US Census: CA Population grows by 787,000 from 2010-2012 (Los Angeles, San Diego: 2013, wage)

[Think4Yourself]

WRT Food Stamps usage as a percentage of population (which is not counted as traditional welfare as it is run by the department of agriculture as part of the farm subsidy program instead of the department of health and human services which oversees welfare):



Now, you were babbling about California supposedly having what again, Fargobound?

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by Fargobound

The next time you think about world hunger thank a farmer and support farm subsidies. We produce commodities for the world market. California liberals are a special breed that can't think beyond their own zip codes.

So keep giving money to layabouts who want noting more than nice weather during the weekly hike to the mailbox. The last time I looked California was setting all kinds of records for poverty.

Pure ignorance, but I've come to expect that from you.

Value of farm output by state:

Total Agricultural Receipts Ranked by State from StuffAboutStates.com

You'll notice California is by far and away #1 while North Dakota is just ahead of Mississippi and behind Alabama. Oh, and North Dakota's farms don't actually net create any value for the country as the value of its output minus the cost of subsidies is negative.

2011 Farm Costs and Returns

WRT to subsidies, you should read some classics like Adam Smith because way back in 1775 he conclusively showed that the value of agricultural output actually goes down under subsidy regimes as farmers chase subsidies resulting in over production where as without subsidies farmers diversify and seek out niche products which have a higher market value. In other words, without subsidies farmers actually respond to market demand while with subsidies they destroy value by producing despite lack of market demand. Further more total production actually still goes up without subsidies as farms end up rationalized where inefficient producers go out of business and their land gets bought up by more efficient producers. At no time does the total amount of land under cultivation actually go down because virtually all farmland has no other profitable use thus the owner must engage in some form of agriculture to pay expenses (the exception is if some natural resource happens to occur there but then the land would exit cultivation any way).

In short, you look foolish because you've been wrong about just about everything.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by john3232

Exactly.

What good is growth if the of 75-125 grand a year middle class is slowly being replaced by much lower wager earners.

Except that talking point is completely incorrect. It's mostly the poor and the elderly who are leaving. This has been shown in a half a dozen different threads here over the years. The poor leave because they cannot afford a house while the elderly leave because they're cashing out their accrued equity to move some where cheaper to spend their golden years before dying. Neither retired people nor poor people tend to have large incomes where as the people moving in (educated single people and well to do couples) actually do work and actually do generate more tax income than they suck up. Unlike, the folks moving out.

[Think4Yourself]

Video - Al Jazeera English

It's not surprising that these sorts of improvements started happening in Greece right after the EU slashed their farm subsidies. Farms which have adapted actually become profited after decades of net loses by switching to new speciality products which can actually command a high market price. To compare her grandfather (who still owns the farm on paper) simply kept the same orange orchard going despite the value of the oranges being less than the cost to harvest not even counting total production costs (for water, pesticides, labor, land taxes, etc...); he did that because subsidies made up 75% of his total income so why bother changing just because you're not making any money year after year after year? The subsidy gravey train ended and now they're switching to products which actually can be sold at a profit, what a concept!

BTW Greece is far from the only example as both Australia and New Zealand saw the value of farm output actually double with in five years after the ending of farm subsidies yet the total amount produced of the old crops covered by the subsidies actually also went up. Why? Land which couldn't be changed to other crops ended up going bankrupt and their more efficient neighbors bought the farm at auction. The larger economies of scale from the rationalized farms created lower costs and greater efficiencies thus meaning they actually could make money despite there not being subsidies. So we can either let the never do wells continue net destroying value and being lazy or we can end subsidies and see both value and total output go up. Adam Smith was right, kill the damn subsidies and let the market work.

Edit: the link doesn't seem to be going to the right place. Click on Europe then look for "Greek subsidies loss sparks farming overhaul". It's a great example of how ending subsidies actually improves performance on both a macro and micro scale.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Fargobound

The next time you think about world hunger thank a farmer and support farm subsidies. We produce commodities for the world market.

We?

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by Fargobound

The last time I looked California was setting all kinds of records for poverty.

The problem is you didn't look because if you did then you'd have know you were being fed a lie by people with a poor record of telling the truth.

NPR has an excellent series on its website entitled Poverity in America which goes over the numbers in great detail, you'd do well to actually read it and learn something.

Poverty In America: The Struggle To Get Ahead : NPR

BTW they have an excellent national map showing where poverity is located and, no, California is not "setting all kinds of records for poverty" and instead it tends to be pretty middle of the pack wrt poverty. Texas, southern red states, Appalachia, and the desert southwest are where the highest percentages of people in poverty are. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[jimmykem]

Originally Posted by Fargobound

Well at least the people on "handouts" in our state produce something, unlike the numerous layabouts in California that produce nothing, but the need for more taxes.

California home to 1/3 of nation's welfare recipients | california, nation, welfare - Appeal-Democrat

You mean the "handouts" in your state that are subsidized partly by California's federal tax dollars paid. N. Dakota is the epitome of a welfare state. 6th highest recipient of federal tax dollars received per tax dollar paid, at 1.68. What do people on handouts in your state produce exactly? Be grateful the layabouts of your state have California to leech off of.

Originally Posted by Fargobound

The next time you think about world hunger thank a farmer and support farm subsidies. We produce commodities for the world market. California liberals are a special breed that can't think beyond their own zip codes.

So keep giving money to layabouts who want noting more than nice weather during the weekly hike to the mailbox. The last time I looked California was setting all kinds of records for poverty.

Next time you think about your own hunger, thank a farmer in California. California feeds the nation. California leads the nation in dairy production, produces half of US-grown fruits, nuts, and vegetables, and is the sole producer of over a dozen crops and commodities. California produces 12% of the nation's agricultural output by value. N. Dakota isn't even a top 5 agricultural state (California is solidly #1). And California's top export destinations - Canada, EU, China, Japan, Mexico, S. Korea, India, UAE, Turkey, and Taiwan.

So keep leeching off of our tax dollars and food. N. Dakota conservatives are a special breed of dense.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

Except that talking point is completely incorrect. It's mostly the poor and the elderly who are leaving. This has been shown in a half a dozen different threads here over the years. The poor leave because they cannot afford a house while the elderly leave because they're cashing out their accrued equity to move some where cheaper to spend their golden years before dying. Neither retired people nor poor people tend to have large incomes where as the people moving in (educated single people and well to do couples) actually do work and actually do generate more tax income than they suck up. Unlike, the folks moving out.

Spin it anyway you like but those leaving Cal are generally better off economically than those arriving.

[Think4Yourself]

How the hell can you look at the facts and then claim the exact opposite? You're simply factually incorrect yet you're being so pig headed as to insist your spin is right despite being factually wrong. Then you attempt to claim that the actual facts, which contradict you, are spin? :lol:

You have serious problems, my friend. If you're spouting things which aren't true in reality then maybe you ought to change what you're spouting. But, no, you just double down in the face of the reality of your wrongness.

[john3232]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

How the hell can you look at the facts and then claim the exact opposite? You're simply factually inrcorrect yet you're being so pig headed as to insist your spin is right despite being factually wrong. Then you attempt to claim that the actual facts, which contradict you, are spin? :lol:

You have serious problems, my friend. If you're spouting things which aren't true in reality then maybe you ought to change what you're spouting. But, no, you just double down in the face of the reality of your wrongness.

The problem is cal is slowly losing the middle class base and it is being replaced by lower wage workers. As far as your facts go you likey believe cal is now in the black as well.