Talk Elections

Sponsors: Bgwah, Marokai Blue

For some reason I thought this might be controversial!

It's discriminatory against younger workers.  I will not sign a bill that officially discriminates against certain age groups for no apparent reason.

Storms kept me offline yesterday.


Such an aggressive increase combined with nothing in the way of small business tax releif will surely lead to an increase in unemployment. It would need a longer implementation period, atleast.

And just for lols the last time MB tried to sneak his marxian ideas through: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102029.0
;D

As to the President's objection, I can see his point about needing to be non-discriminatory, but the point of this is to ensure that adults can get a job and earn enough to have a somewhat decent living standard. Whereas that is not the same goal of someone younger. And raising the wage so agressively on younger people could make finding employment much harder, in what has already been a hard hit demographic.

Lastly, I would remind Senators, the current minimum is substantially higher compared with RL.  

Forgive me for my brevity, Yankee, but I'm posting on my phone from a midnight movie line at the moment.

"Marxian"? :P the minimum wage in Atlasia is hardly substantially higher than rl. Many Candian provinces have higher minimum wages than we do and their economy is in superior shape to ours. Though I signed on to an increase with Bgwah, I will definitely accept amendments. Possibly move the wag to 11 dollars, for everyone, staggered over a couple years, possibly with different levels of increases for each region. Small business relief is also alright with me. Name it!

Well we could could do it in the form of a tax credit of some kind or in the form of deductions? Which would be more preferable?

In response to the President, I offer the following amendment:


I don't know, does Marokai have to accept it as friendly to?! :P

I do, if it's a question!

The purpose behind such a requirement is to provide a dis-incentive to businesses that provide menial and unskilled jobs to discriminate against older workers.  So while it may appear as 'official' discrimination, it really seeks to prevent it in practice.

A lot of the time, Markokai and I agree on things, which is scary to some voters, and sometimes, we don't see eye to eye. :P

The amendment makes it better, but with the minimum wage higher than it is in RL, I think raising it even more won't exactly help employment numbers with increasing costs for wages. Mind you, I am not advocating abolishment of a minimum wage at all, but the majority of those making minimum wage, I believe, are summer workers and teens that are not supporting themselves. And adding that age provision is fine, but it does seem discriminatory. I have seen some damn good 17 year old employees when I worked during the summers.

Can I get some feedback here? :P

The amendment has passed.

This is madness!!!

It's kind of a vague comment. :P

What is so vague about it? It asks whether we should use tax credits or tax deductions or even something else to help give small business some relief from the impact of this, aleast intially, so as to avoid them resorting to layoffs. We can even make it conditional on layoff decisions if so desired.

I can't support this amended version.

^The 21 to 18 difference? Why?

It discourages the hiring of younger, less experienced workers. If we are selling this as a living wage, let it apply to those who are likeliest to have to support themselves. And if not, there should be no age cutoff.

I understand your concern, hence my original version, but I'm willing to compromise on this.


Draft a possible amendment doing this and I'll comment. :)

It's too late tonight. Damn West Coast and your Pacific time zone!!!! :P

This is just possible text, not an amendment

I'd be fine with something along those lines, though 500k would need to be clarified. Revenue, gross income, something like that.

Decisions, decisions.


It depends on what size limitation you want. A company with $500,000 in revenue is much smaller then a company with 500,000 in Gross jncome, and considerably smaller then one with 500,000 in net income.

What is the largest size you are comfortable with?

I would say $500,000 revenue, but I could support $500,000 gross income.

I don't see much reason why a company that makes $500,000 in net income a year should have to pay workers much less than what's proposed here. I could support making an exception for such companies if and only if they're in restructuring or losing money.


How, exactly, is the language at issue supposed to do this?

I offer the following amendment as an addition to the current text.

^ That's probably fine with me. What do you think, Mary?

I'm offering an amendment to change 18 back to 21.

Totally. <3


I have.. concerns about that. But I won't outright oppose it if Bgwah doesn't.

I think this makes more sense, but I'm still not necessarily supportive of any age cutoff in the first place.

Both sponsors have accepted this as friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.

While this is what I initially preferred, I want this to pass, and the President was opposed to 21...

I feel like we could override a veto.

The amendment passed as friendly.

---

I have mixed feelings on the age aspect, and I think it would just be best to have a vote on Napoleon's amendment...

Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain on the following amendment:

I remind you if the age is returned to 21, I will veto it.  A veto override will definitely chill relations between the presidency and the senate as you will have completely removed any reason for compromise by simply overriding my veto.

There is no good case to have the arbitrary age of 21 for a living wage to kick in.  What do you tell to 19 year olds with a kid or that just want to be financially independent?

WHy are we extending some aspects of adolescence into a person's early 20s (financial independence) while leaving other civic duties and responsibilities behind (like military service or voting)?

I have yet to see a good reason for this, other than that somehow companies will magically hire all sorts of 18-20 year olds because they can pay them less.  That's ridiculous.  All you will do is throw these people back out on the streets when they turn 21 and all the fresh college grads come in with their degrees to compete with the already working crowd.

I know in this day and age it seems almost impossible that there are 18-20 year olds out there raising families and working and struggling to be financially independent... but it is the case for a lot of Atlasians.

Unless there is a proposal to freely provide a university education to every student, thus extending fully the period of adolescence, or the age 18 level is maintained, I will veto this bill.

The 18 age level makes sense because at 18 you become an adult.  You are finishing high school and are expected to move out into the world, be that college or work.  I understand paying 14-17 year olds that work part time a lesser wage, since they can depend on their parents for basic support... but we are creating a donut hole here that many 18-20 year olds will fall through.

So, do what you will.  But if the bill arrives on my desk with an age over 18... I will veto it and I won't forget it either.

Snowguy is right. I was uneasy about the idea of reinstating the 21 age restriction, and for good reason. His argument is compelling and has brought me out of the silly idea of compromise.


I vote Nay.

I would prefer it at 21, sorry Snowy :(

Aye

Nay. The President has convinced me.

Abstain

Nay.

Nay. It would be silly to make it 21 considering 18 is the age you become an adult. Not everyone goes to college and gets plastered every weekend ;)

Nay

Nay

Amendment tally: 1-6-1, with 2 non-voting abstentions

The amendment has been rejected. Debate resumes.

Final vote. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

---

AYE.

Aye.

Aye

You Socialist, you. <3

Aye.

This bill will reduce some of my region's competitive disadvantages with growth and the labor market.

Aye to this timely and humane bill.

Aye

Aye

Abstain

Aye

Current tally: 8-0-1

This has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

Honestly, the vote totals on this should be way closer. I mean, I support the bill and all,  but I don't understand why the right wingers actually forgo the easy fight.

Does Northeast have a higher minimum wage?

nay

If I see any, I will let you know. :P

With 8 ayes, 1 nay, and 1 abstention, this bill has passed and is now presented to the President for his signature.

x Snowguy716