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: True Value of a Worker
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Republican Federalists
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: May 2229
Description[?]:
| This bill allows for industry to set minimum wage. Who actually gets paid minimum wage? Someone who has had many years of work experience certainly would not start in a job at minimum wage. Industry would reward that worker by adjusting his wage comensurate with his or her experience. If anyone gets paid minimum wage, it is young people who have no experience in the work force who are just coming out of school. Should industry pay them more than what their work experience dictates? I think that common sense dictates that they should not. It not only makes good common sense but also good economic sense. |
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 | 18:38:28, May 15, 2006 CET | From | dAda rEvoluTion | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | well, this sounds like an open door to slavery! |
| Date | 18:55:47, May 15, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | Your arguments would be extremely convincing if a completely free labour market was actually possible. However, due to assymmetry of information, the disparity in power between low-end employees and their employers, a minimum wage is neccessary to ensure an adequate living standard for those at the bottom of society. No doubt the CRF wonder why low-end workers cannot just find a different job if their current employer is too stingy. This fails to take into account that low-income workers are not mobile - very often they dop not have cars, and cannot afford to commute great distances. They are tied to areas where they have homes (whether they be owned outright or rented). For these reasons, Government intervention is reqiured to make sure that the market serves the people, rather than the other way round. Setting a minimum wage puts more money into the pockets of lower income families, allowing them to spend more money on goods and services in their communities, often putting money back into the coffers of the very companies who will be paying the higher wages. When a minimum wage was introduced in Britain in 1999, right wing economists gleefully predicted a rise in unemployment, as companies fired workers they could no longer afford to pay. This did not happen in practise, even with declining growth at the end of the decade. Firms were well able to absorb the impact of the minimum wage. We would argue that any competent worker is worth at least the ''level that a single full time worker...can adequately subsist', and unless the person is somehow incapacitated (in which case it is right that the State support him/her) it will be possible to find something at which they can usefully earn a wage. Industry is free to reward experience by paying them above this level, in fact we would encourage them to do so. We beg the House to oppose. |
| Date | 19:24:18, May 15, 2006 CET | From | Social Devolutionist | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | A minimum wage is a safety net. Perhaps it is only a safety net for the young and inexpereienced, (as the honorouable member for the CRF points out, for more experienced workers their very experience is their safety ne, but it is a safety net nonetheless and one that must remain. Subsistence is just that, a level to allow existence but little more. A new worker getting minimum wage has both the ability (through the wage) to keep themselves alive, and the motivation (through the wages meagre level) to improve themselves and develop their skills. The existing law, is a well thought out law, it is a considered law and it is the right law. We oppose any suggestion that a change is needed, and oppose vehemently this change. |
| Date | 20:02:29, May 15, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Republican Federalists | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | Industry may have been able to absorb the cost of paying a minimum wage and they may have refrained from firing workers but think about how may more workers in need of jobs could have been hired had not the government told industry how much they were required to pay their workers. These unemployed workers could have been given jobs, they certainly would have been glad to have been provided with an opportunity to contribute to society instead of just being a burden on the tax payer by being on social assistance. Secondly, think about how taxes could have been reduced on those who are actually working by the unemployed earning their keep instead of relying on the government to maintain them. Thirdly, I would like to ask the SDA why anyone who is incapacitated needs to be a ward of the state? If industry were to be allowed to pay the worker the value of their work, they would have sufficient capital to pay for better health care for the less fortunate. The government in passing these restrictive laws are actually hurting those whom they are trying to help. This law makes perfect sense and I urge everyone in their proper mind to vote yes. |
| Date | 03:15:46, May 16, 2006 CET | From | Vanuku Nationalists Party | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | OPEN DOOR TO SLAVERY?! ok then ill support it. |
| Date | 08:30:46, May 16, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Democrat Party | To | Debating the True Value of a Worker |
| Message | The LDP are not surprised that the Nationalist Party only makes ridiculous statements.. short, to the point and dumb! The LDP were the biggest supporters of the introduction of the minimum wage. The minimum wage is in place to ensure that all working class employees are provided what is deemed to be an appropriate wage for each particular industry. This wage is called a minumum wage meaning it can be adjusted by industry according to the skill level of each employee. A company can choose to pay more experienced employees an additional wage to be fairer to there level of experience, however to remove the bare minumum wage will only further increase the gap between the rich members of society and the middle class and lower class. It will essentially create only two classes of members in the public, the filthy rich and the dirt poor. Leaving the minimum wage in does not increase unemployment, but it does however increase the number of peope who live in poverty, which then puts more people on welfare.. thus draining money from the government coffers we could be using to build more schools, or to create more superior hospitals or to strengthen our military. This act hurts the people its trying to help.. not the previous one. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 188 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 267 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 105 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come. When in a state of security he does not forget the possibility of ruin. When all is orderly, he does not forget that disorder may come. Thus his person is not endangered, and his States and all their clans are preserved." - Confucius |