California

[dickfoster]

The way I've heard that term used is by locals up in the Northwest - Oregon, Washington - who are appalled by people who were unhappy in California moving there and instead of blending in, bringing with them the same unhappiness and messes they had created for themselves when they lived in California.

I say let those unhappy people move on and take their attitude with them, we don't need them.

Yeah I've seen the same loony lefties move to other places and attempt to recreate exactly the same conditions that made them leave in the first place. One has to wonder about that sort of nitwit. The locals in such infected areas should declare an open season on them with no bag limit. No wonder that Moonbeam is on his what his fourth term now? Masochistic gluttons for punishment? His dad wasn't very good for the state either. I think this state needs another rein like Reagan's but I don't think the state is smart enough to elect one now.
There is little wonder this state gets no respect when we have idiots like Boxer and Pelosi representing us. At least Boxer is history now but I'm sure they'll find as big of a fool to replace her.

 

[MossRoad]

Indiana Moonshine?

Moonshine? Nah! That's corn-based paint thinner. We have a huge market for corn-based paint thinner here. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

We're only about 5 miles from Michigan and 20 or so miles from the SW corner of Lake Michigan. The land is sand and water. There are MANY MANY MANY great vinyards, wineries and orchards in this area. :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

All right folks, lets let the politics go from the discussion or it'll have to be moved to the oh so friendly politics section.

 

[downsizingnow48]

Too bad folks can't have an evidence-based discussion without throwing in the usual and tiresome rants. Did anyone other than California read the Forbes article on job creation?

 

[MossRoad]

Too bad folks can't have an evidence-based discussion without throwing in the usual and tiresome rants. Did anyone other than California read the Forbes article on job creation?

Yeah, I read it. I wonder how the per-capita income is doing over the last 20 years in CA? Is it lots of good jobs, lots of crummy jobs, or a mix of good and crummy jobs? Is there a larger disparity between the haves and have-nots? I ask, because of several comments in this thread regarding people moving in and raising prices. That's generally referred to as gentrification. So, while the money is pouring onto California's table, who's glass is it actually being poured into? Is everybody reaping the bounty? Averages can be thrown way off if you have a small, yet wealthy segment of society.

A good analogy is a fish pond. I learned this when I was studying pond life as a Boy Scout, so pardon its simplicity....

A given body of water can support X pounds of fish due to the limits of the nutrients in the water.
In our pond, the watershed supplies enough nutrients to support 1000 pounds of fish.
So we can have:
10,000 one tenth of a pound fish.
1000 one pound fish.
100 one hundred pound fish.
or
1 one thousand pound fish.

Or any mix in between but it can never exceed 1000 pounds of fish because there's not enough nutrients (dollars in an economy) to support more.

So, there's about 40 million people in CA.
You can't use percentage to express per capita income because it's an average of the whole. Anyone have the actual numbers as to how many people make, say:
$0-20K
$20K-40K
$40K-60K
$60k-80K
$80K-100K
$100K +

???

It would be interesting.

 

[MossRoad]

Well, here's some numbers from 2013 from this website....
http://www.opendatanetwork.com/region/0400000US06/California/earnings/percent_earning_less_than_$10000/2013?

Percent Earning less than $10,000 (2013): 1.9%
Percent Earning $10,000 to $14,999 (2013): 4.0%
Percent Earning $15,000 to $24,999 (2013): 14.2%
Percent Earning $25,000 to $34,999 (2013): 14.4%
Percent Earning $35,000 to $49,999 (2013): 17.6%
Percent Earning $50,000 to $64,999 (2013): 14.0%
Percent Earning $65,000 to $74,999 (2013): 6.1%
Percent Earning $75,000 to $99,999 (2013): 11.3%
Percent Earning over $100,000 (2013): 16.4%

 

[prichard]

That's a decent mix but in a lot of areas out there less than 100k is poverty.

That's the real problem discussing California. It is such a large diverse state how can any numbers represent the whole picture?

Edit: I should add that the same could be said of many states. I live an hour from Atlanta in the wealthiest part of Georgia. South Georgia is a while different economy.

 

[MossRoad]

In 2013 the per capita income in CA was $28,600.
California State Household Income | Department of Numbers

But the above numbers show only about 26% of the people earning less than $28,000 per year.

So how does that work?
I need an economics lesson.

 

[ultrarunner]

Last I checked a family of 4 would need about 65k income to equal assistance programs.

My county median income is $93,600

Based on that the cut off for Section 8 housing assistance eligibility is $75,150

Qualifying for Housing

The thing to remember is each county is different as to median income.

 

[California]

In 2013 the per capita income in CA was $28,600.
California State Household Income | Department of Numbers

But the above numbers show only about 26% of the people earning less than $28,000 per year.

So how does that work?

Dunno but that never prevented me from expressing an opinion.

To make a guess, per capita is total income reported on State income tax returns divided by population. While earnings per person is average annual wage paid to employed people.

Or something like that.

It's probably explained in the footnotes to those charts.

Gross income in the state is distorted by the huge incomes made by the mega-rich. (from post#1 in this thread "four of the world's 10 largest companies are headquartered in California, including tech heavyweights Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) and Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ: FB). "

This concentration of new tech wealth got us in trouble 15 years ago. The legislature allocated all the new dot-com tax revenue to permanent programs then the dot-com bubble burst and the new dedicated expenditures couldn't be downsized fast enough to avoid budget shortfalls.

Governor Jerry Brown may seem like a nut, he's rightfully earned that reputation, but he really does understand state budgeting. After he took office, Brown got everything back to running smoothly and the state budget has finally left that crisis era behind.


The overall picture is that the state's economy is growing faster than the nation as a whole, in fact you could say that California is pulling up the numbers for the national economy because this performance is such a large component of the national economy.

Added - The fishpond model above isn't applicable to economics. As people mine, farm, manufacture, sell stuff to one another, write computer programs or whole new computer cultures (Facebook etc) new wealth is created and the economy grows. In terms of that fishpond, the dimensions of the pond are increasing.

 

[dragoneggs]

Dunno but that never prevented me from expressing an opinion. To make a guess, per capita is total income reported on State income tax returns divided by population. While earnings per person is average annual wage paid to employed people. Or something like that. It's probably explained in the footnotes to those charts. Gross income in the state is distorted by the huge incomes made by the mega-rich. (from post#1 in this thread "four of the world's 10 largest companies are headquartered in California, including tech heavyweights Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) and Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ: FB). " This concentration of new tech wealth got us in trouble 15 years ago. The legislature allocated all the new dot-com tax revenue to permanent programs then the dot-com bubble burst and the new dedicated expenditures couldn't be downsized fast enough to avoid budget shortfalls. Governor Jerry Brown may seem like a nut, he's rightfully earned that reputation, but he really does understand state budgeting. After he took office, Brown got everything back to running smoothly and the state budget has finally left that crisis era behind. The overall picture is that the state's economy is growing faster than the nation as a whole, in fact you could say that California is pulling up the numbers for the national economy because this performance is such a large component of the national economy. Added - The fishpond model above isn't applicable to economics. As people mine, farm, manufacture, sell stuff to one another, write computer programs or whole new computer cultures (Facebook etc) new wealth is created and the economy grows. In terms of that fishpond, the dimensions of the pond are increasing.

No disrespect to Gov Brown but I still think there will be a day of reckoning with regard to water supply. The state on its own cannot survive its current growth and consumption.

 

[MossRoad]

Added - The fishpond model above isn't applicable to economics. As people mine, farm, manufacture, sell stuff to one another, write computer programs or whole new computer cultures (Facebook etc) new wealth is created and the economy grows. In terms of that fishpond, the dimensions of the pond are increasing.

I don't think so.

The dimensions are staying the same. The nutrients in the watershed are being increased. Call it fertilizer! :laughing:

In all seriousness, if you increase the nutrients in the watershed that drains into the pond, you can increase the amount of fish, as long as the fish can consume the nutrients, the fish added crap doesn't pollute the water, the weeds are balanced, etc...

 

[MossRoad]

.....
This concentration of new tech wealth got us in trouble 15 years ago. The legislature allocated all the new dot-com tax revenue to permanent programs then the dot-com bubble burst and the new dedicated expenditures couldn't be downsized fast enough to avoid budget shortfalls.
.....

We run into similar problems with cigarette and gas taxes.... fewer people smoke and cars get better gas mileage now, so it generates less tax revenue than they thought it was going to.

 

[California]

No disrespect to Gov Brown but I still think there will be a day of reckoning with regard to water supply. The state on its own cannot survive its current growth and consumption.

Very true. While I admire Brown's skill in straightening out the budget mess he inherited, I don't like the water plan he is pushing - a big tunnel to divert water from the San Francisco delta and send it south. Purportedly for urban Los Angeles, actually much of it destined for the huge commercial farming corporations halfway to Los Angeles who are spending millions lobbing for this project. Those guys will make far more than recovering their cost of lobbying if this project goes through.

 

[ultrarunner]

The pay by the mile driven or annual fee pilot program has started...

Not sure how it'll affect me if it becomes the norm as I own many cars... most antique.

The gas tax was so simple but money gets syphoned off for mass transit and other things like bike lanes the State says there is not enough to maintain the highways...

 

[joefromga]

Seems like pay by mile as a REPLACEMENT for 9/10 tax would be good for low mileage vehicles because they use the roads less.

I don't like forms to fill out though. And I'm sure there's a newer one in the works to report your mileage on.

 

[Gunny]

I think the pay by mile system would penalize rural folks and benefit city folks that had access to public transportation, since public entities are tax exempt for most things. I have a friend that has a gravel lane (owned and maintained by him) just to get out to the nearest public road, which is a county owned two lane gravel road. Its another two miles on that road before he even sees blacktop, so everyday, he'd be paying taxes for at least four miles of driving on gravel.

 

[Gunny]

I think the pay by mile system would penalize rural folks and benefit city folks that had access to public transportation, since public entities are tax exempt for most things. I have a friend that has a gravel lane (owned and maintained by him) just to get out to the nearest public road, which is a county owned two lane gravel road. Its another two miles on that road before he even sees blacktop, so everyday, he'd be paying taxes for at least four miles of driving on gravel.

What really needs to happen is a way to keep the states from dipping into the road tax money to use for other things they want to spend money on

 

[Gunny]

I think the pay by mile system would penalize rural folks and benefit city folks that had access to public transportation, since public entities are tax exempt for most things. I have a friend that has a gravel lane (owned and maintained by him) just to get out to the nearest public road, which is a county owned two lane gravel road. Its another two miles on that road before he even sees blacktop, so everyday, he'd be paying taxes for at least four miles of driving on gravel.

What really needs to happen is a way to keep the states from dipping into the road tax money to use for other things they want to spend money on.

Louisville, Ky used those funds to pay for WiFi on the city buses, using the claim that ridership would increase because people would then ride the buses more rather than driving their vehicles, again, not an option for us that live out in the country

 

[buickanddeere]

Social engineers live in downtown condos, take public transportation or charge a cab to thier Governemt department or their tax free protest groups.
Social engineers don't care about suburban and rural dwellers and in fact see the non urbanites as the wild uncontrolled problem causing pollution .