SENATE BILL: Living Wage Act (law'd)

[bgwah]

Living Wage Act
1) The federal minimum wage for those ages 21 and over shall be raised to $10.50 on January 1st, 2012 and to $12.00 on July 1st, 2012.
2) After the second raise, inflation-adjusted increases shall continue to occur as mandated in the Reasonable Minimum Wage Act.
3) The federal minimum wage will be unaffected for those under age 21.

Sponsors: Bgwah, Marokai Blue

[bgwah]

For some reason I thought this might be controversial!

[Snowguy716]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For some reason I thought this might be controversial!

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: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102029.0

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.  

[Marokai]

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

"Marxian"? 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!

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[bgwah]

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

Living Wage Act
1) The federal minimum wage for those ages 18 and over shall be raised to $10.50 on January 1st, 2012 and to $12.00 on July 1st, 2012.
2) After the second raise, inflation-adjusted increases shall continue to occur as mandated in the Reasonable Minimum Wage Act.
3) The federal minimum wage will be unaffected for those under age 18.

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

[Marokai]

I do, if it's a question!

[Ebowed]

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

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.

[Prez Duke]

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.

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

Can I get some feedback here?

[bgwah]

The amendment has passed.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

Can I get some feedback here?

This is madness!!!

[bgwah]

It's kind of a vague comment.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Senator Napoleon]

I can't support this amended version.

[bgwah]

^The 21 to 18 difference? Why?

[Senator Napoleon]

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.

[bgwah]

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.

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.

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is just possible text, not an amendment

All employers that make less then $500,000 a year, will be allowed to deduct 15% of the increased labor costs, resulting from the increase in the minimum wage, for the first 12 months of it being in effect. Qualification for the said deduction will be dependent upon no terminations of employment, for the purpose of downsizing, occuring during the period in which this deduction is claimed, unless currently in bankrupcty restructuring or has been losing money for atleast one quarter orior to the termination.

[bgwah]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[asexual trans victimologist]

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.

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.

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