[Draft] Standard Average Working Week

[Hirota]

GAR#21 assumes a 30 hour work week for its calculations.

I'll say it again - no it doesn't. It assumes a minimum.

[The Sotoan Union]

This is unfeasible. Besides less work equals less money, which doesn't fix income inequality.

[Macwick]

What works in your fictional nation of France doesn't work in other nations.
…
Your research is flawed.
…

OCC I thought I read somewhere in the guides that real world examples and evidence was the accepted way to provide such examples and evidence.

IC
I would like to apologise to colleagues. Twice I have referred to the idea that some people can work alongside paid employees and donate their time, or part of it, but when preparing a new draft it was noticed that this exception wasn’t there. We are therefore thinking of changing

“Workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose;” to

“Workers who donate their time for free;”

“Employees” was considered but it was felt the wider term “workers” should be used as volunteers can’t be called employees.

Also I would like to apologise to the representative from Bears Armed I forgot to comment on his point regarding troops on standby during time of international tension. I would like to point out that “armed conflict” has not been defined in this proposal. When there are tensions between nations I would argue they are in conflict and if one nation believes the military forces of the other might take action against them they are in a state of “armed conflict” even if no fighting is taking place. I know this doesn’t cover every situation but I hope it will mitigate some of my colleague’s concerns.

Please can the representative from Jarish Inyo provide evidence for his assertions? Does he have examples of where health and well-being have been made worse by having more leisure time while still being in work? If he had read the book by Peter Farb he would know that while most people assume that hunter gatherer societies spend most of their time working, studies of such groups prove that this isn’t true. Please can he help me by stating what sort of case for international involvement he is looking for?

I think the issue is more complicated than the representative from Hirota says. I think it can be implied from

REQUIRES that a person in part-time employment be subject to the same minimum weekly net wage regulations as a person in full-time employment, with the relevant wage levels pro-rated to the proportion of 30 hours per week worked.

that those working between 10 and 30 hours should receive the Living Wage in proportion to the Living Wage being at the 30 hours a week level. I think it is therefore true that “GAR 21 bases the living wage on a 30 hours working week”.

The representative from The Sotoan Union is mistaken, it is feasible to reduce the length of the average working week. In the alternative universe most nations have been doing it for over a hundred years. I read only yesterday that the average working hours for some countries had been reduced by more than half. The representative is working under a false belief, reducing working hours doesn’t necessary mean a reduction in pay, as again this hasn’t happen in the alternative universe.

[Separatist Peoples]

"So, if employee pay is cut...we're going to assume that businesses will happily see their man hours go down or employees go up and NOT adjust compensation accordingly? That would be patently ridiculous."

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

This won't pass, because a fourty hour week is more practical.

[Wrapper]

As Wrapper already provides a high level of Social Justice I am taken aback by their representative being so opposed to this Social Justice proposal.

Are you.... (Ari composes himself and chooses his phrasing carefully, while putting on a dim but obviously fake smile.) Please tell me, ambassador, that you did not intend to imply that we should favor or disfavor a proposal solely based on category or ideology and not on its own merits, hmmm?

Now then, there are too many professions where this proposal will not work, as we have tried to point out before. What may work for the average factory worker on earth does not necessarily work for a highly specialized surgeon or other medical professional, or astronaut, or teacher, or diplomat, or athlete, or colonist, or research scientist on a space station. You have yet to address that concern.

Having had a brief look at GAR 68 I would not define the hours worked as “the consumption of a service” and therefore they fall outside that resolutions definition of Commerce.

DEFINES "commerce" to include the sale, production, and consumption of a product or service
...

REQUIRES that no commerce be generally restricted by the WA unless:

1. Restricted by prior legislation, or
2. The enterprise causes an extreme hazard to national populations

Commerce includes the production of goods. By mandating a thirty hour work week, in a nation where unemployment is so low, you are doing two things: (1) You are shutting down production because there are now not enough workers to keep equipment running, thus reducing sales of said products; (2) You are forcing companies to pay more to employ more people to keep equipment running, then passing on the cost of this to the consumer, who in turn will buy less of that product and prefer to buy cheaper products, perhaps those imported from non-WA nations who are under no such restrictions. In both cases you are restricting commerce. And don't tell me, but wait, you can just put a tariff on imported goods, no, because guess what? That's restricting commerce too.

Now we ask again: As required under GAR #68, what "extreme hazard to national populations" does your proposal abate?

[Jarish Inyo]

What works in your fictional nation of France doesn't work in other nations.
…
Your research is flawed.
…

OCC I thought I read somewhere in the guides that real world examples and evidence was the accepted way to provide such examples and evidence.

IC
I would like to apologise to colleagues. Twice I have referred to the idea that some people can work alongside paid employees and donate their time, or part of it, but when preparing a new draft it was noticed that this exception wasn’t there. We are therefore thinking of changing

“Workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose;” to

“Workers who donate their time for free;”

“Employees” was considered but it was felt the wider term “workers” should be used as volunteers can’t be called employees.

Also I would like to apologise to the representative from Bears Armed I forgot to comment on his point regarding troops on standby during time of international tension. I would like to point out that “armed conflict” has not been defined in this proposal. When there are tensions between nations I would argue they are in conflict and if one nation believes the military forces of the other might take action against them they are in a state of “armed conflict” even if no fighting is taking place. I know this doesn’t cover every situation but I hope it will mitigate some of my colleague’s concerns.

Please can the representative from Jarish Inyo provide evidence for his assertions? Does he have examples of where health and well-being have been made worse by having more leisure time while still being in work? If he had read the book by Peter Farb he would know that while most people assume that hunter gatherer societies spend most of their time working, studies of such groups prove that this isn’t true. Please can he help me by stating what sort of case for international involvement he is looking for?

I think the issue is more complicated than the representative from Hirota says. I think it can be implied from

REQUIRES that a person in part-time employment be subject to the same minimum weekly net wage regulations as a person in full-time employment, with the relevant wage levels pro-rated to the proportion of 30 hours per week worked.

that those working between 10 and 30 hours should receive the Living Wage in proportion to the Living Wage being at the 30 hours a week level. I think it is therefore true that “GAR 21 bases the living wage on a 30 hours working week”.

The representative from The Sotoan Union is mistaken, it is feasible to reduce the length of the average working week. In the alternative universe most nations have been doing it for over a hundred years. I read only yesterday that the average working hours for some countries had been reduced by more than half. The representative is working under a false belief, reducing working hours doesn’t necessary mean a reduction in pay, as again this hasn’t happen in the alternative universe.

First, you haven't proven that this is an international issue.

You have tried to state that it will be good for the workers and make people healthier. This is not so. Cutting back peoples hours to the bear minimum of full time employment will mean they will be paid less. Limiting the amount of overtime they can work is not helping employees. Livable wage is paying an employee the minimum to live in their nation. Nothing more. If people want more, they need to work more. If a nation decides that a 40 hour week is sufficient to provide more to its people, then that is their call. If the employee wants to work all the overtime their employer will give them, then why shouldn't they?

Cutting people's pay by 75% is not helping them. Where is the justice in that? Not to mention the cut in medical, police and emergency services that this will create. And the lost of 25% of production the lost of hours will create to businesses.

Hunter gathers, even modern societies, will have hunting parties out, people gathering the fruits and berries, people making tools/housing/cloths, someone watching the children, people protecting the community from predators and people processing the food. There is not a lot of free time as you suggest.

Using real life examples, most peoples leisure time is used watching tv, looking at things on the computer, playing video games. None of these things are healthy when done in large amounts. Not to mention that people might get their exercise only from their job. Using myself as an example, I walk 10 miles a day for my job. That's more then I do in my leisure time.

Again, what works for France doesn't work for other nations.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

OCC I thought I read somewhere in the guides that real world examples and evidence was the accepted way to provide such examples and evidence.

IC
I would like to apologise to colleagues. Twice I have referred to the idea that some people can work alongside paid employees and donate their time, or part of it, but when preparing a new draft it was noticed that this exception wasn’t there. We are therefore thinking of changing

“Workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose;” to

“Workers who donate their time for free;”

“Employees” was considered but it was felt the wider term “workers” should be used as volunteers can’t be called employees.

Also I would like to apologise to the representative from Bears Armed I forgot to comment on his point regarding troops on standby during time of international tension. I would like to point out that “armed conflict” has not been defined in this proposal. When there are tensions between nations I would argue they are in conflict and if one nation believes the military forces of the other might take action against them they are in a state of “armed conflict” even if no fighting is taking place. I know this doesn’t cover every situation but I hope it will mitigate some of my colleague’s concerns.

Please can the representative from Jarish Inyo provide evidence for his assertions? Does he have examples of where health and well-being have been made worse by having more leisure time while still being in work? If he had read the book by Peter Farb he would know that while most people assume that hunter gatherer societies spend most of their time working, studies of such groups prove that this isn’t true. Please can he help me by stating what sort of case for international involvement he is looking for?

I think the issue is more complicated than the representative from Hirota says. I think it can be implied from



that those working between 10 and 30 hours should receive the Living Wage in proportion to the Living Wage being at the 30 hours a week level. I think it is therefore true that “GAR 21 bases the living wage on a 30 hours working week”.

The representative from The Sotoan Union is mistaken, it is feasible to reduce the length of the average working week. In the alternative universe most nations have been doing it for over a hundred years. I read only yesterday that the average working hours for some countries had been reduced by more than half. The representative is working under a false belief, reducing working hours doesn’t necessary mean a reduction in pay, as again this hasn’t happen in the alternative universe.

First, you haven't proven that this is an international issue.

.

I agree, this is more of a national issue, than international.

[Hirota]

OCC I thought I read somewhere in the guides that real world examples and evidence was the accepted way to provide such examples and evidence.

ooc It's a reasonable line of argument, but it's not a perfect one. Some memberstates are roleplayed so exotically, that RL is not a decent comparisson.

You've made a decent stab at a justifcation, and I think some of us regulars recognise that was made in good faith and thank you for making the effort.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

This won't pass, because a forty hour week is more practical.

I think that is subject to debate. Of course the "40" hour week isn't really 40 hours anyway. The common model is the so called "9-5 M-F" work schedule. This appears to be an 8 hour day, but in fact it includes a one hour "lunch break" so the practical week is 7 hours for 5 days or 35. All it takes to reduce the number to 30 is to remove another hour. The implementation of a two hour lunch break can do this. (One hour to eat, one hour to either power nap or attend exercise classes. Or you could go to daily Mass and then take an hour for lunch. Or watch a football game while you are eating your lunch.)

True leisure time would be obtained by breaking the 9-5 mold. Working 10 hours a day for three days would give you a four day weekend. You could play golf or something on the two extra days you get every week. But you don't need that for this resolution, you can do the same with a 40 hour week, getting a single day off every week. (But when you consider it's really 35 hours, The result is really more like 8 hours and 45 minutes per day.)

[Araraukar]

This appears to be an 8 hour day, but in fact it includes a one hour "lunch break"

OOC: Where, below the exec level, do workers get one hour lunch break? It's usually 30 minutes here.

[Wrapper]

This appears to be an 8 hour day, but in fact it includes a one hour "lunch break"

OOC: Where, below the exec level, do workers get one hour lunch break? It's usually 30 minutes here.

OOC: Ummm... **raises hand** Perk of being salaried and not hourly. Oh, speaking of salaried employees, yet another concept that this proposal does not consider.

[Louisistan]

This appears to be an 8 hour day, but in fact it includes a one hour "lunch break"

OOC: Also, not true in either RL Germany or Switzerland (40 and 42 week hours respectively).

A 40 week hour in Germany does include 8 full work hours per day (on average, obviously).

[Araraukar]

OOC: Perk of being salaried and not hourly.

OOC: ...I think I'll write this one down as "international differences". Like when someone tries to explain to me the idea behind the US credit system or British education...

To return to the topic...

IC: For those who have pointed out that certain number of hours wouldn't likely apply to space or planets with different rotation speeds - who's to stop you from setting separate time measures for "week" and "hour" for said planet? For instance, if a planet/planetoid/space habitat turns around its axis in 5 standard hours, a standard week of seven days would only last 35 hours - you'd be working for 30 hours and have 5 hours left for sleeping and eating and all that, if this proposal went into effect.

Sounds more reasonable to me that "hour" and "week" were left to the nation's own lawmakers to ponder about. Or just, you know, not push this minimalistic weekly working hours on an international scale in the first place.

[Macwick]

Perhaps the representative of the Separatist Peoples hasn’t heard of the lump of labour fallacy. Let me quote that alternative universe thing called Wikipedia – “The phrase was originally used to dismiss the claim that reducing the number of hours that employees are allowed to work in a day inevitably reduces unemployment. This claim is based on the following reasoning:
1. The number of hours of labour per day that are demanded by the market is constant.
2. Suppose we reduce the hours any single person can work in a day.
3. Now workers will produce fewer hours of labour.
4. The difference between the constant in (1) and the reduction of productivity in (3) must be made up by employing more workers.
5. Therefore the strategy in (2) increases employment rates.
The lump of labour rebuttal argues that (1) is false. … given that there is naturally an administrative cost to hiring more workers, there is no reason to expect that production will be unchanged. People may simply keep their present employees and work them harder for the same time, or find ways to cope with the reduced output.”

Of course my esteemed colleague from Wrapper I wasn’t implying that anyone should support a proposal just because of its category. However it was the nature of your opposition that took me aback. He is mistaken I have addressed his concerns regarding medical staff. I thought I saw the ambassador slumped in his chair when I did this. He can check the written record – page 1. However as he is again slumped in his chair I will re-iterate what I said. For those away from home such as off-world medical staff, astronauts and research scientist they will just have to have tour of duties of less than 13 weeks – if working 40 hours a week just less than 10 weeks, if 37 hours then about ten and half weeks. I don’t understand what the representative concerns are regarding diplomats, athletes or colonists. However teachers could be problematic depending on how long their working day is. If the school day is less than the current working day the problem is reduced. The length of the terms is also relevant.
If we assume three 12 week terms then teachers would be able to work 32.5 hours a week easily. However if we include the 4 week holidays between two of these terms when teachers don’t work, they will be able to work 40 hours a week and this doesn’t take into account all of the 8 weeks holiday in the summer.

As the representative from Wrapper has said GAR 68 –

DEFINES "commerce" to include the sale, production, and consumption of a product or service

Nowhere does it state commerce includes employment.

Nowhere does my proposal mention commerce. My proposal does not affect commerce.
Regulating working hours is not the same as regulating the amount that can be produced.

I again refer the representative to the lump of labour rebuttal where it is accepted that businesses will be able to keep production constant without the need of employing extra people. Again there is the French experience. This proposal does not force companies to do anything. They are not forced to employ extra people and the evidence accepted by economists states these extra people will not be needed, and so no extra running costs, no price rises, no increase in cheaper imports from non-WA nations. (I think he will find that GAR 68 allows nations to impose tariffs –

ALLOWS national governments to regulate commerce within their jurisdiction,
…

NOTES that this legislation does not affect economic protective devices or domestic taxation,

Are not economic protective devices just a fancy way of saying tariffs?)

I would like to make this clear so I will say it again. GAR 68 does not apply with regard to the regulation of working hours. Working hours are outside the scope of GAR 68.

To those who say that this isn’t an international issue. I say talk to your own business people, note what things are lobbied for. I admit business people are not jumping up and down in support for this proposal, but both of these groups complain – it is not fair x nation doesn’t have the same regulations as us regarding employment and employee rights, we should reduce them for our workers so we can have a level playing field. All I am saying is let us not have a race to the bottom, but let us encourage all nations to move upwards. We can create that level playing field and stop these business people complaining that it is not fair, by all WA nations having the same laws regarding working hours.

The representative from Jarish Inyo is incorrect in his country those who are on the living wage receive 25% above their needs for food, utilities’ and rental requirements after they have paid income tax. (He should note that the WA Living Wage is not the same as in the alternative universe where I believe that the USA has a Minimum Wage which it is difficult to live on.) Again he is mistaken I know of no alternative universe modern examples where bringing in laws to reduce working hours has resulted in pay cuts. Again he is mistaken about there being any loss in production and I refer him to lump of labour fallacy. He again is ignoring the research on hunter gatherer societies. I don’t think we would class looking after children or cooking the families food as part of the normal duties for most employees that they are paid to do! I don’t recognise that it is the state’s job to make people do exercise, I believe that our citizens should have the freedom to spend their leisure time doing what they enjoy, be it - watching TV, playing or chatting on the computer, playing football, walking in the countryside, or taking the dog for a walk.

I think the representative from Wrapper is confusing this proposal with the one made by Christian Democrats some years ago. This proposal applies to all paid employment, unless he thinks that those people on salaries are not in paid employment.

As no representatives have raised any objections to the changes we have said we were thinking about I think it is time we published a second draft.

OCC I thought I read somewhere in the guides that real world examples and evidence was the accepted way to provide such examples and evidence.

ooc It's a reasonable line of argument, but it's not a perfect one. Some memberstates are roleplayed so exotically, that RL is not a decent comparisson.

You've made a decent stab at a justifcation, and I think some of us regulars recognise that was made in good faith and thank you for making the effort.

OCC I wish I could find that guide again because it had a name for when someone made up examples and evidence from their own nation.

[Araraukar]

OCC I wish I could find that guide again because it had a name for when someone made up examples and evidence from their own nation.

OOC: I'm sorry to point this out, but it's one of those things that really grates on my nerves...

It's OOC, not OCC.

OOC stands for Out-Of-Character and means commenting and replying done by you, the person that plays NationStates the game. IC means In-Character, and that means doing and saying things that your nation's ambassador would do and say. To them, this isn't a game, it's their real life. And as a sort of meta thing, it's often assumed IC that if someone mentions RL (Real Life) in an IC comment, or one of RL nations, that they're talking about an online game called Real Life.

[Wrapper]

Well, we can see that arguing with you is pointless on this. We stand opposed. Good day.

[Dooom35796821595]

And what about nations where there may only be 30 hours in a week? Or 50 hours a day?
Or nations that have longer or shorter hours?

I suggest using % of waking hours.

[Defwa]

And what about nations where there may only be 30 hours in a week? Or 50 hours a day?
Or nations that have longer or shorter hours?

I suggest using % of waking hours.

Still doesn't work considering various needs of sleep between various species and tech levels

[Jarish Inyo]

This won't pass, because a forty hour week is more practical.

I think that is subject to debate. Of course the "40" hour week isn't really 40 hours anyway. The common model is the so called "9-5 M-F" work schedule. This appears to be an 8 hour day, but in fact it includes a one hour "lunch break" so the practical week is 7 hours for 5 days or 35. All it takes to reduce the number to 30 is to remove another hour. The implementation of a two hour lunch break can do this. (One hour to eat, one hour to either power nap or attend exercise classes. Or you could go to daily Mass and then take an hour for lunch. Or watch a football game while you are eating your lunch.)

9 to 5 is a nine hour work day. One works 8 hours and loses hour do to breaks and lunch.

To those who say that this isn’t an international issue. I say talk to your own business people, note what things are lobbied for. I admit business people are not jumping up and down in support for this proposal, but both of these groups complain – it is not fair x nation doesn’t have the same regulations as us regarding employment and employee rights, we should reduce them for our workers so we can have a level playing field. All I am saying is let us not have a race to the bottom, but let us encourage all nations to move upwards. We can create that level playing field and stop these business people complaining that it is not fair, by all WA nations having the same laws regarding working hours.

The representative from Jarish Inyo is incorrect in his country those who are on the living wage receive 25% above their needs for food, utilities’ and rental requirements after they have paid income tax. (He should note that the WA Living Wage is not the same as in the alternative universe where I believe that the USA has a Minimum Wage which it is difficult to live on.) Again he is mistaken I know of no alternative universe modern examples where bringing in laws to reduce working hours has resulted in pay cuts. Again he is mistaken about there being any loss in production and I refer him to lump of labour fallacy. He again is ignoring the research on hunter gatherer societies. I don’t think we would class looking after children or cooking the families food as part of the normal duties for most employees that they are paid to do! I don’t recognise that it is the state’s job to make people do exercise, I believe that our citizens should have the freedom to spend their leisure time doing what they enjoy, be it - watching TV, playing or chatting on the computer, playing football, walking in the countryside, or taking the dog for a walk.

Commerce includes employment. Employment is part of the production process. The reduction of hours effects commerce and production.

Again, you have failed to even attempt to prove that this is an international issue. Saying that it is unfair that other nations have different regulations then you nation and should adopt your regulations so everyone is on the same playing field is laughable.

I'm not mistaken in any of my previous statements. 25% is not as high as you may think. Lets look at this like this, employees get paid for the hours they work. They were working 40 hours a week, then this resolution passes. They then work 30 hours a week. They lose 10 hours a week. 10 hours they no longer get paid for. That is a 25% pay cut of pay to the employee. Looking after children and cooking family foods are things that employees do get paid to do. There is an child care industry and people that get paid to do the things that you wouldn't class as employees getting paid to do.

Loss of hours is a loss of production. It is a simple as that. Reducing hours will not encourage employers to hire more people.

I have not ignored the research on hunter gathers. I've read the research on past societies and modern societies. They do more then you make it sound. Even modern nomad societies do more then you make hunter gathers do.

More time for people to do nothing can lead to more medical issues then adding to their well being.

You are good at avoiding explaining why this is an international issue and ignoring any argument that does not agree with your point of view.

[Macwick]

I think I’ll start by replying to the representative from Wrapper, even I am becoming frustrated. We have tried to answer each of the points you have raised, perhaps you just don’t have a counter argument. We wouldn’t want you to respond as the representative from Jarish Inyo has. I wonder if you have been working more than 30 hours this week and you need some time off for some leisure pursuits so you can return to work refreshed and able to run at a high level of productivity again.

Turning to the representative from Jarish Inyo I refer him to the definition of Commerce used in GAR 68 –

DEFINES "commerce" to include the sale, production, and consumption of a product or service

If we were talking in the bar I might agree with a definition of commerce that included employment but we are here only concerned with commerce as defined in GAR 68. We are concerned with WA law not dictionary definitions. I am not sure it would be possible to prove that any issue is an international issue. I think all anyone can do is make a case out for an issue to be seen as international. I have spoken about the need for those who compete internationally to have a level playing field, so business people in one nation don’t think another nation has a competitive edge over them because they provide less protection for their workers or have them work longer hours. I have asked the representative to let me know what sort of thing he might find convincing but he hadn’t provided it. I ask myself what more can I do?

I have provided the opinion of economists who say that his argument is refuted by the lump of labour fallacy. I have given the alternative universe example of France. Will he be convinced by the alternative universe example of Henry Ford? He cut working time by a sixth (16.667%) without reducing employee pay and productivity increased to compensate. This is a well-known fact amongst their economists. I sent out my researcher again to find more evidence and he has told me about an organisation called the Gapminder Foundation in the alternative universe, which has set itself up to become “a ‘fact tank’ that promotes a fact based world view.” They state “Every reduction of the length of the workweek has been accompanied by an increase in real per-capita income.”

Yes let us turn to the employee who works 40 hours a week. In year one his hours will be reduced to 37.5, in year two 35, in year three 32.5 and so after four years that employee’s hours have been reduced to 30. They don’t have to take any pay cuts, the lump of labour fallacy makes this clear. Each year their productivity will increase just like the Ford workers of the alternative universe I spoke about a moment ago. I didn’t say that there were no people employed as cooks or to look after children. What I meant was people didn’t expect to get paid for doing these for their families and therefore you shouldn’t include these things as work for hunter gatherer societies when we don’t normally class them as work for people doing other paid employment.

I have not ignored the alternative universe’s research on hunter gatherer societies in fact I have quoted from two different sets of research into the Shoshone and Dobe. I have even pointed out that his view is often the more accepted view, which we may have learnt at school but the research makes it clear that this accepted view is not true. I am still waiting for him to quote someone I can get by researcher to check on.

I have conceded that not working can be bad for one’s health, but I haven’t seen any evidence that working just a bit less is bad for one’s health. I mean how often do you hear a doctor say, "I recommend you work another 25% more and that will make you healthier"? I know I haven’t. But lots of people report that the doctor has recommended that they reduce the hours they work so they will live longer.

I do not feel I have ignored any argument put to me. I have tried to counter or comment on each and every one. I have even conceded a few points here and there.

With reference to the points about names for periods of the day or length of day made I think by the representatives from Araraukar, Dooom35796821595 and Defwa. I would like to refer you to the comments made earlier (page 1) by the representative from Ardchoille:

Clarification: "hours, "days", etc, is not a legality problem. ICly, the GA translators switch them to the equivalent unit in your language. OOCly, it's like "coffee", "gun" or "February"; terms accepted by mod fiat because we're not into nitpicking to that degree. Plus, the proposal character limit would make explaining them prohibitive.

OCC I wish I could find that guide again because it had a name for when someone made up examples and evidence from their own nation.

OOC: I'm sorry to point this out, but it's one of those things that really grates on my nerves...

It's OOC, not OCC.

OOC stands for Out-Of-Character and means commenting and replying done by you, the person that plays NationStates the game. IC means In-Character, and that means doing and saying things that your nation's ambassador would do and say. To them, this isn't a game, it's their real life. And as a sort of meta thing, it's often assumed IC that if someone mentions RL (Real Life) in an IC comment, or one of RL nations, that they're talking about an online game called Real Life.

OOC I am sorry I did know what OOC stands for and have used OOC in another of my posts here, but sometimes I just type the wrong letters an example is ia for is, but I didn’t catch this in my read throughs before posting. I do not think I have used RL; I am trying to be consistent with alternative universe.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Clearly the Macwickian ambassador assumes that individuals are not:
A) not working at capacity already, rendering the argument to simple "work harder" an impossibility. If you aren't doing your best with a 40 hour workweek, you ought not be there at all...
B) not otherwise limited by the concept of Diminishing Returns, wherein "working harder" will not affect the work produced.
C) not having considerable overhead and benefits spent on them which favors fewer workers working longer.

"No, ambassador, if you had any clue about how this sort of thing worked, you'd never have suggested it. None of which addresses the fact that this won't pass muster for not violating NEF."

[Jarish Inyo]

Employees that are paid hourly will take pay cuts. They get paid for every hour they work. You cut their hours, you cut their pay. Not hard to understand that.

I have used the definition provided by resolution 68. Employment and hours of work is part of the production process. You simply refuse to to acknowledge that.

The mention of only this fictional France as your only example of this working does not prove that it will work for every nation. Have you considered that the 'increase in real per-capita income' is because businesses have gone to automated production and have cut employees hours or laid of employees and thus show a profit by not having pay said employees?

[Defwa]

Even if we went with this France thing, you take it further. There must be a point of diminishing returns that cannon be readily addressed here

[Jarish Inyo]

Taking the statements of the author, his arguments for this s
a) Forcing nation to follow his nation's regulations because its 'unfair' that other nations do not use hem and to level the playing field so a business doesn't feel it needs to compete with businesses in other nations.
In simplest terms, competition in business is bad.
b) Cutting hours to give more leisure time to employees.
Cutting hours in effect cuts employees pay. And could possibly raise a nations poverty line.