Three questions for Texans (Houston, Dallas: 2014, insurance, credit)

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I can't speak to Seattle, but SF has often-terrible governance but gets away with it (well, used to) on its looks, "cool factor" / trendiness, and proximity to two world-class universities. Its BoS would have been utterly disastrous in a community without these advantages.

I don't think single-party governance per se is the cause of bad governance, or Democratic governance per se. Pretty much every large central city in the nation save maybe Fort Worth and San Diego (maybe Phoenix?) is electorally dominated by Democrats. Some are run OK I guess, others not so much. That said, single-party Democratic governance is certainly more than capable of being terrible, especially as regards to insane policies that enable too much citizen power over development and businesses and indulging public sector unions, which shouldn't be allowed to have bargaining power period. Texas cities fall for these things on occasion (including the suburbs - actually sometimes especially the suburbs regarding diminished land use freedom) but are generally not nearly as afflicted.

Just curious on your opinion as this is something I have been trying to understand for some time now.

What do you believe is the real agenda in California and why are they pushing it so desperately? What are they getting out of it?

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Your depiction about what happened to Detroit is way off as others have noted.

I seriously doubt you and "others" have spent any significant amount of time in Detroit to know "what happened."

As is the usual C-D mantra, people are talking out of their rear ends.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by citidata18

I seriously doubt you and "others" have spent any significant amount of time in Detroit to know "what happened."

As is the usual C-D mantra, people are talking out of their rear ends.

I. I'm an economist. It doesn't take much time to read-up on relevant data points if one know where to look and what to read.

I.I. Within economics Detroit's longer term failures are something of an ongoing case study.

II. The other guy made a very narrow and very specific claim that is flatly untrue falling apart under any level of scrutiny. I don't need to spend a bunch of time on it to know - literally know - that Detroit's near collapse wasn't caused by hourly auto-worker jobs being sent overseas.



Pop quiz........how many passenger auto plants in Detroit proper has GM closed post WWII?



Here's a partial ingredient list of Detroits problems, recall in the '50s Detroit was a very successful city.

1. Exceptionally bad racial problems, including wholesale riots.
2. Mob encroachment into legitimate business....protection rackets being a big problem. Ultimately driving out many smaller businesses. Mob encroachment into the Teamsters and UAW is well known historical fact.
3. Beginning in the 1950s and worsening into the '60s - the police force morphed from simply being violent, racist, bureaucratic and inept to being all of that and overly corrupt with many cops directly on the take from mobsters.
4. Then white flight, but not just white flight, many families of all colors simply left the violence/crime, declining schools, horrendous city management. Bad schools got worse and even more people left.
5. City population dwindled. Those left were on balance very poor. Many homes were abandoned. Property values plummeted.
6. All of that was worsened under mayors and city government that became more and more slow and bureaucratic.
7. Many jobs Detroit lost/let slip away didn't go overseas..........GM finance is in Arlington and Fort Worth not Japan or Mexico. GM's chose Arlington assembly over Ypsilanti - not Northern Mexico over Ypsilanti.

Detroit's mayors and virtually every other elected post since the early '60s have all been from one party and the list of mayors especially is dominated by crooks, convicts and wholesale ineptitude.


In summation the other guy's claim can't be right because Detroit had already failed before significant offshoring of hourly auto jobs and too boot Detroit proper didn't lose as many hourly auto worker jobs as he seems to beleive.

[BobTex]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

So you want Texas to be only white people?

Shoulda known it could devolve into "You are a RACIST" with some people. The butthurt is too huge.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Just curious on your opinion as this is something I have been trying to understand for some time now.

What do you believe is the real agenda in California and why are they pushing it so desperately? What are they getting out of it?

I don't know. A great deal of it comes from wealthy people who feel entitled to use government to enact laws, regulations, and processes that protect their personal lifestyle. Also, back in the 1960s and 1970s, CA was the epicenter of "citizen participation" movements, which went way overboard in empowering affluent people to block anything that, again, interfered with their personal lifestyle (and has unfortunately showed up in places like Austin and Plano). Then there's the utopian activists that have flocked to CA since at least the 1960s if not before and found fertile ground for ginning up policies and taxation that frame certain groups as deserving of forced reduction in rights and resources for reasons of social and environmental justice regardless of whether it is truly justified. Businesses of various kinds tend to bear the brunt of the consequences.

I'm not sure it's any one agenda, it's a confluence of unfortunate factors that resulted in pernicious policies. It is safe to say, however, that without the economic success and high salaries generated by the tech, bioscience and entertainment industries (and supported by strong higher education institutions and a fortunate geographic location on the Pacific Rim), these folks wouldn't have gotten away with anywhere near what they have, and are now feared to be exporting to OR, WA, ID, CO, AZ, TX, etc.

[BobTex]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

Makes one wonder if we could have the best aspects of blue and red US states in one package, no?

What are these "best aspects" you opine of?

[Treasurevalley92]

Not a native Texan, but I've lived here over a decade

Originally Posted by Futurist110

1. How do you feel about the rapid population growth that Texas has been experiencing over the last several decades and that Texas will continue to experience for a very long time to come?

I've only ever lived in states with rapid growth. There are certainly pros and cons, but I would prefer that to no growth at all or decline. Slower growth would be less of a shock to poor people so that would be ideal, but It is the 2nd best option.

Originally Posted by Futurist110

2. How do you feel about the demographic change that's currently going on in Texas (specifically having Texas become more diverse and with larger non-white and immigrant populations)?

I think it's awesome. The more the better.

Originally Posted by Futurist110

3. How do you feel about Texas gradually becoming more and more of a purple/swing state as opposed to an exclusively red/Republican state--in part as a result of the demographic change that I mentioned in my question #2 here?

I'm ok with it. I lean conservative, but Being a single-party state leads to a lot of nonsense, especially in a state like Texas with powerful special interests.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I don't know. A great deal of it comes from wealthy people who feel entitled to use government to enact laws, regulations, and processes that protect their personal lifestyle. Also, back in the 1960s and 1970s, CA was the epicenter of "citizen participation" movements, which went way overboard in empowering affluent people to block anything that, again, interfered with their personal lifestyle (and has unfortunately showed up in places like Austin and Plano). Then there's the utopian activists that have flocked to CA since at least the 1960s if not before and found fertile ground for ginning up policies and taxation that frame certain groups as deserving of forced reduction in rights and resources for reasons of social and environmental justice regardless of whether it is truly justified. Businesses of various kinds tend to bear the brunt of the consequences.

I'm not sure it's any one agenda, it's a confluence of unfortunate factors that resulted in pernicious policies. It is safe to say, however, that without the economic success and high salaries generated by the tech, bioscience and entertainment industries (and supported by strong higher education institutions and a fortunate geographic location on the Pacific Rim), these folks wouldn't have gotten away with anywhere near what they have, and are now feared to be exporting to OR, WA, ID, CO, AZ, TX, etc.

Thanks for the input.

So next big question is, with all these tech companies moving here, do you think it can happen here? Especially to Austin?

Also what are they getting out of other policies such as police defundings and also homeless camp establishments out west? Do you feel they are really attempting to solve the issues there or is there another motive?

I’m asking this with an open mind btw. I personally have a difficult time trusting politicians on either party. I’m trying to see if these policies really are for the better of the public or if there is some way they are benefiting from this.

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by EDS_

Pop quiz........

Could you be any more patronizing?

[Treasurevalley92]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

While oil and gas is important to Texas, sure, there's lots of other elements to the economy here. The state's two most successful metros, DFW and Austin, have little dependence on oil and gas. So yes, Texas has thrived outside of oil and gas and in the context of free trade. And, for whatever tax benefits oil and gas get, they were never bailed out by the feds. (And to be clear, having a unionized workforce like the Detroit automakers is NOT a valid reason for a federal bailout or getting other kinds of unwarranted assistance, so don't even go there.)

Except that without Oil and Gas Neither Austin or Dallas would be as large and successful as they are. Without it, Dallas would be Omaha at best and Austin would be like any other small state capitol. Austin indirectly benefits from oil immensely. Oil and Gas money is the reason UT is a top public school...which is why there is Tech there. It is also why Austin is the Capitol for a very wealthy state vs a poor one.

Yes I am fully aware that Dallas was big in cotton before oil and would be a major rail and air hub, but the oil wealth is what made Texas ( and the cities within it) nationally important.