Author Topic: Dividing California  (Read 2035 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hts121

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 18150
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2014, 12:46:56 PM »
Nothing is stopping Californians from governing themselves on a statewide basis through several fiefdoms.  The issue would be the effect a division of the state would have on the federal government

Offline Clevelander17

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4119
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2014, 03:00:30 PM »
Well, I remain optimistic that although ideas like this may seem like pipe dreams now, that things are changing and at some point in the next half century we'll start to develop more sensible geographic borders on this continent.  That's not to say that this plan makes complete sense, but California is ripe for some legitimate reconfiguration.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2018, 12:17:45 AM »
California just became the world's 5th largest economy, surpassing the United Kingdom. Its success has depended on bottom-up economics -- putting tax revenues into public investments, and regulations that protect the environment and public health, not trickle-down economics. https://t.co/gOzLN8P99W
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2018, 12:22:43 AM »
^Its success is due to location, not bottom up economics BS.  It is situated on the ocean and home to some of the largest shipping ports on the West Coast, it is an oil rich state that also is home to tons of other natural resources from gold and silver mines and more. It is a state that has multiple climates but overall is pretty temperate which makes it good for growing things as well as manufacturing. It is the benefit of location, despite its high taxes.  Attributing California's economy to bottom up economics is like saying Lebron James is a great basketball player because he ate his Wheaties.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2018, 12:40:53 AM »
How were the ports and the roads and the rail lines built and expanded? And the water systems and the transit systems and the educational systems? These were all significant public-private partnerships. California could have easily had fumbled this geographic opportunity away to Oregon or Seattle or even Mexico or Canada. California was guaranteed nothing.
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2018, 01:22:39 AM »
Rail lines were built by the railroad companies. The ports were privately developed in many cases too and many have private ownership even though they are overseen and regulated by the state.  Oregon could never have become California, neither could Seattle. They do not have the same resources that California offers throughout the state.

All states have public/private partnerships. It is a strawman to suggest that those on the right want to get rid of all public works. That is pure fallacy. However, the strength of the private sector can solve problems better and more nimbly that a bureaucratic government that offers no competition and zero choice any day of the week. California was guaranteed nothing but for the enterprising entrepreneurs who started companies like Levi's and Wells Fargo and the movie studios, etc who chose to make California their home.

Online StapHanger

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8718
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2018, 10:48:58 AM »
^Its success is due to location, not bottom up economics BS.  It is situated on the ocean and home to some of the largest shipping ports on the West Coast, it is an oil rich state that also is home to tons of other natural resources from gold and silver mines and more. It is a state that has multiple climates but overall is pretty temperate which makes it good for growing things as well as manufacturing. It is the benefit of location, despite its high taxes.  Attributing California's economy to bottom up economics is like saying Lebron James is a great basketball player because he ate his Wheaties.

This post just sort of pretends the last 70 years never happened.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2018, 11:03:46 AM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2018, 11:05:59 AM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6639
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2018, 11:11:45 AM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

By the same token, should we say that it's weird that Wall Street (a center of technology innovation of a rather different character) hasn't pulled up stakes and moved to Delaware?  Maybe.  But the fact remains that having a kind of captive plutocracy is part of what enables the taxes; the taxes, at least beyond a certain point that NY and CA have long since exceeded, aren't what make such network-effect-driven centers possible.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2018, 11:14:58 AM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

By the same token, should we say that it's weird that Wall Street (a center of technology innovation of a rather different character) hasn't pulled up stakes and moved to Delaware?  Maybe.  But the fact remains that having a kind of captive plutocracy is part of what enables the taxes; the taxes, at least beyond a certain point that NY and CA have long since exceeded, aren't what make such network-effect-driven centers possible.

 But the taxes also don;t seem to hinder it either.  All of this lower taxes and development will happen really seems ultra simplistic and likely wrong.

It's almost like there are a myriad of factors that businesses look for and, maybe I'm just spitballing here, taxes are not the top factor at all. 

Offline carnevalem

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 170
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2018, 11:15:54 AM »
^Its success is due to location, not bottom up economics BS.  It is situated on the ocean and home to some of the largest shipping ports on the West Coast, it is an oil rich state that also is home to tons of other natural resources from gold and silver mines and more. It is a state that has multiple climates but overall is pretty temperate which makes it good for growing things as well as manufacturing. It is the benefit of location, despite its high taxes.  Attributing California's economy to bottom up economics is like saying Lebron James is a great basketball player because he ate his Wheaties.

It's clear that a lot of California's success is due to its natural beauty and resources, however I think you're overstating their importance.

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-oe-g-california-gdp-20150601-htmlstory.html
In 2015, California's GDP was composed from:
Finance, insurance, real estate: 21%
Professional & business services: 13%
Government: 12%
Information: 8%
Education & health care: 7%
Manufacturing: 6%
Retail trade: 6%
Wholesale trade: 6%
Art, entertainment, recreation, accommodation: 4%
Construction: 3%
Agriculture & forestry: 2%
Transportation & warehousing: 2%
Mining: 1%
Utilities: 1%

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2018, 11:37:15 AM »
Rail lines were built by the railroad companies.

I can't speak in detail about the other economic contributors but I can speak about railroads. Yes, when the railroads were making significant investments using private/shareholder money to develop their networks, primarily before the New Deal era that fostered development of their competition, California was an unpopulous state with a small economy. It had a tiny rail network compared to what existed east of the Mississippi. In fact, it still does. But few states have invested as much into their rail system as California has in the past 25 years.

One of the biggest rail freight projects in that time is the Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile, grade-separated, triple-tracked rail corridor which links the hub of rail lines near downtown Los Angeles to the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. This $2 billion project was completed in 2002 and funded by a public-private partnership led by the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, a state-chartered agency. Its funding included federal and state grants as well as agency bonds. Unfortunately it is not a financial success but it is an economic success, so a second project called Alameda Corridor-East costing more than $400 million was undertaken and completed last year for the betterment of the public.

Then you have the multiple commuter rail lines and Amtrak routes that are shared with freight railroads throughout Southern California, involving billions of dollars of local and state-led funding for new infrastructure. While the regional commuter rail and Amtrak services were the instigation for this investment, it had to be designed in such a way to take into account the freight railroads' needs in meeting future growth requirements. So a lot of additional rail infrastructure was constructed at public expense to benefit both the passenger and freight rail sectors. It's one of the reasons why there exists sufficient capacity for the freight railroad corridors coming through the mountains and into the basin to serve the ports.

Without this investment the freight railroads and shippers would have had to go at it alone. Considering the regulatory environment in the USA and California to ensure safety, higher pay and quality of life, I suspected that the railroads and shipping companies would have opted for a cheaper port on the Baja of California. But the state of California and its local governmental entities made it worth their while to have the ports in their state. So not only do we have the safety and quality of life but we also have the economic benefits from this public-private investment. In a more libertarian state you might have the economic investment but it would have been achieved by stepping over the welfare of the American citizen.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 02:41:51 PM by KJP »
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline DarkandStormy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4702
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2018, 11:49:29 AM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

By the same token, should we say that it's weird that Wall Street (a center of technology innovation of a rather different character) hasn't pulled up stakes and moved to Delaware?  Maybe.  But the fact remains that having a kind of captive plutocracy is part of what enables the taxes; the taxes, at least beyond a certain point that NY and CA have long since exceeded, aren't what make such network-effect-driven centers possible.

 But the taxes also don;t seem to hinder it either.  All of this lower taxes and development will happen really seems ultra simplistic and likely wrong.

It's almost like there are a myriad of factors that businesses look for and, maybe I'm just spitballing here, taxes are not the top factor at all. 

Why aren't businesses rushing to relocate to Kansas?
Very Stable Genius

Online StapHanger

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 8718
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2018, 12:01:55 PM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

I'm guessing this is just flatly wrong.  Depending on your baseline year, southern CA has probably accounted for most of CA's growth.  In any case, this debate is careening off course. There is a huge middle ground here.  Describing CA's enormous productivity as a natural result of its geography and climate is absurd, and it's seems very probable that public investment in things like massive infrastructure and a top tier public university system were necessary ingredients, not to mention federal immigration polices, while at the same time, the state isn't particularly well run either.  But the lengths conservatives go to argue that CA is some kind of hellscpae, deeply troubled by state mismanagement, is nuts. The state's biggest problem by far is its local land use controls. The reason why this is a problem in CA and not in every poor southern state with low taxes, is because the demand to live in those states is so much lower.

Online BigDipper 80

  • Key Tower 947'
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #45 on: May 08, 2018, 12:03:24 PM »
Why aren't businesses rushing to relocate to Kansas?

Because Kansas has few other resources available to offer to take some of the "sting" out of the tax rate. Many of these resources are of course provided by the higher taxation (higher education jumps to mind), but some of it is also location-based. California will always be more attractive to employees than Kansas simply by virtue of where the population centers are located. I think that's also a big reason why Silicon Valley doesn't feel the need to disseminate to a cheaper locale; for one they generally don't have the need for massive sprawling warehouses and factories where land is cheaper and the facilities are better connected to the rest of the country. Software design doesn't need regular shipments of iron ore sent down from Lake Superior nor does it need good highway access to the Great Plains so you might as well put up shop where your workforce wants to live instead of in Wisconsin or wherever. 
“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2018, 12:23:38 PM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

The bigger question is what helped to spur Silicon Valley. You go back to WWII and HP and Bell Labs were 2 key players out in Northern California and both happened to be located near each other. There was a lot of innovative talent that matriculated there to work for those companies. In the 70s as the computer grew, smaller companies started to spin off there and develop and hence we saw Apple, Atari and others develop in that space. It was this critical mass that allowed the area to develop.

Look locally at Cincinnati for example. You have P&G and Kroger and because of that you have some of the world's top branding agencies all with significant offices or even based here. That is another example of this.

Minnesota has a large Bio Tech and med Device concentration. Boston has a large Bio Tech center too.

There are certainly public/private partnerships that help this however, the spark seems to be lit by the initial organic concentration of capital and human capital in a certain market that ignites and makes it grow. Government is essentially playing catch up

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 3259
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2018, 12:25:33 PM »
Why aren't businesses rushing to relocate to Kansas?

Because Kansas has few other resources available to offer to take some of the "sting" out of the tax rate. Many of these resources are of course provided by the higher taxation (higher education jumps to mind), but some of it is also location-based. California will always be more attractive to employees than Kansas simply by virtue of where the population centers are located. I think that's also a big reason why Silicon Valley doesn't feel the need to disseminate to a cheaper locale; for one they generally don't have the need for massive sprawling warehouses and factories where land is cheaper and the facilities are better connected to the rest of the country. Software design doesn't need regular shipments of iron ore sent down from Lake Superior nor does it need good highway access to the Great Plains so you might as well put up shop where your workforce wants to live instead of in Wisconsin or wherever. 

Kansas is a great example of a state that has a large concentration of aircraft jobs as that is what they do very well. THey may not have had a company the size of Boeing develop there but they are a huge center for aircraft manufacturing.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15420
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2018, 12:49:06 PM »
If you add up the Northwest Territory States excluding Wisconsin, you get a land area that is almost identical to California.  The population is also almost exactly the same.  The population is a bit higher if you include metros just across state lines -- Louisville, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. 

I did the math on this awhile back, when I was struck by a bolt of curiosity.  Occasionally I have thought about starting a "flyover country" website that trolls the coasts.   

Offline Dougal

  • Great American Tower 665'
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2018, 12:57:16 PM »

The bigger question is what helped to spur Silicon Valley. You go back to WWII and HP and Bell Labs were 2 key players out in Northern California and both happened to be located near each other. There was a lot of innovative talent that matriculated there to work for those companies. In the 70s as the computer grew, smaller companies started to spin off there and develop and hence we saw Apple, Atari and others develop in that space. It was this critical mass that allowed the area to develop.

Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) was a major factor. An industry joke is that Xerox PARC invented everything - they just didn't know what to do with it.
There's nothing wrong with optimism, as long as you don't get your hopes up.

Online BigDipper 80

  • Key Tower 947'
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2018, 01:09:04 PM »
Why aren't businesses rushing to relocate to Kansas?

Because Kansas has few other resources available to offer to take some of the "sting" out of the tax rate. Many of these resources are of course provided by the higher taxation (higher education jumps to mind), but some of it is also location-based. California will always be more attractive to employees than Kansas simply by virtue of where the population centers are located. I think that's also a big reason why Silicon Valley doesn't feel the need to disseminate to a cheaper locale; for one they generally don't have the need for massive sprawling warehouses and factories where land is cheaper and the facilities are better connected to the rest of the country. Software design doesn't need regular shipments of iron ore sent down from Lake Superior nor does it need good highway access to the Great Plains so you might as well put up shop where your workforce wants to live instead of in Wisconsin or wherever. 

Kansas is a great example of a state that has a large concentration of aircraft jobs as that is what they do very well. THey may not have had a company the size of Boeing develop there but they are a huge center for aircraft manufacturing.

This, along with your previous comment about the concentration of tech jobs in NorCal, is what I find to be the more interesting philosophical question. That is, if Jobs and Wozniak were to have been born in Iowa City, would Apple have made as big of a splash? Would they have had the resources available to them to even make the company successful? If they did become successful, would they have stayed in Iowa, or would they have adopted more of an IBM model? It'd be interesting to see some research about how much luck vs. location vs. business aptitude plays in a company's success, and how that ultimately spins off to help create a place's economy.

Wichita is also a good example on how the military-industrial complex reshaped economies during and after WWII. Wichita's got Cessna and Beechcraft, but Boeing built their plant there because of McConnell. Same thing goes with the high concentration of engineering and manufacturing in California, which came about from the proximity to the Pacific theater, but also the relative isolation and cheap land available at the time.
“To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”

Online mu2010

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2018, 01:09:28 PM »
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs basically both ripped off PARC's idea for a modern, "windowed" user interface!

Offline carnevalem

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 170
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2018, 01:17:28 PM »
This, along with your previous comment about the concentration of tech jobs in NorCal, is what I find to be the more interesting philosophical question. That is, if Jobs and Wozniak were to have been born in Iowa City, would Apple have made as big of a splash? Would they have had the resources available to them to even make the company successful? If they did become successful, would they have stayed in Iowa, or would they have adopted more of an IBM model? It'd be interesting to see some research about how much luck vs. location vs. business aptitude plays in a company's success, and how that ultimately spins off to help create a place's economy.

The first digital computer was developed in Ames, Iowa at Iowa State University:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_State_University#Birthplace_of_first_electronic_digital_computer
Quote
Iowa State is the birthplace of the first electronic digital computer, starting the world’s computer technology revolution. Invented by mathematics and physics professor John Atanasoff and engineering graduate student Clifford Berry during 1937-42, the Atanasoff-Berry Computer, or ABC, pioneered important elements of modern computing, including binary arithmetic, regenerative memory, parallel processing, electronic switching elements, and separation of memory and computer functions.

On October 19, 1973, U.S. Federal Judge Earl R. Larson signed his decision following a lengthy court trial which declared the ENIAC patent of Mauchly and Eckert invalid and named Atanasoff the inventor of the electronic digital computer—the Atanasoff-Berry Computer or the ABC.

An ABC Team consisting of Ames Laboratory and Iowa State engineers, technicians, researchers and students unveiled a working replica of the Atanasoff-Berry Computer in 1997 which can be seen on display on campus in the Durham Computation Center.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7717
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2018, 02:00:48 PM »
Quote from: BigDipper 80 link=topic=29425.msg911964#msg911964

This, along with your previous comment about the concentration of tech jobs in NorCal, is what I find to be the more interesting philosophical question. That is, if Jobs and Wozniak were to have been born in Iowa City, would Apple have made as big of a splash? Would they have had the resources available to them to even make the company successful? If they did become successful, would they have stayed in Iowa, or would they have adopted more of an IBM model? It'd be interesting to see some research about how much luck vs. location vs. business aptitude plays in a company's success, and how that ultimately spins off to help create a place's economy.

This interesting topic has been explored in Outliers, a thought provoking book by Malcolm Gladwell. I don't agree with everything he writes, but in this subject he makes a dramatic case that geography and timing are imperative.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-11-19/gladwells-outliers-timing-is-almost-everything

Offline jonoh81

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1477
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2018, 03:12:50 PM »
California's economy has largely grown because of Silicon Valley.  Many of the people who made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley were educated elsewhere (often even overseas) and moved to San Francisco not because they enjoyed all the public works of high taxes and spending, but because they could deal with that if that was the cost of being in the Bay Area.  California is becoming a playground for the super-rich amid a sea of poverty and public mismanagement; the taxes from the super-rich enclaves enable the irresponsible fiscal policies of the state government, whereas the middle class continues to leave for places they can actually afford to live.

It's so weird though that the center of technology innovation isn't happening in a low tax conservative mecca though. 

By the same token, should we say that it's weird that Wall Street (a center of technology innovation of a rather different character) hasn't pulled up stakes and moved to Delaware?  Maybe.  But the fact remains that having a kind of captive plutocracy is part of what enables the taxes; the taxes, at least beyond a certain point that NY and CA have long since exceeded, aren't what make such network-effect-driven centers possible.

 But the taxes also don;t seem to hinder it either.  All of this lower taxes and development will happen really seems ultra simplistic and likely wrong.

It's almost like there are a myriad of factors that businesses look for and, maybe I'm just spitballing here, taxes are not the top factor at all.

Conservatives love to bash California on the tax issue, but try getting them to acknowledge the massive failure of their preferred tax policy in Kansas.

Offline jmecklenborg

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 15420
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2018, 03:25:36 PM »
I photographed this guy back in 2005 on this book tour, but I still haven't read the book:

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #56 on: June 13, 2018, 11:42:56 AM »
Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.

Offline freefourur

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4819
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #57 on: June 13, 2018, 11:44:22 AM »
Radical plan to split California into three states earns spot on November ballot
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-split-three-states-20180612-story.html

Why are they wasting time with this vote?  Unless the state legislature and congress approve, no state can be divided into new states.

Offline KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 51147
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Dividing California
« Reply #58 on: June 15, 2018, 06:47:54 PM »
This afternoon California announced that it has a $9 BILLION surplus this year and will use a portion of the extra money to help the homeless. Or maybe they'll just split the cash evenly among the three new states? ;)

Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has a $1 TRILLION deficit and passed a budget to help billionaires. And since the California economy is larger than the Russian economy, Humpty Dumpty should spend more time licking Jerry Brown's boots than Putin's.
"Treat this (November 2018) election as if it's the last election in which you can fully exercise your democratic rights. Because it just might be." -- Margy Waller.