there, mods...), since the only thing a repeal is allowed to do is nix the old legislation--under no circumstances introducing new WA policy--using a DECLARING would introduce new policy in a repeal and would be, technically, illegal.

Gotcha. I knew declaring wasn't really the best word. Reaffirming should do nicely.

This is non sequitur. It could be a genius argument, but it's out of place. Are you implying that minimum wage is a form of welfare?

Yes, but more generally, implying that the responsibility to take care of the needs of citizens falls on the government (or not), and not on the employer. Therefore, (going with the previous clause) states that wish to provide a welfare system should do so outright, rather than attempting to compel employers to provide a minimum standard of living to their workers. And since they are already given the means to do so by the game, the resolution is unnecessary.

As a longtime advocate of national sovereignty, I'll give you this advice: never use the phrase "national sovereignty" in a proposal.

First off, I don't think anybody outside the forum (and Gatesville) will understand the full meaning of the phrase, much less it's "time-honored" status in the WA. Secondly, national sovereignty is a powerful argument because of the principles upon which it is founded: liberty, representative government, collaboration, flexibility to respond to national exigency. These are principles and arguments that have weight and power with the audience (at least with the nat sov audience). You must connect your proposal directly to these principles, not dilute the potency of the national sovereignty argument with the middleman of the words "national sovereignty". I can explain that a little better if given some time, but the basic idea is pretty simple: show that it's a national sovereignty proposal, don't just say that it is.

I hadn't considered that the term would be unknown outside the forums. I will definitely explain what is meant by it instead of using those words, as you suggested.

I don't have time at this very moment to re-draft this, but I'll do it later, and anyone is free to take a stab at it; I certainly don't mind.

And a technical question: does a repeal "reverse" the stat changes that the original act made, or does it do nothing materially?

I see your point; perhaps it would be better to combine them like so: "RECOGNIZING that some workers, particularly in developing nations, face low salaries and poor working conditions and aware that it was the intent of the previous act to ameliorate this,"?I think that would do alright.


Good suggestion. I wasn't sure just how much emphasis to put on this, since I don't want to bog down the proposal in what is really an argument in defense of the proposal, but it seems I do need to have a little substance there. I was going with the line of argument that a minimum wage does not actually cause employers to pay their workers more (since are not actually given any more money by which to do so), but merely to fire ones they can no longer afford at the artificially raised labor price, thereby causing unemployment and more people to go on the dole, decreasing overall economic efficiency and improvement.Exactly. If you put a few words to that effect in (such as "NOTING HOWEVER, that mandated minimum wages in member nations have prompted employers to merely fire those they don't have money to pay the mandated minimum wage and MOARNING the increases in unemployment this provokes, especially during times of uncertainty and money-hoarding") it would be just fine.

Oh, and though I offer some specific words right there, don't feel under any obligation to include them as is...or at all. If you feel they're good, put them in. If you think you can improve upon them, do it. If you think it was fine before, leave it the way it was. Consider my whole post here and the one before as 'IMHO'. ;)


Yes, but more generally, implying that the responsibility to take care of the needs of citizens falls on the government (or not), and not on the employer. Therefore, (going with the previous clause) states that wish to provide a welfare system should do so outright, rather than attempting to compel employers to provide a minimum standard of living to their workers. And since they are already given the means to do so by the game, the resolution is unnecessary.I would just be careful because the way I read it, I got the impression it was more of a statement that welfare should be provided by the state, rather than that the people should have the right to determine the extensiveness of their government provided welfare systems, rather than WA mandated employee-versions of welfare.

I just got kind of worried about how you're slicing the pie. Involving the issue of how extensive government welfare is with the issue of the minimum wages (which it might do with some of the voters, depending on how you word it) you'll cut your slice too thin to pass. Without the second issue of extenseiveness of gov't welfare it loks like this:

PEOPLE FOR RESOLUTION: AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLE AGAINST RESOLUTION: FOR REPEAL

With the added argument of how extensive gov't welfare will be you get this:

PEOPLE FOR RESOLUTION (FOR AND AGAINST GOV'T WELFARE): AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLE AGAINST RESOLUTION AND AGAINST EXTENSIVE GOV'T WELFARE: AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLR AGAINST RESOLUTION AND FOR GOV'T WELFARE: FOR REPEAL

If that becomes an issue, you've trimmed away some of the folks that might otherwise vote for the repeal. Again, I'm basing all this off how I first read the proposal. That's not worth much. I mean, c'mon: it's me we're talking about here. I'm not exactly the brightest bulb in the Edison laboratory.

But then again, a lot of dim people just like me are gonna be the one's reading the repeal (and probably just one time through...if that) and voting in up or down.
I hadn't considered that the term would be unknown outside the forums. I will definitely explain what is meant by it instead of using those words, as you suggested.I don't really know how readily recognizeable the phrase is outside the forum. I notice that in the forum there's frequent over divisive issues debate and I believe that gives an opportunity for people to loosely align themselves into parties or schools of thought (such has 'sovereigntists' and 'statists'). Out among the regions such debate is limited...I wouldn't expect the idea to be so easily recognized, and definitely not for the same ideals it is recognized for here.

I would just be careful because the way I read it, I got the impression it was more of a statement that welfare should be provided by the state, rather than that the people should have the right to determine the extensiveness of their government provided welfare systems, rather than WA mandated employee-versions of welfare.

I just got kind of worried about how you're slicing the pie. Involving the issue of how extensive government welfare is with the issue of the minimum wages (which it might do with some of the voters, depending on how you word it) you'll cut your slice too thin to pass. Without the second issue of extenseiveness of gov't welfare it loks like this:

PEOPLE FOR RESOLUTION: AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLE AGAINST RESOLUTION: FOR REPEAL

With the added argument of how extensive gov't welfare will be you get this:

PEOPLE FOR RESOLUTION (FOR AND AGAINST GOV'T WELFARE): AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLE AGAINST RESOLUTION AND AGAINST EXTENSIVE GOV'T WELFARE: AGAINST REPEAL
PEOPLR AGAINST RESOLUTION AND FOR GOV'T WELFARE: FOR REPEAL

If that becomes an issue, you've trimmed away some of the folks that might otherwise vote for the repeal. Again, I'm basing all this off how I first read the proposal. That's not worth much. I mean, c'mon: it's me we're talking about here. I'm not exactly the brightest bulb in the Edison laboratory.

But then again, a lot of dim people just like me are gonna be the one's reading the repeal (and probably just one time through...if that) and voting in up or down.

Yeah, I need to be careful about how to word that the right way, because that is exactly the opposite of what I had intended it to mean (that employers shouldn't be required to provide for their workers' welfare, not that the state necessarily should).

And a technical question: does a repeal "reverse" the stat changes that the original act made, or does it do nothing materially?It reduces those stat changes by 50%.

Yeah, I need to be careful about how to word that the right way, because that is exactly the opposite of what I had intended it to mean (that employers shouldn't be required to provide for their workers' welfare, not that the state necessarily should).

We confess to a certain confusion here. Are you claiming that the state should "pick up the tab" to use the vernacular when employers pay their workers at below survival rate? Or that no one should? It is implicit in your repeal argument that you regard employers doing so themselves as anathema.

(OOC: as the author I'm not going to be a whole load of help here, so don't be surprised if Prince Rhodri get all nit-picky. But damn, I was looking forward to nailing that "DECLARES" line for introducing new legislation :))

We confess to a certain confusion here. Are you claiming that the state should "pick up the tab" to use the vernacular when employers pay their workers at below survival rate? Or that no one should? It is implicit in your repeal argument that you regard employers doing so themselves as anathema.

(OOC: as the author I'm not going to be a whole load of help here, so don't be surprised if Prince Rhodri get all nit-picky. But damn, I was looking forward to nailing that "DECLARES" line for introducing new legislation :))

I'm saying that it should be left up to the nation whether anyone "picks up the tab", but if anyone is required to, it should be the state (although I recognize that this is just a repeal, so it won't actually be able to ban forcing employers to provide a living wage, just suggest it).

I'm saying that it should be left up to the nation whether anyone "picks up the tab", but if anyone is required to, it should be the state (although I recognize that this is just a repeal, so it won't actually be able to ban forcing employers to provide a living wage, just suggest it).

In other words, you are entirely happy for people to starve. We are shocked, to say the least.

... And yes, of course (I was getting there, mods...),

Please, please don't apologise for long posts when they take the time to explain stuff that newcomers (and not just newcomers) need to know.