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 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: California shows the way
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Point is that California is indeed doing badly. Objectively measured, metrics that are commonly used to judge the health of a state and impact of government policy overwhelmingly indicate negative instead of positive.

For those living there, you accept as normal things that would be seen as inexplicable at best and intolerable at worst. As outsiders we may agree that California is a beautiful state with great weather and a kick butt national tourism add campaign. But as outsiders we recognize serious issues related to functional economic issues.

Your taxes have killed the golden goose. Your regulations are insane. Look at what it does to automobiles and outdoor grills. And don't get me started on the Californian new throw pillow tags. Your education system is excellent for excellent students, but leaves a lot to be desired for average students. Your cost of living is laughable. It is directly the result of your tax policies. The defaulting of your cities and counties is a direct expression of what happens when a government is both mismanaged due to ideological fervor and spending far beyond funding.

In short California has spent the last two years staggering under a liberal government incapable of improving the state performance metrics to a level that would acknowledge its inherent advantages of location, education, economic capacity, natural resources, economy of scales, and financial capacities of private investment.

It doesn't matter whether you are right wing or left wing. Objectively the state has performed badly. It continues to perform badly. The commonality between the metrics has been and will remain to be liberal democratic ideas requirering increased government intervention and regulation that has resulted in increasingly divergent differences between rich and poor. At some point, if one is objective, the legitimate question has to be asked if California would do better with less liberal ideological governance or if it would be better to increase liberal ideological governance.

It could be with more liberal ideology cemented as legal function, the government would have more control at its disposal to allow for better management of the state resulting in less taxes, less social economic stratigraphy, better employment, and better infrastructure.

I doubt it.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 
We picked three metrics back in 2011

quote:
Let's use three metrics - one to roughly measure governing ability (budget deficits), and two to measure the key elements of the economy: how many people have a job (unemployment) and how much money do they get paid (average income).
You assert

quote:
Objectively measured, metrics that are commonly used to judge the health of a state and impact of government policy overwhelmingly indicate negative instead of positive.
I think that the metrics above are decent indicators of progress - so you want to do the research to substantiate your claim that they overwhelmingly indicate a negative rather than positive trend? Because that wasn't the case when I did the homework a little over six months ago
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg ok. Using your metrics, California is deficient.

Are you going to pay your bet off?

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 
Please show data that supports your assertion
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure ill bite.....

2011-2012 California state receipts:
120,434,000,000 dollars.
2011-2012 California expenditures:
129,477,000,000 dollars

2012-2013 California state receipts:
132,902,000,000 dollars.
2012-2013 California expenditures:
142,421,000,000 dollars.

2013-2014 California state receipts:
136,961,000,000 dollars
2013-2014 California state expenditures:
145,300,000,000

Note above are all the actual passed and signed into the law budget. They are not provisional nor draft budgets. This is what was actually signed into law.

So in terms of deficits you are looking at an increase of over $30 billion dollars.

California unemployment rates, 10.4% seasonally adjusted year rate in 2012, and the current calendar year has California at 8.9%

Same time frame the USA average rate was 8.1% and 7.3% in the same time frame.

So California is worse than the average unemployment rate.

According to the DOJ California individual wage and compensation average for an individual is $48,415. That makes California 14th in the nation. Keep in mind the next 23 states are seperated by $1000.

So California wages are about ... Average since 34 states are all swinging in such a short range. There is no way to argue that Californian wage earners are getting a premium compensation as far as the Feds determine the rankings.

And then there is that cost of living thing...
California ranks as the 21st most expensive state to live in. So in a glass half empty sort if world you could claim Californians are almost the least expensive of the most expensive states to live in.

So let's reiterate...

$30 billion dollar expansion in the deficit.
A significantly worse unemployment rate.
An astoundingly average wage compensation level
And a lower than I expected, but still higher than most state cost of living.

I'd say after two years... It's time to pay up

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

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

2011-2012 California state receipts:
120,434,000,000 dollars.
2011-2012 California expenditures:
129,477,000,000 dollars

Deficit: $9,043,000,000

quote:

2012-2013 California state receipts:
132,902,000,000 dollars.
2012-2013 California expenditures:
142,421,000,000 dollars.

Deficit: $9,519,000,000

quote:
2013-2014 California state receipts:
136,961,000,000 dollars
2013-2014 California state expenditures:
145,300,000,000

Deficit: $8,339,000,000

Net Deficit Change: ($704,000,000)

quote:

So in terms of deficits you are looking at an increase of over $30 billion dollars.

No, by the numbers you posted, you're looking at a net reduction in deficit of &704 million

You showed a .5% reduction in unemployment. That might be a little under the national average, but less comparative improvement is not the same as getting worse.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
Red,

The bet I made was whether California (under a Democratic Governor) would have better performance trends than Texas (under a Republican Governor)

The correct data for the wager is

Change in unemployment (Texas vs. California)
Change in Budget Deficit/Surplus (Texas vs California)
Change in average income (Texas vs California)

It's homework to collect similar data for each (annual income is not calculated on a monthly basis). If you have accurate data on all three, and California has performed less well across the three (equally weighted criteria), then I will be glad to admit that Texas did better than California over this period of time.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Change in unemployment

http://www.dlt.ri.gov/lmi/laus/us/annavg.htm
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm

California started at 11.8 in 2011 and is now 8.9
reduction of 2.9/11.8 = 24.6%

Texas started at 7.9 in 2011 and is now 6.4
reduction of 1.5/7.9 = 19.0%

Per Capita Personal Income By state

http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 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 
Improvement relative to unemployment substantially favors California (24.6% reduction vs. 19% reduction), although Texas still has lower unemployment

Improvement relative to average income substantially favors Texas - 13% growth between 2009 and 2012 (41.5/36.5) vs 10% (45.0/41.0), although California still has higher average income

Those two factors roughly counter each other; my research regarding the relative budget deficits in the two states is murky, and it may not be possible to measure the current surplus/deficit until the end of the year. It's entirely possible that Texas has the better relative performance, and thus they will take the prize for 2013, but it is also possible it may be California. Can someone provide active, accurate information on the projected deficit/surplus of each state (and include any relevant tapping into reserve funds that serve to obscure the size of the actual deficit being run by each state?) The latter is a harder exercise, generally newspapers only cover this sort of thing at the end of the year.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Improvement relative to unemployment substantially favors California (24.6% reduction vs. 19% reduction), although Texas still has lower unemployment.

Not sure I'd agree. I think generally most would view the change in unemployment to become more difficult the closer it gets to zero and that's tough to factor.

If I were to modify the result, I'd consider a way to compare them to national and other state averages to get a better sense of how their own policies functioned as states. So for instance if Texas exceeded or lagged its peer group of other low unemployment states or if CA did the same it might be relevant of course that would still be confounded by the policies of the other peer group states in question. So I guess, no easy way to really fix, anyone have an idea?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What throws a giant monkey wrench into this is the oil boom,

http://www.governing.com/blogs/by-the-numbers/gov-midland-oil-boom-jobs-population-growth-creates-challenges-for-government.html

It will completely dominate just about all economic factors in Texas which basically makes the comparison useless if you want to judge the impact of government policy on the economy.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This seems appropriate now....
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 
quote:
I think generally most would view the change in unemployment to become more difficult the closer it gets to zero and that's tough to factor.
A valid point, but not applicable in this situation, as Texas is not close to near zero unemployment
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 think his point is that it may be significantly easier to move the rate from %11.8 to 8.9 than it is to move it from 7.9 to 6.4, and that it's going to be difficult to put an exact value on what the difference is. I think his point is valid here.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It depends a bit on what the overall momentum is, since you're dealing with feedback systems. It can be harder to get a high stagnant number going than it is to let a self-sustaining drop continue. On the other hand it can be hard to keep pushing down if you're close to the current possible minimum. Figuring out what the actual situation is probably taks playing with derivatives and 2nd derivatives a bit
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 don't think that there is an appreciable difference in the range between 11.8% and 6.4% - both are high by historical standards.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I don't think that there is an appreciable difference in the range between 11.8% and 6.4% - both are high by historical standards.

Except that the former is nearly double the latter...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Let me clarify, both are similar with respect to any impedance in further lowering of the unemployment rate
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Let me clarify, both are similar with respect to any impedance in further lowering of the unemployment rate

Based on what? What have you looked at that leads to such a conclusion?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
Milton Friedman was as economic theorist who promoted a doctrine known as the "natural rate" of unemployment

quote:
any given labor market structure must involve a certain amount of unemployment, including frictional unemployment associated with individuals changing jobs and possibly classical unemployment arising from real wages being held above the market-clearing level by minimum wage laws, trade unions or other labour market institutions. Unexpected inflation might allow unemployment to fall below the natural rate by temporarily depressing real wages, but this effect would dissipate once expectations about inflation were corrected. Only with continuously accelerating inflation could rates of unemployment below the natural rate be maintained.
Look at a variety of sources and you find that most predictions of this group were not validated by real world outcomes - unemployment under Clinton fell below the natural rate in almost every state with few of the predicted outcomes consistent with this theory. And 6.8% is well above the level of unemployment that was demonstrated nationwide in the 1990's.

So that's the basis of my assertion - please do me the courtesy of showing me yours.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RedVW on a Laptop
Member
Member # 615

 - posted      Profile for RedVW on a Laptop   Email RedVW on a Laptop   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What has been accepted as being the difference between full employment and the resulting change in unemployment has changed greatly over the years. How either is computed now differs from how it was computed even a couple decades ago. To me the unemployment rate as currently calculated tends to significantly under report who isn't able to join the labor pool. And in terms of the full employment I think it also leaves a bunch off the table.

Eg the real unemployment number is likely above 12% and the full employment capacity is much lower than it likely should be.

Posts: 507 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  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 
Red, your point supports my assertion in this thread. If unemployment is even higher than the 6.8% reported for Texas (as well as the amount reported in California), then there are even fewer reasons to believe that it is getting harder to reduce unemployment in Texas because it is too close to some threshold of too little unemployment. Therefore, the inability of Texas to reduce unemployment under a Republican Governor by the same amount as in California under a Democratic Governor counts as one point in favor of the argument that I was making.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
To me the unemployment rate as currently calculated tends to significantly under report who isn't able to join the labor pool.
That would be, in part, because "able to" is not a relevant metric, rather the proper measure is a combination of the combination of "wants to" and "has a need to". There is a wide range of people, including (but not limited to) students, stay-at-home parents, artists, inventors, early stage entrepeneurs, and retirees that are indeed able to join the labor pool, but provide much more value, overall by staying out of it and focusing on their current chosen vocation instead.

The labor pool should only be as large as our total demand for employment, letting it exceed that demand at any time only serves to undermine the labor market and our growth potential by suppressing wages and forcing unemployment to exist at all.

NAIRU is a myth that causes pretty active economic harm by forcing people that need to work to suffer from involuntary unemployment and suppresssed wages for an imaginary greater good. Using a labor buffer stock (guaranteeing anyone who wants to work a job for a fixed baseline wage and benefit package) Would not only do a better job of controlling inflation, but it would prevent the economic rot and instability that comes from allowing the involuntary unempoyment rate from ever being anything but 0%.

[ October 12, 2013, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
It should be noted that the current budget in California includes $1.1 billion for a "reserve account," which the California Mercury News termed as a "surplus."
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
[QB] Milton Friedman was as economic theorist who promoted a doctrine known as the "natural rate" of unemployment

quote:
any given labor market structure must involve a certain amount of unemployment, including frictional unemployment associated with individuals changing jobs and possibly classical unemployment arising from real wages being held above the market-clearing level by minimum wage laws, trade unions or other labour market institutions. Unexpected inflation might allow unemployment to fall below the natural rate by temporarily depressing real wages, but this effect would dissipate once expectations about inflation were corrected. Only with continuously accelerating inflation could rates of unemployment below the natural rate be maintained.
Look at a variety of sources and you find that most predictions of this group were not validated by real world outcomes - unemployment under Clinton fell below the natural rate in almost every state with few of the predicted outcomes consistent with this theory. And 6.8% is well above the level of unemployment that was demonstrated nationwide in the 1990's.

So that's the basis of my assertion - please do me the courtesy of showing me yours.

How is this a basis for you assertion that there is no real difference in lowering unemployment from an initial rate of 11.8% compared with 7.9%? If anything, your "basis" would seem to confirm that the state that is closer to its natural rate would have a more difficult time making additional "progress" and that such progress could only be maintained with extraordinary measures.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 
Nice data-set that ranks every county in the US by education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. Wish it was by state so as to look more closely at California v. Texas

link

The message that this view does reveal is that differences by county may swamp differences by state.

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 
California continues to prosper under Democratic Party leadership:
quote:
California income and corporation tax collections surged in December, pushing estimated tax revenue since July to about $3.6 billion above what lawmakers projected when they approved the current budget, according to preliminary totals compiled by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Preliminary income tax totals in December came in about $1.5 billion above what the budget projected for the month. Net corporation tax collections topped budget estimates by $500 million, according to the LAO. That total – for just one month – is almost as much as the $2.5 billion that the LAO recently projected state revenue would exceed budget estimates for all of 2014-2015.

link


Meanwhile, the energy price spike that has kept Texas on a similar course as California under Republican control is evaporating

link

Still does see the evidence that supports the notion that the Democratic/California policies of providing better services to their citizens is more economically harmful than the Texas/Republican policy of providing fewer services to their citizens

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interestingly, the factors that produced higher tax revenues appear to have significantly stunted overall revenue, down 11% since the tax increases were passed.

This would indicate to me that the wealthy may be fleeing CA as fast as their BMW's can take them from the highest (52%) marginal tax rate in the country. It will be telling to see how sustainable this "turnaround" is when Paul finds that Peter and his pockets have left the building.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  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 
quote:
Interestingly, the factors that produced higher tax revenues appear to have significantly stunted overall revenue, down 11% since the tax increases were passed.
Do you have a source on this? I'm curious if there were other factors involved in stunting the overall revenue.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was mistaken on the 11%. It was from an article that was comparing revenue from years prior to prop 30 but didn't make that clear.

I would still contend that reliance on a 52% marginal tax rate, along with the state's massive unfunded pension liabilities put CA closer to train wreck than poster child.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The WSJ journal did a good piece about gas prices being OPEC trying to sabotage America as the new largest oil producer.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  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 
Clearly that's part of it. Glad the right is getting off the stupid argument that tracked oil has directly caused the price drops.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Californians fled the state in unprecedented numbers over the last decade, and their primary destination was Texas, according to an analysis issued Monday.

About 5 million Californians departed the Golden State between 2004 and 2013, while 3.9 million arrived from other states for a net population loss of roughly 1.1 million, the Sacramento Bee reported Monday using tax-return data from the Internal Revenue Service.

The estimated loss from the migration in annual income to California? Roughly $26 billion.

Nearly 600,000 Californians wound up in Texas, while about 348,000 Texans moved to California. The other top net recipients of Californians were Arizona, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, the analysis found.

Even so, California has seen its population increase slightly from 37 million in 2010 to nearly 39 million, thanks largely to an influx of foreign-born immigrants.


Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 
Those poor migrant workers.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The ones migrating in or out?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do wish people would look at the demographics before jumping to conclusions. Retirees leave California for places with cheap cost of living. They can sell their multi-million dollar california home, and move to Arizona or texas and get the same sized or larger home for 200-500k.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your post doesn't really help. Still a net loss, representing $26 billion. The demographics don't change the reality.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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 
quote:
Still a net loss, representing $26 billion.
It should be noted that this "net loss" is an estimate.

More broadly, though, I should note that this idea that states are competing with each other in a "marketplace" for both residents and companies is a thoroughly disgusting and ultimately corrosive concept, and easily one of the most sickening things pushed by those slimes at ALEC: the idea that all states must race to the bottom to cater to corporations turns the very concept of fidelity on its head.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
Hey Rafi, you keep positing that California is so bad (under all of your aliases). You were also probably in the argument that Republican-led Texas would do so much better than California led by Democrats. And of course you are continuously wrong. And never able to acknowledge it.

But I'll give you another chance. Given your views about California, what do you think will happen over the next 12 months to the California budget deficit, unemployment rate, or average income? Notwithstanding the worst drought in 80 years, lay out your predictions and then a year from now we can again post data showing how wrong you are today. Oh, and I am sure that Rafi6 will ignore it.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Still a net loss, representing $26 billion.
It should be noted that this "net loss" is an estimate.

Not really helping. Even if it's off by 50%, still billions.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  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