Under this bill, all existing state-legislation on minimum wage will be superseded with a national minimum wage. This will be set in the following manner:
Age 15-21 - £4.50
Age 21+ - £7 an hour

This will be the nationally mandated minimum to be paid to workers, however, states may choose, if they so wish, to set the minimum wage higher than this.

While the economy may still be in a relatively fragile state, the fact remains that social issues in Ostentia are still a rarely-addressed issue. If we increase the money going to the lowest rung of society we can help everyone by improving their quality of life.

Those in the 15-21 bracket will be limited to a maximum of fifteen hours work per week on the understanding that it does not interfere with their schooling or education. Those in the aged twenty-one and over will have unlimited working hours.

This bill only sets out MINIMUM standards. States are free to adjust these as necessary provided they are not decreases below the minimum threshold.
[/bill]
I expect this to be opposed by the CenCons, as they've publicly stated opposition to a minimum wage :P...

1. I thought we already had a minimum wage. :blink:

2. If we don't, and if our economy is still in recession (which I doubt - I'm not sure why the idea has re-emerged suddenly) then this would be dangerous: yes, while it would improve the income of a lot of low-income workers, it would also leave many low-income workers unemployed as companies are forced to lay off staff to deal with the sudden increase in their pay roll. Furthermore, it would damage the competitivity of our workforce, making it less attractive to foreign investment, therefore damaging our economy. If our economy was currently growing at a steady rate, then I'd support introducing it, but as it isn't, I think this is a bad idea.

There's already minimum wage, yes, but it's all performed at a state level, there's no national legislation on it. If a state decided it'd have no minimum wage, it'd have no minimum wage. Does that sound fair to you? You're prioritising the economy over people by opposing this...

No I'm not. This bill will increase the number of unemployed people. I therefore oppose it.

You can't even say that for sure. It certainly didn't happen when we introduced a minimum wage in the UK...

That's because we did it during the middle of an economic boom, when the economy was expanding and there were plenty of jobs for everyone.

It's simple logic that introducing this will cause unemployment to rise. If a company is currently only just turning over a profit, and is suddenly faced with a rise in costs as a result of this bill, it will have to shed jobs.

Furthermore, foreign companies currently basing their manufacturing in Ostentia will suddenly find their operations here less profitable and would relocated to cheaper countries.


Let me make this clear: I am not opposed to the concept of a minimum wage, merely the introduction of it at this time.

I support the motion. (Obviously)

And I'm still mixed on the whole free trade thing. I still worry about monopolies. Getting rid of the worst of tariffs and things like makes sense, but a whole free market goes hand in hand with oppression of the majority.

Very well. I shall move this in the event that the economy rating rises this term. Should it fall, I'll shelve it until it DOES get better. I'm quite confident I won't have to shelve it though...

I have a point I'd like to make, if I may?

I don't know about the hours people are allowed to work, but there may be some worth in introducing laws about the hours a week you can work based on age in this bill, on the basis that a company may employ 15-18 year olds, rather than those older, on the basis of profit.

Economy went up. Bumping for final discussion...

Why limit the hours of workers aged 18-21? They're legal adults then and don't need that sort of meddling.

As DMHowe pointed out, they're cheaper and this could be abused...

As above.

If anything, the fact that they have a lower minimum wage means that they should be allowed to work longer hours. After all, they need to earn a living somehow.

CenCons, I like it.

Oppose. Sorry, the free market can decide minimum wage.

Okay, delimited the hours for aged 18+...

*still unhappy*

Why does the 18-21 group have a lower minimum wage anyway?

Based it on the UK model...

That's an excuse, not an argument. ;)

It's not an excuse, it's my rationale for putting it in...

Still not an argument though.

*remains opposed*

What's wrong with it? It's just a transitional/development fee for those who aren't quite in full adulthood yet, but require more than children. If I removed it and just had a two-tiered system would you be less opposed?...

Make it two tiered: under 18 and 18+. There's no reason whatsoever to have a special rule for 18-21 year olds.

Ah! I just realised why there's the middle bracket. It's those who have part-time jobs. They're not exactly paper-rounds, but it's people our age who need more money than those who are younger. But not as much as those who have "proper" jobs. It's for part-timers really. Whatever, it seems to matter to you so much so I removed it...

Well you could put it back for just part-time jobs - my objection was that a lot of people our age need full time jobs. :rolleyes: