U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Mississippi
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-04-2019, 08:59 PM
 
975 posts, read 1,018,871 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
Except there is a lot of substance to California...it is a global center of innovation and creativity and commerce and pop culture....and is also one of our leading agricultural and oil producing states (nearly a tenth of US oil production).
I don't get the right wing obsession with bashing California. If it were a sovereign nation it would have the fifth largest economy in the world. Many right wingers actually sound like they want the people of California to fail and suffer.
I agree, like a beautiful woman, Cali has a lot of natural resources that draw people to it (and keep them there). It does treat some of its productive citizens poorly though, but not bad enough to drive them away. I love California and have visited a couple of times. I've seen the state from San Diego to San Franciso and Driven Coastal Highway 1 from San Luis Obispo to the Golden Gate Bridge. California is much more beautiful than Mississippi and has great weather, although I agree with Mark Twain on summers in San Franciso, we quickly bought jackets for the Alcatraz tour!

I was anything but bashing California, when you can be successful and put virtually no effort into, that is fantastic. I doubt anyone with common sense (no matter left, right or center wing) wants California to fail as it would take the entire country down with it.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 03-04-2019, 10:29 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
18,622 posts, read 10,935,629 times
Reputation: 26101
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacksonPanther View Post
1850: 92,597
1860: 379,994
1900: 1,485,053
1930: 5,677,251
1950: 10,586,223
1970: 19,953,134
1990: 29,760,021
2000: 33,871,648
2009: 38,292,687
2015: 38,715,000
2017: 39,536,653

Not once in any measurement period has CA's population fallen.

Don't send me any more links to crap articles about people moving to Oregon and Idaho. Here are the numbers. The rest of it is just crap you say to make yourself feel better.

QED
Sacramento Bee disagrees with your figures:
Quote:
An unprecedented number of Californians left for other states during the last decade, according to new tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
About 5 million Californians left between 2004 and 2013. Roughly 3.9 million people came here from other states during that period, for a net population loss of more than 1 million people.
The trend resulted in a net loss of about $26 billion in annual income.
[LEFT]
Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/site-services...#storylink=cpy
[/LEFT]
https://www.sacbee.com/site-services...e32679753.html


Legislative Analyst's Office has reported the same thing:
Quote:
For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migration—about 2.5 percent of its total population.
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265


Meanwhile California increases spending while revenue decreases:
Quote:
As California governor Gavin Newsom announced plans for a record $144.2-billion spending plan, the state controller quietly reported a $4.82-billion collapse of state tax revenues.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...5_billion.html


And then there is the fact that Bryce Harper will be paying his taxes in Pennsylvania, and the reason he chose Pennsylvania is because he had an actual choice. Note that he didn't leave California, he just chose not to work there. I made that same choice in '97. Glad I did. too.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 06:19 AM
 
65,270 posts, read 91,066,909 times
Reputation: 14278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Sacramento Bee disagrees with your figures:

https://www.sacbee.com/site-services...e32679753.html


Legislative Analyst's Office has reported the same thing:

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265


Meanwhile California increases spending while revenue decreases:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...5_billion.html


And then there is the fact that Bryce Harper will be paying his taxes in Pennsylvania, and the reason he chose Pennsylvania is because he had an actual choice. Note that he didn't leave California, he just chose not to work there. I made that same choice in '97. Glad I did. too.
The problem with this is that these in between official census figures are estimates and they can be way off. For instance, the same was said about many parts of NY during the last decade, then, when the official census came out, some areas actually had smaller losses or even small population gains once the official figures came in. So, some times these figures can be over or underestimated.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 09:17 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
18,622 posts, read 10,935,629 times
Reputation: 26101
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
The problem with this is that these in between official census figures are estimates and they can be way off. For instance, the same was said about many parts of NY during the last decade, then, when the official census came out, some areas actually had smaller losses or even small population gains once the official figures came in. So, some times these figures can be over or underestimated.
Agree.
The only thing we can know for sure is that both Bryce Harper and I turned down the opportunity to live in California because of the cost of being there.
Might be noted that Harper's salary ($330M over 13 years) is a bit more than mine.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Jack-town, Sip by way of TN, AL and FL
1,348 posts, read 987,826 times
Reputation: 2120
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacksonPanther View Post
1850: 92,597
1860: 379,994
1900: 1,485,053
1930: 5,677,251
1950: 10,586,223
1970: 19,953,134
1990: 29,760,021
2000: 33,871,648
2009: 38,292,687
2015: 38,715,000
2017: 39,536,653

Not once in any measurement period has CA's population fallen.

Don't send me any more links to crap articles about people moving to Oregon and Idaho. Here are the numbers. The rest of it is just crap you say to make yourself feel better.

QED
this is exactly why I quit using logic with people who already have their minds made up, and use tunnel vision and emotion to fuel their own self-serving opinions.

Give me a population rate there buddy. I'll do it for you, from numbers YOU PROVIDED:

1970-1990: 49.1% growth
1990-2000: 13.8% growth
2000-2009: 13.1% growth
2009-2017: 3.2% growth

That's an incredible rate drop, probably coinciding with Schwarzeneggar's exit from office in 2011. See, I can do math too, and I can apply it in the correct ways.

Wow, I mean, just consider yourself owned. This is why you don't just throw out numbers, pretend to be smart, and say "Look, STATS, so I'm RIGHT!!!!111". Legit LOL.

Pay attention, public. ^^THIS is how people manipulate and indoctrinate the unsuspecting.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
1,108 posts, read 2,270,121 times
Reputation: 1533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line View Post

1970-1990: 49.1% growth
1990-2000: 13.8% growth
2000-2009: 13.1% growth
2009-2017: 3.2% growth
I don't know if illegal immigration adds to population numbers... anyone know? Might illegal immigration be propping up the population growth while legal residents leave in droves?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 11:17 AM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
18,622 posts, read 10,935,629 times
Reputation: 26101
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhadorn View Post
I don't know if illegal immigration adds to population numbers... anyone know? Might illegal immigration be propping up the population growth while legal residents leave in droves?
Dunno, but the question sure occurred to me.
There are plenty of illegals here in MS, but in California there are virtual cities of them. I sure wish the legislature would deal with it.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 05:56 PM
 
2,422 posts, read 955,871 times
Reputation: 2397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line View Post
This is the same phenomena you see in any super rich city. It becomes liberal over time due to the decadence. The rich people stay because they can afford it, the poor people stay but just get poorer. The middle class leaves because they can't afford it but refuse to be poor. Most of the time the middle class end up in suburbs but once it hits a breaking point, they leave the area altogether. That is beginning to happen now in California.


This is not due to tax. California has a bunch of money because of all the natural resources and economy it has. This happened long, long ago and is nothing the government can or cannot do about that. High taxes come after the fact, due again to sustained decadence. It's the natural order of things.

It's laughable that you make a comparison of CA to MS and then say the difference is due to taxes. I mean, it's got nothing to do with the film industry does it?
Most it isn't laughable. The most prosperous states tend to be those that make heavy investments in their people and infrastructure. That requires taxes. You get what you pay for. Not exactly rocket science
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-05-2019, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Jack-town, Sip by way of TN, AL and FL
1,348 posts, read 987,826 times
Reputation: 2120
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertbrianbush View Post
Most it isn't laughable. The most prosperous states tend to be those that make heavy investments in their people and infrastructure. That requires taxes. You get what you pay for. Not exactly rocket science
Bullsh*t.

There's many ways to get a leg up, but the biggest and easiest one is a economic boom of some kind, based on natural resources, geography, or whatever. Position yourself the best you can and grab the opportunity. That is NOT what happened in California. The Pacific Ocean, gold rush, film industry and Silicon Valley is what did it. In that order, it builds on itself.

Taxes come gradually.

Even Texas has oil that originally started their boom. That's where it all began. As they get bigger and fatter, they'll become more liberal and taxes will rise. That's when they "invest in people". You're already seeing it in Austin, it's becoming a tech giant.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 03-06-2019, 01:52 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,227 posts, read 2,293,011 times
Reputation: 5107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line View Post
this is exactly why I quit using logic with people who already have their minds made up, and use tunnel vision and emotion to fuel their own self-serving opinions.

Give me a population rate there buddy. I'll do it for you, from numbers YOU PROVIDED:

1970-1990: 49.1% growth
1990-2000: 13.8% growth
2000-2009: 13.1% growth
2009-2017: 3.2% growth

That's an incredible rate drop, probably coinciding with Schwarzeneggar's exit from office in 2011. See, I can do math too, and I can apply it in the correct ways.

Wow, I mean, just consider yourself owned. This is why you don't just throw out numbers, pretend to be smart, and say "Look, STATS, so I'm RIGHT!!!!111". Legit LOL.

Pay attention, public. ^^THIS is how people manipulate and indoctrinate the unsuspecting.
It is only natural that the nation's most populous state would see a decelerating rate of population growth over time. This isn't 1960 anymore. Also, you conveniently lumped the 70's and 80's together.

California's population growth between 2010 to 2018 was 6.2% and is very comparable to the nation's overall population growth over the same period: 5.96%

https://www.census.gov/library/visua...ease-2018.html

California's percentage gain in population since 1940:

1940 to 1950: 53.3%
1950 to 1960: 27.0%
1970 to 1980: 18.6%
1980 to 1990: 25.7%
1990 to 2000: 13.8%
2000 to 2010: 10.0%
2010 to 2018: 6.2%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California#Population

The slowdown in the 70's reflected the end of the first baby boom. The 1980's increase was due to the echo boom and higher levels of immigration (both legal and illegal).

Why the slowdown in growth between 1990 and 2000?

If we put an ideological straight jacket like you apparently have one we could say it was due to Pete Wilson. But that would be just plain foolish. The 1990's saw a deep recession in So Calif. in the first half of the decade and a waning of the echo boom.

Since 2000 the state has seen declining birth rates. Also illegal immigration crested in about the mid-2000's. Not at all the issue it used to be despite all the noise about it.

A big reason for the decline in illegal immigration from Mexico: a big drop in Mexico's birth rate in recent years.

Last edited by Astral_Weeks; 03-06-2019 at 02:12 AM..
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Mississippi
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top