9 of 12 US Metros with Highest Unemployment are in California (San Diego: live in, military)

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Is this why Germany with a population of 80.5 million has the worlds fourth highest gdp while Bangladesh witha population of 162,000,000 over double Germanys has the worlds 56th ranked gdp?

you sign up in July, only post about Calexit and related arguments for it, put up a lot of nonsensical garbage that doesn't address the topic at hand...sure you don't work at the office shown in this video?

Inside Russia's internet 'troll factory' - CNN Video

[aewan68]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

Thanks for digging that up, Aewan. I really like wallethub's data format as it makes it easier to make comparisons. They're also good at explaining how they've sliced and diced the numbers.

So, let's pull a few data points out for those too lazy to click on your link.

For now, let's keep the focus on the differences between California and Massachusetts, because I'm curious to see if high taxes could be the reason for the difference in unemployment rates.

Note: Data is from April, 2016.

This comes from Wallethub: 0ne simple ratio, “tax burden,” cuts through the confusion and gives a straightforward answer. Not to be confused with tax rates, which fluctuate widely based on an individual’s particular circumstances, tax burden measures the exact portion of the total personal income of residents in a state that are paid toward state and local taxes.

Massachusetts

Overall tax burden: 9.1%
Property tax burden: 3.36%
Individual income tax burden: 3.39%
Sales tax burden (state and local combined): 2.05%

California

Overall tax burden: 9.91%
Property tax burden: 2.84%
Individual income tax burden: 3.61%
Sales Tax burden: 3.46%

OK, so obviously on some things, higher tax burden between the two states.

But, if it is true that "high taxes" directly relates to unemployment, then it should follow that states with similar unemployment rates should have similar tax burdens.

So, let's use Washington state, which has the exact same unemployment rate as California in December (5.2)

Washington

Overall tax burden: 8.45%
Property tax burden: 2.84%
Individual income tax burden: 0
Sales tax burden: 5.61%

And, just for fun, since Aewan mentioned it, let's toss in Connecticut, which had an unemployment rate of 4.4% statewide.

Connecticut

Overall tax burden: 10.91%
Property tax burden: 4.39%
Individual income tax burden: 3.49%
Sales tax burden: 3.46%

Let's throw in NY just for the heck of it, which ranks number 1 for overall tax burden of all states. (That's where I am originally from). Their December unemployment rate was 4.9%

Overall tax burden: 13.12%
Property tax burden: 4.65%
Individual income tax burden: 4.76%
Sales tax burden: 3.71%

Wow -- people complain about California, and while taxes certainly aren't "cheap" here, compared to NY and CT, California looks pretty good (and we have nice weather. )

I'm not sure what this proves, but I think we can probably all agree that there are MANY factors that might influence unemployment in a particular state, and in a particular city, and at least in this very limited sample, there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between high or low taxes and unemployment. (We'd have to do all 50 states, and include corp. income taxes to sort it all out definitively).

The Feds still take more of your income regardless where you live when you think about it, I pay the 9.3% rate here for state and I'm in the 25% Fed Rate. The salary I was offered to relocate here for made it the difference, any less I would have never done it due to the higher costs associated with living here, but where I came from wasn't cheap either, the cost of living based on my income there was actually worse than here believe it or not.

That being said if I made in SoFla what I'm making here now, I wouldn't have had to leave, but it get's complicated when you start to figure in what you lose in $ to high insurance and property tax rates living there among other things, is it enough to offset 9.3% state income tax here?

For example my company provided health insurance for my Wife and I in FL was costing me over $6K/year and it went up just before I left. HR at my company there said it's due to the high % of seniors living in the area, higher liability everyone pays.

Here it's $3K/year = gain of $3K for CA.

Car insurance was over $300/month in SoFla for 2 average cars and it kept going up every 6 months, here it's $80/month. SoFla is noted for very high fraud, uninsured drivers and etc, so you pay for it.

So that's a gain of $3K for CA

So we are at $6K now in favor of here.

I won't even bother adding home owners insurance or property tax rates which are very high, since I'm current renting I don't have much data to compare. Insurance here for renters is cheap in comparison to SoFla though.

Sales tax rate was 6% when I lived there but now it's 7%, so give or take 1% or so from here isn't really much difference.

Electricity costs were high and due to the A/C running nearly all year long those expenses add up.

Rentals are costly, depending on where you want to live very close if not the same around here, you just often get more home for your money if you do rent by owner, nice apartments are costly.

Now try to live on the above making less wages, but still fall into that 25% Fed Tax bracket in FL, and I was at the lower end of that scale which is not the "sweet spot" there, it should be much higher based on what the cost of living is.

So in all, paying the state tax here is immaterial with what the above additional expenses cost me in FL, other states I have lived also had equally lower incomes and high tax burdens, PA for example. Currently #1 state for gas tax, you pay a lot more for winter living, electricity, natural gas and etc and property taxes. People still don't look past that like they do in FL.

I can go on and on, but I think people look at CA income tax rates under a microscope way too much without adding up what it costs to live elsewhere, they also always list the top rate (12.3%) which is not even close to the median that people pay here. If housing costs wasn't so out of control here, I think it wouldnt' be such an issue because that seems to take precedence over everything else.

You can live in more affordable areas to avoid some of the metro area blues, but that depends if you can find a good career in those areas, many cannot.

[TheseGoTo11]

The Bay Area rides up and down with innovation, but the business and reg environment seems to be impacting LA, which has had anemic 1.6% job growth the last 12 months. Metro Dallas has added more jobs than Metro LA over the last 12 months in spite of being half the size.

[aewan68]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

The Bay Area rides up and down with innovation, but the business and reg environment seems to be impacting LA, which has had anemic 1.6% job growth the last 12 months. Metro Dallas has added more jobs than Metro LA over the last 12 months in spite of being half the size.

Texas, great BBQ but wouldn't want to live there. Also all that job growth in DFW and Austin is creating other issues, like traffic woes and etc. You can't have one without the other.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11

you sign up in July, only post about Calexit and related arguments for it, put up a lot of nonsensical garbage that doesn't address the topic at hand...sure you don't work at the office shown in this video?

Inside Russia's internet 'troll factory' - CNN Video

Do you have a rebuttal to offer on the topic?

A claim was made that GDP is related to size of population. That is patently false, as just demonstrated. Now you don't like that truth. Which begs the question: who prefers lies to truth more? Russian propaganda or independent minded Americans?

And what do you refer to as not addressing the topic at hand? A rebuttal to a false statement? Or a personal attack having nothing whatsoever to do with anything anyone has posted?

[aewan68]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Do you have a rebuttal to offer on the topic?

A claim was made that GDP is related to size of population. That is patently false, as just demonstrated. Now you don't like that truth. Which begs the question: who prefers lies to truth more? Russian propaganda or independent minded Americans?

And what do you refer to as not addressing the topic at hand? A rebuttal to a false statement? Or a personal attack having nothing whatsoever to do with anything anyone has posted?

Problem with your rebuttal is the fact you went out of the 50 states into a comparison with a country. Not really Apples to Apples.

Look at poverty rates, the US has less population than China but still has a higher Poverty Rate than China, over double at that.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by aewan68

Problem with your rebuttal is the fact you went out of the 50 states into a comparison with a country. Not really Apples to Apples.

Look at poverty rates, the US has less population than China but still has a higher Poverty Rate than China, over double at that.

There is no problem with the rebuttal. And your poverty rate example is a total false equivalence given that there is no poverty rate standard for both countries. Whereas there is a common definition of GDP.

There are also numerous variations within the United States, by the way.

[aewan68]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

There is no problem with the rebuttal. And your poverty rate example is a total false equivalence given that there is no poverty rate standard for both countries. Whereas there is a common definition of GDP.

There are also numerous variations within the United States, by the way.

Though we are not talking GDP now are we?

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by aewan68

Though we are not talking GDP now are we?

What?

Post claimed California's GDP was highest due to population being highest. There is no such relationship dynamic between GDP and population. GDP is not a function of population numbers.

Then you threw in a comment about poverty between US and China, which makes no sense as there are no common standards for measuring that between the two standards of living. Though there is a common definition of GDP as a function of economic output.

Your response now makes no sense either.

[aewan68]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

What?

Post claimed California's GDP was highest due to population being highest. There is no such relationship dynamic between GDP and population. GDP is not a function of population numbers.

Then you threw in a comment about poverty between US and China, which makes no sense as there are no common standards for measuring that between the two standards of living. Though there is a common definition of GDP as a function of economic output.

Your response now makes no sense either.

I did not mention "GDP" in my post but I did mention population, CA on a whole has never had an unemployment rate under 4% since 1976 as far back as I could find.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=CAUR

More people looking for work in highly popuated areas often equals more competition for open postions which equals higher unemployment rates, competition in some areas is null because instead of 500 applicants they might only have 50 or less. As long as those 500 people vs 50 people are unemployed.

More people look for jobs, unemployment rate up to 5% - SFGate