The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Greg Davidson on May 05, 2018, 05:17:23 PM

Title: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 05, 2018, 05:17:23 PM
Quote
California's economy has surpassed that of the United Kingdom to become the world's fifth largest, according to new federal data made public Friday.

California's gross domestic product rose by $127 billion from 2016 to 2017, surpassing $2.7 trillion, the data said. Meanwhile, the U.K.'s economic output slightly shrank over that time when measured in U.S. dollars, due in part to exchange rate fluctuations.

The data demonstrate the sheer immensity of California's economy, home to nearly 40 million people, a thriving technology sector in Silicon Valley, the world's entertainment capital in Hollywood and the nation's salad bowl in the Central Valley agricultural heartland. It also reflects a substantial turnaround since the Great Recession.

All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California's higher GDP, said Irena Asmundson, chief economist at the California Department of Finance. Financial services and real estate led the pack at $26 billion in growth, followed by the information sector, which includes many technology companies, at $20 billion. Manufacturing was up $10 billion.

And my particular favorite part, because there were numerous predictions from right wingers that when California was governed by Democrats that the economy would get much worse. Now let's just remember that a Republican Governor took over from a Democrat in 2003, and then a Democrat took over for that Republican in 2011. So wouldn't it be surprising if the economic trends were exactly the opposite of the right wing predictions?

Quote
California last had the world's fifth largest economy in 2002 but fell as low as 10th in 2012 following the Great Recession. Since then, the most populous U.S. state has added 2 million jobs and grown its GDP by $700 billion.

California's economic output is now surpassed only by the total GDP of the United States, China, Japan and Germany. The state has 12% of the U.S. population but contributed 16% of the country's job growth between 2012 and 2017. Its share of the national economy also grew to 14.2% from 12.8% over that five-year period, according to state economists.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-economy-gdp-20180504-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-economy-gdp-20180504-story.html)

Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 06, 2018, 08:51:46 AM
Its going well there. So well that (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/19/californians-fed-up-with-housing-costs-and-taxes-are-fleeing-state.html):

Quote
Census Bureau data show California lost just over 138,000 people to domestic migration in the 12 months ended in July 2017.

Or (https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/27/17058006/california-housing-crisis-rent-migration-texas)

Quote
But a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s office looking at domestic migration patterns shows that cracks continue to form in the state’s bright facade. Between 2007 and 2016, a million more people have left the state than have moved in from other states.

You always want to ignore the most important and telling statistic. If everything is so great, why are so many fleeing?

Another statistic (https://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/state-national-columnists/unfunded-pension-liabilities-threaten-california/) you like to ignore:

Quote
California has the lowest bond rating of any state now and, according to a recent survey by Pew’s Center on the States, the worst credit rating record over the past 11 years.

Is that indicative of a fiscally sound economy? No, it’s not. We all know exactly what’s happening:
Quote
Texas, for instance, has boomed, becoming one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. It’s now home to 867,000 new residents from California, who arrived between 2010 and 2016.

Just living there sucks (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/california-worst-quality-life-state-us-conservatives-celebrating-a8236656.html):
Quote
California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.

That 1.3 trillion dollars worth of  debt and unfunded liabilities (https://californiapolicycenter.org/can-californias-economy-withstand-1-3-trillion-of-government-debt/), yet another fact you routinely  ignore, is going to detonate.

Rearrange the deck chairs all you want.
 
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 06, 2018, 11:02:35 AM
Crunch, the key measures are that the California economy has grown far better under Democratic policies that don't gut social welfare programs than it has elsewhere in the country where Republicans insist they have to cut government spending to help the economy.

And so there is this cottage industry of making up doom and gloom articles about the California economy because it keeps refuting the right wing tropes. Despite all these news articles about people and companies always leaving, yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing. There's more state regulation under Democrats, but nevertheless the California economy continues to improve by more than other states. That's what it means when California goes from generating 12.8% of the US economy to 14.2%. That's what it means when California adds 2 million new jobs. Without cutting taxes for the rich and gutting government spending for everyone else.

Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Gaoics79 on May 06, 2018, 09:14:09 PM
Quote
yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing

I don't know which of you is correct in the overall debate, but given that it would pretty much require a nuclear holocaust to make California not the country's most populous and economically powerful, I find your statement disingenuous in the extreme.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 06, 2018, 11:36:45 PM
Quote
yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing

I don't know which of you is correct in the overall debate, but given that it would pretty much require a nuclear holocaust to make California not the country's most populous and economically powerful, I find your statement disingenuous in the extreme.

I mean, it's a place with an amazing climate and big cities, with varied industry. That alone is a draw regardless of how it's being run. Places in the North-East suffer from having winter, which makes them unacceptable to some people, and other Southern states often have the disadvantage of either not having huge commercial industry, not having huge cities, or not having the physically inviting terrain and weather. I guess it's no surprise that Texas does well since they have some big cities and arguably a culture that appeals to many people, but other warm climate places are screwed in comparison to California. How could Arizona or New Mexico compete pound for pound? And I think locales like California also have a snowballing effect, wherein a corporate climate like Silicon Valley or Hollywood will result in solidified residency there for certain kinds of businesses that aren't really going to spread out evenly to other places over time. Similarly, you're not going to have some less populace state suddenly begin to compete with New York City for dominance in the financial sector; it's just not going to happen. So some places will automatically 'win' in certain categories regardless of who's governing, with the exception of if a long period of terrible governance drives business into the ground, or if the economy naturally shifts away from those sectors.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 07, 2018, 08:16:24 AM
Quote
Despite all these news articles about people and companies always leaving, yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing. There's more state regulation under Democrats, but nevertheless the California economy continues to improve by more than other states

California has the advantage of being very large, it has a huge buffer.

It can’t remain the most populous as its citizens flee. It can’t continue economic growth as its unfunded liabilities drain the system. If it’s so great why is it ranked dead last for quality of life?

Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states? Do you understand what that means? Does that indicate a strong economic state?  If it’s going so well, why is the credit rating declining? It’s such a great economy, shouldn’t credit be getting better?

For people that can afford 1200 square foot homes that cost $700,000 and want cheap immigrant labor to scrub their toilets, yeah, it’s a great place. It’s nice to be wealthy and create that permanent underclass to work for you so the lawn stays pristine. At least it is as long as “those people” know their place. Give it another decade or two and you’ll mostly have the very rich and the non-English speaking very poor with almost nothing in between. What is the usual outcome of those situations?

You want to bury your head in the sand, go ahead.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 07, 2018, 09:57:49 AM
Californian flight - They are leaving because the economy is so good, perhaps?

Quote
Low-income folks moved out, high-income folks moved in
People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

California families with children under 18 years of age moved out in droves to states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California also lost a lot of people with a high school degree or some college education in this span.

On the flip side, California gained more adults between ages 26 and 35, many with bachelor’s or master’s degree — mostly from New York and from Illinois.

Show me a state that wouldn't like to make that swap.

Details (http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on May 07, 2018, 10:39:34 AM
Greg, not sure why you needed another thread on this when we already have two, is to escape some of the clear rebuttals and concerns expressed on the prior threads?   I'm happy for CA, hope they have enough success to buy themselves out from the fiscal mismanagement they've been running under for decades, however, I know what will really happen.  They'll spend the new money too and be even more exposed if there is another downturn.

I see little response here to the concerns expressed on the last thread that the California economy, that while talking a liberal game, really isn't one that actively seems to comport with liberal ideals.  It's got very high level of income stratification, and it's success seems to be heavily into for example the value of the stock market.  You may be right, or you may discover, much as Connecticut has, that rich people can move if they find the tax situation to overwhelm the benefits of the area for life. 

I also think TheDrake's post is incredibly telling.  Poor people pushed out and rich people moving in?  Isn't that the literal effect of policies designed to punish the poor.  Why exactly is CA unaffordable if it's really following the social policies of the left?  There should be no such poor flight if what you're claiming is true?  By the way TheDrake, in virtually every iteration of what you describe the left should be vociferously protesting a policy that forces the poor out of a region to make room for the wealthy, that's exactly when the left imposes rent control and forces housing projects and busing into neighborhoods.  Is that happening here?  Or are these, once again, policies that apply to other people?

Why is homelessness up?  Yes it's a consequence of rising incomes causing a rising cost of living, but literally it should be accounted for if CA were really living up to the economic ideals of the left.  Where are the taxes on the industries that are actually generating that income to pay for the harms to the little guys?  Is Hollywood paying it's "fair share"?  What about the tech moguls?

As I've asked from the first thread, why are you only looking at CA?  There are a plethora of states following the same policies and the opposite policies and not seeing the same results. 
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 07, 2018, 10:55:59 AM
I'm not going to make any claims about left/right, or California governance. I think we've done that to death. Just exploring the idea that net migration can be taken as a sign that a state is "doing bad". Especially when you look at the fact that it wasn't one million people moving out, but 6 million moving out and 5 million moving in.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 07, 2018, 11:37:53 AM
Quote
Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?  ???

According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/State_credit_ratings) and CA State Treasurer (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ratings/current.asp), Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement? ;)

Quote
As I've asked from the first thread, why are you only looking at CA?

I believe Greg has answered that from the first thread.

It is because CA is held up by the Right as the shining example of the mismanagement of Liberal policies.

And how do they come to this startling conclusion?  By cherry-picking statistics that change by the month, telling half-truths about the reasons for those statistics, and just generally telling lies.  I'm sure it makes those in other states feel better about themselves, but it does not lead to any insight about what are the best economic practices.

And what happens when those statistics change?  Why, the Right changes the statistics it uses!  Suddenly it's not economic growth that proves California is going to fail; it's bond ratings.  It's not the income to debt ratio; it's immigration.  After all, there is always some statistic that proves CA is about to collapse.  When CA improves in one, they just find another. :)

And you yourself have proven what a silly game it is.  You keep telling Greg that the statistics he cites do not prove CA is doing better than the rest of the nation.  And you're right.  But conversely, you are also proving that those who criticize CA with statistics aren't proving anything, either.  That when they talk about how this or that "shows" that CA liberal governance is ruining the state, that it doesn't tell the whole story of all the factors that come into play to create these statistics.  So any conclusions made from these statistics is just a matter of faith, not facts.

You would think that the previous threads made this perfectly clear.  But there are some that still argue that factors that CA is headed on the road to ruin, even though those factors keep changing.  You can see it in this thread.  So Greg keeps bringing this up.

If you're tired of these threads, then find the telling factors that show CA is going downhill, and stick with those.  Or remind everyone on the thread that there are no factors that conclusively show which type of governance is best and ignore it.  But don't keep asking why Greg is only looking at CA.  It's because those who hate the liberally-inclined policies of CA keep criticizing it for bad reasons.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on May 07, 2018, 02:25:13 PM
No Wayward Son, I'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences, and I'm especially tired of that debate where people just jump in with an article that has a specific stat, even an aggregated stat, that appears favorable without considering it in context.

Every time there's a small shift one side or the other jumps in with it as if it's complete proof of concept.  The questions are still there, the illiberal things CA does (which are tied to its most profitable industries) haven't been addressed, why this is a better proxy than anyone of the other states still isn't addressed, nor has anything that makes CA unique (like, for example, that CA controls a huge chunk of the west coast with 2 of the 10 largest ports - and over 30 total ports, which generate free revenue off of development in other parts of the country). 

As far as I can tell, there isn't any explanation about how these policies are actually working to generate results, which is why the stats are random shots that seem favorable, rather than targeted at the specific things that are being favorably impacted. 

Might as well claim more PokeMon were caught last year thus "proving" growth.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 07, 2018, 09:38:17 PM
Quote
iI'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences

Now I did present California data based on Governor and economic growth (relative to the rest of the United States) from 2002 to 2018. If 16 years is a short shift, what is your demarcation for longer term consequences.

In fact, I do keep bringing up the same case because if the conservative hypothesis that Democratic control of government hurts economic growth is inconsistent with the data when I bring it up in 2013 and 2015 and 2017 and 2018, then each few years of additional data more strongly refutes the hypothesis. And I did not originally pick California, but I am sticking with it to avoid cherrypicking.

And remember the underlying conservative principal is that we must cut government services worse for most people because it is necessary to promote additional economic growth that overall provides a net benefit to those people. If the data does not support that hypothesis, then you are saying that your political philosophy is to deprive people of services even if it does not bring economic benefits.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 08, 2018, 09:14:53 AM
The problem with all these gyrations is that lacking any kind of controls and a proper study, we really can't say if California would be even more successful with austerity rules and service cuts. Same goes for Texas implementing rent control and a $15 minimum wage. It is entirely likely that non policy effects dominate any success or failure of government. Which is why debates continue to rage on about whether fdr accelerated or delayed recovery from the depression.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 08, 2018, 09:18:38 PM
Ah, but in the event of a tie between maintaining services and cutting them, rule in favor of better services for people rather than worse. Cutting benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is cruel. And remember, the evidence (California) as selected not by me but by right wingers on this site, leans towards better outcomes with Democratic policies in place.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 09, 2018, 09:03:35 AM
Ah, but in the event of a tie between maintaining services and cutting them, rule in favor of better services for people rather than worse.

All of which can be supported better with many studies, local and otherwise, than comparing State A with State B on broad metrics and no isolation of confounding factors like being host to entrenched tech and entertainment companies as well as major ports.

Quote
Cutting benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is cruel.

Adding benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is wasteful.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on May 09, 2018, 10:23:27 AM
Quote
iI'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences

Now I did present California data based on Governor and economic growth (relative to the rest of the United States) from 2002 to 2018. If 16 years is a short shift, what is your demarcation for longer term consequences.

Maybe I was unclear, nothing about that trend line meaningful answers the questions about the consequences of the specific policies in question.  Which is why I went on to point out that you've never made any effort to explain how the policies you favor have caused rather than hindered the result.  It's why you don't want to look at other states where the same/similar policies have not caused the same results.  There's a lot of factors in play, but for some reason you only seem to want to make the case by implication.  Kind of like how a closet racist would quote race based crime statistics and let the implication be drawn by the reader.

Quote
And remember the underlying conservative principal is that we must cut government services worse for most people because it is necessary to promote additional economic growth that overall provides a net benefit to those people.   If the data does not support that hypothesis, then you are saying that your political philosophy is to deprive people of services even if it does not bring economic benefits.

My "conservative principal's handbook" must be missing the page with that strawman argument.

Nothing about what you are citing to really demonstrates that either.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 09, 2018, 10:29:23 AM
Quote
All of which can be supported better with many studies, local and otherwise, than comparing State A with State B on broad metrics and no isolation of confounding factors like being host to entrenched tech and entertainment companies as well as major ports.

1. The relative advantages of California due to tech companies and ports are accounted for in the California analysis, as California has the same assets under both Republican and Democratic governments, but in contradiction to right wing assertions, California has performed relatively better under Democratic government.

2. More targeted (and analytically rigorous) studies would be better. But overall California economic performance is still better than the disconnected and cherry-picked anecdotes that are usually used by conservatives to make their dire predictions about California under Democratic leadership.

Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on May 09, 2018, 10:34:03 AM
Quote
nothing about that trend line meaningful answers the questions about the consequences of the specific policies in question

It is a very frequent meme of conservatives that when Democrats control government, economic performance suffers. And California when it has a Democratic government is perhaps the most frequently raised example of this at the state level.

Forgive the limits of this line of thought, as I am only a part-time debunker, particularly where a real comprehensive debunking requires contrasting initial predictions and multiple years of demonstrating that the arguments/predictions of one side a re validated far more strongly than the arguments/predictions of the other.  Now I am off to work
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 10, 2018, 08:33:33 AM
Quote
Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?  ???

According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/State_credit_ratings) and CA State Treasurer (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ratings/current.asp), Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement? ;)
The answers to all ypur questions are in the provided links. Like Greg, you ignore them and just continue to repeat your questions as though that’s some kind of refutation.   :o
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 10, 2018, 08:37:08 AM
Californian flight - They are leaving because the economy is so good, perhaps?

Quote
Low-income folks moved out, high-income folks moved in
People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

California families with children under 18 years of age moved out in droves to states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California also lost a lot of people with a high school degree or some college education in this span.

On the flip side, California gained more adults between ages 26 and 35, many with bachelor’s or master’s degree — mostly from New York and from Illinois.

Show me a state that wouldn't like to make that swap.

Details (http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265)


That swap is the destruction of the lower and middle class. It’s why California’s homeless problem is skyrocketing and tent cities growing.

What state wants that? Apparently, California.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 10, 2018, 08:56:43 AM
There is no link that can exist that supports Cali as dead last for bond rating, and you never provided one Crunch. Of course, it hardly refutes the "Democrats bad" argument, as Illinois also is run by Democrats so pointing out this fact is really a quibble. And especially since Illinois keeps sending their Governors to prison.

Now one could make the effort to correlate bond rating with the party of the Governor and Legislature of each state and try to draw a conclusion. This still wouldn't establish cause and effect.

The conservative darling, Texas, by the way weighs in at #46 for quality of life from the same US News rankings (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings). But I'm sure you knew that before using that as your metric of state governance, right Crunch?

Most of these arguments are more about values than outcome. You could come up with irrefutable proof that the policies of party A lead to better X than party B, and it still won't sway core beliefs about access to services, regulation, or other touchstones. Nobody pulls this kind of data saying "I wonder if..." but rather "How can I prove I'm right?"
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 10, 2018, 01:33:01 PM
Quote
Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?  ???

According to Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/State_credit_ratings) and CA State Treasurer (http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ratings/current.asp), Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement? ;)
The answers to all your questions are in the provided links. Like Greg, you ignore them and just continue to repeat your questions as though that’s some kind of refutation.   :o

Oops.  Sorry.  My bad.  I missed your link on the bond ratings (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=52662).  :-[

However, it does bring up a salient question:  why do you think the bond rating for California from 2012 has any relevance to the current situation and discussion? ;)

And regarding being dead last in quality of living, per your link:

Quote
The rankings considered two sets of metrics for each state:

1. Natural environment, comprising drinking-water quality, air quality, and pollution and industrial toxins.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation...

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Which brings up the question of why California is worst in natural environment, water quality, etc.

It's probably because we have so many people wanting to live here.

California is mostly a relatively dry environment.  We import water from the Colorado river.  We move water from the northern part of the state for the southern.  We have dams all over the place to store it during the dry season, which is most of the time.  So water quality is hard to maintain.

Los Angeles is in a valley known for its inversion layer, that traps the smokes and gasses in the valley for long periods of time.  Air quality has always been an issue there.

We heavily rely on the automobile for transportation, which also hurts air quality.

These are all issues which have little to nothing to do with the politics of the state.  We would have the same issues if it were run by Conservative Republicans.

As far as the social environment--I suspect that's mainly due to overcrowding in the cities.  We're pretty much where New York City was a few decades ago and haven't adapted yet.  I would love to hear any ideas on how to improve it from anyone.

I would also like to ask what Conservative Republicans propose to do about improving the air and water quality and reducing the pollution?  All I ever hear about is de-regulation, which never worked in the past, and will doubtlessly do diddly now.  So how would Conservative Republican government help in improving CA ranking on the list?

However, they seem to have plenty of ideas about the economy and the business environment. ;)

So, thank you for pointing out your links, which I somehow missed.  They do answer my questions.  And the answers are that your criticisms are based on out-dated data and not considering what the rankings really mean.  :P
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Pete at Home on May 18, 2018, 03:09:44 AM
I  find Greg and Wayward's arguments here persuasive.  Does anyone on either side of the issue know of any writeup that addresses the policies that may have made this change?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on July 03, 2018, 08:19:57 AM
Every now and then, the mask sllips and you get a peak at the reality of a situation. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/02/bid-to-split-california-into-3-states-gains-traction-could-it-really-happen.html) Citizens for Cal3 spokeswoman Peggy Grande:
Quote
This is about people who want California to be fixed and saved and this is the way to do it,” Grande told Fox News. “We have crumbling infrastructure, dirty water and failing schools. In almost every statistic, 49 states are doing better.

San Francisco is on the front lines of the California experience (https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Diseased-Streets-472430013.html):
Quote
The Investigate Unit spent three days assessing conditions on the streets of downtown San Francisco and discovered trash on each of the 153 blocks surveyed. While some streets were littered with items as small as a candy wrapper, the vast majority of trash found included large heaps of garbage, food, and discarded junk. The investigation also found 100 drug needles and more than 300 piles of feces throughout downtown

It’s in line with third world:
Quote
The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed a section of downtown San Francisco to determine the amount of feces, hypodermic needles, and garbage littering the heart of the city. The results reveal a disgusting and potentially deadly mix of contamination that experts now believe could exceed some of the dirtiest slums in the world.
Quote
Based on the findings of the Investigative Unit survey, Riley believes parts of the city may be even dirtier than slums in some developing countries.

“The contamination is … much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India,” he said

Sounds great!
Quote
Kim Davenport, A’nyla’s mother, often walks her daughter to the Compass preschool on Leavenworth Street in San Francisco. She said she often has to pull her daughter out of the way in order to keep her from stepping on needles and human waste. “I just had to do that this morning!”

2 and 3 year old children in San Francisco have to be educated on the dangers of touching the used needles that litter the ground. Not to mention the blanket of human feces that inspired an app to help track it.

Tent cities are developing (https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/rise-californias-tent-cities):
Quote
But that varies greatly from place to place: In California, 68 percent of homeless people are unsheltered, compared to just 5 percent in New York.

Visitors to the West Coast may be shocked to find the tents that line cities from San Diego to Seattle
Google up California tent cities to see the full scale of the issue.

It’s no wonder people are fleeing the state.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 05, 2018, 11:21:40 PM
So Crunch, let's play this game again - make a prediction for July 4th 2020 about economic growth or wages in California and some other Republican-dominated state such as Texas or Kansas. If you are right, California should be out-performed by one of these Republican states.

So make your prediction by how much economic growth should be higher in one of those states. And later we can come back and check.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on July 06, 2018, 10:36:24 AM
California continues to micromanage it’s citizens and make their lives miserable.  New laws taking effect on 2020 will limit water usage to 55 gallons per person, per day. In most of America, the average is 80-100 gallons per day.

The numbers:

Californians now have the pleasure of doing some calculations every time they use the bathroom. Obviously, taking a bath will  no longer be legal in California. That’s pretty incredible.

My average day is my morning constitutional with a shower in the morning before work and another in the evening after I workout. I stay hydrated so I urinate probably 7 times a day. That puts me at about 47 gallons. That leaves me 8 gallons (and soon only 3 as the limit goes down). So washing my clothes is out unless I cut out a workout (or just stink). Hopefully I never get some virus or something that causes GI distress and I flush well above my norm - there’s no provision for illness.

Sounds like all of California will soon smell like a San Francisco street.

Not to worry, your pools anf fountains have exemptions so the 1% will still enjoy their lives.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on July 06, 2018, 12:27:30 PM
Quote
(A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita daily water use as a provisional standard. Upon completion of the department’s 2016 report to the Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard may be adjusted by the Legislature by statute.

Quote
(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that the urban water use targets described in paragraph (1) cumulatively result in a 20-percent reduction from the baseline daily per capita water use by December 31, 2020.

So the numbers came from 20% of current use, it can't be so dire. Plus, it can be adjusted.

They have to do something to avoid turning into Arrakis. Most of this can probably be accomplished by tearing out lawns and putting in other landscaping.

Out of curiosity, I looked up my last water bill and I'm pretty sure the meter is in tenths of gallons, I used 53.7 on my peak month with a much lower average. I'm going to skew high, because I live alone in a house and irrigate my lawn.

Now, if I were retired or worked from home, I'd use more. But understand the legislation doesn't cause the water police to come write you a ticket. It is a target placed on the suppliers.

Suppliers can use a variety of methods, subsidizing efficiency improvements, setting tiered pricing, or whatever else.

But go ahead and try and scare people from an ignorant caricature of what the legislation actually is. California just doesn't want to become the new Johannesburg, but I guess you call that bad government.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on July 06, 2018, 02:37:56 PM
If California wanted to avoid becoming a desert again, they could have built more water storage. But they won't do that. Instead, they opted for forcing citizens to adhere to restricted water usage. The amount you use will not be allowed in a few years - it goes down to 50 gallons.

The legislation is what it is, a 55 gallon per day limit. That's the fact, whether is scares you or not. Californians won't be able to take bath unless they want to pay extra, pay a fine, whatever the penalty is for taking a bath. It uses to much water. They will also need to invest in new appliances - older washing machines use 40 galls per wash. In a world where I am assured a one time fee of $10 for a ID guarantees people will be disenfranchised, I don't see how it's possible for the poor to shell out $500+ for new high efficiency washers.

California has solutions to their water problems that don't involve curtailing freedoms and turning the state into a third world country. That is bad government, the worst kind ... they do it for your own good.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: D.W. on July 06, 2018, 03:44:29 PM
What scares me is the possibility they will construct a pipeline from the Great Lakes all the way across country to supply people who chose to live in dry arid areas.  :P

Bad enough we got Nestle pumping it up and bottling as fast as possible. 
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: scifibum on July 06, 2018, 03:46:34 PM
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/)

There's no penalty for individual consumers.

Not to mention 55 (or 50) gallons per day per person on average does not equate to being restricted to 55 gallons on a given day.

I've got 5 kids and a wife. Our household generates around 1.5 loads of laundry per day, and we've got lots of room for improvement there - we end up washing a lot of the kids' clothes after being worn once when they are probably good for a couple more days (particularly pants).  Some of them are small, so if we continue washing jeans after a single day our household might end up generating 2 or 2.5 loads of laundry per day when they get bigger. 

2.5 x 40 = 100. 
If we all take a 17 gallon shower 6 days a week and a 40 gallon bath once a week, the daily average for the household will be 142 gallons. 

So between (overly frequent) laundry and bathing we're at about 70% of a 50 gallon per person per day budget.  Add 5 flushes a day per person and we're up to 85%.  Leaving a pretty good margin for sink faucets and the ice maker, as far as I can tell. 

Scary.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on July 06, 2018, 04:21:08 PM
Random comment:

Quote
We live in So Cal and are very aware of the water shortage. Even with all the rains from last winter, the drought is here to stay. We just installed artificial grass and drought tolerant plants in our beds; Best thing we ever did. The lawn looks fantastic and the plant beds have drip irrigation. They only need water 2 times per week.

O cruel tyranny! To be denied the fundamental freedom of bermuda grass!

So the better alternative is to build out giant reservoirs, towers, and the like? So California can raise taxes even higher, or borrow more in bonds? I'm sure you'd never criticize them for that... :)

Quote
Three years ago, during the depths of California’s historic drought, state voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1, a $7.5 billion bond measure to pay for new water projects, including building more dams and reservoirs.

Hoping to get some of that money, water districts drew up plans and submitted lengthy applications for 11 projects, including two in the Bay Area and a massive new $5.1 billion lake in Colusa County known as Sites Reservoir.

But on Thursday, the staff of the California Water Commission, which must decide by July which water storage projects will receive bond money, raised major concerns. They announced that nearly half of the projects have no public benefits that meet the ballot measure’s rules for getting money, and the rest fall significantly short of providing as much benefit to the public as they would cost.

And then there's the fact that pretty much all of the cost feasible locations are already dammed up.

Quote
California is already dammed up. Over 55 years, California saw 800 new dams — more than one a month. The state has an inventory of close to 1,200 dams (plus another 200 under federal control) but no over-arching plan to maintain, monitor or remove them when they are past their engineered life span. The Oroville Dam spillway fracture, which forced the evacuation in February 2017 of nearly 200,000 people downstream, was a wake-up call.

Quote
Groundwater storage, storm water capture and recycled water are more efficient, less costly storage solutions that balance human and environmental needs, in part because the water can be stored closer to users.

Those solutions do exist, and I'm sure they'll be used as part of the overall strategy. As well as desalination, to the tune of at least a billion dollars.

This isn't the 1950s, as much as some people might want it to be. Non-invasive strategies aren't available any more.

But luckily they really don't have to worry, because according to you, Crunch, they'll all be fleeing the state in stark terror and the ones left can have 150 gallons apiece.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on July 06, 2018, 08:17:29 PM
If California wanted to avoid becoming a desert again, they could have built more water storage. But they won't do that. Instead, they opted for forcing citizens to adhere to restricted water usage.

Uh, they are building some more water storage using some more unique methods at that. They're also building some more
(highly controversial) water transportation systems to move it south.

The stuff doesn't get built overnight, and many Californians had to get had by the last shortage before approving the bond measures to build the stuff.

I suspect desalination and more water recycling is ultimately going to be the final fixes, but that tech isn't quite there yet. That and there is more than a bit of "ick factor" going on with recycled water which makes it a bit problematic at present as well.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2018, 09:27:49 AM
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/)

There's no penalty for individual consumers.

Not to mention 55 (or 50) gallons per day per person on average does not equate to being restricted to 55 gallons on a given day.

I've got 5 kids and a wife. Our household generates around 1.5 loads of laundry per day, and we've got lots of room for improvement there - we end up washing a lot of the kids' clothes after being worn once when they are probably good for a couple more days (particularly pants).  Some of them are small, so if we continue washing jeans after a single day our household might end up generating 2 or 2.5 loads of laundry per day when they get bigger. 

2.5 x 40 = 100. 
If we all take a 17 gallon shower 6 days a week and a 40 gallon bath once a week, the daily average for the household will be 142 gallons. 

So between (overly frequent) laundry and bathing we're at about 70% of a 50 gallon per person per day budget.  Add 5 flushes a day per person and we're up to 85%.  Leaving a pretty good margin for sink faucets and the ice maker, as far as I can tell. 

Scary.
Snopes, yeah, sure, whatever. I believe snopes about as much as infowars.

So the argument is that you use less than 50% of whate the average American household uses so the law is perfectly fine, zero impact in fact. First, I’d say check your usage calculations. The average American uses 80-100 gallons per day, the average family uses 300 gallons per day. With your family size, I’d be surprised you coukd come in at less than half the US average.

But let’s say you are, however unlikely,  the freakishly low water users you claim. Just because you are doesn’t mean the average is too. If you believe highway speeds should be limited to 35 mph and point out that you still get where you’re going, that doesn’t mean the law should limit it for everyone.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on July 08, 2018, 09:37:58 AM
Quote
But luckily they really don't have to worry, because according to you, Crunch, they'll all be fleeing the state in stark terror and the ones left can have 150 gallons apiece.

And... they are!

Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/californians-doing-the-once-unthinkable-leaving-california/)

Even the wealthy see the writing on the wall - Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike (https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2018/07/06/millionaires-flee-california-after-tax-hike/#19cd10354189)

More and more are leaving. All your sarcasm won’t change reality. Reasonable people don’t want to live in a third world dump where they have to carefully step around piles of human feces in the street and needles littering the sidewalk, growing tent cities and garbage strewn streets, where the state confiscates more and more of your money while telling you that you need to make the call between doing the laundry or taking a shower.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on July 08, 2018, 12:45:40 PM
I don't have to read snopes, I read the bill, at least the parts that pertain to this 55 gallon limit. It clearly states that the utilities are responsible, not individuals. It also clearly states that this target is 20% below existing levels. So while your numbers may be correct for the average American, it clearly is not relevant to what californians might have to give up.

Your contempt is nauseating.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on July 08, 2018, 10:29:15 PM
Quote
I believe snopes about as much as infowars.

Which is about as much as we believe you.  :D

Quote
The average American uses 80-100 gallons per day, the average family uses 300 gallons per day. With your family size, I’d be surprised you coukd come in at less than half the US average.

My family of three comes out to about 50 gallons a day, although last month we somehow averaged about 70 gallons a day.  ???  I suspect that the average amount of water used in desert communities is much less than the American average.  You should take that into consideration.

Also, you should learn more about the water situation in California before spouting off nonsense.  I recall hearing that San Diego would normally be able to support about 100,000 people on the natural water supplies, without dams or wells.  So we are already utilizing our water very efficiently, considering our current population.  And most of our water storage is in the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada mountains.  Snow pack that has been dwindling because of global warming.

Now you may not believe in AGW, and you may believe that there are tons of untapped water resources that we refuse to utilize.  You can also believe in unicorns and everything President Trump says, too.  But we live here, we know what we have and what we can do, and no amount of belief will change the facts.  We have a large population, we are losing our water resources, and we are going to have to learn to live with less in the future.  Because political posturing never has added a drop of rain, or a flake of snow.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Greg Davidson on July 09, 2018, 01:57:36 AM
A great deal of water is wasted due to riparian laws, which regulate property rights for water use from rivers for agricultural purposes.  These 19th century laws give certain property owners water rights in future years based on how much water they consume in the current year, and so greater efficiency is actually penalized. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/5-fixes-for-California-s-age-old-water-rights-6497184.php (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/5-fixes-for-California-s-age-old-water-rights-6497184.php)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: scifibum on July 12, 2018, 04:31:40 PM
I don't have to read snopes, I read the bill, at least the parts that pertain to this 55 gallon limit. It clearly states that the utilities are responsible, not individuals. It also clearly states that this target is 20% below existing levels. So while your numbers may be correct for the average American, it clearly is not relevant to what californians might have to give up.

Your contempt is nauseating.

He's citing numbers that are overall domestic usage per person and household - including outdoor use. The 55/50 limit was interior household water usage.

Comparing snopes to infowars is irrational.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on March 11, 2019, 08:57:00 AM
Quote
California leads the nation in outmigration, and has experienced a domestic outmigration decline since 1991, according to the California Department of Finance.

According to a recent survey, 53 percent of all Californians, 63 percent of millennials, and 76 percent of residents in the Bay Area say they are seriously considering leaving the state.

California has recorded net domestic out-migration since at least 1991, according to state data, meaning it has lost more people to other states than it has brought in from them – nearly every year.

The question to ask, if everything is as great as you guys are telling us, why is more than half running for their lives? California, you tell us, is an economic and cultural success, a utopia. Except more than half want out, why?

Quote
Among those surveyed, 62 percent said homelessness is a very serious issue for California, with 62 percent saying the best days of living in California are behind them.
I go to California several times a year for business and can tell you than San Francisco has literally turned into a *censored*hole. Downtown is filled with crazies that defecate on the street. If you haven’t been there, it’s hard to explain the impact of a ranting crazy on nearly every corner and the city smelling like a roadside bathroom that’s backing up. You may think I’m exaggerating but I’m not.

Quote
According to SFGATE research, Californians have left the state to move to Texas or Colorado. Nearly all interviewed cited the high cost of living as the primary reason why they left.
Texas, everyone wants to come to Texas. Can’t say I blame them. We can afford a home, a decent car, and still have the money left over to enjoy our lives.

Quote
In December 2018, one of the most frequently searched questions on Google among Californians was, "Should I move out?"

It’s just so great there,why move?

Quote
Businesses have also left. Jamba Juice moved its headquarters from the Bay Area to Frisco, Texas. Chevron and the North Face also moved their headquarters out of state and downsized their offices. Companies relocating also explained why: relatively high taxes, burdensome regulations, and labor costs that could not keep pace with a high cost of living.

But it’s great in California, great!
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2019, 01:02:00 PM
There are so many problems with that analysis, I don't know where to begin.

First, San Francisco is not representative of whether California is a good place to live, no matter what is happening there. The same things aren't true of Mountain View, San Jose, Sacramento, San Mateo, or La Jolla to mention a few.

The reason people are leaving is because it is expensive. It is expensive because it has been overwhelmingly successful at creating high-end six figure jobs. This is forcing lots of people to leave as they can no longer afford to live in those areas.

Sacramento is growing by 1.4%
San Diego by 1.42%

California on the whole added people. It's only if you consider non-citizens to be non-people that you can start talking about "domestic out-migration", which skews things considerably. High tech attracts people from India, China, and all over the world - not to mention the entertainment industry.

But I don't expect any of that matters to you, because "Libruls Bad", right?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 11, 2019, 01:29:21 PM
Quote
The question to ask, if everything is as great as you guys are telling us, why is more than half running for their lives? California, you tell us, is an economic and cultural success, a utopia. Except more than half want out, why?

First off, you're the only one calling California a "utopia."  This is what is known as a "strawman."  California isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and no one I know claims that it is.

The reason why people want to leave California is because it is such a success.  :D  Think back to basic economics.  What happens when there is a limited resource (great weather, plentiful jobs, developed infrastructure) which everybody wants?  The price of the resource goes up.  And--surprise!--as you mentioned yourself, this is the primary reason people want to leave.

It costs to live in a place that doesn't have crippling snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, lack of jobs, crummy universities, and such.  Real estate prices go sky-high.  Natural resources like water become strained.  These are what you expect from success.

And you have to deal with congested freeways, the ever-increasing wildfires (especially if you try to get away from the overcrowded cities), and the occasional killer earthquake.  :o  But no one has a good plan on mitigating those problems.  (Raking the "forests" won't help. ;) )

And having so many people with so much money, along with moderate weather, means that homeless can survive easier here than elsewhere.  So, yeah, we have a homeless problem, too.  But how would you suggest we solve that?  I'm sure, if Texas is willing, that California will happily send our homeless to you!  We'll even pay their way.  :D

I myself get mad that finding a better home will cost over half a million dollars.  That I have to go three miles out of my way to avoid traffic getting to work (something you can't even do in L.A.).  And that we have tent encampments around our downtown, and beggars at every other corner.

OTOH, I also get mad at this cold snap we've been dealing with lately.  Temperatures at night have been between 30-55 degree F for over a month now!  My hands start getting cold when I walk the dog in the morning!  And my heating bill has been like $90/month to keep the house warm!  It's miserable! ;)  ;D

I would love to have a California with reasonable housing prices and cost of living.  I would love a California where the freeways aren't congested during rush hour, or all-day and most of the weekend.  I would love a California where we don't have a homeless crisis.  But these are all the price of success.  We may be able to mitigate them, but we'll never solve them.

I expect that you'll start seeing these problems pretty soon in Texas, too, Crunch. :)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2019, 01:44:54 PM
The reason why people want to leave California is because it is such a success.  :D  Think back to basic economics.  What happens when there is a limited resource (great weather, plentiful jobs, developed infrastructure) which everybody wants?  The price of the resource goes up.  And--surprise!--as you mentioned yourself, this is the primary reason people want to leave.

It costs to live in a place that doesn't have crippling snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, lack of jobs, crummy universities, and such.  Real estate prices go sky-high.  Natural resources like water become strained.  These are what you expect from success.

I don't know anything about California but it doesn't follow that increased real estate prices reflect successful local policies. Places like NYC, for instance, faced incredible inflation in real estate prices (and therefore rent) through the 90's and 2000's, to the point where many, many people born and raised in the city had to move out to Queens or Brooklyn to make do. And this in turn wasn't merely the result of some magic success in mayoral policy (although perhaps Giuliani had some hand in it) but also of massive foreign investment. And while one might want to suggest that any investment at all is a success, those living there would have something else to say about that kind of "success". The fact that people from countries who gained massive riches on the backs of veritable slave labor can buy up real estate in the U.S. and force out people who've lived there for their whole lives, doesn't to me translate as any kind of "success" vis a vis governing. All it means is that the rich can edge out the poor when the rich from around the world are looking for groovy places to spread out.

Now I'm not actually arguing that California's policies haven't been success; as I said I don't know. But it's a strawman in its own right to argue that increasing rent price that drives out the poor is a result of any kind of success locally. And much the same could be said of oil wealth in Texas, where access to a natural resource can hardly be said to qualify as good governance in and of itself.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2019, 02:09:52 PM
Maybe instead of success, it would be better to say that it has great opportunity, as evidenced by the number skilled people who want to be there. It is causing really major problems as affordable housing pushes well past 90 minute commutes, depending on how far east someone in the east bay has to go.

I would say trading Jamba Juice for Apple, Samsung, SpaceX, Tesla, and others is probably a success.

The state's economy is not just big, but also booming -- growing faster than any nation. What's the secret? (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-06/california-makes-america-s-economy-great)

This is from 2 years ago, but I don't think it has been very different over that period.

Quote
The high taxes and ubiquitous regulation critics cite when assailing Golden State government are proving no impediment to business and investment. They may even be a benefit, as public policy and people's preferences converge. Four of the world's 10 largest companies are based in California. Two of them -- Alphabet and Facebook -- were conceived in the past 18 years. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the world's largest bank by market capitalization, routinely outperforms any of its peers from Wall Street.

Quote
The 482 companies in the Russell 3000, which are based in California, produced a total return of 144 percent during the past five years, easily beating the 114 percent return for non-California companies during the same period. Companies based in Texas, which perennially boasts that it is the best state for business with the lowest taxes and least regulation, returned 55 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

Clearly, there's a lot not to like. The poverty rate is higher than anywhere else. Housing is a critical problem.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2019, 03:09:24 PM
TheDrake,

I'm curious - as a thought experiment, would you have a positive, neutral, or negative reaction to state policies that had the following direct effects:

-Aggregate GDP increases
-95% of the fruits of the GDP gain go to the richest 1%, the rest trickle down into minimum wage employment
-Middle class jobs vanish in favor of either low-wage jobs, high-skill tech jobs, and lucrative professions for a few
-The size of the lower classes increases regularly, with the lowest of them edged out of housing and even out of the state
-Wealthy people move and invest there due to increased gentrification of certain areas, while other areas turn into ghettos

I'm not saying this *is* happening, but let's say it were: would you call this a win, neutral, or loss scenario? Certain types of metrics would perhaps hail this as a high employment situation, with GDP gains, and increased investment. Certain other metrics might measure it more on increasing wealth disparity, disposession of the poor, and the growing discontent with the class divide. Putting aside who is 'responsible' for this situation, what would be your objective evaluation of this situation if it were to occur?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2019, 03:43:46 PM
It's a good question. A lot of what shapes my worldview is a purely economic way of looking at things. People should be mobile. For me, that's pretty much an axiom. Everyone should be moving to their best opportunity, which is why I like immigration, and dismiss people who are angered by gentrification.

If I were in SF Bay, and I was driving a truck or serving coffee, I too would be googling how to leave. Because that makes economic sense. Go to Texas, North Dakota, Nebraska. Wherever.

When enough of the people doing those jobs leave an, then ultimately they are going to have to raise wages without artificial price controls (minimum wages).

Eventually enough people leave that essential functions start to disappear or become hard to get. This can be countered by luring people back into the area with greater wages, greater support for zoning changes, invention of automation, or even public assistance.

I think your scenario happens because people are unwilling or unable to move in sufficient number to shift the levers. Sometimes this is for very legitimate reasons, like a sick family member or joint custody. Other times, its like the apocryphal slowly boiled frog. It's just a little bit harder and a little bit worse every year. Sometimes it is just because, gee, isn't Manhattan so much fun and exciting? Or a person's identity is wrapped up in where they are from, and city pride.

For a city to avoid your scenario without trying to change this basic human nature, you really have one lever. Try to discourage rich people from moving in, which naturally leads to more steeply progressive tax rates to fuel support for the displaced people in some form. They might also successfully accomplish this by not handing companies tax breaks - like NY did with Amazon, which would have had a good chance of creating this scenario and why there was public blowback.

A lot of this is also a city failing to meet the needs of their residents in an attempt to preserve what they see as they city's character, charm, whatever. Which is why Mountain View and Palo Alto are never going to have the high-rise apartments that they desperately could use, along with a more urban footprint to reduce traffic with live-work-shop developments like the Domain in Austin.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2019, 03:54:49 PM
Quote
Commissioner Clark said he'd support heights up to seven stories, but "I think this is just over the top in terms of heights that are acceptable," echoing the sentiments of other commissioners. "This just doesn't seem like Mountain View."
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on March 11, 2019, 07:04:31 PM
There are so many problems with that analysis, I don't know where to begin.

First, San Francisco is not representative of whether California is a good place to live, no matter what is happening there. The same things aren't true of Mountain View, San Jose, Sacramento, San Mateo, or La Jolla to mention a few.
The polling references all California not just San Francisco. It calls out the Bay Area as the worst but it’s all of California.

The reason people are leaving is because it is expensive. It is expensive because it has been overwhelmingly successful at creating high-end six figure jobs. This is forcing lots of people to leave as they can no longer afford to live in those areas.

So successful that even people on a high end six figure salaries can’t afford it. I have towonder at your definition of success. Getting rid of the undesirables. Is that why they’re so pro-illegal immigration? Gotta have some toilet scrubbers and lawn mowers!

California on the whole added people. It's only if you consider non-citizens to be non-people that you can start talking about "domestic out-migration", which skews things considerably. High tech attracts people from India, China, and all over the world - not to mention the entertainment industry.

But I don't expect any of that matters to you, because "Libruls Bad", right?
True, migrants are coming in at a rate to stabilize population. Still need those menial laborers, right? Getting people at the high end of the economic spectrum just perpetuates the “success”.

But let’s assume there’s some accuracy to what you say, why do more than half of Californians want out? Why is the equivalent of a medium size down bailing out every year? It’s just so successful that over half the citizens want to leave is absurd.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on March 11, 2019, 09:45:39 PM
I still think the focus on California is silly.  No state is a house to itself and as long as they are all part of the country they can and do make decisions that are to their own benefit and worse for the country (see the thread on NY and Amazon for a discussion about how the tax incentive game is worse for the country overall, even if its better for a locality). 

CA's policies are decisively about gaming the system.  They love to give big incentives to favored industries that the little folk end up paying for.  That's going to bring in big guys (like Hollywood and the Tech Industry) and its going to stick it to the little guys.  CA's used incentives to keep very rich people in the state who'd otherwise leave to places like FL with no income tax.  I've read more than once that CA's tax revenues are directly tied to the market simply because they have so many wealthy people who's income is completely market based.

It's really simple math.  If you run a high tax state and want high tax revenues, there is only one group of people that actually pay the taxes - the wealthy.  They pay the majority of the taxes in every state, sometimes 75% or more.  The left tells you that they hate income inequality and that their policies seek to end it, but it's a lie.  Their taxation policies only work if they have rich people in their state and their policies are designed to create and keep rich people (and who cares if it hurts the middle class, when you can throw crumbs to the poor to keep your voting block).  These policies and cronyism go hand and hand, and that's what you see if you look closely.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2019, 01:13:36 PM
Quote
Now I'm not actually arguing that California's policies haven't been success; as I said I don't know. But it's a strawman in its own right to argue that increasing rent price that drives out the poor is a result of any kind of success locally. And much the same could be said of oil wealth in Texas, where access to a natural resource can hardly be said to qualify as good governance in and of itself.

That very well may be true, Fenring.  Although basic economics indicates that increasing rents are indicative of higher desirability, that does not mean it is because of local policies.

But, if it is true, then the corollary is also true: that the increasing price of rents does not indicate the failure of policies, either.  So people being driven away by high rents doesn't mean the local policies are bad.

In fact, unless the rents are directly determined by governmental policies, there is no correlation at all.  Which means Crunch's premise, to which I was responding, is faulty.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on March 12, 2019, 02:06:19 PM
Wayward, an economic analysis doesn't end with stating a basic rule.  It then goes into questions of why.  It's not "desirability" its demand exceeding supply that raises rents.  Supply could be decreasing, or just not increasing as fast as demand. 

In the case of gentrification you often see massive policy driven manipulations in play.  You'll have rent control taking units out of the market, which drives prices for other units up and lowers quality in the rent control potions.  In a lot of CA cities you have serious zoning restrictions on free development of high density low cost housing, which artificially suppresses the desire to invest in supplying those markets.  You'll have decisions to take buildings "condo" that could have been rented.  Many of those cities have deliberately enacted policies to prevent there being adequate low cost housing, and they've all made efforts to ensure it's not sitting next to and in the same schools as the high cost residents they want to attract.

It's a fair criticism for CA specifically because of their claims about the social benefits of their policies.  If you stand on a soapbox and claim others don't care about poor people, but you do, then evidence your policies are hurting the poor is especially damning.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on March 12, 2019, 03:40:54 PM
In the case of gentrification you often see massive policy driven manipulations in play.  You'll have rent control taking units out of the market, which drives prices for other units up and lowers quality in the rent control potions.  In a lot of CA cities you have serious zoning restrictions on free development of high density low cost housing, which artificially suppresses the desire to invest in supplying those markets.  You'll have decisions to take buildings "condo" that could have been rented.  Many of those cities have deliberately enacted policies to prevent there being adequate low cost housing, and they've all made efforts to ensure it's not sitting next to and in the same schools as the high cost residents they want to attract.

Cupertino, CA is a poster child for some of this. Are you a business who wants to build something that will significantly increase the return on property tax receipts? Let us roll out the red carpet for you, doubly so if "the typical employee" will be making six figures.

But if you want to build more housing, even for those new jobs that pay six figures? /crickets

Meanwhile, Cupertino residents can feel free to complain about how (commuter) mass transit isn't good enough, and that the highways are way too overcrowded, and the state/federal government needs to spend more money on both.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2019, 05:59:54 PM
Quote
It's a fair criticism for CA specifically because of their claims about the social benefits of their policies.  If you stand on a soapbox and claim others don't care about poor people, but you do, then evidence your policies are hurting the poor is especially damning.

That is a fair criticism.  Can you cite instances of people claiming that others don't care about poor people but CA does?  I don't recall hearing this.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 12, 2019, 06:20:18 PM
Quote
Supply could be decreasing, or just not increasing as fast as demand.

Decreasing demand certainly would explain higher housing costs without desirability.  And rent control does exasperate the problem (which is why it is not widespread in CA).  But "not increasing fast enough" does imply that more people want to move into the area than the area can handle at that time, aka desirability.

One of the problems CA is dealing with is builders focusing on building high-end houses rather than affordable houses.  They can get away with this because people want to move here, and many of them can afford expensive housing.  This has nothing to do with governmental policies, but rather the better profits that can be made from luxury housing and the fact that there is a demand for it.

Supply and demand would not have allowed the housing prices to go so high as they have unless people were willing to sacrifice to live here.  It is a sign of success.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on March 12, 2019, 09:00:04 PM
Quote
Now I'm not actually arguing that California's policies haven't been success; as I said I don't know. But it's a strawman in its own right to argue that increasing rent price that drives out the poor is a result of any kind of success locally. And much the same could be said of oil wealth in Texas, where access to a natural resource can hardly be said to qualify as good governance in and of itself.

That very well may be true, Fenring.  Although basic economics indicates that increasing rents are indicative of higher desirability, that does not mean it is because of local policies.

But, if it is true, then the corollary is also true: that the increasing price of rents does not indicate the failure of policies, either.  So people being driven away by high rents doesn't mean the local policies are bad.

That doesn't follow either (funny enough). While increasing rent prices - especially those out of proportion - cannot necessarily be linked to good policies, it may well be the case that it is the result of bad policies. It all depends on what sorts of incentives the city has in place to encourage foreign investment in real estate, especially in areas with lots of new condo construction where they are super-eager to pre-sell units. The city obviously benefits from increased tax revenue, while on the other hand certain parties (like Asian investors) notoriously will buy up entire groups of condos at a time, to try to later turn them over for a profit. All this does is increase rents through introduction of a middleman, the very definition of inefficiency. And as a matter of fact New Yorkers were (and perhaps still are, as I don't live there anymore) up in arms about the rent situation, as evidenced from the semi-farcical The Rent Is Too Damn High Party with its ingenious spokesman. If you haven't ever seen him, Youtube it right away! But anyhow, the notion of artificial inflation of rent prices is very well in the public awareness there, and it surely might be a result of bad policies that rent prices go crazy.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2019, 01:37:03 AM
Vancouver, BC was another area that was on the receiving end of a massive Chinese Real Estate buy-in, it made their real-estate market go crazy enough that they enacted laws to make it more difficult for it to continue.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming among others, could be used as another example. Where "power elites" have decided that Jackson Hole makes for a nice Winter AND Summer vacation spot, they've driven real-estate prices through the roof in the area, and then some. There is no real industry to speak of in the area. Cattle used to be a big thing there, but most of them have been bought out for either real estate developments, or government/private nature reserves.

Just about the entire economy in Jackson Hole now revolves around the Hospitality/Tourism market. Which doesn't pay very well for the rank-and-file employee, or government employee for that matter. When they're having a hard time finding anything close to "affordable housing" for a citizen of the middle class within 30 miles of Jackson Hole, there is a problem. It isn't even really the result of anything the government of Jackson Hole, Wyoming did, they're completely at the mercy of "the external market" and those multi-millionaires who decided to treat their town as a mecca.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2019, 10:05:34 AM
At the mercy of? Did I miss a memo where the people working in Jackson can't f off to any of 900 other municipalities?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on March 13, 2019, 10:08:11 AM
Quote
Supply could be decreasing, or just not increasing as fast as demand.

Decreasing demand certainly would explain higher housing costs without desirability.  And rent control does exasperate the problem (which is why it is not widespread in CA).  But "not increasing fast enough" does imply that more people want to move into the area than the area can handle at that time, aka desirability.

One of the problems CA is dealing with is builders focusing on building high-end houses rather than affordable houses.  They can get away with this because people want to move here, and many of them can afford expensive housing.  This has nothing to do with governmental policies, but rather the better profits that can be made from luxury housing and the fact that there is a demand for it.

You say something that I wholehearted agree with, that this is because there is a focus on building high end housing, but then you go on to refuse to connect the dots and claim that it has "nothing to do with governmental policies."

It has everything to do with governmental policies.  Every single time the government gives tax breaks and tax incentives to a major company or industry (and CA unequivocally does this at state and local levels), it's specifically designed to pull in people who are demanding "high end housing."  When they go out of their way to use zoning restrictions to prohibit building low income high occupancy developments, or worse to channel them into slums and out of "nice neighborhoods," it's a governmental policy. 

It's not a mistake that CA is importing wealthy high tax payers and exporting the working poor who can't afford to live there in any more.  It's a choice.  And their making it to maximize tax revenue (as the poor don't pay the taxes but the incomers do). 

There are always developers trying to build high occupancy projects.  Go to any town planning and zoning office and look for the projects that have been tied up for years and you'll overwhelmingly find them to be high occupancy buildings.

Quote
Supply and demand would not have allowed the housing prices to go so high as they have unless people were willing to sacrifice to live here.  It is a sign of success.

Well again sort of.  The income in the town per capita has gone up, but the people who used to live there have been forced out.   It's classic case (albeit through economics) of forcing undesirables out of a location so that it can be better for those who remain.  Doesn't solve the problems of the poor, just shuffles them out of your neighborhood.

That's why you're seeing homelessness increase, the poor (and the previously lower middle class) are being forced out, but they have no where to go.

To me it's a grossly cynical play, and the best I can say for it, is that I don't believe most of the people understand the consequences of their policies.  It's literally why we have the expression the Road to H is paved with good intentions.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on March 13, 2019, 11:53:12 AM
Housing is one of those tricky things, and it is so tightly controlled that it can't really be called a free market because it is so regulated.

In third-world areas with no zoning laws, building codes, homeowners associations, you start to see something approximating a free market. This isn't necessarily desirable.

There are externalities involved, including traffic and utilities. Because the value of your property can affect your neighbor's property value, you can't raze your house and turn it into a mini trailer park, even though that would house more people more affordably and make you more money as a property owner.

Modern urban planning more closely resembles a communist centrally planned economy than a free market.

Heck, you can live in a condo building and be prohibited from renting a unit you own!

Every city or town or county I've ever heard of has one primary goal - to raise tax revenue. And since property tax is the only significant mechanism for this, it means they want to maximize the cost per square foot of land. After all, they can't acquire more land. Affluent communities result in better schools, which lures more affluent people.

I don't think this is a particularly large driver for the traditional homeless, with nowhere to go. It does lead to a lot of off-books housing economies - couch surfing, de-facto roommates who are not officially on lease, living in a commercial building, living as extended families, living in a garage or shed, etc.

The type of homeless you encounter in the street are largely driven by mental illness, drug abuse, and other health issues.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 13, 2019, 12:03:13 PM

That very well may be true, Fenring.  Although basic economics indicates that increasing rents are indicative of higher desirability, that does not mean it is because of local policies.

But, if it is true, then the corollary is also true: that the increasing price of rents does not indicate the failure of policies, either.  So people being driven away by high rents doesn't mean the local policies are bad.

That doesn't follow either (funny enough). While increasing rent prices - especially those out of proportion - cannot necessarily be linked to good policies, it may well be the case that it is the result of bad policies.

Perhaps I should have said "does not necessarily indicate failure of policies, either,"  because you seem to be saying exactly what I am saying.

Increasing rents do not prove that local policies are either good or bad.  Policies can influence rent prices, but outside forces influence them, too.  So without context, housing prices neither prove nor disprove the wisdom of any particular policy.  (And even with context, the amount of weight given to local policy vs outside forces can change the conclusion.)

One thing that is certain, though, is that without demand, housing prices cannot rise, regardless of local policies.  And California apparently does have that demand, which means they must be doing something right (albeit that "something" may not be to the benefit of the average person).
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on March 13, 2019, 12:18:18 PM
Quote
It has everything to do with governmental policies.  Every single time the government gives tax breaks and tax incentives to a major company or industry (and CA unequivocally does this at state and local levels), it's specifically designed to pull in people who are demanding "high end housing."  When they go out of their way to use zoning restrictions to prohibit building low income high occupancy developments, or worse to channel them into slums and out of "nice neighborhoods," it's a governmental policy.

While I agree with your analysis, Seriati, doesn't every state do this?

I mean, don't most states, if not all, give tax breaks and incentives to lure major companies?  Or was the recent bidding-war for Amazon's second HQ an anomaly?

And which states do not have local zoning codes?  Which states do not have NIMBYism and cities/towns that move their low income/high occupancy developments outside of "nice neighborhoods?"

AFAIK, California does not have a state-wide zoning code that enforces NIMBYism, but we do have a state-wide housing crisis in all the major metropolitan areas.  (You can still get a low-priced house way-out in the boondocks. :) )   Are our local policies so much worse than everyone else's?  How so?

While government policy certainly can increase the price of housing, I don't see how California's differs so significantly as to cause the extremely high housing costs we see.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on March 13, 2019, 02:07:37 PM
At the mercy of? Did I miss a memo where the people working in Jackson can't f off to any of 900 other municipalities?

Context is a thing.

Jackson Hole, Wyoming among others, could be used as another example. . . . There is no real industry to speak of in the area. Cattle used to be a big thing there, but most of them have been bought out for either real estate developments, or government/private nature reserves.

Just about the entire economy in Jackson Hole now revolves around the Hospitality/Tourism market. . . . It isn't even really the result of anything the government of Jackson Hole, Wyoming did, they're completely at the mercy of "the external market" and those multi-millionaires who decided to treat their town as a mecca.

I said nothing of the residents. Obviously they can move elsewhere if they decide to. However, the community of Jackson Hole would be comprised of the people who live in Jackson Hole. Yes, the community is comprised of its residents, but that can change over time.

The problem Jackson Hole has is:
1) Their economy is entirely dependent on the hospitality industry.
2) Most of their current residents are reliant on national/international markets to maintain their incomes/lifestyles.
3) Going back to reliance on "the hospitality industry" for their local economy. If the tourist sector(as opposed to their semi-Residents who own property in the area) sees "a significant decline" due to say, a sharp downturn in the financial markets(see #2 as well). Then they're on a collision course with a very major disaster for the local economy.

Sure, they'll probably recover "in time" due to the unique location that Jackson Hole finds itself in, but it's still likely going to get "pretty bloody"(proverbially speaking) all the same.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 11, 2021, 02:54:57 PM
California's badly-run government does it again.

During the midst of a pandemic that has shut down most of the nation, California expects  $75.7 billion surplus this year. (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/05/10/california-has-a-staggering-757b-budget-surplus-1381195)

Fortunately, most states aren't like liberal California.

BTW, how's your state's budget looking this year? :)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: edgmatt on May 13, 2021, 10:35:03 PM
Maybe, maybe not. (http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/the-state-of-californias-economy/)

"We have over one trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for CalSTRS, CalPRS and the health care system.  Add to that hundreds of billions bonds and other liabilities—with just $21 billion to cover that"

"California is hampered by distinct challenges, most pressing being the shocking income inequality that has developed in recent years. Despite the spectacular income growth California has experienced, homelessness and poverty have also grown rapidly. Indeed, California has the nation’s worst poverty rate, with nearly 40 percent of its residents rated as either poor or “near-poor” by the Census Bureau and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). As such, the state ended up being ranked a lowly 47th in terms of median annual household income in a study conducted last July by personal financial-services website WalletHub"

So it seems while the government of California is pulling in lots of money (hence the surplus), that doesn't translate to good things for the people of the State.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 14, 2021, 09:14:39 AM
Maybe, maybe not. (http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/the-state-of-californias-economy/)

"We have over one trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities for CalSTRS, CalPRS and the health care system.  Add to that hundreds of billions bonds and other liabilities—with just $21 billion to cover that"

"California is hampered by distinct challenges, most pressing being the shocking income inequality that has developed in recent years. Despite the spectacular income growth California has experienced, homelessness and poverty have also grown rapidly. Indeed, California has the nation’s worst poverty rate, with nearly 40 percent of its residents rated as either poor or “near-poor” by the Census Bureau and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). As such, the state ended up being ranked a lowly 47th in terms of median annual household income in a study conducted last July by personal financial-services website WalletHub"

So it seems while the government of California is pulling in lots of money (hence the surplus), that doesn't translate to good things for the people of the State.

Already lacks credibility. From PPIC:

Quote
All told, more than a third (35.2%) of state residents were poor or near poor in 2018.

So your rando blog source has already badly muffed it, rounding up from 35% to calling it "near 40". Also 47th in median income is it?

Nope, from ACS data, california was #7.

simple wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income)

What wallethub does say, is California is #23 for best state to live in with Texas #36. This breaks down in affordability, economy, and Education & Health.

California is 49 in affordability, no surprise, but #10 in economy and #22 in health.
Texas isn't so much better at 36 in affordability (and getting less affordable all the time), #15 in economy, and a lowly #41 in Health & Education. You know, services that taxes pay for.

#1 on their list is liberal Massachusetts with affordability predictibly low but economy and education #2.

Best States, RAH RAH RAH! (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-states-to-live-in/62617)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: edgmatt on May 14, 2021, 10:13:21 AM
Well those stats are much better than simply pointing to surplus and calling it "good".  One factor of hundreds being (seemingly) positive doesn't mean much in the overall picture.

Let's take it easy with the insults too.  It wasn't a "rando blog source".  The guy writes for California quite a lot and speaks in Cali quite a lot.  There's credibility there.

If one of the dude's stats are wrong, point it out, but don't be a dick about it.

Quote
All told, more than a third (35.2%) of state residents were poor or near poor in 2018.

Right, 35% in 2018.  I can't find what it was in 2020 ( I didn't go all out looking for it, but I didn't see it anywhere) but 2020 is when the guy wrote that article, and it's possible it went up 2-3%, making his "nearly 40% claim more reasonable.  I wouldn't say he muffed it, or that his article lacks credibility considering that.

More stats (https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-report/california-2020-report/) from 2020 have Cali doing well in some places and not so-well in others.

Another link (https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/JTF_PovertyJTF.pdf) has mixed indications as well.

Some major Liberal issues, like Affordable housing and Income inequality ratio, show California to be well behind the curve.

Quote
California is 49 in affordability, no surprise, but #10 in economy and #22 in health.
Texas isn't so much better at 36 in affordability (and getting less affordable all the time), #15 in economy, and a lowly #41 in Health & Education. You know, services that taxes pay for.

Right, when Cali is 49 on an issue, it's no surprise, shrug it off, no biggie.  But when Texas is 13 States better, that's "nearly the same".  (You scoffed when the guy in the article claimed 35% was "nearly 40%" and said he muffed it....but 36 out of 50 is "nearly the same" as 49 out of 50....right?)  Then 41, which is still better than 49, in Health and Education is "lowly".  C'mon man, you're working too hard to convince yourself.

We can go back and forth all day and point to factors for reasons why one state is "doing better" than any other.  Cali has some of the richest people, and richest counties, in the country, and also the most populous.  *Of course* the state will bring in higher revenue.  That has little to do with liberal or conservative policies, that's just math.

So then you can point to education, then I'll point to poverty levels, then you'll point to Gender Wage gap, then I'll point to unemployment....

Seems preemptive and a bit silly to be cheering.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 14, 2021, 11:18:45 AM
Let's take it easy with the insults too.  It wasn't a "rando blog source".  The guy writes for California quite a lot and speaks in Cali quite a lot.  There's credibility there.

If one of the dude's stats are wrong, point it out, but don't be a dick about it.

In fairness, I would call any blog a secondary source and therefore random. Has he done independent research? Is he the actual organization doing the study? I prefer primary sources, because you wind up with this game of telephone where people cherry pick and modify stats to support their predetermined conclusions.

I'm not cheering for any state, just trying to point out the nuances in the general discussion. I think it is just as silly to rank states as the US News and World Report "best colleges" ranking. Each person will choose a state based on their own set of criteria as you point out. So it's kind of silly to either bash a state or to cheerlead for one.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on May 16, 2021, 04:40:59 PM
California's badly-run government does it again.

During the midst of a pandemic that has shut down most of the nation, California expects  $75.7 billion surplus this year. (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/05/10/california-has-a-staggering-757b-budget-surplus-1381195)

How much did CA cut their expenditures by to meet that amazing target?  Oh yeah they didn't.  They spent more than ever, in fact, increased their expenditures by a much faster rate than the economy is growing. 

So where did they get that staggering budget surplus?  Gains in the stock market, thank you President Trump (from California) and federal revenue (still larger than CA's entire "surplus"). 

What exactly do you think the Government of CA did to create this surplus?  The only thing I'm aware of that even contributed to it that they consciously did was panic and lower the rate by which the increased their discretionary spending slightly (they still increased it), if they hadn't slowed the rate then the surplus would have been less than half, even with a massive bump in federal revenue and a windfall from the Trump stock markets that isn't likely to happen again under the Biden administration.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 16, 2021, 04:54:38 PM
May I say that this thread (which is a continuation of the thread from the old forum, I think) as well as the one on Obamacare, prove to me that smart people can make data sound like anything. I know absolutely zero about how California governs itself, so what I read here is literally news to me. Hearing the back and forth over the years about it leaves me scratching my head. Essentially I'm no closer to having a clue whether either side is right. Good job, I guess!
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: LetterRip on May 16, 2021, 06:02:08 PM
California pays far more in federal taxes than it receives back, so it is bizarre to claim it is due to the federal government - eliminating federal taxes and benefits would result in California being even wealthier and Republican ran states being even poorer.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 17, 2021, 12:06:44 AM
California's badly-run government does it again.

During the midst of a pandemic that has shut down most of the nation, California expects  $75.7 billion surplus this year. (https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/05/10/california-has-a-staggering-757b-budget-surplus-1381195)

How much did CA cut their expenditures by to meet that amazing target?  Oh yeah they didn't.  They spent more than ever, in fact, increased their expenditures by a much faster rate than the economy is growing. 

So where did they get that staggering budget surplus?  Gains in the stock market, thank you President Trump (from California) and federal revenue (still larger than CA's entire "surplus"). 

What exactly do you think the Government of CA did to create this surplus?  The only thing I'm aware of that even contributed to it that they consciously did was panic and lower the rate by which the increased their discretionary spending slightly (they still increased it), if they hadn't slowed the rate then the surplus would have been less than half, even with a massive bump in federal revenue and a windfall from the Trump stock markets that isn't likely to happen again under the Biden administration.

Oh, I see. Trump did it. So please explain all the other states still eating a bag of deficit while lifting less than a pinky for the unfortunate people in their sh**ty flyover state.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 17, 2021, 12:17:30 AM
To make my position more clear, it is always beyond stupid for ANY president to take credit for a good economy or to get ripped for a bad one. It is way way beyond their control by design. Clinton didn't balance the budget because of his awesome policies, he lucked into a growth period. Reagan's trickle down didn't do anything, he lucked into recovery after massive inflation. It might be fair to blame Harrison. It's not credible to laud FDR. The economy does what it does. And if Trump didn't splash lots of cash to Richy Rich, guess what. We'd still have similar results. Anything else is faith based political economics.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2021, 03:07:48 AM
To make my position more clear, it is always beyond stupid for ANY president to take credit for a good economy or to get ripped for a bad one. It is way way beyond their control by design. Clinton didn't balance the budget because of his awesome policies, he lucked into a growth period. Reagan's trickle down didn't do anything, he lucked into recovery after massive inflation. It might be fair to blame Harrison. It's not credible to laud FDR. The economy does what it does. And if Trump didn't splash lots of cash to Richy Rich, guess what. We'd still have similar results. Anything else is faith based political economics.

Hm. I hear where you're coming from, and I know you've made this argument before, but I do think Presidents can have a strong effect on the economy. But as you mention, it's not due to "great leadership!" that miraculously turns the market around. But I do think that important appointments, the usual wheeling and dealing with bodies such as Fed boards and bank execs, as well as managing party whips and the related votes, can certainly effect whether economic policy is going to be stupid or not. Appoint an "industry insider" in the usual revolving door of bank execs as your treasury secretary, and don't be surprised when banks have at it and you're left complaining later. Give way and allow regulatory capture to happen through croneyism, and likewise the bad effects for the populace will be seen (indirectly, mind you). So insofar as the POTUS is a manager, I do think the good management is essential for the economic situation to not descend into stupidity. I might agree that a President can't make a solid economy magically better, but whatever state it's in can be made worse through bad management.

You mentioned Reagan, who is actually a good example of a President who was fighting Volker (I think) about monetary policy at the start of his presidency. The Fed board wanted to forestall a predicted bad recession (typical after unnatural booms that follow wartime economies), and Reagan came in with preconceived ideas about how the Fed is always trying to "zoom" the economy, and he was (I suppose) brought up to believe that this was a Bad Idea. So he insisted they put on the brakes hard, which would prove his superior knowledge. They did not want to comply, partially because they disagreed, and partially because the Fed is supposed be totally separated from the executive branch. But they did cave as far as I recall from my readings, and the result was the horrendous recession from the early 80's. Now it may not be fair to blame Reagan outright for it since it was potentially coming anyhow, but his battling with Volker let to back and forth about what to do with the rates. Finally when things were bad they manage to get him to try something else. So while Reagan may not have been in a position to miraculously douse the stock market with fairy dust and make it soar, he did seem to be in a position to cripple the Fed from acting as it saw best. I say this with a small grain of salt, because some years before this the Fed was itself quite guilty of going along with foolish theories that made no sense, so it's not like they were impeccable geniuses anyhow.

On the balance I do agree that at minimum if one was going to attribute economic success to Trump that I'd want to see how this was a direct result of management skills, both in appointments and in keeping intelligent discourse open with the Fed boards and banks about sound policy.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 17, 2021, 04:41:56 PM
Presidents on their own can only do some things. The "Trump" tax cuts, for good or ill, are more accurately described as the "McConnell" tax cuts. The activities you speak of, like managing party whips, aren't really Trump's bag. Some Presidents do that sort of thing like Lyndon Johnson.

I certainly concede that Presidents do have some impact on economy. I just think we're talking relatively minor effects compared to the macro events that truly matter. GDP growth was as follows, you show me some compelling correlation with President.

2019   2.16%   -0.77%
2018   2.93%   0.56%
2017   2.37%   0.73%
2016   1.64%   -1.27%
2015   2.91%   0.38%
2014   2.53%   0.68%
2013   1.84%   -0.41%
2012   2.25%   0.70%
2011   1.55%   -1.01%
2010   2.56%   5.10%

A President or political party does have potential massive impact on specific segments of the economy, like healthcare or pipeline construction. Or on the performance of equities by triggering stock buybacks with tax cuts.

WRT Reagan, this is what I found. The specific policy, however, has no bearing on your statement that Presidents can try to exert influence in a variety of ways.

Quote
Volcker is best known for the "Volcker Shock," a rapid increase in interest rates in 1980 that helped tame the long-running inflation problem from the 1970s while also contributing to the
recession
 that began in 1981.

It appeared that Reagan did not want a similar tightening cycle, which would have choked off economic growth, prior to his reelection campaign. According to Volcker, Reagan did not say a word, but Baker delivered a strong message.

"The president is ordering you not to raise interest rates before the election," Baker told Volcker.

Volcker did not plan on raising rates at the time, but the then-Fed chair was "stunned" since the order was an affront to the Fed's political independence. Volcker also said he later realized that the meeting was conducted in the library since there was likely no recording equipment in the room like in the Oval Office.

Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 18, 2021, 02:22:32 PM
What wallethub does say, is California is #23 for best state to live in with Texas #36.

What do people say?

Quote
According to new data released today by the state Department of Finance, California’s population declined by 182,083 people in 2020.

That's the first population decline in over 100 years. The situation is CA is so bad that an entire large city's worth of people are literally uprooting their lives and their families and fleeing the state.

Where are they going?

Quote
Texas was a popular state to move to in 2019. More than 559,000 people moved to Texas that year, according to U.S. Census data. More than 80,000 of them came from California.

So we can believe what some random site like Wallethub says ... OR we can believe what people are actually doing out in the real world. Out in the real world, Californians are fleeing and about 45% of those fleeing are choosing Texas. That's the reality.

What's 2021 like?

Quote
The first to announce its exodus this year was Digital Realty Trust, a $36 billion company with over 1,500 employees. It announced last month it was relocating its global headquarters from San Francisco to Austin, Texas. The real estate investment trust will keep some of its presence in the Bay Area but is relocating the bulk of its operations to Texas. Its CEO, A. William Stein, said he’s doing so because of Texas’ “central location, affordable cost of living, highly educated workforce, and supportive business climate.”

Stitch Fix, a personal style service, began to disinvest in California and reinvest in lower-cost states last year. The $8.3 billion company formerly based in San Francisco laid off 1,400 stylists in California last June. By December, it began creating a new distribution center in Salt Lake City and this month announced it was shutting down its South San Francisco distribution warehouse altogether.

The California Policy Center has catalogued at least 50 large corporations that have left California since 2014, with the vast majority leaving in 2019 and 2020.

It's a complete exodus.

Quote
In 2020, Oracle, Palantir and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise were among the companies that announced they’re relocating their headquarters out of the Golden State. Wealthy individuals from the tech industry moving recently include Larry Ellison, Drew Houston, Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk, currently the world’s richest man.

You know where they mostly went? Yeah, Texas.

Quote
In addition to the Silicon Valley tech companies that already left California for Texas last year, Charles Schwab relocated its corporate headquarters from San Francisco to Dallas. Apple also announced the building of its new campus in Austin.

Survey company QuestionPro also relocated to Austin last year, as did SignEasy to Dallas, Finical, Inc. to Dallas, Dasan Zhone Solutions to Plano, and the $23 billion CBRE Group to Dallas.

Wallethub or reality? Which is the more accurate depiction? I suspect we already know which this forum will choose:

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - Orwell.




Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: LetterRip on May 18, 2021, 03:49:30 PM
The pandemic drastically increased remote workers and moving to cheaper accommodations is a major benefit of remote working.  The population decline was simply remote workers taking advantage of the freedom to work from home from anywhere - especially those who wanted to live where COVID restrictions were less stringent.

This is a one off event not indicative of anything.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 18, 2021, 04:27:00 PM
Actually, Crunch severely underestimates how many people left California.

According to this U.C. study (https://therealdeal.com/la/2021/03/16/did-pandemic-really-trigger-mass-exodus-from-california/), about 267,000 people left California in 2020.  This was off-set, of course, by about 128,000 who decided to move into California that year, too.

Which brings up the question, if there is a mass exodus from the state, why are people moving in? :)

Of course, Crunch glosses over the reasons why people are leaving, one of the most obvious being the price of housing.  And what is the main reason for prices to go up?  Lack of supply, of course.  In this case, because so many people want to live in California.  If they didn't, because they were all moving out, there would be more housing available.

And growth in California is becoming more difficult, mainly because of lack of water.  Down here in San Diego, you can walk along the riverbed of the San Diego river up in the El Monte valley, because of the big dam that stops the flow at the head of the valley.  A reservoir that was only half-full (if that) a few years ago, after our eight-year drought.  It's all well and good to talk about building more housing in the suburbs and outlying areas, but where will you get the water for that housing? ;)

And the bottom line is that losing 182,000 people in a state with 43,000,000 people isn't that big of a percentage.  If we continue at that rate, California will be empty by the year 2257.  We can only hope that real estate prices will go down before that. :)

That's a pretty slow exodus for such a "badly run" state, wouldn't you say? ;)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2021, 06:56:14 PM
California pays far more in federal taxes than it receives back, so it is bizarre to claim it is due to the federal government - eliminating federal taxes and benefits would result in California being even wealthier and Republican ran states being even poorer.

I always laugh at that one. A large part of California's economy is reliant on a federally subsidized transportation system through the states of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri and Illinois. (Interstates 10, 40, 70, and 80 specifically)

But hey, all that money those states receive to support the interstate highway system has exactly zero economic benefit to the economy of California.

Much like the state of Washington sees no economic benefit from Federal Dollars going to maintain Interstate 90 in Montana and Idaho. Or Oregon and Washington with regard to Interstate 84 in Idaho and Utah.  ::)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 18, 2021, 07:13:23 PM
You know where they mostly went? Yeah, Texas.

You could actually look up what the department you cited said.

The state Department of Finance reported Friday that the population dropped by 182,083 people, or 0.46 percent, between Jan. 1, 2020, and the end of the year. The agency attributed the decline to out-of-state migration, slower international immigration and the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed nearly 61,000 residents at a time when the state is recording among the lowest birthrates in the nation.

But, you know RAH RAH RAH TEXAS GREAT WOOOO!
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 18, 2021, 07:35:57 PM
And what is the main reason for prices to go up?  Lack of supply, of course.  In this case, because so many people want to live in California.  If they didn't, because they were all moving out, there would be more housing available.

I don't know anything about California, as I've mentioned, but I just wanted to point out that generally it does not follow that the real estate market going up implies more people wanting to live there. It can include that variable, but there are others, most notably foreign investors.

You know where they mostly went? Yeah, Texas.

You could actually look up what the department you cited said.

The state Department of Finance reported Friday that the population dropped by 182,083 people, or 0.46 percent, between Jan. 1, 2020, and the end of the year. The agency attributed the decline to out-of-state migration, slower international immigration and the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed nearly 61,000 residents at a time when the state is recording among the lowest birthrates in the nation.

But, you know RAH RAH RAH TEXAS GREAT WOOOO!

Maybe I'm crazy, but it doesn't look like what you're saying actually contradicts Crunch's point?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDeamon on May 18, 2021, 09:31:28 PM
I don't know anything about California, as I've mentioned, but I just wanted to point out that generally it does not follow that the real estate market going up implies more people wanting to live there. It can include that variable, but there are others, most notably foreign investors.

Hush, you're not supposed to suggest things like investors in China view the stock market as too dangerous and think that real estate is the gold standard for investing. Where being able to make those investments outside of China is an even better play to make, for various reasons.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 19, 2021, 11:19:05 AM
And what is the main reason for prices to go up?  Lack of supply, of course.  In this case, because so many people want to live in California.  If they didn't, because they were all moving out, there would be more housing available.

I don't know anything about California, as I've mentioned, but I just wanted to point out that generally it does not follow that the real estate market going up implies more people wanting to live there. It can include that variable, but there are others, most notably foreign investors.

You know where they mostly went? Yeah, Texas.

You could actually look up what the department you cited said.

The state Department of Finance reported Friday that the population dropped by 182,083 people, or 0.46 percent, between Jan. 1, 2020, and the end of the year. The agency attributed the decline to out-of-state migration, slower international immigration and the coronavirus pandemic, which has killed nearly 61,000 residents at a time when the state is recording among the lowest birthrates in the nation.

But, you know RAH RAH RAH TEXAS GREAT WOOOO!

Maybe I'm crazy, but it doesn't look like what you're saying actually contradicts Crunch's point?

I could refute the point, but as we've covered before, that's kind of pointless. He can point to companies moving their headquarters for regulation purposes, but they aren't shuttering their California locations and lots of Texas companies are establishing new offices in California because that's where a lot of the talent is and will remain.

My point above is that its silly to point to California population decrease as "California bad" when impact included squashed immigration and dead people. Meanwhile Austin, where I live, is experiencing all the HORRORS of California including skyrocketing housing shortages and costs as well as homelessness. I drive by tent cities beneath the 183 and the 35 that rivals San Francisco. But I'm sure that's cause of the libs.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 19, 2021, 12:24:36 PM
BTW if we want to compare states, I'll throw my home state of NH into the mix. No income tax AND no sales tax. Median household income is #8 compared to Texas at #25 and just behind Cali at #7. A state legislature that is all volunteer with no professional politicians. Modest population growth that is manageable and not straining infrastructure. Beautiful open spaces, coast mountains rivers and lakes. Unemployment 2.4% pre-covid. #4 in K-12 education (according to usnews).
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 19, 2021, 04:54:54 PM
BTW if we want to compare states, I'll throw my home state of NH into the mix. No income tax AND no sales tax. Median household income is #8 compared to Texas at #25 and just behind Cali at #7. A state legislature that is all volunteer with no professional politicians. Modest population growth that is manageable and not straining infrastructure. Beautiful open spaces, coast mountains rivers and lakes. Unemployment 2.4% pre-covid. #4 in K-12 education (according to usnews).

You definitely don't have to sell me on NH, personally. I'm a Maine, Vermont, and NH fan big-time. Been too long since I've hiked Mt. Washington.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 19, 2021, 05:07:29 PM
You definitely don't have to sell me on NH, personally. I'm a Maine, Vermont, and NH fan big-time. Been too long since I've hiked Mt. Washington.

Did you tackle the summit? I never attempted it because this, for those who are unfamiliar:

Quote
Weather conditions change incredibly fast on this mountain and it’s not unusual to find that the temperature is 30 degrees cooler on the summit than at the base. Calm air at the trailhead could increase (and frequently does) to hurricane force on the summit. Hurricane force winds occur, on average, every 4th day on Mt. Washington. One hundred mile an hour winds occur in every month of the year. This little mountain has recorded the highest windspeed ever observed at any land based, manned weather observatory, with a record of 231 miles per hour.

Clear skies in the valley frequently yield to a summit enshrouded in fog with visibility reduced to mere feet -- the summit is in the clouds ⅔ of the time. June, July and August have average daily temperatures in the 40’s. Therefore, it’s absolutely possible that on any day in August you might find yourself on the summit with a temperature below freezing, 75 mph winds, 20 foot visibility and snow, sleet and freezing rain -- this actually happened to a group (who needed a very expensive rescue) in August of 2017.

But the old man crumbled, so you can't see him anymore.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on May 19, 2021, 07:22:22 PM
You definitely don't have to sell me on NH, personally. I'm a Maine, Vermont, and NH fan big-time. Been too long since I've hiked Mt. Washington.

Did you tackle the summit? I never attempted it because this, for those who are unfamiliar:

Yeah, I've been to the summit a few times but not on a particularly bad day. When I was up there mid-July there were (a) people skiing near the summit, and (b) wind speeds at the summit lodge such that I could lean into it forward at an angle where you'd normally fall straight down on your face, and be standing at equilibrium.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 20, 2021, 04:28:19 PM
And for anyone who believes that people are leaving California because of high taxes, the demographics doesn't support it. (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-05-19/wait-california-has-lower-middle-class-taxes-than-texas?srnd=opinion&sref=rMMJuv3g)  People with higher incomes (over $138,000/yr) are actually moving into California. :)
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on May 25, 2021, 08:31:06 AM
And for anyone that believes a Bloomberg opinion piece, I’d like to sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2021, 11:42:50 AM
What Wayward cited isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Higher income people are moving in to California, lower income are moving out. Now, I don't know that that supports the statement that people aren't leaving because of high taxes, but it probably isn't the primary factor for low income people. Cost of living, especially housing, is far more likely the culprit. I'll join Cali critics on that one. They need to start allowing the construction of high density rentals, particularly on the peninsula. Palo Alto preserves their homespun charm at the cost of making people commute 90 minutes to work in their restaurants.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on May 25, 2021, 03:06:01 PM
And for anyone that believes a Bloomberg opinion piece, I’d like to sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.

So, if I understand you correctly, Crunch, what you're saying is that if U.S. Census Bureau data is quoted in Bloomberg, only a fool would believe it, but if it quoted by a Conservative, it's truth you can put money on?  ???

You'll need to explain that to me--and to everyone else on this board. ;D
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2021, 11:40:36 AM
And for anyone that believes a Bloomberg opinion piece, I’d like to sell you some beachfront property in Arizona.

So, if I understand you correctly, Crunch, what you're saying is that if U.S. Census Bureau data is quoted in Bloomberg, only a fool would believe it, but if it quoted by a Conservative, it's truth you can put money on?  ???

You'll need to explain that to me--and to everyone else on this board. ;D
ed.
Y'know - that can be answered in two ways. Those who have a distinct POV, tend to search out only the bits and pieces of stats and data that fit their preconceived notions, and then rub everyone's' noses in what they report.

Another way to look st it, is how well pure facts are reported by whatever source we look at. Even in well-thought-of venues, there are activist trying to disinform. Look at the DOJ. Can you take statements by someone like Comey as gospel, when he neglected to mention parts of laws that negate his headline statements? For instance, going back to Hillary and her Email scandal, the law specifically states that intention is irrelevant, but in his "attack" on her actions, he said what she did was illegal, but unintentional, so we should ignore it. See what I mean? What comes out of a source can be shaded to fit a preconceived outcome. Raw data is hard to find. Everything is filtered.

In general, everything is slippery. We look at the person making the statements based on what they claim to be "hard facts" more often that anything else. Trump was accosted nonstop as a liar - but his facts and data have been borne out far more than those who called him a liar. Wuhan was probably the source of Covid-19. He was lambasted for it - yet now we have Fauci's own Emails confirming EcoHealth Alliance working on gain-of-function going to China, only after it was outlawed in the USA - and China's military said creating a pandemic to use against their competitors was in their playbook. The military statement was made in 2014. EccoHealth went to the Soros/Gates owned Wuhan virology lab in 2014. Yeah, the facts are there - but how you put them together makes all the difference.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on June 04, 2021, 03:47:32 PM
For instance, going back to Hillary and her Email scandal, the law specifically states that intention is irrelevant, but in his "attack" on her actions, he said what she did was illegal, but unintentional, so we should ignore it. See what I mean?

For the record, if what you're talking about is his final verdict on the matter, he didn't actually claim it was unintentional. What he said was that "no reasonable" prosecutor would bring a case against her on the set of facts at hand. That can mean any number of things, but he did not state clearly that she was being let off because of any particular factor (such as intentionality).
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on June 04, 2021, 04:41:31 PM
The Census Bureau is literally raw data. You don't have to take Bloomberg's word for it. The Bloomberg piece references the Public Policy Institute of California. They took their information from American Community Survey data. So, I guess you could argue that a self reporting system could be worth no more than a box of rocks, but its not at all equivalent to a judgement decision about a prosecution, not even a little bit.

If we are going to that level of mistrust, then I'm not sure what figures you could rely on. Is unemployment up or down? Is that simply unknowable because of the editorial perspectives that the data is used to support?
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Wayward Son on June 04, 2021, 06:53:10 PM

ed.
Y'know - that can be answered in two ways. Those who have a distinct POV, tend to search out only the bits and pieces of stats and data that fit their preconceived notions, and then rub everyone's' noses in what they report.

I think that applies to just about everyone one this board. :D

Quote
Another way to look at it, is how well pure facts are reported by whatever source we look at. Even in well-thought-of venues, there are activist trying to disinform. Look at the DOJ. Can you take statements by someone like Comey as gospel, when he neglected to mention parts of laws that negate his headline statements? For instance, going back to Hillary and her Email scandal, the law specifically states that intention is irrelevant, but in his "attack" on her actions, he said what she did was illegal, but unintentional, so we should ignore it. See what I mean? What comes out of a source can be shaded to fit a preconceived outcome. Raw data is hard to find. Everything is filtered.

A lot of it comes down to credible sources, and facts vs. opinions.  If the Bloomberg author had simply stated that immigration was higher among the lower economic rungs, based on his own authority or on some dubious authority, it would have been fine to dismiss the claim as unproven.  But he cited the source that used the U.S. Census data to create the charts.  Neither of them were Bloomberg.  So how can he dismiss the information just because a Bloomberg opinionist cited it?  ;)

Now, if he had a good objection to the source that used the Census data, Crunch might have had a point.  If he could have articulated why he thought the data was erroneous, he would have had a better point.  But just objecting to it because it was cited by Bloomberg is a silly argument on the face of it.

Also, it was not an opinion that the author was citing, but conclusions reached from data.  This is also different from an opinion, especially a legal opinion, such as your example of the Hillary ruling.  While data can sometimes be misinterpreted, it is hard to imagine how one could misinterpret something as simple as categorizing income levels of those immigrating to and from a state.  It would have been better to show us why he thought the data was inaccurate rather than having us rely on his authority.

Quote
In general, everything is slippery. We look at the person making the statements based on what they claim to be "hard facts" more often that anything else. Trump was accosted nonstop as a liar - but his facts and data have been borne out far more than those who called him a liar. Wuhan was probably the source of Covid-19. He was lambasted for it - yet now we have Fauci's own Emails confirming EcoHealth Alliance working on gain-of-function going to China, only after it was outlawed in the USA - and China's military said creating a pandemic to use against their competitors was in their playbook. The military statement was made in 2014. EccoHealth went to the Soros/Gates owned Wuhan virology lab in 2014. Yeah, the facts are there - but how you put them together makes all the difference.

Again, you use a bad example in Trump, who is a liar, having lied from the beginning of his Presidency (bragging how he had the biggest turnout for his inauguration--a patently untrue statement for anyone able to look at the pictures) to the very end (where he insisted, and continues to insist, that he actually won the election, even though it was the cleanest and most scrutinized election in recent history, if not all of American history) and many times in between.  Just consider how he paid $130,000 to a person he said he didn't know, or all the times he contradicted himself, usually when it seemed most advantageous to him.  Believing him not to be a liar is an opinion.

While facts can be interpreted and sometimes twisted to suit one's POV and biases, some facts are so simple and straightforward that we should all agree on them, regardless of who uses them or where we first come across them.  And we need to keep those clearly apart from conclusions and opinions.  Once we start throwing out facts because they are inconvenient to our positions, then we are no longer dealing with reality and cannot function in the real world anymore.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on June 07, 2021, 04:24:25 PM
For instance, going back to Hillary and her Email scandal, the law specifically states that intention is irrelevant, but in his "attack" on her actions, he said what she did was illegal, but unintentional, so we should ignore it. See what I mean?

For the record, if what you're talking about is his final verdict on the matter, he didn't actually claim it was unintentional. What he said was that "no reasonable" prosecutor would bring a case against her on the set of facts at hand. That can mean any number of things, but he did not state clearly that she was being let off because of any particular factor (such as intentionality).

Fen, but what he neglected to say, and  what we found out only much later from Lisa Page's testimony (which was not released real time but only much later), is that he made his claim about "no reasonable prosecutor" after the DOJ informed him that they would not prosecute the crime unless intent could be proven (i.e., despite the statute stating that gross negligence was enough for criminal charges, they would only prosecute if intent was blatantly provable - and I say blatantly, because there was more than enough evidence of intent to prosecute anyone not named Hillary Clinton (e.g., the same DOJ chose to prosecute Flynn when their agents did not believe he intentionally lied)).

Real time people here and in Congress claimed that she couldn't have been grossly negligent because she wasn't being prosecuted.  Others have flat out said she committed no crime because of a prosecutorial discretion decision that was hidden from view.  The same people claimed that any exercise of prosecutorial discretion in favor of Republicans was proof of corruption and evidence of impeachable conduct.

Flat out, Hillary committed felonies and because she was a Democrat paid zero price.   
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2021, 04:33:51 PM
Once we start throwing out facts because they are inconvenient to our positions, then we are no longer dealing with reality and cannot function in the real world anymore.

This is incredibly tone deaf. I literally laughed out loud, scared the dog.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on June 07, 2021, 05:32:12 PM
Seriati, I don't even disagree with your general assessment of the Hillary situation, but since wmLambert was posting about slippery media statements and what facts could be drawn from them, I thought it was relevant to point out that it was not quite true that Comey said it was because they couldn't prove intent. It may have been because of that, but his public statement (i.e. the thing Lambert was referencing) didn't say that. It doesn't really undermine the general observation that media statements are a far cry from "established" facts, for any number of reasons. I am fully on board, in fact, with the general conception of the present day airwaves as being a mire of obfuscation and half-truths, so I'm not really opposing the spirit of that post (I think).
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2021, 05:52:43 PM
It sounds like there is some confusion about what a "fact" is. You can take any piece of evidence in the Hillary situation and validate it as a fact. Including what Comey did or did not say. A statement about why Comey did what he did is speculation, not a fact, unless one had a recording of him saying "I'm letting Hillary off because she is a Democrat." Otherwise, you are dealing with a conclusion, perhaps based on the synthesis of various facts, but not itself a fact.

That is a 2 liter bottle of water - fact. Migration is N% within a certain demographic - fact.

The operative definition is this:

Quote
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
ex: These are the hard facts of the case.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on June 14, 2021, 12:07:17 PM
Seriati, I don't even disagree with your general assessment of the Hillary situation, but since wmLambert was posting about slippery media statements and what facts could be drawn from them, I thought it was relevant to point out that it was not quite true that Comey said it was because they couldn't prove intent. It may have been because of that, but his public statement (i.e. the thing Lambert was referencing) didn't say that.

I think you're missing my point.  What Comey said is far worse in reality than if he had actually said they couldn't prove intent.  He said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges and without clarification that implies that there was no gross negligence involved, as any reasonable prosecutor would otherwise have brought charges for gross negligence.  You may remember real time that he made an announcement about her conduct where he expressly changed the words "gross negligence" to something directly equivalent but that wasn't the legal term of art.

Without an explanation of the prosecutorial discretion and with the deliberate manipulation of the finding that gross negligence was in fact present, he quite deliberately crafted that statement to deceive and to lie and to manipulate the public.  The fact that so many people still believe she didn't commit a crime is exactly why he did it and exactly why it's effective.  He gave the media enough cover to bury the real story.

It's kind of like how if you go back and look at the inspector general's report on FISA abuse, the IG gave just enough cover to the Dems to bury criminality that the IG uncovered.  He "concluded" that no one admitted to criminal motives or wrote down that they had criminal motives and that therefore he couldn't reach a conclusion that they had criminal motives (notwithstanding that his report established a consistent and deliberate practice of extremely grey (and/or black) decisions on their part that were all "coicidentally" in the same direction).  And again it worked, how many prosecutions have come out of that?
 
Quote
It doesn't really undermine the general observation that media statements are a far cry from "established" facts, for any number of reasons. I am fully on board, in fact, with the general conception of the present day airwaves as being a mire of obfuscation and half-truths, so I'm not really opposing the spirit of that post (I think).

I can understand that, I just think it's critically important not to understate the extent of Comey's lie and manipulation of the media narrative.  Comey lied over and over, he violated the law over and over, and still hasn't faced any consequences.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Seriati on June 14, 2021, 12:14:30 PM
It sounds like there is some confusion about what a "fact" is. You can take any piece of evidence in the Hillary situation and validate it as a fact. Including what Comey did or did not say. A statement about why Comey did what he did is speculation, not a fact, unless one had a recording of him saying "I'm letting Hillary off because she is a Democrat." Otherwise, you are dealing with a conclusion, perhaps based on the synthesis of various facts, but not itself a fact.

It's a fact that his statement that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute was a lie.  It hinged entirely on a decision that the prosecutor wouldn't prosecute gross negligence, and even more the exact same prosecutors that refused to find "intent" in Hillary's case where they had clear evidence of intentional acts that led to the consequences but insisted on bringing charges against Flynn where they had clear doubt of intent (notwithstanding he was charged with a crime that only applies with specific intent - ie gross negligence is not permitted), really does tell you that politics had everything to do with what the prosecutors in question found "reasonable."

Quote
: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
ex: These are the hard facts of the case.
[/quote]

Facts: Hillary was grossly negligent, which was a violation of the law.  Hillary's intent to set up the servers is more than sufficient at law to establish the requisite intent for a violation of law.  Prosecutors have routinely and successfully established intent on similar facts.  Nothing but prosecutorial discretion led to a lack of charges.
Title: Re: California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions
Post by: Fenring on June 14, 2021, 12:45:14 PM
I think you're missing my point.  What Comey said is far worse in reality than if he had actually said they couldn't prove intent.  He said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges and without clarification that implies that there was no gross negligence involved, as any reasonable prosecutor would otherwise have brought charges for gross negligence.  You may remember real time that he made an announcement about her conduct where he expressly changed the words "gross negligence" to something directly equivalent but that wasn't the legal term of art.

Depending on your POV I guess it could be seen as far worse. I'll explain after I respond to your next point:

Quote
Without an explanation of the prosecutorial discretion and with the deliberate manipulation of the finding that gross negligence was in fact present, he quite deliberately crafted that statement to deceive and to lie and to manipulate the public.  The fact that so many people still believe she didn't commit a crime is exactly why he did it and exactly why it's effective.  He gave the media enough cover to bury the real story.

The thing is, when I read his statement my understanding of it was that he was being slippery, but not dishonest. Slippery in that it was an official dismissal of the issue, without mention of any details why. Sort of like saying "nothing to see here, move along." So yes, it was designed to make people move along. However I suspect the phrasing was left open-ended in the way it was as a sort of signal that for those who know there was more to say, he was actually offering an implicit explanation: no reasonable prosecutor would proceed. The correct question is what does "reasonable" mean in this context. The way you're reading it I think you would like it to mean something like "upstanding" or "honorable"; like if the prosecutor was going based on the law in an unbiased fashion there would be a case, so if you read "reasonable" this way it means he's implying there is no case. However my first reading (and current one) of "reasonable" was something like "any prosecutor who values his career and understands the political roadblocks that would go up will back down." So to me it reads more like an ex post facto warning, you do not want to prosecute this person. Why? That's open to your imagination. Maybe whoever tried would have their reputation suddenly mired in scandal, or else have their future advancement torpedoed. And maybe it's a pragmatic statement: you will not succeed, no matter what evidence you think you have, so don't bother. Maybe it's a realist statement about how impossible it would be for someone like Hillary to go down.

So that's why I say to be careful about assuming what he meant, when what he said was deliberately vague. But wmLambert quoted something much more specific than what he gave, and in fact based on my reading I don't even think it's implied that they couldn't prove intent. I think it's more clearly implied that that was an opponent they couldn't - or wouldn't want to - defeat.