Kaliforina Socialism, not working.....

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Richard

And what if frogs had wings?

But so it goes...

Richard

They would be registered and taxed.

Richard, you made a compelling personal argument that is virtually a paradigm shift from many the anti-California arguments.

Yet, with all due respect Richard, Pat asks an equally compelling question which calls for relevance and perspective. Dodging the question that way totally negates your point. And I'm not talking smelt...

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

California hasn't lost seats, but it has lost population due to people leaving.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

People want to have an economy that can adapt to natural economic woes...

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/CaLMR.pdf

Richard

[Richard]

Originally Posted by MR2

They would be registered and taxed.

Richard, you made a compelling personal argument that is virtually a paradigm shift from many the anti-California arguments.

Yet, with all due respect Richard, Pat asks an equally compelling question which calls for relevance and perspective. Dodging the question that way totally negates your point. And I'm not talking smelt...

The data for his questions is accessible and can be researched. My situation is, of course, anecdotal based upon my experiences and those of the long-term residents associated with this community of which my family has been a part for over 60 years.

As far as somebody migrating to California from another state or country, it can be an expensive proposition unless you come from a relatively similar economic area and with a sound personal financial situation...but the constantly increasing population growth would seem to indicate people are managing to find ways to make it work.

Be that as it may, there is a building boom going on around here and has been for decades. For example, the local population has increased dramatically since I left for the Army - then we had 1 HS and now there are 10; the population then was around 12k and now it's around 162k and growing. https://www.biggestuscities.com/city...ove-california

The closest development to me is called Diamond Ranch (about 1/4 mile from my ranch) with a planned community of 4,000 single homes of which around 1,000 are completed and have been sold as soon as they are built. I walk my dogs over there nearly daily and watch as the construction is continuing with the next set of streets and housing pads for the next group of homes is nearing completion. I don't know how they're being financed, but this link is a sample of the cost of one of the houses (similar in size to our home in Dallas) and annual property tax (which is about 60% less than what I paid in Dallas and about twice what I pay now).

http://www.trulia.com/homes/Californ...mento-CA-95829

http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...9_M18734-20945

California is a big state with a large and varied population, and the data (taxes, employment, housing and utilities, growth, etc) will vary quite a bit from county to county and community to community - as with every place I've ever lived.

Perhaps that helps give a better perspective as to my POV.

Richaard

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Not any expert on that, but I'd think ....

IMO, this statement underscores the most problematic aspect of your approach to historical and contemporaneous issues.

You read something, agree with it, and then you begin to fit facts to your POV while ignoring evidence to the contrary or glaring inconsistencies within that POV (or between what you read and your POV).

Simultaneously, you frequently disregard opportunities to use different/additional sources of information to enhance or to refine your POV.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

California's economy was built up during the years when it had a much more business-friendly Democratic legislature. Since the late 1970s, it has been replaced by a very far-left legislature and because of the Dill Act signed in the late 1970s by then (and current) Governor Jerry Brown, the state's public-sector workers were allowed to unionize. Today the state is controlled by an iron triangle made up of the labor unions, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby. And because of how left the legislature is, they have made California into one of the most highly taxes, regulated, and spending states in the union. California has since lost millions of people as a result, but it continues to hang on because of the nice weather and also because of the large, established industries there. One can only imagine what its economy would be if it had a more economically-friendly legislature.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

If California and New York had been built into great economies based on high taxes, high spending, and lots of regulations, I'd agree, but they were not. What the results show, IMO, is that such policies inhibit economic growth and cause population loss. Texas, a very economically friendly state, shows the opposite to be the case (it is in many ways how California used to be). Of course taxes, regulations, and spending are necessary, and a state having higher taxes, regulations, and spending than another state doesn't mean it will suffer economically, but it is when they get excessive that there is a problem. It's like the differences between the U.K. and Germany versus France, Italy, Spain, etc...

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

For 2014, California's economic growth rate was 2.1%. For 2013 and 2012, it was 2.7%. By contrast, for 2014, 2013, and 2012, Texas's growth rate was 3.1%, 3.7%, and 6.9%. New York's for those years was 1.4%, 0.7%, and 1.7% -

You frame an argument that California has been coasting for decades and to back up your argument you present a total of three data points for that state and compare it to six other data points. This comparison is made without any mention of the impact of the Great Recession and its continued impact upon the global economy, without any mention of the impact of Sandy on New York's economy, and without any mention of the fracking boom in Texas.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Here is one example: LINK

Your "one example" contradicts your argument that California's economy is resting on its laurels by pointing to the ongoing tech boom. Your piece also qualifies its argument by pointing out that the opinion of the state's economic climate is drawn from information from small business executives. That is, Mr. Bruno's piece makes a very specific set of points to support a well defined argument and for that reason, his piece is compelling. In contrast, your posts in this thread remain scatter shot. For example...

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

California, by virtue of its sheer size and nice weather and skilled workforce, continues to have economic growth and business growth, but it could probably be a lot better if the regulations and taxes weren't excessive.

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

That I never claimed and would be surprised if that was the case. Due the sheer number of high-tech companies established there and the world-class universities, I would say it probably is a world-leader in innovation and research.

You are contradicting yourself. In this thread, you have asserted that California's "very far left legislature" drags down its economy and that the state manages to "hang on" because of the weather and established industries. Now, you are pointing to new industries and the benefits of the state's colleges and universities (some of the most prominent of which are public). Which is it?

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Well states like Texas and Florida, North and South Carolina, Colorado, etc...do not have the issues with unions, taxes, regulations, budget, etc...that California has. This isn't to say low-tax states automatically do better, as they don't. It depends on the mix of taxes, regulations, spending, infrastructure, workforce, etc...

Again, you are contradicting yourself. You have repeatedly insisted in this thread that California's economy lags because of unions, high taxes, and regulations. If your interpretation has merit, then why are you now arguing that states with lower taxes and less regulation don't necessarily do better?

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

The aerospace industry though wouldn't be responsible for increasing California's taxes and regulations in particular or of unionization of public employees.

I am not going to do your research for you. I have already provided you with the resources to buttress some of your points.

In the event you decide to take this topic seriously, I suggest that you do some research on the impact the aerospace industry has had upon the state's environment, the resulting litigation, and how these two factors have shaped the ongoing debates over environmental policy.

You might also do some research on the relationship between the aerospace industry and the sub urbanization of California. You could also take a look at the relationship between the built environment in sub urban environments, car ownership, and the impact upon the state's highways and freeways. (The Census bureau's data base includes contemporaneous and historical "journey to work" data.)

You might also do some research on Boeing's contract disputes with its unions. You might also do some research on the unions themselves. Do national unions, like the Teamsters, make a choice between private and public sector industries when they seek to organize workers? (No) Do labor laws and court decisions that support public sector workers also support private sector workers? (Sometimes)

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

What impact did the Cold War have?

I'm not sure why you are asking this question given your earlier efforts in other threads to demonstrate your familiarity with the history of the Cold War.

Perhaps you could answer your own question if you were to re-familiarize yourself with on how much of the defense budget went to the Golden State during the Cold War (contracts to private firms, funds to government sponsored labs, bases for the armed services). Then, you could square those numbers with your view of the state legislature as being "very far left." (If the legislature is as liberal as you claim, then why did not find ways to keep defense dollars out of the state?)

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Not any expert on that, but I'd think a company is already aware of things like regulations by the time it decides to build a building in California.

The fact of the matter is that on a national level (my department works on projects from Hawai'i to Pennsylvania), getting development and redevelopment projects approved by municipalities is a PITA because of all the moving parts and pieces. Regulations and requirements can be scattered throughout a city's code, its master planning documents, its specific planning documents, its zoning maps, and various other documents.

The interpretations of these regulations can vary from department to department within a city's government (e.g. planning and traffic). Development plans can fall into the gray areas between well established norms (e.g. mixed use developments with residential units vs. mixed use developments with "live/work" residential units). Opposition to development plans can come from the "usual suspects" and it can come out of nowhere -- residents, existing businesses, competing developers, and other stakeholders can come out of the woodwork during council meetings and hearings.

[PSM]

Originally Posted by Richard

The closest development to me is called Diamond Ranch (about 1/4 mile from my ranch) with a planned community of 4,000 single homes of which around 1,000 are completed and have been sold as soon as they are built.

Richard

Isn't it possible that this development is made up mostly of intrastate migrants? Perhaps they are Bay Area residents who are retired and don't want to deal with the traffic, high local taxes, and onerous regulations, but still want to live in a very beautiful state and stay close to Yosemite, Tahoe, SF, the Pacific, and the San Andreas Fault. Any data on how many are interstate buyers there are? Run a U-Haul check on the cost of renting a vehicle from CA to TX vs. TX to CA. There's a premium on escape.

Pat

[tonyz]

WTF...that's all this deserves.

California Students Vote to Boycott Israel -- and U.S.
February 10, 2015

https://www.insidehighered.com/quick...-israel-and-us

The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel picked up additional momentum this weekend when the University of California Student Association approved a resolution calling on the UC regents to divest from corporations complicit in violations of Palestinians’ human rights. But the system-wide student government went even further than that, endorsing a second resolution urging the university to divest from national governments it describes as being “engaged in human rights abuses and violence,” including not only the government of Israel, but also those of Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, Sri Lanka -- and the United States.

The resolution cites a range of abuses on the part of the U.S. government: drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, high rates of incarceration, disproportionate targeting of racial minorities by police forces, the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, and its activities in “directly supporting and propping up numerous dictatorships around the world with weapons sales and foreign aid.”

BDS activists celebrated the Student Association's stance: the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter at the University of California at Los Angeles issued a statement describing the vote in favor of the first, Palestinian-specific resolution as “undoubtedly the largest victory thus far in the campus divestment movement in the United States.” The group noted that student governments at six individual UC campuses, as well as the union representing UC teaching assistants and other graduate student workers, have already endorsed divestment.

Advocates of the BDS movement are often criticized for singling out Israel -- of all the objectionable regimes in the world -- for special criticism. Indeed, the conservative Cornell University law professor William A. Jacobson described the combination of resolutions at UC as illustrative of the problems with the approach. “The U. Cal. student government has proven a point I’ve made repeatedly in terms of the academic boycott: If you are going to boycott Israel, then you need to apply those standards to the whole world, which will result in boycotting yourselves,” he wrote in his Legal Insurrection blog.

Just because the system-wide UC Student Association passed the resolutions -- the full texts of which are linked in the meeting minutes -- doesn’t mean the Board of Regents will necessarily take them up. In 2010, the University of California released a statement affirming the board's policy of divesting from a foreign government, or with companies doing business with that government, only in cases in which the U.S. government has declared a regime guilty of committing acts of genocide (which it has not done in the case of Israel). In forwarding that statement, a UC spokeswoman said Monday that the university’s position and policies have not changed.

[ddoering]

We should kick Mexico's ass again and make them take California back.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by ddoering

We should kick Mexico's ass again and make them take California back.

Just the southern part.
Say, from the bay area, across to Stockton, then down to Fresno and onto Bakersfield, then across to the Cali/Nevada line.

California does have some redeeming qualities, especially up in the Northern part. We don't want to give the Mexicans all of it, now do we?

[Last hard class]

Originally Posted by tonyz

WTF...that's all this deserves.

Looks to me like the BDS has ripped a page from the old G/L task force playbook.

Another view:

One thing that slowly is coming to light, however, is that the anti-Israel movement is not the grassroots, student-led movement it purports to be. In fact, it has a highly coordinated, well-funded action plan assisted and coordinated by outside groups.
A column in the UCLA Bruin newspaper details what is happening, Co-author of UCSA resolution needs to disclose affiliations:
In 2014, Kurwa [the student leader who drafted the UCLA boycott resolution] joined the leadership of the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. This is particularly relevant to student government because this same organization has published a handbook about orchestrating campus divestment against Israel. The handbook encourages students to contact university administrators as part of their campaign, but avoid revealing their full intentions during these interactions. And while the handbook states that divestment was “introduced in North America as a stepping stone toward a broad, comprehensive boycott of Israel,” it tells students to publicly claim that divestment only targets “Israel’s occupation.” Kurwa should explain why an off-campus group he helps lead is instructing activists to deceive university administrators and students.
Furthermore, Kurwa should have disclosed that outside interests are extremely involved in running campus divestment across America. In the spring of 2013, divestment lobby groups created the National Campus BDS Support Team to “streamline and enhance support for campus campaigns” by providing research, talking points, texts and professional legal reviews for student divestment resolutions. These off-campus organizations have a combined annual budget of at least $42 million. Kurwa is listed on Support Team materials as a contact for SJP chapters around the country.
To stage their national conferences, Kurwa and SJP’s leadership use money from an off-campus organization called American Muslims for Palestine (AMP)….


Full Link:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...85970519,d.cGU




Not military, but UW tactics nonetheless.
Perfect environment to find impressionable people and if you do it right you can get the universities to foot most of your local group bills.



LHC

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Last hard class

One thing that slowly is coming to light, however, is that the anti-Israel movement is not the grassroots, student-led movement it purports to be. In fact, it has a highly coordinated, well-funded action plan assisted and coordinated by outside groups.

Not military, but UW tactics nonetheless.
Perfect environment to find impressionable people and if you do it right you can get the universities to foot most of your local group bills.
LHC

Concur.

Our universities and community colleges are being used as channels for various recruitment - and safe heavens by certain faculty, students, think tanks, religious groups and other special interests., student visas, spouses of students...etc.,etc.,

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/lee...-in-palestine/

Great post.

[Richard]

An interesting interactive infographic - drag the cursor over a county and click on it to see how it stacks up with others out there in the data points listed.

Where Are the Hardest Places to Live in the U.S.?

The Upshot came to this conclusion by looking at six data points for each county in the United States: education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. We then averaged each county’s relative rank in these categories to create an overall ranking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/up..._1=123480&_r=0

Richard