Northeast Assembly Thread

[Dr. Cynic]

I want assurances in this bill that employees will be protected, in case the federal wage lowers...

[Dr. Cynic]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

[Dr. Cynic]

I would back this bill.

Quite surprising, even if apreciated. Could I ask you why ?

I see no need for the minimum wage in the Northeast to be different from the federal one. While I would like to see progress towards the abolition of the minimum wage (which puts an artificial price on labour and causes unemployment, especially among youths), this is a step in the right direction, I feel.

But there has to be a way to keep these people making a viable income. I've known too many people who weren't young folks making minimum wage. Living where I live and you see it. There has to be some kind of happy medium where people can make enough to support themselves and their family. Big corporations such as McDonald's and Wal-Mart do not only employ young people and there's no way either of them are going out of business any time soon, even if the minimum wage were say 13 dollars an hour. These corporations are so massive, that there's no way they go under. Smaller businesses, I could see it having an effect, which is why we offer incentives and certain breaks to protect them.

It's a shame that the market is swallowed up by such huge conglomerates, but if we lowered corporation tax as well, I'm sure we could encourage competition and thus put an upward pressure on wages.

Or it could blow up in our faces and just tighten the hold of these monopolies... As I said, I'm not opposed to helping smaller businesses, but these corporations are just so massive, I don't see that they need any help. Our help should be focused on those that make these places profitable through hard work. I've reformed and moderated my views on businesses. They're not all "bad guys", but I'm still going to side with smaller businesses and the working man over any corporation. I'm asking for the protection of thousands of workers who aren't just young people. You might say these are folks who've had some bad luck, well, maybe, but for the work they do, and for the money they pump into the economy, they deserve some protection.

The problem is, if you keep a high minimum wage, you are helping these oligopolies. Small business suffers because it isn't able to pay the wages and they go into a downward spiral until they go bust in many cases. If you want to help small business, a great aid to it would be to abolish or at least lower the minimum wage.

I believe in a living wage. People need to be able to survive. A poor person helps no one. Maybe what I'm wanting is a more efficent minimum wage that won't bankrupt smaller companies, but won't allow big corporations to get off scot-free. Because you know Wal-Mart, nor McDonald's, nor anyone of the big corporations for that matter, do not hesitate to keep those wages as low as possible. Thes places need to be held accountable for that.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to find such an equilibrium.

Then I'd rather protect those that need protecting rather than helping massive corporations profit. You see how I stand?... I would like worker protection in cases of a lower federal wage.

[Dr. Cynic]

This is a good bill. I don't have any alterations or amendments to propose and I'm ready to support this.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Support this, but Section C should be clarified to define "estimated damage" - perhaps the percentage of additional land cleared and not replenished should be factored into the profits made and that would be the cost of the fine. For example, if the company cleared a total of 100 hectares and only replenished 95 hectares, and earned in that time a total profit of $5 million, the fine would work out at double 5% of the total profits of $5,000,000, which would be $500,000 worth of fines. Perhaps also setting a minimum "per hectare" value of a fine, to prevent companies using creative accounting to post a loss in years in which they over-clear.

That'd be something worth adding. At least it wouldn't make things so open to cheating.

[Dr. Cynic]

What would suffice as a minimum fine per hectare?

Should depend on the size of the business... Say for small businesses 500 dollars, and on up..

[Dr. Cynic]

I simply don't know why we need heavy handed regulation of something that's working.  There is no danger of the Northeast becoming a treeless region.  It hasn't been heading in that direction for 100 years.

In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

[Dr. Cynic]

In rural western PA there is a great deal of strip mining and heavy handed lumbering going on. Such as some places are looking completely bare. There's no reason to believe a trend like that would not continue.

According to Pennsylvania Department of Conservation’s Natural Resources, there was no significant net change in PA forest acreage from 1989 to 2004.  663,000 acres were lost, but 617,500 acres were gained.  That's a net loss of 45,500 acres over 15 years - about 3000 acres a year - which is hardly significant when combined with reported gains in the rest of the Northeast or the significant increases earlier in the 20th century.  

The losses was largely due to residential and industrial development, not strip mining or tree farming.  The majority of the gains came from reclaimed agricultural lands.

Really? Cause that's all you see around here...

[Dr. Cynic]

Really? Cause that's all you see around here...

I've provided a link backing up my facts.  The dates of the study are what they are: 1989-2004.

Yeah, I see that... Ok, then... However, I've not seen much residential or industrial deforestation recently. It's been either for strip mining or lumber... Just first hand experience at least around here.

[Dr. Cynic]

Making an Amendment to Section B Number 3...



Sustainable Forestry Act

Section A: Purpose

1. The Northeast region is home to over 40 million acres of hardwood and softwood forests used for construction, manufacturing, energy, and other uses. The Northeast region recognizes that sustainable forestry is necessary to create a healthy and diverse environment and create a lasting industry that continues to provide jobs to Northeasterners. The Northeast recognizes that current forestry practices are unsustainable and that a more reasonable replacement level must be mandated.

Section B: Regulations

1. Forestry (the act of clearing or eliminating more than 10 trees for commercial purposes) on Northeast public lands shall be regulated by the region to provide sustainability.

2. Forestry on Northeast public lands by any company or organization that has not obtained a permit from the Northeast region is hereby prohibited.

3. Any company or organization removing more than 10 trees from Northeast public land in any calendar year for commercial use is REQUIRED to replace the acreage of trees removed at a 1:1 ratio. Companies and/or organizations are REQUIRED to ensure survivability of the new growth For two calender years.

4.  Nothing in this Act shall prohibit individuals from cutting up to 10 trees per year for firewood or other personal use on parcels of Northeast public land where such activity is expressly permitted by the laws or regulations of the Northeast.
 
Section C: Non-compliance

1. Any company/organization found violating the terms of this act shall be subject to a fine of no less than twice the amount of estimated damage caused to the region's hardwood and/or softwood forests.

Section D: Public Land Use

1. The Northeast region will no longer be allowed to sell wooded land to private owners for the purpose of commercial forestry.

[Dr. Cynic]

We've made a good bill, folks...

[Dr. Cynic]

I like cinyc's amendment, but five times sounds like a really hefty fine. Can I get the opinion of a couple other Reps?

Why not compromise and say three times?

[Dr. Cynic]

The SOAP expressly states that the debate lasts for 48 hours... And this bill has been introduced 108 hours ago.

Well, I extended the period, because there wasn't a full Bill even written up.

Because of all the Debate on this Bill, I'm extending the Debating Period.

But, today is the last day.

Well, you hadn't the authority to do, but anyways it doesn't matter... Just don't do again, please.

Actually, my friend, as presiding officer, he has the right to extend the debate period because the bill was still being debated upon. Don't get your knickers in a twist.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

Damn, we blocked the legislative work for 3 days for this !!!

It wasn't blocked so much as there were difficulties with getting the bill to the Lt. Gov. because Hamilton went and got himself under mod review again.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

I strongly support this.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Dr. Cynic]

It's a bad idea.  It's impossible to follow any discussion of two bills simultaneously when we only have one thread for all legislative business.  Things get muddled.  Votes get lost.

I agree with this. One thing at a time. There's no reason really to throw two, three or four bills out at once.

I also think it's unfair to list me as inactive. I'm here when I'm home. I have a demanding work schedule that takes up a great deal of my time, but I'm always active here.

[Dr. Cynic]

I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win )

[Dr. Cynic]

Antonio V

[Dr. Cynic]

I will accept votes for the Speakership.

(But I in no way expect to win )

Are you actually running? I need to know what names to put on the ballot.

I assumed that I was, but appearantly since it's been decided that my wording must've been too ambiguous, forget it.