Politics

[DSully1995]

Because nobody from other countries dreams of living in Ohio? I love Indiana, but I've never been accused of being normal.

ofcourse theres no one reason for it, but the california flare is not something you can alter, policies are

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And? Did you just realize how expensive it is to live here? The population here goes up and down.....then up again. Ten years from now we'll have lots more than we do today. Again, what's your point?

OK, I'll spell it out for you: progressive economic policies have made it far less affordable for the middle class (and that's who the Democrats "fight for") to live in metro areas of California. Add that with businesses moving out of state for the same reasons and you get more people leaving CA than you have coming in for the first time in a long time.

IrishPat and I brought this up a week or two ago with census numbers and you shrugeed it off and said we were wrong, again. And again, you didn't use any evidence or facts to back up your opinion. You just said we were wrong.

I'd rather make $60k in Cleveland, OH than $80k in Orange County, San Diego, or San Francisco, CA.

 

[BobD]

OK, I'll spell it out for you: progressive economic policies have made it far less affordable for the middle class (and that's who the Democrats "fight for") to live in metro areas of California. Add that with businesses moving out of state for the same reasons and you get more people leaving CA than you have coming in for the first time in a long time.

IrishPat and I brought this up a week or two ago with census numbers and you shrugeed it off and said we were wrong, again. And again, you didn't use any evidence or facts to back up your opinion. You just said we were wrong.

I'd rather make $60k in Cleveland, OH than $80k in Orange County, San Diego, or San Francisco, CA.

Nobody's policies did that. ITS ALWAYS BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. OUR POPULATION HAS ALWAYS FLEXED WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE.

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA?

By all means please feel free to stay in Ohio, yes it is a lot cheaper to live there.

 

[GoIrish41]

OK, I'll spell it out for you: progressive economic policies have made it far less affordable for the middle class (and that's who the Democrats "fight for") to live in metro areas of California. Add that with businesses moving out of state for the same reasons and you get more people leaving CA than you have coming in for the first time in a long time.

IrishPat and I brought this up a week or two ago with census numbers and you shrugeed it off and said we were wrong, again. And again, you didn't use any evidence or facts to back up your opinion. You just said we were wrong.

I'd rather make $60k in Cleveland, OH than $80k in Orange County, San Diego, or San Francisco, CA.

How have the progressive economic policies made it less affordable for the middle class? This whole phenomenon you are describing sounds a whole lot like a market driven economy, the answer to all that is wrong with the nation's economy. More people want to live in San Francisco than in Cleveland, and the demand for housing is much much higher -- and therefore more expensive. What does that have to do with progressive policies? This is an extraordinary and silly reach to suggest that housing costs more in Cali because of the Dems.

 

[irishpat183]

Nobody's policies did that. ITS ALWAYS BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA. OUR POPULATION HAS ALWAYS FLEXED WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SITUATION, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER STATE.

WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA?

By all means please feel free to stay in Ohio, yes it is a lot cheaper to live there.

Take the wool off your eyes....CA home prices are inflated and always have been.

There are more people leaving your state than moving too it. You have cities that are, literally, filing for bankrupcy.

While CA has some great things about it...it's not one of the top places to live right now

 

[irishpat183]

How have the progressive economic policies made it less affordable for the middle class? This whole phenomenon you are describing sounds a whole lot like a market driven economy, the answer to all that is wrong with the nation's economy. More people want to live in San Francisco than in Cleveland, and the demand for housing is much much higher -- and therefore more expensive. What does that have to do with progressive policies? This is an extraordinary and silly reach to suggest that housing costs more in Cali because of the Dems.

Funny that the demand to live in my current city (The Woodlands TX) is probably higher right now than anywhere in CA (Exxon Mobile moving down here, energy capital of the united states) and our prices aren't as absurd as CA.


Taxes and horrible economic policy are what has doomed CA. If you cannot see that, you're blind.

 

[BobD]

Take the wool off your eyes....CA home prices are inflated and always have been.

There are more people leaving your state than moving too it. You have cities that are, literally, filing for bankrupcy.

While CA has some great things about it...it's not one of the top places to live right now

California house prices have been inflated for a long time. Do you feel as if you've discovered something?

Texas is great if you don't want to go outside for 8 months of the year. Have at it.

 

[BobD]

Funny that the demand to live in my current city (The Woodlands TX) is probably higher right now than anywhere in CA (Exxon Mobile moving down here, energy capital of the united states) and our prices aren't as absurd as CA.


Taxes and horrible economic policy are what has doomed CA. If you cannot see that, you're blind.

Lmao! Yeah California is doomed. You crack me up.

 

[irishpat183]

Lmao! Yeah California is doomed. You crack me up.

Unless something changes, it's a bad path they're going down.

 

[GoIrish41]

Funny that the demand to live in my current city (The Woodlands TX) is probably higher right now than anywhere in CA (Exxon Mobile moving down here, energy capital of the united states) and our prices aren't as absurd as CA.


Taxes and horrible economic policy are what has doomed CA. If you cannot see that, you're blind.

Nearly 12% of the US population lives in California -- doomed may be a bit of an overstatement. People move to where the jobs are in most cases. Let's talk about this again when the Texas population excedes California's. Until then, it is just a pipedream of Governor Perry that people and businesses are going to flock to Texas from California. Nobody wants to live in that shi*hole of a state who doesn't absolutely have to. Sure their taxes are low, but that's because they spend less on their people than maybe any other state in the nation. So, what is the draw -- "Come to Texas, where taxes are low and as long as you are still working, you can afford to live a comfortable life. .... Just don't lose your job or you will starve to death in this barron wasteland of a state." lol

 

[autry_denson]

Sometimes evidence helps to resolve a debate - this is the only good evidence on this question (that I've seen, at least):
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi.../Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf

Key passage:
"In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed."

 

[Buster Bluth]

Funny that the demand to live in my current city (The Woodlands TX) is probably higher right now than anywhere in CA (Exxon Mobile moving down here, energy capital of the united states) and our prices aren't as absurd as CA.

Taxes and horrible economic policy are what has doomed CA. If you cannot see that, you're blind.

Are you on acid?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Nearly 12% of the US population lives in California -- doomed may be a bit of an overstatement. People move to where the jobs are in most cases. Let's talk about this again when the Texas population excedes California's. Until then, it is just a pipedream of Governor Perry that people and businesses are going to flock to Texas from California. Nobody wants to live in that shi*hole of a state who doesn't absolutely have to. Sure their taxes are low, but that's because they spend less on their people than maybe any other state in the nation. So, what is the draw -- "Come to Texas, where taxes are low and as long as you are still working, you can afford to live a comfortable life. .... Just don't lose your job or you will starve to death in this barron wasteland of a state." lol

Matching ignorance with ignorance isn't the way to win.

 

[GoIrish41]

Are you on acid?

Yes, this was a much less ignorant response.

 

[Ndaccountant]

How have the progressive economic policies made it less affordable for the middle class? This whole phenomenon you are describing sounds a whole lot like a market driven economy, the answer to all that is wrong with the nation's economy. More people want to live in San Francisco than in Cleveland, and the demand for housing is much much higher -- and therefore more expensive. What does that have to do with progressive policies? This is an extraordinary and silly reach to suggest that housing costs more in Cali because of the Dems.

Well, there is some cause and effect there.

There is no hiding the fact that major businesses will adjust your pay based on where you are living. For example, my company has an office in San Diego and there is an adjustment factor applied to management salaries for COLA. Those COLA adjustments are due to daily living expenses (food, gas, etc), taxes and home prices.

Now, in a complete market driven economy, employers will not pay for value they are not receiving. In the case of white collar employees, employers are willing to up the total pay package due to the value they are getting. But what about the blue collar guys? Are they getting the same proportional bump out as the white collar guys? I don't know the answer for all groups, but for my company, the wage differences don't come close to what the management does. Does that mean the company is evil and is punishing lower skilled workers? Of course not, the market is dictating the wages and their skill set demands a certain level of pay, no more, no less.

So, how does this tie back? If policies are put into place to help out the lower waged workers, the money has to come from somewhere and it is usually tax revenues. As noted above, compensation packages for higher skilled workers are usually adjusted for this, so the net impact is minimal to those individuals (there is a tipping point, which is when businesses leave since they can no longer offer that level of compensation or they attract less skilled workers, which makes them non-competitive in the long run). Gas prices in Cali are higher due largely to their environmental rules. I can go on, but you get the point.

In summary, I think you can see that there is a connection between policies and cost of living and how some of those issues shake out. Now, I will not for a second say it is the sole issue, as the landscape and climate of the city attract outside investors who have near unlimited resources also play a key role as well as other factors. But the policies in place will have disproportional impacts on workers depending on skill level.

 

[GoIrish41]

Well, there is some cause and effect there.

There is no hiding the fact that major businesses will adjust your pay based on where you are living. For example, my company has an office in San Diego and there is an adjustment factor applied to management salaries for COLA. Those COLA adjustments are due to daily living expenses (food, gas, etc), taxes and home prices.

Now, in a complete market driven economy, employers will not pay for value they are not receiving. In the case of white collar employees, employers are willing to up the total pay package due to the value they are getting. But what about the blue collar guys? Are they getting the same proportional bump out as the white collar guys? I don't know the answer for all groups, but for my company, the wage differences don't come close to what the management does. Does that mean the company is evil and is punishing lower skilled workers? Of course not, the market is dictating the wages and their skill set demands a certain level of pay, no more, no less.

So, how does this tie back? If policies are put into place to help out the lower waged workers, the money has to come from somewhere and it is usually tax revenues. As noted above, compensation packages for higher skilled workers are usually adjusted for this, so the net impact is minimal to those individuals (there is a tipping point, which is when businesses leave since they can no longer offer that level of compensation or they attract less skilled workers, which makes them non-competitive in the long run). Gas prices in Cali are higher due largely to their environmental rules. I can go on, but you get the point.

In summary, I think you can see that there is a connection between policies and cost of living and how some of those issues shake out. Now, I will not for a second say it is the sole issue, as the landscape and climate of the city attract outside investors who have near unlimited resources also play a key role as well as other factors. But the policies in place will have disproportional impacts on workers depending on skill level.

There are lots of cities across the country that are in terrible financial condition. We can look at certain municipalities that are in Democratic controlled states and conclude that it is because the state's liberal/progressive policies. But, we can only do that if we also conclude the same for places like Harrisburg, Pa.; Irvington, NJ; Jefferson County, Ala.; Menasha, Wis.; Pontiac, Mich.; Salem, NJ and Taylor, Mich -- all of which are in states with GOP governors, and GOP-led majorities in both houses of their state government. My argument wasn't that policy doesn't have an affect on what happens with businesses in the states -- it obviously does -- it is that it isn't simply liberal policies that are exclusively to blame for any financial problems that exist across the country.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

California will always have certain monopoly rents enabling it to charge more for living, so to speak, without losing a ton of people.

Silicon Valley, Hollywood, large ports, scenery, private endowed colleges, a large/old/prestigous public university system, an international border, and weather are just a few things that can't easily be reproduced by other states.

I think the real question is, in light of all their advantages, why aren't they doing better?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yes, this was a much less ignorant response.

It was. One was being silly and one was trying to make Texas look like something it isn't.

 

[irishpat183]

It was. One was being silly and one was trying to make Texas look like something it isn't.

No? Please, explain where I was wrong.

 

[GoIrish41]

It was. One was being silly and one was trying to make Texas look like something it isn't.

Texas is #49 on government spending per capita. You can draw any conclusion you wish from that.

 

[irishpat183]

Texas is #49 on government spending per capita. You can draw any conclusion you wish from that.

I think he was slamming me for calling The woodlands (suburb of Houston, BTW) the energy capital of the country



Maybe. I don't know what goes on in the mind of Buster!

 

[GoIrish41]

I think he was slamming me for calling The woodlands (suburb of Houston, BTW) the energy capital of the country



Maybe. I don't know what goes on in the mind of Buster!

Nah, he was sticking up for the great state of Texas when I made an off hand comment to get under your skin. lol Apparently it is OK to accuse someone of being on acid, but it isn't OK to say anything bad about a a state (even though the entire conversation was about poorly managed states and municipalities). whatevs.

 

[potownhero]

Texas is #49 on government spending per capita. You can draw any conclusion you wish from that.

Seems like a logical conclusion is that Texas allows an individual to spend more of his or her money the way he or she chooses instead of forcibly taking it from them and spending it the way some bureaucrat thinks is best.

Seems great; it takes away power from both: 1) the government and 2) those that choose crony capitalism.

Sounds like individualism...at least that's the conclusion I draw.

 

[irishpat183]

Nearly 12% of the US population lives in California -- doomed may be a bit of an overstatement. People move to where the jobs are in most cases. Let's talk about this again when the Texas population excedes California's. Until then, it is just a pipedream of Governor Perry that people and businesses are going to flock to Texas from California. Nobody wants to live in that shi*hole of a state who doesn't absolutely have to. Sure their taxes are low, but that's because they spend less on their people than maybe any other state in the nation. So, what is the draw -- "Come to Texas, where taxes are low and as long as you are still working, you can afford to live a comfortable life. .... Just don't lose your job or you will starve to death in this barron wasteland of a state." lol

1.44 businesses move from CA to TX every week. They don't "have to" as you guys have noted, since CA has all this cool stuff...

As far as people go:

Where Do Californians Go – and Why?
It’s no coincidence that the Texas governor is visiting California this week and not, say, the Massachusetts governor. Since 2005, far more Californians have turned Texan than the other way around: 183 Californians moved to Texas for every 100 Texans moving to California. (The average flow since 2005 between California and all other states – not just Texas – has been 133 out for each 100 in.) The only states where the flow from California is more lopsided are Oklahoma (212 out per 100 in), Oregon (198), Idaho (190), and Arizona (187). On the other hand, California gains more people from New York, Illinois, Massachusetts than it loses to those states.

Let’s take a closer look at California versus Texas. What does Texas have that Californians want? Cheaper housing, more jobs, and lower taxes.


Median home price per
square foot, 2012


$229 (CA)


$84 (TX)



Unemployment rate,
December 2012


9.8% (CA)


6.1% (TX)



Total state + local tax burden,
% of income, 2010


11.04% (CA)


8.96% (TX)



Source: Home prices from Trulia; unemployment rate from BLS; tax burden from the Tax Policy Center.




So what does it say about CA when so many people (and businesses) want to leave the greatest place in the world, for a "sh*thole"

 

[irishpat183]

Nah, he was sticking up for the great state of Texas when I made an off hand comment to get under your skin. lol Apparently it is OK to accuse someone of being on acid, but it isn't OK to say anything bad about a a state (even though the entire conversation was about poorly managed states and municipalities). whatevs.

Who says I'm NOT on acid? LOL

 

[GoIrish41]

Seems like a logical conclusion is that Texas allows an individual to spend more of his or her money the way he or she chooses instead of forcibly taking it from them and spending it the way some bureaucrat thinks is best.

Seems great; it takes away power from both: 1) the government and 2) those that choose crony capitalism.

Sounds like individualism...at least that's the conclusion I draw.

sounds great indeed, unless you want your children to be educated, you lose your job, or your house catches on fire.

 

[GoIrish41]

Who says I'm NOT on acid? LOL

Not me

 

[phgreek]

Sometimes evidence helps to resolve a debate - this is the only good evidence on this question (that I've seen, at least):
http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi.../Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf

Key passage:
"In fact, out-migration has a “wrong-signed” estimate: out-migration declined among millionaires after the tax was passed (both in absolute terms and compared to the control group). In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed."

One problem...what about the people who filed one year, and did not file at all the next in that state.

They have been left out of the study...the study relied soley on those who up and decided to move in the middle of the year and had a partial...

uhm...is it beyond the realm of possibility a reasonable percentage of people who make a million bucks would, say, PLAN their exodus, and for logistical ease show a clean break...ie, I would like to know who made a million bucks who did not show up at all the following year in addition to mid year returns...this seems like a consideration...yes?

 

[ACamp1900]

My thoughts: California is great for the silver spoon dipshits that either fried their brains in the 60s and 70s (Looking at you Madam Speaker) or do nothing but spend mom and dad’s money while looking down on and judging the ‘animals’ around them…

For those who live in reality, it's not that great of a place to be...


Either way… interesting read here….

Texas v. California: The Real Facts Behind The Lone Star State's Miracle - Forbes

 

[Ndaccountant]

Texas is #49 on government spending per capita. You can draw any conclusion you wish from that.

Here is my question....who gives a rat's ***?

I ask that because, unlike Federal taxes, regulations and laws, people in each state usually have a greater say in the level of taxation and spend. If that is what the people of Texas want, then so be it.

Remember what John Adams once penned, which was that the goal of government is happiness and it gets there by thinking, feeling, reasoning, and acting like the people at large. If that is what the people want in Texas and they are happy with it, who the hell are we to say otherwise?