Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » California shows the way (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: California shows the way
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah Cali is better than Texas in per capita income, that wont work then.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll give you an advantage then - I'll give of a "1.7% spread" in terms of budget deficit, let's award points for that category as if California and Texas were tied.

If Republican policies work better than Democratic policies, then Texas should do better over the next two years than California. And with that head-start on budget deficits, the bet as I outlined it should now be a no-brainer from your perspective.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm in, although your confidence has me shook a little. If it's a no-brainer as you say, why would you present the bet? I feel like there is something you are saying that is a trick of some kinds, like a technical term or something, and I am missing it.

Regardless I'll take the bet. No money is required, but obviously the winner will be able to brag.

Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's why I am reasonably confident: each state has a significant advantage in one important economic measure (average income and unemployment). The difference will be in addressing the budget deficit. I believe that in recent decades, contrary to conventional wisdom, Democrats have been more pragmatic and thus more effective in addressing issues of government effectiveness and balancing the budget. I believe that Republicans have been more dogmatic, more willing to take actions based on their principles rather than facts. And I believe that Jerry Brown and Rick Perry are good examples of of their parties in this regard. I expect things will get very messy in both California and Texas, but at the end of two years, the approaches more characteristic of Democrats today will serve their state better.

I'm going to put a note in my Outlook calendar for February 11, 2013 to collect and post the results.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I'll be watching too.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...and yet, the outcome of the bet remains relatively meaningless--because the outcome will be impacted by events and vicissitudes that have nothing to with policy flavor...
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
seekingprometheus,

There is a chance that you are correct, but if you are, it means that G2's original question is invalid. If outcomes are shaped "by events and vicissitudes that have nothing to with policy flavor", then arguing over politics and policies is irrelevant.

I believe that the reality is somewhere in the middle - some causation, some random factors.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg:

Oh, I definitely think G2's presentation of the issue was majorly and obviously flawed. (Isn't it always?)

And I'd agree that policy flavor will impact the outcome on some level.

But your bet seems to me to utilize and validate the same flaw G2 uses in his presentation of the issue--claiming that an issue which represents a tiny portion of the efficient causality of an outcome is far more important than it is.

G2 claims that the economic woes facing California are a result of liberal policies, utterly ignoring the reality that the actual causes of the situation are far far far more complex than this single factor.

Nonsense.

You respond by validating the nonsensical idea with a bet that implies that the slightly differing policies of two majorly complex economic systems are causally sufficient to predict a major disparity in economic outcome, ignoring the reality that the result will be impacted by a far far far more complex set of causes.

It's like watching someone claim that a hurricane is a result of a butterfly having flapped its wings in a specific way, and then seeing someone else jump in and claim that if another hurricane happens within a year, it's also because of that butterfly's peculiar flight choices.

Sure, the flight of the butterfly has some impact on the weather...but come on! I can counteract the weight of the butterfly's impact by whistling into the wind.

G2 arranges the interpretation of causality backwards, to validate his prepossessed conclusions. Do you really want to validate that mode of argument?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must admit I was pleased by an idea of how to put to the test an assertion that California was worse than average due to its political leadership. G2's argument is invalidated both by a tie and by an advantage to California.

I agree that there are other exogenous factors that may bias the results. On the other hand, I am not nearly as skeptical of the value of this test as you are. If the difference between having Rick Perry or Jerry Brown as your Governor was as small as a butterfly in a hurricane, why should any of us care about any elections? That in itself is a remarkable claim, and while I am not certain that this hypothesis is wrong, I am skeptical.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GD:

Yeah, my response was definitely and intentionally hyperbolic.

But I used the hyperbole to make a point: nothing about G2's construction demonstrates an awareness of the full set of causes for the outcome, or does anything to quantify the degree to which the policy difference is the cause.

Your bet doesn't either.

Does the flavor of policy impact the economic situation to a greater degree than the flight of a butterfly impacts weather phenomena? Sure. But to what degree do minor differences in policy impact economic outcomes within the context of the full set of efficient causes, and how can we demonstrate this? Your bet does nothing to isolate the variable, or to even try to contextualize it.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll go as far as saying my bet is a mediocre test of underlying causality. Let's leave it at that.

[Smile]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, but I don't know why you would go that far. Your construction doesn't link any potential outcome to the variable you claim to be testing.
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
California's problems do in fact predate the current financial downfall by at least a decade. They are caused by Cali's uniquely absurd combination of "liberal" spending mandates and "conservative" bright-line limitations on taxations and governmental power -- Prop 13 being the largest but by no means only such limitation.

California now has statutory hurdles which prevent them from fixing the problem -- very limited discretion with a legally atrophied apportionment of authority.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with KidTokyo and would just add that I think the ease and frequency that amendments are added by the population at large furthers the short-sighted and contradictory laws.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
California's problems do in fact predate the current financial downfall by at least a decade
Some of them, perhaps. But to take a look at one of the handiest metrics to which the article referred--unemployment--the rate hovered between 5-7% all decade, until the housing market tanked. It was under 5% for most of 2006.

This isn't to suggest that the problems of unemployment and their relation to the recession aren't related to California's policies, but it is to unequivocally state that this particular problem of unemployment doesn't predate the recession.
California unemployment

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose I did say "problems" plural.

G2's post addressed "debt" specifically, and that was what I had in mind.

It's noteworthy, though, that Cali's unemployment was still (it seems) ahead of the national average pre-crash.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
California's projected 2012 deficit at $19.2 billion, or 18.7% of its general fund, and the Texas deficit at $7.4 billion, or 17% of its budget (this is from an article in the LA Times a few days ago). That's good, that's pretty close to the same starting point. There's a bit bigger gap in the two metrics for the health of the economy. Texas currently has 8.3% unemployment vs. 12.5% in California. Some could argue that's due to Democratic policy in California), but at the same time (as JWatts brought up) average income in Texas is $36.5 K vs $42.3 K in California (some could argue that's due to Republican policy in Texas).

Let's use all three of these as metrics, let's award 100 points per category, and let's measure

I wouldn't consider median income as a reasonable metric. It changes much, much slower than unemployment and budget deficits. It takes decades to make a substantial change. So it's unlikely to change much at all in the 2 year time frame you are talking about. Granted over the long haul, I suspect median income to be the best metric, but at anything less than a 20 year time frame, its signal to noise ratio is likely to make any analysis pointless.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a 20 year time-frame is appropriate for median income, what in the past 20 years accounts for California being better than Texas in this regard?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If a 20 year time-frame is appropriate for median income, what in the past 20 years accounts for California being better than Texas in this regard?

According to this site, over the last 13 years Texas and California have both had an identical (48%) growth in median household income.

State Median Income

Texas 1998 $43,977
Texas 2010 $65,348
Texas = 48.6%
Calif 1998 $51,519
Calif 2010 $76,388
Calif = 48.3%

[ February 14, 2011, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: JWatts ]

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
G2's post addressed "debt" specifically, and that was what I had in mind.
Yeah, the debt goes back a ways, and is definitely tied to lib policies.

But it's worth mentioning that the bullet-points G2 cited don't refer directly to the state debt, and no connection is actually made. He cites data referring to unemployment, educational problems, industry stagnation, prohibitive housing costs etc, then implicitly claims these issues are the result of liberal policies--without making any argument demonstrating the connection.

He adds the issue of debt--which is far more evidently related to liberal economic policies--into the mix at the very end. His argument is that all the problems he cites are caused by liberal policy, but rather than actually make the argument, it seems to me that he just tags one obviously related problem at the end (which isn't even put into the same citation format as the other problems he quoted from...wherever) to make it seem like the whole litany is just as directly connected as is his final addendum.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If debt is "far more evidently related to liberal economic policies", why did the debt rise more under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II than it did under Carter and Clinton?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
According to this site, over the last 13 years Texas and California have both had an identical (48%) growth in median household income.
A good point, and thanks for doing the research. The implications might be that (a) average income is unrelated to government policy, or that (b) the level of liberal-ness in California and the level of conservative-ness in Texas have remained constant.

I am not sure which is more compelling, I lean slightly towards the latter.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If debt is "far more evidently related to liberal economic policies", why did the debt rise more under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II than it did under Carter and Clinton?
Sorry. I should have put "in California over the last decade" after my statement of my perception of what is evident.

[Smile]

And before you ask, I'm not implying that the debt would be less if more conservative stump-men had had their hands on the purse-strings out here, I'm just suggesting that the relationship of state policy:state debt is much clearer than the relationship of state policy:unemployment rate, or state policy:test scores.

[ February 15, 2011, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
March 10, 2011
Texas isn't stealing California jobs, workers or wealth, UCLA study finds

Contrary to claims by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Lone Star State isn't stealing California's jobs, workers or prosperity, according to a UCLA study.

The study, part of UCLA's quarterly forecast Wednesday, tries to put the kibosh on a rivalry between the states. Perry, for instance, has boasted about "hunting trips" to California to recruit companies from the state.

Texas is one of many Western states trying to capitalize on the perception that California is a difficult place for business.

California appears to be in worse shape than Texas. Its unemployment rate, at 12.4%, is much higher than Texas' 8%. California's population grew 10% in the last decade, the slowest rate in the state's history, as Texas' grew nearly 20%, according to recent census data.

"Texas, the state with the most rapid population growth over the last decade, is held up as the model for job diversion from the Golden State," said Jerry Nickelsburg, a senior economist for the UCLA Anderson Forecast.

Businesses contend that California has high taxes, stringent environmental regulations and difficult permitting systems, a business environment that drives start-ups to Texas.

But some of those accusations aren't accurate, Nickelsburg said.

California, for instance, takes about 4.7% of what a business produces in taxes — which happens to be the national average. Texas takes more, 4.9%, according to a study last fall by the Council on State Taxation, a business-friendly trade group.

As for bureaucracy driving businesses out of the state, Nickelsburg said it appears that some businesses are more naturally suited to California and are growing, while others are more naturally suited to Texas. Legislators should focus on making it easier for California-centric businesses to grow in the state, he said.

With more expensive land and less open space, California is better suited to companies that don't need a lot of land but are what Nickelsburg called operations that provide "high value-added, labor-intensive production of goods and services."

There's a long list of sectors in which employment has grown faster in Texas than in California in the last eight years, Nickelsburg said.

In manufacturing, Texas outperformed California in producing automobiles and automotive parts, fabricated metals, furniture, aerospace, machinery, appliances and nonmetallic fabrication, which primarily consisted of wood products.

But California has outperformed Texas in semiconductors, computers and peripherals, communications equipment and miscellaneous durable goods manufacturing such as medical equipment.

Among nondurable goods, employment in Texas grew faster in plastics and rubber, food and petroleum, partly because Texas has a lot of oil. California outperformed Texas in printing, tobacco and beverages — the state has a lot of vineyards.

It also appears that start-ups are not running disproportionately to Texas, said Stephen Levy, head of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

The states each receive the same portion of venture capital funds as they did before the recession. And California's share of venture funding — more than 50% — is much higher than Texas' 4.1% share.

Further, Levy said, Texas' gains in per capita income were lower, its poverty rate rose faster and its budget deficit is almost as large as California's.

"California and Texas are different states. We should try and be the best California that we can be, a place where innovative entrepreneurs and workers are creating the future," Levy said.

The state shouldn't be reducing wages or housing prices to compete with low-cost areas, he said.

Still, if California is in such good shape, why is Texas' unemployment rate lower than California's?

Texas has created jobs in government, healthcare, mining (mainly petroleum), education, retail and hospitality sectors.

Those aren't jobs that are migratory — ones the state can't steal from California. They're just jobs that can be created quickly because Texas' business environment doesn't make it difficult to do so.

Nickelsburg's conclusion: California shouldn't worry too much about losing jobs to Texas, but it should worry that its regulatory system may deter companies from creating jobs quickly enough.

So far, California's technology operations haven't moved away, but the state needs to do more to ensure they can continue to grow and create enough jobs to make up for the loss of others.

In other words, he said, play up California's advantage in innovation and technology, and more jobs can be created.

alana.semuels@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A California university does a study of California and fins California is great for business! Yet, a recent survey conducted among CEOs ranked California dead last for jobs and business growth. There's what UCLA studies claim (wishful thinking) and what CEO's actually do (reality).
quote:
California outperformed Texas in printing, tobacco and beverages — the state has a lot of vineyards.
Printing and tobacco? Vineyards? Talk about cherry picking.

Yeah, there's a list of other stuff but notice one - aerospace. California was the aerospace king, how long before other industries follow that?

Yeah, California is doing just great. All is well!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be honest, I would expect any survey of CEOs to be 70% lies and 30% ignorance.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well here's data on how the CA aerospace market is doing:

Boeing Flying in More Than 500 Jobs to Oklahoma City
quote:
OKLAHOMA CITY -- The Boeing Company says it is relocating two programs from Long Beach, Calif., to Oklahoma City, a move expected to bring 550 engineering jobs to the state.
...
"Part of our decision was affordability," said Jennifer Hogan with Boeing in Oklahoma City. "Oklahoma City is a great place to do business. We are conscience of the budget cuts Defense is going through and this move will also make us competitive for future work."

Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A bit of context here. The Boeing Long Beach plant used to be McDonnel Douglas (the makers of the DC-10 and MD-11 aircraft). They were bought by Boeing about a decade ago, and Boeing has been systematically dismantling the plant ever since.

Manufacturing stopped in the plant soon after the purchase and the workers were laid off. (Boeing all ready had a huge facility in Washington.) And the administrative personnel in the plant has been decreasing steadily over the last few years.

Although taxes and regulations in California do annoy (is that a strong enough word?) businesses here, this most likely has more to do with consolidating Boeing's assets than moving out of CA because of an onerous business environment.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ill. state Senator leaves for Texas: 'I'm tired of subsidizing crooks.

quote:
Roger Keats, a former Illinois state senator and Cook County Board president, is packing up and leaving the Land of Lincoln for good. The 62-year-old Keats was a good government reformer who helped clean up the rampant corruption in the Chicago-area courts uncovered by Operations Greylord and Gambat.

But now he’s throwing in the towel, and he and his wife are heading for Texas. “I am tired of subsidizing crooks," Keats told the Wilmette Beacon.

In “Good Bye and Good Luck,” a letter to all the friends and political supporters he’s leaving behind after 60 years, Keats says he is leaving what he calls “the most corrupt big city…and most corrupt state in America” with “a heavy heart.”

“But enough is enough!” he writes. “The leaders of Illinois refuse to see we can’t continue going in the direction we are and expect people who have options to stay here.”
“Illinois just sold still more bonds and our credit rating is so bad we pay higher interest rates than junk bonds! Junk Bonds!” Keats points out.

“Illinois is ranked 50th for fiscal policy; 47th in job creation; first in unfunded pension liabilities; second largest budget deficit; first in failing schools; first in bonded indebtedness; highest sales tax in the nation; most judges indicted; and five of our last nine elected governors have been indicted. That is more than the other 49 states added together!...

“We are moving to Texas where there is no income tax while Illinois’ just went up 67%. Texas’ sales tax is half of ours, which is the highest in the nation. Southern states are supportive of job producers, taxpayers and folks who offer opportunities to their residents. Illinois shakes them down for every penny that can be extorted from them.”

Link
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In “Good Bye and Good Luck,” a letter to all the friends and political supporters...
“Good Bye and Good Luck" ROTFLMAO!
quote:
As a recent study by Americans for Tax Reform found, migration from high-tax states like Illinois to states with lower taxes and less government spending like Texas will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses as more and more Americans, like the Keatses, vote with their feet.
Hope and change ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Republican policies work better than Democratic policies, then Texas should do better over the next two years than California.
from Feb 2011

The net result is pretty close - Texas is enjoying an oil boom (fracking may make the US the world's leading producer of oil by 2020, who'd have predicted that?) while California is enjoying particularly strong jobs growth. Perhaps economic growth is not affected by either Democratic or Republican policies?



1. Budget Deficits: both California and Texas are projecting surpluses. These are projections, but the one for Texas is bigger, so a provisional advantage for Texas

2. Unemployment: California unemployment (9.8%)has gone down more than Texas unemployment (6.1%) link,
quote:
California contributed more than 15 percent of the nation’s new jobs between October 2011 and October 2012 - adding more jobs in 12 months than Texas and the rest of the other top-10 fastest-growing states combined - while home building is bouncing back and demand for houses is increasing.
quote:
California contributed more than 15 percent of the nation’s new jobs between October 2011 and October 2012 - adding more jobs in 12 months than Texas and the rest of the other top-10 fastest-growing states combined - while home building is bouncing back and demand for houses is increasing.
link Advantage California.

3. Average Income (2012 data not available yet - it may be a while before this is available).

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tortured.

Budget deficits. California:
quote:
The state expects $98.5 billion in revenues and transfers and plans spending $97.7 billion, according to the proposal published on the state Department of Finance website.

That leaves a surplus of $851 million for the year, in addition to a projected $785 million surplus for the current fiscal year, which ends in June, allowing the state to put $1 billion toward a rainy day fund.

Texas:
quote:
Combs forecast revenue of $101.4 billion - which the comptroller says is 12.4 percent greater than corresponding funds available for the current budget cycle - including $8.8 billion expected to remain at the end of the 2012-2013 budget cycle.

The state's general revenue collections are projected to be $96.2 billion, $3.6 billion of which would be set aside for the state's rainy-day fund.

Combs estimated that the rainy-day fund will have $8.1 billion at the end of the current budget cycle and $11.8 billion at the end of the 2014-2015 cycle.

A provisional advantage for Texas? [LOL]


How did they do it? CA did it by vaulting to #1 on the most taxed list ( 21 percent above the second-highest state of Hawaii and 34 percent above the third-highest state of Oregon for income taxes) and projecting it would create this surplus. Let's ask Phil Mickelson how well that's going to work. Texas? By this:
quote:
The Texas Legislature will have 12.4 percent more revenue to spend in the next two budget years thanks to higher-than-expected tax collections boosted by economic growth...
Which is the more winning strategy, creating the highest tax rate in the country or economic growth? And let's not get hung up on the canard of oil. CA has oil:

quote:
In July [2011], the U.S. Energy Information Administration released its estimates of readily recoverable gas and oil within all the shale deposits in the United States.

<snip>

... the Monterey shale formation [California] contained 15.5 billion barrels of oil, accounting for 64 percent of the total shale oil resources in the United States. By those numbers, the Monterey reserves dwarf those at the Bakken [North Dakota] and Eagle Ford [Texas] fields.

Unemployment. It's truly tortured logic to say CA has the advantage when the unemployment rate is 3.7% higher than Texas and 1.9% higher than the national average. All this during a time when the Texas population is growing at a pace twice the national average and during a period where about 40% of all jobs created nationwide were in Texas.

Average income. How about cost of living? Is CA still tied for #1 as the most expensive place to live? Doing a salary comparison calculator, a person in Austin, TX (the silicon hills) making $40,000 (about the average per capita income for TX) would have to make $65,000 in San Jose, CA (silicon valley) to enjoy the same standard of living. The per capita income in CA, $43,000.


Here's a fun exercise for everyone: Google "fleeing California" and "fleeing Texas". That alone will tell you just how things are shaking out between the states.

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now I remember why you are just so boring, G3:

quote:
Do we really want the California model nationwide?
substantiated by assertions such as
quote:
A recent survey conducted among CEOs ranked California dead last for jobs and business growth.

The trend for both California and Texas is better than most people would have predicted, with California improving more than Texas in some ways and Texas improving more than California in others, but you are unable to recognize where that might actually address your premise.

I did commit to showing the data in February 2013, but I think I'll be drifting away again.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Now I remember why you are just so boring, G3:

Yeah, facts is boring. [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
Do we really want the California model nationwide?
substantiated by assertions such as
quote:
A recent survey conducted among CEOs ranked California dead last for jobs and business growth.


That's not a assertion, that's the results of a survey. CEO's think CA sucks when it comes to business environment. If you don't like the facts I gave you, follow my google links (or do your own search) and you'll see more than you'd probably want.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
The trend for both California and Texas is better than most people would have predicted, with California improving more than Texas in some ways and Texas improving more than California in others, but you are unable to recognize where that might actually address your premise.

I get it, you like California. I like it too. Beaches, the weather, Disney, it's great. I wish they all could be California girls ... although, the southern girls with the way they talk...

CA is a great place to visit, used to be a great place to live but we're doing a economic comparison here and while it may not be in Texas' favor on every single metric, it is still Texas by a landslide. As nice as California is, people gotta pay the rent and want to go down to the Sizzler once in a while and they have a considerably better chance of that in Texas than they do California. That's why people are moving there in droves.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I did commit to showing the data in February 2013, but I think I'll be drifting away again.

Now, don't be that way. Present your data. It's interesting to see how CA comes out on this. With what is now the highest tax burden in the nation and among the highest regulatory burdens, I think everyone would like to see just how it plays out.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What part of the data I presented were you unable to see? When a Democrat was elected as Governor in California and a Republican in Texas, we made specific predictions regarding budgets and unemployment. As California went from a Republican Governor to a Democratic Governor, unemployment declined by a greater amount than in Texas where the Republicans retained the Governorship.

If CA sucks as a business environment, why would there be more hiring in CA than TX? And if having a Democratic Governor would make CA suck more than if it had a Republican Governor, why was there more hiring in CA than TX?

In a nuanced and reality-based discussion, we might follow on with some of the astute comments that some others on Ornery made, that the political party in the Governorship is not the only determinant of economic growth. The place where you are boring, G3, is that you are so loyal to your positions that you are unable to accept any evidence that runs counter to what you believed in the first place. I also have strong beliefs, but where it looks like events are coming out in a different way, I'd rather stick with the truth than with my partisan position (which is why I have no problem acknowledging that the budget surplus in TX looks as if it will be larger than the budget surplus in CA, but I still put a caveat on that because we are comparing two predictions made by two different groups, and the actual facts will only be clear later this year).

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
What part of the data I presented were you unable to see? When a Democrat was elected as Governor in California and a Republican in Texas, we made specific predictions regarding budgets and unemployment. As California went from a Republican Governor to a Democratic Governor, unemployment declined by a greater amount than in Texas where the Republicans retained the Governorship.

What part of the data I presented were you unable to see? Saying "unemployment declined by a greater amount than in Texas" is little more than fun with percentages.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
If CA sucks as a business environment, why would there be more hiring in CA than TX? And if having a Democratic Governor would make CA suck more than if it had a Republican Governor, why was there more hiring in CA than TX?

Perhaps you should read this.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
In a nuanced and reality-based discussion, we might follow on with some of the astute comments that some others on Ornery made, that the political party in the Governorship is not the only determinant of economic growth. The place where you are boring, G3, is that you are so loyal to your positions that you are unable to accept any evidence that runs counter to what you believed in the first place. I also have strong beliefs, but where it looks like events are coming out in a different way, I'd rather stick with the truth than with my partisan position (which is why I have no problem acknowledging that the budget surplus in TX looks as if it will be larger than the budget surplus in CA, but I still put a caveat on that because we are comparing two predictions made by two different groups, and the actual facts will only be clear later this year).

I think you're talking about more nuance and less reality here. The place where you are boring, Greg, is that you are so loyal to your positions that you are unable to accept any evidence that runs counter to what you believed in the first place - and that evidence is provided is spades here. If you think you're sticking to truth and not partisan politics, why start the personal attack?
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce officials, who sent a representative on Gov. Rick Perry’s recent California recruiting trip, report a spike in Golden State companies inquiring about relocating to Central Texas.

Californians seem responsive to Texas’ low tax message, especially since the most recent state election in November, when income and sales taxes increases were approved by California’s voters in a measure called Proposition 30.

“We have had a spike of double or triple the amount of normal (business relocation) activity since the November election in California,” said Dave Porter, senior vice president for economic development at the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce.

<snip>

Porter said the new tax measure seems to have rubbed some California tech entrepreneurs the wrong way.

“I think the tech companies there have had enough,” Porter said. “We are seeing mid-sized tech companies say, ‘This is it.’”

<snip>

Now, with the California tax hikes, Porter said, the chamber is getting inquiries and visits from high-tech executives who are considering relocating their headquarters operations out of California to avoid that state’s income taxes.

“We have had tons of prospects and inquiries from California,” Porter said. “And the common theme is: the sooner (the move out of California) the better.”



[ February 14, 2013, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, California.

quote:
As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.

California, Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo. Quite a list to be in ain't it?

Still want to compare to Texas? Ehhh, not such a good idea:
quote:
Yet even in Silicon Valley, the expansion of prosperity has been extraordinarily limited. Due to enormous losses suffered in the current tech bubble, tech job creation in Silicon Valley has barely reached its 2000 level. In contrast, previous tech booms, such as the one in the 90s, doubled the ranks of the tech community. Some, like UC Berkeley economist Enrico Moretti, advance the dubious claim that those jobs are more stable than those created in Texas. But even if we concede that point for the moment, the Valley’s growth primarily benefits its denizens but not most Californians. Since the recession, California remains down something like 500,000 jobs, a 3.5 percent loss, while its Lone Star rival has boosted its employment by a remarkable 931,000, a gain of more than 9 percent.
Ouch. How bad has the job situation gotten? Glad you asked:
quote:
Once you get outside the Bay Area, unemployment in many of the state’s largest counties—Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, and Oakland—soars into the double digits. Indeed, among the 20 American cities with the highest unemployment rates, a remarkable 11 are in California, led by Merced’s mind-boggling 22 percent rate.
It really is starting to look like Europe. If only all of America would follow California, it would be the dream if the American left nationwide.
Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the percentage of california's population in prison, compared to Texas? To what extent can we call the state that elected Reagan and shwartzenegger, and enacted Prop 8, be called a leftoid paradise?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Go live in Texas, if you want to. We like it here just fine. And while Texas is doing well by the metrics we established in terms of the bet that this thread is based on, so is California.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1