well you are looking at expensive trains but LRT has a really good price point, street cars are equally efficient and cost effective. Also dedicated bus lanes are no cost whatsoever...
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
California will soon be the world's 5th largest economy. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
jonessed
Footballguy
Equally efficient? Good price point?Getting around town isn't the issue, nor is the cost of a light rail train. If you are going to replace road traffic it has to be with a system robust enough to handle big city commute volumes. That means putting stations and rail lines through prime property and heavily urbanized areas. That's expensive and will incur decades of legal battle.
Buses and street cars already exist in the most heavily impacted areas.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
I'm not insisting on anyhing other than your argument doesn't hold water.killface said:
Not only are you underestimating the cost, you are also overestimating the willpower of Californian politicians to go out and increase taxes to pay for massive public transportation infrastructure.
Is the current position logical? Not really. Will it eventually lead to severe issues for the economy? Absolutely. Will anyone have the guts to do something about it before it is a crisis? Hell no. The politicians are worried about constituents and elections, not the future of the state. Kick the can down the road is a tried and true method of clinging to personal power and benefit and it works until the crisis is upon us. California is not there yet.
You aren't listening. I said dedicated bus lanes. You start taking from the traffic lanes and putting in street cars and bus lanes and lrt. The cost to do that is a drop in the hat compared to maintaining roads. You should read some papers on infrastructure asset management. I think you would learn a lot.jonessed said:
I'm not sure how you can make the argument that one person in a car is somehow more robust to handle big city commute volumes than 50 people in a street car? The math just doesn't work.
I couldn't agree more. I think people would change and barely notice if the right options were available but politicians in the USA are scared to rock the boat so nothing changes
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Not sure why people keep misrepresenting this deal. It's not "almost 5b", it's almost 3 billion in incentives and tax breaks and it's not like the State of WI is handing over 3 billion dollars tomorrow. Foxconn has to hit certain marks in order to get those incentives.
Also, Foxconn is putting in a 10 billion investment. so 10 billion investment - 3 billion incentives = 7 billion overall in the WI economy. Not only that, Foxconn reached out to the University of Wisconsin on a partnership for cancer research. And on top of THAT, they are now considering building a new office tower in downtown Milwaukee.
And for jobs, it will be 13K direct jobs with Foxconn and then 22K+ (estimated) for supplemental and ancillary businesses.
You probably should look at a better example to disparage than this one with Foxconn.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
The first 2 options are unreasonable and unrealistic expectations. Most people don't have the income to just get up and move so environmental warriors can feel good about themselves. Could you yourself, right now, move to some other place in CA?
encouraging companies to telecommute is a good idea, but how do you do that for those in the service industry? Or construction? Or any other job that requires a physical body to be on site?
Last edited by a moderator:
It has nothing to do with size and everything to do with investment. California has 2 real areas of population. The bay area and the La/San Diego area. Those are very manageable areas with very cost effective solutions.
This isn't the the thread for you to come in and politize about your beloved Trump. The point is that there is tons of corporate welfare everywhere
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
No one is doing that. I was pointing out that you're purposefully misrepresenting the deal to make yours look better - that was the point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you talk about anything without insulting people? It seems impossible for you
Again this has nothing to do with 'environmental warriors' and everything to do with reducing the long term costs to the state. Either you start changing, slowly, or you face the consequences
This thread isn't about your beloved Trump. I was making a point about corporate welfare and that's it. I wasn't arguing benefits etc...take it somewhere else
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Oh give me a break. You are the one calling people names and degenerating ideas because of your perceived notions. Please, please just go back to the Trump thread and yell and insult people there.
This was a pretty good discussion
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
I'm not insulting you. I'm trying to have dialog and point out that your argument is untenable and unrealistic and you're misrepresenting facts.
If you were insulted about "environmental warriors" then I apologize.
This was a discussion about economics and long term asset management. There wasn't a single line about the environment until you came in here.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if you actually don't remove the quote from the context it was actually linked with a study talking about the health care costs of dealing with air pollution. But again, that's how you like to ruin discussions. I'm nothing but a hippie ####### snowflake so everything is invalid.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
You're way overreacting to my posts. I also apologized for the "environmental warriors" comment.
The point of my posts was to say that it was unreasonable to expect people to get up and move at the drop of a hat as MOST people cannot afford to do so and may not want to do so.
And it simply was pointing out the Foxconn deal you used was misrepresented. That's all. It's all relevant to the discussion in here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Riversco
Footballguy
True. There is 8 hours of nothing between Los Angeles and San Francisco except orchards and road signs in the middle of dead orchards that say "killed by congress" or "no water no food".
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Huh. Thought they closed that down when Congress killed it and they ran out of water and food.
Last edited by a moderator:
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Then it don't matter. I'll be all around in the dark - I'll be everywhere. Wherever you can look - wherever there's a fight, so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever there's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there. I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad. I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry and they know supper's ready, and when the people are eatin' the stuff they raise and livin' in the houses they build - I'll be there, too.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Grampa’s grampa, he fit in the Revolution. We was farm people till the debt. And then—them people. They done somepin to us. Ever’ time they come seemed like they was a-whippin’ me—all of us. An’ in Needles, that police. He done somepin to me, made me feel mean. Made me feel ashamed. An’ now I ain’t ashamed. These folks is our folks—is our folks.
GilbertGrape
Footballguy
I work in a job where I deal with 3 classes of people. People from Texas, people from NYC, and people from Southern California.
Want to know who's by far the worst? Most people I ask this say people from NYC. This is false. People from NYC can be very rude. BUT: You can be rude right back to them. They expect it.
The worst people are from Southern California. They all have a Huge sense of entitlement. Just ridiculous. And they're obnoxiously condescending. Edit: Forgot pretentious.
I've been there, and the climate is great, but it could slide into the ocean for all I care.
Want to know who's by far the worst? Most people I ask this say people from NYC. This is false. People from NYC can be very rude. BUT: You can be rude right back to them. They expect it.
The worst people are from Southern California. They all have a Huge sense of entitlement. Just ridiculous. And they're obnoxiously condescending. Edit: Forgot pretentious.
I've been there, and the climate is great, but it could slide into the ocean for all I care.
Last edited by a moderator:
GilbertGrape
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
GilbertGrape
Footballguy
Quint
Footballguy
Some say a comet will fall from the sky.msommer said:
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by fault lines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dip sh#ts.
Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cause
I sure could use a vacation from this
Stupid sh#t, silly sh#t, stupid sh#t...
One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.
Learn to swim (3x)
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
Powered solely by solar, wind, and unicorn farts.
Though, at least, they won't have to air condition the desert like the geniuses at FIFA decided (i.e. were bribed) to do.
James Daulton
Footballguy
Is this the thread where delusional conservatives try to pretend that Cali's not our greatest state? And that's it's even close?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sand
Footballguy
It's a dichotomy. You have some absolutely astonishingly effective producers/creators (technology, entertainment, agriculture) and a host of leeches/detractors (government on all levels, among others). Right now the creators are winning. Still wouldn't ever decide willingly to live in LA, though.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
"Amazing" isn't the word I'd use here...killface said:
James Daulton
Footballguy
Leeches until you need a road fixed, the cops called, want good schools for your kids, or a fair judiciary system. Other than that, leeches for sure.killface said:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
@timschochet
I think it is time to stick a fork in your remaining anti progressive economic beliefs
Anything on these five pages worth reading?.
I think it is time to stick a fork in your remaining anti progressive economic beliefs
Anything on these five pages worth reading?.
timschochet
Footballguy
Could be. I’ve always tried to let facts on the ground override my preconceived notions. What my state has done is certainly plenty of food for thought for me.
jonessed
Footballguy
It’s the same model that previously led to 10% unemployment. California booms and busts pretty dramatically due to its heavy reliance on the stock market for revenue.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Please show a similar set of policies that were put in place in a similar period of time in California prior to 2011 that resulted in 10% unemployment. Or more importantly an unemployment rate that was outline with similar states that did not enact such policies.
jonessed
Footballguy
California’s policy on the environment, worker’s rights, taxation, the continued expansion of Medical have been the same for the last 20 years
And the article is flat out wrong on infrastructure investment. Touting the cap and trade money and high speed rail is absurd. High speed rail has been an abject failure and the cap and trade money for infrastructure never materialized.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Please show a similar set of policies that were put in place in a similar period of time in California prior to 2011 that resulted in 10% unemployment. Or more importantly an unemployment rate that was out of line with similar states that did not enact such policies.
ETA: The author's list is here
So this is factually wrong?
- California has made major investments in public infrastructure. In 2014, the state allocated 25 percent of the revenue raised from its cap and trade program to the construction of its high-speed rail link between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. During the 2014 election, California voters approved $7.5 billion in bond financing to improve the state’s water infrastructure
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}