Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ExeterMedia is absolutely spot-on; if blue states such as CA & IL among others were enjoying such robust economies, why did Chicago say goodbye to over 200,000 residents between 2000-10, leaving the city's current population at a level last seen in 1920???
That's definitely the case as well in downtown LA, where an explosion of new condos starting at $425,000+ are being rejected by upscale and upper middle-class Asians en masse as Joel Kotkin reported in yesterday's Orange County Register, much to the amazement of the thoroughly befuddled Democrats and their 'urban containment'/open space zealots, who continue to throw tons of $$$$ for housing in an area not conducive to raising families, but primarily for the enjoyment of empty-nesters and childless couples?
Is it any wonder that over 4,000,000 folks have left the state over the past two decades as Kotkin reported last year, since the policies of the Democrats who run the state are 100% to blame for our sky-high prices for gasoline and real estate, and have devastated the state's once-thriving manufacturing base due to the hammerlock which job-killing entities such as unions and trial lawyers have within the state?
The fact that there are no Honda or Toyota manufacturers within the state which is the #1 market for new car sales as well as one where the Detroit Three have been irrelevant for upwards of three decades except for pickups and SUVs is another staggering indictment on why this state is broke; being downright hostile to those automakers and their very well paying jobs is indefensibly stupid, which essentially describes the mindset of your typical Democrat in a state where the livelihood of a 3-inch fish is of towering importance as opposed to the livelihoods of 38,000,000+ Californians.
Think of the tons of $$$ which Asians automakers would save if they could make their cars here and sell them here as opposed to having to ship them here from thousands oif miles away, since they dominate new car sales charts year after within California as they have for over 20 years, and enjoyed a new car sales market share of just under 72% last year.
Yeah a list that doesn't take into account the actual COL for the state of California. That's why the Public Policy Institute of California disregards it?
Your theory on Blue states is completely inaccurate.
ExeterMedia is absolutely spot-on; if blue states such as CA & IL among others were enjoying such robust economies, why did Chicago say goodbye to over 200,000 residents between 2000-10, leaving the city's current population at a level last seen in 1920???
That's definitely the case as well in downtown LA, where an explosion of new condos starting at $425,000+ are being rejected by upscale and upper middle-class Asians en masse as Joel Kotkin reported in yesterday's Orange County Register, much to the amazement of the thoroughly befuddled Democrats and their 'urban containment'/open space zealots, who continue to throw tons of $$$$ for housing in an area not conducive to raising families, but primarily for the enjoyment of empty-nesters and childless couples?
Is it any wonder that over 4,000,000 folks have left the state over the past two decades as Kotkin reported last year, since the policies of the Democrats who run the state are 100% to blame for our sky-high prices for gasoline and real estate, and have devastated the state's once-thriving manufacturing base due to the hammerlock which job-killing entities such as unions and trial lawyers have within the state?
The fact that there are no Honda or Toyota manufacturers within the state which is the #1 market for new car sales as well as one where the Detroit Three have been irrelevant for upwards of three decades except for pickups and SUVs is another staggering indictment on why this state is broke; being downright hostile to those automakers and their very well paying jobs is indefensibly stupid, which essentially describes the mindset of your typical Democrat in a state where the livelihood of a 3-inch fish is of towering importance as opposed to the livelihoods of 38,000,000+ Californians.
Think of the tons of $$$ which Asians automakers would save if they could make their cars here and sell them here as opposed to having to ship them here from thousands oif miles away, since they dominate new car sales charts year after within California as they have for over 20 years, and enjoyed a new car sales market share of just under 72% last year.
As the saying goes, 'stupid is as stupid does'.
I love this, so in a forum about California you complain about Chicago Illinois which is the 5th largest economy that pays more federal dollars than it receives, and the states population is still growing. in the last 3 years it has grown .04% which is proof your perception is skewed.
California is the greatest economy no matter what negative crap people say, and is still growing being the leader of all states that pays more federal dollars than it receives. Unlike 18 red states that get more than they pay. Just facts. Complain now about how Detroit started shrinking under GOP control in 1950 and even while George Romney was Governor. Red states have the lowest wages, and highest per capita poverty rates. just the facts.
I love this, so in a forum about California you complain about Chicago Illinois which is the 5th largest economy that pays more federal dollars than it receives, and the states population is still growing. in the last 3 years it has grown .04% which is proof your perception is skewed.
California is the greatest economy no matter what negative crap people say, and is still growing being the leader of all states that pays more federal dollars than it receives. Unlike 18 red states that get more than they pay. Just facts. Complain now about how Detroit started shrinking under GOP control in 1950 and even while George Romney was Governor. Red states have the lowest wages, and highest per capita poverty rates. just the facts.
Who cares about "who pays more federal dollars than it receives"? How does that have an effect on the people who actually live in California?
It's easy for some guy in Cold Springs, Nevada (who probably got priced out of California and had to move to Nevada) to talk about positive Federal dollars, but it's another thing to talk about the actual poverty and unemployment rate in California, and how it's having an effect on people who live here. Right now, as the PPIC graph shows, nearly 1/4 of the state is just struggling to live under a roof.
So, we agree, just like Southern states are basically dumps. If you've ever been to Turlock, CA you realize places in Mexico are nice in comparison.
I wouldnt go so far as to paint a broad brush like that. There are some good places to live in the south, but becomes a supply and demand issue. The weather is also a major turn off for many. Also, I grew up in the Fresno area, I know all about Mexifornia.
Is it any wonder that over 4,000,000 folks have left the state over the past two decades as Kotkin reported last year, since the policies of the Democrats who run the state are 100% to blame for our sky-high prices for gasoline and real estate, and have devastated the state's once-thriving manufacturing base due to the hammerlock which job-killing entities such as unions and trial lawyers have within the state?
The fact that there are no Honda or Toyota manufacturers within the state which is the #1 market for new car sales as well as one where the Detroit Three have been irrelevant for upwards of three decades except for pickups and SUVs is another staggering indictment on why this state is broke; being downright hostile to those automakers and their very well paying jobs is indefensibly stupid, which essentially describes the mindset of your typical Democrat in a state where the livelihood of a 3-inch fish is of towering importance as opposed to the livelihoods of 38,000,000+ Californians.
Well, I'm not sure why it matters so much where Honda and Toyota manufacture their vehicles.
California, the most populous State in the nation, is growing at an above-average rate, nearly 3% since the 2010 census. It has the largest gross state product in the nation. Only 8 countries (including the US) have larger GDPs than California's GSP. While the State has been slower to drop its unemployment rate than many others post recession, the fall in unemployment is accelerating.
As you may be aware, the Delta Smelt is a protected endangered species under both federal and state law, and a federal judge ordered the protection of the Smelt, which cost approximately 5,000 jobs according to the federal Department of Agriculture. 5,000 jobs simply is not the livelihood of 38 million Californians. Thanks though, for your unjustified political attacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
Who cares about "who pays more federal dollars than it receives"? How does that have an effect on the people who actually live in California?
It's easy for some guy in Cold Springs, Nevada (who probably got priced out of California and had to move to Nevada) to talk about positive Federal dollars, but it's another thing to talk about the actual poverty and unemployment rate in California, and how it's having an effect on people who live here. Right now, as the PPIC graph shows, nearly 1/4 of the state is just struggling to live under a roof.
It has an effect on people who live in California because our federal tax dollars are spent in other States more than they are spent here.
Regarding the PPIC graph, note that it measured poverty in 2011, or the deepest point of the Great Recession. I doubt that most other States would fare all that differently around that time period.
It has an effect on people who live in California because our federal tax dollars are spent in other States more than they are spent here.
Okay, so how do we realistically change that here in California to our advantage? How long would it take? How would those changes have an effect on the poverty level here in CA?
Quote:
Regarding the PPIC graph, note that it measured poverty in 2011, or the deepest point of the Great Recession. I doubt that most other States would fare all that differently around that time period.
First off, according to GDP Real output, the deepest part of the recession was 2009. 2011 was the first year the Real GDP topped 15 trillion since 2007, so you're wrong, 2011 wasn't the deepest part of the recession.
Also, you simply don't understand what the graph or the PPIC study is trying to communicate, let me help you.
The "Federal" CA poverty estimate is already on the diagram (the lighter blue bar indicator), the PPIC estimate (darker blue bar) takes into account a much more realistic COL factor for California than the Federal estimate. When you take actual housing cost (the biggest COL factor for California), more people are considered under the poverty line than the Federal estimate. The median income per individual in SF is $42,000, how many people making $42,000 could afford a 1 bedroom apartment in San Francisco? How many would even qualify under such competitive conditions? Hence, the PPIC study takes things like this into account with much more realistic numbers than the federal estimate.
The funny thing is housing cost are up 25% to 50% in California since 2011, so the PPIC estimate may even be currently low.
Remember the absolute poverty line as defined by the Federal Government is "the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health."
Last edited by ExeterMedia; 03-10-2014 at 11:17 AM..
Okay, so how do we realistically change that here in California to our advantage? How would those changes have an effect on the poverty level here in CA?
We can't realistically change that. It is just an unfortunate truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
First off, according to GDP Real output, the deepest part of the recession was 2009. 2011 was the first year the Real GDP topped 15 trillion since 2007, so you're wrong, 2011 wasn't the deepest part of the recession.
Also, you simply don't understand what the graph or the PPIC study is trying to communicate, let me help you.
The "Federal" CA poverty estimate is already on the diagram (the lighter blue bar indicator), the PPIC estimate (darker blue bar) takes into account a much more realistic COL factor for California than the Federal estimate. When you take actual housing cost (the biggest COL factor for California), more people are considered under the poverty line than the Federal estimate.
Unemployment was still near its peak in 2011. 2009 was the year in which unemployment rose to its peak, where it stayed until 2011, when it eventually started a gradual decline.
I very much understand the PPIC study, and I definitely agree that California's cost of living makes the federal poverty level irrelevant to most Californians. The same is true in many States.
Several States have a higher cost of living than California: Alaska, New York, Connecticut, D.C., Hawaii, and New Jersey. PPIC-esque graphs for those States would likely look even worse than California's did in 2011. I am pointing out that you are relying on data analysis of near-peak Great Recession unemployment (i.e., not indicative of current California poverty levels).
I would also point out that the federal poverty measure is flawed no matter where one lives, and its methodology has been criticized for decades by researchers and statisticians. What I am pointing out is that PPIC's methodology is better than the federal measure, but does not allow us to compare California's poverty level to that of other State's, for which we only have the flawed federal measure. We don't know if California would be near the top or near the bottom if PPIC's methodology were applied to each State in the nation.
The federal measure of poverty does not take into account any expenses other than food (and that is a 1960s measure adjusted for inflation). It likely undercounts poverty in many or most regions of the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
