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: Full Employment Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party of Indrala
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 2352
Description[?]:
| For too long the minimum wage has forced people out of work by forcing them to seek a wage above the market equilibrium. And to increase further the incentive to find work, we must do away with that other bastielle of democratic socialism in Indrala, too-much-bloody welfare. Let the market run its course. Let us subsidise for the poor, not keep them from finding employment. Is it not true that unemployment creates other civil unrest: crime, alcoholism, etc. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Current: All adults shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certain period of time.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:39:13, January 28, 2007 CET | From | Techno-Organic Epiphany | To | Debating the Full Employment Act |
| Message | The TOE is inclined to agree with the liberal party on the first statement. However, on minimum wage, we feel it needs to be addressed. By enforcing a minimum wage, the TOE agrees that it forces an imbalance in the market equilibrium. However, by allowing the market equilibrium to take place, there is a competitive spiral that forces wages to become lower. While this may encourage employment, it does encourage the lowering of wages for all. By putting the market into equilibrium, we do in theory create more spending money for consumers in general. However, the consumer dollars that are created will be places in the hands of wealthy benefactors, or capital holders. Theoretically, what then happens is that lower end markets, such as basic food, clothing, television, etc. will have less dollars going into them. This means that these industries will downsize, giving less amusements and dollars to the poorer citizens. So then, the most promising way for the lower wage income makers to make enough money through crime, rather than getting a job. The result is of course a much higher crime rate, and a very dissatisfied poor. With a dissatisfied poor, what happens is that they support the left, and we all know what THAT leads to... The workers' party winning an election... |
| Date | 01:48:35, January 29, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Full Employment Act |
| Message | So do you suggest I scrap one or both of the proposals? In that case, which one? |
| Date | 05:40:37, January 29, 2007 CET | From | Techno-Organic Epiphany | To | Debating the Full Employment Act |
| Message | Only the second. The first is fine, reasonable and helps make sure the welfare state is not created, while still offering some help to those who are out of luck! You don't have to do what the TOE wants though. We don't have any voting power yet :-P |
| Date | 09:58:23, January 29, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Full Employment Act |
| Message | Lets just say I'm very cooperative, especially with like minded parties. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 310 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 191 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: "An "acceptable" level of unemployment means that the government economist to whom it is acceptable still has a job." - Author Unknown |