[PASSED] Repeal "Living Wage Act"

[Sedgistan]

Repeal "Living Wage Act"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Assembly,

Praising GAR #21, "Living Wage Act", for its well-intentioned attempt to ensure a decent well-being for the most vulnerable members of society,

Dismayed that the resolution uses illogical means to achieve its ends,

Baffled that the resolution defines poverty lines "on an area basis, and sets no limits as to how any nation may define such areas save that they must lie wholly within the nation's boundaries", effectively allowing nations to negate the wage mandate by maliciously defining poverty line areas,

Disturbed that the resolution authorizes wages below the poverty line for individuals receiving national income or benefits, effectively permitting unequal pay for the same work,

Disappointed that the resolution fails to exempt tip-based professions from the wage mandate,

Troubled that the resolution does exempt "convicted criminals who are required to perform work in the course of their sentence", effectively approving of unethical punitive labor camps,

Concerned that the resolution defines the "basic poverty line" to include "one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling" and the "Dependent Poverty Line" to include "one week's rent for an average two-person dwelling", which will endlessly inflate the price of housing and make housing unaffordable by continuously increasing the average price of rent,

Confused that the resolution requires "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", resulting in all persons in full-time employment receiving the weekly net wage of no less than 25% over the "Dependent Poverty Line", regardless of whether they have dependents or not,

Perplexed that the resolution "defines the Dependent Poverty Line as the Basic Poverty Line" to include "the pro-rata weekly cost of schooling for a dependent" regardless of whether the dependent is in school or not,

Concerned that the resolution essentially mandates that low-skill workers be permanently unemployed,

Further Concerned that the resolution "requires that power and water supply be deemed appropriate utilities", whereas power may be considered an extravagant luxury in less-modernized nations,

Acknowledging the absolute necessity to assist the poor,

Noting the serious flaws in GAR #21, "Living Wage Act", and its unsustainability,

Hereby Repeals GAR #21, "Living Wage Act".

[Normlpeople]

"While I dislike the living wage act and would like to see its repeal, I dislike your intended replacement of a WA mandated welfare system significantly more.

I will support the lesser of two evils and oppose this"

[Celsuis]

"While I dislike the living wage act and would like to see its repeal, I dislike your intended replacement of a WA mandated welfare system significantly more.

I will support the lesser of two evils and oppose this"

The repeal cannot and does not implement a WA-mandated welfare system, and I do not intend to draft a new resolution implementing one. The clause about the welfare system is intended to acknowledge that a welfare system is more economically sound than a living wage, and that if WA members are worried about the repeal of a living wage, a welfare system is a much more logical alternative. In this instance, a welfare system is the "lesser of two evils" compared to a living wage, and benefits everybody, but particularly the poor.

[LEGGETT EMPIRE]

I agree with Ambassador Clover this is not a good reason to repeal. I will vote Nay as well. If it comes to a vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: The Empire can support this resolution. The concerns of my honourable colleague from Normlpeople are not ... actual concerns. I simply don't see anything which shows that the delegation from Celsuis intends to build a WA mandated welfare state, when considering the past opinions of that delegation.

Parsons: In fact, I would agree with the Ambassador from Celsuis in that shifting the responsibility for welfare from producers to government is a more effective solution than what is in place currently. However, we also agree that no WA mandated welfare state should be built and we see no intention from the Celsuis delegation in doing so.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Employment is not a right. Fair compensation when one is employed is. The difference is that the WA can't expect jobs to be created out of thin air, but wages below the limits so outlined in LWA would allow for wage slavery. Your argument is simply not convincing in the least. Heartily opposed."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Employment is not a right. Fair compensation when one is employed is. The difference is that the WA can't expect jobs to be created out of thin air, but wages below the limits so outlined in LWA would allow for wage slavery. Your argument is simply not convincing in the least. Heartily opposed."

Parsons: Yes, but if one produces nothing whilst employed, fair compensation would be... nothing. Producers should not be expected to employ persons which produce less than the minimum wage set here. While our Democratic Empire has a minimum wage, we do not see why it similar policies should be enforced without concern of national contexts.

[Celsuis]

"Employment is not a right. Fair compensation when one is employed is. The difference is that the WA can't expect jobs to be created out of thin air, but wages below the limits so outlined in LWA would allow for wage slavery. Your argument is simply not convincing in the least. Heartily opposed."

"Ambassador, employment is not a right and fair compensation is not a right; they are both privileges of an advanced society. Jobs aren't created out of thin air, but by lowering the price of labor, demand for labor will increase, thus increasing jobs. There's a vast assortment of positions, like internships and apprenticeships, that are unpaid. People in these situations forego pay because the work experience gained is more important than a salary. Many of these people could be paid, but a living wage often prevents them from receiving a salary.

Wages below the limit outlined in LWA do not allow for wage slavery because an equivalent welfare system would negate any impact this resolution has. On top of this, low-skill workers would finally be able to gain the work experience they need to climb the job ladder, an opportunity that was directly denied to them by GAR #21. An increase in employment and a subsequent increase in production will then decrease costs, further increasing the standard of living for everybody, but especially the poor. The supposed "right" of "fair compensation" is simply a ploy favoring certain workers at the expense of those that get unemployed. It's unethical, and this resolution seeks to rectify this problem and truly help disadvantaged individuals."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Employment is not a right. Fair compensation when one is employed is. The difference is that the WA can't expect jobs to be created out of thin air, but wages below the limits so outlined in LWA would allow for wage slavery. Your argument is simply not convincing in the least. Heartily opposed."

"Ambassador, employment is not a right and fair compensation is not a right; they are both privileges of an advanced society.

"It is. That's what the Living Wage Act did: made it a right. Come on, at least try."

Jobs aren't created out of thin air, but by lowering the price of labor, demand for labor will increase, thus increasing jobs. There's a vast assortment of positions, like internships and apprenticeships, that are unpaid. People in these situations forego pay because the work experience gained is more important than a salary. Many of these people could be paid, but a living wage often prevents them from receiving a salary.

"Or maybe, and this is just a thought based on actual reality, lowering the wage to below the poverty line will allow businesses to save more money without making any changes to their business model. In what fantasy do you exist that has you believing that businesses will use that newfound money to benefit others instead of taking a quality moment to line the pockets of the owners and executives? Especially when evidence of that happening is literally all over?"

Wages below the limit outlined in LWA do not allow for wage slavery because an equivalent welfare system would negate any impact this resolution has.

"It's almost like that idea is so good the WA might have tried it before. Wait, it has! And it failed! By a huge margin! At any rate, empty promises are empty. There's no reason to suspect such a system will be created, now or ever."

On top of this, low-skill workers would finally be able to gain the work experience they need to climb the job ladder, an opportunity that was directly denied to them by GAR #21. An increase in employment and a subsequent increase in production will then decrease costs, further increasing the standard of living for everybody, but especially the poor

"More likely by far is that, by keeping the minimum wage level at a level below the poverty line, businesses ensure that individuals who are below that line will never be able to rise above that line without literally spending nothing. It perpetuates poverty, it doesn't stop poverty. Paying people less than that minimum amount ensures that they will not be able to escape poverty. Their very limited funds go to the necessities of life, with none left over to save, because their paycheck is lower than the poverty line, which denotes what it costs to essentially just subsist. Unless they scrimp and neglect necessities, they can't save enough to have a cash surplus and escape poverty. Worse, if they have unexpected expenses, like medical bills, they lose significant funds for those necessities.

"Lowering the living wage won't help people find jobs, it will drain people of funds."

The supposed "right" of "fair compensation" is simply a ploy favoring certain workers at the expense of those that get unemployed. It's unethical, and this resolution seeks to rectify this problem and truly help disadvantaged individuals."

"No, what's unethical is forcing people to live off paychecks insufficient to raise them out of abject poverty. Your proposal doesn't help anybody but those who don't need help: the business owners and executives. By Odin's Bondage Gauntlets, you have me sounding like some kind of socialist, that's how draconian your efforts are..."

[Celsuis]

Or maybe, and this is just a thought based on actual reality, lowering the wage to below the poverty line will allow businesses to save more money without making any changes to their business model. In what fantasy do you exist that has you believing that businesses will use that newfound money to benefit others instead of taking a quality moment to line the pockets of the owners and executives? Especially when evidence of that happening is literally all over?"

"It's almost like that idea is so good the WA might have tried it before. Wait, it has! And it failed! By a huge margin! At any rate, empty promises are empty. There's no reason to suspect such a system will be created, now or ever."

"More likely by far is that, by keeping the minimum wage level at a level below the poverty line, businesses ensure that individuals who are below that line will never be able to rise above that line without literally spending nothing. It perpetuates poverty, it doesn't stop poverty. Paying people less than that minimum amount ensures that they will not be able to escape poverty. Their very limited funds go to the necessities of life, with none left over to save, because their paycheck is lower than the poverty line, which denotes what it costs to essentially just subsist. Unless they scrimp and neglect necessities, they can't save enough to have a cash surplus and escape poverty. Worse, if they have unexpected expenses, like medical bills, they lose significant funds for those necessities.

"Lowering the living wage won't help people find jobs, it will drain people of funds."

"No, what's unethical is forcing people to live off paychecks insufficient to raise them out of abject poverty. Your proposal doesn't help anybody but those who don't need help: the business owners and executives. By Odin's Bondage Gauntlets, you have me sounding like some kind of socialist, that's how draconian your efforts are..."

"Certain business owners will definitely use the newfound money to their own benefit. However, you fail to realize the business owners will try to exploit each other as well. If one business owner lowers the salary he/she pays, other business owners will gladly accept new employees to sustain their business over the one that lowered its salaries. Yes, some employees may ultimately receive a lower salary as a result; however, a large amount of people will also receive new employment that they would never be able to get with GAR #21. Barring some people from employment to raise the salaries of others is unethical, as I've stated.

A welfare system has been tried by the WA, but it failed because it was poorly constructed and intrusively meddled in internal affairs. Just read it. The majority of the World Assembly supports helping the poor and would support a welfare system replacement for GAR #21; it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

No. Removing the living wage allows more people than ever before to gain employment and the necessary skills and experience to escape poverty. You can't expect to get a high paying job with no experience and little skills. The living wage assures these individuals that they will remain in permanent poverty, while removing it will allow them to move up the income ladder for the first time. These people, regardless of the their pay, will have the necessities of life provided by a welfare system.

Again, people aren't drained of funds with welfare is supporting them. Also, you're failing to comprehend basic economics. If the price of labor decreases or new sources of labor appear, supply rises and cost decreases, increasing demand. More people will be employed, especially the poor.

Actually, it is unethical to deny certain people employment for the benefit of certain others. Business owners will be helped, but the poor will particularly be helped because they can now receive skills and experience while having a welfare system to compensate for low wages. The resolution helps business owners and especially the poor; that's the point."

[Caracasus]

"Certain business owners will definitely use the newfound money to their own benefit. However, you fail to realize the business owners will try to exploit each other as well. If one business owner lowers the salary he/she pays, other business owners will gladly accept new employees to sustain their business over the one that lowered its salaries. Yes, some employees may ultimately receive a lower salary as a result; however, a large amount of people will also receive new employment that they would never be able to get with GAR #21. Barring some people from employment to raise the salaries of others is unethical, as I've stated.

Ambassador, would we see more employment? Perhaps. Would we see more people forced into low paid employment? Most certainly. Would we see people forced into working two or three jobs just to make ends meet? Of course we would.

Employment, ambassador, is no good at all if it does not pay for the individual employed to live.

A welfare system has been tried by the WA, but it failed because it was poorly constructed and intrusively meddled in internal affairs. Just read it. The majority of the World Assembly supports helping the poor and would support a welfare system replacement for GAR #21; it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Ambassador, many would believe that the burden of ensuring that employees have enough money to live should be firmly on the shoulders of the employer. What you would see is effectively government subsidization of appallingly low wages paid by businesses. Quite frankly if a business can not pay their full time employees enough money to afford to live, that business has no right existing. We are right in assuming that in a capitalist economy businesses must compete and remain competitive, correct? If a company cannot pay its employers enough to live, how then is that company competitive? A WA mandated welfare system would, by your logic, decrease competitiveness between companies.

No. Removing the living wage allows more people than ever before to gain employment and the necessary skills and experience to escape poverty. You can't expect to get a high paying job with no experience and little skills. The living wage assures these individuals that they will remain in permanent poverty, while removing it will allow them to move up the income ladder for the first time. These people, regardless of the their pay, will have the necessities of life provided by a welfare system.

So we are now demanding that the governments of WA nations foot the bill for providing employers with a well trained and experienced workforce courtesy of a welfare state to support employees? Interesting.

Again, people aren't drained of funds with welfare is supporting them. Also, you're failing to comprehend basic economics. If the price of labor decreases or new sources of labor appear, supply rises and cost decreases, increasing demand. More people will be employed, especially the poor.

Actually, it is unethical to deny certain people employment for the benefit of certain others. Business owners will be helped, but the poor will particularly be helped because they can now receive skills and experience while having a welfare system to compensate for low wages. The resolution helps business owners and especially the poor; that's the point."

Business owners will certainly be helped ambassador. They will be allowed to act to lower wages as low as they can get away with. Employees? not so much. The nation itself? Not so much. The poor? Not so much. You wish to create a welfare system to allow companies to pay as low a wage as they can get away with.

By Odin's Bondage Gauntlets, you have me sounding like some kind of socialist, that's how draconian your efforts are..."

Welcome to the dark side ambassador.....

[Celsuis]

Ambassador, would we see more employment? Perhaps. Would we see more people forced into low paid employment? Most certainly. Would we see people forced into working two or three jobs just to make ends meet? Of course we would.

Employment, ambassador, is no good at all if it does not pay for the individual employed to live.

Ambassador, many would believe that the burden of ensuring that employees have enough money to live should be firmly on the shoulders of the employer. What you would see is effectively government subsidization of appallingly low wages paid by businesses. Quite frankly if a business can not pay their full time employees enough money to afford to live, that business has no right existing. We are right in assuming that in a capitalist economy businesses must compete and remain competitive, correct? If a company cannot pay its employers enough to live, how then is that company competitive? A WA mandated welfare system would, by your logic, decrease competitiveness between companies.

So we are now demanding that the governments of WA nations foot the bill for providing employers with a well trained and experienced workforce courtesy of a welfare state to support employees? Interesting.

Business owners will certainly be helped ambassador. They will be allowed to act to lower wages as low as they can get away with. Employees? not so much. The nation itself? Not so much. The poor? Not so much. You wish to create a welfare system to allow companies to pay as low a wage as they can get away with.

"Will we see more employment? Definitely. Will some people receive lower salaries? Yes. However, most people will not be adversely affected by the removal of a living wage. The new jobs created will be low-skill workers, whose employment was denied by the LWA. The welfare system is to ensure that workers do not need to work several jobs to make ends meet. There's a lot more to employment than just a salary. I'm sure the unpaid interns and apprentices across NS would strongly disagree with your statements, ambassador.

Again, the point is not whether corporations are greedy. This is self-evident. The point is that many workers do not have skills that are worth a living wage. Why do you insist on lifelong impoverishment and unemployment for the people who need jobs the most, sir? Further, as long as welfare benefts decrease at a less than 1:1 ratio to salary, competitiveness is not decreased, and it ensures workers a decent well-being while granting the poor new opportunity to climb into better financial conditions.

You can either have an entire class of people permanently unemployed, or you can give them the rightful opportunity to work and gain experience and skills necessary to climb the income ladder. The choice is clear. GAR #21 must be repealed if we are sincerely committed to helping the poor and we are not just paying lip service intended to benefit some people at the expense of the others unemployed."

OOC: As for the remainder of Caracasus's argument, please refer to my initial post, where I've already refuted his arguments.

[Caracasus]

In all honesty ambassador, should it be likely that there be a resolution mandating welfare payments, we may support the removal of living wage legislation, or at least protest less strongly against it. As it stands, no resolution of this nature stands a chance of passing. Removal of the living wage in the current climate will not see its replacement with a welfare bill. It will, however, see more workers pushed into an underclass of taking two jobs to pay bills, working long hours and the associated social and personal difficulties that come with this.

We take back our previous statement. Your proposal for a WA mandated welfare bill is even worse. It effectively provides companies with poverty wage labour, heavily subsidized by the state. If a company cannot afford to pay its workers enough money to live on, then that company is noncompetitive. It does not deserve to exist.

At present, citizens in nations with unfettered capitalism are guaranteed to earn enough money to live on, whilst citizens in nations with an amalgamation of economic policies are supported whilst their governments are not forced to subsidize poverty wages.

We find your economic argument that lower wages increases workforce participation to be flawed in the extreme. In the instance of there being a lot more to employment than a salary - we disagree. The main purpose of employment is to earn a living. It is an exchange of an employees time and expertise for money. That is the sole, defining feature of employment. There may be other features, but these pale in comparison to the main purpose. A removal of a guarantee for a fair living wage damages and undermines the quality of life of workers across the WA. This resolution calls upon employers to meet basic moral standards of employment - namely to pay their employees enough money to live.

We find your use of terminology to be deceitful in the extreme ambassador. You would remove the rights of millions of workers to a fair wage and call it empowerment.

[Wrapper]

The point is that many workers do not have skills that are worth a living wage.

Um. So, just to be clear, you're advocating paying a sub-minimum wage to people who do... what now? Build sandwiches at the corner pub, or mop floors, or pump shit from the sewers? Who, in your mind, are the workers who "do not have the skills that are worth a living wage"?

[Caracasus]

The point is that many workers do not have skills that are worth a living wage.

Um. So, just to be clear, you're advocating paying a sub-minimum wage to people who do... what now? Build sandwiches at the corner pub, or mop floors, or pump shit from the sewers? Who, in your mind, are the workers who "do not have the skills that are worth a living wage"?

And by inference, said worker are not worth keeping alive.

[Bears Armed]

The point is that many workers do not have skills that are worth a living wage.

Um. So, just to be clear, you're advocating paying a sub-minimum wage to people who do... what now? Build sandwiches at the corner pub, or mop floors, or pump shit from the sewers? Who, in your mind, are the workers who "do not have the skills that are worth a living wage"?

*<mutters something about "a lot of politicians"...>*

[Celsuis]

In all honesty ambassador, should it be likely that there be a resolution mandating welfare payments, we may support the removal of living wage legislation, or at least protest less strongly against it. As it stands, no resolution of this nature stands a chance of passing. Removal of the living wage in the current climate will not see its replacement with a welfare bill. It will, however, see more workers pushed into an underclass of taking two jobs to pay bills, working long hours and the associated social and personal difficulties that come with this.

We take back our previous statement. Your proposal for a WA mandated welfare bill is even worse. It effectively provides companies with poverty wage labour, heavily subsidized by the state. If a company cannot afford to pay its workers enough money to live on, then that company is noncompetitive. It does not deserve to exist.

At present, citizens in nations with unfettered capitalism are guaranteed to earn enough money to live on, whilst citizens in nations with an amalgamation of economic policies are supported whilst their governments are not forced to subsidize poverty wages.

We find your economic argument that lower wages increases workforce participation to be flawed in the extreme. In the instance of there being a lot more to employment than a salary - we disagree. The main purpose of employment is to earn a living. It is an exchange of an employees time and expertise for money. That is the sole, defining feature of employment. There may be other features, but these pale in comparison to the main purpose. A removal of a guarantee for a fair living wage damages and undermines the quality of life of workers across the WA. This resolution calls upon employers to meet basic moral standards of employment - namely to pay their employees enough money to live.

We find your use of terminology to be deceitful in the extreme ambassador. You would remove the rights of millions of workers to a fair wage and call it empowerment.

"Ambassador, you're rehashing arguments I've already refuted multiple times. Denying a future WA welfare bill is to deny the nature of this assembly and to deny reality. I'd be hard pressed to find a significant amount of WA members who would oppose such a measure. And as I've stated previously, if workers only produce, for example, product worth one monetary unit, and the living wage is two monetary units, these workers will never be hired. At present, citizens in nations are guaranteed to earn enough money to live on; however, the living wage also guarantees that many people, especially the poor, will be unemployed and will have no money to live on. You call it subsidizing poverty wages, but it is actually subsidizing the opportunity for workers to gain experience and skills to climb the income ladder.

I find your understanding of basic economics to be lacking, ambassador. The universal law of supply and demand is not magically altered by a living wage. A living wage prices numerous workers out of the job market. As I've already stated multiple times, removing the living wage lowers costs and increases supply, which will significantly improve employment, lower prices, and increase the standard of living for the poor. Your understanding that the sole purpose of employment is a salary is completely flawed. You also promote scantily higher wages for a small minority of people at the expense of the most vulnerable people who will be unemployed for life. I find your use of terminology and understanding of the resolution to be flawed and deceitful to the extreme. You would rather workers with the least skill, in most need of work, to be impoverished for life. The only way to truly help workers is to repeal the living wage."

[Celsuis]

The point is that many workers do not have skills that are worth a living wage.

Um. So, just to be clear, you're advocating paying a sub-minimum wage to people who do... what now? Build sandwiches at the corner pub, or mop floors, or pump shit from the sewers? Who, in your mind, are the workers who "do not have the skills that are worth a living wage"?

"Let's examine this logically, ambassador. If the individual who builds sandwiches at the corner pub produces 7 monetary units per hour, but the living wage mandates 10 monetary units per hour, that individual will never be hired. To deny this indisputable fact that many workers do not have the skills worth a living wage is to deny reality. If you truly desire to improve the conditions of these people, you ought to actually allow them to work and earn a living, which will grant them experience and skills necessary to climb out of their situation."

[Wrapper]

"Let's examine this logically, ambassador. If the individual who builds sandwiches at the corner pub produces 7 monetary units per hour, but the living wage mandates 10 monetary units per hour, that individual will never be hired. To deny this indisputable fact that many workers do not have the skills worth a living wage is to deny reality. If you truly desire to improve the conditions of these people, you ought to actually allow them to work and earn a living, which will grant them experience and skills necessary to climb out of their situation."

Fascinating. So, umm, how much is mop water worth? How much is shit worth? How do people who don't actually create a saleable product count in your calculations?

[Celsuis]

And by inference, said worker are not worth keeping alive.

"Not only have I never and will I never imply this, but I am truly shocked that you would suggest such a disgusting concept, ambassador. Must you resort to sickening statements to replace your argument, sir?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why are you equating wages an product production value? The two are unrelated."

[Celsuis]

"Why are you equating wages an product production value? The two are unrelated."

"If the two are unrelated, please explain why any well-reasoning employer will hire a worker who produces less than the living wage cost, subsequently granting him/her a permanent net loss in revenue."

[Celsuis]

Fascinating. So, umm, how much is mop water worth? How much is shit worth? Or do people who don't actually create a saleable product count in your calculations?

"People sell intangible services all the time, no? All production and services, tangible or not, have a value. Or are you denying the fact that artists, such as orators and vocalists, have marketable skills, ambassador?"

[Sciongrad]

Fascinating. So, umm, how much is mop water worth? How much is shit worth? Or do people who don't actually create a saleable product count in your calculations?

"People sell intangible services all the time, no? All production and services, tangible or not, have a value. Or are you denying the fact that artists, such as orators and vocalists, have marketable skills, ambassador?"

"I think the ambassador's point is that there's no objective way to quantify the monetary value of services, like mopping. How much mopping does one have to do to make x amount of money? There's really no way of determining that and so it practically invites exploitation by employers in the absence of a set minimum wage."

[Celsuis]

"I think the ambassador's point is that there's no objective way to quantify the monetary value of services, like mopping. How much mopping does one have to do to make x amount of money? There's really no way of determining that and so it practically invites exploitation by employers in the absence of a set minimum wage."

"There is no objective way to quantify the monetary value of services, like mopping. There is also no objective way to quantify the value of anything, including basic necessities and luxuries such as gold and silver. Everything receives a price based on the law of supply and demand. Businesses won't receive customers if the area looks neglected or dirty. Human labor will always be in demand, and services like mopping will always be in the demand because people's time and effort have value. An approximate monetary value can be assigned to services based on the number of people capable and willing to perform it, and on how essential that service is to employers."