• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California's economy and "liberalism"

Not that good for the state with the highest population of illegals.

The state with the highest population of illegals also has the best economy? So what would you like for it to do, be more like Alabama, Mississippi, or West Virginia?
 
It was gross state product per capita, which is essentially the same thing as gross domestic product per capita.

I know, and the fact that relatively few people live in DC but a lot of money moves through there shows the distortion. I was reacting to the attempt to reduce what is a very complex calculation (the economic health of a state) to a graph that focuses on one factor. GSP adds a 2nd factor which only makes it worse in some cases - DC being obvious.
 
Do you think it fair to compare an American state to a European nation economically? That's apples to apples to you?



You do? Where? I googled the exact term and couldn't find anything newer than 2012.



A forum post is your anecdote? Okay... which one. Did your reply to it really warrant its own thread?



I don't think it is, I'd have to see the post you're referring to really.

I have heard of people talk about capital flight to more business friendly states, or debt concerns, but never "going down the tubes" as if someone were under the impression the economy was in recession or default.



Why not? The comparison with Canada is fair, same size population, both on the Pacific Rim.
 
They are.

WSJ_California.jpg


Check out the white population of the state. They are not just falling as a percentage of the population, but by raw numbers as well. When you look at Los Angeles alone, the trend is significantly worse.

That graphic doesn't state what you think it states. It shows changes in demographics, not migration patterns.

In reality, California has a positive migration rate. IMO, the infographic has more to do with ethnic convergence, i.e. the white demographic having part latino, asian, and black children.
 
They are.

WSJ_California.jpg


Check out the white population of the state. They are not just falling as a percentage of the population, but by raw numbers as well. When you look at Los Angeles alone, the trend is significantly worse.

So, those little red areas are losing population, and the rest of the state is gaining, but most of the gain is in brown people. We all know that brown people don't count, after all.
 
When GDP can easily be inflated by government spending, it's not exactly a great method of looking at personal wealth. For instance, a lot the supposed wealth of California is offset by this:

affordable-states.jpg


This explains why so many people have been leaving the state.

If it is all about affordability then Somalia would be a real estate hot spot. :lamo
 
California has a greater GDP than either France, Italy, India, Brazil, Canada, or any other state of the union.


and yet I keep reading about how California is going down the tubes economically due to "liberal" politics. It was even called a "Communist state" in another thread.

Why do you think that is? Sounds to me like a case of cognitive dissonance.


It is amazing how California struggles despite the best climate, best farmland, best coast line, and proximity to new world (asia). Any other state would kill for those natural advantages.
 

California then becomes middle of the pack. It no longer looks like one of the 10 best states.

We go way back and i have a good memory. So when i do see you in a thread spewing nonsense, it reminds me that you're still the same boy who refuses to grow up. You are smarter than this.

What nonsense? California is a developed economy, but for many people it's not a good economy. Americans aren't moving to the state, it's basically all based on immigration, and property values are inflated by Asian money.
 
This has more to do with lower birth rates than white flight.

You don't lose a few million population out of 15 million in just a few decades simply by lower birth rates. They're leaving the state.
 
The state with the highest population of illegals also has the best economy? So what would you like for it to do, be more like Alabama, Mississippi, or West Virginia?

As if the economy would be like Alabama if not for illegals? Get real.
 
That graphic doesn't state what you think it states. It shows changes in demographics, not migration patterns.

In reality, California has a positive migration rate. IMO, the infographic has more to do with ethnic convergence, i.e. the white demographic having part latino, asian, and black children.

You think a few million whites have simply died over that time span? No, they're leaving the state.
 
If it is all about affordability then Somalia would be a real estate hot spot. :lamo

That's not the point that I'm making. I'm just saying that GDP per capita doesn't tell you everything. Affordability is also a big issue, and California is dead last in that regard.
 
That's not the point that I'm making. I'm just saying that GDP per capita doesn't tell you everything. Affordability is also a big issue, and California is dead last in that regard.

Supply and demand, my friend. The demand for California real estate is high, therefore, costs are high. Few people want to move to Mississippi, therefore costs are low.
 
Supply and demand, my friend. The demand for California real estate is high, therefore, costs are high. Few people want to move to Mississippi, therefore costs are low.

I understand that, but my point is that incomes not high also to meet the home prices. Los Angeles, for instance, is one of the least affordable places. It is not the most expensive place, but because incomes aren't also high, it has become the most unaffordable market in the country.

UCLA study identifies L.A. as most unaffordable rental market in the nation | UCLA

And this is why, especially for Los Angeles, natives have moved away. And who is moving in? Rich Asians with money from questionable sources, and the 3rd world who collect the welfare benefits.
 
I understand that, but my point is that incomes not high also to meet the home prices. Los Angeles, for instance, is one of the least affordable places. It is not the most expensive place, but because incomes aren't also high, it has become the most unaffordable market in the country.

UCLA study identifies L.A. as most unaffordable rental market in the nation | UCLA

And this is why, especially for Los Angeles, natives have moved away. And who is moving in? Rich Asians with money from questionable sources, and the 3rd world who collect the welfare benefits.

Well, first off, let me just point out that California has the third highest median income level in the nation (in fact, 7/10 top ten are blue states, 2 are purple, only 1 is a solid red state, Alaska). So, jobs-wise, they do very well. But the issue of housing affordability is not the result of any particular state policy, but an issue for our entire economic system. Our propertarian system allows for speculators to skim added community wealth from the top and only encourages more speculation. This is all at the expense of renters and those who pay mortgages. The problem is just exacerbated in California because it is such a desirable place to live. If California wishes to alleviate the problem they would transition away from property tax towards a land value tax.
 
As if the economy would be like Alabama if not for illegals? Get real.

I think the point was that the economy of California is way ahead of that of Alabama despite the number of illegals, not because of them.

But, maybe not. that multi billion dollar agriculture industry, the one that supplies 80% of the world's almonds, for example, does rely on illegal labor to bring in the crops. Now, if that other government, the one in Washington, would do its job when it comes to immigration, then it wouldn't have to be that way.
 
I think the point was that the economy of California is way ahead of that of Alabama despite the number of illegals, not because of them.

But, maybe not. that multi billion dollar agriculture industry, the one that supplies 80% of the world's almonds, for example, does rely on illegal labor to bring in the crops. Now, if that other government, the one in Washington, would do its job when it comes to immigration, then it wouldn't have to be that way.

in any case california is a bad example of liberalism because it has so many natural advantages: farm land, coast line, mountains, climate, location with Asia.
 
in any case california is a bad example of liberalism because it has so many natural advantages: farm land, coast line, mountains, climate, location with Asia.

And so a "good" example of "liberalism" would be what, Venezuela? Does it have to be a disaster, in your opinion, to be a good example of liberalism?
 
I understand that, but my point is that incomes not high also to meet the home prices. Los Angeles, for instance, is one of the least affordable places. It is not the most expensive place, but because incomes aren't also high, it has become the most unaffordable market in the country.

UCLA study identifies L.A. as most unaffordable rental market in the nation | UCLA

And this is why, especially for Los Angeles, natives have moved away. And who is moving in? Rich Asians with money from questionable sources, and the 3rd world who collect the welfare benefits.

The real estate is high in LA because there is a large amount of business and industry, as well aslots of educated people there. The uneducated guys are getting left out of the booming economy.

Of those who left during the latest years for which statistics exist, the vast majority earned less than $30,000 per year. A net total of 469,000 of those leaving possessed no college degree. Given the prevailing levels of rents and home prices in California, it’s easy to see their financial motive in leaving for far lower-priced states like Texas, Nevada, Oregon and Arizona.

But as lower-income residents left there was a net increase of 52,700 residents from other states making more than $50,000 per year who do have at least a bachelor’s degree.
Who?s leaving California? Not who you think: Thomas Elias

So yes, the state is losing its lower-income, uneducated, often native-born people to states where it's not so attractive to live, while attracting more educated people who can afford to live there.
______________________

And as far as immigrants, they are not the ones chasing those uneducated native-born people away. California's economy is booming because of, not in spite of, its immigrants. Somehow, the native-born, uneducated people would rather move to cheaper, less-in-demand places like Texas than take up the hard jobs that immigrants do in California. If you take away the immigrants, the work just wouldn't get done and the economy would suffer.

The Ventura County farm bureau estimates as many as 36,000 field workers bring in the county's crops of citrus, avocado and strawberries in peak harvest season, and that 95 percent of them are foreign-born.

Ranch owner Ellen Brokaw said immigrant labor is essential to Ventura County's farms.

“There's no way that we can take care of and pick our crops without immigrant labor,” she said.
She said she has advertised widely for US-born workers, as part of rules tied to a guest worker program. But they usually don't seem to want the job.

“It's hard work, and it's not very well-paid,” she said. Starting pay is $12 to $13 an hour. “Sometimes some people apply, but almost never do any of them stay.”

With a gross domestic product worth $2.448 trillion, California has the largest economy in the US, and the sixth-largest in the world. It's also the state with the most immigrants, more than a quarter of its population. These two facts are not unrelated — but the way immigrants build that economy is more complex than it seems.

Betty Yee, California state controller, said undocumented immigrants’ ​labor is worth more than $180 billion a year ​to California's economy — about equal to the 2015 gross domestic product for the entire state of Oklahoma. Labor from undocumented immigrants is fundamental not just to agriculture here, but to child care, restaurants, hotels and construction.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-03...umented-workers-help-grow-economy-theres-cost
 
Last edited:
The real estate is high in LA because there is a large amount of business and industry, as well aslots of educated people there. The uneducated guys are getting left out of the booming economy.



So yes, the state is losing its lower-income, uneducated, often native-born people to states where it's not so attractive to live, while attracting more educated people who can afford to live there.

The people who are moving in don't offset those who are leaving. The state is losing its population of Americans, they're being replaced through immigration.

And as far as immigrants, they are not the ones chasing those uneducated native-born people away. California's economy is booming because of, not in spite of, its immigrants. Somehow, the native-born, uneducated people would rather move to cheaper, less-in-demand places like Texas than take up the hard jobs that immigrants do in California. If you take away the immigrants, the work just wouldn't get done and the economy would suffer.

That's nonsense. If you take away the immigrants, those employers would have to actually pay decent wages and maybe the poor wouldn't be relegated to menial jobs and collecting welfare.
 
The people who are moving in don't offset those who are leaving. The state is losing its population of Americans, they're being replaced through immigration.

Not sure what this means. Is your definition of "American" someone with a tone of skin less than a certain specified amount?

That's nonsense. If you take away the immigrants, those employers would have to actually pay decent wages and maybe the poor wouldn't be relegated to menial jobs and collecting welfare

And many of their businesses would go under. Just ask these Trump voters:

Many here feel vindicated by the election, and signs declaring “Vote to make America great again” still dot the highways. But in conversations with nearly a dozen farmers, most of whom voted for Mr. Trump, each acknowledged that they relied on workers who provided false documents. And if the administration were to weed out illegal workers, farmers say their businesses would be crippled. Even Republican lawmakers from the region have supported plans that would give farmworkers a path to citizenship.

“If you only have legal labor, certain parts of this industry and this region will not exist,” said Harold McClarty, a fourth-generation farmer in Kingsburg whose operation grows, packs and ships peaches, plums and grapes throughout the country. “If we sent all these people back, it would be a total disaster.”

Farmers here have faced a persistent labor shortage for years, in part because of increased policing at the border and the rising prices charged by smugglers who help people sneak across. The once-steady stream of people coming from rural towns in southern Mexico has nearly stopped entirely. The existing field workers are aging, and many of their children find higher-paying jobs outside agriculture....

Mr. Marchini, the radicchio farmer, said he felt similarly after seeing generations of workers on his family farm send their children to college and join the middle class. Mr. Marchini’s family has farmed in the valley for four generations and he grew up working side by side with Mexican immigrants.

He said that no feasible increase in wages or change in conditions would be enough to draw native-born Americans back into the fields.
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/calif...p-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=0
 
Not sure what this means. Is your definition of "American" someone with a tone of skin less than a certain specified amount?

Why are liberals SO OBSESSED with white people? Anyway, what I meant is people who have been here for generations.

And many of their businesses would go under. Just ask these Trump voters:

www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/calif...p-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html?_r=0

Are cheap prices worth keeping many of our own citizens unemployed?
 
And so a "good" example of "liberalism" would be what, Venezuela? Does it have to be a disaster, in your opinion, to be a good example of liberalism?

yes Venezuela is a good representative example, so is Cuba, USSR, Communist China, Albania, Pol Pot's Cambodia, East Germany, soviet satellites ,Europe, North Korea etc you might have 1 million tries to make a govt monopoly work and the only question would be how many millions did each try kill. Our genius founders were right, freedom works; govt kills, and even they had no idea how many millions liberal govt would kill in the future even after exposing us to their genius.
 
Back
Top Bottom