Wages for Housework Act

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If families can afford to have a spouse stay home and take on the majority of the housework, can't we safely assume that the individual with formal employment covers all the living costs (and then some) of the houseworker? To provide a minimum wage salary to a person whose needs are already covered just doesn't make sense.

Not to mention, wouldn't this basically be a grant for rich people? I mean, I like that these folks would be getting back some of the money we take from them with our ridiculous tax rates, but I think this money is much better spent on other projects.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So people who actually take the initiative to work and make something for society are going to be taxed at an outrageous rate just so the state can pay for people to stay at home and do nothing if they so choose? Who the heck is going to work? This plan would necessitate a tax squeeze on even the lower income brackets. I don't see a scenario where this would not be disastrous and destructive.

Work is what builds up our civilization and lets us enjoy the good things we have. We can debate measures to more appropriate reward work and return the fruits of labour to the labourers, but removing work as a tool for advancement will send everything we've built down the drain.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

But it wouldn't be necessarily "comfortable", just enough to get by. And people will always want more money, won't they?

"Just getting by" and "choosing not to work if you don't want to" don't really correspond, at least not  with my understanding of the terms. If it's an amount that covers rent in a sh**tty apartment miles from downtown, one meal a day, and very little transportation, then I'd see why you'd work. I don't know if that's what TNF has in mind...

Also, you can add me to the camp that thinks prices would increase. Yes, wages would be higher, but I don't believe the money would go as far. I'm assuming that as wages and prices go up, the UBI would also go up, so it's just a dog-chasing-its-own-tail scenario, isn't it? Also, how would this change affect government revenues? It's difficult to keep track of what we've done with our tax code, but maybe it's already so stilted that it wouldn't make a difference...? Certainly UBI would be a big expense, especially on top of Nixcome.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd work, for one, and I'm sure you would, Mr. Hagrid.

I'm not so sure. If the state was paying me enough to live comfortably without having to work a job, the long-term "fulfillment" probably wouldn't trump the short-term convenience of staying home. Again, some kind of small basic guarantee is one thing, but a large amount that makes work completely optional is just asking for trouble.

But it wouldn't be necessarily "comfortable", just enough to get by. And people will always want more money, won't they?

They can receive this handout as long as another member of their family is providing their income. So, a perfectly well-off housewife could receive this as long as her husband provides the majority of their income.

Yeah, sorry. I got off on the tangent of UBI, but at least UBI has merits. Deus is right—the proposal at hand may have good intentions, but it will be so easily abused and in many circumstances we would be paying for people to live comfortably. We're basically subsidizing Ann Romney's maid.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nixcome is extraordinarily progressive. It was a huge overhaul. Why is a change needed so early? Especially when it will come at the expense of more debt and higher taxes? To have this talk now strikes me as very excessive. You've got the senators to make it happen, but that doesn't mean it's the best thing to do at this juncture.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Yes, Mr. President and Mr. Simfan, sirs, that is why we have moved on to discussion of a UBI.

So why isn't Nixcome enough?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If we're going to try a pilot program, I feel like there's a role for the Department of Internal Affairs in there somewhere... It just seems like the SoIA is well-positioned to act as an emissary between the federal government and whichever jurisdictions are hosting the program.

Like, we can't really make one region be the guinea pig without their input, can we?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Would it be possible to craft some kind of program here but not vote on it, let whichever region we choose vote on accepting the project concurrently, and then vote here after the region has expressed its opinion? Or is that a very convoluted process?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

In fact, you could just pass a bill that a) makes the funds available to the region, and b) outlines the parameters of a qualifying program. Once the region passes a suitable bill, I can just release the funds through the Department of Internal Affairs. This is probably the easiest and most collaborative way to do it.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I don't like the idea of forcing it down the region's throat at the federal level, that's all. I mean, otherwise you'd be passing a bill that only affects one region... Basically you'd be passing a regional bill. Plus, doing it the way I suggest would actually involve the regional assembly in the process. Obviously it's up to the senate, but I'm willing and ready to help bring things into effect if need be. Two regions almost immediately passed anti-homelessness legislation after y'all passed the Public Means Public Act, so obviously the system can work.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, this has been seen. Adding it to the list. I was very busy last weekend for some reason...

A bunch of updates are coming shortly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry for the delay, gentlemen. Here's a list of some of the most poverty-stricken counties in the country. I'm not prepared to definitively call them the 25 poorest counties or give out firm figures (to me, that's  a job for the GM, and since it seems like I'll be playing a role in administering the program, I don't want there to be a conflict of interest), but I'm confident in saying that these places have seen persistent poverty. I tried to match them up with Atlasia's regional economic indicators as best as I could.

In alpha order by state, they are as follows:

Wade Hampton Census Area, Alaska
Apache County, Arizona
Clark County, Idaho
Madison County, Idaho
Owsley County, Kentucky
Wolfe County, Kentucky
East Carroll Parish, Louisiana
Holmes County, Mississippi
Humphreys County, Mississippi
Issaquena County, Mississippi
Leflore County, Mississippi
Guadalupe County, New Mexico
McKinley County, New Mexico
Luna County, New Mexico
Socorro County, New Mexico
Sioux County, North Dakota
Allendale County, South Carolina
Buffalo County, South Dakota
Shannon County, South Dakota
Todd County, South Dakota
Hudspeth County, Texas
Willacy County, Texas
Zavala County, Texas
San Juan County, Utah
Whitman County, Washington

Numerous regions have passed legislation changing the names of some of their counties. While I respect the legitimacy of those changes, they were not reported to the Department of Internal Affairs so I don't have that information on hand.