Renewing our Promise to Workers Act of 2014

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

First off, I must point out that there is multiple portions to the bill being repealed only the most controversial of which is a repeal of the high minimum wage schedules passed as part of the FLSA. The bill also amends a rather problematically worded section dealing with contracts that served to cause severe problems employment wise not to mention discouraging job formation. The bill also creates incentives to encourage the hiring of the long term unemployed through a payroll tax holiday. Lastly it discourages the practice of using gaps in employment as a sole criteria for denying employment, through the gov'ts workforce.

I would recommend that instead of reinstating the high minimum wage rates imposed by the FLSA, that instead the Nixcome be raised instead. That the tipped employee's scheduled be likewise brought into line with the main one one as well, with the Nixome increase serving as a more effective and more efficient means to achieve the same end for them as well.

The contract wording should be maintained in some form as well as the policy regarding gov't hiring of long term unemployed, the latter of which should be the least controversial of all.

There was some criticism from Nix and others that the payroll tax holiday for the long term unemployed would be an inefficient means to achieve the desired end. In that case I suggest looking at alternatives if it is deemed to be so by the majority here.

Certainly none can doubt the problem of Long-term unemployment, and at the vary least some of the components of this should be maintained and certainly not wholesale repealed as is the case with the bill presently before the Senate. We are short on bills as I last checked and this provides the opportunity for the administration to pass a bill that rather can steps back in regards to the issue, addresses it more-forcefully/effectively.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

shua's original bill was only the payroll tax holiday. Onto that we tacked on other things deemed harmful to the long-term unemployed, including the high minimum wage schedules. It was always my intent at least, as a compensatory measure for the Nixcome to be increased as a substitute, even before the Long-Term Unemployment Bill was drafted. The problem was that said bill dragged on far longer and it had to be left for a subsequent bill as inevitably paying for it/adjusting the formular would be somewhat complicated.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would there by any interest on the part of the Senators, particularly those of Labor for such an alternative approach as I previously described?

I have usually been supportive of most all of minimum wage policies that have come throguh here. I think it serves a purpose in spite of the consequences that it has and I know the difficulties when you don't earn enough to pay the bills. But that said it does have negative attributes and if an alternative is possible, which should seek to utilize that instead, as opposed to remaining glued to the same imperfect approach. Afterall, what was the purpose of the Nixcome in the first place, if we aren't going to utilize it as the umbrella or broad approach to ensure that people have a living income? A living wage has a role to play as a part of that puzzle particularly in the short term, but it was not to be the whole affair and over time should become less and less a relative portion of that policy as money and resources allow for the utilization of other more efficient means to achieve the amounts targed for by the Minimum Income formula.

This Senate seems to be rather lifeless I must say (nine slots or so and little to no interest on virtually everything), so why not have a debate both on the Nixcome formula and the means by which to pay for such?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think we should determine it by a percentage. The present minimum wage is 12.50 plus whatever indexing has come into effect.

How about 10-5-5-5?
So a 10% increase the first year in the minimum wage would have yielded 1.30 more an hour followed by by 5% the years to follow for the next three years would add 65 cents a year for the next three years.

$2,058 +$1,014, + $1,014 + $1,014 for a total of $5,100 more a year at the end of four years.

So you would adjust the formula by X amount during year one to get that 2,058 and then by y amount each year for the next three to get that $1,014.

And if you are interested, the equivalent of the FLSA schedule would be $1.50 the first year followed by a $1.00 each year afterwards so $2,340+1560*3= $7,020 more a year at the end of four years. The formula would then be adjusted similarly.

TJ drew up the formula as a I recall that we ended up using and shua has provided me with necessary formulas since then and he is gone for three more days. Lumine can you provide an assistance in this regard?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As one of the Senators who voted for this, I must say that repealing this bill does not look like the right way to me as well. That said, I am interested in taking an alternative road as Yankee has already suggested. I know I'm being vague in this, but what do think would be a reasonable increase in order to address this, Yankee? (to get a measure of the spending involved)

Do you realize that the senate who voted this bill is exactly the same senate that we have today?

Duke/Cinci have been just replaced by DemPGH/Windjammer!

Well atleast all the seats were somewhat contested, even if they kept the same people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Furthermore, I will ABSOLUTELY not accept a drop in the minimum wage without an increase in basic income.

Would you have voted for the previous act, had it contained such an increase in the same bill?

Also it was our goal to avoid drops in "minimum income" (broadly defined here to include minimum wage). The simple fact is that regardless of intent, the minimum wage is a double edged sword and once raised beyond a certain point, it undeniably serves to exclude people from the work force. The argument in my view is not whether or not this is true, but to what extent it can safely be raised without hitting such. The data saying it is "safe" deals with small increases from the low RL US minimum wage and it would be foolish to think the same data applying to an incease from 7.25 to 9.15 or 10.10, would also likewise apply for a change from 12.50 to 18. The increase to 10.10 is slightly higher in percentage terms but it is from a lower base relative to the whole economy. Lastly we must consider where we are at present in terms of unemployment and inflation, which are both worse than real life as well.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The present statute is $12.50 indexed to inflation as of I think Spring 2013. That means depending on the inflation index and the intervals, it could be higher then 12.50 by now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If we want to revisit the minimum wage, perhaps we shouldn't throw out the rest of the Act, too.

Furthermore, I will ABSOLUTELY not accept a drop in the minimum wage without an increase in basic income.

Thought you've been a long time supporter of the abolition in the Minimum Wage. =/ ?

The minimum wage is an economic inefficiency, but a necessary one so long as workers aren't receiving enough money some other way, simply put.

So I would support dropping the minimum wage if I would be convinced that workers could still maintain a livelihood.

Would a negative income tax not suffice to provide the same benefits without that innefficiency?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, because a negative income tax is not a universal basic income grant.

TNF, such could be combined with other programs to produce a minimum income guarrantee as was disussed when we debated the Nixcome as being an eventual objective or goal. Perhaps I misunderstood those discussion, but it was my understanding that the minimum income would eventually form an umbrella under which multiple facets would come together ensure a litteral minimum income through one program or another or through more then one to ensure X amount was received.  

In fact, I recall it even being discussed that we could use the minimum wage in conjunction with various programs and the negative income tax the forms the basis of the Nixcome, to formulate a minimum income guarrantee initially to sort of phase it in. As I see it, we are just shifting the load from one leg to a another in regards to that original intended outcome.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would also point out that the minimum wage is not a basic income grant either because you don't get it unless you have a job obviously.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "basic income grant", TNF.

My understanding of it is as described above, an initially limited program that sought to supplement other forms of income and reduce, even elminate use of various other more traditional assistance program. The is no reason such could not thus be extended and expanded in lieu of further minimum wage hikes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As one of the Senators who voted for this, I must say that repealing this bill does not look like the right way to me as well. That said, I am interested in taking an alternative road as Yankee has already suggested. I know I'm being vague in this, but what do think would be a reasonable increase in order to address this, Yankee? (to get a measure of the spending involved)

Do you realize that the senate who voted this bill is exactly the same senate that we have today?

Duke/Cinci have been just replaced by DemPGH/Windjammer!

Well atleast all the seats were somewhat contested, even if they kept the same people.

I guess I love giving myself self-importance, even with such a useless claim, xD

It is now not so useless, by a factor of 2

It was easier for me with the original Fritzcare. There were only two of us to start who voted no and then MAsterJedi resigned two months later.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A universal basic income grant is just what it sounds like: a universal grant, to everyone. Everyone would receive a lump sum of money every year for use on whatever they wish. I think that should be enough to bring them over the poverty line and allow them to live comfortably, which is why I would want it set at at least $30,000, subject to no tax, and adjusted with inflation.

What is the practical difference between that and a negative income tax calculated to bring bring people up to a certain level, augmenting what they recieve through other sources?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A universal basic income grant is just what it sounds like: a universal grant, to everyone. Everyone would receive a lump sum of money every year for use on whatever they wish. I think that should be enough to bring them over the poverty line and allow them to live comfortably, which is why I would want it set at at least $30,000, subject to no tax, and adjusted with inflation.

What is the practical difference between that and a negative income tax calculated to bring bring people up to a certain level, augmenting what they recieve through other sources?

The practical difference is that not everyone benefits from an NIT, while everyone benefits from a BIG.

What is the criteria? Surely we shouldn't not litteraly be handing everyone $30,000 dollars, some out there have it already several times over and we should focus our resources on those who need it most.

Is there any other criteria of exclusion from an NIT?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Is there a purpose behind discussing the same thing in two different bills? If not we should axe one of them I think.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is more important TNF? Boosting the minimum wage, or boosting the living standards and incomes of the poor and working class?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is more important TNF? Boosting the minimum wage, or boosting the living standards and incomes of the poor and working class?

There's no reason why we can't do both.

What should a means to an end be as important as the end itself, especialyl when said means has drawbacks that could be avoided by going a different route?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

20 hour work week are you guys actually serious? I hope some Senators have some sense to reject this nonsense.

Atlasia fell off the deep end long before this.

I still haven't come to turns with 32 hours, so you can be sure I won't support less than that guys.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Minimal posting the last two days here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Minimal posting the last two days here.

It can always get worse and it did.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye


But for the same reason that Alfred voted no. If we are going to "revisit" then we should free the slot up until that time, particularly if that is after this Trial run project in the other bill being discussed.