The Great California Exodus Accelerates (August, Mesa: wage, trailer, relocate)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have poverty rates in 20% range. California’s is about 12.5%

That aside
US gdp per capita is $60,000
California’s GDP per capita is $70,000

GDP per capita for middle east countries relying heavily on subsidized desalination:
Saudi Arabia is $21,000
UAE is $40,000
Qatar is at $60,000
Kuwait at $30,000
Israel at $43,000

Thus California ranks at about 9th in the world on GDP / PC. In company with the wealthiest of those middle eastern nations subsidizing desal.

The point being: California has extraordinary wealth any way you shake it. If desal becomes necessary, the state will find ways to finance it.

CA's is actually around 20% according to the census' supplemental poverty rate.

That looks like the nominal GDP versus of PPP.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/ran...er_capita_ppp/

Even if say it was as overly simplistic as GDP automatically translating into the ability to fund and subsidize desalination, there is still the major question of where the power would come from. I doubt CA could meet it's climate goals if had to provide enough power for desal. It can barely provide enough power as it is.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sav858

CA's is actually around 20% according to the census' supplemental poverty rate.

That looks like the nominal GDP versus of PPP.

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/ran...er_capita_ppp/

Even if say it was as overly simplistic as GDP automatically translating into the ability to fund and subsidize desalination, there is still the major question of where the power would come from. I doubt CA could meet it's climate goals if had to provide enough power for desal. It can barely provide enough power as it is.

Aside from California’s huge solar and wind power generation capacity, it is the 6th of the big 6 oil producing states. All to say nothing of the state’s nuclear history which could, and very likely would, be reborn if the state was facing catastrophic threats that could be solved by nuke energy and desal water.

Not sure why so many here are such Doubting Thomas’s when history demonstrates clearly that humans can and always have risen to their challenges by innovating.

By the way, I, personally, am not a fan at all of either desal or nuke energy. I’m a fan of simplicity and minimalist use of resources. I’m just also a realist: you folks (Californians and humanity at large both) aren’t going to ever just suddenly become sensible … we are hell-bent as a species on ultimately self-destructing *shrug*

[aslowdodge]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Nope. I don’t do predictions much. But I do point out the obvious: necessity is the mother of invention and allocation. If California literally can’t supply enough water to be a healthy state, desal certainly looks like a strong option … and the state will find a way to finance it rather than die.

For example: Bi-national programs are being studied to use the Sea of Cortez as a desal source, with storage pumped to Lake Mead, benefiting AZ, CA, and Mexico.
https://ensia.com/features/desalinat...limate-change/

As did I. Environmentalists have fought a lot of things that could benefit California like water projects pushed aside to save a fish or frog.
In the end I think when things get desperate enough, the environmentalists will wind up losing if it means the survival of the state. Public pressure and high costs of living will sway people to pick the lesser of the two,evils.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

As did I. Environmentalists have fought a lot of things that could benefit California like water projects pushed aside to save a fish or frog.
In the end I think when things get desperate enough, the environmentalists will wind up losing if it means the survival of the state. Public pressure and high costs of living will sway people to pick the lesser of the two,evils.

Agreed

[JGC97]

Four democratic lawmakers are urging the governor to cancel the water tunnel project. They're saying much the same thing that's been echoed around this area; that it would do irreparable damage to the Delta. Good for John Garamendi, Josh Harder, Jerry McNerney and Mike Thompson. Maybe you guys can get some of your fellow representatives to see how bad that tunnel would be to the Delta and the state.

The statement read, in part:

The fact remains that any tunnel construction under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta would be a misguided, multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that won’t create any new water for California but will cause irreversible damage to the Delta. As federal Representatives of the Bay-Delta region, we implore Governor Newsom in the strongest possible terms to listen to the voice of the Delta counties and reconsider this project that would devastate the Delta communities and ecosystem.

https://www.kcra.com/article/democra...-plan/40798378

[pathrunner]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

As did I. Environmentalists have fought a lot of things that could benefit California like water projects pushed aside to save a fish or frog.
In the end I think when things get desperate enough, the environmentalists will wind up losing if it means the survival of the state. Public pressure and high costs of living will sway people to pick the lesser of the two,evils.

Agreed. Anything taken too far is not optimal. Rabid environmentalism is a good example. But don't think for a second that I believe we don't need environmentalists at all. Y'all have environmentalists to thank for what little has been able to be saved or rectified.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by sav858

GDP isn't necessarily a measure of how rich or poor a country is. Some of those Mideast countries have much higher GDP per capita than CA btw.

Originally Posted by sav858

No it's not at all.

Countries like the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.. are hardly "impoverished" countries.

Very specious argument and that is being generous.

Your use of statistical outliers like the few petrostates you mentioned to critique the use of GDP and GDP per capita is nonsensical.

Nobody attempting any serious economic analysis is going to cherry pick a few petrostates and compare them to countries (or states) with diversified economies, open political systems and more diffused power.

Like Mutt said, you are just being argumentative...you know this is a B.S. argument.

Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita is often used as the barometer when comparing labor productivity and the standard of living across countries. Is it a perfect measure for everything? Of course not. But taken in the right context it is certainly a measure of what a particular country/state can produce.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by done working

GDP is not a measure of posterity or net profit. A lot of companies have high GDP output but one has got look closely at the balance sheet and income statements to see if in fact there are net profits. You would know this if you owned stocks or operated a company.

It takes profits to pay taxes or make investments. Yes volume helps but it does not insure net profits.

This is a somewhat bizarre comment. GDP is a measure of the total monetary value, or market value, of finished goods and services produced within a country (or state) during a period. Throwing companies and their net profits isn't particularly relevant to GDP.

Perhaps if you said Country (or State X) has a high GDP but also has high debt and can't afford to fund Project X...that would make more sense.

Originally Posted by done working

Depending on how GDP is defined it could include State expenditures which would of course lower real GDP by companies especially like a state as Calif with huge budgets. GDP does not reflect accurately prosperity and you can look at many middle east countries where they have high GDP but the profits are controlled by a handful of family members.

Again, I think you are missing how GDP is actually measured.

The actual equation for GDP includes Government expenditures.

The equation for GDP:
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending on Goods and Services + (Exports – Imports)

Real GDP is just nominal GDP (see above equation) deflated to account for inflation.

[done working]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

This is a somewhat bizarre comment. GDP is a measure of the total monetary value, or market value, of finished goods and services produced within a country (or state) during a period. Throwing companies and their net profits isn't particularly relevant to GDP.

Perhaps if you said Country (or State X) has a high GDP but also has high debt and can't afford to fund Project X...that would make more sense.




Again, I think you are missing how GDP is actually measured.

The actual equation for GDP includes Government expenditures.

The equation for GDP:
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending on Goods and Services + (Exports – Imports)

Real GDP is just nominal GDP (see above equation) deflated to account for inflation.

Yes i understand that but the comment was to address how the state would pay for desalination plants and that takes PROFITS. If companies dont have profits then no taxes. Then the state would raise the money through what bonds and even higher fees and taxes?

As far as understanding GDP i do but the question is those who have made rating system did not provide the way they determined the rating of Calif. Heck Texas is 9th in the world - but again by what actual measure.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by done working

Yes i understand that but the comment was to address how the state would pay for desalination plants and that takes PROFITS. If companies dont have profits then no taxes. Then the state would raise the money through what bonds and even higher fees and taxes?

As far as understanding GDP i do but the question is those who have made rating system did not provide the way they determined the rating of Calif. Heck Texas is 9th in the world - but again by what actual measure.

Um. This is kinda silly at this point donew. The metric of GDP was brought up (by me) initially as one supporting example of the economic health of the state … because the question of how desal can be afforded in one the the world’s most vibrant economies (5th world ranking, actually, not 9th) is simply nonsense. Lesser nations afford subsidies. Asking for, or projecting, which dollars come from what sourcing is, ah well, premature, shall we say, at the very least. Obtusely argumentative.

The point is solely: an economy as robust as California’s will find a way.