[DRAFT] Repeal "Living Wage Act" (GA#21)

[Mericadom]

OOC: I did not notice that there was a repeal to this act already! Sorry about that.

INTRODUCTION
In this gigantic world, we are faced with many challenges as individual nations, as well as standards of living and what it means to serve the public. While basic protections absolutely must be put in place to ensure the fair treatment of people in the world, we must be careful about forcing specific policies on nations that are extremely different from one another. In particular, we must ensure that smaller nations have the tools to fight off poverty, as well as the larger nations, and that's where this resolution fundamentally does not do what its backers intended.

SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
#1 -- This resolution forces the private sector to specifically care for dependents. Forcing a company to pay for both the worker and the dependent is a very quick and easy way for such a worker to never be hired. This only helps the worker if they are able to find a job. Understanding that dependents are best taken care of with equal tax burden. The inclusion of dependents is a massive failure of this resolution.

#2 -- The resolution does not provide adequate subsidization for smaller nations. Smaller nations are in need of a more powerful private sector in order to encourage their growth. Taking away the free trade of the citizens severely limits the ability to grow. By not compensating for the loss of economic growth experienced by smaller nations, it increases the divide between countries that we need to be uniting.

#3 -- This resolution prevents nations from implementing better welfare measures. Even if you are for generous welfare programs, this measure makes it more difficult to impose other regulations on private entities. There may be issues passed onto your desk that you are unable to pass because of international programs such as these. These other programs on your desk every day might be great ideas, but you might be handicapped.

#4 -- It benefits no one. Big, small, and medium freedom governments all take losses. Similar to a Laffer curve, higher regulation costs prevent job growth for capitalist nations. But, unlike taxes, the government doesn't get to benefit from a raise in minimum wage. The amount of tax revenue, best case scenario, will stay the same. This hurts businesses and the poor, but does not help large governments.

#5 -- It prevents freedom by disallowing truly independent contracts. Many lines of work benefit heavily from independent contracts where there is a huge amount of negotiating. Keeping people from independently severely handicaps certain lines of work where people work for more than just dollars and cents, but rather for benefits and advancement opportunities, which cannot be quantified in dollars and cents. Limiting these types of contracts does not encourage individual freedoms, but instead restricts what kind of work someone can do, such as working for a large company.

THIS IS NOT AN INDICTMENT ON WELFARE. THIS IS ONLY FOR THIS SPECIFIC RESOLUTION

It is agreed that there absolutely do need to be standards of living that nations must live by in order to be part of our wonderful assembly of countries. In order to prevent human rights' abuses though, we should focus more on a definition of poverty, specific standards that quantify a nation's efforts to reduce poverty, and sanctions against nations that fail to live up to our standards. These will be quantified more specifically in future resolutions. Needless to say, this is a fight that everyone needs to be able to fight equally.

THE FUTURE

After a repeal of GA#21, should it pass, the author will fight for further resolutions giving a more general quantification of a general set of standards a country must live by in order to fight poverty. A resolution, once quantified, will give nations better options and will not just simply put the entire weight on the private sector with no alternatives.

[Defwa]

This shows no more understanding than when you got your ass kicked in your last thread.

1- The resolution does not require that companies specifically care for dependents. It requires that someone working 40 hours a week make enough to pay for a dependent. Its the basis for a flexible and effective scale that ensures that people are making enough money to survive.
Any wage only helps someone able to find a job. Your statement is nonsensicle. Regardless, [real life] studies have shown that minimum wages do not have negative effects on the employment rate considering that economies are built from the bottom up. The tax burden is not only irrelevant but outside of the direct power of the WA to manipulate, thus if the tax rate is unfavorable, the WA couldn't touch the issue if it wanted to.

2- Why would a smaller nation need subsidization. Should the fact that a nation is under developed allow for companies to starve their employees? Do you think that some how sweat shop slave labor is some kind of economic boon?
Economies grow from the bottom. A wealthy man can only buy so many yachts, and they're always going to buy them at that limit- but the lower classes are always going to need food and housing. Keeping those people from affording those only serves to limit the movement of an economy.

3- This resolution does nothing against nation's providing welfare. You can lower your living wage if your government provides the services. Infact, your companies even save money if you have a better developed welfare system because the additional 25% only comes from the non welfare basic poverty line and not from the net.

4- If the government can't figure out how to benefit from wages (you know, like taxation) then thats their own problem. Its actually pretty simple.

5- The resolution still allows fully free contracting. As long as the employee may control the terms of their contract an volunteer their time only as they choose, they may agree to a lesser wage.

Half of this has already been explained to you.
Now I'm going to go drink [IC and OOC].

[Mericadom]

This shows no more understanding than when you got your ass kicked in your last thread.

Strong letter to follow

I have no personal vendettas, sir. This is about the betterment of the world, not my personal wellbeing.

[Defwa]

This shows no more understanding than when you got your ass kicked in your last thread.

Strong letter to follow

I have no personal vendettas, sir. This is about the betterment of the world, not my personal wellbeing.

Thank you for that completely unrelated statement. You do those quite frequently, I see. Look above and shut this down.

[Mericadom]

I have no personal vendettas, sir. This is about the betterment of the world, not my personal wellbeing.

Thank you for that completely unrelated statement. You do those quite frequently, I see. Look above and shut this down.

I support Railana's resolution, as she has seniority over me in the WA and its politics. But no, there are grounds for elimination of this resolution, as it helps no one. If you have specific contentions, I invite you to challenge the contentions put forth in either Railana or my proposals for repeal. The points made have absolutely not been defeated, and your words are borderline a larger nation trying to bully a smaller one. We all have equal voice in the WA, sir; this is not a police state.

[Separatist Peoples]

I support Railana's resolution, as she has seniority over me in the WA and its politics.

"Something which exists only in your head."

But no, there are grounds for elimination of this resolution, as it helps no one.

"The impoverished and the socialists seem to like it fine."

If you have specific contentions, I invite you to challenge the contentions put forth in either Railana or my proposals for repeal.

"Angela already did. You just missed it."

The points made have absolutely not been defeated, and your words are borderline a larger nation trying to bully a smaller one. We all have equal voice in the WA, sir; this is not a police state.

"Yes, we all have equal says, regardless of how incorrect we are. It seems to be the one flaw in the democratic system. At any rate, nobody is trying to bully you, so put that one back in the deck. Counter Ambassador Landfree's challenges or ignore them, but don't accuse her of bullying."

[Defwa]

Thank you for that completely unrelated statement. You do those quite frequently, I see. Look above and shut this down.

I support Railana's resolution, as she has seniority over me in the WA and its politics. But no, there are grounds for elimination of this resolution, as it helps no one. If you have specific contentions, I invite you to challenge the contentions put forth in either Railana or my proposals for repeal. The points made have absolutely not been defeated, and your words are borderline a larger nation trying to bully a smaller one. We all have equal voice in the WA, sir; this is not a police state.

Thank you for so concisely side stepping everything I said and playing the abused hero. I do so love that. Keep it up and you might become an adjective, like Jakusan.

[Mericadom]

1- The resolution does not require that companies specifically care for dependents. It requires that someone working 40 hours a week make enough to pay for a dependent. Its the basis for a flexible and effective scale that ensures that people are making enough money to survive.
Any wage only helps someone able to find a job. Your statement is nonsensicle. Regardless, [real life] studies have shown that minimum wages do not have negative effects on the employment rate considering that economies are built from the bottom up. The tax burden is not only irrelevant but outside of the direct power of the WA to manipulate, thus if the tax rate is unfavorable, the WA couldn't touch the issue if it wanted to.

2- Why would a smaller nation need subsidization. Should the fact that a nation is under developed allow for companies to starve their employees? Do you think that some how sweat shop slave labor is some kind of economic boon?
Economies grow from the bottom. A wealthy man can only buy so many yachts, and they're always going to buy them at that limit- but the lower classes are always going to need food and housing. Keeping those people from affording those only serves to limit the movement of an economy.

3- This resolution does nothing against nation's providing welfare. You can lower your living wage if your government provides the services. Infact, your companies even save money if you have a better developed welfare system because the additional 25% only comes from the non welfare basic poverty line and not from the net.

4- If the government can't figure out how to benefit from wages (you know, like taxation) then thats their own problem. Its actually pretty simple.

5- The resolution still allows fully free contracting. As long as the employee may control the terms of their contract an volunteer their time only as they choose, they may agree to a lesser wage.

Well, let's go through what you specifically stated.


Point #1 refutations

1. If you are paying for someone else to pay for a dependent, then you'er still paying for the dependent. That is not flexibility, that is forcing policies too specific for a wide range of economic structures and living conditions.
2. The problems with minimum wage manifest themselves more in certain types of economies more than others. For example: Small businesses are hugely sensitive to wages whereas very large companies are not, and both will seek to offset their costs by primarily cutting people off of full time and onto part time work. Additionally, minimum wage impacts small towns more than large cities, as larger cities have higher rates of inflation. Point being? It goes back to the crux of my argument and the primary failure of this resolution in that it tries to fix a very real problem with a very rigid, inflexible solution that prevents countries from more effective measures.
3. Neither Railana's resolution nor mine are making are making economic-based debates because this resolution was never intended as an economic resolution. This resolution is based on human rights, and should be treated purely as such. There are many different debates about how best to run an economy and there is no universally right answer. Many of our economies do splendidly despite such different structures and philosophies.

Point #2 refutation

1. Why would a smaller nation need subsidized? Because smaller nations don't get investments if free trade is discouraged. With such measures, smaller nations are far more sensitive than larger nations which are flexible in how they can adapt.
2. My draft makes quite clear that a repeal of GA#21 is not an indictment on welfare, but against this specific resolution. It is stated very clearly that a proper follow-up to this would be a general set of welfare standards. A repeal is simply the first step in fairness, and perhaps a more effective method for poverty.
3. That amount is decreased

Point #3 Refutation
The resolution only affects things of monetary value specifically provided to the person in question. For example: a law protecting the environment does not take away from the Living Wage Act requirements. Laws that provide non-monetary assistance to someone cannot ever be counted.

Point #4 Refutation
The "It's your problem" idea can be used for literally anything proposed before this assembly. The entire reason we have this resolution is to recognize the problems of the world and attempt to fix them. No worldwide problem was ever solved by saying "You're on your own." We need to consider ALL parties in this, large and small, and fight for one another rather than have such a dismissive attitude.

Point #5 Refutations

GA#21 Excerpt
EXEMPTS from this requirement workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose; ...

DECLARES void any contract specifying a lesser wage or contractual remuneration than is specified above, requiring that either that contract is revised to conform with the above requirements or that national redundancy laws be invoked;[/quote][blocktext]

If you want to consider the expectation of a payment a "donation" as can be very loosely defined, that's tolerable, but your interpretation creates a contradiction in this resolution, which is hugely problematic within itself. [/Blocktext]

Summary
Not to be rude, but your arguments seem to be more a list of political talking points as opposed to an international recognition of different ideals. What I am interested in is a resolution that is not so rigid. I am even fine with another Living Wage Act to replace this one should it be repealed, but it needs to be far, far more flexible that works for all nations, not just large and highly socialist nations.

[Defwa]

1- The resolution does not require that companies specifically care for dependents. It requires that someone working 40 hours a week make enough to pay for a dependent. Its the basis for a flexible and effective scale that ensures that people are making enough money to survive.
Any wage only helps someone able to find a job. Your statement is nonsensicle. Regardless, [real life] studies have shown that minimum wages do not have negative effects on the employment rate considering that economies are built from the bottom up. The tax burden is not only irrelevant but outside of the direct power of the WA to manipulate, thus if the tax rate is unfavorable, the WA couldn't touch the issue if it wanted to.

2- Why would a smaller nation need subsidization. Should the fact that a nation is under developed allow for companies to starve their employees? Do you think that some how sweat shop slave labor is some kind of economic boon?
Economies grow from the bottom. A wealthy man can only buy so many yachts, and they're always going to buy them at that limit- but the lower classes are always going to need food and housing. Keeping those people from affording those only serves to limit the movement of an economy.

3- This resolution does nothing against nation's providing welfare. You can lower your living wage if your government provides the services. Infact, your companies even save money if you have a better developed welfare system because the additional 25% only comes from the non welfare basic poverty line and not from the net.

4- If the government can't figure out how to benefit from wages (you know, like taxation) then thats their own problem. Its actually pretty simple.

5- The resolution still allows fully free contracting. As long as the employee may control the terms of their contract an volunteer their time only as they choose, they may agree to a lesser wage.

Well, let's go through what you specifically stated.


Point #1 refutations

1. If you are paying for someone else to pay for a dependent, then you'er still paying for the dependent. That is not flexibility, that is forcing policies too specific for a wide range of economic structures and living conditions.
2. The problems with minimum wage manifest themselves more in certain types of economies more than others. For example: Small businesses are hugely sensitive to wages whereas very large companies are not, and both will seek to offset their costs by primarily cutting people off of full time and onto part time work. Additionally, minimum wage impacts small towns more than large cities, as larger cities have higher rates of inflation. Point being? It goes back to the crux of my argument and the primary failure of this resolution in that it tries to fix a very real problem with a very rigid, inflexible solution that prevents countries from more effective measures.
3. Neither Railana's resolution nor mine are making are making economic-based debates because this resolution was never intended as an economic resolution. This resolution is based on human rights, and should be treated purely as such. There are many different debates about how best to run an economy and there is no universally right answer. Many of our economies do splendidly despite such different structures and philosophies.

Point #2 refutation

1. Why would a smaller nation need subsidized? Because smaller nations don't get investments if free trade is discouraged. With such measures, smaller nations are far more sensitive than larger nations which are flexible in how they can adapt.
2. My draft makes quite clear that a repeal of GA#21 is not an indictment on welfare, but against this specific resolution. It is stated very clearly that a proper follow-up to this would be a general set of welfare standards. A repeal is simply the first step in fairness, and perhaps a more effective method for poverty.
3. That amount is decreased

Point #3 Refutation
The resolution only affects things of monetary value specifically provided to the person in question. For example: a law protecting the environment does not take away from the Living Wage Act requirements. Laws that provide non-monetary assistance to someone cannot ever be counted.

Point #4 Refutation
The "It's your problem" idea can be used for literally anything proposed before this assembly. The entire reason we have this resolution is to recognize the problems of the world and attempt to fix them. No worldwide problem was ever solved by saying "You're on your own." We need to consider ALL parties in this, large and small, and fight for one another rather than have such a dismissive attitude.

Point #5 Refutations

GA#21 Excerpt
EXEMPTS from this requirement workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose; ...

DECLARES void any contract specifying a lesser wage or contractual remuneration than is specified above, requiring that either that contract is revised to conform with the above requirements or that national redundancy laws be invoked;
If you want to consider the expectation of a payment a "donation" as can be very loosely defined, that's tolerable, but your interpretation creates a contradiction in this resolution, which is hugely problematic within itself.

Summary
Not to be rude, but your arguments seem to be more a list of political talking points as opposed to an international recognition of different ideals. What I am interested in is a resolution that is not so rigid. I am even fine with another Living Wage Act to replace this one should it be repealed, but it needs to be far, far more flexible that works for all nations, not just large and highly socialist nations.

1.1- You're misunderstanding the process. Companies are not required to pay someone the dependent poverty line because someone has a dependent. They're required to do so because that person is working 10 hours more than a person making the regular poverty line. They are not paying for a dependent- its a device used to create a scale of hours to pay.
1.2- OOC because of RL facts. Here are numbers from the United States Department of Labor that refute this point. When people are getting paid enough to feed themselves, they have more money to spend at those small businesses. A wage determination like this is perfect for that goal.
1.3- OOC again for metagaming. Arguing that a line of debate is invalid because of the category is a stat wank. In RP world, this resolution has effects outside of simple human rights. You were making the argument that it caused economic hardship, and I am contradicting that (quite effectively, not that you'd notice).

2.1- So I draw you back to my last statement. Should the fact that a nation is small give companies the right to underpay? Do you think that sweatshop slave wages are good for a population? Because that's what it sounds like.
2.2- I never claimed you were trying to indict welfare? You claimed that the LWA got in the way of creating effective welfare programs. I corrected that and explained how companies save money by having those programs.
2.3- What amount is decreased? You mean, what poor people buy? The actual economic fact is that even though a CEO may make 100 times more than a cashier, the CEO is not going to buy 100 cars or spend a hundred times more on food. If it did than dictators in palaces would have much more vibrant economies. Less of that money is actually circulating and gets held up in their savings, which minimizes its benefit to the economy. Any first year economics student can tell you that.

3.1- What the hell does environmental law have to do with this? Its not part of my argument, its not in the target resolution, or your repeal attempt. The idea is that if your government provides housing, the cost of housing no longer has to be factored in to the living wage. This, via reducing the net amount of living costs reduces the poverty line reduces the end result when you add 25%.

4.1- You're intentionally misconstruing my words there. If a government is to thick to figure out how to benefit from wages via tax, the government has other problems. I was not saying that we should abandon all nations and live in eternal isolation and self superiority. I was saying its a ridiculous premise that you are silly for bringing up.

5.1- Just a bit of an intro, this assembly is funded by donations. These donations are required. It is thus not a stretch to say that one may volunteer their time and still be paid for their time. That being said, the interaction between those to clauses is quite fun. It means that you can make a contract that sets an hourly rate of pay but neither the contract nor the employer can specify hours to work. Its to prevent people from getting sucked in those those awful 80 hour internships unless they really want it. It gives employees leverage to decide what they do with themselves and takes that power away from companies that might abuse them.

You're claiming I'm just using political talking points? I've given you verifiable number and trends. You're the one who keeps changing the subject to make it seems like I've attacked you without warrant when I have only ever responded directly and concisely to your every point.
I'm quite interested in this alternative you're suggesting though. Considering the LWA does not get in the way in any way shape or form of welfare legislation, work time and condition regulations, or really anything other than minimum wage laws, I doubt a repeal is necessary for whatever you're imagining here.

[Mericadom]

Well, let's go through what you specifically stated.


Point #1 refutations

1. If you are paying for someone else to pay for a dependent, then you'er still paying for the dependent. That is not flexibility, that is forcing policies too specific for a wide range of economic structures and living conditions.
2. The problems with minimum wage manifest themselves more in certain types of economies more than others. For example: Small businesses are hugely sensitive to wages whereas very large companies are not, and both will seek to offset their costs by primarily cutting people off of full time and onto part time work. Additionally, minimum wage impacts small towns more than large cities, as larger cities have higher rates of inflation. Point being? It goes back to the crux of my argument and the primary failure of this resolution in that it tries to fix a very real problem with a very rigid, inflexible solution that prevents countries from more effective measures.
3. Neither Railana's resolution nor mine are making are making economic-based debates because this resolution was never intended as an economic resolution. This resolution is based on human rights, and should be treated purely as such. There are many different debates about how best to run an economy and there is no universally right answer. Many of our economies do splendidly despite such different structures and philosophies.

Point #2 refutation

1. Why would a smaller nation need subsidized? Because smaller nations don't get investments if free trade is discouraged. With such measures, smaller nations are far more sensitive than larger nations which are flexible in how they can adapt.
2. My draft makes quite clear that a repeal of GA#21 is not an indictment on welfare, but against this specific resolution. It is stated very clearly that a proper follow-up to this would be a general set of welfare standards. A repeal is simply the first step in fairness, and perhaps a more effective method for poverty.
3. That amount is decreased

Point #3 Refutation
The resolution only affects things of monetary value specifically provided to the person in question. For example: a law protecting the environment does not take away from the Living Wage Act requirements. Laws that provide non-monetary assistance to someone cannot ever be counted.

Point #4 Refutation
The "It's your problem" idea can be used for literally anything proposed before this assembly. The entire reason we have this resolution is to recognize the problems of the world and attempt to fix them. No worldwide problem was ever solved by saying "You're on your own." We need to consider ALL parties in this, large and small, and fight for one another rather than have such a dismissive attitude.

Point #5 Refutations

GA#21 Excerpt
EXEMPTS from this requirement workers in the voluntary sector, who donate their time as they choose; ...

DECLARES void any contract specifying a lesser wage or contractual remuneration than is specified above, requiring that either that contract is revised to conform with the above requirements or that national redundancy laws be invoked;
If you want to consider the expectation of a payment a "donation" as can be very loosely defined, that's tolerable, but your interpretation creates a contradiction in this resolution, which is hugely problematic within itself.

Summary
Not to be rude, but your arguments seem to be more a list of political talking points as opposed to an international recognition of different ideals. What I am interested in is a resolution that is not so rigid. I am even fine with another Living Wage Act to replace this one should it be repealed, but it needs to be far, far more flexible that works for all nations, not just large and highly socialist nations.

1.1- You're misunderstanding the process. Companies are not required to pay someone the dependent poverty line because someone has a dependent. They're required to do so because that person is working 10 hours more than a person making the regular poverty line. They are not paying for a dependent- its a device used to create a scale of hours to pay.
1.2- OOC because of RL facts. Here are numbers from the United States Department of Labor that refute this point. When people are getting paid enough to feed themselves, they have more money to spend at those small businesses. A wage determination like this is perfect for that goal.
1.3- OOC again for metagaming. Arguing that a line of debate is invalid because of the category is a stat wank. In RP world, this resolution has effects outside of simple human rights. You were making the argument that it caused economic hardship, and I am contradicting that (quite effectively, not that you'd notice).

2.1- So I draw you back to my last statement. Should the fact that a nation is small give companies the right to underpay? Do you think that sweatshop slave wages are good for a population? Because that's what it sounds like.
2.2- I never claimed you were trying to indict welfare? You claimed that the LWA got in the way of creating effective welfare programs. I corrected that and explained how companies save money by having those programs.
2.3- What amount is decreased? You mean, what poor people buy? The actual economic fact is that even though a CEO may make 100 times more than a cashier, the CEO is not going to buy 100 cars or spend a hundred times more on food. If it did than dictators in palaces would have much more vibrant economies. Less of that money is actually circulating and gets held up in their savings, which minimizes its benefit to the economy. Any first year economics student can tell you that.

3.1- What the hell does environmental law have to do with this? Its not part of my argument, its not in the target resolution, or your repeal attempt. The idea is that if your government provides housing, the cost of housing no longer has to be factored in to the living wage. This, via reducing the net amount of living costs reduces the poverty line reduces the end result when you add 25%.

4.1- You're intentionally misconstruing my words there. If a government is to thick to figure out how to benefit from wages via tax, the government has other problems. I was not saying that we should abandon all nations and live in eternal isolation and self superiority. I was saying its a ridiculous premise that you are silly for bringing up.

5.1- Just a bit of an intro, this assembly is funded by donations. These donations are required. It is thus not a stretch to say that one may volunteer their time and still be paid for their time. That being said, the interaction between those to clauses is quite fun. It means that you can make a contract that sets an hourly rate of pay but neither the contract nor the employer can specify hours to work. Its to prevent people from getting sucked in those those awful 80 hour internships unless they really want it. It gives employees leverage to decide what they do with themselves and takes that power away from companies that might abuse them.

You're claiming I'm just using political talking points? I've given you verifiable number and trends. You're the one who keeps changing the subject to make it seems like I've attacked you without warrant when I have only ever responded directly and concisely to your every point.
I'm quite interested in this alternative you're suggesting though. Considering the LWA does not get in the way in any way shape or form of welfare legislation, work time and condition regulations, or really anything other than minimum wage laws, I doubt a repeal is necessary for whatever you're imagining here.

Dependents?

Excerpt from GA#21
DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all workers with dependents by the nation;
...
REQUIRES that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Povery Line unless that person has no dependents and explicitly waives this right;

This clearly, without question, states that one person is to be paid the wages of themselves plus their dependents. Yes, this resolution does force insane wages upon a person.

OOC: Your link is an unresourced, uncited, non-peer-reviewed and biased piece from the DoL. It is almost nonexistent in the way of citations. Additionally, there are no metagame arguments because I made no reference to the "economy" stat. My response was in reference to the economic structures of nations and how many different structures can work well.

Right to underpay?
Each nation has the obligation to ensure that it takes steps to reduce or eliminate its population in poverty. Effort is what is key. Specifically defining exactly how a nation must combat poverty, such as paying them a price well over the poverty line, is unsound. It is incompatible with various systems that the state might want to run.

What does environmental law have to do with this?
Environmental laws costs businesses money, so do other regulations, taxes, and the like. If you levy this on the private sector, then you are limiting the resources you can take from companies for other things. If you have a larger government, then it lmits the amount of other programs you can use. There might be more effective measures to fight poverty that can be done nation specific, but this resolution eliminates options.

Donations?
The wording of the resolution is perfectly clear: Contracts that enumerate wages less than the poverty line, either through pro-rating or redundancy clauses, are not legal. You are purposefully making light on how restrictive this is to contracts. Considering the volunteer clause contradicts the contractual enumeration clause, the volunteer clause can only work in cases where the volunteered work is free and there are no wages. You cannot agree to work for less by contract. That is plain and clear.

[Defwa]

1.1- You're misunderstanding the process. Companies are not required to pay someone the dependent poverty line because someone has a dependent. They're required to do so because that person is working 10 hours more than a person making the regular poverty line. They are not paying for a dependent- its a device used to create a scale of hours to pay.
1.2- OOC because of RL facts. Here are numbers from the United States Department of Labor that refute this point. When people are getting paid enough to feed themselves, they have more money to spend at those small businesses. A wage determination like this is perfect for that goal.
1.3- OOC again for metagaming. Arguing that a line of debate is invalid because of the category is a stat wank. In RP world, this resolution has effects outside of simple human rights. You were making the argument that it caused economic hardship, and I am contradicting that (quite effectively, not that you'd notice).

2.1- So I draw you back to my last statement. Should the fact that a nation is small give companies the right to underpay? Do you think that sweatshop slave wages are good for a population? Because that's what it sounds like.
2.2- I never claimed you were trying to indict welfare? You claimed that the LWA got in the way of creating effective welfare programs. I corrected that and explained how companies save money by having those programs.
2.3- What amount is decreased? You mean, what poor people buy? The actual economic fact is that even though a CEO may make 100 times more than a cashier, the CEO is not going to buy 100 cars or spend a hundred times more on food. If it did than dictators in palaces would have much more vibrant economies. Less of that money is actually circulating and gets held up in their savings, which minimizes its benefit to the economy. Any first year economics student can tell you that.

3.1- What the hell does environmental law have to do with this? Its not part of my argument, its not in the target resolution, or your repeal attempt. The idea is that if your government provides housing, the cost of housing no longer has to be factored in to the living wage. This, via reducing the net amount of living costs reduces the poverty line reduces the end result when you add 25%.

4.1- You're intentionally misconstruing my words there. If a government is to thick to figure out how to benefit from wages via tax, the government has other problems. I was not saying that we should abandon all nations and live in eternal isolation and self superiority. I was saying its a ridiculous premise that you are silly for bringing up.

5.1- Just a bit of an intro, this assembly is funded by donations. These donations are required. It is thus not a stretch to say that one may volunteer their time and still be paid for their time. That being said, the interaction between those to clauses is quite fun. It means that you can make a contract that sets an hourly rate of pay but neither the contract nor the employer can specify hours to work. Its to prevent people from getting sucked in those those awful 80 hour internships unless they really want it. It gives employees leverage to decide what they do with themselves and takes that power away from companies that might abuse them.

You're claiming I'm just using political talking points? I've given you verifiable number and trends. You're the one who keeps changing the subject to make it seems like I've attacked you without warrant when I have only ever responded directly and concisely to your every point.
I'm quite interested in this alternative you're suggesting though. Considering the LWA does not get in the way in any way shape or form of welfare legislation, work time and condition regulations, or really anything other than minimum wage laws, I doubt a repeal is necessary for whatever you're imagining here.

Dependents?

Excerpt from GA#21
DEFINES the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line, substituting an average two-person dwelling for an average one-person dwelling, plus the cost of enough food and drink to keep a dependent healthy for a week, plus the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent, less any additional income or benefits provided to all workers with dependents by the nation;
...
REQUIRES that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Basic Poverty Line;

REQUIRES further that no person in full-time employment be paid the equivalent of a weekly net wage of less than 25% over the Dependent Povery Line unless that person has no dependents and explicitly waives this right;

This clearly, without question, states that one person is to be paid the wages of themselves plus their dependents. Yes, this resolution does force insane wages upon a person.

OOC: Your link is an unresourced, uncited, non-peer-reviewed and biased piece from the DoL. It is almost nonexistent in the way of citations. Additionally, there are no metagame arguments because I made no reference to the "economy" stat. My response was in reference to the economic structures of nations and how many different structures can work well.

Right to underpay?
Each nation has the obligation to ensure that it takes steps to reduce or eliminate its population in poverty. Effort is what is key. Specifically defining exactly how a nation must combat poverty, such as paying them a price well over the poverty line, is unsound. It is incompatible with various systems that the state might want to run.

What does environmental law have to do with this?
Environmental laws costs businesses money, so do other regulations, taxes, and the like. If you levy this on the private sector, then you are limiting the resources you can take from companies for other things. If you have a larger government, then it lmits the amount of other programs you can use. There might be more effective measures to fight poverty that can be done nation specific, but this resolution eliminates options.

Donations?
The wording of the resolution is perfectly clear: Contracts that enumerate wages less than the poverty line, either through pro-rating or redundancy clauses, are not legal. You are purposefully making light on how restrictive this is to contracts. Considering the volunteer clause contradicts the contractual enumeration clause, the volunteer clause can only work in cases where the volunteered work is free and there are no wages. You cannot agree to work for less by contract. That is plain and clear.

What a decidedly shorter response. So are you conceding you're wrong on the various points you (again) failed to address? Or are you just going to pretend they never happened.
I especially like the complete lack of anything about what you -actually plan to do were this to pass-. Do you actually have better ideas or are you just trying to get a repeal under your belt? All you've really submitted so far is the same resolution with slightly adjusted arbitrary numbers. You make it seem as if you have some sort of miracle welfare act in mind. I'm legitimately curious.

I confess to misremembering the resolution when mentioning the hours. I substituted full time employment in that instance to mean 40 hours as is the typical work week in many countries. But it brings up a different point- a person without dependents must choose to give up the right to be paid at the DPL, putting both parties on an equal economic footing and meaning that again, companies aren't forced to pay for dependents specifically, but they must pay everyone, whether they have a dependent or not, enough to pay for a dependent. It goes back to the idea that you cannot allow companies to underpay someone.

I'm not sure on how this stops the state from enacting its own policies. You're going to have to give me an example of that that does not randomly start talking about environmental law.
But what you're saying with environmental law is that that law makes it harder for nations to tax companies for other programs? And that's the LWA's fault? That's entirely irrelevant. You're not fleshing out this random tangent very well at all.

OOC: The metagaming argument was the idea that somehow because LWA was a social justice act, it's impacts that do not concern the social and human rights status could not be discussed or were otherwise irrelevant. But they're extremely important to the discussion.
The DoL IS THE SOURCE. The Department of Labor is where the most accurate statistics on labor come from. That's what the department is for. The fact is, to imagine that paying a living wage costs jobs is to say that were they allowed to pay less, companies would hire a bunch of extra people. A smart business operates with the number people it needs, regardless of labor costs.

[Frisbeeteria]

Just a formatting point: If you two are going to continue to quote each other's massive responses, could you at least have the decency to spoiler the quote before you post? I'm going blind here.