SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Mr. PPT, the reforms that are outlined by this legislation seek to accomplish four essential goals which are paramount to jump-starting the economy and putting Atlasians back to work: one, to incentivize businesses for expansion and job creation, two, to curb the ongoing loss of jobs by subsidizing workers for lost hours, three, to putting construction workers back to work whilst making our infrastructure more environmentally friendly and less costly, and four, to help regional governments put their checkbooks in order and provide them with the necessary tools to expand their local economies.

I will explain each section separately.

Hiring Incentives Act Renewal

The first portion of the bill is an extension of an older policy that was introduced by former Senator Bacon King.  It is my understanding that while taxes must be kept at a reasonable level for new businesses to work around, tax reductions simply aren’t enough, and so they must have the incentive to hire and expand.  The polices that the Hiring Incentive Act put in place over the course of its effectiveness did just that, and in a time when employment is still not up to par, it is necessary for us to renew this law for another year.

Voluntary Work Hour and Pay Cut Compensation

This section focuses to encourage companies to reduce employees’ hours and pay instead of laying them off.  Faced with reduced demand in recent years, many companies have been forced to make up the costs by laying workers off, and this is partly how we lost over eight million jobs in the Great Recession.  But what if, instead, we encouraged them to divide the pain more equally, by reducing workers' hours, rather than shedding jobs?  This is what many companies in Germany do, and this can be partly attributed to its ongoing success in an overall weak global economy.

To quote this Yahoo! News article, “Kevin Hassett, an economic policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and a supporter of the idea, recently laid out how it works. If an employer in Germany cuts a worker's hours and wages by 10 percent or more, the government pays the worker 60 percent of the amount he lost--unemployment benefits, essentially, for the lost income. That helps the worker, of course, because he's making more than he would be just from jobless benefits, and because he keeps up his skills and contacts by continuing to go to work every day. But it also helps the employer, because turnover of employees is costly: It's cheaper to keep workers during slow periods than it is to have to hire and train new employees once things pick up.”  This is a policy that has shown tremendous success where it’s been used, and it ought to be a model for this government to look toward.

White Rooftop Incentive For Private and Publicly Owned Buildings

This section aims to put our infrastructure on a more environmentally friendly path by incentivizing government officials, homeowners, and business owners to pay construction workers, one of the hardest hit groups of the recession, to paint black tar roofs white.  This would save 20% in energy, which could be spent on goods and services other than generating electricity, which increases fuel and oil prices.  This initiative, minor as it may appear at a first glance, would have a significant impact on our economy.

Regional Public Banking System

Finally, the primary purpose of this section is to increase revenue for regions that are struggling with their budgets and promoting job creation by encouraging regional administrators to establish their own public banks.  This particular section of the bill is taken off a similar policy that I had written for the Northeast government.

As many of you might know, North Dakota is the only state in the country that went virtually unaffected by the Great Recession, and continues to run budget surpluses as well as have the lowest unemployment and the fastest job growth rate in the country.  While many attribute North Dakota’s economy to its abundant oil supply, much of its success is thanks to the state’s public bank, which has raked in over $300 million in revenue to the state's Treasury.  Basically, the state deposits its tax revenues in the bank which ensure that a high portion of State funds are in the economy, and the bank is able to remit a portion of its earnings to the Treasury.  This stands in heavy contrast to states like California, which has no public bank to steer funds into productive investments within the state.  Instead, revenues are largely deposited into private banks, which fund out-of-state, invest them in speculative trading strategies (including derivative bets against the state’s own bonds), and do not remit any of their earnings back to the State Treasury.

So what, exactly, does North Dakota’s success story teach?  It teaches us that there must be significant action on a local level for prosperity to be achieved across the board, and at the same time, the correct policies must be enacted in a responsible fashion.  Indeed, the federal government isn’t the cure to all the nation’s problems, but it is our duty as senators to ensure that every region has the tools it needs to maintain a business-friendly environment whilst keeping their checkbooks in order.


Evidently, this bill is designed to address several portions of our economy.  However, I recognize that these proposals cannot aid all of our economic woes, and that is why I urge my colleagues to use the opportunity to revise and add on to what we have.  To those who desire to tweak certain sections, I ask that any amendments or ideas that come forward do not disregard or displace the central ideas that the bill lays out.  And on that, I wish to open the floor to thoughtful and respectful debate and, where possible, bipartisanship.

Thank you.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Haha, it just says "Nailed it!"

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Does anyone know how much money in the energy budget goes to subsidies for renewable energy sources (such as solar panels) and to scientific research?  I'm thinking about adding a section to the bill that transfers funds from subsidies to energy research, since excessive spending on solar subsidies tends to actually raise costs instead of reduce them.  I'd appreciate some input from Yankee or shua on this idea.

EDIT: We also might want to look into reducing or eliminating oil subsidies if those are on our books, too.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My administration would like to ensure that employers may not discriminate based on current employment status. Does the Senate think that could work its way into this bill?

Employment discrimination on account of anything is already illegal, if I'm not mistaken.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have a small semantic issue with Section 4.... I don't believe the incentive should be made for hiring the workers directly but rather hiring a construction firm which will then provide the workers. As is- I don't know if it would be most efficient to have workers apply to be employed directly by a business or individual as this work does not lead long-term employment

I will comment on the other parts of this legislation later today...

I don't see what the difference would be if the incentive applied to people who hired firms rather than individuals.  It is my belief that incentivizing people to take either of those options would lead to more work and reduced energy costs, and therefore, more employment.  The answer to whether or not this incentive will lead to long-term employment ultimately depends on how much people take advantage of the incentive and how much construction projects are being pursued.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

No.  I'm going to PM him now.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Are tax credits basically the same thing as subsidies?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Thank you, Shua.  With that in mind, I will not touch the clean energy tax credits.

Anything else, guys?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why are they state-owned banks rather than regionally?
Is 5.1 a blank check from the federal government to the regions?  

"State" is suppose to be defined as a governing entity, not an individual state.  And yes, I do see how this would constitute as a blank check without any budgetary restrictions.  I will make those corrections now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The amendment under consideration has been adopted.

Is that a new amendment you are offering there, Scott?

Yes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Working hours in Atlasia are already quite low due to policies such as The Productivity Equalization and Worker Employment Act.  What is considered overtime is much less than the average working hours in Germany (42 hours).  I'm trying to think how this bill will interact with that.  Will there be little effect because employers are already giving their employees so few hours?  I guess it could help a few people anyway.

I think so.  If there is a business that is considering lay-offs even with the low work hour requirement, the law could still help the employees of those companies keep their jobs and continue to make ends meet.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Unless there's a reason for why the section should be removed, I'd prefer that it stay in the bill.

Well, as Shua has said, normal work hours are reduced to 32 for larger companies starting in 2013. That's actually a 20% decrease from the 40 hour work week. It seems that the goal of Section 3 will already be accomplished, unless you are trying to take that even further.

Yes, but the goal of the section is to give employees in struggling businesses the ability to temporarily cut their work hours so that they can keep their jobs and continue to receive pay in the case that 32 hours is still too much for a company to afford.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Fine, then.

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDIT: RESCINDED

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Okay, then I will rescind my previous amendment for now.  However, I'm not exactly sure how such a loophole could be eliminated.  How could we establish the criteria for a business that cannot afford to keep its employees and would need to make downsizes?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What if we create a ten-person board and prosecute any business that attempts to bribe its members?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Or perhaps we can reinstate the traditional working hours?

After thinking about it, I've decided that I would rather not remove section three completely.  That just defeats one of the bill's main components.  Perhaps by reinstating the normal working hours with section three in place, workers could work more and take cuts when it's most appropriate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

What are you trying to restrict here?  I think for the most part any employer and employee aren't going to agree to this unless to avoid layoffs.

The idea is to somehow restrict businesses from lying their way into cutting their employees' pay or work hours at the expense of the taxpayers.  I'm still trying to think of a way to prevent this system from being abused.

Why would they have to lie?   Isn't allowing employers to cut pay or work hours without greatly harming their employees the whole point of this?   In fact, that's already the major employment policy in Atlasia as it stands: to encourage businesses to cut employees work hours in order to try to make them hire more workers.

Businesses should only be cutting pay or work hours if it's absolutely necessary for them to in order to stay in business.  The current policy doesn't encourage employers to cut work hours, it requires them to, and this could potentially hurt workers who want to work longer when their business doesn't even have to make the cuts.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.  

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.

A minimum loss of income?  Okay.

So for example, if a business is found to be losing more than 40% of its income over a year, it would be eligible for the program?

Ugh, now this is just starting to sound like corporate welfare.