Here I am again, asking my fellow noggers for help...

Not exactly equal to the sixth draft... more like 6.1!

All grammar nazifying, ideas, suggestions, syntax, and adaptation for haiku are welcome...


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

HAILING its work in ensuring ever greater social justice for all & a better life for workers & their families;

CONSIDERING that there is much yet to be done; that there are not enough international guarantees under which a basis of security & prosperity can be established;

WORKING to protect people from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents & unemployment;

ESTABLISHES that:

1) Social security shall guarantee that in the terms of this act, benefits be dispensed to all workers & their families, in national currency or nationally accepted forms of wealth; nations or any assigned political divisions shall retain full freedom to:

a ) Allow or disallow the participation of private enterprise in social security;
b ) Partner with other nations to create a joint social security system if they so choose.

2) Individuals shall have full access to information relating to social security’s management. Social security shall be financed by national budgets or the budgets of assigned political divisions, as well as other existing private voluntary sources;

3) Social security systems shall dispense benefits according to any of the following:

a ) Old age, illness, disability and/or involuntary unemployment;
b ) Parental leave, when a child and/or other dependant is born or adopted into a worker's household;
c ) Bereavement leave, after the death of one’s child, spouse, parent and/or sibling;
d ) Pension for death to at least one surviving spouse and/or next-of-kin;
e ) Allowances to care for a sick relative and/or spouse.

4) Benefits:

a ) No benefit shall be lower than the national living wage or the international one, whichever is higher; readjustments shall be performed on a permanent basis, in order to preserve benefits’ actual buying value;
b ) All contributions considered for calculation of benefits & to ensure social security solvency shall be duly updated, as provided by national laws.

5) Retirement is a lifelong benefit a worker receives upon permanent withdrawal from said worker's remunerated employment; it shall be ensured by social security, provided that at least one of the following conditions is met:

a ) Incapacitating illness and/or disability;
b ) A nation-defined contribution time equivalent to a maximum of forty percent of average life expectancy;
c ) Age equivalent to a maximum of eighty percent of average life expectancy, which for professions known for hard physical labor shall be reduced by seven percent of average life expectancy.

6) A nation’s social security benefits can be extraordinarily & temporarily suspended if at least three-fourths of said nation’s population have lost their livelihoods; in which case international organizations devoted to humanitarian causes shall prioritize food & clothing distribution to those who otherwise would be receiving social security benefits, which shall resume as soon as normalcy is restored.

No...just no.

Errmm... Thanks for your help. Much appreciated.


EDIT: The NS drafting thread - http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=63503

Perhaps the Palentine is bothered by the concept of the WA micromanaging members' welfare programs, and think it's incredibly unnecessary...speaking of which, why is this necessary?

You cannot name it "Social Security", as that term has specific connotations in the United States. If you want to avoid questions like "we take great care of our elderly and need no help from the WA" or "why should the WA start taking 15% of our paychecks each week?!", you'll name it something else.

Hm. I see. I did not know that the term was that politically charged in the U.S... Thanks, that insight is appreciated. Will think of something else.

As for its necessity (or lack thereof), from a strictly NatSov point of view, it isn't. From an IntFed point of view, its absence is unconscionable. I fully expect this to fall between strictly ideological lines, for passage or defeat.

EDIT: I had thought earlier in the debate about "Social Protection", but it took me two miliseconds to realise that would abbreviate to SP. So, no.

It is very politically charged in America, and while I don't know all the exact differences between the U.S. Social Security system and social security in the rest of the Western world, I do know that the American Social Security debate is something you'll want to avoid. ;)

That and he's already gotten a "we take good enough care of our elderly" lecture, from me actually.

Personally, I don't think this idea really ought to get off the ground in the first place. The economies that can actually handle it will be forced to implode in a few years' time if implemented, and the economies that can't will be DOA.

That and I'm trying to resist a "Taters" joke that wouldn't even make sense to anyone other than myself.


Oh, and you don't want people chopping off a family member's fingers so they can get free government money.

From an Australian perspective, it's been strange reading about America's national health insurance argument, but I'd better not get into that. Just, we've got it, had it for most of my lifetime -- before that we had State-based free hospital systems, one of them supported by a State-run lottery, which Knoot would no doubt love -- and the sky hasn't fallen. Still, to the prop ...

Is "social welfare" as toxic a term, in US eyes, as "social security"?

What's an "assigned political division" ... *narrows eyes* a region?

Why have you put in that bit about "benefits be dispensed ... in national currency or nationally accepted forms of wealth"? Not doing an Eirrann Fae, just wondering. Have you had bad reports of voucher systems or the British system of doctors' "lists" or tax rebates or any other ways of dispensing it? Like, why specify "currency or ... forms of wealth"?

Re (4)(a), that "No benefit shall be lower than the national living wage or the international one" seems to me to rule out occasional benefits, such as a baby bonus or a yearly child endowment/family benefit payment or textbook allowance, all of which are extra helps for people with kids in RW Australia, but don't come within cooee of the official basic wage. Also, wouldn't it cut out sliding scale benefits adjusted according to the recipient's yearly income or property holdings? Or did you mean to do that?

Re 5c, professions known for hard physical labour? Mining engineer, archaeologist, maybe, but hard physical labour usually implies a lack of "profession" -- "occupations" might get the point across.

Inty, asking this in all innocence, not being an economist: why does a social security system imply economic disaster? Or is it just SP's social security system that does? Or is that a shrewd NS player comment based on your assessment of how hard a Social Justice/Strong proposal hits the stats?

Am I reading this wrong or is unemployment benefit required to be paid at the same rate as the national living wage?

Health care isn't part of Social Security anyway; Social Security is a federal pensions system.

No, that would be a very good name, actually.

First, thanks Ard :)

1) Nicely put. I worry that anything with "Welfare" on title will immediately turn off a lot or early vote-stompers, but whatever.

2) During Quality in Health Services, Krioval argued and Bears wanked about their nations being loose confederacies or whatever, with no central govt., with most functions being assigned/delegated to states/"clans". I thought it was a reasonable concession. (Krioval even voted for QHS! :blink: ) Of course, if language can be made less awkward, I'd deeply appreciate it!

3) That was a preemptive olive branch to wankers of Bears's and EF's carat. You see how well it went. Excised.

4) I've changed "no benefits" to "no wage-replacing benefits". Is the point clearer? As for other allowances, Charlotte had hinted at those before, but I didn't know how to incorporate that. Perhaps now as a "nations shall retain full freedom to (text about NOT wage-replacing benefits)" clause?

5) I've changed it.

6) I've changed the strength to "Significant".

To address that (fraud) what about:

Not at the same rate, but at least at the same rate... Is there a problem with that? :unsure:

I don't remember the exact things that I (Krioval's IC ambassador at the time - likely either Aleksei or Henrik) said, but I can certainly say that Krioval's sociopolitical situation is a delightful mess. Reconciling the central authority of the Krioval Senate and the clans/tribes keeps several Kriovallers gainfully employed, to say the least. When a WA resolution threatens that balance on some fundamental level, Krioval has to make at least a token objection on those grounds.

That said, if it's something that is likely to benefit Kriovaller society as a whole, Krioval votes for, and directs the various factions to work out a solution. Typically, the larger clans/tribes opt to run the programs to the best of their availability in their jurisdictions with Senate oversight, and the lesser (in political power) tribes let the Senate do its thing because a clan of 100 people can't administer a comprehensive healthcare system as well.

I mention this more as an insight into Kriovaller politics, and to address the issue of how Krioval can object to an onerous part of implementing the resolution while supporting its overall effect. Also, I try to avoid social divergence wank when possible. If I'm going to RP a society of primarily Pacific Islanders in space with Japanese, Russian, and Nordic immigrants creating a bizarre melting pot culture, I'm going to have to deal with the fact that the WA is primarily equipped to deal with Western-style republics in the modern age.

One problem is that there might be no incentive to get off the gravy train if the benefits are close to what one would make by actually you know...work. Just for this alone I'd vote against it. There is no incentive or time limit for a person to find a job and get off of the government dole. permanate government benefits crush a person's spirit. Furthermore just handing out money does not end poverty. Just look at America.Ever since Johnson declared a War on poverty and payed billions of dollars out in benefits poverty is still the same as it was in the 60's. In my home state, the region of Appalachia is still as poor as it was in 1964. Also all this welfare eroded the family unit of the recipients.

And yes, I don't like the idea of the Festering Snakepit coming in and procede to micromanage my nation's welfare programs.

I've thought about that as well, and still haven't come up with a solution...

But mind you, it was never my intention that this would end poverty, not in the slightest. Its intention is to give a helping hand to people suffering extreme hardship (which more often than not, comes unannounced). But I agree some (most?) people will fuck up things no matter what. That said, the sons shouldn't pay for the sins of the father.

It's not a problem really, but I do think there should be enough room to make living on state benefits on a long term basis an undesirable thing to do.


Governments should be able to incentivize work rather than create an under class (perhaps generations of this under class) of permanently unemployed people who become dependent upon benefits rather than seeking to obtain employment.

I agree that when people loose their job they should be assisted and helped to live in a dignified manner, but there should be room for governments to reduce benefits in the long term to essentially shove people back into the work force if necessary, there could be a requirement to spend more on re-training, further education, and apprenticeship schemes etc for long term unemployed people to help balance this.

Would it be feasible to subsidize work programs for the long-term unemployed? In my personal experience, I was being paid unemployment benefits from California for well over a year (and I could have kept going). I was pretty much willing to do *any* work just to get out of the house and not have a year-long gap on my resume, but I there were next to no jobs in my field, the "training" option in CA was a joke (start the program and then see if CA approves?!), and jobs outside my field were paying (before taxes) *less* than my benefits. If CA had decided to let me work for less but "top off" my pay so that I was making the same as if I were on unemployment, I would have been thrilled. Also, it would have depleted my "benefits pool" more slowly, making the federal extensions unnecessary.

Something that saved me: ARRA subsidized COBRA - for those outside the US, when you lose your job, you lose any health insurance that came with it. You can pay out-of-pocked to keep it, but it's usually expensive. Part of ARRA (the "stimulus" legislation) reduced the cost by 65% for nine months. For me, it was the difference of paying $400 versus $150 per month (expensive, but worth it considering my medical needs). I'm not sure that can be adapted into this legislation, since many nations in the NSverse probably don't use employer-funded health insurance.

I am not going to pretend to be that clever, Ard, or you might expect it of me in the future. :P

No, I'm making an observation based both on analysis of various RL governments' economic and legislative issues where their soc.sec. systems are concerned (France actually made me burst out laughing) and personally-conducted thought experiments for theoretical nations that probably do exist in the WA in some form or another. For details on the former, I encourage you to do your own research partly because I do not want to present myself as a thoroughly reliable source and partly because I'm lazy like that today. As to the latter, it's a matter of percentages and lifespans.

Say you have a nation with 100 years maximum life (I refuse to use "life expectancy" because that gets into too many issues with medical fields in which I am nowhere near adequately versed to discuss). That would make retirement at 80. At most, the government expects to pay out for every person over 80 for 15-20 years, 25 for the stubborn ones. Now let's watch them evolve over time. Soon their medical, evolutionary, and lifestyle management advances have changed that maximum life to around 130 years. Additionally, more people are actually reaching that age, especially if they've been breeding properly (and heaven help you if you have one or more boomer generations reaching that age at the same time). The government now has a heavier load to pay out, and if it hasn't been managed properly over the preceding years, it may not be capable of handling said load. Unfortunately, this resolution doesn't have a sliding scale. It treats a race of people who live to the age of 75 the same as a race of people who live for 9000 years. I can guarantee you that second category does not spend the last fifth of their life lazing about in a retirement home.

Why not change the fixed number, which has proven over time in real life to be a large source of the current problem with social security, to a vague phrase about state-determined "age of infirmity"? I assume it's the old and therefore infirm that you're wanting to address with that age requirement, Sionis.

As for

That could be dangerous in itself, as you'd open up the door for people to be denied benefits because some psychopath thought they were doing them a favor by injuring them to enable them to get benefits. It isn't their fault, nor did they ask for or even want it, so why should they be punished? Furthermore, all a jilted government pencil-pusher would have to do to have their ex's benefits denied out of spite would be to present a plausible enough case that the ex did it to themselves. Can of worms, right there...

Hmm. Inty, the projections are that Australia's social security system/age pensions will hold up through the Boomers' retirement, and the generations after that will benefit from the fiddling that successive governments have been doing with what amounts to compulsory superannuation for anyone who manages to hold down a job, with matched employer and government contributions plus voluntary (tax-reducing) employee contributions. State pensions will still be paid, but more people will accumulate enough super during their working life to be automatically excluded from the pensionable group or given only minimal cash benefits, though retaining all the non-cash perks of lower public transport costs, cheaper entry to practically everything, some medications subsidised, etc.

SP, for comparison of unemployment benefits: unemployed Australians are obliged to prove that they applied for (n) jobs in (n) period and risk losing benefits if they didn't (though they can reapply; it's not "never again"). The Howard government tried to make jobless people move to where there were jobs; since this would have effectively forced all the totally unskilled to go help the mining giants dig up Western Australia, which is hot, dry and miles from anywhere, it failed. All governments have been big on retraining schemes for folk hit by industry changes, and also for training that will take someone from unskilled to skilled. I think, though, that if employers find you totally unemployable you could stay on benefits indefinitely. I don't think there's anything like what Yelda would have liked, where you work in your industry keeping your skills honed and the government pays your wages.

And, yeah, I'm not pretending that it always works. There always seems to be somebody who knows somebody who's rorting the system hell, west and crooked. But, from what I saw when I was working for an MP, there are also a lot of people who'll dob in a welfare cheat anonymously.

Disability, age and unemployment payouts are linked to the basic wage, which is determined by a court, but I'm not sure what the percentage is. Anyway, if the cost of living goes up, the basic wage goes up and the pensions go up too.

I'm wondering if it might not be better to split up the employment (or lack thereof) related issues into a separate proposal to allow you to be more precise on each subject.

Disability could possibly also fit into that - i.e. disabled at work, disabled and no longer able to work at current job, etc.

Retirement stuff (and whatever else) could then be a second proposal.

If the work was actually constructive and productive, that wouldn't be bad. Unfortunately the way government works, the programs would probally consist of sending people out to dig hole in the ground and fill them up back again. Some people here in the USA laud the CCC of the FDR administration. However for every good job accomplished there was a lot of waste, make do work, and inefficiency.