The Golden State’s War on Itself (Sacramento, Arnold: low income, schools)

[Wonderful Jellal]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Republicans always want to make California into another Texas where big corporations rape the environment and little if any safeguards are provided to the average person. One huge reason that California is more expensive is that it is a "jewel" that can not be polluted into an ugly Texas. Smog is a major concern in California and it doesn't matter how much we need jobs if they are in industries that pollute the air and water. Uncontrolled population growth is discouraged as much as possible and in many counties there are strict regulations on new development for the very reason that there is not enough water. Now Texas power companies are spending big $ on Proposition 23 that would stop or slow down signed legislative law setting higher standards on clean energy.

California is not Texas and thank God, never will be!

STOP the Texas Oil Companies' Dirty Energy Proposition

Yeah, Texas will become the new economic giant in the US. California is over now, because guys as you are so arrogant and so ignorant about the economy.
It's important to have a very diversified economy, so manufacturing and agricultural jobs are important, any economy can survive without a diverse economy, California, Nevada, Florida prove that
Aeronautic jobs left (Texas, Alabama,Washington)), manufacturers left, agriculture is leaving (to Washington state), Hollywood productions left (to New Mexico, New York, Michigan)...Silicon Valley is safe for the moment, but if things continue like that, Silicon Valley jobs will leave and go to Austin,Texas (many investors from SV come there, as Facebook who created 200 jobs in Austin, first time they create jobs outside California, and it's just the beginning).

If Cali is expensive it's not because it's a jewel but because that : bad policies.Too many regulations, taxes are too high (if Brown is electedd that will be worst..)

[jazznblues]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Sorry, no sad attempts to delegitimize that ranking matters because those cheap and bargain price cities have always been cheap and it seems like even though people can afford it and people who brag about their cheapness and low prices, they STILL don't seem to save money.

Houston should be number 1. I mean, its really cheap. But its nowhere to be found.

I think it has to do with priorities.

Heck, even when we look at bank deposits by Metro Areas, cheap areas do quite dismally.

You cannot use 4 year old reports to make a credible position when you KNOW much of that ranking was based on the value of homes.

Houston might not be on an updated list - that's not my point. But cherry picking an old report touting highly leveraged home mortgages as "savings" is BS. All of the equity counted as savings in that report is gone, and much of it is in the hands of banks, not homeowners.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

Yeah, Texas will become the new economic giant in the US. California is over now, because guys as you are so arrogant and so ignorant about the economy.
It's important to have a very diversified economy, so manufacturing and agricultural jobs are important, any economy can survive without a diverse economy, California, Nevada, Florida prove that
Aeronautic jobs left (Texas, Alabama,Washington)), manufacturers left, agriculture is leaving (to Washington state), Hollywood productions left (to New Mexico, New York, Michigan)...Silicon Valley is safe for the moment, but if things continue like that, Silicon Valley jobs will leave and go to Austin,Texas (many investors from SV come there, as Facebook who created 200 jobs in Austin, first time they create jobs outside California, and it's just the beginning).

If Cali is expensive it's not because it's a jewel but because that : bad policies.Too many regulations, taxes are too high (if Brown is electedd that will be worst..)

I knew this was coming; that we would be lectured from of all people someone from Texas and then be insulted on our own forum. Have the courtesy of not posting a question on another state's forum if you end up not liking the feedback because it is the utmost in poor taste to attack a state where you do not live. But whoever said Texans have "taste"? And I'll leave it at that.

[KC6ZLV]

RenaudFR:

Texas and Washington are simply temporary places to do business before those companies that set up shop figure out what location overseas they want to outsource to.

One of California's biggest problems is the cost of doing business outside of taxes is extremely high. Real estate and rent. Electricity is high is some parts of the state, thanks to a company that was based in Texas that turned off numerous electric-generators within California, then attempted to lay the blame on California because the power lines coming into Southern California weren't designed to handle the full load of electric demand to be imported from east of the State.

And really, if Texas has got it's act so together as Texans claim, then how the hell does Texas manage to come anywhere near an $18B deficit?

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by jazznblues

What I see in the OP's chart is the trend. Sure California's per capita income is above the national average (still). But the trend is that California's income advantage is declining steadily over time. Combined with a significantly higher cost of living the standard of living is headed in the wrong direction.

Of course. When has overpopulation ever resulted in anything other than a falling standard of living?

[majoun]

[quote=californio sur;15406370]

Originally Posted by majoun

Wow, I would have never guessed that Republicans were the majority anytime in the last 20 years. What were the circumstances?

The '94 GOP landslide gave Republicans the Legislature by an extremely slim margin.

During those two years, there was a sort of fratricidal civil war within the GOP between conservatives and moderates, complete with the party's right wing launching recall campaigns against GOP legislators who voted with Dems.

The Dems got the legislature back in '96.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

Yeah, Texas will become the new economic giant in the US. California is over now, because guys as you are so arrogant and so ignorant about the economy.
It's important to have a very diversified economy, so manufacturing and agricultural jobs are important, any economy can survive without a diverse economy, California, Nevada, Florida prove that
Aeronautic jobs left (Texas, Alabama,Washington)), manufacturers left, agriculture is leaving (to Washington state), Hollywood productions left (to New Mexico, New York, Michigan)

Two out of three, and with the third you're geographically close.
I think you mean Ontario, which HAS been luring away film production for a long time (as has British Columbia)
Gov. Granholm's plan to bring the film industry to Michigan has been considered a failure. There are no film schools in Michigan and the cost of the Michigan Film Incentive has exceeded any economic benefit to the state.

Michigan Film Incentive, MEDC, Subsidies [Mackinac Center]

OTOH, Toronto has not only film schools but a long standing film infrastructure.

Many US businesses especially California businesses are moving to Canada, according to a link posted on this board about businesses leaving California it seems Canada's as favored of a destination as Texas.

As for agriculture leaving: sprawl and climate change considerations have a great deal to do with that.

If Cali is expensive it's not because it's a jewel but because that : bad policies.Too many regulations, taxes are too high (if Brown is electedd that will be worst..)

It really doesn't matter who's elected governor. The issues are structural and stem from a broken political system and an insane fiscal structure. California needs a new Constitution, and once it gets a new Constitution will improve. Unfortunately the measure for a constitutional convention did not make the ballot this year.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by majoun

The '94 GOP landslide gave Republicans the Legislature by an extremely slim margin.

During those two years, there was a sort of fratricidal civil war within the GOP between conservatives and moderates, complete with the party's right wing launching recall campaigns against GOP legislators who voted with Dems.

The Dems got the legislature back in '96.

Very interesting tidbit. I'd always heard that the state legislature has been majority Democratic since 1970. Do you know when the state was gerrymandered so that Democratic and Republicans would have "safe" districts? Can't wait until the gerrymandered districts are re-structured. Seems that the Republicans are always fighting among themselves in California; why are they so fractured?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by californio sur

Very interesting tidbit. I'd always heard that the state legislature has been majority Democratic since 1970.

I thought the Dems held the assembly continuously from 1958 to 1994, but I guess I was wrong.

[QUOTE[Do you know when the state was gerrymandered so that Democratic and Republicans would have "safe" districts?[/quote]

After the 2000 census.

Can't wait until the gerrymandered districts are re-structured. Seems that the Republicans are always fighting among themselves in California; why are they so fractured?

The difference between what positions the national party favors and what positions are needed to win in California.

The Democratic Party in Texas doesn't have a problem with running conservatives or moderates and doesn't insist that candidates take positions just like those of Nancy Pelosi or Henry Waxman, but the GOP in California seems to have a certain faction - who dominate the California Republican Assembly activist group - who insist on "purity" over electability.

The American major parties have always had different and competing factions, and always will.

[californio sur]

majoun I thought the Dems held the assembly continuously from 1958 to 1994, but I guess I was wrong.

After the 2000 census.

The difference between what positions the national party favors and what positions are needed to win in California.

The Democratic Party in Texas doesn't have a problem with running conservatives or moderates and doesn't insist that candidates take positions just like those of Nancy Pelosi or Henry Waxman, but the GOP in California seems to have a certain faction - who dominate the California Republican Assembly activist group - who insist on "purity" over electability.

The American major parties have always had different and competing factions, and always will.

I didn't think any Republicans were moderates in Texas except someone like Ron Paul. I recently did a google search on the current Texas governor, Perry and found this:

Perry vetoed law to ban the execution of the mentally-retarded [has executed 200 people since governor; way more than all other states combined], wants to re-criminalize gay relationships, promotes ignorant "creationism" in school textbooks, turned down $555 million in federal stimulus money depriving his state's unemployed, believes only Christians will go to heaven by commenting that Jews were the same as Taliban, does not believe in science, wants Texas to succeed from the nation, etc.

A Republican moderate in California would be considered a liberal Democrat in Texas.