The Fair Wage and Community Revitalization Act (reintroduced)

[Colin]

Aye

[Colin]

I was just looking through the Senate Procedural Resolutions and I believe that this bill may be bordering on containing two divorced subjects which is not allowed without the consent of the Presiding Officer, as per the Senate Procedural Resolution on Multiple Issue Bills. I call on the PPT to turn this bill into two seperate bills. One dealing with the minimum wage and one dealing with the Renaissance Zones since I consider the two things divorced subjects, although you could argue that they are under the subject of helping the poor they are not related in any visible way. Now as per the Resolution this is the call of the PPT, I just believe that section 1 as compared to the rest of the bill could be said to be divorced from main feature of the legislation which is the creation of Renaissance Zones.

[Gabu]

I was just looking through the Senate Procedural Resolutions and I believe that this bill may be bordering on containing two divorced subjects which is not allowed without the consent of the Presiding Officer, as per the Senate Procedural Resolution on Multiple Issue Bills. I call on the PPT to turn this bill into two seperate bills. One dealing with the minimum wage and one dealing with the Renaissance Zones since I consider the two things divorced subjects, although you could argue that they are under the subject of helping the poor they are not related in any visible way. Now as per the Resolution this is the call of the PPT, I just believe that section 1 as compared to the rest of the bill could be said to be divorced from main feature of the legislation which is the creation of Renaissance Zones.

I think that this is a good idea; however, I'll wait until the current amendment up for voting passes or fails before splitting it up to make things easier.

[12th Doctor]

Oh, come on.  The connection between the two subjects of this ammendment is clear and undisputable.  If we applied this standard to all legislation, we would have a Hell of a time passing anything.

[Gabu]

The connection between the two subjects of this ammendment is clear and undisputable.

Amendment?  We're talking about the full bill.

At any rate, Section 1 of this bill seems to be, by far, the major focus for debate and arguments, and the other sections seem to be completely ignored.  I don't see why it'd be a bad thing to allow those who don't like Section 1 but like the rest of the bill to vote against Section 1 while voting in favor of the rest of the of it.

[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.

[12th Doctor]

The connection between the two subjects of this ammendment is clear and undisputable.

Amendment?  We're talking about the full bill.

At any rate, Section 1 of this bill seems to be, by far, the major focus for debate and arguments, and the other sections seem to be completely ignored.  I don't see why it'd be a bad thing to allow those who don't like Section 1 but like the rest of the bill to vote against Section 1 while voting in favor of the rest of the of it.

I meant to say bill.

And, as Eric said, it is a comprehensive bill.

[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.

[MHS2002]

Aye on the new Amendment.

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

[Gabu]

And, as Eric said, it is a comprehensive bill.

Well, half the people think it is and half don't.

I dunno, if the compromise of an automatic repeal passes, then it's probably fine to leave it as a large chunk.  If it doesn't, however, then I'm not so sure.  We'll see.

[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.

[WMS]

ABSTAIN on Sam Spade's latest Amendment. It's a good idea, but it needs to be worked on a bit like Super indicated.

[Gabu]

ABSTAIN on Sam Spade's latest Amendment. It's a good idea, but it needs to be worked on a bit like Super indicated.

If you think it needs work, you could always vote for it and then propose an amendment for it.

[WMS]

ABSTAIN on Sam Spade's latest Amendment. It's a good idea, but it needs to be worked on a bit like Super indicated.

If you think it needs work, you could always vote for it and then propose an amendment for it.

Well, I'm hoping Super comes up with an amendment so it isn't so arbitrary. I'm not clear myself on exactly how I would word such an amendment, though, which is why I haven't posted one of my own.

[WMS]

ABSTAIN on Sam Spade's latest Amendment. It's a good idea, but it needs to be worked on a bit like Super indicated.

If you think it needs work, you could always vote for it and then propose an amendment for it.

Well, I'm hoping Super comes up with an amendment so it isn't so arbitrary. I'm not clear myself on exactly how I would word such an amendment, though, which is why I haven't posted one of my own.

*new part*And below is what I want Sam and Super to thresh out between them.

Nay on Senator Spades Second Amendment.

Anything, like, say, a terroist attack could cause that to happen.  This needs to be drastically ammended to gain my support.  Perhapes a slight drop.  Not a return to the status quo.

Would you be for it if I put in such language to say that a terrorist attack on the US would have to happen in the span of one year prior to one of these conditions being met and defined what a terrorist attack is?

I would like to see less of a reduction (perhaps half) on the minimum wage and an "unusual circumstances" provision.

[12th Doctor]

I'll come up with something more specific eventually.  Definatly by tomorrow.

[12th Doctor]

My Ammendement:

Clause 4
If at any time within the next 3 years, either one of these two things occur...

1. Three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, as reported by the Commerce Department.

2. Unemployment numbers grow above 7% for three consecutive quarters, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The minimum wage increase proposed in Clause 1 will become null and void and the minimum wage will return be reduced by $0.15/hour every quarter, but shall not be reduced to less than $5.50/hour.  This till continue until either the minimun wage becomes %5.50/hour or until economic GDP growth resumes or the unemployment rate drops.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, first.  We still have two Senators (MAS117 and "Senator" Naso) to vote on my amendment before this one can be bandied about.  Please do. 

Now onto Super's amendment:

My Ammendement:

Clause 4
If at any time within the next 3 years, either one of these two things occur...

1. Three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, as reported by the Commerce Department.

2. Unemployment numbers grow above 7% for three consecutive quarters, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The minimum wage increase proposed in Clause 1 will become null and void and the minimum wage will return be reduced by $0.15/hour every quarter, but shall not be reduced to less than $5.50/hour.  This till continue until either the minimun wage becomes %5.50/hour or until economic GDP growth resumes or the unemployment rate drops.

First, why three consecutive quarters? 

I put in two consecutive quarters, because two consecutive quarters is the financial world's standard definition of a "recession".

Technically, we have not had two consecutive quarters of negative growth since late 1991 or early 1992 (I can't remember).  We also have not had two consecutive quarters of the unemployment rate being above 7% since sometime around then also.

Even the period post-9/11, which was commonly assumed to be a recession, we did not have two quarters of negative growth.

Do we need to say: "Well, y'all are having a recession, but we at the federal government can't be sure that y'all are in a recession until we really, really know you're in a recession."

Second, and this is technical.  If you declare the minimum wage increase null and void, there is nothing for you to lower one bit.  I'd suggest that you strike that wording from the statement, so it comes out more like this:

The minimum wage increase proposed in Clause 1 will be reduced by $0.15/hour every quarter, but shall not be reduced to less than $5.50/hour.  This will continue until either the minimun wage becomes $5.50/hour or until economic GDP growth resumes or the unemployment rate drops.

The compromise I will agree to (though I can't speak for everyone else), is the language above, with the correction of bringing it back to two consecutive quarters of negative growth or unemployment as so stated above.

If you were to add a simple terrorism clause as I mentioned earlier, I would agree to that also.

[12th Doctor]

Revised:

Clause 4
If at any time within the next 3 years, either one of these two things occur...

1. Three consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, as reported by the Commerce Department.

2. Unemployment numbers grow above 7% for three consecutive quarters, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The minimum wage increase proposed in Clause 1 will be reduced by $0.15/hour every quarter, but shall not be reduced to less than $5.50/hour.  This will continue until either the minimun wage becomes $5.50/hour or until economic GDP growth resumes or the unemployment rate drops.

[MAS117]

I cant keep track here, which one do I need to vote on.

[Sam Spade]

I cant keep track here, which one do I need to vote on.

Clause 4
If at any time within the next 3 years, either one of these two things occur...

1. Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, as reported by the Commerce Department.

2. Unemployment numbers grow above 7% for two consecutive quarters, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The minimum wage increase proposed in Clause 1 will become null and void and the minimum wage will return to its present level of $5.15/hr.

[Platypus]

no way am I going to vote on reducing the miniomum wage, and if that amendment passes i'll vote against the bill.


Atlasia already has one of the lowest wage limits in the Western world.

[12th Doctor]

no way am I going to vote on reducing the miniomum wage, and if that amendment passes i'll vote against the bill.


Atlasia already has one of the lowest wage limits in the Western world.

Hugh, it is only a precausion, just in case this has a negative effect on the economy.  Under no condition would it fall back under $5.50.  That is, if we pass my ammendment.

[Platypus]

$5.50 US (presuming Atlasia is pegged to the US dollar)=$6.92725 Aussie, less then I earn ($8.50) at a Fish and Chip shop as a minor with no dependants.

*I* find it hard to keep track of my money. Imagine a woman with three kids all under ten, working from 7am till 8pm as a cleaning lady. She's worked for 13 hours for $71.50, which has to pay for petrol (if she has a car), food, clothing, rent...

I can't accept a $5.50 minimum wage. It is, quite frankly, appalling.