You're the governor, what would you do?

[alphamale]

I would keep doing what he's doing.

[EBWick]

Originally Posted by Sergio M

I would enforce laws and fine anyone hiring or harboring illegal aliens. If you hire them or allow them to work on your property you should be fined $10,000. This would create more legal jobs and help increase wages. also would create more tax revenue.

Allow them to work on your property? Now we're going to be junior immigration agents?

Good luck finding dishwashers, vegetable pickers or factory workers willing to work minimum wage (or less). Americans aren't doing it which is why corporations lobby to have lax immigration laws to begin with.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by EBWick

I think we have something like #5 already.

The problem with regionalization is it's good on paper but NJ is kind of strange having so many small towns & boroughs. When asked whether they pay too much they say "Damn right!" When asked if they want to regionalize schools with Town A or B they say "Heck no, we love our district the way it is!"

That is why I think the key is to ultimately remove the cost barriers to even exploring the merger. People talk about consolidation all the time, but the problem is that you really can't force it and those that want to do it often have the issue of who will pay for it.

As a local to me example, Merchantville, NJ wants to merge with Cherry Hill, NJ. Merchantville is an old historic town with a population of around 3,800. It's a nice town, but has one major drawback. While it has it's own K-8 school district, kids in high school are stuck in a sending/receiving relationship with Pennsauken High, which is not a good school at all. Currently the town shares many services with neighboring Cherry Hill. The residents of the town recently used a little know law that allows residents themselves to petition to begin merger talks. The talks have progressed, but have stalled over each entity getting their own "experts" opinions and then the cost of doing all of the planning and surveys. Basically, no one wants to pay for it out of their pocket, especially if it ends up not going through.

That is basically the point, provide the financial and knowledge assistance that towns need to do mergers on their own. If there is no cost to doing the merger, the towns are more likely to consider it, even when there are negligible savings opportunities.

Originally Posted by JERSEY MAN

Does NJ GOAT need a campaign manager.

Glad you approve. I'll add your name to the list, lol.

Originally Posted by soug

Would cost of living differences between north, central, and south be an issue in standardizing teacher pay across the state?

I thought about this one. You basically have two options: 1. Have the same pay scale regardless or 2. Use the COL index to adjust the salary up or down from the baseline.

I think it would be fairer to adjust based on the COL index, but then you lose one of the nicer parts of the standardization which is districts can no longer compete with each other on salary. I think ultimately, I would rather see the same rate paid across the state then any kind of localized adjustments, but you may ultimately need to make the salaries vary based on county as you don't want to grossly overpay a teacher in Salem County and grossly underpay one in Bergen. So, I guess that would be my answer. Create a baseline and then that gets adjusted up or down based on the county level COL.

Originally Posted by tom1944

NJGoat- while I love your first point it will never pass. Here is why Newark, Milburn, Camden, Princeton. etc. You see that proposal helps Woodbridge, Toms River, Hamilton etc but both rich and poor districts will vote against it.

Why would the rich districts be against it? Ultimately, they should end up with more money per student then they are getting now. The ones who will be most hurt are the Abbott districts who will basically end up having to fund their own systems for the first time in decades. Accomplishing that is going to be hard and can't be done with legislation, it must be done with a consitutional amendment. Overall, I don't see anyone but the Abbott districts being against that kind of reform. I also don't think it would be something that you could just flip a switch on, it would have to be done over a period of 5-10 years in the Abbotts.

Originally Posted by bababua

Here is my rule and I am not sure who the numb nuts is that would oppose this other then the obvious double dippers.

If you have any state job you cant collect any state pension. In order to collect a state pension you may not be employed by the state(town,county, or any other nonsense) in any capacity at all.
Part two you may only collect one pension regardless of how many dumb jobs you have in the state. You take the best one and that is it.
Part three You must cap pensions at some reasonable like 75k to stop the silly abuses of people getting over 100k in pension benefits. Its just dumb not fair and not helping the people who are collecting 20k to 30k and happen to be the majority of pensioners.

Rule four you dont like it too bad. Get another job.

Now tell me who would be against this? Greedy Teachers? Greedy Public workers? No my friends it would be the politicians and big wigs who have raped the system for so many years and then make the everyday worker look like a scumbag for having a pension.
Not to mention my plan would save the taxpayers billions of dollars and would allot the money in a much more fair and equitable manner then the current system.

I think this needs to be done just in principle. It was one of the other things I wanted to list, but didn't as I thought the others I included were more pressing and would have more impact. Overall, I don't think there is much savings there, but it is a strong principle thing that must be upheld. It will also help out the pension system as it won't be drawn down early by people who are double dipping. The longer the money stays in the pension system, the healthier the system is.

I do really like your idea of a maximum pension cap. I'm not sure what the level should be, but people earning a $100k+ annual pension is ridiculous. I think $75k is pretty fair, but I haven't looked into what that would mean in terms of impact and savings. The one thing you have to remember though is that when it comes to police and firemen, they do not pay into Social Security. This is different from all other public workers, who I believe do (I know teachers do). I think who does and doesn't pay into Social Security should be considered when making a cap. Overall, I'd rather see (from a state perspective) the pension payouts lowered in return for making contributions to Social Security, which would shift some of the burden off the state.

Originally Posted by yeahboy79

The other thing I would do is make sure any tax incentives or subsidies given to companies that relocate offices to NJ have the stipulation that they cannot leave for X amount of years or else they have to pay it all back plus interest. This would be to prevent a governor giving a sweetheart deal to someone only to have them jump ship once a better deal comes along or state policies change.

This was why I proposed the incentives to be done a certain way. Basically, a certain level of write-off over a period of years and based on continuing investment. Instead of offering a one off set of tax breaks, you make it an ongoing incentive. Also, the maximum the company can write-off is their actual tax liability, so no direct hand outs. We are basically foregoing a portion of corporate tax revenues in exchange for job creation and investment. It was also targeted to incentify investment in the worst places.

Originally Posted by EBWick

Yes indeed! We have to ensure that those sucking off the government teat don't run elsewhere just because it suits their needs. And IMO any corporation that has many billions in profits SHOULD NOT be getting New Jerseyan's tax dollars for any reason whatsoever. It would be better off building up small & mid-sized businesses that have more ties to NJ and don't off-shore their profits or pay no tax to the state.

Also, why I proposed it, the way I did. Instead of just using these incentives to lure "big name" businesses, it would be open to everyone. If you are a small business owner with two employees and add a third, you could take advantage of the system I proposed. Basically, I'm all for giving up portions of corporate tax revenue to gain the jobs and investments.

Originally Posted by tom1944

Even when they do not move the taxes generated by the employees does not cover the cost. There are programs where companies get every penny of their employees with holding taxes returned to the company plus credits on the corporate tax which creates further refunds. They get more back than they or their employees generate. Corporate welfare.

The problem you run into is that everyone is doing it and on it's own with no incentives NJ is a very corporate unfriendly state. We are existing based on our geographical advantages in that many businesses want to be here for access to NYC, the ports and the pharmaceuticals industry is also strong and businesses in those kinds of sectors tend to cluster. The issue we have is that the NJ economy is changing, the financial sector is very weak and even pharma is looking at other options. Technology also means having a physical presense is less in demand. NJ, can still compete and our workers and location are a great asset, but not enough to overcome the dollars and cents arguments of going to a different state.

That was basically the crux of my plan. I won't cut the corporate tax rate, or give out targeted breaks. Instead, I will let companies eliminate their tax liabilities to the state down to zero if they are investing and hiring in the state. Essentially, a company could have a permanent 0% corporate tax rate, but it would require continual investment. I think that can be a win for the companies and for the state.

Originally Posted by Sergio M

I would enforce laws and fine anyone hiring or harboring illegal aliens. If you hire them or allow them to work on your property you should be fined $10,000. This would create more legal jobs and help increase wages. also would create more tax revenue.

Impossible to enforce. That means everyone who hires a landscaping company to mow their lawn now has to be an INS officer or risk a major fine. I ultimately don't think immigration enforcement and regulation is the domain of the state. This is a national issue that needs to be addressed by the feds, even if they are dragging their feet.

Personally, I don't know what to do about immigration. I waffle between thinking we should seal the border and then legalize everyone here on one hand. Then on the other, I think there may be some major positives to throwing open the gates and allowing non-quota based legal immigration that follows certain rules and has some restrictions in regards to receiving public benefits.

[DefiantNJ]

Originally Posted by Sergio M

I would enforce laws and fine anyone hiring or harboring illegal aliens. If you hire them or allow them to work on your property you should be fined $10,000. This would create more legal jobs and help increase wages. also would create more tax revenue.

Unless you cut your own grass and do your own landscaping and renovate your house completely yourself, you have hired “illegal aliens”. Any general contractor I have seen or heard of employs one or two legal workers and a horde of lower paid, hardworking illegals who barely speak English. So please send me a check for $10k. I just find the hypocrisy of Americans on this question simply amazing.

[EBWick]

Originally Posted by DefiantNJ

Unless you cut your own grass and do your own landscaping and renovate your house completely yourself, you have hired “illegal aliens”. Any general contractor I have seen or heard of employs one or two legal workers and a horde of lower paid, hardworking illegals who barely speak English. So please send me a check for $10k. I just find the hypocrisy of Americans on this question simply amazing.

Same thing for the food you eat and in the restaurants you patronize. I think it was Anthony Bourdain who said that America's restaurants would shut down if it wasn't for all of the help from Central & South America. As a matter of fact, he prefers working with them.


"People have differing opinions on what we should do about immigration in the future. How open or how closed our borders should be. Fine. But let's be honest, at least, about who is cooking in America NOW. Who we rely on--have relied on for decades. The bald fact is that the entire restaurant industry in America would close down overnight, would never recover, if current immigration laws were enforced quickly and thoroughly across the board. Everyone in the industry knows this. It is undeniable. Illegal labor is the backbone of the service and hospitality industry--Mexican, Salvadoran and Ecuadoran in particular. To contemplate actually doing without is to contemplate mass closings, a general shake-out of individually owned and operated restaurants--and, of course, unthinkably (now) higher prices in the places that manage to survive. Considering that our economy and employment picture is now largely based on us selling hamburgers to each other, the ripple effects would be grave. I know very few chefs who've even heard of a US born citizen coming in the door to ask for a dishwasher, night clean-up or kitchen prep job. Until that happens--let's at least try to be honest when discussing this issue."

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by EBWick

Same thing for the food you eat and in the restaurants you patronize. I think it was Anthony Bourdain who said that America's restaurants would shut down if it wasn't for all of the help from Central & South America. As a matter of fact, he prefers working with them.


"People have differing opinions on what we should do about immigration in the future. How open or how closed our borders should be. Fine. But let's be honest, at least, about who is cooking in America NOW. Who we rely on--have relied on for decades. The bald fact is that the entire restaurant industry in America would close down overnight, would never recover, if current immigration laws were enforced quickly and thoroughly across the board. Everyone in the industry knows this. It is undeniable. Illegal labor is the backbone of the service and hospitality industry--Mexican, Salvadoran and Ecuadoran in particular. To contemplate actually doing without is to contemplate mass closings, a general shake-out of individually owned and operated restaurants--and, of course, unthinkably (now) higher prices in the places that manage to survive. Considering that our economy and employment picture is now largely based on us selling hamburgers to each other, the ripple effects would be grave. I know very few chefs who've even heard of a US born citizen coming in the door to ask for a dishwasher, night clean-up or kitchen prep job. Until that happens--let's at least try to be honest when discussing this issue."

Excellent point and the one that is most often left out of the debate when you hear the "anti" side of the illegal immigration debate. They are quick to point out that illegal immigrants cost the system "X" amount of money, generally in hospitals, schools and social welfare. What they miss is the "Y" amount that illegal immigrant workers add to the national economy. The service, agriculture and constuction sectors are huge parts of the US GDP and are very reliant on illegal immigrant labor. I have heard quotes that place the impact of losing that labor force somewhere in the $1.5 trillion range in terms of GDP. That number is far, far greater then any possible costs associated with the workers being here.

That economic impact would also be felt if all of those workers were to suddenly be made "legal" and had to be paid at least minimum wage and the employers had to pay all appropriate taxes on them. In another thread we debated the economic impact of raising the minimum wage. The same reasons I feel a minimum wage is a negative on the economy is what complicates the illegal immigration issue. What if your favorite meal, the fruits and vegetables you buy, the rennovation to your home and your lawn service all suddenly cost 25%+ more?

That's the dirty secret when it comes to illegal immigration and why nothing has ever really been done about it in a meaningful way. It has become an integral part of our economy. We NEED these undocumented workers and the cheap labor they provide. It may be odd to think about in a country that has over 8% unemployment, but the US has a labor shortage and it is acute in both the "unskilled" and "skilled" sectors. We simply don't have enough people to produce things that Americans consume, not even close. These illegal workers fill a vital role in the unskilled labor pool and most importantly, they congregate and move to where they are needed.

Interesting article on manufacturing in the US, with particular regard to the iPhone, iPad, etc.

Why Apple's products are 'Designed in California' but 'Assembled in China' | TUAW - The Unofficial Apple Weblog

Why not? Why can't iPhones, iPads, and all the rest of Apple's magic gadgets be built in the States? More generally, why can't more US-based consumer electronics and computer companies do their manufacturing work domestically, helping to create American jobs and boost the struggling economy?

The New York Times asked that question, and after an extremely well-researched report involving interviews with both former and current executives at Apple, the answer the Times found is both simple and chilling: iPhones aren't made in America because they just can't be. The infrastructure and labor force doesn't exist at the levels necessary to support Apple's operations -- it's not even close.

The Chinese factory where most iPhones reach final assembly employs 230,000 workers. I just asked Siri how many cities in the US have a population higher than that, and the answer was a mere 83 cities -- and that's total population, not workforce. With an average labor force of around 65 percent of the population, only 50 US cities are large enough to provide that kind of labor pool... and even in the biggest US city of them all, New York, 230,000 people still amounts to almost three percent of the city's entire population. Can you imagine three out of every hundred New Yorkers on an assembly line, cranking out iPhones every day?

While this crossed two topics, they are actually intertwined. For all the rhetoric about returning manufacturing to America, the stark reality is that there just aren't enough Americans to do it, not without robbing from other sectors of our economy. With that realization in mind, that is why illegal immigrant labor is so vital to our national economy. They produce far above whatever nominal cost is associated with them and most importantly, they are people who go where they are needed, a resource we desperately need.