California: Liberal Experiament Gone Bad? (Sacramento, Oakland: middle-class, real estate, homes)

[SAI126]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

People who were born in California are leaving in droves as are semi natives (e.g. ones brought here as kids). People from other countries are the main source of inflow, with people from other US states being a distant second. This is the harsh reality that all the polyannas on this thread refuse to address. Why are natives and semi natives abandoning it? Need to face it folks, it's a leading indicator.

That is right on the mark. According to city-data.


Internal migration 2000-2006: -950,592

International migration 2000-2006: +1,724,790


I don't understand why some people refuse to recognize the obvious. The current economic problems and draconian environmental legislation recently passed will only exacerbate this problem. Business will indeed be good for realtors in mountain west states as they accommodate increasing numbers of fleeing Californians.

[hsw]

To be fair, CA has ~10% inc tx; NYC is ~13%; Chic is 3%; Dall/Hou is 0%

Top 1% of earners pay ~40% of all taxes

Suspect many (?most) of top 1% in CA or NYC weren't born (or raised) there; they immigrated to CA/NYC from rest of US or RoW for economic opportunities and lifestyle they couldn't find elsewhere

Less skilled workers ultimately figure out where it makes economic sense for them to reside and work; and well-run businesses move jobs to locales that make economic sense

Agree, good schools are cheap; ambitious kids learn much on own and from parents, not much from schools; problem is unions and paying for "education" of kids of non-taxpayers, many of whom don't value education or upward mobility

Highly paid, nearly imposs to fire government workers are the modern-day UAW in CA and NYC and a major reason taxes keep increasing but roads have many dangerous potholes and costly schools remain so ineffective

Legalizing drugs would prob cut law enfcmt/prison costs dramatically and raise tax revenue; desirable suburbs w/newer housing and far from poverty tend to have rather low crime (or fire) rates anyway

Most "free" or cheap public svcs are ultimately undesirable....whether public housing or schools or mass transit or healthcare or roads

Heterogenous, upwardly mobile, dynamic, entrepreneurial economy and society vs a more communist society w/little upward mobility but great lifestyle for the lazy and those who have inherited money (or have already made their money somewhere else)...classic CA/NYC vs Switzerland/Germany debate

[FresnoFacts]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

People who were born in California are leaving in droves as are semi natives (e.g. ones brought here as kids). People from other countries are the main source of inflow, with people from other US states being a distant second. This is the harsh reality that all the polyannas on this thread refuse to address. Why are natives and semi natives abandoning it? Need to face it folks, it's a leading indicator.

Native born Californians seem to be choosing to stay in the state, which has implications of its own. If the only thing people know is the "California Way" will people question if it is the best way or just accept it?

USC released a study a few weeks ago that the LA Times said showed:
"A profound shift away from California's more transient and migrant-dependent past will soon produce the state's first generation of adults whose majority will be native-born, researchers at USC said in a study released Monday.

More than 70% of Californians ages 15 to 24 were born and raised in the state, according to the report, "The New Homegrown Majority in California." By contrast, nearly two-thirds of state residents 45 to 54 years old were born out of state."

And it also said:
"California natives now are more inclined to remain in their home state than residents of 45 other states, the report says."
<http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-growth21-2009apr21,0,3798728.story>

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by hsw

To be fair, CA has ~10% inc tx; NYC is ~13%; Chic is 3%; Dall/Hou is 0%

Top 1% of earners pay ~40% of all taxes

Suspect many (?most) of top 1% in CA or NYC weren't born (or raised) there; they immigrated to CA/NYC from rest of US or RoW for economic opportunities and lifestyle they couldn't find elsewhere

Less skilled workers ultimately figure out where it makes economic sense for them to reside and work; and well-run businesses move jobs to locales that make economic sense

Agree, good schools are cheap; ambitious kids learn much on own and from parents, not much from schools; problem is unions and paying for "education" of kids of non-taxpayers, many of whom don't value education or upward mobility

Highly paid, nearly imposs to fire government workers are the modern-day UAW in CA and NYC and a major reason taxes keep increasing but roads have many dangerous potholes and costly schools remain so ineffective

Legalizing drugs would prob cut law enfcmt/prison costs dramatically and raise tax revenue; desirable suburbs w/newer housing and far from poverty tend to have rather low crime (or fire) rates anyway

Most "free" or cheap public svcs are ultimately undesirable....whether public housing or schools or mass transit or healthcare or roads

Heterogenous, upwardly mobile, dynamic, entrepreneurial economy and society vs a more communist society w/little upward mobility but great lifestyle for the lazy and those who have inherited money (or have already made their money somewhere else)...classic CA/NYC vs Switzerland/Germany debate

DANG! Y'all's usin' multisylabic words that might beyond the ken of some.

[fizbin]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

DANG! Y'all's usin' multisylabic words that might beyond the ken of some.

Yeah, a regular sesquipedalian . . .

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by fizbin

Yeah, a regular sesquipedalian . . .

And use big words, no less!

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by hsw

To be fair, CA has ~10% inc tx; NYC is ~13%; Chic is 3%; Dall/Hou is 0%

I hear this all the time -- and I don't buy it. I have real numbers to back me up.

Husband and I are owner operators of a janitorial business. We pull in around 135,000. a year. We put away into retirement plans around 25K, which lowers our income to 110K a year, and our state taxes are running $1300 a year. That's around 1%.

And according to the tax codes -- we are in the highest tax bracket. And we're not cheating -- I made it clear to my accountant when I hired him at the start of my business that I won't stand for that. And made for a very non-sweaty tax audit in 2002.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by fizbin

The big problems affecting California finances all go back to Prop. 13, which was a Republican initiative. It has strangled California finances ever since. Add to that the spending required for non-discretionary programs and all of the subsequent initiative-based programs for which funding is mandatory but were passed with no related funding and you have the huge mess we are in.

People who blame CA's problems on Prop 13 forget why it was passed. CA was jacking up property taxes year in and year out. Perhaps Prop 13 was an overreaction. But it was a reaction to tax and spend liberal policies.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by clongirl

Actually, most of the spending is going towards our prison system...And I can tell you that in my child's school (public), it is the parents that pay for supplies, art/science programs, in fact..a teacher here was prevented from being laid off because the parents stepped up to raise the funds.

No, most of it doesn't go to prisons. 80% of the state budget goes to education and health care. Even the tax and spend liberals will tell you that much.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by fizbin

You want someone to put the fire out at your home or business, the fire department needs money. You want roads, road builders need money. You want three strikes (a dubious program CA folks overwhelmingly voted for) prisons get money. There is no free lunch, no matter how much anti-tax folks want one.

Sure these things need money. But the public sector unions' demands have grown excessive. I work in the public sector and I see the worst abuses with police and fire departments. Most police and fire unions have what's called "binding arbitration". Fundamentally, it means if they don't like their contracts they can take it to an arbitrator. And the arbitrator almost always decides in the cop's & firemen's favor. Since municipalities know they can't beat the system, they usually give the cops & firemen what they want. And not surprisingly, the cops and firemen get outsized raises compared to other public sector unions.

I work in the public sector and will be eligible to recieve a pension at age 55. The forumula is 2.5% of highest year's salary per year of service...meaning that after 30 years you can collect 75% of your highest year's salary for the rest of your life (plus health care and dental benefits after 15 years of service). Where else can a person get benefits like that? Sure I like getting them, but they sure appear unsustainable to me, especially since people are living longer. Other public sector unions have similar pension benefits (although not exactly the same).

And, as I said, the police and firemen get much more generous pay increases and better benefits than the other unions. This happens year in and year out and often is not discussed in the media.