NationStates

A replacement for GAR #21, Living Wage Act.


Seeking to eliminate extreme poverty in all states,

Believing that every person should enjoy a minimum standard of living, so long as they are willing to contribute to their society,

Convinced that World Assembly member states should guarantee this minimum standard of living to their legal inhabitants, so long as sufficient resources exist to do so,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines the "minimum standard of living", for the purposes of this resolution, as the minimum levels of access to food and water, clothing, housing, sanitation, appropriate utilities, and appropriate transportation necessary for a person to remain reasonably healthy, safe and productive in a given member state;
2. Declares that each member state is required to guarantee a minimum standard of living to all inhabitants of that member state;
3. Specifies that member states are permitted to facilitate the provision of a minimum standard of living through public or private sector initiatives, including but not limited to a minimum wage, a living wage, a guaranteed minimum income, social security, unemployment insurance, subsidized housing, food stamps, or any combination thereof;
4. Exempts each member state from guaranteeing a minimum standard of living to individuals who:
   1. are not legal permanent residents or citizens of that member state,
   2. refuse to make a good faith attempt to make restitution for crimes of which they have been found guilty by a court of law, or
   3. refuse to make a good faith attempt to support themselves without government assistance, or to engage in government-mandated job training, temporary employment or community service, without a legitimate reason, such as a disability that would prevent them from doing so;
5. Permits each member state to guarantee only a partial minimum standard of living, to the extent that that member state deems practicable and appropriate while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of this resolution, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 2, when that member state:
   1. is undergoing or recovering from a national emergency or economic crisis, or
   2. cannot guarantee a minimum standard of living without causing substantial and lasting harm to their economy;
6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting the World Assembly from legislating in the future on access to a minimum standard of living.

"Looks like a duplication of the Living Wage Act, ambassador..."

EDIT: If this is intended as a replacement, the tag in the title should reflect that.

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Looks like a duplication of the Living Wage Act, ambassador..."

EDIT: If this is intended as a replacement, the tag in the title should reflect that.

This is not a duplication of the Living Wage Act. The Living Wage Act merely guarantees a living wage; it does not guarantee a minimum standard of living to all, including the unemployed.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

Railana wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Looks like a duplication of the Living Wage Act, ambassador..."

EDIT: If this is intended as a replacement, the tag in the title should reflect that.

This is not a duplication of the Living Wage Act. The Living Wage Act merely guarantees a living wage; it does not guarantee a minimum standard of living to all, including the unemployed.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

"Ah, you are correct, ambassador. My apologies. My scan had me misread a clause."

"My only concern with this is that "legitimate reason" in 4c is not properly defined. To some, morbid obesity would be considered a "legitimate reason". Perhaps tying the decision to a professional opinion (doctor, psychiatrist, etc..) would be more appropriate.

Besides that, I would support the re-write"

Normlpeople wrote:"My only concern with this is that "legitimate reason" in 4c is not properly defined. To some, morbid obesity would be considered a "legitimate reason". Perhaps tying the decision to a professional opinion (doctor, psychiatrist, etc..) would be more appropriate.

Besides that, I would support the re-write"

It is ultimately up to member states to define the term, so I don't believe the situation you describe could actually occur.

Joseph Fulton
Chief Ambassador, Railanan Mission to the World Assembly

We believe in equal opportunity. We do not believe in equal outcome. If a person wants a better standard of living, work for it. Do not expect the government to hold your hand for you.

Grays Harbor wrote:We believe in equal opportunity. We do not believe in equal outcome. If a person wants a better standard of living, work for it. Do not expect the government to hold your hand for you.

We should expect the government to support people in their endeavors.

Hakio wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:We believe in equal opportunity. We do not believe in equal outcome. If a person wants a better standard of living, work for it. Do not expect the government to hold your hand for you.

We should expect the government to support people in their endeavors.

"Why can't people support their own endeavors?"

As the representative of an extremely socialist developed welfare state, we would like to make it known that we are against forcing such policies on other countries.

Hakio wrote:

Grays Harbor wrote:We believe in equal opportunity. We do not believe in equal outcome. If a person wants a better standard of living, work for it. Do not expect the government to hold your hand for you.

We should expect the government to support people in their endeavors.

As much as it *pains* me, I have to concur with the Haiko Ambassadors position....

Felicia looks over the proposal
"Partially against this. Article 1 alone gives us reason to deny it, given the failed attempt at Right to Adequate Shelter. That's also not mentioning the fact that this sets no actual standard, meaning that nations can set that standard which results in this doing nothing anyway."

((OOC: Bump. I think I'll be submitting this before the Living Wage repeal.))

OOC:
CTE'd Rotwood up there still has a point, don't submit it until you address that.

"Upon further inspection, we take issue with those covered by this. We see no reason to guarantee these rights to legal permenant residents who refuse to become citizens. Our social programs are for our citizens only."

"And what about those governments that cannot support them? What about situations where provision would be impossible, such as in mass famines? Also, couldn't you just make being poor a criminal activity to circumvent the law using §4b"

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Upon further inspection, we take issue with those covered by this. We see no reason to guarantee these rights to legal permenant residents who refuse to become citizens. Our social programs are for our citizens only."

Parsons: Ambassador Fulton, I must agree with Sir Benjamin and his delegation in argument. The Democratic Empire's social welfare programmes are of limited scope and only available to those who have and continue to pay into its coffers. Our education programmes are also the same way, with the caveat that to avoid crime amongst those we cannot deport, we take it upon ourselves to educate them. As the proverbs say, 'take firm hold of instruction, do not let go; keep her, for she is your life' (Lat: tene disciplinam ne dimittas eam custodi illam quia ipsa est vita tua).

Beliazrael: Can the assembled delegates provide a strong argument why the Overlordship should spend hard-earned funds to help those who cannot help themselves?

Helltank wrote:Beliazrael: Can the assembled certain delegates provide a strong argument why the Overlordship should spend hard-earned funds to help those who cannot help themselves?

Fixed that for you.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Helltank wrote:Beliazrael: Can the assembled certain delegates provide a strong argument why the Overlordship all nations should spend hard-earned funds to help those who cannot help themselvescannot get out of the cycle of poverty but no fault of their own?

Fixed that for you.

Fixed it properly

I support this measure strongly

"I like this version better. There should be provisions is the law that allows the state to deny assistance to those who clearly do not want to work for it, or make constant excuses why they cannot, rather will not, work to improve thier own conditions.

Might have an issue with the current version already on record"

Helltank wrote:Beliazrael: Can the assembled delegates provide a strong argument why the Overlordship should spend hard-earned funds to help those who cannot help themselves?

"Because human rights include the rights to the necessities of life, and a government that deliberately creates a situation where citizens are denied those rights is inherently abusive and an anethama that the WA should address."

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Helltank wrote:Beliazrael: Can the assembled delegates provide a strong argument why the Overlordship should spend hard-earned funds to help those who cannot help themselves?

"Because human rights include the rights to the necessities of life, and a government that deliberately creates a situation where citizens are denied those rights is inherently abusive and an anethama that the WA should address."

Beliazrael: But our citizens are not denied the rights to life. Our Ministry of Labor works hard to ensure that there are enough jobs for everyone, and we provide free education up to university level. Surely any citizen who refuses these opportunities and sinks into a cycle of poverty has brought his unfortunate situation on himself. It seems to me like any poor people are therefore fools or incompetents. Why should the Overlordship provide even more help to these people?

"The Wallenburgian delegation is quite surprised to see such a progressive bill on the chamber floor. That it is written by a capitalist nation is almost unbelievable! We throw our full support behind this effort, with a sole suggestion that exemptions for primitive or undeveloped nations be made more concrete. And one last thing, ambassador: I'll be reporting this development immediately to the National Assembly in Wallenburg. I can only imagine they will consider decorating you should this resolution reach a vote."

Wallenburg wrote:"The Wallenburgian delegation is quite surprised to see such a progressive bill on the chamber floor. That it is written by a capitalist nation is almost unbelievable! We throw our full support behind this effort, with a sole suggestion that exemptions for primitive or undeveloped nations be made more concrete. And one last thing, ambassador: I'll be reporting this development immediately to the National Assembly in Wallenburg. I can only imagine they will consider decorating you should this resolution reach a vote."

"You'll note that Clause 5b doesn't require that the 'good-faith belief' be correct, strictly speaking; one can subscribe to certain religions or ideologies that give you a 'good-faith belief' that, e.g., trickle-down economics actually provides more jobs and income for the lowest class of working people, despite other nations' painful experience to the contrary. The so-called 'science' of economics is one of the best at failing to alter its theoretical structure despite mountains of contrary evidence, in almost all of its forms (capitalist, communist, whatever). As long as a nation 'believes' that its economy will tank if it honestly provides the social services described herein, it may refrain to a large extent. We will not be supporting the repeal; this replacement has potential, but I'm wary so far."