Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look: I'm not trying to belabor the point but you accused me of lying about my salary. I post proof of what I make ... not to mention it's well known what Bay Area RN's make yet ... you say I'm full of it?
You aren't in the bay area, and I looked up the median salary for Bay area RNs and its $70,000. Only 10% make more than $90,000.
And you posted some PDF, that isn't proof of what you make. Its a PDF with some numbers on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheri257
My priority is saving for retirement ... not putting all of my money into housing. Yeah ... I could spend another 200-400K on a house but I don't want to for obvious reasons. You, of all people, should understand that.
No, I actually don't understand that. The notion of retirement is absolutely bizarre to me. Why do people focus so much on retirement? I can think of one reason, they don't like what they do. I enjoy what I do so why would I want to stop when I get 50~60? The only reason I put any many into a retirement account at all is because the tax savings and also the possibility of disability.
Regardless, housing is saving for your future (and hence retirement if you are into that sort of thing). Once you own your house, you can reduce your income (and hence taxes) while having the same life style. Unlike, stocks which are useless pieces of paper a house gives you shelter regardless of whether you can sell it or not. Having a mortgage on the other hand is servitude.
Anyhow, your income doesn't matter. Until I see your tax returns I won't believe you, I don't believe anybody over the internet on these matters (in fact even in real life people lie about it all the time). Its also irrelevant to my point. Even with $110k a year, you would just barely get into the housing market here. And this isn't some hip beach city, its a normal working class city as are the vast majority of cities in Southern California. A state can't function long term like this, and is exactly why the state is falling apart now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheri257
I really resent this. If people want to blame the entire state of California for their problems and move out of state then ... fine. Good riddance.
But don't accuse me of lying. Instead of constantly whining and crying about my circumstances ... I started over in my '40s, went back to school and intentionally picked a field that I knew would pay well so I could live the life I wanted in California.
Geez, get over yourself already. Never once have I whined about my circumstances. Not once. So what in the world are you talking about? Nor have a blamed the state of California for anything other than having an idiotic and destructive state government.
I don't need to "go back to school" to improve my life. I have a first-class education and make plenty of money. You seem to believe for whatever reason that the only reason someone would leave California is because they are "beaten". Absolutely absurd. Its about cost-benefit analysis. The costs far exceed the benefits to many people, therefore they leave the state.
Now, you can try to continue to insult me because I don't believe you about your pay. But really, this is the internet and people are more often than not full of it. Its nothing personal against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ
You do not know the health field. Once a clinician in a psychiatric hospital, I can assure that RN's make a very good salary in unionized California. Why would you doubt Sheri's word
Because there is this thing called the internet where you can look up salary data on a variety of careers. The pay Sheri is citing is well above what most RNs make. Now, that doesn't mean she is full it necessarily, but its good reason to doubt her. But really, I don't care.
With all due respect, I'm convinced the poster wouldn't believe anything if it conflicts with his/her preconceived notions about California & the rest of the nation. It is easier to bad mouth California if you have decided on moving out of state. If you think living in a place like Arkansas sounds interesting than you don't really enjoy the opportunities that you have in California. And as I have noticed, people who are super-uptight about tolerance & diversity would be better off living in Mississippi anyway.
hat those particularly uncomfortable with "Leftist" politics & liberal "live & let live" mindset are the more likely to be unhappy in California. And proclaim a mass exodus of "brains" & "money" to Arkansas [a state that voted to isolate gay people from any semblance of a life]
Lets not conflate fiscal conservatism with social conservatism. I'm a secular fiscal conservative and really can't stand policies motivated by religion. I have no issue whatsoever with gay marriage and voted "No" on prop 8.
My problem with California is its left lending fiscal policies. These are what are destroying the state and these are what are driving business to other areas (like, Arkansas). For god's sake, the Northern Coast voted highly in favor of building a cho-cho when the state is cutting 3 billion from the state's education budget....and still has growing deficits! That is fiscal irresponsibility and its going to cause a lot of pain.
Business owners don't care about gay marriage, it doesn't effect their bottom line. High taxes, ridiculous regulation etc do though.
Anyhow, Southern California is not nearly as left fiscally as the North (The south mostly voted against the cho-cho). But until the two regions separate that doesn't really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ
With all due respect, I'm convinced the poster wouldn't believe anything if it conflicts with his/her preconceived notions about California & the rest of the nation. It is easier to bad mouth California if you have decided on moving out of state. If you think living in a place like Arkansas sounds interesting than you don't really enjoy the opportunities that you have in California. And as I have noticed, people who are super-uptight about tolerance & diversity would be better off living in Mississippi anyway.
I was born and raised in California, my notions of the state are from living there a good deal of time. When did I say living in Arkansas sounds interesting? I didn't. My wife was born in the South though and I have no particular interest in living in the South, mainly because its religious nature.
But I've never been to Arkansas though so I'm not going to bad mouth it just because its in the South or is a "red state" or whatever else.
The only thing I've said about "tolerance and diversity" in this thread is that I listed California's diversity as a [b]pro[/B to living in Southern California. So why exactly would I be better of in Mississippi in this regard?
These comments are coming out of no where, perhaps Palin tactics have rubbed off on you.
Lets not conflate fiscal conservatism with social conservatism. I'm a secular fiscal conservative and really can't stand policies motivated by religion. I have no issue whatsoever with gay marriage and voted "No" on prop 8.
My problem with California is its left lending fiscal policies. These are what are destroying the state and these are what are driving business to other areas (like, Arkansas). For god's sake, the Northern Coast voted highly in favor of building a cho-cho when the state is cutting 3 billion from the state's education budget....and still has growing deficits! That is fiscal irresponsibility and its going to cause a lot of pain.
Business owners don't care about gay marriage, it doesn't effect their bottom line. High taxes, ridiculous regulation etc do though.
Anyhow, Southern California is not nearly as left fiscally as the North (The south mostly voted against the cho-cho). But until the two regions separate that doesn't really matter.
I was born and raised in California, my notions of the state are from living there a good deal of time. When did I say living in Arkansas sounds interesting? I didn't. My wife was born in the South though and I have no particular interest in living in the South, mainly because its religious nature.
But I've never been to Arkansas though so I'm not going to bad mouth it just because its in the South or is a "red state" or whatever else.
The only thing I've said about "tolerance and diversity" in this thread is that I listed California's diversity as a [b]pro[/B to living in Southern California. So why exactly would I be better of in Mississippi in this regard?
These comments are coming out of no where, perhaps Palin tactics have rubbed off on you.
Thanks for the clarification. Some of my comments were not in reaction to what you actually posted [i.e. Arkansas]. I understand that you are fiscal-centric based on your other remarks. I vote for almost every initiative/measure that improves transportation\ air quality\ broadening of social services, etc since problems become more evident when California ignores solutions in favor of repressive policies [Prop 187 for example].
I vote for almost every initiative/measure that improves transportation\ air quality\ broadening of social services, etc since problems become more evident when California ignores solutions in favor of repressive policies [Prop 187 for example].
Did you ever ask yourself how its going to get paid for? I will tell you, its not going to be me and my business.
California has a progressive tax, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but its absurd when the top bracket applies to people making around $55~60k a year and married couples making $90~$100k a year. So, if you're married anything beyond $100k or so is taxed at 9.3% (the stuff below it is being taxed at around 4.5%). Where as you'd pay 0 in a state like Texas or Washington. A family with a salary of $150k (not that uncommon when both are working) would pay around $8,000~$9,000 in state tax. That is $8,000~$9,000 out of the pocket each year, they don't get much in return for it.
The situation is worse for businesses that aren't very small, but that is a much more complicated story.
Money and people are leaving California, these are just the facts. The question what is California going to do about it? Apparently raise taxes and build cho-chos.
California will not fix its problems until the unions are destroyed, special interests are brought to their knees and taxes are lowered. Its going to happen one way or another, its just a question of whether the state fixes the problems before the free market serves it a death blow. So far, it looks like the markets are going to give California a beating.
I don't get why you keep harping on the Bay Area when they are the most successful part of the state having the highest incomes. I do agree that their politics are a little far left but there are A LOT of successful people with high incomes there. The Bay Area was, a still might be, a more affordable place to live than LA or San Diego despite having higher home prices b/c the pay is better there. Despite its far left policies the Bay Area is the wealthiest region in the nation as is the Northeast, another very "liberal" area with higher taxes and a high cost of living. While it does make sense how their policies would drive away business and jobs, those regions are very wealthy. Just saying that the evidence doesn't really point to business leaving the state b/c of Bay Area politics.
I do want to leave CA just b/c I need a change and want to live outside of this state. I love this state but yes it does have a ton of problems, which I hope they fix. I am praying Prop 11 brings in some more sane, moderate politicians.
Did you ever ask yourself how its going to get paid for? I will tell you, its not going to be me and my business.
California has a progressive tax, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but its absurd when the top bracket applies to people making around $55~60k a year and married couples making $90~$100k a year. So, if you're married anything beyond $100k or so is taxed at 9.3% (the stuff below it is being taxed at around 4.5%). Where as you'd pay 0 in a state like Texas or Washington. A family with a salary of $150k (not that uncommon when both are working) would pay around $8,000~$9,000 in state tax. That is $8,000~$9,000 out of the pocket each year, they don't get much in return for it.
The situation is worse for businesses that aren't very small, but that is a much more complicated story.
Money and people are leaving California, these are just the facts. The question what is California going to do about it? Apparently raise taxes and build cho-chos.
California will not fix its problems until the unions are destroyed, special interests are brought to their knees and taxes are lowered. Its going to happen one way or another, its just a question of whether the state fixes the problems before the free market serves it a death blow. So far, it looks like the markets are going to give California a beating.
Entirely disagree with you. Republicans are more concerned with selfish do-nothing postures & why the GOP continues to lose in California. Unions are the backbone of the middle-class & gain more power every year in Los Angeles & elsewhere in the state.
The state & nation can no longer depend on careless capitalism & small government mentalities. Responsibility for tackling the big problems of better quality of life for all citizens [good education opportunities for free thru college\ universal health care for all\ stricter regulations on polluters\ major infrastructure improvements\ prison reform\ economic justice, etc]. This means federal & state investment in California & a diversion of funds for domestic needs not senseless foolish wars that Republican presidents create.
Entirely disagree with you. Republicans are more concerned with selfish do-nothing postures & why the GOP continues to lose in California. Unions are the backbone of the middle-class & gain more power every year in Los Angeles & elsewhere in the state.
The only powerful unions left are government employee unions. Unions haven't been the "backbone of the middle class" since the 60's. Union membership has been on the decline for decades as they've driven their industries out of business or out of the country one by one.
The only powerful unions left are government employee unions. Unions haven't been the "backbone of the middle class" since the 60's. Union membership has been on the decline for decades as they've driven their industries out of business or out of the country one by one.
You may want to check your information. California has more union members than any other state & the unions continue to grow per Labor Department figures.
Despite its far left policies the Bay Area is the wealthiest region in the nation as is the Northeast, another very "liberal" area with higher taxes and a high cost of living. While it does make sense how their policies would drive away business and jobs, those regions are very wealthy. Just saying that the evidence doesn't really point to business leaving the state b/c of Bay Area politics.
In what sense are the regions wealthy? The state and local governments are going bankrupt. San Jose is asking for $14 billion from the federal government primary to fund failing transportation projects. There are some decent businesses in the area, but really not that many and the ones that are there have been diversifying out of the area for years.
Median income in the bay area is high, but this doesn't really tell you about wealth in a meaningful way. The unemployment rate in the bay area is 6.1%, that doesn't really speak of Wealth to me. It speaks of a bubble economy built on pseudo-wealth (Wealth not backed by real production).
Anyhow, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland etc didn't die over night. They died over decades. I'm not suggesting that the economy in the bay area hasn't been strong in the past, I'm suggesting its going to weaken in the future (It has been since the early 2000's).
The bay area, like much of California is running off fumes at this point. I think Southern California is actually in a better position than the north.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ
Entirely disagree with you. Republicans are more concerned with selfish do-nothing postures & why the GOP continues to lose in California. Unions are the backbone of the middle-class & gain more power every year in Los Angeles & elsewhere in the state.
As someone else mentioned the powerful unions at this point are mainly government. They are destroying the state by inflating state wages and benefits, not to mention decreasing productivity. Furthermore unions aren't the backbone of the middle-class they are the backbone of extortion. Unions work for their benefit, not the companies benefit of even who they represent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by happ
The state & nation can no longer depend on careless capitalism & small government mentalities.
Sorry, but when in recent history has the nation/state depended on small government mentalities? Oh yeah, it hasn't. The Bush administration has increases the size of government (and government spending).
There hasn't been a true conservative in office for many many years. But feel free to rant about the GOP. But you do realize that the democrats voted for all the deregulation that has essentially caused the current crisis right? Clinton started this bubble, Bush ended it. Both are losers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
