Talk:Reconstruction Incentive Scheme, 650
From The Kodiak Republic Wiki
Reconstruction Incentive Scheme, 650 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 02/28/2023 8:46 AM
Tabled by John Edwards, MGA, KWP, Minister of Justice, as a Government sponsored bill. Reconstruction Incentive Scheme, 650 A resolution to help with the post-war reconstruction of the Darrent region. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Reconstruction_Incentive_Scheme,_650 Proposed by John Edwards, MGA, KWP. Voting is presently set for 14 March 2023 The Kodiak Republic Wiki Reconstruction Incentive Scheme, 650 . Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 02/28/2023 8:47 AM
@Assembly Member This resolution is now open for discussion. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/28/2023 8:54 PM The hope is that we can bolster the number of workers on reconstruction efforts with willing participants from the homeless population, providing housing, jobs and training in the process. It will also help to reduce the nation's homeless. Thoughts? Alfonso Sadurin — 02/28/2023 9:26 PM I would like to oppose the scheme on the basis that could there be private companies who have experience in handling reconstruction projects that can be tasked to manage this big initiative. I am concerned that the Ministry might not have enough experts for this large undertaking. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 02/28/2023 9:28 PM I think it is mainly about providing the homeless with jobs, the reconstruction is a benefit. Comparable to the real life CCC, which worked spectacularly. Alfonso Sadurin — 02/28/2023 9:30 PM Nothing against providing homeless with jobs, but I hope the Ministry of Commerce is equipped.
OOC: Don't we have a Ministry of Public Works? Luik Oule [KWP] — 02/28/2023 9:44 PM To answer your question about the Ministries, no we do not have a Minister of Public Works, which could be a possible future project.please refer to John's post as I got that wrong 😂 Alfonso Sadurin — 02/28/2023 9:44 PM Ah, fair. Then, I approve of this Incentive Scheme. John Edwards [KWP] — 02/28/2023 10:12 PM It falls under the ministry of Commerce & Labour. von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/01/2023 5:49 AM Maybe it's easier for us to introduce universal labor service? The resources raised from it can be used not only to solve problems with the homeless, but also for subsequent problems. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/01/2023 7:45 AM Maybe we should outlaw unemployment and make them work in penal labor instead? Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/01/2023 7:49 AM Outlawing unemployment is one of the worst ideas that I have ever heard. This bill is meant to provide easy employment to the homeless unemployed, not punish them. Good Day Kodiak — 03/01/2023 7:54 AM Not sure how correct this actually is but seems believable enough
No it would not really work. Economics tells us there is a natural level of unemployment (NAIRU) caused by seasonal changes and technological progress. This is usually around 5%.
So if everyone was given a job who wanted one we would be at 100% employment, which has dangerous consequences. Inflation would become a huge problem that could destroy the economy. Think rising prices and currency depreciation.
There are quite a few issues besides inflation too. For instance, game theory shows us that some threat of unemployment is essential for employees to work efficiently and productively. If there is no threat of unemployment then workers will slack off and the economy as a whole will slow down. Why? Because if they get fired then they can simply find a job somewhere else.
Ultimately, pursuing full employment beyond the natural rate is a dangerous and potentially harmful policy.
-stolen from Reddit under a discussion about Amworks von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/01/2023 8:18 AM Well, no kidding, I think that a more fundamental solution to the problem would be the introduction of universal labor service for several reasons: 1) This will help us to mobilize the necessary resources to build a strong and healthy economy in which there is a place for everyone, including the poor. 2) This will be another effective tax on the rich and not only. They will work and produce goods that we will send to the poor. 3) We will gain experience of an extended state economy, which will help to build a balanced economy in the future and avoid structural crises due to the competent redistribution of labor resources between sectors of the economy. So far we cannot do this due to the lack of necessary knowledge.
These three advantages, in my opinion, can give us an impetus to a qualitatively different way of organizing and regulating the economy. What are your counterarguments? Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/01/2023 8:20 AM Quick clarification, by universal labor do you mean forcing everyone to work or offering jobs to everyone unemployed, not just the homeless? von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/01/2023 8:23 AM I mean forced labor, which, of course, will be in reasonable amounts and imply incentives for those who work better than necessary and administrative measures for those who do work worse than necessary. Luik Oule [KWP] — 03/01/2023 8:25 AM I do believe that is in violation of the Kodiak Universal Rights Act, article 5, clause 2, which states that "No person shall be required to perform forced or otherwise compulsory labour." von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/01/2023 8:30 AM In this case, the "Universal Labor Service" turns into "A new tax that can be paid either with money, or with goods, or with labor" Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/01/2023 8:34 AM I think that expanding the scope of the bill to include all unemployed but prioritize the homeless is a good idea, but forced labour is inhumane. von Zeppelin [FED] — 03/01/2023 8:43 AM It is not forced labor that is inhumane, but labor that is harmful to health, physical and psychological. After all, the labor service will not force you to carry bricks if you are disabled. Is 5 hours of work per week of the type of street cleaning, supervision of the elderly/invplids, joint finishing of houses anti-humanistic? I think not. We just need to correctly and intelligently prescribe all the conditions. Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/01/2023 9:32 AM I think I speak for a lot of the Assembly when I say no bill including forced labour should be passed. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/01/2023 9:45 AM While offering universal labour, which I assume is a service that is optional in this case (i.e., offered, not forced), is an option. There are a some blockers.
1) Labour, work, projects, etc, cannot materialise from nowhere so even simply offering the service doesn't guarantee anything.
Counter to 1) however, I can say that the government is looking into creating work through the organisation of various state funded projects (as well as in partnership with local industry), such as large infrastructure projects that will require labour.
This leads me to the blocker 2) We unfortunately do not have unlimited funds so the idea of universal labour is not a sustainable program in perpetuity. At least not now. Perhaps a similar program in the future when conditions are better and government revenue and debt improves, or at least the ability to offer job seekers temporary work through the state.
With that said, tying back into 1) - at this point looking into funding projects that require state employed labour is perhaps a more suitable option at this time.
In any case, I'll let Minister Edwards speak to his intentions, but I do believe that this bill isn't a "address the entire unemployment issue", but rather aid the homeless in providing trained work that they can utilise later, whilst simultaneously providing additional labour for rebuilding efforts and infrastructure projects. So we may be getting ahead of ourselves. That said, rest assured that we are working on implementing policy regarding our massive unemployment issues, and poor economy - but the GA should expect these policies to come in chunks rather than a super policy that will aim to 'fix it entirely'. John Edwards [KWP] — 03/01/2023 9:46 AM I will clarify that the bill under discussion is entirely voluntary and I will not be seeking to change that aspect of it. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/01/2023 9:50 AM This is not something that will ever be considered by this administration also. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/01/2023 12:37 PM
People seem to be against this idea of "forced labor". Do they understand what happens inside our prisons? Mivod Hlaja [KWP] — 03/01/2023 6:03 PM I didn't see anything mentioning labour in the Prisons Act. Am I missing something? Alfonso Sadurin — 03/01/2023 7:49 PM Is that something that should be subjected to Parliamentary Inquiry? Is the Assembly President implying that the Government is running a penal work camp? Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/01/2023 8:14 PM
I'm stating that all prisons have labor, and they are by definition, acts of forced labor, even if it's just working in the laundry. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/01/2023 8:33 PM "It's doing household chores" Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/01/2023 9:07 PM
It’s forced labor by definition. Inmates don’t have the choice to say no or the ability to walk away, which is why if a guard has sex with an inmate, it’s never consensual, it’s coerced rape. This is all off topic though John Edwards [KWP] — 03/01/2023 9:45 PM Labour in the prison system is not one that is connected to this bill. We are looking to recruit, voluntarily, homeless persons willing to retrain into construction so we can bolster the workforce. At a time where extensive post war reconstruction is ongoing, any boost is to be sought. Alfonso Sadurin — 03/01/2023 10:08 PM Yes, the intent is not force everyone to work. It is provide work for those who want to work. But in addition, may I request that there be a provision for a subsidy for households who are still grappling with the devastation Some might not have able-bodied workers to provide for the families. John Edwards [KWP] — 03/01/2023 10:30 PM Like a relief fund? That's certainly possible (and indeed likely) but should probably be a bill on its own. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 03/03/2023 3:33 PM Prison labor will likely have to be restructured to be more humane, but that is a topic for another bill. I think this scheme is important for the continued development of the Darrent post-war and should be enacted as soon as possible. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/07/2023 9:10 AM
If there is no other discussion in the next 24 hours, this will be moved to vote W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/07/2023 8:51 PM I've gone ahead and pencilled in a by-line The Public Service
to this channel. See all
pinned messages .
— 03/07/2023 8:52 PM
John Edwards [KWP] — 03/07/2023 11:16 PM Slight update needed, it's got me listed as Chancellor, no longer the case! Tried changing it from my phone but problematic. I'll update it when I get back. Any other issues on this bill specifically? W Magnus Ward (NUP) — 03/08/2023 12:16 AM You were chancellor when you proposed it though, assuming the year is correct. Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 03/08/2023 12:22 AM Year should be updated to 651 then I think, since it was sent to the President at that time, and John was Minister of Justice, L&O by then in that case! Good observations :) John Edwards [KWP] — 03/08/2023 2:07 AM I started it when I was Chancellor but didn't get around to proposing it until after the election. Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/08/2023 7:35 AM
Sounds like it was the authors mistake 😛 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/10/2023 2:55 PM
if there is no other discussion in the next 24 hours, this will move forward to a vote Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/11/2023 2:57 PM
Hearing no other discussion, voting will opened momentarily. No further discussion will be permitted, voting is open for 72 hours. EasyPoll BOT
— 03/11/2023 2:58 PM
Question Do you approve of the Reconstruction Incentive Scheme?
Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain
Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [17 • 77%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 9%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [3 • 14%] 22 users voted
- alarm_clock: Poll already ended (2 days ago)
- spy: Anonymous Poll
- one: allowed choice
- lock: No other votes allowed
Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 13003544 Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/11/2023 2:58 PM
@Assembly Member Klaus Mikaelson OP
— 03/14/2023 4:51 PM
With 17 votes in favor, 2 against and 3 abstentions, this proposal is declared passed, and shall be archived in 24 hours.