|
FilthyImp posted:The Olympics though... I'm wondering if it would hulk out the ridiculous metro housing prices more, or just speed the collapse of the bubble. The LA2024 group just put a new video the other day and it owns. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFI229Is9ks Can't wait for the Olympics.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
CopperHound posted:Welcome to the dystopic future where LA is more progressive than San Francisco. This has always been the case, SF just wont shut up about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:This has always been the case, SF just wont shut up about it. SF is profoundly conservative in a lot of ways. There's a reason it's called 'conservation'. Also, it's a huge banking center. California establishment democrats just seem really conservative to me, in a lot of regards, they're like republicans in other states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:SF is profoundly conservative in a lot of ways. There's a reason it's called 'conservation'. Also, it's a huge banking center. California establishment democrats just seem really conservative to me, in a lot of regards, they're like republicans in other states. As others have said or implied: we would probably be a swing state again if the GOP changed its stances on weed, abortions, immigrants, and gay stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:As others have said or implied: we would probably be a swing state again if the GOP changed its stances on weed, abortions, immigrants, and gay stuff. Unless all the 3rd gen latspanix turn out like the Latinos for Trump grifter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:As others have said or implied: we would probably be a swing state again if the GOP changed its stances on weed, abortions, immigrants, and gay stuff. I find it comical how much latter-day Republicans fellate Ronald Reagan and his policies, conveniently forgetting that he was California's governor. Maybe if they return to the party of conservative ethics instead of literal fascists, California could become a swing state again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I find it comical how much latter-day Republicans fellate Ronald Reagan and his policies, conveniently forgetting that he was California's governor. Maybe if they return to the party of conservative ethics instead of literal fascists, California could become a swing state again. California was very different back then, and while Reagan was relatively less insane than what's going on now, he still represented a huge shift of the country right-ward. You probably would have to resurrect the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller to turn CA back in to a swing state. The dog-whistle / low-tax policy of the Reagan era was still going on when California switched from being a swing state to becoming what it is today, and that stuff largely doesn't fly with the state anymore as a result of both demographic changes and overall changes to the way the state works, and because we've learned that the anti-tax stuff has a major cost if you can't sponge off the rest of the country. I hope Trump has the same impact at the national level that prop 187 had in this state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I find it comical how much latter-day Republicans fellate Ronald Reagan and his policies, conveniently forgetting that he was California's governor. Maybe if they return to the party of conservative ethics instead of literal fascists, California could become a swing state again. They don't hate California. They just think the liberals have taken over and have taxed the state to death to pay for welfare checks for illegal Mexicans and pensions for lazy, worthless government employees, all while hoarding water that belongs rightfully to our state's farmers. Ignore the economies of urban areas, though; they aren't the Real California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Pervis posted:California was very different back then, and while Reagan was relatively less insane than what's going on now, he still represented a huge shift of the country right-ward. You probably would have to resurrect the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller to turn CA back in to a swing state. The dog-whistle / low-tax policy of the Reagan era was still going on when California switched from being a swing state to becoming what it is today, and that stuff largely doesn't fly with the state anymore as a result of both demographic changes and overall changes to the way the state works, and because we've learned that the anti-tax stuff has a major cost if you can't sponge off the rest of the country. and a hearty double gently caress you to howard jarvis
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Pervis posted:California was very different back then, and while Reagan was relatively less insane than what's going on now, he still represented a huge shift of the country right-ward. You probably would have to resurrect the party of Eisenhower and Rockefeller to turn CA back in to a swing state. The dog-whistle / low-tax policy of the Reagan era was still going on when California switched from being a swing state to becoming what it is today, and that stuff largely doesn't fly with the state anymore as a result of both demographic changes and overall changes to the way the state works, and because we've learned that the anti-tax stuff has a major cost if you can't sponge off the rest of the country. http://www.theonion.com/article/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking-19248
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Welcome to the dystopic future where LA is more progressive than San Francisco. Sam Francisco has had its mayor assassinated in my life time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs-august-california-20160915-snap-story.htmlquote:Since last August, the state has boosted payrolls by 378,000 workers — a 2.3% gain. Despite new paid-leave mandates, a rising minimum wage and strict environmental regulations, California has managed to grow faster than the rest of the country for several months. Well guys, california is still crushing it re: keeping america great again despite all the nanny laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
incoherent posted:http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jobs-august-california-20160915-snap-story.html do government jobs really count as job growth? how does that even work if it's mostly supported by tax? or do a lot of Californian government agencies turn profit or break even before accepting tax dollars?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:do government jobs really count as job growth? how does that even work if it's mostly supported by tax? or do a lot of Californian government agencies turn profit or break even before accepting tax dollars? It's not just gov't jobs and why wouldn't they? Is this a zombie Reagan argument? And besides California gets less tax back into what it pays into the country so fundamentally it HAS to work outside of gov't. Who else is going to provide for rightwing moochers? Sounds like it's 'business friendly' or whatever the hell the pro francking industry is pushing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
incoherent posted:Literally the only thing needed to be said on the topic. The 1960 Olympics were near Tahoe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 22:57
|
|
you poo poo NIMBY fygm'ers).
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:It's not just gov't jobs and why wouldn't they? Is this a zombie Reagan argument? No, not an argument. I'm sincerely asking. I'm not trying to push a talking point, or even read something about it. I'm just curious how viable government job growth is as a metric for a stable, healthy economy, and what the arguments are for it, and against it. I definitely agree states do a better job at certain things than the private sector... but I've also experienced bloat and corruption on a local level. That isn't to say private businesses don't have their own form of corruption either... hell astro course fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:do government jobs really count as job growth? how does that even work if it's mostly supported by tax? or do a lot of Californian government agencies turn profit or break even before accepting tax dollars? Yes. Because everyone, even government workers, pay taxes. Also LOL at government agencies turning profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:No, not an argument. I'm sincerely asking. I'm not trying to push a talking point, or even read something about it. I'm just curious how viable government job growth is as a metric for a stable, healthy economy, and what the arguments are for it, and against it. I definitely agree states do a better job at certain things than the private sector... but I've also experienced bloat and corruption on a local level. That isn't to say private businesses don't have their own form of corruption either... I think you're confusing what that article says, I'm pretty sure the state not the state government added 378,000 jobs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think you're confusing what that article says, I'm pretty sure the state not the state government added 378,000 jobs. I'm asking a theoretical question, not criticizing the article or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I'm asking a theoretical question, not criticizing the article or whatever. Then yes jobs are jobs even if they are in private companies that only get government contracts, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
As a filthy gov't job haver in the Socialist Republic of California, I can say that I pay taxes, spend money locally, and give to charity. My job is as beneficial to the economy as any private sector job. And no, we don't turn a profit. Our profit is the smile on a citizen's face as they tell us the government never does anything right and that their tax dollars pay our salaries. Makes it all worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
I guess I'm just asking an academic economic question about how money flows between government and private sectors, and at what threshold (if any) do the returns diminish. I'm really not trying to make some weird neo-liberal libertarian pro-privatization argument. Geez guys... is everyone okay?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
I think your question is odd because it naturally assumes there's a huge difference of funding between government work and private. It's still work. Otherwise inherently the end result leads to private always being better because it's removed from government. Which...is kind of dumb. Private has it's place, much like government. Money just doesn't suddenly disappear though you actually could argue it does all the time thanks to our banking industry! I think a better question is who actually drives innovation in the pharma industry and big hint, it's not private companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I guess I'm just asking an academic economic question about how money flows between government and private sectors, and at what threshold (if any) do the returns diminish. I'm really not trying to make some weird neo-liberal libertarian pro-privatization argument. Geez guys... is everyone okay? But I think we're confused about what is different from someone working at CARB versus someone at a smog shop that makes their job economically different?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I guess I'm just asking an academic economic question about how money flows between government and private sectors, and at what threshold (if any) do the returns diminish. I'm really not trying to make some weird neo-liberal libertarian pro-privatization argument. Geez guys... is everyone okay? To make a very complicated story short, the government, when it has a functional tax policy (which we don't have) should take money from the rich and profitable, and redistribute that money to the middle class and the poor (in the form of welfare, government works, public sector stuff). This is kind the basics of Keynesian economics. That is, the government is supposed to be using those taxes to invest the overall betterment of society by financing projects, services, etc that redistribute that money to be spent (and generate economic activity). For example, when the government taxes your cigarettes, that money than goes into something like road-building, something that obviously betters society as a whole. Unfortunately, because of 30 years of trickle down economics, we've concentrated a tremendous sum of the wealth of the nation into a very small proportion of the population, who don't (or physically can't) spend it. Therefore, the economic activity that could have been generated had that money been I'm tremendously oversimplifying a very complex set of government policies, but when governments do this correctly (like Scandinavia), you end up with a vibrant middle class, and a well-supported working class who can make do with functional welfare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But I think we're confused about what is different from someone working at CARB versus someone at a smog shop that makes their job economically different? This is what I am confused about too. I was wondering if it even mattered. A White Guy posted:To make a very complicated story short, the government, when it has a functional tax policy (which we don't have) should take money from the rich and profitable, and redistribute that money to the middle class and the poor (in the form of welfare, government works, public sector stuff). This is kind the basics of Keynesian economics. That is, the government is supposed to be using those taxes to invest the overall betterment of society by financing projects, services, etc that redistribute that money to be spent (and generate economic activity). For example, when the government taxes your cigarettes, that money than goes into something like road-building, something that obviously betters society as a whole. Thanks. Yeah, this is kind of what I was wondering. There seems to be a problem with money trickling up into the private sector through banking, tax evasion and such, but taxing government jobs also seems weird, because the money literally comes from taxation, and I understand that money goes back into the economy as people spend it. I guess things are pretty heated though, when these kind of conversations come up. I'm not trying to make any value judgements, or like government employees are bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
To feed off of what A White Guy said, economic research has made abundantly clear 10 times over that a dollar put into the hands of a working/middle class wage earner is significantly better for the economy than a dollar into the hands of a millionaire or billionaire. Simply put, people like that (and us) spend the money they get which has what is called an economic multiplier. This is economic theory in the same way that gravity is theory - it just is. Its the foundation of Keynesian demand stimulus, where paying unemployed people to dig ditches (the classic example) is great for the economy because those ditch diggers turn around and buy food, gas, pay for rent, etc instead of "investing" that money. It goes right back into the hands of other workers, in one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
cheese posted:To feed off of what A White Guy said, economic research has made abundantly clear 10 times over that a dollar put into the hands of a working/middle class wage earner is significantly better for the economy than a dollar into the hands of a millionaire or billionaire. Simply put, people like that (and us) spend the money they get which has what is called an economic multiplier. This is economic theory in the same way that gravity is theory - it just is. Its the foundation of Keynesian demand stimulus, where paying unemployed people to dig ditches (the classic example) is great for the economy because those ditch diggers turn around and buy food, gas, pay for rent, etc instead of "investing" that money. It goes right back into the hands of other workers, in one way or another. Not only that, but I feel that when things get tough there is a runaway effect ; people stop spending money because they need the bare essentials to survive. Anybody with the means or brains will migrate away to greener pastures, making things even worse. People start looking for scapegoats to blame the problem on (minorities, welfare, etc) delaying any legislation that could correct the problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
My wife teaches piano for a living privately. When money is put into school programs, like music, kids and parents get interested and seek private lessons. There are also plenty of students that are government workers, or the parents are government workers. Money towards government jobs always ends up helping our business. I'm sure this can be applied to most businesses in some way. Which is why it is odd to me when business owners wish for tax cuts when they are basically loving themselves with that mindset. Since school funding has been poo poo, we've never gotten back to the heyday of 2004-2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 02:27
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Yeah. There's a real attitude out there that government funded labor is sometimes necessary but overall has a negative value to society. It drives a lot of the privatization thinking - to the point that even where it makes no sense on a cost basis to do so people are still for it because "private companies are value creators!" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Thanks. Yeah, this is kind of what I was wondering. There seems to be a problem with money trickling up into the private sector through banking, tax evasion and such, but taxing government jobs also seems weird, because the money literally comes from taxation, and I understand that money goes back into the economy as people spend it. I guess things are pretty heated though, when these kind of conversations come up. I'm not trying to make any value judgements, or like government employees are bad. Taxing government jobs makes sense because people can have more than one job, be married, or have alternate income streams. Also keep in mind that government is not a monolithic entity. A federal employee paying state and local tax is effectively transferring federal funds locally, while local and state employees are doing the opposite (though, of course, local and state employees tend to spend the money they are paid in the state or locality they are employed in, which ends up with that money going back to the state or locality in part over many transactions).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:Yeah. There's a real attitude out there that government funded labor is sometimes necessary but overall has a negative value to society. It drives a lot of the privatization thinking - to the point that even where it makes no sense on a cost basis to do so people are still for it because "private companies are value creators!" A large part of privatization is just union busting. With a little bit of patronage too. Why have government workers who tend to be unionized and vote thusly when you can hand out a private contract to one of your buddies who will hire minimum wage workers and pocket the difference?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
So my girlfriend and I were going through the ballot measure booklet that came in the mail today, and I was wondering if you all had any hot takes. There are a few no brainers for me (gently caress the death penalty, leave the porn industry alone cause every sex/porn worker I know hates the prop and the guy behind it has poo poo reasons for proposing it), but there are also a few that are hard to get a read on. Also, I actually laughed out loud when I saw that prop 65 and prop 67 are the perfect inverses of each other and are alternately pro/conned by the same people. It just reads like two people fighting on Facebook. SlimGoodbody fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:So my girlfriend ABC I were going through the ballot measure booklet that came in the mail today, and I was wondering if you all had any hot takes. There are a few no brainers for me (gently caress the death penalty, leave the porn industry alone cause every sex/porn worker I know hates the prop and the guy behind it has poo poo reasons for proposing it), but there are also a few that are hard to get a read on. Quoting myself from earlier: A White Guy posted:
According to the guy who spent  to redtext me, prop 56 voters hate minorities so you better vote your heart, racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Cigarette taxes do disproportionately affect the poor but that's literally the point and they're only implemented because a full on ban is politically untenable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
computer parts posted:a full on ban is politically untenable. Which is great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
i will vote for every single gun restriction until they repeal the second amendment
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:They've made it a pretty big inconvenience to smoke as it is. Speaking of which, I recently read that Sunnyvale's no-smoking-in-multi-family-dwellings (apartments, condos, etc.) ordinance is due to take effect on October 1. The ordinance applies equally to all forms of smoking including not only tobacco but also marijuana and e-cigs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:They've made it a pretty big inconvenience to smoke as it is. Exactly. "Won't someone think of the poor cigarette smokers  " is a dumb argument. Cigarettes are exceedingly addictive, they make everything smell like poo poo, significantly shorten your lifespan, and have the bonus side effect of giving cancer to everyone who's unfortunate enough to live with a smoker. So, yes, actually punishing people for smoking is fine with me, even if the people who suffer most are those who are the poorest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 21:03 |
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:So my girlfriend ABC I were going through the ballot measure booklet that came in the mail today, and I was wondering if you all had any hot takes. There are a few no brainers for me (gently caress the death penalty, leave the porn industry alone cause every sex/porn worker I know hates the prop and the guy behind it has poo poo reasons for proposing it), but there are also a few that are hard to get a read on. Prop 51: School Construction & Repair Bond - haven't decided yet Prop 52: Hospital Medi-Cal Matching Fees - Yes Prop 53: Require Even More Bonds On the Ballot - Nope Prop 54: Publish Bills 72 Hours Before a Vote - Yeah sure Prop 55: Extension of Current Income Tax on the 1% - Yes Yes Yes Prop 56: Tax E-cigs & Bump Up Cigarette Tax - Mostly I think no because it's regressive but can see yes arguments, havent decided yet Prop 57: Parole Reform - Yes Yes Yes Prop 58: Allow Multilingual Education in Public Schools - Yes Prop 59: Citizens United Is Bad - I don't think this does anything, but Citizens United is bad, so hell, why not Prop 60: Require Condoms in Adult Films - No Prop 61: Prescription Drug Pricing Change - No, chief of pharmacy policy says we already pay the same or less Prop 62: Repeal the Death Penalty But Also Some Weird Death Row Inmates Are Now Slaves Stuff - Yeesh, yes. Prop 63: Gavin Newsom’s Vanity Gun Control Prop - fine Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization - Yes Yes Yes Prop 65: Redirect Money from the Disposable Bag Fee - No this is a shameless attempt to confuse voters Prop 66: Kill Everyone Even Faster with the Death Penalty - No! Prop 67: Protect the Plastic Bag Ban - Yes
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2016 06:32
|
|