SENATE BILL: Living Wage Act (Law'd)

[Napoleon]

We've never had a rolling wage before. Small businesses that have a hard enough time catching up with inflation when it comes to existing operating costs will now have to deal with more costs. Sure, maybe the solution is to raise their prices for consumers, but that might negatively impact how well the business is able to compete with multinational corporations. Plus, if these small businesses do raise their prices to consumers, it'll see inflation rise, which, in turn, will require a wage hike.

Senator, the minimum wage has been tied to inflation here for years. I can't accept this argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How is that the case?[/quote]

 People would be laid off[/quote]

I see. The rest of that post segment was just supply-side rhetoric, which has been proven to be a disaster.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

32 hours is not half a job. I don't know anyone who works 64 hours a week.[/quote]

I guess you missed the hyperbole. [/quote]

Sorry?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some people aren't making a good enough living for the amount of work they do regardless of hours. They just happen to be paid hourly.[/quote]

Fair enough, but if they're making minimum wage, they're still doing better than the people who are earning minimum wage but only get to work 32 hours a week. [/quote]

No doubt, but I do seek to enrich those lives further, satisfaction will only breed stagnation. We could do better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because I don't support the sort of anti-family wage slave policy that keeps parents working all week while their kids sit mostly unattended in day care centers. People can and do work more than 32 hours, and they get compensated fairly with over time pay. I'm concerned about those who are at risk of having their lifestyle subject to the whims of a regional government. The poor are not pawns to be used in a political power play at the benefit of the corporations.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but the eight-hour work day is not "wage slave policy." It's a job. If so many people work it already, it can't exactly be too out of the mainstream. Except maybe the employers could hire more people if they weren't forced to pay overtime to these folks who are working what would be considered a normal day anywhere else. In Ontario, overtime pay only kicks in after 44 hours. [/quote]

I'm not sure why Ontario's law is that way but the US has had an 8 hour work day (40 hour week) since 1937. Do you think that 1930s policies are what we need right now (WW1 if you consider the Abramson Act)? The 40 hour work week was created at a time when families had one bread winner. The mother would stay home, take care of the children, etc. This is not the world we live in today. We live in a world where technology takes care of many things for us, where women work full-time, and so many other things have changed. You can feel free to take the Rick Santorum position that women should stay in the kitchen (or the Romney position- in binders), but the culture cannot simply be legislated away. Therefore, its our job as lawmakers to craft policies that fit the society we represent. 32 hours is enough to employ more people, give families time to raise their children, encourage recreation, rest, and relaxation and still be a productive employee in a world where technologies are developing and replacing once necessary human labor in many industries.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that a healthy middle class is necessary. Much like the thriving middle class we saw under the Fordist 40-hour work week.
[/quote]

Party name from the 1790s and policies from the 1920s. Joy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

provide a certain to degree of an ability for a differential in regions that also have different standards of living, for one, but also different economic conditions.

That ability is there, and is the reason why the Northeast has a minimum wage higher than this bill proposes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would need to see more information about that before I find it credible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you and Marokai have both proposed previously exactly what I'm proposing now. Interesting.

1. Yes, the lattitude as always been present in the upward direction, but either you provide the same in the other direction (on a restricted basis of course), or slow considerably the implementation so that federal wage is that appropriate for the lowest region's capacity to sustain such.

2. I want more information as well, but I am not going to reject it even on a tentative basis, when a similar concern theoretically can be present either there or elsewhere.

3. If I find a better way to do something, I will be open to considering it. My concern is to provide the best means to achieve the desired result, as opposed to what people expect (or maybe even just assume will do so) as part of their overall general philosophy, hence why I support any minimum wage at all to begin with, or on another bill, a minimum Cafe standard.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I was quite liking Senator Napoleon, but it's a real shame that President Napoleon seems to have turned up instead.

If the minimum wage has been formally tied to inflation for years, please point me in that direction. Either way, I'd again point to the example in Oregon rather than to what we may or may not have seen in Atlasia. One example is real life and one example is decided by a human "god-figure." I trust real life.

As for the rest of your response... glad there's not much to address other than insults. Makes my job a bit easier. You call it "disastrous supply-side rhetoric," but I call it common sense.

I should probably comment on this little tangent though:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For one, if the policy has been in place for over 70 years since the 1930s, I wouldn't necessarily call it a policy that's exclusive to the 1930s. If it didn't work, it would've been canned. The motivations for the 40-hour work week also doesn't really concern me, because things change. Sure, it was designed for a time when it was common for a family to have one breadwinner... I advocate continuing those policies today not so that we can reproduce some social ideal, but to give people more hours and more money without putting destructive stress on entrepreneurs. So, straight up, stop being a smart-ass by trying to dissect my motives. Never—never—did I come close to saying "women should stay in the kitchen," and the leap you're making to put those words in my mouth is offensive. I believe the good part of this world's problems can be solved by empowering women, so this little jab is one thing I'm not going to sit and take.

That said, I'm not going to scoff at the times when we did see such economic prosperity that it was feasible for families to only send one member into the workforce. I don't care if it's the man who stays home or the woman who stays home, but wouldn't it be nice if we could once again see those kinds of economic conditions? Why is it a bad thing to have someone "stay home with the kids?" This idea kind of ties into your jab at Fordism. I'd think you'd prefer Fordism over neoliberalism, but maybe I'm wrong. You said it was important for capitalist societies to have a strong middle class. All I was saying was that the last time we really had a thriving middle class was also under the 40-hour work week.

Anyhow, I'm bowing out of this back-and-forth for the time being. I didn't really offer anything new in this post, so the only possible response I could get would be jeering bait designed to elicit a reaction from me. All I can say is that I hope my peers in this chamber respect me enough not to assume that I'm sitting in some tower plotting the best way to put women back in the kitchen. My God.

[Napoleon]

I didn't intend to imply that you wanted to put women in the kitchen, and looking back, I can see how my wording (using the word "you") made it seem like I was directly referencing Senator Hagrid, but it was more of a general comment not aimed at anyone. Because of this obvious misunderstanding, much of your post will be difficult to respond to meaningfully, though I hope you understand that I was not insulting you (except for the party name part- that was a well-intended poke and I hope it was received as such).

I expected you understood how the minimum wage in Atlasia functioned when you voted in favor of the law that replaced the Living Wage Act a few months ago. We really ought to do a better job understanding the laws we vote for.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you're allowed to be hyperbolic and suggested that the hard-working people of this nation are only working "half-jobs", I should be allowed to be hyperbolic and point out how old fashioned the idea that we should extend the work week. I backed up that hyperbole with facts that show how much the work and social environments have changed in ways that affect the original intent of the forty hour work week. If you don't accept those arguments- fine, that's your point of view and you have the right to take that stand. But to accuse me of attacking you- that's incorrect and distracts from the issue. I certainly don't agree with you that we should extend the work week. I've already pointed out that we won't lose jobs for re-establishing a federal standard that is basically in effect.

Senator, I do not think we are going to reach a consensus here, and that's fine. We can do it respectfully. I apologize for being unclear with my previous statements, and I ask that in the future we can handle this privately so as to not create a distraction.

[Sbane]

I propose an amendment to raise the minimum wage more gradually:
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Napoleon]

The amendment is unfriendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Minimum 24 Hour Floor Time Rule Triggered.


I would prefer that the third increase occur somewhat sooner, like July 1st, 2014.

[Napoleon]

Living Wage Act

1) The federal minimum wage for those ages 18 and over shall be raised to $11.50 on July 1st, 2013 and $12.50 on January 1st, 2014 and $13.00 on July 1st, 2014.
2) Inflation-adjusted increases shall cease after July 1st, 2013.
3) Regions shall not be prohibited from petitioning the Department of Internal Affairs for temporary exemptions from these increases.
4) All employers that earn less then $1,000,000 a year in Gross Income, 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 prior to the termination.

[Napoleon]

If Senator Snowstalker and others are willing to support the amendment I introduced, I'm happy to move forward with it. I think its a nice compromise. I didn't mean to sound dismissive or standoffish in my response to Senator Hagrid's concerns, but I'm proposing this anyway.

[Sbane]

Are you ending inflation adjusted increases, Napoleon? I cannot support that.

[Napoleon]

Are you ending inflation adjusted increases, Napoleon? I cannot support that.

I think Hagrid was talking about cost of living increases anyway, which is a completely different thing, but I think it could be a good idea to eliminate the inflation increases. Like Clarence said, it complicates things for many business owners to have to keep up with it, and I think inflation-increases are a way to kind of brush the issue aside as if future wage increases aren't necessary because of the inflation increases. Why tie it to inflation and not median per capita income or some other measure? I just think its beneficial to talk about issues like this at the highest level, with the inflation increases many people will think there is no reason to raise the minimum wage in the future I think.

Anyway, I am willing to ditch that problvision in favor of the original one if that works best for everyone. Im just trying to find a way to account for everything.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm sorry, I cannot sign that, with or without the inflation adjustment mechanism. Though, I expect if this passes I won't be able to stop it either way..

[Napoleon]

Look, I can't keep compromising with myself here. What, Marokai, will you support that benefits workers more than current policies do? Senator Sbane, I appreciate the effort but I oppose the amendment because it makes no sense. By the time 2015 rolls around, the minimum wage will have exceeded that due to inflation. Its too gradual.

Hagrid admitted that people will lose jobs if we extend the work week, which I would oppose anyway and I consider it a settled political issue. There is nothing viable down that road.

Im happy with the original text honestly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Here's what I would be comfortable with, then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Marokai, that's essentially nothing. The fact is, the wage-earners of Atlasia deserve better. We need a strong and mobile wage to ensure that no one who works a full week is ever in poverty. I will accept Napoleon's proposal and no more.

[Sbane]

I would be happier with the original proposal than not tying the minimum wage to inflation.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We need a strong and mobile wage to ensure that no one who works a full week is ever in poverty.

And we do have policies ensuring that Atlasians do not fall into poverty; with targeted state programs and rebates, not by forcing businesses to pay an unnecessarily high wage as a minimum. Atlasia has one of the most robust welfare states, and one of the fairest systems of taxation, of the first world. It's more important that we have as many people employed as possible to keep expanding the tax base to fund the wide array of state programs we have, rather than raise unemployment by continuously raising the minimum wage on top of all the taxes and welfare programs.

We have a program that pays for family's home energy bills for years, we have dramatically more generous food stamp benefits than in RL, we have a generous public healthcare system, our income tax practically barely taxes people making the minimum wage and the rebates for poor families are huge, our public housing system is dramatically more generous than in RL, Social Security is safe, unions are stronger, and I intend soon to introduce a national daycare system. We are a hop skip and a jump away from a literal cradle-to-grave welfare state. That's good, I'm fine with all of that. But all of that means are less well off are taken very good care of.

Things aren't perfect, but it is more protective of the economy to introduce greater state benefits into our welfare state to take care of the lower class than it is to just force businesses to keep picking up the slack.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I understand that, which is why I had problems with Napoleon's (and my) original numbers. I feel that his compromise is the best route for helping the Atlasian working class.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sbane should I proceed with a vote on your amendment at this point?


Napoleon, are you planning to offer that mass of text as an amendmnet at some point?


Perhaps, if I might suggest, that if eliminating thee inflation adjustment is an issue then instead of eliminating it entirely, instead perhaps a holiday for a year after the third/Second adjustment (I don't have the Reasonal Minimum Wage Act in front of me right now and I don't remember how the inflation adjustment was structured off the top of my head so there may be another, more effective means to acheive this delay in the process) and you could also reduce the formula of increase from there onwards, as well.

[Sbane]

Sbane should I proceed with a vote on your amendment at this point?


Napoleon, are you planning to offer that mass of text as an amendmnet at some point?


Perhaps, if I might suggest, that if eliminating thee inflation adjustment is an issue then instead of eliminating it entirely, instead perhaps a holiday for a year after the third/Second adjustment (I don't have the Reasonal Minimum Wage Act in front of me right now and I don't remember how the inflation adjustment was structured off the top of my head so there may be another, more effective means to acheive this delay in the process) and you could also reduce the formula of increase from there onwards, as well.

Let's have a vote on it. It does raise the minimum wage faster than inflation, and it doesn't get rid of the minimum wage keeping up with inflation, which I feel is important.

[Napoleon]

I am going to consult with others before I decide whether to introduce an amendment. We will keep the minimum wage tied to inflation, I will see what other changes might need made.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry for not coming in here sooner, but I've been pissed off.

Frankly I don't mind Napoleon's amendment as much as some of the other things I've seen in this thread. My argument was against cost of living increases and inflation increases, because the two are both tied together. One thing I'm still unclear about though is who's been keeping track of the minimum wage since it's been tied to inflation. We're throwing around all these hard even numbers ("$11.50," "$12.00," etc.), but what is the minimum wage actually? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm a little confuzzled.

Honestly though, I don't really see why the current situation mandates that we take any action on the minimum wage at all. It seems like we're just meddling for the sake of meddling.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: The above amendment is at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye