[PASSED] Minimum Standard of Living Act

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, giving people the money to paying rent and buying the necessities don't stave off or help recover from economic disaster. It makes the economy worst.

What staves off or help recover from economic disaster is having jobs for the people.

[Valendia]

There are no merits to this proposal. Simple fact is that there are entire generations of people who live only by welfare systems. Who do just what is required of them to remain on those systems. There is always jobs to be had and too few willing to do them because the government is willing to give them everything they need to live on. A welfare system is a drain on a nations economy. Why should those who work pay for those who refuse too?

"With all due respect, -sir-, the fact that a deficit of available jobs exists even in many welfare states reveals your point to be entirely fanciful."

"Prior to the introduction of our republic's guaranteed income system, this very subject was studied in depth as to its feasibility. The findings were that the vast majority of people will work if given the opportunity to do so, and those who 'leech' off the system comprise an infinitesimal minority. Moreover, given that consumption is the actual driver of a market economy it stands to reason that ensuring the lower classes are kept in a position where they are able to live and, by extension, consume also ensures economic health."

"But perhaps it is different in your....esteemed empire. Your citizenry may simply be lazier than ours."

[Valendia]

Actually, giving people the money to paying rent and buying the necessities don't stave off or help recover from economic disaster. It makes the economy worst.

What staves off or help recover from economic disaster is having jobs for the people.

"Certainly. And what creates jobs is demand created from people being able to consume. Furnishing that ability, logically, will facilitate a healthy economy."

"The spirit of the World Assembly is the cooperation between states and the belief that the wellbeing of sapient beings is something to be upheld. Thus any nation opposed to the principle of a basic living standard is failing to meet that expectation in good faith."

"If such a conglomeration can even be called a civilization. Salus populi suprema lex esto."

[Jarish Inyo]

You're logic is flawed. History has shown that a welfare system only makes the economy worst. Even today, if you look at areas that has a large percentage of welfare recipients, you'll see that such areas have a stagnated economies. Only when jobs are created does the economy gain a boost. Jobs are not created by consumers. People are able to consume because they are employed, not given welfare handouts.

Nation opposed to the principle of a basic living standard are not failing to meet the spirit of the WA in good faith. Those nations just don't believe that a welfare system is the best way to uphold the well being of sapient beings.

[Valendia]

You're logic is flawed. History has shown that a welfare system only makes the economy worst. Even today, if you look at areas that has a large percentage of welfare recipients, you'll see that such areas have a stagnated economies. Only when jobs are created does the economy gain a boost. Jobs are not created by consumers. People are able to consume because they are employed, not given welfare handouts.

"The richest and most prosperous states are, almost invariably, what would be termed welfare states in varying degrees. This is because your assertion is fundamentally incorrect; employment is not created ex nihilo, but as a functional response to market demand. Such demand can only be generated when people have money (from whatever source) to spend."

"A failure to guarantee a basic standard of living merely ensures that you are crippling yourself by excluding potential consumers from the market."

Nation opposed to the principle of a basic living standard are not failing to meet the spirit of the WA in good faith. Those nations just don't believe that a welfare system is the best way to uphold the well being of sapient beings.

"And yet the vast majority of those nations, if they call themselves civilized, have some sort of recourse available to ensure people do not die in the streets en masse."

"That is to say nothing of the aggravated rate of crime and civil disturbance which is the inevitable result of poverty. I would wager nations which lack welfare systems spend a similar amount on policing and restitution for their inflated crime rates."

[Jarish Inyo]

You're incorrect. Again, look at facts. You state giving people welfare will create demand for goods. Yet, this is not true in area's with a high percentage of welfare recipients. Only when you get people are off welfare and employed does demand increase as people have more disposable income. History also shows that nations that had given welfare to large amounts of welfare have had their economies collapse. Jobs can be made out of nothing. Governments have done so when they have deemed it necessary.

Aggravated rate of crime and civil disturbance are not is the inevitable result of poverty. Even when the population is on equal economical footing, there is always crime and civil disturbance.

[Valendia]

You're incorrect. Again, look at facts. You state giving people welfare will create demand for goods. Yet, this is not true in area's with a high percentage of welfare recipients. Only when you get people are off welfare and employed--

"Allow me to cut you off and ask this, sir. What makes you think people on welfare are not employed? 'Welfare' encompasses a broad range of public assistance schemes."

Aggravated rate of crime and civil disturbance are not is the inevitable result of poverty. Even when the population is on equal economical footing, there is always crime and civil disturbance.

"To a far lesser degree, however, which is the goal of any public policy; mitigation, if elimination is not feasible."

[Jarish Inyo]

No, welfare doesn't encompasses a broad range of public assistance schemes. A welfare recipient is taking some form of assistance from the government. If one is accepting accepting assistance, then that person is doing the bare requirement that the government requires of them. The recipient is not contributing to the growth of the economy as they have no disposable income.

Not to a far lesser degree. The people will just make up different reasons for commenting crimes.

[Valendia]

No, welfare doesn't encompasses a broad range of public assistance schemes. A welfare recipient is taking some form of assistance from the government. If one is accepting accepting assistance, then that person is doing the bare requirement that the government requires of them. The recipient is not contributing to the growth of the economy as they have no disposable income.

Not to a far lesser degree. The people will just make up different reasons for commenting crimes.

"It has become abundantly clear you are uninterested in a discussion of fact, sir. Therefore I will submit this."

"You stated that the government is capable of generating jobs to furnish a minimum standard of living for everyone. If that is the case then such a nation would be able to create jobs as a resolution for hardship - which would be covered under the 'including but not limited to' clause of the proposal."

"Therefore, you have no rational reason for opposing this resolution."

[Jarish Inyo]

I've stated facts. You have not.

This proposal has nothing to do with rationality. It's not rational to guaranty people a source of income, housing, food and transportation when they are unwilling to do so themselves. This proposal is based of what the OP believes should be done to help the poor and basing it on what they believe that the poor are entitled too.

[Valendia]

This proposal has nothing to do with rationality. It's not rational to guaranty people a source of income, housing, food and transportation when they are unwilling to do so themselves. This proposal is based of what the OP believes should be done to help the poor and basing it on what they believe that the poor are entitled too.

"Providing jobs would, again, meet the requirements of this act. You continue to have no basis for opposition aside from a fairly obvious anti-poor bias."

[Jarish Inyo]

I have no anti poor bias. I believe that no one is entitled to anything that they have not earned. There are plenty of people that have come from poor families and have made huge fortunes.

Why should the government provide a job to someone who is not willing to find one themselves? Why should the government award a person for their laziness?

[Valendia]

Why should the government provide a job to someone who is not willing to find one themselves? Why should the government award a person for their laziness?

"You said the following not a short while ago:

Jobs can be made out of nothing. Governments have done so when they have deemed it necessary.

Unless you claim that unemployment doesn't exist, your argument is logically unsound. Either there will be a system of public assistance in place, or (by your own words) the state will create employment to provide a basic standard of living."

"I would ask you what your alternative is, but it will invariably be some sort of degenerate remark in the vein of 'they should just die'."

[Jarish Inyo]

Unemployment is a choice. People either don't want to work or think some jobs are beneath them. People will not work if they don't have too. I did not state that the government will create jobs to provide a basic standard of living. I stated that governments have created jobs when they deem it necessary. One being lazy and not looking for a job is not a necessity. Again, why should such behaviour be rewarded? Why should someone get for free what someone else has earned?

[Tinfect]

"You said the following not a short while ago:

Jobs can be made out of nothing. Governments have done so when they have deemed it necessary.

Unless you claim that unemployment doesn't exist, your argument is logically unsound. Either there will be a system of public assistance in place, or (by your own words) the state will create employment to provide a basic standard of living."

"I would ask you what your alternative is, but it will invariably be some sort of degenerate remark in the vein of 'they should just die'."

"Ambassador, while I admire your dedication, arguing with Ambassador Nameless, and, that is, for the record, his name, is something of a pointless endeavor. He will continue to repeat the same arguments, with nothing changing, he will make totally nonsensical, or abhorrent claims, to support his position, and no ground will be gained by debating him. The best course of action, is to simply ignore him."

[Valendia]

Unemployment is a choice.

"It certainly must be enjoyable living in that fantasy land of yours, sir. Good day."

Cato rubs his temple, motioning to his seneschal for a drink.

[Jarish Inyo]

I've made nothing up. And as my arguments have not been countered by facts, why should I change my arguments? Some do not like views that do not go along with the majority and will say just ignore said person.

[Separatist Peoples]

I've made nothing up. And as my arguments have not been countered by facts, why should I change my arguments? Some do not like views that do not go along with the majority and will say just ignore said person.

OOC: and some players aren't interested in "debate" with somebody who lacks supporting sources or anything more than contrary statements, which is how you "debate" on this game. This is why so many of the GA regulars have you on their ignore list.

[Jarish Inyo]

I don't live in a fantasy world. Unemployment is a choice. If one wants to work, they can find it if they're willing to do any job.

[Jarish Inyo]

I've made nothing up. And as my arguments have not been countered by facts, why should I change my arguments? Some do not like views that do not go along with the majority and will say just ignore said person.

OOC: and some players aren't interested in "debate" with somebody who lacks supporting sources or anything more than contrary statements, which is how you "debate" on this game. This is why so many of the GA regulars have you on their ignore list.

I've used supporting evidence when I first started debating and got treated the same. Or got told that RL examples don't count in NS. I don't actually see the GA regulars using supporting evidence for their arguments.

[Separatist Peoples]

I don't live in a fantasy world. Unemployment is a choice. If one wants to work, they can find it if they're willing to do any job.

OOC: from shockingly vivid experience, underemployment is not always superior to unemployment. And it's definitely possible to be stuck somewhere with no jobs and be unable to afford moving elsewhere.

[Valendia]

I don't live in a fantasy world. Unemployment is a choice. If one wants to work, they can find it if they're willing to do any job.

OOC: from shockingly vivid experience, underemployment is not always superior to unemployment. And it's definitely possible to be stuck somewhere with no jobs and be unable to afford moving elsewhere.

OOC: But hey, let them eat shit...I mean cake.

[Wallenburg]

"Ambassador Nameless, I want you to know that I have asked my translator to stop telling me what your rants are about. The Wallenburgian delegation is in full support of this proposal, despite your blundering assertions. Now if you excuse me, I have to begin paperwork to submit my own proposal should this one fail."

[John Turner]

I don't live in a fantasy world. Unemployment is a choice. If one wants to work, they can find it if they're willing to do any job.

Ah... The old hammer a round peg into a square hole tactic. Works every time like a charm. And just how productive are people going to truly be if the are shoehorned into a job they hate? Hmmm? If there is a lack of need for doctors, do you truly believe a doctor is going to be 100% productive pumping gas? But I forgot, everyone in your nation makes 90K a year, soo.....

[Railana]

((OOC: I intend to submit this within the next day or so, if nobody has any further comments.))