Pacific Legislature Official Thread (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 11:01:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Pacific Legislature Official Thread (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Pacific Legislature Official Thread  (Read 262659 times)
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« on: November 15, 2005, 11:53:45 PM »

Hugh and John Ford:

1. Estimated number of people who lose their jobs:  2,000

2. Savings if admins under $30,000 are not fired: $775 million, as opposed to $800 million.

Most admins in state (regional) government make more than $30,000 a year.  Very few make less than $30,000 a year.

Set the range at $50,000 or $60,000, that's a different story.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2005, 12:04:11 AM »

I think $30,000 is a reasonable amount. It's not good that we'd be reducing wages of those under, say $40,000; but sometimes tough choices have to be made.

Can I also ask for an estimation of how this will affect the economies of cities and towns such as Juneau and Olympia, where government is a/the major industry? Just an opinion would suffice.

It would probably affect it a decent bit negatively.  However, you would expect Sacramento to boom and I doubt it would have any affect on the conomy at all.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2006, 02:36:22 AM »

I'm going to say no to any savings in a merger of the two departments.

This is precisely because they cover such distinct areas of government; there really are no major overlapping functions that I can find that would be saved by consolidation.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2007, 04:13:29 PM »

Really, you should join the Southeast Region, New Mexico.  The Midwest Region is full of cooties, ilikeverins and other intolerables.

After all, you were really part of Texas anyway to start with.  Tongue
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2007, 05:19:05 PM »

Really, you should join the Southeast Region, New Mexico.  The Midwest Region is full of cooties, ilikeverins and other intolerables.

After all, you were really part of Texas anyway to start with.  Tongue

We don't want any of the Southeastern region, because we're pretty sure Mike Naso has touched/governed it.

That reminds me:  Next time I need to create an initiative expelling Mike Naso from our region permanently.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2007, 01:02:31 AM »

The Southeast makes a friendly request that you take "Southeastern" out of the title of your bill.

The Southeast Region has trademarked its usage.  Smiley
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.