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: Prosperity for the Future Keymon
Details
Submitted by[?]: Just as Silly party
Status[?]: defeated
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: February 2196
Description[?]:
| To prevent the populace of Keymon from drasitcally falling in financial security the following two proposal are recommended. A private pension system that will prevent our retired workers from living in povety, and a basic living wage to prevent corporations from paying hard working people less than the cost of living. The living wage is defined as the amount of KED to provide a single room apartment, food, and replacement of everyday necessities. The approximate wage is 5500 KED a year. This does not apply to food preparation, or entry-level clerical work positions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
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 shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the pension system.
Old value:: The state does not operate a pension system. Individuals must save up for retirement on their own.
Current: There is a compulsory private pension system.
Proposed: There is a compulsory private pension system.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:55:59, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Just as Silly party | To | Debating the Prosperity for the Future Keymon |
| Message | There has been a harrowing trend among the Keymon populace. People are not saving for retirment. The lack of savings is great for the "now" economy, but the aftermath of our population as it ages will be catastrophic in the future. This is only a small worry now, but population growth trends show that the populace of 75 and older will more than double within the next 15-25 years. In order to stem the sudden increase of senior poverty, we recommend a private pension to be setup. By doing this NOW, we will prevent the catastrophe that will occur from our populace spending and not saving for their own future. The second effort to stem this problem is to guarantee that our people are paid at least enough to live on. By setting this living wage we will no longer need to worry about people not being able to pay for the basic housing, and food. The long term effects of this will be postive. |
| Date | 16:47:23, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Christian Democrats | To | Debating the Prosperity for the Future Keymon |
| Message | We adamantly oppose this legislation. A so-called "living wage" will raise wages by 50% at the lowest end. This will result in widespread unemployment as at least a quarter of our workers earn less than 9,000 KED/year and small businesses will be faced with a choice: raise prices or fire employees. Higher prices will reduce sales, but firing workers and overworking the ones they have left will keep profits up. They'll probably raise prices a bit anyway. . . Furthermore, entry-level jobs will become life jobs. Why move on from flipping burgers if you can make a "living wage" doing it? No, we oppose this. Let people work two jobs. Let two family members work. Let people work hard so they can get promoted. A "living wage" does not encourage this. Give a flower sunlight and it will not change. Move the lamp to a better angle and the flower will begin to bend in the direction of the light. And a forced pension system? Now that's just silly. ;) |
| Date | 21:40:52, March 03, 2006 CET | From | Just as Silly party | To | Debating the Prosperity for the Future Keymon |
| Message | The Just as Silly party wonders who manages your numbers. The living wage will not raise wages by 50% at the lowest end. At the very worse it would raise wages by 15-20%. Part of the problem is the definition of a "living wage." None of the proposal choices are truly adequate for our needs. The goal is to be sure that every working employee has the ability to 1. eat, 2. warm thesmeves in cold weather, 3. has a place to sleep without the street. The truth of the matter is a growing percentage of our workers making under 6,000 KED are working two jobs. Some aren't able to work a third, everyone has to sleep. Others are working a job and providing childcare so their spouse can work, and still barely surviving. Some of these "entry level jobs" are hard labor that companies are paying less than 1500 KED a year. At the last study, "flipping burgers" employees were making 5500 KED. That's enough for a small single room apartment, or a small two room apartment with roomates, food, and replacement of everyday neccesities. 5500 KED. You want people who are providing hard labor, making less than a burger maker? The failure was ours for not correctly defining the living wage in the bill. We recommend a wage of 5500 a year, that will not be applied to food prepration and entry level clerical positions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 76 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 24 |
| Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663 |
| Random quote: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper |