SENATE BILL: Living Wage Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Napoleon
Co-Sponsor: Snowstalker

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator you have 24 hours to advocate for this of course.


Senator, most of the studies showing minimal impacts on employment from the minimum wage that I have seen concern smaller increase from much lower levels (basically that of US policy options). Therefore, is their evidence out there that the minimal impact on employment from such increases, will also apply to increases from an already high base? Also does the "safe" amount of increase shrink as we get higher up in the level? I would presume there is an inverse relationship between the amount that can be increased safely (with no impact on employment), and the level at which it is being raised from, and that the longer the period over which the change is implemented, the weaker the relationship becomes.

What I am concerned about is the exact numbers and where on the continum this particular change is placed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The work week is 32 hours here???

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/The_Productivity_Equalization_and_Worker_Employment_Act

Duke and I, standing alone, together:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=144935.msg3119536#msg3119536

Good Times

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

an already high base?

We have a 43 cent gas tax. I'm just offering some perspective here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is essentially the current minimum wage, as I don't think any regions have lowered it. The goal of this is to make sure they do not, because the economic impacts of doing so now would be devastating to the working poor. Because this is essentially the current wage, or in the case of the Northeast, lower than current wages, the net effect on businesses will be ZERO.

This bill maybe, but that was partially my concern and why I decided to back the Right Wages for Right Regions Act to 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.  The concern hasn't vanished, however.

The other concern was that expressed by Hagrid, concerning what happened in the state of Oregon. And I would remind everyone that the RWRR bill has a minimum below which the Regions can't go below, as well and that is above $10. I might increase the numbers in the RWRR, but I prefer to keep the legal range that it established, to provide flexibility.

As I have previously established, I am sympthetic to the notion of a living wage and have expressed that in the past: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=102029.msg2146765#msg2146765 More Good Times!

In fact, I can remember when Napoleon was complaining about my position, for an entirely different reason:

Honestly, the vote totals on this should be way closer. I mean, I support the bill and all,  but I don't understand why the right wingers actually forgo the easy fight.

If I see any, I will let you know.

However, I am a practical person and I am also very cautious, especially when it comes to determing whether or not someone has food to eat next month. A living wage is wonderfull, but if your unemployed the minimum wage is irrelevant because you can't reap the benefits. I have some understanding of how business works, not just those evil, giant bastards everyone focuses on, but also the small ones. That is why I incorporated a tax benefit for them into the Living Wage Act of 2011, which I then supported. However, when Marokai brought forward the RWRR, I was confronted with an interesting situation and considering my affinity for letting the regions possess as much lattitude as possible anyway, it was a natural bridge to come to support the RWRR. Because it was a range, not a complete blank check for one. From my perspective, I don't see the said bill as incompatible or hostile to the goal of a living wage, but rather a useful tool in moving towards that end, with as few negative consequence as possible.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There isn't as much freedom of action on these votes, hence why I sometimes ask before opening them. The best solution is just have people start voting nay until we get to six. We are close if not there already.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

1-4-2-3 appears to be the current vote.


With Ben, Clarence, sbane (unless I missed it) having not voted. Nix and Hagrid abstained, and jdb/X voted Aye. Nappy, myself, Matt and Snowstalker voted no. Time expires on the nineteenth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 54:39 by sbane:

Aye (0):
Nay (6): jdb, Matt from VT, Napoleon, NC Yankee, sbane and Snowstalker
Abstain (2): Averroës Nix and HagridoftheDeep

Didn't Vote (2): Ben and Clarence

The amendment has failed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nappy, is it a no go on that potential amendment?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am fairly certain that the jump to 11.50 can be sustained, my concern with slowing the implementation centers around a second jump of the stated size occuring quite that soon afterwards. Unlike sbane's amendment, my preferred option would be to leave the first bump up as it is in the text and then either reduce or push back the second one (possibly to April instead of January).

As for the automatic increase, the best I can offer is the suggestion I made a page or two back about possibly altering the formula and so forth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thursday seems to have gotten much longer than I remember it being back in the day.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The bill has not been amended at all so far that I can see and so the text can be found in the OP.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can't wait much longer here.

If I don't get some kind of response by the time I go off (or by the time my computer blue screens again, which could be at any time), I will be opening a vote on this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This bill is now at final vote, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain

I wish that something could have been done about that second leg of this, but I guess we will have opportunities to address it later if necessary.


Vote on Final Passage of the Living Wage Act:

Aye (7): Αverroës Nix, Ben, jdb, Matt from VT, Napoleon, sbane and Snowstalker
Nay (0):
Abstain (1): NC Yankee

Didn't Vote (2): Clarence and HagridoftheDeep

Withe seven votes in the affirmative and none in the negative, the bill is passed and thus without the need for a vote change period it is presented to the President for executive action.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry for the delay in posting this, but the stupid ISP gave out and decided to take an hour vacation on every computer in the house. Just in time for the noon period on the first Friday of an odd numbered month.