[DRAFT] Repeal "Living Wage Act"

[Railana]

The former half of a de facto repeal and replace campaign for GAR #21, Living Wage Act.

Repeal "Living Wage Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #21

Applauding the aim of GAR #21, "Living Wage Act", which is to guarantee a minimum standard of living for all workers in World Assembly member states,

Regretting that GAR #21 attempts to accomplish this goal by mandating that employers provide their workers with a living wage, which has several unfortunate repercussions:

1. the resolution fails to take into into account employees who have already sufficient income to support themselves from an alternate source, and who therefore do not require or even want a living wage, such as:
   
   • minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income,
   • the elderly who receive sufficient income from pensions or social security programs,
   • food service employees who receive tips, and
   • individuals who already benefit from investment income, such as capital gains or dividends;
2. the resolution fails to make exceptions for when the economic value of certain forms of employment is so small as to prevent employers from paying a living wage, such as:
   
   • persons engaged in small-scale seasonal employment, such as small fishing or farming operations,
   • casual babysitters, as well as persons engaged as companions to the elderly or infirm, and
   • persons engaged in newspaper delivery;
3. the resolution unfairly guarantees additional income for dependants to every employee, even when an employee has no dependants; and
4. the resolution ignores the fact that employers may be unable to pay a living wage during times of economic recession, and that these restrictions may actually increase unemployment and lower income, which is exactly what the resolution is attempting to avoid,

Believing that this legislation should be replaced with a resolution that mandates that member states guarantee a minimum standard of living for all persons who make a reasonable effort to contribute to their society, while allowing flexibility in its implementation,

Hoping that such a resolution will be passed in short order,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #21, "Living Wage Act".

[Fendon]

We would support this, when we see evidence of the replacement resolution, in question. If you plan on replacing certain aspects of a law, I think our minds would be put at ease if we could see exactly what you will try to change.

[Railana]

We would support this, when we see evidence of the replacement resolution, in question. If you plan on replacing certain aspects of a law, I think our minds would be put at ease if we could see exactly what you will try to change.

The replacement proposal is available here.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Fendon]

We would support this, when we see evidence of the replacement resolution, in question. If you plan on replacing certain aspects of a law, I think our minds would be put at ease if we could see exactly what you will try to change.

The replacement proposal is available here.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Thank you. Give me time to look over it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Everything in Clause A and B are things nations can adjust for in national law, which makes all of Clause A and B fairly irrelevant. Clauses C and D are legitimate concerns, but not enough to remove as useful a bill as the Living Wage Act, in my opinion. Its flaws are relatively minor, and addressable by national law where appropriate."

[Defwa]

"Everything in Clause A and B are things nations can adjust for in national law, which makes all of Clause A and B fairly irrelevant. Clauses C and D are legitimate concerns, but not enough to remove as useful a bill as the Living Wage Act, in my opinion. Its flaws are relatively minor, and addressable by national law where appropriate."

Indeed. I don't see C and D as much of a problem at all, myself.
This remains a very minimum wage.

[Hakio]

The former half of a de facto repeal and replace campaign for GAR #21, Living Wage Act.

Repeal "Living Wage Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #21

Applauding the aim of GAR #21, "Living Wage Act", which is to guarantee a minimum standard of living for all workers in World Assembly member states,

Regretting that GAR #21 attempts to accomplish this goal by mandating that employers provide their workers with a living wage, which has several unfortunate repercussions:

1. the resolution fails to take into into account employees who have already sufficient income to support themselves from an alternate source, and who therefore do not require or even want a living wage, such as:

Stop. Minimum wage and living wage are not the same thing. You cannot say that the minimum wage law is wrong because it doesn't ensure a living wage. That's nonsensical, the resolution does what it says it does: mandate minimum wage laws.

• minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income,
• the elderly who receive sufficient income from pensions or social security programs,
• food service employees who receive tips, and
• individuals who already benefit from investment income, such as capital gains or dividends;

the resolution fails to make exceptions for when the economic value of certain forms of employment is so small as to prevent employers from paying a living wage, such as:

• persons engaged in small-scale seasonal employment, such as small fishing or farming operations,
• casual babysitters, as well as persons engaged as companions to the elderly or infirm, and
• persons engaged in newspaper delivery;

the resolution unfairly guarantees additional income for dependants to every employee, even when an employee has no dependants; and

the resolution ignores the fact that employers may be unable to pay a living wage during times of economic recession, and that these restrictions may actually increase unemployment and lower income, which is exactly what the resolution is attempting to avoid,

Again you're judging the resolution off of what you think it should say and not based off of what it actually says,

Believing that this legislation should be replaced with a resolution that mandates that member states guarantee a minimum standard of living for all persons who make a reasonable effort to contribute to their society, while allowing flexibility in its implementation,

Prime example of what I mean.

Hoping that such a resolution will be passed in short order,

Unimportant fluff to advertise your replacement.

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #21, "Living Wage Act".

"Not today...." Sia sends back her criticisms to the Railanan delegate.

[Railana]

"Everything in Clause A and B are things nations can adjust for in national law, which makes all of Clause A and B fairly irrelevant.

This is not true. Member nations are not permitted to exempt certain classes of individuals from the living wage requirement under the Living Wage Act.

Clauses C and D are legitimate concerns, but not enough to remove as useful a bill as the Living Wage Act, in my opinion.

To be fair, we do not intend to leave the World Assembly without any replacement legislation.

Stop. Minimum wage and living wage are not the same thing. You cannot say that the minimum wage law is wrong because it doesn't ensure a living wage. That's nonsensical, the resolution does what it says it does: mandate minimum wage laws.

I suggest you read the Living Wage Act once more. You seem to be under the impression that Living Wage Act guarantees a minimum wage, when it does not; it guarantees a living wage.

[Normlpeople]

"While our nations mandatory military service and volunteer extensions make it difficult to be unemployed (and as a result in us not having much of a welfare system to speak of), the act really doesn't affect us. We do agree there has to be some effort put forth by the individual to find suitable employment if possible. I support the replacement... with concerns that I will address in that debate"

[Separatist Peoples]

"Everything in Clause A and B are things nations can adjust for in national law, which makes all of Clause A and B fairly irrelevant.

This is not true. Member nations are not permitted to exempt certain classes of individuals from the living wage requirement under the Living Wage Act.

"Exempt, no. There are other, legal ways of recouping those losses

Clauses C and D are legitimate concerns, but not enough to remove as useful a bill as the Living Wage Act, in my opinion.

To be fair, we do not intend to leave the World Assembly without any replacement legislation.

"I see no reason to expect a replacement to pass. If the repeal cannot stand without a replacement, it shouldn't be removed. But that's just my opinion."

[Starkmoor]

We have to oppose this repeal, because once you exempt certain groups from wage requirements you create an uneven playing field where employers favor the exempted groups. Using "minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income" as an example; employers would rush to replace adult employees with young kids who would be cheaper.

________________________________________
Comrade Frank K. Burlingame
World Assembly Ambassador for the People's Republic of Starkmoor

[Railana]

"Exempt, no. There are other, legal ways of recouping those losses

What exactly did you have in mind?

"I see no reason to expect a replacement to pass. If the repeal cannot stand without a replacement, it shouldn't be removed. But that's just my opinion."

Fair enough, but it's not an opinion we share. Under your approach, the World Assembly could never improve on existing legislation.

We have to oppose this repeal, because once you exempt certain groups from wage requirements you create an uneven playing field where employers favor the exempted groups. Using "minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income" as an example; employers would rush to replace adult employees with young kids who would be cheaper.

This is a repeal; it does not require that certain groups be exempted from wage requirements.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

"Exempt, no. There are other, legal ways of recouping those losses

What exactly did you have in mind?

"Great, put me I the spot 6 months after I try to make a point? I don't even remember what I was going to say. Uh...Plenty of nations offer exceptions based on qualifiers, such as taking into account alternate incomes or dependency status. We consider a pension a form of income for the purposes of labor laws, so as to avoid such overlap. Likewise, dependent's of individuals making over the legal lower limit of pay who are underage don't qualify, as their monitory needs are fulfilled by their parent or guardian. They are classified an taxed differently as they have alternative income revenue, as it were. "

[Railana]

"Great, put me I the spot 6 months after I try to make a point? I don't even remember what I was going to say. Uh...Plenty of nations offer exceptions based on qualifiers, such as taking into account alternate incomes or dependency status. We consider a pension a form of income for the purposes of labor laws, so as to avoid such overlap. Likewise, dependent's of individuals making over the legal lower limit of pay who are underage don't qualify, as their monitory needs are fulfilled by their parent or guardian. They are classified an taxed differently as they have alternative income revenue, as it were. "

I don't see how that changes the fact that employers are still required to supply inappropriately high wages to certain classes of individuals.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

"Great, put me I the spot 6 months after I try to make a point? I don't even remember what I was going to say. Uh...Plenty of nations offer exceptions based on qualifiers, such as taking into account alternate incomes or dependency status. We consider a pension a form of income for the purposes of labor laws, so as to avoid such overlap. Likewise, dependent's of individuals making over the legal lower limit of pay who are underage don't qualify, as their monitory needs are fulfilled by their parent or guardian. They are classified an taxed differently as they have alternative income revenue, as it were. "

I don't see how that changes the fact that employers are still required to supply inappropriately high wages to certain classes of individuals.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"But we can adjust, through appropriate taxes and tax returns, their net loss to circumvent this. It's not an especially large issue, especially since it's tied into our existing taxation laws. I'd be surprised if other nations didn't do the same. So, yes, employers must pay more, but there's no reason there cannot be a reimbursement from taxation levied with the justification of specialized working conditions.

"That said, our position on the target law has...shifted somewhat in the last several months. I can't say our support for it is quite as strong as before."

[The Dark Star Republic]

Likewise, dependent's of individuals making over the legal lower limit of pay who are underage don't qualify, as their monitory needs are fulfilled by their parent or guardian. They are classified an taxed differently as they have alternative income revenue, as it were. "

"The repeal is arguing about a burden to businesses, not to the taxpayer. Unless you're suggesting that nations recoup this extra tax, then provide it back to businesses as subsidies - which would be so enormously complicated and unnecessary as to do little to justify the repeal not being passed anyway.

"That said, I do agree the stuff under 'a' is not really the most compelling part of the repeal, so while valid legally, rhetorically it might benefit from being moved lower and a stronger argument - 'c' and 'd' especially - moved higher in its place.

"Our position on the repeal remains ambivalent. We'd like to see the Living Wage Act replaced; we're just not confident this replacement will pass, which will leave us in a legislative vacuum."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Separatist Peoples]

Likewise, dependent's of individuals making over the legal lower limit of pay who are underage don't qualify, as their monitory needs are fulfilled by their parent or guardian. They are classified an taxed differently as they have alternative income revenue, as it were. "

"The repeal is arguing about a burden to businesses, not to the taxpayer. Unless you're suggesting that nations recoup this extra tax, then provide it back to businesses as subsidies - which would be so enormously complicated and unnecessary as to do little to justify the repeal not being passed anyway.

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

"Without any recourse since the target passed, a needlessly complex system is about all we've had to rely on to mitigate the damage...though you've touched on my feelings precisely on the Living Wage Act and the proposed replacement."

[Jackonia]

Nations should be able to decide their own Living Wages and should not be forced by the World Assembly to set a fixed Living Wage. Currencies are different and Nations have Governments and/or Monarchies for the purpose of acting on behalf of their citizens. I am therefore in favour of the proposal.

[Defwa]

Nations should be able to decide their own Living Wages and should not be forced by the World Assembly to set a fixed Living Wage. Currencies are different and Nations have Governments and/or Monarchies for the purpose of acting on behalf of their citizens. I am therefore in favour of the proposal.

Nations do decide their own living wage... Differences in currencies and governments are irrelevant. What are you talking about?

[Separatist Peoples]

Nations should be able to decide their own Living Wages and should not be forced by the World Assembly to set a fixed Living Wage. Currencies are different and Nations have Governments and/or Monarchies for the purpose of acting on behalf of their citizens. I am therefore in favour of the proposal.

"Ambassador, do you even bother to read the proposals you comment on before preparing statements on them?"

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Regretting that GAR #21 attempts to accomplish this goal by mandating that employers provide their workers with a living wage, which has several unfortunate repercussions:

Living wage is just a more progressively-themed minimum wage strategy. Anything that follows from this applies the same in attempting to abolish minimum wages.

the resolution fails to take into into account employees who have already sufficient income to support themselves from an alternate source, and who therefore do not require or even want a living wage, such as:

It is irrelevant if persons believe that a certain wage is too high for them. They can donate percieved excess to charity. They are as entitled to the full benefits of a living wage as everyone else.

minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income, the elderly who receive sufficient income from pensions or social security programs,

What is the harm in this disposable income? Capitalist economies work based upon the use of disposable income, and yet you seem to find it an undesirable thing for citizens to have. In both these cases, individuals are less likely, or in the case of minors are often prohibited, from working full-time. If they decide to make use of their time as employees, they deserve the same earning potential as anyone else.

food service employees who receive tips, and individuals who already benefit from investment income, such as capital gains or dividends;

This assumes that investment and tip income are easily sufficient to provide for living expenses, which is quite frankly inane. Employers have the same responsibility to pay all employees regardless of other sources of income, especially considering that both of these sources of income are variable and relatively uncontrollable.

the resolution fails to make exceptions for when the economic value of certain forms of employment is so small as to prevent employers from paying a living wage, such as:

The Union cannot fathom why those employed in careers of so-called lesser economic value should not experience the same level of protections to ensure adequate wages.

persons engaged in small-scale seasonal employment, such as small fishing or farming operations,

Farming operations are of critical importance to the continued existence of a nation, let alone its economic output. Those employed for such poses deserve equal protections. Those employed even in the normally non-critical fishing industry deserve no less for not being an absolute necessity. Bankers are not a necessity, and yet you allow them the same protections.

casual babysitters, as well as persons engaged as companions to the elderly or infirm, and persons engaged in newspaper delivery;

We cannot see why you consider these employment opportunities so dispensable that they do not deserve wage protections. It is also worthy of note that such persons are rarely engaged in such activities on a full-time basis.

the resolution unfairly guarantees additional income for dependants to every employee, even when an employee has no dependants; and

This statement is factually incorrect. The resolution explicitly restricts the dependency living wage to those with dependents.

the resolution ignores the fact that employers may be unable to pay a living wage during times of economic recession, and that these restrictions may actually increase unemployment and lower income, which is exactly what the resolution is attempting to avoid,

The Union feels that this is an irrelevant statement where it is not simply false. It would be mathematically impossible for a standard of minimum wage to decrease wages to anyone not already earning more. It is a fact that economies which have enforced minimum wages have both a greater overall economic stability, and that individuals are more readily capable of coping with temporary economic hardships. Bussinessess are far more likely to resist economic shifts when its previous patrons remain patrons through times of crises due to their incomes never being jeopardized.

Believing that this legislation should be replaced with a resolution that mandates that member states guarantee a minimum standard of living for all persons who make a reasonable effort to contribute to their society, while allowing flexibility in its implementation,
Hoping that such a resolution will be passed in short order,

The passed resolution made the effort to ensure living wages for those contributing to society. We see no reason to replace that which already exists. The lack of flexibility in the resolution is not a failure, it is a success. It provides protection to almost every employee, a state which your supposed "inflexibilities" would absolutely destroy.

We will oppose this repeal at every opportunity.

[Afro-Euasia]

food service employees who receive tips

Most people don't give tips and that means women have to dress more sexually in order to receive more tips,which is not a very good idea and this is against equality for all gender.If you fix this problem,we might think about accepting this.

This act reduces poverty which is great for all economies,we have used these tools,and for some countries it worked,while others failed.we need to keep this intact.

[Mericadom]

The former half of a de facto repeal and replace campaign for GAR #21, Living Wage Act.

Repeal "Living Wage Act"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #21

Applauding the aim of GAR #21, "Living Wage Act", which is to guarantee a minimum standard of living for all workers in World Assembly member states,

Regretting that GAR #21 attempts to accomplish this goal by mandating that employers provide their workers with a living wage, which has several unfortunate repercussions:

1. the resolution fails to take into into account employees who have already sufficient income to support themselves from an alternate source, and who therefore do not require or even want a living wage, such as:
   
   • minors and other dependants who are working solely to obtain a source of disposable income,
   • the elderly who receive sufficient income from pensions or social security programs,
   • food service employees who receive tips, and
   • individuals who already benefit from investment income, such as capital gains or dividends;
2. the resolution fails to make exceptions for when the economic value of certain forms of employment is so small as to prevent employers from paying a living wage, such as:
   
   • persons engaged in small-scale seasonal employment, such as small fishing or farming operations,
   • casual babysitters, as well as persons engaged as companions to the elderly or infirm, and
   • persons engaged in newspaper delivery;
3. the resolution unfairly guarantees additional income for dependants to every employee, even when an employee has no dependants; and
4. the resolution ignores the fact that employers may be unable to pay a living wage during times of economic recession, and that these restrictions may actually increase unemployment and lower income, which is exactly what the resolution is attempting to avoid,

Believing that this legislation should be replaced with a resolution that mandates that member states guarantee a minimum standard of living for all persons who make a reasonable effort to contribute to their society, while allowing flexibility in its implementation,

Hoping that such a resolution will be passed in short order,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #21, "Living Wage Act".

I completely agree with all points, especially with regard that this act prevents flexibility of dealing with specific welfare programs. What we need is to repeal many of these resolutions, and have a very general resolution about what the specific standard of living must be, general standards of poverty improvement, subsidization to help those nations, as well as sanctions against nations who are unable to fulfill their responsibilities. But, we should not impose very specific mandates on nations with very different economic structures.

[Chester Pearson]

Preparing to vote against this. And no, I am not voting against based on the author, I just happen to like the LWA, and believe it should remain on the books.... REDACTED

Warmest regards,

[Christian Democrats]

I support proposals to repeal the Living Wage Act as I've tried to do this myself in the past.

In the real-world United States, this resolution would require a minimum wage of about $12.60 per hour.