Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
StrikeS2k

Californian's Rejoice! Your taxes are going UP UP UP!

Recommended Posts

Governor Moonbeam will fix it. He will have clean energy and great relations with the unions, things will be hunky dory, and all will be chillin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry Brown pays off one of his biggest backers:

Prison guards, governor reach contract agreement

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the union representing prison guards, parole agents and fire captains, announced today that its leaders have reached a contract deal with Gov. Jerry Brown, ending years of uncertainty for its members.

The 31,000-member CCOPA has been working under a contract imposed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger since 2007, when talks with the former governor broke down. The latest deal, reached at 5 a.m. today, is likely a big relief for both sides -- Brown came into office with a handful of outstanding union contracts, the CCPOA's the most closely watched.

Perhaps most importantly for the deficit-plagued state is the fact that the deal will end three-day-a-week furloughs imposed on the prison workers by Schwarzenegger. Those furloughs have cost the state in overtime and created a $1 billion liability, because the employees have been racking up large amounts of vacation time.

The CCOPA's board will hold meetings next Monday and Tuesday where they will present the full deal, but here's what we know so far, according to the union:

--Furloughs will end, but members will have to take one unpaid day off a month for 12 months -- a 5 percent pay cut (similar to deals struck with other state employee unions).

--There will be no 12-hour shifts.

--Members will receive two Personal Development Days.

--Employer contributions for healthcare, dental, and vision will been increase.

--An increase to the top step will take effect in July 2013 (this means there will be some pay increase for senior union members, though it's not clear how much).

-Members will be required to contribute an additional amount to retirement but no other changes to retirement were made for current members.

--Members will be moved to Annual Leave Program, which "provides eligible employees a combined pool of 'annual leave' credits instead of separate vacation and sick leave credits. Annual leave covers the same kinds of absences that otherwise would be covered by vacation or sick leave."

--New Field Training Officer positions will be created to help fix Unit Six training.

If the CCPOA members ratify the agreement, the Legislature will have to approve it before it is final.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=85077#ixzz1GiRL6Gnx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all sound reasonable...but no figures were mentioned. I'm sure I'll change my tune once those are released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all sound reasonable...but no figures were mentioned. I'm sure I'll change my tune once those are released.

You mean the prison guards contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all sound reasonable...but no figures were mentioned. I'm sure I'll change my tune once those are released.

You mean the prison guards contract?
Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That all sound reasonable...but no figures were mentioned. I'm sure I'll change my tune once those are released.

You mean the prison guards contract?
Yes.
It would be if they weren't so godly overpaid to begin with. They needed to take a significant PAY CUT, not status quo plus a raise for the upper tier. Edit - They also needed to take a significant cut to their pension. They are one of the unions that Gray Davis gave a 3%/year pension to before he got recalled. They need to move that back to 2%/year as it used to be. Edited by StrikeS2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really going to argue it one way or the other without some numbers. We all know Jerry Brown is not going to take on any union. I just hope the deals are vaguely reasonable and I'll be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really going to argue it one way or the other without some numbers. We all know Jerry Brown is not going to take on any union. I just hope the deals are vaguely reasonable and I'll be okay.

I don't know what numbers you want but here are some from the current environment/contract:

There's a reason the state boasts that being a prison guard is "the greatest entry-level job in California."For starters, there's the $73,000-a-year base pay.Then come the extras like:-- Fifty cents an hour additional pay for working nights.-- A $530 annual uniform allowance.-- A $100-a month bonus for being bilingual.-- A $135-a-month raise for having at least a community college degree.-- As much as $130 a month in incentive pay for being able to pass a physical fitness test.advertisement | your ad here-- Premium pay of $2,100 to $2,400 a year for working at any one of seven prisons, including San Quentin.In addition, the state kicks in a contribution equaling 2 percent of a guard's pay to his or her retirement account. For senior guards, who make up two-thirds of the force, that amounts to $1,475 a year.But the real jewel is a pension that allows guards to retire with about 90 percent of their income after 30 years on the job.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-24/bay-area/17835938_1_lance-corcoran-guards-meg-whitmanAs of a few years ago 1 in 10 prison guards earned at least 100k/year, plus their generous pension and other great benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more of these guys:

A New Party Within a Party? Labor-Skeptic Democrats

Traditionally, criticism of public employee unions has come from politicians on the right. That's still true. But in Los Angeles and San Francisco, two progressive politicians have gained attention and prominence by taking on pensions and other expensive perks of such unions.

On paper, they couldn't be more different. San Francisco's Jeff Adachi, when he's not trying to rein in pension and retirement costs, runs the Public Defender's office, which represents poor people charged with crimes. Los Angeles's Bernard Parks, now a city councilman, made his name as a police chief dedicated to putting people in prison. Adachi is young and a progressive by any standard (save the wildly off-kilter standard of San Francisco, where one local pol explained to me once how Mayor Gavin Newsom was just like President George W. Bush). Parks, at 67 a senior citizen, has views on most broad economics and social issues that are liberal by most definitions, though on the labor-dominated city council he can seem like a conservative.

What binds Adachi and Parks together is their critique of public sector workers and their shared sense of alarm at the long-term threats to their cities' fiscal viability. Each argues that public employee perks must be reined in -- not in the name of lowering taxes or other right-wing ideological gains -- but so that there's enough money to protect progressive programs that benefit the public at large.

That's a powerful argument. And while public employees unions have tried to make both men pariahs, so far each has survived. (Parks appears to have beaten back a union-funded challenge to his re-election this week). One wonders if these two men -- each of whom, like the majority of younger Californians, is non-white -- may represent the vanguard of California progressive politics: a party within the Democratic party that is committed to progressive institutions and programs first, rather than public employees who make their living from running them.

Bernard Parks is paid about $450,000/year by the city of Los Angeles. He's hardly a poster child for what we should want from our elected "leaders."
Why? Because he's highly compensated?
The city is broke. He also happens to be the CHAIR of the city's budget committee. He's largely responsible for the fiscal problems the city is facing. I'd say he isn't doing his job that well, certainly not to the tune of 450k/year. The reason he's so highly compensated is that he's double dipping. He's collecting his pension from when he was Police Chief plus his salary on the highest paid city council in the country. I'm opposed to double dipping, especially when you're talking about salaries in the multiple six figure range. Pensions were designed to help people out when they retire. If Parks wants to continue to work then he shouldn't be collecting his pension. Many cities don't allow it. It's just another example of how poorly run Los Angeles is that they do allow it.
Why would anyone who is receiving a pension work in the public sector if you don't allow double dipping? Essentially you're barring those who have the most experience in state gov't from working for state gov't once they're retirement eligible.

I'm in favor of well thought out pension reform, but this race to blame public sector workers for our current deficits is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really going to argue it one way or the other without some numbers. We all know Jerry Brown is not going to take on any union. I just hope the deals are vaguely reasonable and I'll be okay.

I don't know what numbers you want but here are some from the current environment/contract:

There's a reason the state boasts that being a prison guard is "the greatest entry-level job in California."For starters, there's the $73,000-a-year base pay.Then come the extras like:-- Fifty cents an hour additional pay for working nights.-- A $530 annual uniform allowance.-- A $100-a month bonus for being bilingual.-- A $135-a-month raise for having at least a community college degree.-- As much as $130 a month in incentive pay for being able to pass a physical fitness test.advertisement | your ad here-- Premium pay of $2,100 to $2,400 a year for working at any one of seven prisons, including San Quentin.In addition, the state kicks in a contribution equaling 2 percent of a guard's pay to his or her retirement account. For senior guards, who make up two-thirds of the force, that amounts to $1,475 a year.But the real jewel is a pension that allows guards to retire with about 90 percent of their income after 30 years on the job.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-24/bay-area/17835938_1_lance-corcoran-guards-meg-whitmanAs of a few years ago 1 in 10 prison guards earned at least 100k/year, plus their generous pension and other great benefits.
I agree that CA spends far too much on it's prisons. Releasing thousands of non-violent drug offenders would go a long way toward cutting down on prison costs. I do find it funny that any mention of income inequities in the private sector results in conservatives insisting that those making big $'s are earning them, yet anyone making 6 figures in the public sector is a villain, regardless of the value they're providing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COOKING THE BOOKS ON PUBLIC PENSION EARNINGS FORECASTS:

Actuaries got another rebuff this week when the labor-friendly CalPERS board voted to leave its earnings forecast unchanged, much like a CalSTRS board action in December that did not lower its forecast as far as actuaries recommended.

A lower earnings forecast raises pension costs for state and local governments struggling with budget cuts during a deep recession. But another rate increase also might fuel the drive for pension reforms that increase worker costs and cut their benefits.

“I was afraid we were going to throw gasoline on the fire in the public pension debate,” Neal Johnson of the Service Employees International Union told a CalPERS committee after a key vote.

You’d think a representative of public employees would want to ensure that their pensions are actuarially sound. Instead, the priority is keeping the whole issue from coming to the taxpayers’ attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd work in a prison for $100k/year. I want to stay as far away from those hell-holes as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone who is receiving a pension work in the public sector if you don't allow double dipping? Essentially you're barring those who have the most experience in state gov't from working for state gov't once they're retirement eligible. I'm in favor of well thought out pension reform, but this race to blame public sector workers for our current deficits is insane.

The same people that used to laugh at gov't workers are now #####ing and jealous of our retirement plans. Those people can go #### themselves.The race to blame public sector workers is because some in the private sector are finally coming around to what I've been saying for a decade now: Most people relying on a 401k for their retirement will not ever be retiring. The average amount in a 401k for those around 60 is only a fraction of what it needs to be. Those people do not get to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost reason companies move from CA to Texas, speaker says in AustinAustin Business Journal - by Christopher Calnan, Staff Writer The CEO of the company that operates the Carl’s Jr. restaurant chain said Thursday the firm is opening hundreds of restaurants in Texas because it’s easier to do business here than in its home state of California.Andrew Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants Inc. (NYSE: CKR), told a group of California lawmakers on a fact-finding mission to Austin that fees and building permits for a new restaurant in California can add $200,000 to the cost of developing a construction site. Also, the permitting process in California takes an average eight months compared with six weeks in Texas, he said.Once restaurants are open, California labor laws inhibit restaurant managers from working the longer hours needed to operate successfully versus more lenient laws in Texas for management level workers.The business climate, which Puzder views as unfriendly, is prompting him to consider relocating the company headquarters to Texas, the state where Carl’s Jr. is projecting the most growth.“I know it will look bad for [California], and we don’t want to do that,” he said. But “we don’t have a corporate pot of gold. This isn’t a complicated thing.”Puzder was the keynote speaker at lunch for about 11 California legislators on a two-day visit to Austin to determine why their state is losing jobs while Texas is adding them.To read about recent businesses moving here from California, click here.California Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, said the group’s mission was to find out what measures could be taken to reverse the tide of companies leaving California. “How can we stop the hemorrhaging?” he said. “I believe Texas is doing something right.”Puzder said Carl Jr.’s plans to build 300 restaurants in Texas during the next decade. Texas Gov. Rick Perry called him about 18 months ago and thanked him for building in Texas, he said.In January 2010, the owners of Austin-based Burger Barons signed a deal with CKE Restaurants to open 11 of the yellow-star burger joints in Texas.The contract with the local company was one of two finalized Thursday that will close to double Carl’s Jr.’s Texas presence, adding 31 stores over the next nine years.Read more: Cost reason companies move from CA to Texas, speaker says in Austin | Austin Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2011/04/14/cost-reason-companies-move-from-ca-to.htmlHi Tommy :bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What If Everyone Had a California State Pension?A thought experiment on how much more bankrupt we could be5 May 2011As states and municipalities across the nation struggle with budget deficits, public-employee pension costs have become a major political issue. Most notably, the showdown in Wisconsin between Republican governor Scott Walker and Democrats in the legislature centered on the ongoing costs of government workers’ salaries and retirement benefits. Emotions tend to run high on both sides of this issue, but an objective look at the numbers can tell us a lot.A realistic way to gauge the fairness and financial sustainability of retirement benefits for government workers is to estimate how much it would cost if everyone in the U.S. received the average pension granted a state or local worker in California. How much would each active worker need to pay to support these retirees?First, we need to know how much a retired government worker can expect to draw in pension benefits. An accurate, conservative estimate would be $55,000 per year after 30 years of service, based on figures from the California Public Employee Retirement System. CalPERS is the largest public-employee pension fund in the United States, managing more than $231 billion in assets and serving more than 1.6 million active and retired state and local employees. According to the fund’s most recent annual report, the average pension for a new retiree with more than 30 years of service was $66,828 per year, with a pension award equal to 79 percent of his final salary. For a new retiree with between 25 and 30 years of service, the average pension was $53,184, with a pension award equal to 67 percent of his final salary.CalPERS touts a much lower dollar amount—about $27,000 per year per retiree, on average. But that average is misleading. It includes thousands of pensioners who retired more than a decade ago, before state and local officials happily raised public-employee retirement benefits amid the Internet and housing bubbles. The lower average also includes retirees who spent only a few years in public service and barely vested their benefits. The reality is, for a career government employee retiring in California today, his pension would be more than double the “official” average.Next, to determine how much these benefits would cost in aggregate if every American were lucky enough to receive them, we need to estimate the number of retirees and workers. Assume the average worker begins his career at 25 and would retire after 30 years, like many state employees. The latest U.S. Census Bureau data show 128 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 54, and 81 million Americans who are 55 or older—a ratio of 1.58 to one. If every American over the age of 55 received a pension of $55,000 per year, it would cost current workers $4.45 trillion per year, an amount equivalent to nearly one-third of America’s annual GDP. Put another way, it would cost every one of the 128 million Americans of working age $34,800 per year to support retirees.Over the coming decades, the financial burden on U.S. workers to support retirees will worsen as life expectancy continues to improve and birthrates decline. America is fortunate compared with most nations, having the highest birthrate of any developed nation as well as significant immigration of young people. But by 2030, the Census Bureau projects the United States will have 139 million citizens between the ages of 25 and 55, and 112 million citizens 55 or older—a ratio of 1.24 to one. That works out to $44,300 per worker per year to support the retired population.California’s generous public-employee pensions yield awards that are, on average, more than three times the standard Social Security benefit. And given the earlier retirement age, workers will necessarily pay into the system over a shorter period of time. Understood this way, the ratio of workers to retirees would change from roughly two to one (40 years working, 20 years retired), to a more perilous one to one (30 years working, 30 years retired).Apologists for California’s current public-pension schemes insist that there is no crisis, and that despite the financial collapse and late recession, future investment returns should easily cover the costs. But it’s hard to imagine stock market dividends alone funding California’s unfunded liability of more than $500 billion, let alone the $5 trillion in pension payouts we’re imagining. When more than 100 million people are withdrawing funds on that scale each year to fund their retirements, the market has too many sellers to permit meaningful rates of return.Ed Ring is a research fellow with the National Tax Limitation Foundation.

http://www.city-journal.org/2011/cjc0505er.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it funny that any mention of income inequities in the private sector results in conservatives insisting that those making big $'s are earning them, yet anyone making 6 figures in the public sector is a villain, regardless of the value they're providing.

If a company in the private sector paid its people 6 figures and ran up enormous deficits, it would go bankrupt. But when it comes to the state of California, they just keep paying these huge salaries. This isn't about villains and heroes. Its about zero checks and balances and a complete lack of control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really going to argue it one way or the other without some numbers. We all know Jerry Brown is not going to take on any union. I just hope the deals are vaguely reasonable and I'll be okay.

When you work a contract with your biggest donator that hands them 8-10 weeks of vacation per year you don't get to ##### about not having enough money for schools. Brown really doesn't have a leg to stand on anymore with his case for a tax increase, which is why he is no longer planning to take it to the voters.I doubt he even tries to run for a second term. Things are only going to get uglier. There simply isn't enough money to pay back unions AND support the schools/social programs. If Brown wants to throw all the other Democrat special interests under the bus there is going to be a serious fracture of the Democratic party in CA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more of these guys:

A New Party Within a Party? Labor-Skeptic Democrats

Traditionally, criticism of public employee unions has come from politicians on the right. That's still true. But in Los Angeles and San Francisco, two progressive politicians have gained attention and prominence by taking on pensions and other expensive perks of such unions.

On paper, they couldn't be more different. San Francisco's Jeff Adachi, when he's not trying to rein in pension and retirement costs, runs the Public Defender's office, which represents poor people charged with crimes. Los Angeles's Bernard Parks, now a city councilman, made his name as a police chief dedicated to putting people in prison. Adachi is young and a progressive by any standard (save the wildly off-kilter standard of San Francisco, where one local pol explained to me once how Mayor Gavin Newsom was just like President George W. Bush). Parks, at 67 a senior citizen, has views on most broad economics and social issues that are liberal by most definitions, though on the labor-dominated city council he can seem like a conservative.

What binds Adachi and Parks together is their critique of public sector workers and their shared sense of alarm at the long-term threats to their cities' fiscal viability. Each argues that public employee perks must be reined in -- not in the name of lowering taxes or other right-wing ideological gains -- but so that there's enough money to protect progressive programs that benefit the public at large.

That's a powerful argument. And while public employees unions have tried to make both men pariahs, so far each has survived. (Parks appears to have beaten back a union-funded challenge to his re-election this week). One wonders if these two men -- each of whom, like the majority of younger Californians, is non-white -- may represent the vanguard of California progressive politics: a party within the Democratic party that is committed to progressive institutions and programs first, rather than public employees who make their living from running them.

Back in the 1990s there was a group within the democratic party called the "New Democrats" of which Bill Clinton was a member. This group was more business-friendly and more pro-market than the traditional left. They ran the Democrat Leadership Council (DLC) until it was dissolved in February 2011.

The DLC backed Kerry / Edwards in 2004, and Hillary in 2008. They feel economic populism is not politically viable.

Obama is a known opponent of the DLC. His victory coupled with Kerry's loss helped shift the democratic party to the far left. The rise of labor-skeptic democrats could be the first sign that the democratic party may pulling back towards the center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan Bayh is also an ex-chair of the DLC and will likely run for president under a moderate democrat banner in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers

Calif. Business Departures Increasing --

Now Five Times Higher Than In 2009

Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place.

Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises.

• From Jan. 1 of this year through this morning, June 16, we have had 129 disinvestment events occur, an average of 5.4 per week.

• For all of last year, we saw an average of 3.9 events per week.

Comparing this year thus far with 2009, when the total was 51 events, essentially averaging 1 per week, our rate today is more than 5 times what it was then.

The same tracking system has been in place throughout the three-year period.

Our losses are occurring at an accelerated rate. Also, no one knows the real level of activity because smaller companies are not required to file layoff notices with the state. A conservative estimate is that only 1 out of 5 company departures becomes public knowledge, which means California may suffer more than 1,000 disinvestment events this year. The capital directed to out-of-state or out-of-country, while difficult to calculate, is nonetheless in the billions of dollars.

The top five destinations are (1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina tied.

Based on the legislature’s recent rejection of business-friendly legislation and Sacramento’s implementation of additional regulations, signs are that California’s hostility towards business will only worsen.

California is such fertile ground that representatives for economic development agencies are visiting companies to dissect our high taxes, extreme regulatory environment and other expenses to show annual savings of between 20 and 40 percent after an out-of-state move.

Officials from 14 states are making such presentations, namely: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia – and Ohio is soon to be packing their bags for visits here. These are only the ones I know about; there may be others. Even the states that aren’t visiting are emailing, calling and sending letters to solicit California companies to move outright or select an out-of-state location when expanding.

:towelwave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we have green energy, overpriced IPOs and Hollywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers

Calif. Business Departures Increasing --

Now Five Times Higher Than In 2009

Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place.

Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises.

• From Jan. 1 of this year through this morning, June 16, we have had 129 disinvestment events occur, an average of 5.4 per week.

• For all of last year, we saw an average of 3.9 events per week.

Comparing this year thus far with 2009, when the total was 51 events, essentially averaging 1 per week, our rate today is more than 5 times what it was then.

The same tracking system has been in place throughout the three-year period.

Our losses are occurring at an accelerated rate. Also, no one knows the real level of activity because smaller companies are not required to file layoff notices with the state. A conservative estimate is that only 1 out of 5 company departures becomes public knowledge, which means California may suffer more than 1,000 disinvestment events this year. The capital directed to out-of-state or out-of-country, while difficult to calculate, is nonetheless in the billions of dollars.

The top five destinations are (1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina tied.

Based on the legislature’s recent rejection of business-friendly legislation and Sacramento’s implementation of additional regulations, signs are that California’s hostility towards business will only worsen.

California is such fertile ground that representatives for economic development agencies are visiting companies to dissect our high taxes, extreme regulatory environment and other expenses to show annual savings of between 20 and 40 percent after an out-of-state move.

Officials from 14 states are making such presentations, namely: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia – and Ohio is soon to be packing their bags for visits here. These are only the ones I know about; there may be others. Even the states that aren’t visiting are emailing, calling and sending letters to solicit California companies to move outright or select an out-of-state location when expanding.

:towelwave:

thebusinessrelocationcoach blog? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thebusinessrelocationcoach blog? Really?

:shrug:

Via the Orange County Register, but I like to link to the source of the source.

He says he gets his information from public documents, the state's WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) notices when a company lays off 50 or more workers, and reports from affected workers.

Feel free to look up the public documents yourself if you have a beef with what he and the newspaper are reporting, tommy. Edited by Sarnoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

870,550 Californians Have Moved Out

870,000 Californians leave the state

June 20th, 2011, 1:00 am · 175 Comments · posted by Mary Ann Milbourn

Does California seem a little less crowded these days? Maybe it’s the 870,550 people who moved out of state from 2005 to 2009. That’s like the whole city of San Francisco just up and left.

Chapman University economist Esmael Adibi highlighted the huge outflow of Californians last week during the school’s mid-year economic forecast update.

“The primary reason they left is jobs,” Adibi said. “But the second reason was (high) housing prices.”

And what was their favorite destination when they moved? If you guessed Texas, you would be wrong. Arizona was the No. 1 choice for relocation. Texas was second. And, as we reported about L-3 Communications Systems-West doing recruiting in Orange County last week, Utah was high up on the list, ranking seventh.

You know things are bad when nearly 30,000 people leave for Oklahoma. That’s nearly two thirds of the number that participated in Oklahoma’s great land rush of 1889.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

870,550 Californians Have Moved Out

870,000 Californians leave the state

June 20th, 2011, 1:00 am · 175 Comments · posted by Mary Ann Milbourn

Does California seem a little less crowded these days? Maybe it’s the 870,550 people who moved out of state from 2005 to 2009. That’s like the whole city of San Francisco just up and left.

Chapman University economist Esmael Adibi highlighted the huge outflow of Californians last week during the school’s mid-year economic forecast update.

“The primary reason they left is jobs,” Adibi said. “But the second reason was (high) housing prices.”

And what was their favorite destination when they moved? If you guessed Texas, you would be wrong. Arizona was the No. 1 choice for relocation. Texas was second. And, as we reported about L-3 Communications Systems-West doing recruiting in Orange County last week, Utah was high up on the list, ranking seventh.

You know things are bad when nearly 30,000 people leave for Oklahoma. That’s nearly two thirds of the number that participated in Oklahoma’s great land rush of 1889.

Woo Hoo!!! I made a list!! And Tommy still has his head in the sand.

:pickle: :pickle: :pickle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

870,550 Californians Have Moved Out

870,000 Californians leave the state

June 20th, 2011, 1:00 am · 175 Comments · posted by Mary Ann Milbourn

Does California seem a little less crowded these days? Maybe it’s the 870,550 people who moved out of state from 2005 to 2009. That’s like the whole city of San Francisco just up and left.

Chapman University economist Esmael Adibi highlighted the huge outflow of Californians last week during the school’s mid-year economic forecast update.

“The primary reason they left is jobs,” Adibi said. “But the second reason was (high) housing prices.”

And what was their favorite destination when they moved? If you guessed Texas, you would be wrong. Arizona was the No. 1 choice for relocation. Texas was second. And, as we reported about L-3 Communications Systems-West doing recruiting in Orange County last week, Utah was high up on the list, ranking seventh.

You know things are bad when nearly 30,000 people leave for Oklahoma. That’s nearly two thirds of the number that participated in Oklahoma’s great land rush of 1889.

Woo Hoo!!! I made a list!! And Tommy still has his head in the sand.

:pickle: :pickle: :pickle:

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tommy still has his head in the sand.

He's got his head fully in something, but I don't think it's sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

While I make light of leaving, it actually saddens me greatly that I felt I "had" to leave. But the state is not the same state I grew up in. I went to the beach in the middle of the night as a teen, didn't have to deal with stop and go traffic at 10 o'clock at night, most of the schools in my area were good or better. The list of great things about the place goes on and on. Now about the only good thing is the weather, and that's just not enough. And I came to the realization that the state was past the point of no return. But people like Timmy and Tommy seem to love the place. In ten years they may be the only tax payers left in the state. I hope they can afford it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

June 18, 2011 3:28 PMWave of lawsuits over seats hit retail stores(AP) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Retail store operators may want to sit down for this one — if they can find a chair.Nearly every national chain is under legal attack in California for failing to provide "suitable seating" for cashiers and other employees who are expected to spend most of their work day on their feet.Enterprising trial attorneys by the dozen are using an obscure California labor law requiring retailers such as such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Target to have enough seats on hand for their workers.Superficially, the allegations appear to be little more than a nuisance.But armed with two recent appellate decisions that allow workers and their lawyers to use California's novel "private attorney general" provision, the retailers are facing millions of dollars in damages. A first violation calls for as much as $100 per employee per pay period and double that for subsequent violations.Lawyers say those penalties add up for big-box retailers that employ hundreds of thousands of Californians."We are really in unchartered waters," said Eric Steinert, an attorney who represents several of the retailers. "But there's no doubt there's a wave of lawsuits being filed. You are seeing some attorneys moving into this area who previously didn't pay attention to workplace issues."Steinert said some of the first lawsuits were filed in 2009 and are based on an obscure provision of the labor code referring to an order issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission."All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats," the provision states. "When employees are not engaged in the duties of their employment and the nature of the work requires standing, an adequate number of suitable seats shall be placed in reasonable proximity to the work area and the employees shall be permitted to use such seats when it does not interfere with the performance of their duties."The first of the two key appellate decisions turning that phrase into law was issued in November. The stampede to the courthouse began shortly afterward. Lawyers predict that more than 100 such lawsuits have been filed throughout the state.The first appellate ruling overturned a lower court's decision tossing out Eugenia Bright's lawsuit against 99 Cents Only Stores.The company's lawyers argued that the phrase wasn't a law because it doesn't expressly prohibited retailers from failing to provide "suitable seating." It read the passage as a suggestion rather than binding law. A trial court judge in Los Angeles agreed and tossed out Bright's lawsuit.The appeals court based in Los Angeles disagreed and a unanimous three-judge panel said interpreting the provision as merely a suggestion "would be contrary to common sense."The California Supreme Court refused to review the decision and it is now the law. Bright said her lawsuit could encompass more than 1,000 current and former company workers.A second appellate court decision in a lawsuit filed by a Home Depot clerk met a similar fate in December. The court tossed out Home Depot's argument that the provision was a mere recommendation and relied heavily on the Bright decision to reaffirm the suitable seating law."The argument's central flaw is that it demotes mandatory labor conditions in wage orders to simple recommendations or advice when the conditions are stated in affirmative terms," Justice Nora Manella wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel.Angela Church, a Gamestop Inc. clerk in San Bernardino County, was among the first to sue after the appellate court's rulings, filing a lawsuit in December alleging it required her to "work without being provided adequate seating during work hours."Church and her attorney Kenneth Gaines of Woodland Hills didn't return phone calls.Lawyers for retailers now say the next battle is over defining "suitable seats" and determining appropriate damages when stores fail to meet the standard.The provision calls for a seat "placed in reasonable proximity," but leaves it to the employers discretion. Lawyers are advising clients to place one chair at each cash register.Labor advocates said the provision was placed on the books to protect low-paid employees and was part of a package setting minimum wages, maximum hours and standard conditions of employment.Tort reformers, though, complain the legal trend fosters the perception that California is a tough state to conduct business.The California Supreme Court in February, for instance, launched yet another class action blizzard when it ruled it illegal for clerks to ask customers for ZIP codes when making credit card purchases."Why can't we just give the employee a chair rather than filing a lawsuit," said Tom Scott, California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. "Battling bad lawsuits loses good jobs."

Ah, what a great place to be an employer......http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/18/ap/business/main20072280.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

While I make light of leaving, it actually saddens me greatly that I felt I "had" to leave. But the state is not the same state I grew up in. I went to the beach in the middle of the night as a teen, didn't have to deal with stop and go traffic at 10 o'clock at night, most of the schools in my area were good or better. The list of great things about the place goes on and on. Now about the only good thing is the weather, and that's just not enough. And I came to the realization that the state was past the point of no return. But people like Timmy and Tommy seem to love the place. In ten years they may be the only tax payers left in the state. I hope they can afford it.

Not really right to compare us. Tommy is a progressive; I am not. Tommy believes that most regulations and restrictions regarding industry are a good idea for society in general, I don't. I actually agree with you that many of these restrictions are really hurting California, but you seem to think they are killing California, and I don't. You're right that I remain bullish.

As evidence, I would suggest you suscribe to either Business Weekly or The Wall Street Journal for a few months. Because I am in commercial real estate, I try to read both. And one of the continuing themes is this: every time I read about a retail business of any sort that does well and is starting to grow either back East, the South, or the Midwest, the plan is ALWAYS that they are going to open up stores in California in the next few years. California is always the target state, not Texas, not Arizona, not anywhere else. This remains true despite the restrictions, the regulations, the number of people moving out, etc. If there is a retail business whose CEO has stated, "We're not going to expand into California because they have too many restrictions there, because income is falling, because people are moving out, because it's turning into Detroit, etc." I haven't read it, and I am not aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

While I make light of leaving, it actually saddens me greatly that I felt I "had" to leave. But the state is not the same state I grew up in. I went to the beach in the middle of the night as a teen, didn't have to deal with stop and go traffic at 10 o'clock at night, most of the schools in my area were good or better. The list of great things about the place goes on and on. Now about the only good thing is the weather, and that's just not enough. And I came to the realization that the state was past the point of no return. But people like Timmy and Tommy seem to love the place. In ten years they may be the only tax payers left in the state. I hope they can afford it.
What a sad, sad post. State politics are the reason you don't go to the beach in the middle of the night anymore? BS. Stop and go traffic at 10pm? Sounds like a personal problem - I live ~ 1 mile from the ccean and never sit in stop and go traffic, even during rush hour. :shrug:Nothing personal Strike, but you sound like an old man whining about how things were so much better back in the day. Maybe they were from your perspective. But maybe you just don't like change. I'm a 37 yr old new father who couldn't be happier in CA. I want my daughter to grow up in a place where her rights as an employee are protected, the natural environment in her home city/state is protected by strong standards, and in the breeding ground of the high tech innovators of tomorrow. If she wants to work in a sweat-shop, strip-mall dominated corporatocracy where employees are disposable, people are 2nd class citizens because of the color of their skin or their sexual preference, she can move out of state when she turns 18. Edited by tommyGunZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

While I make light of leaving, it actually saddens me greatly that I felt I "had" to leave. But the state is not the same state I grew up in. I went to the beach in the middle of the night as a teen, didn't have to deal with stop and go traffic at 10 o'clock at night, most of the schools in my area were good or better. The list of great things about the place goes on and on. Now about the only good thing is the weather, and that's just not enough. And I came to the realization that the state was past the point of no return. But people like Timmy and Tommy seem to love the place. In ten years they may be the only tax payers left in the state. I hope they can afford it.
What a sad, sad post. State politics are the reason you don't go to the beach in the middle of the night anymore? BS. Stop and go traffic at 10pm? Sounds like a personal problem - I live ~ 1 mile from the ccean and never sit in stop and go traffic, even during rush hour. :shrug:Nothing personal Strike, but you sound like an old man whining about how things were so much better back in the day. Maybe they were from your perspective. But maybe you just don't like change. I'm a 37 yr old new father who couldn't be happier in CA. I want my daughter to grow up in a place where her rights as an employee are protected, the natural environment in her home city/state is protected by strong standards, and in the breeding ground of the high tech innovators of tomorrow. If she wants to work in a sweat-shop, strip-mall dominated corporatocracy where employees are disposable, people are 2nd class citizens because of the color of their skin or their sexual preference, she can move out of state when she turns 18.
Going a mile isn't a problem. Try driving from Long Beach to the SFV. I don't want my life contained within a mile of my house. Or, in your case, my little itty bitty apartment. And all those things you're talking about. CA isn't doing a great job with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I wasn't a single parent with partial custody, I would pack up and leave as well. The economy sucks, the state hates entrepreneurs, everyone in the state and federal government is in complete denial about the cost of living and it seems like the people that have no clue about how an economy actually runs are the ones writing all of the laws controlling the economy.

While I make light of leaving, it actually saddens me greatly that I felt I "had" to leave. But the state is not the same state I grew up in. I went to the beach in the middle of the night as a teen, didn't have to deal with stop and go traffic at 10 o'clock at night, most of the schools in my area were good or better. The list of great things about the place goes on and on. Now about the only good thing is the weather, and that's just not enough. And I came to the realization that the state was past the point of no return. But people like Timmy and Tommy seem to love the place. In ten years they may be the only tax payers left in the state. I hope they can afford it.

Not really right to compare us. Tommy is a progressive; I am not. Tommy believes that most regulations and restrictions regarding industry are a good idea for society in general, I don't. I actually agree with you that many of these restrictions are really hurting California, but you seem to think they are killing California, and I don't. You're right that I remain bullish.

As evidence, I would suggest you suscribe to either Business Weekly or The Wall Street Journal for a few months. Because I am in commercial real estate, I try to read both. And one of the continuing themes is this: every time I read about a retail business of any sort that does well and is starting to grow either back East, the South, or the Midwest, the plan is ALWAYS that they are going to open up stores in California in the next few years. California is always the target state, not Texas, not Arizona, not anywhere else. This remains true despite the restrictions, the regulations, the number of people moving out, etc. If there is a retail business whose CEO has stated, "We're not going to expand into California because they have too many restrictions there, because income is falling, because people are moving out, because it's turning into Detroit, etc." I haven't read it, and I am not aware of it.

Tim,

I'm sure there are a lot of companies that want to open retail establishments in CA. If they can sell stuff sure. Any place a company can sell stuff they will. But less and less companies want to be BASED in CA. CA used to be the place companies wanted to be based. When companies like Intel and Apple are expanding in OTHER places instead of Silicon Valley due to the horrible business environment you know you've got problems. But I'm glad you and Tommy are so happy there. As I said, someone has to pay those taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone who is receiving a pension work in the public sector if you don't allow double dipping? Essentially you're barring those who have the most experience in state gov't from working for state gov't once they're retirement eligible. I'm in favor of well thought out pension reform, but this race to blame public sector workers for our current deficits is insane.

The same people that used to laugh at gov't workers are now #####ing and jealous of our retirement plans. Those people can go #### themselves.The race to blame public sector workers is because some in the private sector are finally coming around to what I've been saying for a decade now: Most people relying on a 401k for their retirement will not ever be retiring. The average amount in a 401k for those around 60 is only a fraction of what it needs to be. Those people do not get to retire.
:lmao: You saps in the public sector actually think you're going to get your pensions? Keep dreaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers

Calif. Business Departures Increasing --

Now Five Times Higher Than In 2009

Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place.

Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises.

• From Jan. 1 of this year through this morning, June 16, we have had 129 disinvestment events occur, an average of 5.4 per week.

• For all of last year, we saw an average of 3.9 events per week.

Comparing this year thus far with 2009, when the total was 51 events, essentially averaging 1 per week, our rate today is more than 5 times what it was then.

The same tracking system has been in place throughout the three-year period.

Our losses are occurring at an accelerated rate. Also, no one knows the real level of activity because smaller companies are not required to file layoff notices with the state. A conservative estimate is that only 1 out of 5 company departures becomes public knowledge, which means California may suffer more than 1,000 disinvestment events this year. The capital directed to out-of-state or out-of-country, while difficult to calculate, is nonetheless in the billions of dollars.

The top five destinations are (1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina tied.

Based on the legislature’s recent rejection of business-friendly legislation and Sacramento’s implementation of additional regulations, signs are that California’s hostility towards business will only worsen.

California is such fertile ground that representatives for economic development agencies are visiting companies to dissect our high taxes, extreme regulatory environment and other expenses to show annual savings of between 20 and 40 percent after an out-of-state move.

Officials from 14 states are making such presentations, namely: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia – and Ohio is soon to be packing their bags for visits here. These are only the ones I know about; there may be others. Even the states that aren’t visiting are emailing, calling and sending letters to solicit California companies to move outright or select an out-of-state location when expanding.

:towelwave:

thebusinessrelocationcoach blog? Really?
Despite your criticism of the source, the numbers are irrefutable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone who is receiving a pension work in the public sector if you don't allow double dipping? Essentially you're barring those who have the most experience in state gov't from working for state gov't once they're retirement eligible. I'm in favor of well thought out pension reform, but this race to blame public sector workers for our current deficits is insane.

The same people that used to laugh at gov't workers are now #####ing and jealous of our retirement plans. Those people can go #### themselves.
When they laughed at them before it was because they were a bunch of lazy people that sat around all day collecting a check. This isn't much different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, stunning article from the NY Times.

Here's my favorite quote:

In statements, Afscme said it had backed Calpers board candidates who were most qualified to protect members’ retirements. Art Pulaski, the executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, a coalition of 1,200 affiliated unions, wrote in a statement that the idea “that unions have spent money on elections to control politicians is as offensive as it as inane. In every election, we carefully analyze candidate records and positions and support those most likely to support policies that help working families.”

Rrrriiight.

Huge nitpick on the article though - it was absolutely silent on Governor Schwarzenegger's attempts to slash the state budget and cut public workers' benefits in 2005. There were a number of good ballot initiatives that year promoted by the Governor which were all defeated thanks primarily to a giant ad push by the unions portraying Schwarzenegger as the boogeyman. Promptly after that election, Schwarzenegger governed solidly from the left and gave the unions whatever they wanted.

I actually live in Costa Mesa with Newport Beach less than a 100 yards from my doorstep (the towns featured in the article). I have already seen the effects of the cutbacks in everything from road repairs, to police surveillance (ghetto bird just got grounded last month), to dilapidated public parks. The municipalities and the state-run functions are an absolute joke and no one on the left is serious about tackling the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon cuts off California affiliatesSAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Amazon.com Inc. and much smaller Overstock.com Inc. are cutting off their advertising affiliates in California because of a new state rule forcing online retailers to collect sales tax there.In an email Wednesday to California-based affiliates, Seattle-based Amazon said it would cut ties with affiliates who reside in the nation's most populous state if the law became effective. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the law Wednesday as part of a larger state budget package.The new rule requires online retailers to collect California sales taxes if they have in-state affiliates. "Affiliate" is the term the online retailers use for individuals or companies who run websites that refer visitors to them and then get paid a commission on any resulting sales.For Amazon affiliates, these fees vary from 4 percent to 15 percent of a sale.This move doesn't affect the third-party sellers who sell items through Amazon.com. Amazon says they already are responsible for determining what taxes must be collected on a sale and often include taxes in the prices they charge customers.In its email, Amazon called California's new rule "unconstitutional" and "counterproductive." Amazon would not disclose how many affiliates it had in California, but in the email it said that for more than a decade it has worked with "thousands" of people in the state.Overstock also ended its relationship with California affiliates because of the new law, spokesman Roger Johnson confirmed Thursday. Overstock too declined to say how many affiliates in California refer sales to it, but it said they number "in the hundreds."Passage of the law, which is projected to net $200 million annually, adds California to a growing list of states that have enacted such legislation in hopes of bringing in more tax revenue. Its legislature passed such a law in 2009, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.Billions of dollars are at stake as a growing number of states look for ways to generate more revenue without violating a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits a state from forcing businesses to collect sales taxes unless the business has a physical presence, such as a store, in that state. When consumers order from out-of-state retailers, they're supposed to pay the tax that is due, but they rarely do and it's difficult to enforce.States are trying to get around the Supreme Court restriction by passing laws that broaden the definition of a physical presence. Online retailers, meanwhile, are resisting being deputized as tax collectors.California will become the latest state in which Amazon has parted ways with members of its Amazon Associates Program. Already it has said goodbye to affiliates in states including Arkansas, Connecticut and Illinois due to the passage of similar online sales tax laws. Salt Lake City-based Overstock also has shuttered its affiliate programs in several states due to the laws.Amazon does collect sales taxes in North Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky and its home state of Washington. It collects in New York, too, as it fights the state over a 2008 law that was the first to consider local affiliates enough of an in-state presence to require sales tax collection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon cuts off California affiliatesSAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Amazon.com Inc. and much smaller Overstock.com Inc. are cutting off their advertising affiliates in California because of a new state rule forcing online retailers to collect sales tax there.In an email Wednesday to California-based affiliates, Seattle-based Amazon said it would cut ties with affiliates who reside in the nation's most populous state if the law became effective. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the law Wednesday as part of a larger state budget package.The new rule requires online retailers to collect California sales taxes if they have in-state affiliates. "Affiliate" is the term the online retailers use for individuals or companies who run websites that refer visitors to them and then get paid a commission on any resulting sales.For Amazon affiliates, these fees vary from 4 percent to 15 percent of a sale.This move doesn't affect the third-party sellers who sell items through Amazon.com. Amazon says they already are responsible for determining what taxes must be collected on a sale and often include taxes in the prices they charge customers.In its email, Amazon called California's new rule "unconstitutional" and "counterproductive." Amazon would not disclose how many affiliates it had in California, but in the email it said that for more than a decade it has worked with "thousands" of people in the state.Overstock also ended its relationship with California affiliates because of the new law, spokesman Roger Johnson confirmed Thursday. Overstock too declined to say how many affiliates in California refer sales to it, but it said they number "in the hundreds."Passage of the law, which is projected to net $200 million annually, adds California to a growing list of states that have enacted such legislation in hopes of bringing in more tax revenue. Its legislature passed such a law in 2009, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.Billions of dollars are at stake as a growing number of states look for ways to generate more revenue without violating a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits a state from forcing businesses to collect sales taxes unless the business has a physical presence, such as a store, in that state. When consumers order from out-of-state retailers, they're supposed to pay the tax that is due, but they rarely do and it's difficult to enforce.States are trying to get around the Supreme Court restriction by passing laws that broaden the definition of a physical presence. Online retailers, meanwhile, are resisting being deputized as tax collectors.California will become the latest state in which Amazon has parted ways with members of its Amazon Associates Program. Already it has said goodbye to affiliates in states including Arkansas, Connecticut and Illinois due to the passage of similar online sales tax laws. Salt Lake City-based Overstock also has shuttered its affiliate programs in several states due to the laws.Amazon does collect sales taxes in North Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky and its home state of Washington. It collects in New York, too, as it fights the state over a 2008 law that was the first to consider local affiliates enough of an in-state presence to require sales tax collection.

Someone will step in an fill the gap...that's a huge market that is not going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazon cuts off California affiliatesSAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Amazon.com Inc. and much smaller Overstock.com Inc. are cutting off their advertising affiliates in California because of a new state rule forcing online retailers to collect sales tax there.In an email Wednesday to California-based affiliates, Seattle-based Amazon said it would cut ties with affiliates who reside in the nation's most populous state if the law became effective. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the law Wednesday as part of a larger state budget package.The new rule requires online retailers to collect California sales taxes if they have in-state affiliates. "Affiliate" is the term the online retailers use for individuals or companies who run websites that refer visitors to them and then get paid a commission on any resulting sales.For Amazon affiliates, these fees vary from 4 percent to 15 percent of a sale.This move doesn't affect the third-party sellers who sell items through Amazon.com. Amazon says they already are responsible for determining what taxes must be collected on a sale and often include taxes in the prices they charge customers.In its email, Amazon called California's new rule "unconstitutional" and "counterproductive." Amazon would not disclose how many affiliates it had in California, but in the email it said that for more than a decade it has worked with "thousands" of people in the state.Overstock also ended its relationship with California affiliates because of the new law, spokesman Roger Johnson confirmed Thursday. Overstock too declined to say how many affiliates in California refer sales to it, but it said they number "in the hundreds."Passage of the law, which is projected to net $200 million annually, adds California to a growing list of states that have enacted such legislation in hopes of bringing in more tax revenue. Its legislature passed such a law in 2009, but then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.Billions of dollars are at stake as a growing number of states look for ways to generate more revenue without violating a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prohibits a state from forcing businesses to collect sales taxes unless the business has a physical presence, such as a store, in that state. When consumers order from out-of-state retailers, they're supposed to pay the tax that is due, but they rarely do and it's difficult to enforce.States are trying to get around the Supreme Court restriction by passing laws that broaden the definition of a physical presence. Online retailers, meanwhile, are resisting being deputized as tax collectors.California will become the latest state in which Amazon has parted ways with members of its Amazon Associates Program. Already it has said goodbye to affiliates in states including Arkansas, Connecticut and Illinois due to the passage of similar online sales tax laws. Salt Lake City-based Overstock also has shuttered its affiliate programs in several states due to the laws.Amazon does collect sales taxes in North Dakota, Kansas, Kentucky and its home state of Washington. It collects in New York, too, as it fights the state over a 2008 law that was the first to consider local affiliates enough of an in-state presence to require sales tax collection.

Someone will step in an fill the gap...that's a huge market that is not going anywhere.
Now that's the spirit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California pays more than 1,400 workers in excess of $200,000

Many are prison doctors, dentists or nurses. Total compensation can be pushed higher by payouts for unused vacation and sick time. Last year, a prison doctor collected $777,423 and a dentist got $599,403.

By Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times

July 6, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento -- More than 1,400 state employees were paid in excess of $200,000 last year, according to compensation data made public for the first time Tuesday on Controller John Chiang's website.

Of those, 790 were prison doctors, dentists or nurses. More than 300 others were psychiatrists and other medical professionals working for the Department of Mental Health.

One prison doctor collected $777,423 in 2010 and a dentist took home $599,403, according to the website. The president of the state's stem cell research agency received $482,234.

The database lists state positions by title and allows users to sort by department, salary range and total wages.

Chiang, a Democrat who has received millions in campaign contributions from state employee unions, did not include workers' names even though that information is public and has been provided upon request for years.

In October, in response to the salary scandals in Bell, Chiang collected and published payroll information from California counties and cities. His staff left names out then because "it wasn't our data, [and] couldn't be verified or scrubbed for confidential information," said Jacob Roper, a spokesman for the controller.

Chiang followed the same template in posting the state payroll. Roper denied that the identities of employees were left out to avoid upsetting the politically powerful employee unions.

The omission frustrated open-government advocates who say taxpayers have a right to see exactly where their money is going.

"The name, the position and the amount of money being paid to public employees should not be concealed," said Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego.

Total compensation for many of the best-paid state jobs on Chiang's list was pushed higher — in some cases more than doubled — by six-figure payouts for unused vacation and sick time.

A May analysis by The Times of Chiang's database — a version obtained by request, which contained employee names and greater detail on payouts — showed a prison psychiatrist, Fong Lai, received $594,976 for more than 2 1/2 years worth of unused sick time. A prison dentist, Robert Stogsdill, got a $553,253 payout.

Managers of state agencies are supposed cap at 80 days the amount of unused vacation time their employees can save but routinely ignore the limit, The Times found.

In all, 309 state employees got lump payments in excess of $100,000 in 2010, the data show.

For years, prison doctors, dentists and nurses were unable to use their vacation time because high numbers of vacancies in those jobs meant there was nobody to treat inmates if the employees took time off, said Nancy Kincaid, spokeswoman for the receiver put in charge of prison healthcare by federal court order.

But regular pay can also be very high for prison healthcare professionals. Sixty-five hold jobs with salary ranges that exceed $300,000, according to Chiang's website, which does not specify employees' base salaries.

It was impossible "to fill vacancies at many prisons until they raised these salaries," Kincaid said. "These are not easy places to work; the salaries had to be competitive."

Four state jobs come with salary ranges that reach above $500,000, according to Chiang's website.

The chief investment officer for the state pension system can make up to $612,000. The president of the workers' compensation insurance fund can make $585,360.

By contrast, Gov. Jerry Brown is paid $173,900 per year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-pay-20110706,0,1991474,print.story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California pays more than 1,400 workers in excess of $200,000

Many are prison doctors, dentists or nurses. Total compensation can be pushed higher by payouts for unused vacation and sick time. Last year, a prison doctor collected $777,423 and a dentist got $599,403.

By Jack Dolan, Los Angeles Times

July 6, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento -- More than 1,400 state employees were paid in excess of $200,000 last year, according to compensation data made public for the first time Tuesday on Controller John Chiang's website.

Of those, 790 were prison doctors, dentists or nurses. More than 300 others were psychiatrists and other medical professionals working for the Department of Mental Health.

One prison doctor collected $777,423 in 2010 and a dentist took home $599,403, according to the website. The president of the state's stem cell research agency received $482,234.

The database lists state positions by title and allows users to sort by department, salary range and total wages.

Chiang, a Democrat who has received millions in campaign contributions from state employee unions, did not include workers' names even though that information is public and has been provided upon request for years.

In October, in response to the salary scandals in Bell, Chiang collected and published payroll information from California counties and cities. His staff left names out then because "it wasn't our data, [and] couldn't be verified or scrubbed for confidential information," said Jacob Roper, a spokesman for the controller.

Chiang followed the same template in posting the state payroll. Roper denied that the identities of employees were left out to avoid upsetting the politically powerful employee unions.

The omission frustrated open-government advocates who say taxpayers have a right to see exactly where their money is going.

"The name, the position and the amount of money being paid to public employees should not be concealed," said Robert Fellmeth, executive director of the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego.

Total compensation for many of the best-paid state jobs on Chiang's list was pushed higher — in some cases more than doubled — by six-figure payouts for unused vacation and sick time.

A May analysis by The Times of Chiang's database — a version obtained by request, which contained employee names and greater detail on payouts — showed a prison psychiatrist, Fong Lai, received $594,976 for more than 2 1/2 years worth of unused sick time. A prison dentist, Robert Stogsdill, got a $553,253 payout.

Managers of state agencies are supposed cap at 80 days the amount of unused vacation time their employees can save but routinely ignore the limit, The Times found.

In all, 309 state employees got lump payments in excess of $100,000 in 2010, the data show.

For years, prison doctors, dentists and nurses were unable to use their vacation time because high numbers of vacancies in those jobs meant there was nobody to treat inmates if the employees took time off, said Nancy Kincaid, spokeswoman for the receiver put in charge of prison healthcare by federal court order.

But regular pay can also be very high for prison healthcare professionals. Sixty-five hold jobs with salary ranges that exceed $300,000, according to Chiang's website, which does not specify employees' base salaries.

It was impossible "to fill vacancies at many prisons until they raised these salaries," Kincaid said. "These are not easy places to work; the salaries had to be competitive."

Four state jobs come with salary ranges that reach above $500,000, according to Chiang's website.

The chief investment officer for the state pension system can make up to $612,000. The president of the workers' compensation insurance fund can make $585,360.

By contrast, Gov. Jerry Brown is paid $173,900 per year.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-pay-20110706,0,1991474,print.story
Making good money in the private sector = "those are hard working people who earn their money"

Making good money in the public sector = "!%!!!!@$^*&%$^@*"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making good money in the private sector = "those are hard working people who earn their money"Making good money in the public sector = "!%!!!!@$^*&%$^@*"

The median expected salary for a typical Dentist in the United States is $133,526. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

http://www1.salary.com/Dentist-Salary.html

The median expected salary for a typical Physician - Generalist in the United States is $165,328. This basic market pricing report was prepared using our Certified Compensation Professionals' analysis of survey data collected from thousands of HR departments at employers of all sizes, industries and geographies.

http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Generalist-salary.html :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California companies fleeing the Golden State

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.

"There is a feeling that the state is not stable," Vranich said. "Sacramento can't get its act together...and that includes the governor, legislators and regulatory agencies that are running wild."

The state has been ranked by Chief Executive magazine as the worst place to do business for seven years.

"California, once a business friendly state, continues to conduct a war on its own economy," the magazine wrote.

That is about to change, at least if Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom has anything to say about it. Newsom is developing a plan to address the state's economic Achilles heels, and build on its strengths. It will be unveiled at the end of July.

"California has got to get its act together when it comes to economic development and job creation," he said.

While not all companies investing elsewhere are doing so for economic reasons, some are shopping around for lower costs, lighter regulations, stable leadership and government assistance and incentives.

The most popular places to go? Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Virginia and North Carolina, said Vranich. All rank in the Top 13 places to do business, according to Chief Executive.

After 15 years in Monterey Country, Calif., Feel Golf relocated its headquarters to Florida earlier this year after it acquired Pro Line Sports, which was based in the Sunshine State.

"The whole state is a bureaucratic Santa Claus," said Lee Miller, chief executive of the golf equipment company, of his former home. "There's a very high cost of doing business."

In Florida, he found a better work pool, lower operating costs and no personal income taxes.

"Overall, it's just a better environment," he said.

PayPal opened a new customer services and operations center in Chandler, Ariz., in February, bringing 2,000 jobs to the area. The San Jose, Calif.-based tech firm, along with its parent eBay, also added 1,000 jobs in Austin, Texas, and expanded operations in Utah.

"They have business-friendly environments," said Kathy Chui, a spokeswoman for eBay.

Other states, which are revving up their job creation efforts in the weak economy, are making sure California firms know the advantages to doing businesses with them.

Utah, for instance, touts its stable government, balanced budget and AAA debt rating, said Todd Brightwell, vice president at the state's Economic Development Corp.

"We promote predictability," said Brightwell, whose agency features an online comparison between the states in terms of taxes, real estate costs, utility expenses, cost of living and other metrics.

Over the past 18 months, the state become much more proactive in courting California firms. It now visits there regularly to reach out to target companies. The strategy has been successful. Adobe has expanded operations in Utah, as has Electronic Arts.

California companies are also reaching out to other states. Sandra Watson, chief operating officer of the Arizona Commerce Authority, said she's seeing a growing number of California firms looking to expand outside the state.

The economic downturn has forced companies to find ways to reduce their costs, she said. Arizona is trying to capitalize on that by promoting its lower workers compensation and unemployment insurance taxes, as well as its aggressive incentive packages.

"There's a lot of competition out there and companies are re-evaluating their strategies," she said.

California, however, isn't sitting idly by. Not only is Newsom meeting with executives to hear their complaints, he's studying the best practices of other states. Earlier this year, he visited Texas, ranked #1 by Chief Executive, to learn more about its job creation efforts.

Newsom's plan will focus on California's premier industries, including biotechnology, agriculture and digital media. It will highlight the state's strengths in innovation and research and cultivate more manufacturing and exports. It also will examine how to address executives' concerns about regulation, taxes and layers of bureaucracy.

Later this year, California will set up a new agency that will serve as a focal point for economic development and job creation, he said. Among its goals will be to reverse the perception that California is business-unfriendly.

"We're going to start pounding away at this and begin to slowly turn this around," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California companies fleeing the Golden State

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

You can add in Wisconsin into that mix. They are aggressively pursuing businesses from other states now that the Republicans are in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It might go over budget? There may not be that many people riding it from LA to SF?

Wow, who would have predicted that??

:angry::rant::hot:

I still to this day can not believe THIS is what our ignorant voters thought was a good idea!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.