ggsi at gte.net
Fri Jan 30 18:50:58 EST 1998
I am sympathetic to the implications that further reductions in logging
permits would cost loggers. I suggest loggers be paid a full weeks wage for
perhaps a few days work. This way mcready could maintain his living wage
while the forests are harvested at a reasonable rate. Who can argue with
To understand human nature would be to say that productivity would fall in
lumber that would have to be subsidized if wages were maintained steady.
There would be a loss of profits that would certainly hurt mcready's boss
and shareholders. So I further suggest that his boss and owners are
compensated at their present rate of profits plus their anticipated growth
should they win the battle to de-forest at will.
There will be a scarcity of lumber that the free market will make-up until
deforestation moves elsewhere. At that time we would apply similar measures.
I believe I just described government subsidized farm programs, and the
entitlements that were created for the bosses of other farm market products.
If the bosses and workers saved their money from prior profits then they
will be that much more ahead of subsistence wages we should pay to other
workers and bosses. The subsistence wages could likewise be capitalized in
an account that the worker/boss could decide to risk on a new business or
perhaps training for a new field.
What is wrong with this general welfare program? Isn't it better than
foresting longer than optimum, or laying off workers without a good safety
net? And what is wrong with a strong government that can protect us from
right wing and left wing takeovers? At least we can all agree to hold our
government accountable for the best ideals we each seek for ourselves and
our families. We can trust each other to know the difference between a
rotten and enslaving government program and a benevolent one.
I challenge each of you in the Orr Mountain Lumber debate to consider the
entire issue. The environmentalist should look to preserve the families of
the disposessd workers. The lumber people should look hard at their
practices and back off from practices considered by some to be too
aggressive. Walk in the other man's shoe, er boot, for a while. And please
refrain from the jargon and cliches of thelast presidential election.
Remember when both sides were so dissatisfied with that rhetoric then?
Incidentally, even the most staunch capitalist agrees the ingenuity and
productivity of the american worker can pay for this plan.
More information about the Ag-forst