The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act (reintroduced)

[Nym90]

The AFL-CIO and the NUM support this bill (big shock there, eh?)

yep, unions trying to destroy small businesses. Quite a suprise

I don't see how clauses 2 and 3 would hurt small businesses....

Judges shouldn't be interfering in the legislative process

I'm only offering my opinion on the bill, as is my right as a citizen of Atlasia. My judicial duties only come into play should this come before the Supreme Court.

You certainly have the right to offer an opinion, though if the bill is passed and then challenged to the Court, it might now be prudent to recuse yourself from the case.

Ughh, 1930's legislation for the 21st century.

Actually more like 1960's legislation, as we'd effectively return the minimum wage to where it was during the 1960's. However, the renaissance zones, which as far as I know didn't exist in the 1960's, are a major advancement that helps businesses, and will more than offset any negative effects of clause 1.

[Nym90]

Not a dodge at all, Jake. I just explained that 2 and 3 will do enough good for business to offset any negative effects of part 1, and part 1 will provide immediate benefit to many workers (the vast majority of those below $8/hour are not teens); so the bill overall will be beneficial to both businesses and workers.

If I strike part 1, the overall benefit to workers would be greatly reduced, as they would receive no immediate aid.

The bill is designed to be a comprehensive anti-poverty bill that will not unduly favor or harm either businesses or consumers, but that will help both.

[Nym90]

This bill would affect everyone with a wage of under $7.15/hour; not just those who currently earn the minimum wage. I agree that those who are exactly at the minimum wage are more likely to be teens, but this affects a lot more than just those at the minimum itself. In order to be valid, any such statistics would have to consider everyone below the new minimum, not just those at the current minimum.

[Nym90]

Ack! We have a vote already? I've got some questions, actually.

1. To those who argue against increasing it: are you saying that we never need to increase the minimum wage? Or is this a matter of degree rather than in kind? Because inflation does eat away at people's earning power over time, and if you perpetually keep the minimum wage stagnant you will lower its buying potential over time.

2. To those who argue in favor of it: is this the right amount? How will small businesses really be affected by it?

3. To all: would a compromise wherein small businesses receive a tax credit for the extra amount they have to pay in wages due to a minimum wage increase be fair, or a good idea overall, or affordable?

-WMS (currently in Abstain mode)

As I'm in favor, I'll tackle 2 and 3.

For question 2, regarding whether it's the right amount, certainly that can be debated. It'd be brought up to about the level, accounting for inflation, that it was during the 1960's. It didn't seem to be overly destructive or burdensome to business at that point in time.

But certainly one could argue with the amount one way or another; however, remember that it would go up gradually over 4 years, rather than be an immediate increase. So businesses would have an adjustment period to get used to it. If the effects are disastorous after the first year or two, it could be repealed.

And, remember, as I've said before, that sections 2 and 3 help businesses, both large and small, and the overall positive impact, I think, would more than make up for any negative effects of section 1.

Regarding question 3, that definitely seems like something that I could support. Obviously the cost of it is something that would have to be looked at (you are shifting the burden of the extra pay from the businesses to the government; the money still has to come from somewhere), but assuming that the government can afford it, and the positive impact of the additional wages would more than offset the expense (which I personally think they would) I'd support it.

[Nym90]

I have no problem with raising the mimimum wage, in fact I encourage it; but I would much rather wait until after we work out the taxation plan, including for small businesses. If we can provide small businesses with a tax cut to offset the wage increase, then that is the best possible solution-more money in the worker's pockets without the businesses suffering.

Also, how can we ensure that big business won't just ship in, and 4 years 364 days later move to another Rennaisance Zone? The theory is good, but it's open to abuse. How to close it, I don't know, but at this stage I am leaning against supporting this bill.

Ideals are important, but the most important thing is good governance.

Regarding the renaissance zones, yes, there is that possibility, but there are large costs assosciated with moving a business, and this hasn't really been a problem in places where the zones are used. The zones help to improve the economy of the area and even if they aren't taxed, businesses will need to show that there is a profit to be made in the area.

And even if the business did move after 5 years, the area is still better off than they would have been if they had never come in at all.

[Nym90]

I agree with clauses 2 & 3, but not one. Minimum Wage increases only spur on inflation and higher prices.

Except that inflation occurs anyway, and thus not increasing the minimum wage will result in it going down in purchasing power. Passage of this bill would only bring it back to where it once was; I assume from your statements that you would never support a minimum wage increase? You seem to object to it in principle, not to the size.

[Nym90]

Nay

[Nym90]

Yea on MAS's Amendment

[Nym90]

Aye on the new Amendment.

[Nym90]

Aye

[Nym90]

Nay

[Nym90]

They aren't divorced subjects. It's a comprehensive anti-poverty bill.

I vote Nay on the latest amendment. I feel it is too arbitrary. I agree with it in principle--if the economy tanks, the increase should be repealed-- but the Senate can reduce the wage on its own; it doesn't need to be an automatic provision.

[Nym90]

To add to what I said earlier, I feel that an automatic provision for repeal is too arbitrary, and does not sufficiently consider the unique circumstances that may arise. The Senate itself is better able to consider whether a repeal is necessary.

[Nym90]

I voted Nay on the MAS amendment, BTW; though it appears I may have voted too early for my vote to officially count. Hopefully my vote will be recorded for the record as Nay.

[Nym90]

Aye on the new Amendment.

Earlier in the thread you voted Aye on the MAS amendment.

That was a vote on the Supersoulty Amendment. You are correct though that I did vote Yes on the MAS amendment, I apologize.

Too many amendments; I get confused.

[Nym90]

I don't see why it's a crock or a fraud to suggest that both parts of the bill would help to reduce poverty, but that's just my opinion, Sam.

At any rate, if you really want the bill split, that's fine, but I respectfully disagree about the idea that reducing poverty through helping workers and reducing poverty by helping businesses is somehow unrelated.