Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Browsing the archives for the Economy category.

A Labor Day Update on the California Economy

CA & OR, Economy

A Labor Day Update on the California Economy

By Stephen Frank on Sep 05, 2016 08:29 pm

While the really confused Guv Brown is crowing about the California economy being in recovery mode, the facts are much different.  Importantly the people on the street know that Brown is either lying or has smoked too many funny cigarettes. “The upward path has narrowed for many as the recovery has restructured the economy to […]

Read More and Comment: A Labor Day Update on the California Economy

No Comments

Another business moving out of California

CA & OR, Economy

Sacramento KILLS another 840 Good Paying Jobs—Moving to “Free to Work/Low Tax States”

By Stephen Frank on Sep 05, 2016 08:26 pm

What California recovery?  Another 840 jobs are moving from California to the Free State of North Carolina, Wisconsin and Mississippi.  None of these States force workers to pay bribes to unions in order to work.  All have lower taxes, housing, and energy and water costs.  These are States that care about the people on Main […]

Read More and Comment: Sacramento KILLS another 840 Good Paying Jobs—Moving to “Free to Work/Low Tax States”

No Comments

Legalized Theft In the Beaver State

Economy, Oregon governments

Economics21,org

William O’Keefe | 03/10/2016 |

Only government can make stealing a virtue. Oregon is on a course to do just that.  The House and Senate have passed legislation that would eliminate coal as an electric power source within two decades. The bill, now awaiting Governor Kate Brown’s signature, would require that renewables provide 50 percent of the state’s power by 2040.

This is a scheme that must have the state’s two major utilities–Portland General Electric and Pacific Power–salivating, because they will reap higher profits.

Oregon’s in-state power generation is primarily hydroelectric, providing at least half of the Beaver State’s electric power, according to the Energy Information Administration. Coal and natural gas provide most of the rest of the state’s electrical power. Oregon also imports electricity from Idaho Power, which generates electricity from hydropower and natural gas.

Since the legislation forces in-state coal-generated power to be eliminated before the end of its useful life, customers will bear the brunt of shut down and decommissioning costs. This could represent a financial windfall for the two major utilities. The potential for expanding hydropower is limited because the same environmental activists who have led the charge to eliminate coal-fired power also oppose expansion of hydroelectric power. As a result, coal-fired power will be replaced by higher-cost alternatives or greater imports from out of state power generators.

The state’s two major utilities complain and wring their hands about the heavy hand of government overriding good business decisions and market forces. In reality, they will smile all the way to the bank. But since utilities operate at a “cost of service” basis, they get reimbursed by customers for the costs they incur and also have a guaranteed rate of return. The higher the costs, the more revenue they receive. In the end, Oregon’s utilities will market themselves as leaders in the green energy climate change movement even though nothing they do will affect the climate.

It is unlikely that Oregon’s legislation will lead to a single coal plant closing. Pacific Power, one of the utilities subject to the legislation, has equity interests in coal plants that provide electric power to customers in six states. As National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners president Travis Kavulla wrote in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Power “could simply reallocate coal-generated power to customers outside Oregon.” Portland General Electric is a co-owner of a coal plant with Montana utilities. It could follow a similar strategy.

MORE

http://economics21.org/commentary/oregon-renewable-energy-bill-william-okeefe-03-10-2016

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Oregon candidate exposes social, economic catastrophe caused by federal control in Josephine County

Bureau of Land Management, CA & OR, CORRUPTION, Economy, Elections, Federal gov & land grabs, Forestry & USFS, Oregon governments

drygulch

February 26, 2016

An Open Letter to Presidential Candidates from Josephine County, Oregon

By Toni Webb, candidate for Commissioner of Josephine County

TO: Candidates running for President of the United States

This letter is to inform you of the struggles faced by the people of Josephine County, Oregon, due to ongoing problems with the federal government’s control of our public land, including our once-productive forests. Bad policies and misguided management by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, have left our rural county economically and socially devastated. I hope that you, as candidates for President of the United States, will seriously consider why the effort to transfer the ownership and control of public lands back to western states, like Oregon, is so critical to our survival.

I am from Josephine County, Oregon.

Because of federal land-taking, we now have a broken county with a median household income less than the State of Mississippi.  My father owned a sawmill here in the 1940’s; anyone who wanted to work could easily find a job. In the 1960’s, Josephine County had 53 sawmills; the revenue for Public Safety was around $18 million per year. Josephine County, Oregon, has relied on the use of our natural resources for Public Safety, Education, and necessary Public Projects. We now live under the constant threat of having to close the jail; and this July we will receive our last congressional subsidy of $4.3 million. Use of our resources has declined to the point that we are now an impoverished county largely dependent on welfare and government social services.

Earlier this month—the last remaining sawmill in our county closed indefinitely because they could not get enough logs to fill orders. We’ve gone from 19 sheriff’s patrols to a budget for only three patrols by this summer. Our County government laid off 127 people in 2012; 90 of those people were in the Sheriff’s Department.

All promises from the Federal government to Josephine County have been broken.  The government has not honored its commitment in the 1937 O&C Act, and the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have incrementally reduced the timber harvests for two decades.

The BLM and Forest Service close vital roads throughout the county, so that we can’t put out forest fires. Those agencies then refuse to let us log the burnt areas and derive some income from the catastrophe. Management of our lands by Washington, DC, has proved to be a disaster to our county, both in terms of revenue for necessary services and in terms of modern forest management practices for sustainability.

The EPA runs roughshod over our private and public lands; overly-zealous environmental activists derive much of their income from government grants.  Environmental groups consistently portray logging as environmentally-destructive “clear-cutting”, when in fact, timber companies in Oregon are well-known for responsible, sustainable forest management.

With this loss of use of our land to generate revenue and provide jobs, come many of the predictable social problems, as indicated below: drug abuse, health problems, rise in student dropout rates, children living in poverty, increased homelessness, and reliance on welfare subsidies. This is the result of not having control and benefit of our county land.

Poverty in Josephine County has reached the point that we cannot pass a property tax levy to fund public safety.  Having barebones public safety negatively impacts our ability to retain and attract businesses and qualified workers.

We would appreciate having the support of our presidential candidates for the transfer of our lands from federal mismanagement. We need your help to prevent further loss and to reverse the losses that have plunged our county into poverty.  No matter which candidate emerges from the Presidential race, we will be looking to support the candidate who will be in favor of transferring the control of public lands to the states.  If you want to restore the promise of America, start with Josephine County and help us help ourselves.

Thank you and Best Wishes,

Toni Webb

Josephine County, Oregon

IMPORTANT FACTS

Josephine County, Oregon, population:  84,000   Area: 1,642 sq. miles

68% of Public Land is controlled by the Federal Government

josephine1

Outmigration of younger population, who cannot find work.

Influx of seniors, largely from out-of-state, attracted by the low property tax ($.58 per thousand in the county, outside the City of Grants Pass).

-24% of the county population is over 65 years old.

-30% of children in Josephine County live in poverty; 20% of adults 18-64 live below the poverty line.

-65% of the children eligible for free/reduced cost lunches.

-Increased homelessness and reliance on welfare subsidies.

Drug abuse – #1 in Oregon for Rx drug abuse (seniors selling Opioids to supplement income). Rampant heroin, methamphetamine drug use. Approximately 125 babies born each year at hospital with drug addiction.

High school dropouts – 30-36% dropout rate throughout county. Misuse of funds allocated to school district. Dropout rate has not changed in 30 years.

Unemployment – 11%, estimated to be 20% in 18-30 age group. Rise in young people working part-time and growing marijuana.

Largest % employers: schools, health care, and social assistance.

County Health Ranking: 29th out of 33 counties in Oregon. High level of obesity-44% of adult population has chronic high blood cholesterol. 23% of children, grades 1-3, have rampant tooth decay; 62% of lower income children have at least one cavity.

josephine2

Reposted by Reagangirl.com  2/26/16

No Comments

Sierra Pacific Announces Permanent Closure of Arcata Sawmill; More than 100 Jobs Lost

Economy, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Forestry & USFS, Greenies & grant $

PNP comment: If marijuana grows had the heavy regulations that forestry, mining and agriculture have to deal with, there wouldn’t be much pot available. Looks like the wrong industry is under-regulated. — Editor Liz Bowen

Lost Coast Outpost.com

Ryan Burns / Yesterday @ 5:20 p.m. / Economy

The Sierra Pacific Mill off Samoa Boulevard/State Route 255. | Google Street View

And another one gone. Humboldt County’s timber industry continues its long and steady decline with the following announcement from Sierra Pacific Industries:

Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) today announced it will close its sawmill in Arcata, CA.

“This is a particularly sad day for Sierra Pacific and for my family” said A.A. “Red” Emmerson, chairman and president emeritus of SPI. “Our company started in the Arcata area when my father and I leased our first mill there in 1949 near Jacoby Creek. We went on to build the Arcata mill on the Samoa Peninsula, which we’ve run steady since 1951,” he noted.

About 123 crew members will be affected by the closure. According to SPI [Sierra Pacific Industries], reduced harvests of suitable timber and regulatory burdens are the primary reason for the closure. That, combined with a difficult lumber market have profoundly impacted operations in Arcata.

“A fall-off in the amount of suitable timber for sale in this area, coupled with flat home construction in the U.S., and increased lumber imports from Canada have all played a role in our decision to close the mill” said SPI spokesman Mark Pawlicki. “But, make no mistake, the largest factor was that the type and size of logs that this mill cuts are simply not available in ample supply to continue to run the mill,” he added.

“When combined, these factors leave us no choice but to close the plant,” said Pawlicki. In an effort to keep the Arcata mill running, SPI has been transporting logs from the interior of California, and has barged logs from British Columbia and Washington. However, those efforts proved to be uneconomical.

Sierra Pacific is a strong, growing company and has job openings at other locations. Crew members are being encouraged to consider opportunities at these locations, and relocation assistance will be offered for each person who is approved to transfer.

Sierra Pacific Industries is a third-generation family-owned forest products company based in Anderson, California, employing over 4,500 crew members. The company owns and manages 1.9 million acres of timberland in California and Washington, and is among largest lumber producers in the U.S.

Sierra Pacific has 13 other sawmills operating in California and Washington, and has started construction of a new mill in Shelton, WA. The company also has window, renewable power, sales, and lumber remanufacturing facilities in operation in multiple states.

Sierra Pacific is committed to managing its lands in a responsible and sustainable manner to protect the environment while providing quality wood products for consumers.

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2016/jan/25/sierra-pacific-announces-permanent-closure-arcata/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

What Shell’s decision on Arctic drilling means for the Alaska economy

Economy

Alex DeMarban

September 28, 2015

Alaska Dispatch News

Views on the impact of a Shell pullout from the already fragile Alaska economy ranged from dire to cautious Monday, with economic observers citing near-term job losses and long-term prospects for Arctic development.

But there is a bright spot: Sunday’s announcement that the company is putting on the brakes in the U.S. Arctic Ocean comes at a time of record-high employment in the Alaska oil patch and estimated 4.5 percent unemployment in the state’s largest city, providing a buffer against the fallout of lost work associated with Shell’s project.

MORE

http://www.adn.com/article/20150928/what-shells-decision-arctic-drilling-means-alaska-economy

 

No Comments

Feds allow Shell to drill for oil in Arctic Ocean off Alaska

Economy, Federal gov & land grabs

PNP comment: Great News !!! – Editor Liz Bowen

Yereth Rosen

Alaska Dispatch News

 

No Comments

Trucking industry braces for new EPA rules for big rigs

Clean Water ACT - EPA, Economy, Federal gov & land grabs

President Obama is expected to soon add emission rules for big-rig trucks to a growing list of regulations to combat the threat of climate change.

The president directed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new rules for heavy-duty trucks to make them more fuel efficient, while lowering their carbon dioxide emissions to lessen the effects of global warming.

Trucking manufacturers will be looking to see if they are able to meet the standards without driving smaller trucking fleets out of business, according to industry representatives.

The rules will not only regulate the truck and the engine, but are also expected to add new efficiency and emission regulations for trailers that large tractor-trailer trucks haul. One official says it will be a “big rule” that comprises so many components of large trucks that it could easily be broken down into several separate regulations.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/02/trucking-industry-braces-for-new-epa-rules-for-big-rigs/?intcmp=latestnews

No Comments

93 Power Plants in Danger from EPA’s Climate Rule–300,000 Jobs Lost

Clean Water ACT - EPA, Economy, Federal gov & land grabs

California Political Review

The cost of energy is about to go up. About 300,000 workers are going to lose their jobs. Revenues for government is going to go down—while subsidies to crony capitalists will go up.

“For perspective, 80,000 jobs is larger than the population of Napa, CA. But this is only the first part of the story. EPA never quantifies the secondary employment effects of these lost jobs. A 2009 PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that one energy job supports 3.7 additional jobs. Using a jobs multiplier of 3.7, applied to the 80,000 lost jobs that EPA concedes, yields about 296,000 lost jobs across the U.S.

To put the figure of 296,000 lost jobs in context, the average annual pay in the “fossil fuel electric power generation” industry is $103,645 and the average coal mining salary is $82,068. This means that by 2030, the economy could lose $27.7 billion in wages, larger than the GDP of Jamaica. However, nowhere in EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) do they monetize the loss of these jobs or wages.”

Obama is doing all he can, and as quick as he can, to assure a generation of high prices, with low wage jobs and high taxes to pay for the very rich to stay in business. The EPA may be our number one job killer—thank you Barack.

EPALogo

93 Power Plants in Danger from EPA’s Climate Rule

By Catrina Rorke, Sam Batkins, American Action Forum, 4/16/15

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) own estimates, its proposed power plant regulation could eliminate one-fifth of existing coal generation facilities and 80,000 energy jobs. The regulation, set for final publication this summer, would regulate emissions at existing coal and natural gas power plants, while also ensuring that consumers use less energy from coal facilities. Based on American Action Forum (AAF) research, this means that more than 90 coal-fired power plants could be retired across the country. Secondary employment impacts suggest that EPA’s power plant regulation could eliminate 296,000 jobs, about the population of Cincinnati, Ohio and more than the total number of jobs the economy created in February 2015.

Methodology

Buried in one of EPA’s technical support documents, among more than 1,600 other supporting documents for the proposed rule, the administration detailed the economic implications of complying with building blocks one (heat rate improvements at coal plants) and two (increased natural gas dispatch rates and decreased coal usage). EPA estimated one-fifth of existing coal could be retired, around 49 gigawatts (GW) of power, and the coal industry could lose upwards of 80,000 jobs.

Facilities Closure

AAF used the 49 GW figure and EPA’s eGRID data to find the least efficient affected power plants, as measured by heat rate and pounds of CO2 emitted per megawatt hour (CO2/MWh). Anticipating that the least efficient coal facilities are most at risk for closure, AAF identified the 93 least efficient power plants that produced about 50 GW of power.

Below is a map of facilities most susceptible to closure because of EPA’s proposed power plant regulation.

Employment Impacts

EPA predicts that if states adopt only options one and two of the administration’s plan for power plants, 80,000 energy industry jobs will be lost to EPA climate regulations.

For perspective, 80,000 jobs is larger than the population of Napa, CA. But this is only the first part of the story. EPA never quantifies the secondary employment effects of these lost jobs. A 2009 PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that one energy job supports 3.7 additional jobs. Using a jobs multiplier of 3.7, applied to the 80,000 lost jobs that EPA concedes, yields about 296,000 lost jobs across the U.S.

To put the figure of 296,000 lost jobs in context, the average annual pay in the “fossil fuel electric power generation” industry is $103,645 and the average coal mining salary is $82,068. This means that by 2030, the economy could lose $27.7 billion in wages, larger than the GDP of Jamaica. However, nowhere in EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) do they monetize the loss of these jobs or wages.

Professors Jonathan Masur and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago have devised a central figure of the costs of a lost job: $100,000. Using this data point, the broader economic implications of 296,000 lost jobs become bleak. The employment costs could eclipse $29.6 billion. That figure alone would make it one of the costliest regulations of all time, but it is absent from EPA’s RIA because agencies typically refuse to incorporate employment projections with regulatory analysis.

Below is a snapshot of how EPA anticipates these jobs will be lost throughout the energy industry.

Employment Category

Year 2020

Year 2025

Year 2030

Retired Coal

-15,600

-14,100

-12,300

Retired Oil and Natural Gas

-700

-500

-400

Coal Extraction

-10,500

-12,400

-13,500

Total Loss by 2030: 80,000 Jobs

AAF determined how job losses are distributed across states. Jobs lost through coal and oil and natural gas retirements were allocated according to which states will see the most generation losses because of the proposed EPA climate regulations. EPA provided estimates of historic energy generation and how coal and oil and gas facilities will be redispatched or retired under the rule. Jobs lost in coal extraction were allocated among states according to coal employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

State Impacts

The distribution of these 296,000 lost jobs is not evenly scattered throughout the United States.

The redispatch or retirement of coal facilities falls heavily on a small number of states that the EPA will hold to more strict compliance goals. For example, Georgia is expected to lose 13.7 terawatt hours of coal through redispatch or retirement. This represents about 3.6 percent of the total lost coal in the U.S. Thus, Georgia’s share is roughly 5,909 fewer jobs. Losses in oil and gas generation are significantly smaller, but fall disproportionately by generation losses. California will lose 10.4 terawatt hours of oil and gas steam generation, amounting to 956 lost jobs.

Jobs lost in coal extraction will also fall disproportionately on a small number of states. While coal extraction in the Appalachian Basin is far more labor-intensive than coal extraction in the western U.S., western states account for a greater percentage of coal generation. The result is job losses distributed across centers of production. For example, Virginia accounts for 6 percent of all coal extraction jobs and will see 7,452 jobs lost.

It is important to note that EPA anticipates that nearly half of all coal extraction jobs will be lost. Of the 76,000 jobs in coal extraction today, EPA climate regulation is anticipated to eliminate 36,400 by 2030.

The following map displays how many jobs each state could lose as result of redispatch, retirement, and lost coal extraction employment.

Conclusion

It’s no surprise that EPA’s greenhouse gas rule will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in the energy sector; the agency admits the rule will cause steep jobs cuts, up to one-fifth of coal generation. But that’s not the entire story. The 80,000 in possible job losses could easily translate into more than 296,000 jobs throughout the economy and $29 billion in employment costs. EPA might tout the benefits of its proposal, but the significant job losses are just as noteworthy.

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/93-power-plants-in-danger-from-epas-climate-rule-300000-jobs-lost/

No Comments

Alaska, North Dakota locked in rivalry for oil, population

Economy, State gov

James MacPherson | Associated Press

 

BISMARCK, N.D. — Forget South Dakota. North Dakota’s most similar sister state these days is some 2,000 miles away.
Alaska and North Dakota — which once had little more in common than wintry weather and elbow room — have for the past several years been locked in a state sibling rivalry over population numbers and crude oil output.
Related:
Alaska population falls behind North Dakota to 48th
In North Dakota, where oil, corruption and bodies surface
“It shocks me how much we have in common with Alaska, and it’s not just the cold,” said Kevin Iverson, manager of the census office at the North Dakota Commerce Department in Bismarck.
North Dakota is bettering Alaska on crude production and the number of residents now, thanks to the Lower 48 state’s economic miracle led by its oil bonanza. The United States’ unlikely economic darling that is North Dakota comes in contrast to slipping crude production on The Last Frontier.
Recent U.S. Census Bureau data show North Dakota recaptured the 47th most populous state from Alaska, which had held the ranking for the past decade. North Dakota had an estimated 739,482 residents in 2014, up more 15,600 residents from the prior count and a record level. The 2.2 percent increase was the biggest in the nation.
Alaska lost more than 500 residents between 2013 and 2014, ending the year with a population pegged at about 736,700. It was among only six states to lose population, data show.
North Dakota’s fortunes have swung radically in recent years with advanced drilling technology in the rich Bakken shale and Three Forks formations that have thrust the state to the nation’s No. 2 oil producer behind Texas. North Dakota, which was barely a top-10 oil producer a decade ago, passed Alaska in 2012 to become the second-leading oil-producing state in the U.S.
Oil output in North Dakota is pegged at more than 1.1 million barrels daily, or more than double Alaska’s oil production, which peaked in 1988 at 2 million barrels daily but has dropped to less than one-fourth of that at present.
Two of North Dakota’s 17 oil-producing counties in the western part of the state — McKenzie and Mountrail — are now producing more than all of Alaska.
North Dakota’s present day position seemed inconceivable in 2003 when it was the only state to lose population and Alaska vaulted past. Only Vermont and Wyoming had fewer residents than North Dakota then, and both of those states had population increases, the Census Bureau said.
Demographers projected at that time that Vermont and Wyoming would leapfrog over North Dakota by decade’s end, leaving North Dakota with the dubious distinction of being the least-populated state in the nation.
The Census Bureau later estimated that about 21,000 North Dakotans left between 2000 and 2007, the year the state’s oil boom began in earnest. North Dakota has since added nearly 84,000 residents and has about 25,000 more jobs than takers, giving it the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, less than 3 percent.
Iverson, North Dakota’s demographer, said the explosion of oil development has made population estimates difficult, if not impossible.
“There is a real danger of doing population projections based on oil,” he said. “The problem for small rural states like North Dakota and Alaska is that population is driven by migration change and that change is driven by economics.”
Alaska demographer David Howell, based in Juneau, said most residents there are aware of North Dakota’s newfound oil wealth.
“We know what’s going on with oil in North Dakota and it’s something people here are always keeping track of,” he said. “People are talking about the boom down there.”
The recent population estimates, however, do not paint a gloom-and-doom picture for Alaska, Howell said. The state’s overall economy remains strong, he said.
“Certainly the statewide (population) estimates show a slight decrease, but it is not a huge drop by any means,” Howell said.
___
Bismarck statehouse correspondent James MacPherson is a former longtime Alaska resident.

http://www.adn.com/article/20150101/alaska-north-dakota-locked-rivalry-oil-population

No Comments
« Older Posts