[Draft] World Assembly Agreement on Labor

[Christian Democrats]

"Our Delegation issues its opposition on the same grounds so eloquently expressed by the Christian Democratic mission."

"Though I've already explained why the concerns of his Excellency of Christian Democrats are baseless, I think the brand of nationalistic, every-country-for-itself style of social justice he's advocated is inconsistent with the values espoused numerous times by this assembly. It is not christian to only care about the poor in one's own country."

"So long as the law is enforced equally upon immigrants and citizens alike, and the former are not illegally exploited to the tune of reduced salaries, shittier benefits, fear of the police, and other nasty relics of borderline fascist states, immigration is a self-regulating market affair. Where opportunities are reduced, fewer immigrants will seek entry and employment. There is simply no rational reason to oppose this law. Only xenophobia masked in naked self-interest."

This proposal enables corporate exploitation of the poor. If opposition to an international race to the bottom is xenophobia, I'm a xenophobe. Nations that can simply import more laborers will do nothing to protect the interests of their poorest members.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Again, the outwardly moralistic and "compassionate" give arguments equivalent to condemning the poorest people in all societies to starve and suffer under poverty in their hovels like good boys. I'm not convinced of their morality, compassion, or positions.

[Wallenburg]

Again, the outwardly moralistic and "compassionate" give arguments equivalent to condemning the poorest people in all societies to starve and suffer under poverty in their hovels like good boys. I'm not convinced of their morality, compassion, or positions.

"I could not agree more, Ambassador. At some point these supposedly compassionate actors need to face facts and acknowledge that allowing immigrants to flood the labor force of member states only serves to displace workers and increase poverty. Perhaps the so-called moral activists will recognize that extra jobs for foreign workers are not worth the tremendous financial cost to citizens of member states."

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

Hanna-Cäcilia opens the door to enter the General Assembly.

“Aah! The lump of labour fallacy!”

She runs off, waving her crucifix pendant to ward off the evil spirits.

[United Massachusetts]

Again, the outwardly moralistic and "compassionate" give arguments equivalent to condemning the poorest people in all societies to starve and suffer under poverty in their hovels like good boys. I'm not convinced of their morality, compassion, or positions.

Certain nations simply aren't equipped to take in more individuals, particularly those with already overburdened systems. I will note that countries such as the United States absolutely are equipped to do so. Namibia? Not so much.

[Araraukar]

2. Grants all citizens of member nations employed in other member nations(1) the right to physically remain in that member nation(2) while they are employed or actively seeking employment;

OOC: I have a feeling I've already asked these questions, but having a new stab at them...

(1) Because of the word "other", let's say, for simplicity's sake, that Bob is a citizen of Nation A, and works and lives in Nation A. Bob does not qualify for this "right"? Joan, on the other hand, is a citizen of Nation B, but works and lives in Nation A. Joan qualifies for this "right"?

(2) Does "that ... nation" refer to Nation A in the above examples? Or to Nation C, in which both Bob and Joan would both like to live in, if they could find jobs there?

---

Still OOC:

Neville: We want to be able to detain foreign workers who commit crimes, just as we do with literally everyone else. Clause Three, as written, prevents us from doing so.

This hasn't been addressed. And would appear to make this thing contradict existing resolutions, especially CoCR's "all inhabitants are equal before law".

A template for all of you:

It'd be nice to get answers on the concerns that DO address the contents of the proposal.

Certain nations simply aren't equipped to take in more individuals, particularly those with already overburdened systems. I will note that countries such as the United States absolutely are equipped to do so. Namibia? Not so much.

Also this.

Would "NOT ENOUGH JOBS TO GO AROUND, REGARDLESS OF WHAT NATION YOU'RE FROM" be compelling enough reasons to not allow foreign job-seekers? Like, Araraukar's official unemployment rate is something like 80%, and even the practical one (if excluding hobbyists that earn some income from selling products and services, but wouldn't be able to support themselves with it) is about 70%. (Before you complain about those numbers, remember that 20% of the population is still like 420 million employed peeps.) Frightening efficiency, extensive automation and use of (MT, before you complain) technology, and state monopoly on essential production and services are the reasons for that, but citizens get most things for free anyway, so it's not exactly a problem to the population. However, given the seriously high unemployment rate, that should count as "compelling purposes" to not having to let foreign job-seekers into the nation to smooch off of the system while contributing nothing.

[Sciongrad]

Again, the outwardly moralistic and "compassionate" give arguments equivalent to condemning the poorest people in all societies to starve and suffer under poverty in their hovels like good boys. I'm not convinced of their morality, compassion, or positions.

"I could not agree more, Ambassador. At some point these supposedly compassionate actors need to face facts and acknowledge that allowing immigrants to flood the labor force of member states only serves to displace workers and increase poverty. Perhaps the so-called moral activists will recognize that extra jobs for foreign workers are not worth the tremendous financial cost to citizens of member states."

"Uh-huh. These socialists, yikes.

The addition to clause two, by the way:"

2. Grants all citizens of member nations employed in other member nations the right to physically remain in that member nation while they are employed or actively seeking employment; member nations shall reserve the right to deport foreign nationals, regardless of their employment status, only if those foreign nationals have committed serious crimes for which an average citizen of that country would be punished with a similar level of severity;

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ara. Lump of labour.

[Aclion]

Forget labor: consider the impact uncontrolled immigration will have on the ability to finance public welfare programs. In Aclion it will mean at least the end of poverty abolition and free continuing education, simply because we will not be able to prevent people coming to "seek work" in order to take advantage of the programs.

[Sciongrad]

Forget labor: consider the impact uncontrolled immigration will have on the ability to finance public welfare programs. In Aclion it will mean at least the end of poverty abolition and free continuing education, simply because we will not be able to prevent people coming to "seek work" while they take advantage of the programs.

You can't treat labor and growth independently. The notion that public revenue remains fixed while an economy increases its labor capacity is flawed. If immigration not only fills jobs but also at times creates new jobs (either by bringing in high skilled workers with productivity-enhancing technology or human capital, establishing new small businessess or even simply increasing demand for certain products like groceries), this almost always contributes to increases in growth. There is no reason for public expenditures on social goods like education to remain fixed if one's economy and population are growing.

[Araraukar]

Ara. Lump of labour.

OOC: IA. Roleplay.

There is no reason for public expenditures on social goods like education to remain fixed if one's economy and population are growing.

IC: "Ours is not, however. We are actually trying to reduce our population to about half of what it is currently, so that the dedicated wilderness areas can be increased in size to further reduce sapient footprint on the ecosystems. That is why all production and almost all manufacturing are managed by the state, and are strictly controlled. Private businesses are even more strictly controlled, because private citizens cannot be trusted to follow regulations as diligently. Private foreigner-run or owned businesses are currently unheard of. The only immigration we occasionally allow is when an Araraukarian has married a foreigner and the couple have remained married for a given time period, while the foreign partner has not been living in Araraukar. Then they can apply for citizenship for their partner."

OOC: GenSec message has previously been that citizenship is a reasonable requirement and not discrimination, for many basic rights. In Araraukar starting, owning and running a business is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege is reserved to citizens.

...and so is staying in the country, if you're not able to support yourself (haven't you watched the Australian border control show? that's actually a real thing in Real Life too). Freebies are for citizens and officially invited guests only.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'll point out that given GA Resolution #344, the only time any nation would face a glut, flood, swarm, or any other dehumanizing mass-noun of immigrants is during some unmitigated and horrific disaster. And realistically, why would tons of people suddenly try to relocate to a place where they haven't already been guaranteed a job offer? In both cases, shit in their homeland is necessarily dire enough that there's not really any excuse not to let people in. I continue to see no rational economic reason to oppose this. If your economy is really that weak, that's a signal to reduce executive compensation and increase bottom-level income, not to shut your borders like a child tunneling into a blanket fort."

[Araraukar]

"And realistically, why would tons of people suddenly try to relocate to a place where they haven't already been guaranteed a job offer?"

"To significantly improve their quality of life because their nation of origin is unwilling to provide more than the very basic necessities required by GA #344, especially given that the resolution gives their nation of origin the right to make them work for those basic necessities without receiving a proper payment."

"In both cases, shit in their homeland is necessarily dire enough that there's not really any excuse not to let people in."

OOC: Have to field this one OOCly, but why do you think that Canadian border control turns back American citizens who they suspect are trying to travel to Canada to take advantage of their public healthcare? Is it because of an "unmitigated and horrific disaster" that such persons try to take advantage of another nation's healthcare system? Or is it just because they're unable/unwilling to pay for healthcare in their own nation?

"If your economy is really that weak, that's a signal to reduce executive compensation and increase bottom-level income, not to shut your borders like a child tunneling into a blanket fort."

"Insulting others is not a viable debating style, I've been told. The point is not the strength or weakness of an economy. The point is reduction of sapient footprint on the ecosystem. Araraukarian state sees to the needs and well-being of its citizens, but as we know that these "freebies" vastly surpass the pay-to-use systems in many other nations - free education at all levels, completely free healthcare, free housing, food and utilities, free public transport, and several others - we limit the availability of these systems to citizens and officially invited guests only."

OOC: Araraukar is basically a dystopian utopia. It's an ultra-bureaucratic and oligarchic police state, but if you play by the rules and don't whine about not being able to vote, it's a utopia. If you try to "fight the power" or whatever you want to call it, you'll very quickly find yourself on the dark side behind that utopia.

[Imperium Anglorum]

SL's analysis about people not travelling to disaster areas for work is correct. The alternative is pretty much irrational. There are, however, many other reasons why an economy is weak than high executive compensation. I'd refer Why Nations Fail for an excellent examination of it at a very simple level.

[Araraukar]

SL's analysis about people not travelling to disaster areas for work is correct.

OOC: To? You mean from?

There are, however, many other reasons why an economy is weak than high executive compensation.

...I take it that you haven't read SL's factbooks?

[Imperium Anglorum]

On mobile. Quoting is a pain. Roleplay, however, is not an argument. It is a statement of 'facts'. And in this case, plainly ones of the alternative kind. Next, the Bowling Green Labour Surplus. If you're going to roleplay, at least do it without the need for wizards everywhere to prop up ever element of that facade.

No, I mean To. Your 'arguments', really assertions, require that to be true.

[Araraukar]

And in this case, plainly ones of the alternative kind.

OOC: Everything in Araraukar either exists, has existed or is predicted to exist in the next 5 years. The only "alternative kind" of roleplay is their continued cooperation with the PPU hivemind to, with more detailed care, ensure the viability and re-seeding of previously seriously endangered plant species. (And there might be something growing under the lawn of Janis's previous private residence, but nobody wants to talk about that incident.)

If you're going to roleplay, at least do it without the need for wizards everywhere to prop up ever element of that facade.

...what part of RL-MT roleplay are you objecting to, now?

No, I mean To. Your 'arguments', really assertions, require that to be true.

So... what disaster zone are you talking about then? SL was talking about "some unmitigated and horrific disaster" and the refugees it engendered.

[Christian Democrats]

Forget labor: consider the impact uncontrolled immigration will have on the ability to finance public welfare programs. In Aclion it will mean at least the end of poverty abolition and free continuing education, simply because we will not be able to prevent people coming to "seek work" while they take advantage of the programs.

You can't treat labor and growth independently. The notion that public revenue remains fixed while an economy increases its labor capacity is flawed.

The notion that employers will treat their workers well when they can freely import new ones is more flawed. This proposal would disincentivize the protection of laborers in favor of some abstruse idea that borders are somehow discriminatory.

If immigration not only fills jobs but also at times creates new jobs (either by bringing in high skilled workers with productivity-enhancing technology or human capital, establishing new small businessess or even simply increasing demand for certain products like groceries), this almost always contributes to increases in growth. There is no reason for public expenditures on social goods like education to remain fixed if one's economy and population are growing.

This proposal does not guarantee that "high skilled workers with productivity-enhancing technology or human capital" will flood into our nations. On the contrary, nations with greater economic development are likely to see floods of low-skilled workers who will suppress wages and displace low-income nationals from their jobs. Every nation has a duty to protect its citizens, including the poor ones.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

<snip>

"We agree that legal and other protections for workers, both foreign and domestic, could be a bit stronger in this draft. For example, adding legal assistance to the responsibilities of the Clause 5 WALEC organization. But assuming that between them a strong labor sector and diligent regulators are able to stifle capital's attempts to cheapen salaries by paying foreign workers less, the dire consequences you warn about just don't appear."

OOC: I agree that many RL countries couldn't sustain this model, but there's a reason the free movement of workers protocol kind of works within the EU. I have to think previous resolutions on quality of life, healthcare, labor rights, free trade, etc. have made the free movement of workers a reasonable expectation in the WA - a body which bears much closer resemblance to the EU than it does to the world at large.

[Aclion]

Forget labor: consider the impact uncontrolled immigration will have on the ability to finance public welfare programs. In Aclion it will mean at least the end of poverty abolition and free continuing education, simply because we will not be able to prevent people coming to "seek work" while they take advantage of the programs.

You can't treat labor and growth independently. The notion that public revenue remains fixed while an economy increases its labor capacity is flawed. If immigration not only fills jobs but also at times creates new jobs (either by bringing in high skilled workers with productivity-enhancing technology or human capital, establishing new small businesses or even simply increasing demand for certain products like groceries), this almost always contributes to increases in growth. There is no reason for public expenditures on social goods like education to remain fixed if one's economy and population are growing.

I'm not talking about growth. Unskilled labor simply isn't valuable enough to offset the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of living as defined, and required under the Minimum Standard of Living Act.

[Sciongrad]

You can't treat labor and growth independently. The notion that public revenue remains fixed while an economy increases its labor capacity is flawed. If immigration not only fills jobs but also at times creates new jobs (either by bringing in high skilled workers with productivity-enhancing technology or human capital, establishing new small businesses or even simply increasing demand for certain products like groceries), this almost always contributes to increases in growth. There is no reason for public expenditures on social goods like education to remain fixed if one's economy and population are growing.

I'm not talking about growth. Unskilled labor simply isn't valuable enough to offset the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of living as defined, and required under the Minimum Standard of Living Act.

OOC: That's the issue -- you're ignoring the relationship between growth and immigration. It is a well documented fallacy to treat labor capacity as fixed. If you add even low-skill immigrant workers to an economy, this will can produce growth for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Arguing "we can't take more immigrants because we our economy and labor capacity is fixed, and so we are unable to accomodate them" just demonstrates a lack of understanding.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not talking about growth. Unskilled labor simply isn't valuable enough to offset the cost of maintaining a minimum standard of living as defined, and required under the Minimum Standard of Living Act.

OOC: That's the issue -- you're ignoring the relationship between growth and immigration. It is a well documented fallacy to treat labor capacity as fixed. If you add even low-skill immigrant workers to an economy, this will can produce growth for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Arguing "we can't take more immigrants because we our economy and labor capacity is fixed, and so we are unable to accomodate them" just demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Not really. Aclion is arguing that increases in social services costs will outpace any growth induced by the immigration of low-skilled workers.

[Aclion]

OOC: That's the issue -- you're ignoring the relationship between growth and immigration. It is a well documented fallacy to treat labor capacity as fixed. If you add even low-skill immigrant workers to an economy, this will can produce growth for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Arguing "we can't take more immigrants because we our economy and labor capacity is fixed, and so we are unable to accomodate them" just demonstrates a lack of understanding.

Not really. Aclion is arguing that increases in social services costs will outpace any growth induced by the immigration of low-skilled workers.

Exactly. What Sciongrad has said has absolutely nothing do do with my objection. The problem is not that there is a fixed lump of labor that immigrants will take from existing residents. The problem is that we, as member states, are required to see that every inhabitant is provided with food, water, clothing, housing, sanitation, utilities, transportation, healthcare and education and we cannot do that if we have no ability to restrain the number of people drawing upon those systems because they do not have work that can support them. In other words. You can have free immigration or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both, because immigration in a welfare state is not free.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I agree that many RL countries couldn't sustain this model, but there's a reason the free movement of workers protocol kind of works within the EU.

OOC: Employers are still allowed to "discriminate" against foreign workers and choose domestic ones instead. They can do the same in WA as well, if I remember CoCR correctly. They just can't base it on a blanket denial on the relevant categories from it.

I have to think previous resolutions on quality of life, healthcare, labor rights, free trade, etc. have made the free movement of workers a reasonable expectation in the WA

There's no "free immigration for all" resolution, though. You have the right to emigrate but no nation is required to let you immigrate. Nor should they be. Also, your proposal currently seems to lack the points that allow nations to not let people leave the country (quarantine, criminal trials/records/warrants for arrest, etc.), so I'd say it's a contradiction violation.

a body which bears much closer resemblance to the EU than it does to the world at large.

This is not necessarily a good thing. Also, the relevant bit of the EU policy:

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

1. to accept offers of employment actually made;
2. to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
3. to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
4. to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.

I underlined the bit that is problematic as a contradiction issue with existing resolutions, because WA actually has those resolutions. (Someone more legally versed can probably explain how "public policy" should be read, given that the definition seems to not be applicable to EU despite being mentioned there?) And also as far as I see, it doesn't actually let you stay in the country if you aren't employed (as in, the bit in your proposal about staying in the nation while "seeking employment" doesn't have a RL equivalence in EU).

Additionally, to support the "welfare state made difficult/impossible with constant influx of non-citizens", from the European migrant crisis article, under Sweden's part:

In October 2016 a leaked internal memo from the cabinet showed that spending cuts to all public services had become necessary due to the escalating costs of the migration crisis.

Given that Sweden is one of the EU members with best welfare protection (better than Finland, though I loathe to admit that), I think that supports Aclion's and my case here. The fact that the people were non-EU citizens has little to do here, because the WA nations vary in terms of benefits given/cost of living far more than EU nations do.

I'll get back to you on this later on, but the rest of today and the weekend are going to be busy time for me, as my little brother is getting married tomorrow and we're getting a huge influx of relatives as a result. And because I still have a million things to do, including having more cupcakes to bake and top for the party.

[Sciongrad]

Not really. Aclion is arguing that increases in social services costs will outpace any growth induced by the immigration of low-skilled workers.

Exactly. What Sciongrad has said has absolutely nothing do do with my objection. The problem is not that there is a fixed lump of labor that immigrants will take from existing residents. The problem is that we, as member states, are required to see that every inhabitant is provided with food, water, clothing, housing, sanitation, utilities, transportation, healthcare and education and we cannot do that if we have no ability to restrain the number of people drawing upon those systems because they do not have work that can support them. In other words. You can have free immigration or you can have a welfare state, but you cannot have both, because immigration in a welfare state is not free.

OOC: It does. Your objection is that a state cannot accommodate immigrants because it lacks the resources to provide public services. This argument overlooks the fact that immigration often creates growth, which in turn creates more capacity for providing public goods. And it is empirically true that immigrants contribute more to an economy, at least in terms of revenue, than they take from it.

In response to your argument: That's a misrepresentation of Friedman's much more nuanced view on immigration. You've just cherrypicked one clip that many conservatives have latched on to in recent years. Friedman argued repeatedly that immigration, both legal and illegal, was positive:

In 1984, when I was working at the Heritage Foundation, I surveyed the top 75 economists in the country on their views on the economics of immigration. There are few issues that economists agree on so universally: The views of the Keynesians and free marketers ran equally about 9 to 1 in favor of immigration.

Friedman responded to the survey by saying that “legal and illegal immigration has a very positive impact on the U.S. economy.” He believed that one of the most powerful forces of freedom was that people could “move across borders and vote with their feet.” He wholly rejected the idea that immigrants are undesirable because they compete with Americans for jobs and lower wages. The free enterprise system, he argued, “created the high wages in the first place.”

So that "evidence" is just bunk. But the evidence isn't just misleading. The basic observation you're trying to substantiate is simply not backed by empirical evidence. The European Union has, as one of its four fundamental freedoms, the freedom of movement, and does not restrict immigration between EU states for those seeking employment. This has been the case for more than two decades. Where is the collapse of the European welfare state? Some European states within the Schengen Area don't have any border regulations between each other whatsoever. Still no decline the welfare state.