Notice Your worst fears about to come true!

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I believe your data is wrong. Very wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q1-2018-2#18-wyoming-34

Oh and why don’t they account cost of living as part of this? Who cares if I can make 1400 dollars in Washington DC if I can’t afford to live there?
This is an interesting read though so I appreciate it.

 

[andalusian]

Oh and why don’t they account cost of living as part of this? Who cares if I can make 1400 dollars in Washington DC if I can’t afford to live there?
This is an interesting read though so I appreciate it.

So the problem is not that the economy is bad, it is that is expensive to live there. That is something completely different. But, people want to live in places where the economy is good and the jobs pay well. That means a resource crunch which means higher costs. That's not a real surprise, is it? That's basic market economics.

People do not want to live where the economy sucks and the jobs are not great, so it is cheap to live there. The opposite is false for places where the economy is good. As I said, your premise is wrong.

If this list shows us that the economy is actually good in the liberal economy states - maybe the solution to the resource crunch is to have more states with liberal economies that will lead to better economy, thus reducing the resource shortage and the cost of living everywhere.

My opinion is that human resources are the most important capital of companies in the modern economy. This means that you need to support these people - when you do that, they want to come and they will figure out a way to make the economy flourish. So, the question is - how do you do it - do you give it to the rich people and hope it trickles down or do you give it directly to the people via "liberal" policies? (In other words, do you need a middle man?) To me, trickle down economy the way the GOP preaches it is a fallacy that is supposed to fatten the middle-man (the rich). Simple as that.

The basic tenements of Capitalism are right. But free-for-all Capitalism in the GOP model seem more and more like a feudal society (the 1% and the rest). Their greatest success is the ability to sell the feudal society as a benefit for the every-man.

Just for the record, I do not advocate socialism - I think that like most things in life, there is a middle ground somewhere that works best. The liberal states doing so well and having all these great, successful companies (which are capitalistic companies) shows you that maybe the "liberal" economies are closer to the middle ground that works best.

 

[andalusian]

Do you honestly believe California has the 6th best economy in United States?
Is that why so many want to move?
Now I know that doesn’t discredit the entire list, and it’s an interesting mix.

California has a positive population growth. Just because many leave, does not mean that there are not many that come in. If California's economy was split from the US - it would be the 5th largest economy in the world. Bigger than France. So, it is big. Very big. And as the article shows you - the California economy is humming. Has been for a long time.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

So the problem is not that the economy is bad, it is that is expensive to live there. That is something completely different. But, people want to live in places where the economy is good and the jobs pay well. That means a resource crunch which means higher costs. That's not a real surprise, is it? That's basic market economics.

People do not want to live where the economy sucks and the jobs are not great, so it is cheap to live there. The opposite is false for places where the economy is good. As I said, your premise is wrong.

If this list shows us that the economy is actually good in the liberal economy states - maybe the solution to the resource crunch is to have more states with liberal economies that will lead to better economy, thus reducing the resource shortage and the cost of living everywhere.

My opinion is that human resources are the most important capital of companies in the modern economy. This means that you need to support these people - when you do that, they want to come and they will figure out a way to make the economy flourish. So, the question is - how do you do it - do you give it to the rich people and hope it trickles down or do you give it directly to the people via "liberal" policies? (In other words, do you need a middle man?) To me, trickle down economy the way the GOP preaches it is a fallacy that is supposed to fatten the middle-man (the rich). Simple as that.

The basic tenements of Capitalism are right. But free-for-all Capitalism in the GOP model seem more and more like a feudal society (the 1% and the rest). Their greatest success is the ability to sell the feudal society as a benefit for the every-man.

Just for the record, I do not advocate socialism - I think that like most things in life, there is a middle ground somewhere that works best. The liberal states doing so well and having all these great, successful companies (which are capitalistic companies) shows you that maybe the "liberal" economies are closer to the middle ground that works best.

I took away from this that really the underlying factor of success for a state had almost 0 to do with political and more to do with location. There were a couple exceptions, but it sure helps to have water (though Louisiana says hi), it helps to have oil, the climate helps a lot too.
Seems like in my opinion in American politics the really rich powerful people duke it in public and in private continue to give each other back rubs and make policies to make themselves more and more wealthy.
Like I said I usually avoid politics for good reason, all of it just gives me a head ache, anyways I really appreciate the response I am not in my realm right now.

 

[andalusian]

I took away from this that really the underlying factor of success for a state had almost 0 to do with political and more to do with location. There were a couple exceptions, but it sure helps to have water (though Louisiana says hi), it helps to have oil, the climate helps a lot too.
Seems like in my opinion in American politics the really rich powerful people duke it in public and in private continue to give each other back rubs and make policies to make themselves more and more wealthy.
Like I said I usually avoid politics for good reason, all of it just gives me a head ache, anyways I really appreciate the response I am not in my realm right now.

Resources are always important. Location is a big part of that - water for trade routes, availability of oil or other natural resources.

Politics helps with human resources. I will repeat my belief that human resources are the most important resources of the modern economy. Thus, making sure that people are healthy and able to contribute, attracting good people etc... are the most important facets that policies require - and liberal policies, imho, are aligned better with this idea.

BTW - one last thing - A lot of California's issues are self inflicting. The cost of living in the Bay area is directly related to the zoning rules they have which makes building affordable housing very hard to do. There is a lot of pie in the sky nonsense budgetary waste - so California is far from perfect - but overall, it works very well and has for a long time.

 

[tlongII]

So the problem is not that the economy is bad, it is that is expensive to live there. That is something completely different. But, people want to live in places where the economy is good and the jobs pay well. That means a resource crunch which means higher costs. That's not a real surprise, is it? That's basic market economics.

People do not want to live where the economy sucks and the jobs are not great, so it is cheap to live there. The opposite is false for places where the economy is good. As I said, your premise is wrong.

If this list shows us that the economy is actually good in the liberal economy states - maybe the solution to the resource crunch is to have more states with liberal economies that will lead to better economy, thus reducing the resource shortage and the cost of living everywhere.

My opinion is that human resources are the most important capital of companies in the modern economy. This means that you need to support these people - when you do that, they want to come and they will figure out a way to make the economy flourish. So, the question is - how do you do it - do you give it to the rich people and hope it trickles down or do you give it directly to the people via "liberal" policies? (In other words, do you need a middle man?) To me, trickle down economy the way the GOP preaches it is a fallacy that is supposed to fatten the middle-man (the rich). Simple as that.

The basic tenements of Capitalism are right. But free-for-all Capitalism in the GOP model seem more and more like a feudal society (the 1% and the rest). Their greatest success is the ability to sell the feudal society as a benefit for the every-man.

Just for the record, I do not advocate socialism - I think that like most things in life, there is a middle ground somewhere that works best. The liberal states doing so well and having all these great, successful companies (which are capitalistic companies) shows you that maybe the "liberal" economies are closer to the middle ground that works best.

Liberal states are doing well if you ignore unfunded pension liabilities. And you shouldn't. According to a study published last year Democratic-controlled states have unfunded debt that is 12 times greater than the burden on taxpayers in states under total Republican control.

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/study-unfunded-debt-15-times-higher-in-democratic-run-states/

Nobody seems to want to address this problem though.

 

[MarAzul]

California is far from perfect

>>>Very true.

but overall, it works very well and has for a long time.

>>> 60 years ago it was marvelous, but the slope has been trending down since then.
There are so many cities where the workers can not live. Their bedroom is being pushed farther out every year.
I won't list all the place, you can look them up. Let's just compare a couple that I recently visited.

Santa Barbara.

50 - 60 years ago, this was self contained community on the North side of the Southern California coast.
Now the workers in this city commute long distances to work there. Mostly from east of Oxnard.
The distance pushing out more and more. Oxnard has simply inadequate housing since it has be over run by immigrants.
Ojia to the North is a neat place, like old California, but dammed expensive. Johnny Cash's house ( it once was) burned down
in the fire last December. Valued at around three million, but hell, it was no bigger than mine, near the South Oregon coast.
When the 101 (So Cal Slang) closed last winter due fires then mud slides, SB/Montecito was shut down.
They even had to fly Doctors in to do their normal work in the local hospitals.

San Francisco.

50 - 60 years ago it was already beyond being self contained. People commuted to work there from Marin, Oakland, Berkeley and Redwood City even.
Now that is close in, no sweat! Many now commute from Lodi, or other place where the tumbleweeds use to blow. The first time I was in Lodi,
I got there on a Greyhound bus, well almost there. It broke down about a mile out of town. Had to wait in the lone cafe in Lodi until the next day for another bus.
When the Clearwater Revival struck up the, Oh Lord, stuck in Lodi again, it really resonated here!
Now the place is just another on the perimeter of the commuter circle. Tumble weeds have been replaced with commuter houses.


Not sustainable.
It begs the question in my mind, what is the maximum population that this nation can sustain with a desirable quality of life?
Oh, for those that have not noticed, the same thing is being done to Portland. Check out the stats where the State Pays the maximum amounts per student
to the local schools. You will find it is the counties surrounding Portland where the ratio of students count to property valuation (tax base) is the highest in the State.

 

[Hobbesarable]

We should create a Bandon Loves Californians website.

And include Beautiful Central Oregon!

 

[MarAzul]

And include Beautiful Central Oregon!

Would you mind clarifying your intent here?

 

[Hobbesarable]

Would you mind clarifying you intent here?

Is it not beautiful?

 

[MarAzul]

Is it not beautiful?

Now you contradict yourself?

 

[Hobbesarable]

Now you contradict yourself?

So, Californians are welcome to beautiful parts of Oregon. Great!

 

[Lanny]

So, Californians are welcome to beautiful parts of Oregon. Great!

It's already happening. They're buying up beach front property like hotcakes.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

It's already happening. They're buying up beach front property like hotcakes.

Told my mom to buy wherever they had good internet 20 years ago because she worked from home. She should have listened.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

And include Beautiful Central Oregon!

I just spent 24 quality hours in Bend this week. It’s a very nice town with many wonderful attributes (especially if you are a serious outdoorsman), but in general it is the Portland clusterfuck on a smaller scale. And talking to shop owners and other locals, every other resident is from Cali. Nice place to visit but even more enjoyable in the rear view mirror....

 

[Lanny]

I just spent 24 quality hours in Bend this week. It’s a very nice town with many wonderful attributes (especially if you are a serious outdoorsman), but in general it is the Portland clusterfuck on a smaller scale. And talking to shop owners and other locals, every other resident is from Cali. Nice place to visit but even more enjoyable in the rear view mirror....

I haven't been there in 10 years but it used to be very nice. My niece had a cabin in Sunriver. We had a lot of fun taking my great niece and great nephew there. Smith Rock kind of stood out for me.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I haven't been there in 10 years but it used to be very nice. My niece had a cabin in Sunriver. We had a lot of fun taking my great niece and great nephew there. Smith Rock kind of stood out for me.

Never been to Sunriver. All the rich (not poor anyway) I grew up with went there all the time.