We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Minimum wage
Details
Submitted by[?]: Brabantic Freedom Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2513
Description[?]:
| test |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:39:01, January 07, 2008 CET | From |  New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | I love it. Let the workers have more choice over their wages. Installing a minimum just gives them a feeling of no recourse when they're underpaid. |
| Date | 11:19:43, January 07, 2008 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | "Give the worker's their choice? Lovely, typical reactinary delusionism. The point of a minimum wage is to ensure that anybody who is working full time is not living below the poverty line, which no working citizen should, and the admission on behalf of your party that they should reveals your intentions to be callous, self-serving, and hysterically hypocritical. Sending workers back to the time of Upton Sinclair in the name of safeguarding their 'freedom' is really quite an accomplishment. What capitalists don't seem to understand when they talk about 'choice' is, in my opinion, everybody, given a fair choice, would choose to eat and get paid fair wages. Rather interesting how this doesn't occur in capitalistic societies, isn't it? Glyupi Yaponsky, ya ochen tyerpet i..." -Natasha Danielovich Feterokov, First Secretary of the Revolutionary Socialist Party |
| Date | 18:45:33, January 07, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | Sorry to burst your bubble, but the minimum wage doesn't do that, and isn't doing it now. Average poverty line is 27k/yr, and minimum is around 21k. My intent is to lower the poverty line. What of yours? |
| Date | 19:05:27, January 07, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | Oh, and one more thing. The data says the poverty line is rising, at a rate of about .5% per year. I'm rounding the line down to 27k, even though it's more like 27,700. I'd say another 36 months and I'll start saying 28k. So let's see. You are in favor of a basic subsistence income? Poverty is just barely subsistence. It means "barely getting by". You have to starve now and then, you have to give up a few essentials for life, but you get by. You have less of an ability to do so the further under the poverty line you are. No luxuries at all if you're at or below the line. I've gotten the poverty line down below 10k/yr before, while the average minimum income has gone up little in the past 400 years. If you mandate a basic subsistence income, it only becomes a basis for inflation, and the market only copes with such interference by making it impossible to actually subsist at that income, by taking it's newfound expense and transferring it directly to their income sources. It makes everything from any company that employs minimum or near minimum wage workers more expensive. Kinda defeats the purpose of the wage increase in the first place, and now people that used to be doing fairly well for themselves (read: just above the poverty line) find themselves in trouble. Nice job. You've just stood up in favor of poverty! *Steve-O double thumbs up and open-mouthed smile* |
| Date | 21:38:10, January 07, 2008 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | "Trahanye capitalisti... Nobody is arguing that any form of mandated wage would theoretically induce inflation. But that is only because, in a pure market situation, it would grind down wages to the lowest they could possibly get. We're not in favor of a subsistence income, we want a living wage at which no working man suffers. Surely you realize that, without governmental controls, there is no limit to what the capitlists can do, since in a market situation the capitalists hold all the cards. The Industrial Revolution was ample evidence of what happens in 'free' market. In any case, there is no evidenc to support that a mandated wage would raise prices, well somthing as high as a living wage might, but nevertheless it makes no sense. Basic market theory would say that if a business raised its prices to pay it's subsistence level workers and maintain their overall profits, they would suffer at the hands of businesses canny enough not to raise their prices (inflation is not considered in this analysis, obviously its influence will lead to slowly rising prices, but I maintain a mandated wage's effect on it is negligible). The most logical cuts will be in executive bonuses, so yes pople will suffer who live above the poverty line, but it will be those high above it most likely to suffer. Bog, ya terpet capitalisti." -Natasha Danielovich Feterokov, First Secretary of the Revolutionary Socialist Party OOC: I apologize if I fail to express myself clearly. English not being my first language, I occasionally fail to explain my opinions in a completely coherent manner. |
| Date | 23:31:59, January 07, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | *whips out the ole needle* Sorry ole chap, minimum wage increases (even from zero) increase inflation, with a direct market result. It should be considered a form of corporate taxation. And besides, in a truly free-market economy, we have something called "Unions", which are formed in response to the 'grinding down' of wages you mentioned. No, in a truly free market, the workers have just as much choice in where they work and what jobs they're willing to take based on what they qualify for. Lack of a minimum throws the power into the worker's hands. If they're willing to accept a wage they'd consider too low, then they have no spine, especially when there's another business, probably just down the road willing to pay them a market fair wage. It is all based on the nature of the person. They must be informed and use that information. It's not my fault that you seem to want to do this for them, and do not trust the citizenry to make good decisions. Congratulations! You've singlehandedly insulted every blue-collar worker in Zardugal! *Steve-O double thumbs up and open-mouth smile* Supplemental to that, I believe we should, in addendum to dropping the minimum wage, make specific job market analysis free of charge and open to the public, as well as edited to be easily understood. Access to information that tells them what they should expect for a position based on what others are being paid would assist the general public in realizing if they're getting ripped off by their employer or not. |
| Date | 23:33:03, January 07, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | ((OOC: And I frequently come off as a jackass. I'll forgive you if you forgive me. :D)) |
| Date | 23:57:12, January 07, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | Quote: Basic market theory would say that if a business raised its prices to pay it's subsistence level workers and maintain their overall profits, they would suffer at the hands of businesses canny enough not to raise their prices... I have to stop you there. Think smaller and more simply. Those businesses that are 'canny' enough not to raise prices can take the initial hit to their profit margin. They know the poor guy that couldn't maintain that margin, and had to raise his prices in response is at a disadvantage, and the one that didn't lower the prices is essentially able to muscle out the competition. Thus, the bigger business wins, and the smaller business loses when the minimum wage increases, and such increases and establishments support big business, and discourage entrepreneurship. Which discourages capitalism as a whole. A tiny bit of socialist corruption causes the capitalist society ill. |
| Date | 00:01:15, January 08, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | Excuse me, hit the button early, and, ...the company that didn't raise raise prices is essentially... In addendum, the company that didn't raise their prices initially, now has the folded smaller business' customer base added to their own. Once the smaller business is dead, they can raise their prices to match their old margin, which increased anyway due to their increased business. |
| Date | 12:03:02, January 08, 2008 CET | From | Saiserist League | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | "About time we removed these irritating barriers. The workers must accept that their wages will be what the higher order ordains them to be, and no more. The workers' rebellious nature truly irks me, and my Party." Fyodr Yamnik, Official Spokesman for the Saiserist League |
| Date | 17:03:27, January 08, 2008 CET | From | Konservativa Respublikano Parti | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | NDP, where are you getting your data? |
| Date | 22:13:41, January 08, 2008 CET | From | New Daio Party | To | Debating the Minimum wage |
| Message | 100% of my data is derived from studying the game and how it reacts to specific bills, tax levels, etc. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 164 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 161 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 76 |
| Random fact: It is possible for a player to transfer ownership of a character or a royal house to another player. This should be done in a public way, such as on the Character Transfers thread, so that if a dispute arises in the future, Moderation can be pointed towards evidence of the transfer. |
| Random quote: "Politics: a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage." - Ambrose Bierce |