The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act (reintroduced)

[Gabu]

At the request of Nym90, I hereby reintroduce the following legislation:

The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act

Clause 1.

The federal minimum wage of Atlasia shall be increased by 50 cents per hour each year for the next 4 years, until it reaches the level of $7.15/hour.

Clause 2.

The federal government shall have the authority to establish Renaissance Zones in areas that are determined to be "economically distressed". For the purposes of this act, the definition of "economically distressed" shall be as follows:

Either,

a. all counties or cities in which the Renaissance Zone will be established have an unemployment rate more than 50% higher than the national average, on average over the last 5 years;

or,

b. all counties or cities in which the Renaissance Zone will be established have a poverty rate more than 50% higher than the national average, on average over the last 5 years.

A Renaissance Zone, once established, shall entitle any newly established business within its area to have to pay no federal income tax for the first 5 years of operation.

Clause 3.

The creation of any Renaissance Zone shall be done in consult with a committee duly appointed by the Regional Government in which the Zone shall be created. The primary purpose of this committee will be to analyze the totality of costs and benefits, both quantitatively and qualitatively, of the creation of the Zone, and establish the borders of the Zone. The committee will report its findings to the public before the creation of any such Zone.

I hereby open debate on this bill.

[Jake]

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Jake]

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

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

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

If the previous Senate hadn't got clogged up extremely rapidly, I would have introduced a bill that would have slashed taxes for small businesses.
So there

[John Dibble]

Opposed to this.

Also, for clause 1: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Judges shouldn't be interfering in the legislative process

[John Dibble]

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.

[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.

[Jake]

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....

Nice dodge on Clause #1, that would definitely hurt small businesses, but it would fatten the paychecks of teens, so press on

[KEmperor]

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.

I'm afraid he's right, as a Justice you are expected to refrain from participating in the legislative process, to prevent yourself from prejudicing yourself.

[Sam Spade]

I will naturally oppose this because of Clause #1.

I see no problems with clause #2 and #3.

If an amendment were brought to strike Clause #1 from the bill, I would be in support of this.

Of course, that probably goes against the Senator's original aims.

Nonetheless, I will propose it anyway.

[John Dibble]

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.

I've gone over this before many a time. I have this absolutely strange and unusual ability to turn off my personal bias and review the facts - so if this did come before the court, I'd only be reviewing it against the constitution, not my personal feelings towards the bill itself.

That said, whether or not I actually state my opinion publicly has no real bearing - it wouldn't change my opinion towards it, I'd just keep it bottled up. So if I was the type of guy to put bias in the duties that I've been entrusted with, me not posting my opinion really wouldn't make a lick of difference, as I'd have the bias no matter what.

[PBrunsel]

Opposed to this.

Also, for clause 1: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/tst042904a.cfm

In case you didn't already know this John Dibble, you are the man.

I needed an article like this for Iowa State Debate Finals, and now I have exactly what I need to defuse some arguments for minimum wage hikes.

[Gabu]

I will naturally oppose this because of Clause #1.

I see no problems with clause #2 and #3.

If an amendment were brought to strike Clause #1 from the bill, I would be in support of this.

Of course, that probably goes against the Senator's original aims.

Nonetheless, I will propose it anyway.

Okay, I open voting on the proposed amendment to strike Clause 1.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all opposed, vote "nay".

[Sam Spade]

Aye

[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.

[Gabu]

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.

Er, well, I looked it up, and according to this article, only 14% of those earning minimum wage depend on it to live; the others have some other wage-earner in the house.

[John Dibble]

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.

Er, well, I looked it up, and according to this article, only 14% of those earning minimum wage depend on it to live; the others have some other wage-earner in the house.

Looks like PBrunsel just got another piece of ammo for his debate.

[Jake]

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.

Er, well, I looked it up, and according to this article, only 14% of those earning minimum wage depend on it to live; the others have some other wage-earner in the house.

Thank you Gabu.  Teens make up the majority of minumum wage earners.  Why hurt a business, just to make teens a little wealthier.

[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.

[WMS]

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)

[Gabu]

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

No, we have a vote on Sam Spade's proposed amendment to strike Section 1.

[WMS]

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

No, we have a vote on Sam Spade's proposed amendment to strike Section 1.

Which, as it seriously impacts the overall bill, is just as important.

[Gabu]

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

No, we have a vote on Sam Spade's proposed amendment to strike Section 1.

Which, as it seriously impacts the overall bill, is just as important.

Well, yes.