NSG Senate Coffee Shop: We don't serve decaf

[Alyekra]

I wonder if it'd be best to leave the WTO out of this bill as it's quite controversial. Maybe have a separate WTO bill that can be debated and voted on separately.

"Can't vote on them individually when we ratify the agreements?"

[Battlion]

I wonder if it'd be best to leave the WTO out of this bill as it's quite controversial. Maybe have a separate WTO bill that can be debated and voted on separately.

"Can't vote on them individually when we ratify the agreements?"

Exactly

[Argentarino]

I don't see why this needs a government mandate. Couldn't you just write a bill on ratification for each of these?

[Battlion]

I don't see why this needs a government mandate. Couldn't you just write a bill on ratification for each of these?

The WTO, membership is done by negotiation as are the other two generally before ratification.

Thus the government needs to negotiate first.

[Great Nepal]

Government can already start negotiations and sign membership documents without permission from the parliament unless I am mistaken, once that happens we can put forward ratification bill. That is much more conventional way of going about things.

[Battlion]

Government can already start negotiations and sign membership documents without permission from the parliament unless I am mistaken, once that happens we can put forward ratification bill. That is much more conventional way of going about things.

Precedent has been set for mandates to be sought, I'm just seeking to continue that.

I'd rather have Parliament agree to let the government seek membership than complain they weren't consulted on the fact we had to negotiate beforehand.

[Beta Test]

Yes the bill doesn't actually require membership, just leaves open the option.

[United Provinces of Atlantica]

However, with the WTO we have direct contacts with 160 other countries and that to me is appealing.

We already have direct contacts with 193 other countries plus 2 who just 'observe' in the UN. If you want direct contacts, then the UN's for you. The WTO is just an organisation that infringes upon a nation's sovereignty, exploits workers, harms the environment and forces members to have a neoliberal agenda, all so rich countries' corporations can treat nations like Calaverde as their own personal colonies.

[Great Nepal]

Government can already start negotiations and sign membership documents without permission from the parliament unless I am mistaken, once that happens we can put forward ratification bill. That is much more conventional way of going about things.

Precedent has been set for mandates to be sought, I'm just seeking to continue that.

I'd rather have Parliament agree to let the government seek membership than complain they weren't consulted on the fact we had to negotiate beforehand.

We can consult the parliament without spending 48 hours on it - give a speech to the parliament that you are seeking to start negotiations and if there are any concerns from any MPs, they can come to your office for more details or to voice their opinions (or voice it there should speaker allow it).
Otherwise we are going to have 2 votes on essentially same issue and I would say it is bad precedent for parliament to vote on what organizations government should negotiate with. Government has executive authority and mandate from the parliament to exercise that authority - it shouldn't go back to reaffirm it every time it wants to take executive actions.

[New Werpland]

If someone doesn't save, the state will end up having to pick up the tab later down the line which will cost us more the longer we delay.

I agree, I don't "like" the idea of forcing people to save but the alternative is a crippling cost for the taxpayer in the long run.

"I think the simpler and more humane approach would be to stop subsidizing poor decisions."

"This is Calaverde not Hong Kong, we don't force our elderly countrymen to live in cages."

[The Nihilistic view]

To be honest that bill seems to encourage short term contracts and for employers to fire workers who have been there longest. I think that it has unintended consequences that outweigh the benefit as a 10% wadge tax is going to be a heavy burden. It's much too high and I would cap it to the original 5% and not have any increments.

[Alyekra]

"I think the simpler and more humane approach would be to stop subsidizing poor decisions."

"This is Calaverde not Hong Kong, we don't force our elderly countrymen to live in cages."

"Nobody is advocating that. I'm not in the mood to quibble over semantics."

[New Werpland]

"This is Calaverde not Hong Kong, we don't force our elderly countrymen to live in cages."

"Nobody is advocating that. I'm not in the mood to quibble over semantics."

"So what do you suggest happen to the people who have been cheated, unwise, or poor once they reach retirement age?"

[Atlanticatia]

To be honest that bill seems to encourage short term contracts and for employers to fire workers who have been there longest. I think that it has unintended consequences that outweigh the benefit as a 10% wadge tax is going to be a heavy burden. It's much too high and I would cap it to the original 5% and not have any increments.

Why would it encourage short-term contracts? The contribution rate is the overall rate, not for an individual employee. In 5 years every employer will pay 10% regardless of when their employee started.

A 10% wage payment won't be a burden if it's phased in, which is proposed. Labour costs would only gradually increase.


The benefits outweigh the costs considering it will provide more retirement security, increase home ownership, ensure everyone has growing personal wealth, and will increase investment in the economy.

[The Nihilistic view]

To be honest that bill seems to encourage short term contracts and for employers to fire workers who have been there longest. I think that it has unintended consequences that outweigh the benefit as a 10% wadge tax is going to be a heavy burden. It's much too high and I would cap it to the original 5% and not have any increments.

Why would it encourage short-term contracts? The contribution rate is the overall rate, not for an individual employee. In 5 years every employer will pay 10% regardless of when their employee started.

A 10% wage payment won't be a burden if it's phased in, which is proposed. Labour costs would only gradually increase.


The benefits outweigh the costs considering it will provide more retirement security, increase home ownership, ensure everyone has growing personal wealth, and will increase investment in the economy.

Then it's even more silly. Phasing it in gradually does not make a difference, the net result to employment or wages will be the same in five years. It won't change the level of investment in the economy it's just a transfer of who does the investing. I.e pension funds invest more and business invests less.

I also think employer contributions should be linked to employee contributions up to the 5%. So if an employee puts in 1% the employer only has to put in 1%. This actually puts the incentive to save much more onto the employee as good behavior and should see them contribute 4-5% as well for a net higher result.

[Alyekra]

"Nobody is advocating that. I'm not in the mood to quibble over semantics."

"So what do you suggest happen to the people who have been cheated, unwise, or poor once they reach retirement age?"

"Their families can take care of them. Or their communities. Or their church. Anything's preferable to forcing them to start a savings account that they don't want."

[Atlanticatia]

Why would it encourage short-term contracts? The contribution rate is the overall rate, not for an individual employee. In 5 years every employer will pay 10% regardless of when their employee started.

A 10% wage payment won't be a burden if it's phased in, which is proposed. Labour costs would only gradually increase.


The benefits outweigh the costs considering it will provide more retirement security, increase home ownership, ensure everyone has growing personal wealth, and will increase investment in the economy.

Then it's even more silly. Phasing it in gradually does not make a difference, the net result to employment or wages will be the same in five years. It won't change the level of investment in the economy it's just a transfer of who does the investing. I.e pension funds invest more and business invests less.

I also think employer contributions should be linked to employee contributions up to the 5%. So if an employee puts in 1% the employer only has to put in 1%. This actually puts the incentive to save much more onto the employee as good behavior and should see them contribute 4-5% as well for a net higher result.

It actually makes a big difference. It's for the same reason why you can't double the minimum wage overnight. Gradual increases will be helpful to small businesses.

I don't see a point for tying it to employee contributions when we can just have the employer do it. Tax-free personal contributions will be enough to encourage workers to contribute. Your proposal could also hurt low-income earners, who might not be able to personally contribute 4-5%, thus causing them to miss out. I'd like to see in the long term that all workers are entitled to both a state pension and a personal defined contribution pension, funded by the employer, which should be enough to replace the majority of their income. It's all about creating security for workers while minimizing the effects on their disposable income during their working life. Employer social contributions are quite low at 0.7% so a 5% contribution gradually increasing to 10% should be manageable.

[The Nihilistic view]

If that does not happen all I see in the long term is a reduction in real terms in employees wages to cover the costs. It's currently the sort of cost that could bankrupt many labour intensive businesses who operate with small profit margins. They can't afford to see costs go up by 5-10%. Therefore the only option they have is to reduce wadges. That's not good for workers but it's what will happen a lot.

[Atlanticatia]

If that does not happen all I see in the long term is a reduction in real terms in employees wages to cover the costs. It's currently the sort of cost that could bankrupt many labour intensive businesses who operate with small profit margins. They can't afford to see costs go up by 5-10%. Therefore the only option they have is to reduce wadges. That's not good for workers but it's what will happen a lot.

Well, we can improve wages by ensuring workers are able to collectively bargain and the state supports that. Unions - and policies like this that give workers more benefits - will ensure better compensation for workers.

Let's say labour costs make up 30% of total costs for a business, which is a pretty average amount. If labour costs go up by 5%, total costs would go up by 1.5%. First of all, wages are sticky, and I don't see wage cuts being accepted by the working population like you're suggesting, and a 1.5% increase in costs will not cause en masse unemployment or wage cuts. Granted, there may be some jobs lost but in the long run, benefits outweigh costs. An extremely minute decrease in employment will be worth it for the fact that workers will have more retirement security, higher total wages and benefits, and that investment will be increased by a huge amount because of all the new pension funds.

[Alyekra]

If that does not happen all I see in the long term is a reduction in real terms in employees wages to cover the costs. It's currently the sort of cost that could bankrupt many labour intensive businesses who operate with small profit margins. They can't afford to see costs go up by 5-10%. Therefore the only option they have is to reduce wadges. That's not good for workers but it's what will happen a lot.

Well, we can improve wages by ensuring workers are able to collectively bargain and the state supports that. Unions - and policies like this that give workers more benefits - will ensure better compensation for workers.

Let's say labour costs make up 30% of total costs for a business, which is a pretty average amount. If labour costs go up by 5%, total costs would go up by 1.5%. First of all, wages are sticky, and I don't see wage cuts being accepted by the working population like you're suggesting, and a 1.5% increase in costs will not cause en masse unemployment or wage cuts. Granted, there may be some jobs lost but in the long run, benefits outweigh costs. An extremely minute decrease in employment will be worth it for the fact that workers will have more retirement security, higher total wages and benefits, and that investment will be increased by a huge amount because of all the new pension funds.

"Employees are already able to collectively bargain. They don't need the state's support to do this."

[New Werpland]

"So what do you suggest happen to the people who have been cheated, unwise, or poor once they reach retirement age?"

"Their families can take care of them. Or their communities. Or their church. Anything's preferable to forcing them to start a savings account that they don't want."

"So instead of having these people save enough money to retire on, we let them fall into the hands of their communities, expecting them to accept these unfortunate people with open hands. And forcing them to start a savings account they don't want? Are you suggesting we encourage people to be irresponsible citizens who don't save any money and end up becoming a burden on others when they grow to old to work?"

[Alyekra]

"Their families can take care of them. Or their communities. Or their church. Anything's preferable to forcing them to start a savings account that they don't want."

"So instead of having these people save enough money to retire on, we let them fall into the hands of their communities, expecting them to accept these unfortunate people with open hands."

"You do, of course, mean to say 'Instead of forcing these people save enough money to retire on,' right? Yes, that is exactly what I am proposing. Any solution is better than the one that depends on violence!"

[Atlanticatia]

Well, we can improve wages by ensuring workers are able to collectively bargain and the state supports that. Unions - and policies like this that give workers more benefits - will ensure better compensation for workers.

Let's say labour costs make up 30% of total costs for a business, which is a pretty average amount. If labour costs go up by 5%, total costs would go up by 1.5%. First of all, wages are sticky, and I don't see wage cuts being accepted by the working population like you're suggesting, and a 1.5% increase in costs will not cause en masse unemployment or wage cuts. Granted, there may be some jobs lost but in the long run, benefits outweigh costs. An extremely minute decrease in employment will be worth it for the fact that workers will have more retirement security, higher total wages and benefits, and that investment will be increased by a huge amount because of all the new pension funds.

"Employees are already able to collectively bargain. They don't need the state's support to do this."

"They need protection from the State, for example making it so employees can't be dismissed or intimidated if they choose to join a union. Being able to in a legal sense and actually being able to effectively collectively bargain is very different."

[New Werpland]

"So instead of having these people save enough money to retire on, we let them fall into the hands of their communities, expecting them to accept these unfortunate people with open hands."

"You do, of course, mean to say 'Instead of forcing these people save enough money to retire on,' right? Yes, that is exactly what I am proposing. Any solution is better than the one that depends on violence!"

"Violence? Ah yes you mean the violence that prevents anarchy and the law of nature."

[The Nihilistic view]

If that does not happen all I see in the long term is a reduction in real terms in employees wages to cover the costs. It's currently the sort of cost that could bankrupt many labour intensive businesses who operate with small profit margins. They can't afford to see costs go up by 5-10%. Therefore the only option they have is to reduce wadges. That's not good for workers but it's what will happen a lot.

Well, we can improve wages by ensuring workers are able to collectively bargain and the state supports that. Unions - and policies like this that give workers more benefits - will ensure better compensation for workers.

Let's say labour costs make up 30% of total costs for a business, which is a pretty average amount. If labour costs go up by 5%, total costs would go up by 1.5%. First of all, wages are sticky, and I don't see wage cuts being accepted by the working population like you're suggesting, and a 1.5% increase in costs will not cause en masse unemployment or wage cuts. Granted, there may be some jobs lost but in the long run, benefits outweigh costs. An extremely minute decrease in employment will be worth it for the fact that workers will have more retirement security, higher total wages and benefits, and that investment will be increased by a huge amount because of all the new pension funds.

No amount of collective bargaining will increase wages or stop them from dropping if a business is suddenly making a loss. Emplyees can't ask for what an employer can't give. And with so many in agriculture which tends to have a lot of businesses with very low margins. If a business can't afford it then they have no choice, it's either take a pay cut or watch your job disappear as the business goes bust. For example the average profit margin in farming in the US is just over 3%, and that's with first world automation. With so many in agriculture the sector will be heavily labour intensive. I would expect more than 50% of costs will be Labour costs. This bill will cripple the agricultural industry which apparently employs over 3.7 million people.