[PASSED] Repeal "Living Wage Act"

[Celsuis]

If that is your ultimate goal, then pass a welfare resolution first. This way, when you repeal this one, people won't be dying in the streets of starvation, because they don't make enough money to clothe, feed and house themselves, while the WA argues about welfare.

"This resolution primarily affects those unemployed for lacking sufficient marketable skills to break-even with the LWA. As companies will eagerly grab workers who leave jobs that decide to lower their wages, people already employed will not be severely affected. Opportunity should be given first."

[Caracasus]

Well ambassador - we note that you still have not answered our main questions, but we will attempt to address these point nonetheless.

Government is subsidizing below poverty wages in order to subsidize the rightful opportunity of people to gain work experience and skills. For many people, it is the only way to climb the income ladder; the alternative is lifelong impoverishment. If a company desires a service from a worker than is worth very little, but will pay for it, why should it be denied the opportunity to grant someone employment? Being employed is far better than being permanently unemployed because it grants crucial opportunities.

If aiding workers in climbing the income ladder is the purpose of your repeal, why are you intent on demolishing the bottom rungs?

Of course capitalism can be brutal. That's why this resolution promotes a welfare system. It combines the benefits of capitalism and eliminates the drawbacks by supporting the poor. Low-skill workers can now gain skills and opportunity without being dependent on low wages.

This resolution is a repeal. It can promote free pie on Wednesdays and cravats for zebras, this does not in any way mean that these things will happen. You cannot pass new legislation in an appeal.

And ambassador, if no policy implementing welfare across the WA will ever pass, why has it already been passed? The WA is an upstanding assembly and I despise your attempts to disparage it, sir.

Now we are certain you may be a little confused. Trust us ambassador, the only way the WA could be considered upstanding would be if the stranger's bar were to close.

Of course, this proposal will definitely see a massive increase in the number of workers paid below poverty wages. These will be the workers who were previously unemployed. This resolution will be a tremendous improvement for the poor by allowing them employment opportunities and significantly improving their standard of living.

Simply not the case ambassador. There would be a massive increase of employees currently on living wages forced onto lower wages. We see this in every instance where employers are allowed to do so - they will pay the lowest wage they can. You are making a very serious mistake in assuming that the employer should be, and indeed is, the only body responsible for judging the worth of an individual's work. This is patently not the case as they have a conflicting motive to pay the lowest wage for the highest amount of labour.

This is a clear cut case of removing a mandate that the poor be unemployed. This resolution will grant new opportunities to low-skill workers that were denied by the LWA."

Not at all. This mandates that employees should be paid enough to live on.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: This delegation recommends to Ambassador Zonwoods that he include clauses highlighting the flaws in the resolution, specifically:

• The definition of Basic Poverty Line, which requires 'one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling', as an 'average' one-person dwelling would mean that generally, there are about one-half of dwellings which are cost less than the average which all persons would then have more income than necessary to rent, inflating rental costs;
  
  
• The Living Wage Act's definition of full-time employment, as it 'considers a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked', which would average to 6 hours a day worked, assuming persons get weekends off; and
  
  
• The requirement 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', which means that all persons who do not explicitly waive a right for the monies above the Dependent Poverty Line, regardless of whether they have dependants or not, would then receive the dependant allowance with a 25 per cent bonus.

[Caracasus]

Firstly, why do you wish the government to subsidize below poverty wages? Secondly, why should a company unable to employ workers on a wage that they can live on be allowed to survive?

Parsons: The answer to the first question is due to the fact that government is more efficient than producers at tending for the welfare of the poor (economies of scale). Thus, it would result greater societal benefit. The living wage as defined in the Living Wage Act is not so well defined... Its housing allowance is much too large, and thus, would lead to run-away inflation in rental prices.

Indeed. We would support a repeal that genuinely tried to close some of these more problematic loopholes. However, the current ambassador's repeal is based on the idea of implementing a WA wide welfare system. We cannot imagine that this would be better than the status quo.

[Herby]

If that is your ultimate goal, then pass a welfare resolution first. This way, when you repeal this one, people won't be dying in the streets of starvation, because they don't make enough money to clothe, feed and house themselves, while the WA argues about welfare.

"This resolution primarily affects those unemployed for lacking sufficient marketable skills to break-even with the LWA. As companies will eagerly grab workers who leave jobs that decide to lower their wages, people already employed will not be severely affected. Opportunity should be given first."

Have you read the resolution in question? There's nothing in it that says it primarily affects the unemployed or unskilled. It affects ALL full-time and part-time employees, and repealing the resolution would allow companies, if they so desired, to pay ALL employees below the poverty line. Not just these hypothetical unskilled ones you keep saying need protecting.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: The answer to the first question is due to the fact that government is more efficient than producers at tending for the welfare of the poor (economies of scale). Thus, it would result greater societal benefit. The living wage as defined in the Living Wage Act is not so well defined... Its housing allowance is much too large, and thus, would lead to run-away inflation in rental prices.

Indeed. We would support a repeal that genuinely tried to close some of these more problematic loopholes. However, the current ambassador's repeal is based on the idea of implementing a WA wide welfare system. We cannot imagine that this would be better than the status quo.

Parsons: Which, Your Excellency, we must agree with. The Democratic Empire suggests to Ambassador Zonwoods to drop this talk about a political unviable WA-mandated welfare system and accept a compromise which allows a more accurate redefinition of the basic living wage.

[Celsuis]

Parsons: This delegation recommends to Ambassador Zonwoods that he include clauses highlighting the flaws in the resolution, specifically:

• The definition of Basic Poverty Line, which requires 'one week's rent for an average one-person dwelling', as an 'average' one-person dwelling would mean that generally, there are about one-half of dwellings which are cost less than the average which all persons would then have more income than necessary to rent, inflating rental costs;
  
  
• The Living Wage Act's definition of full-time employment, as it 'considers a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked', which would average to 6 hours a day worked, assuming persons get weekends off; and
  
  
• The requirement 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', which means that all persons who do not explicitly waive a right for the monies above the Dependent Poverty Line, regardless of whether they have dependants or not, would then receive the dependant allowance with a 25 per cent bonus.

Indeed. We would support a repeal that genuinely tried to close some of these more problematic loopholes. However, the current ambassador's repeal is based on the idea of implementing a WA wide welfare system. We cannot imagine that this would be better than the status quo.

Parsons: Which, Your Excellency, we must agree with. The Democratic Empire suggests to Ambassador Zonwoods to drop this talk about a political unviable WA-mandated welfare system and accept a compromise which allows a more accurate redefinition of the basic living wage.

"The draft has been edited to fit these concerns."

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: These two links might also be helpful...

• Christian Democrat's Attempted Repeal
  
  
• Auralia's Attempted Repeal
  
  
• Original Debate Thread

[Celsuis]

"My delegation has further edited our draft, and we have found several additional flaws in GAR #21, the most serious of which being that it enables nations to negate the entire resolution by maliciously defining poverty line areas. We are asking for further comments and criticism on our current version of this repeal."

[Herby]

Puzzled that the resolution mandates a wage requirement for individuals already receiving significant income from programs such as investment firms and social security,

Why is this a problem? Do you think two people who do the same exact work should have their salary determined by how much money they make outside of work?

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,

How are you drawing this conclusion? Nothing in the resolution says anything about how much rent shall be paid.

Distressed that the resolution "considers a person working on average 30 hours or more per week to be in full-time employment, counting paid holiday as time worked", resulting in persons working less than 5 hours per day being considered employed full-time,

So you want people who work seven days a week for four and a half hours every day to not be considered full time employees? Wow, for someone who keeps talking about the rights of workers, you're striking out so far.

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,

Oh, so we're going to play the caveman card here? Interesting.

Acknowledging the absolute necessity to assist the poor,

Finish the sentence. "...by cutting their wages so that they can't afford food, clothing and shelter for them and their dependents."

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

No, Herby does not. Oh, wait, you spelled "Hereby" correctly. Sorry. Habit.

[Celsuis]

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,

How are you drawing this conclusion? Nothing in the resolution says anything about how much rent shall be paid.

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,

Oh, so we're going to play the caveman card here? Interesting.

"Ambassador, since the LWA guarantees an average week's rent, if this money is then spent on rent, the average rate of rent will increase, thus increasing the LWA wage mandate. This cycle can then repeat itself, endlessly increasing housing costs and subsequently inflating other sectors. Such high prices are extremely destructive to the standard of living for less well-off individuals.

Many nations may lack significant infrastructure or power grids. The LWA is unfair to those nations and essentially mandates unemployment for most of their populations. Resolutions ought to account for all nations."

[Wrapper]

"Ambassador, since the LWA guarantees an average week's rent, if this money is then spent on rent, the average rate of rent will increase, thus increasing the LWA wage mandate.

OOC: Okay. So. My rent is 50 dollars. The LWA guarantees me enough money so that I can afford my rent. I pay my rent. Now my rent... goes up to 55 dollars because I can pay my rent?

I just don't get it.

[Celsuis]

"Ambassador, since the LWA guarantees an average week's rent, if this money is then spent on rent, the average rate of rent will increase, thus increasing the LWA wage mandate.

OOC: Okay. So. My rent is 50 dollars. The LWA guarantees me enough money so that I can afford my rent. I pay my rent. Now my rent... goes up to 55 dollars because I can pay my rent?

I just don't get it.

OOC: The LWA guarantees that all people employed will receive the amount required for the average week's rent. However, those people that rely on the living wage do not earn an average salary, so this allows them to afford disproportionately expensive rent. With the poorest people now driving demand for average rent, the demand for housing increases, thus increasing the price of rent. This cycle continues and causes endless price inflation.

[Herby]

OOC: The LWA guarantees that all people employed will receive the amount required for the average week's rent. However, those people that rely on the living wage do not earn an average salary, so this allows them to afford disproportionately expensive rent. With the poorest people now driving demand for average rent, the demand for housing increases, thus increasing the price of rent. This cycle continues and causes endless price inflation.

That's capitalism, son!

Seriously, unless you have an endless supply of poor people, you're going to reach equilibrium, where prices stabilize. Also, two words: RENT CONTROL.

EDIT: Also, you're assuming that the supply of low-cost housing stays constant. It would make sense that when demand increases, the state would increase the construction of affordable housing, which can keep rents at a relatively stable level.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Ambassador, since the LWA guarantees an average week's rent, if this money is then spent on rent, the average rate of rent will increase, thus increasing the LWA wage mandate.

OOC: Okay. So. My rent is 50 dollars. The LWA guarantees me enough money so that I can afford my rent. I pay my rent. Now my rent... goes up to 55 dollars because I can pay my rent?

I just don't get it.

OOC: No. The LWA guarantees you enough money to afford an AVERAGE rent in the country where you work. Your rent is 50 dollars. The average is 100 dollars. (1) You just got 50 dollars due to a wording loophole. (2) If you and everyone else spends that money on rent, then the demand for housing increases rapidly [which means its short-run, not long-run, Herby] and thus, all rents are higher. Next pay-cycle, the same thing happens.

Seriously, unless you have an endless supply of poor people, you're going to reach equilibrium, where prices stabilize.

If everyone can then live in 'average' housing, then the average shifts higher. And then, the average shifts higher, and then, the average shifts higher... You can't reach equilibrium if the minimum allowance for rent keeps shifting higher every single time its reevaluated (which it must be, per the resolution).

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Your understanding of economics is fundamentally flawed.

IC: "I feel the need to distance my prior support here. I wish the living wage act to be repealed due to certain clauses which I believe to be micromanagement. I am not opposed to setting a minimum wage.

You are comitting the usual socialist flaw. You assume that a) money saved would be used to hire new employees instead of becoming windfall profits and b) assuming most businesses are incapable of determining, and allocating for, labor costs.

I am pleased to see your true goal of a WA welfare system revealed. I look forward to seeing this abomination."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Yes. However, if a company is going to attempt to pay the lowest wages possible, their supply of labour is going to be radically diminished by other companies who wish to pay more for the purpose of getting labour. It would then settle into another equilibrium.

"Such an idealistic utopian vision! This kind of wooly-headed libertarianism simply doesn't hold up in the real world, where all manner of cartels, conspiracies, and collusion reign supreme unless the state steps in to tell the bosses who's boss. While a couple of the criticisms you and the esteemed Celsuisian Ambassador have leveled do constitute flaws (e.g. the use of "average" costs for certain necessities, rather than minimum standards), these do not rise to the level of necessitating a repeal, and for sure they don't do so without a replacement ready to go."

"Opposed."

[Celsuis]

OOC: Your understanding of economics is fundamentally flawed.

IC: "I feel the need to distance my prior support here. I wish the living wage act to be repealed due to certain clauses which I believe to be micromanagement. I am not opposed to setting a minimum wage.

You are comitting the usual socialist flaw. You assume that a) money saved would be used to hire new employees instead of becoming windfall profits and b) assuming most businesses are incapable of determining, and allocating for, labor costs.

I am pleased to see your true goal of a WA welfare system revealed. I look forward to seeing this abomination."

"I have no intention of submitting a new resolution mandating a welfare system. I have updated the draft to remove support of one and it now delineates the fundamental flaws present in GAR #21."

[Celsuis]

"Such an idealistic utopian vision! This kind of wooly-headed libertarianism simply doesn't hold up in the real world, where all manner of cartels, conspiracies, and collusion reign supreme unless the state steps in to tell the bosses who's boss. While a couple of the criticisms you and the esteemed Celsuisian Ambassador have leveled do constitute flaws (e.g. the use of "average" costs for certain necessities, rather than minimum standards), these do not rise to the level of necessitating a repeal, and for sure they don't do so without a replacement ready to go."

"Opposed."

"If you truly believe that the major flaws in GAR #21 do not necessitate its repeal, please address the fact that GAR #21 is written in a way that allows nations to negate the entire resolution by dishonestly defining poverty lines. The resolution, as it currently stands, does not function."

[Celsuis]

"We have submitted this repeal for approval. We sincerely ask all WA members and delegates to take impartial consideration of our proposal and we ask for your approval and support. Thank you for your time."

[Separatist Peoples]

"A counter-campaign has been started."

[Celsuis]

"For purposes of transparency, my delegation is proud to announce that it has manually wired 610 telegrams to WA delegates. We continue to ask for your earnest support as we seek to repeal GAR #21, a resolution riddled with errors. We also request support from other ambassadors, if possible, in promoting our repeal and assisting it to achieve quorum."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"A counter-campaign has been started."

"For purposes of transparency, my delegation is proud to announce that it has manually wired 610 telegrams to WA delegates. We continue to ask for your earnest support as we seek to repeal GAR #21, a resolution riddled with errors. We also request support from other ambassadors, if possible, in promoting our repeal and assisting it to achieve quorum."

For the purposes of transparency, can we all SEE this telegram you two have sent out?

[Separatist Peoples]

"A counter-campaign has been started."

"For purposes of transparency, my delegation is proud to announce that it has manually wired 610 telegrams to WA delegates. We continue to ask for your earnest support as we seek to repeal GAR #21, a resolution riddled with errors. We also request support from other ambassadors, if possible, in promoting our repeal and assisting it to achieve quorum."

For the purposes of transparency, can we all SEE this telegram you two have sent out?

OOC: Whats it matter, exactly? I don't believe either of us has done more than rely on manual telegramming thus far.

[Imperium Anglorum]

For the purposes of transparency, can we all SEE this telegram you two have sent out?

OOC: Whats it matter, exactly? I don't believe either of us has done more than rely on manual telegramming thus far.

OOC: I'd just like to see it... for the purposes of transparency.