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
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
GL to daughter Tim. If she gets into and chooses UCSD, let's grab a beers sometime when you're down my way.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Certainly an issue, but not a deal breaker by any means due to desalination.
But anyone arguing that CA by itself is better off w/o the rest of the US is insane in the membrane.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I think going away for school definitely has merit. I hope my kids end going to school in NorCal, Washington St, Chicago, NY, Mass, DC, or VA.
But after school and a few years of experiencing life and those conceptions you mention? Yeah, SoCal is pretty much utopia.
AAABatteries
Footballguy
This has nothing to do with what I posted. You said "we" about those things you don't need - I don't think you speak for those 4.5 million Trump voters.
timschochet
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Thunderlips
Footballguy
identikit
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Some don't want it easy. Some want to be challenged and affect change in other ways.tommyGunZ said:I think going away for school definitely has merit. I hope my kids end going to school in NorCal, Washington St, Chicago, NY, Mass, DC, or VA.
But after school and a few years of experiencing life and those conceptions you mention? Yeah, SoCal is pretty much utopia.
Short Corner
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Pretty sure that was a huge outlier year. I recall our discussion here on these boards previously.
In fact NY, Cal and Illinois had averaged 120 million outgoing between them annually over the past decade. prior to that. And Cal always being the most.
It was big news when Cal finally didnt have such red on the books.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Sounds like California can take care of themselves when the BIG ONE hits?
OrtonToOlsen
Footballguy
what indeed? California has some of the strictest standards in regards to seismic standards of anyone.
jonessed
Footballguy
It would be interesting to see how fast they could put up desalination plants. They currently take decades to approve and build.
Quint
Footballguy
Will some focused political will, I think projects like that could get fast tracked. The biggest hurdle with desalination plants at this point is NIMBY.
Sand
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
Looks like California is bailing out Tesla. I think you'd be hardpressed to find a bigger corporate welfare beneficiary than Elon Musk.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7
http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-stock-price-california-state-government-bailing-out-2017-7
Quint
Footballguy
more electric cars in CA = less taxes paid at the pump = less $$$ for road repair and maintenance (or less $$$ for the General Fund if cynical).
solution? raise tax on gas.
as always, brilliant planning in the Golden State.
= less pollution and less congestion = massive savings in health care costs. Yes, indeed, it is great planning by California
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/julyaug/19-californias-air-pollution-causes-asthma-allergies-and-premature-births
As to Tesla, everyone jumping for joy over the Foxconn announcement yesterday might have noticed the almost $5 billion in welfare being provided to them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Then why is Moonbeam talking about more gasoline taxes? Shouldn't they just be able to reallocated monies from healthcare to roads?
Oh, wait, this is California. Never mind.
Why not increase gasoline gases to speed up the transition, thus saving tons more in not only health care but infrastructure costs as well? It's pretty simple economics
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/29/the-staggering-economic-cost-of-air-pollution/?utm_term=.0ad11dd25dad
I also edit to add that the key to spending less on infrastructure is not to build more infrastructure and hope to reap payback (because that's close to impossible) but instead to reduce infrastructure demands. Imagine how much money any city or state would have if instead of maintaining a 12 lane highway had to maintain an 8 lane highway. The difference in the asphalt costs alone would be phenomenal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Quint
Footballguy
Quint
Footballguy
raising the gas tax (and vehicle registration fees) might take a minuscule number of cars off the road in CA.
but outside of urban centers like LA proper and SF/East Bay, where they have public transportation that is somewhat serviceable, CA is a commuter state. people are still going to need to get to and from work, and contrary to what some believe, the vast majority of commuters aren't gonna start hopping on their bikes to get to and from their jobs. higher gas tax will just mean they spend less traveling for pleasure, which has it's own unintended consequences.
Yes, that is exactly what will happen. It has been proven time and time again in countries across the globe. The London Congestion Charge has been wildly successful.
The costs of our spread out suburban lifestyle are astronomical both from a health and infrastructure perspective. It's time for us to start squeezing those costs and doing things differently. It just makes good economic sense. The economic consequences of california's highway lifestyle are not sustainable economnically
Last edited by a moderator:
Quint
Footballguy
i'm sure that when the increased gas tax/registration fees in CA don't provide the adequate revenue for the state, the next step will be paying "by the mile" to drive your vehicle. that's when EV drivers will start to feel the sting, and we'll see a real backlash.
again, when you can take Muni/BART to get around SF (for example) you really don't need a car. hell, the whole of SF proper is 7x7....you can damn near walk wherever you need to go.
if you are in Fresno (for example) and have 12 mile one way commute to work, and if you choose not to drive, your options are a 90 minute bus ride one way (if everything is on time) or $14 for Uber (one way). factor in having to drop off/pick up kids from school or daycare, or getting to the gym, or other day-to-day things people do, and not many will forego hopping in their own ride.
Or the options also include
moving closer to work
finding work closer to home
encouraging your company to telecommute
the state investing in a safer, faster commuter options
That's exactly my point. California has such infrastructure problems because the solution has always been to build more and more and more. Well guess what that infrastructure deficit is now in the billions and the solution is not to build more. The solution is to build less. To reduce highways from12 lanes to 8 lanes etc...to take that money and invest it in transit and other options so people can live closer to work. The money saved from building less infrastructure (and savings in health care) will be much more than any investment would cost.
Sand
Footballguy
I've been to LA a good bit and that place is packed to the gills (weather is awesome, but man I'd never choose to live there). I don't really know how or why you'd want to increase population density there.
The why isn't relevant, the population is increasing. The question is how are we going to deal with it. By building more infrastructure that costs billions to build, maintain and replace or are we going to do what's way more economical and cost efficient.
LA isn't for me either but it's not going anywhere.
Quint
Footballguy
one of the unintended consequences of stepping away from infrastructure is the loss of jobs, or less growth if you want to look at it that way, for people in those industries, e.g. construction workers, commercial drivers, electricians, plumbers, pipe-layers/pipe-fitters, renewable energy installers/techs, and a myriad of other occupations that employ "middle class" people. further many of these jobs do not require a college degree (though some require additional training). what's more, skilled positions (i.e. need a degree) like urban and regional planners, traffic coordinators, etc. are also negatively impacted by taking resources away from state infrastructure projects.
on the other hand, by lessening infrastructure spending at the state level, we are also "shrinking government" as some of the state-held positions who oversee these projects would become redundant and/or unnecessary, and could be eliminated. on a ideological level i'm on board with that, as i see redundancy and inefficiency at the local/state government level a bane to us all. on a pragmatic level, we are talking about local municipality and state workers who would find themselves out of work and that's not awesome.
Last edited by a moderator:
Short Corner
Footballguy
California doesn't maintain it's highwayskillface said:
msommer
Footballguy
Until we have fully autonomous cars I don't see how replacing an ICE car with an electric one means less congestion.
And just replacing existing cars with autonomous cars doesn't do the trick either. Because the root cause for congestion is not that there are too many cars. It is that people in points A-P want or need to be at points Q-Z at the same time (and use a car to get there).
It doesn't matter, the highways lead to major roads that are also 12 lanes wide. The transportation infrastructure and underground infrastructure deficit is coming due and it's beyond what anyone can think
and the cost of public transit is much less than the cost of providing infrastructure for a spread out car driven society
msommer
Footballguy
Sure.
Now, is public transportation cheap, reliable and ubiquitous in California?
Is major investment required to provide cheap, reliable and ubiquitous public transportation in California?
Quint
Footballguy
I think you mean CA's unfunded pension liabilities. But that, and how the "why" is relevant as it relates to CA's growing population are different topics.
No that's not what i mean at all. I mean California, and the rest of this country's, incredible infrastructure deficit. California alone is the 100s of billions of $$$s. Back in the day when taxes were high we built all this nice infrastructure, now taxes are incredibly low but we need to rebuild all that infrastructure and the construction cost index has vastly outpaced inflation for the last decade.
You guys keep trying to turn this into some sort of left right issue when it's not.
Last edited by a moderator:
The investment to provide the transit is much less than the investment required to renew the infrastructure.
Quint
Footballguy
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CA have the highest marginal income tax rate nationally? And is among the tops in sales tax and corporate income tax in the US?
If you want to talk about the consequences of Prop 13, again a different topic.
I'm not talking about Prop 13. I'm talking about the fact that infrastructure tends to last 75 years or so and the majority of infrastructure was built in the 1950s and 1960s when the corporate and income tax rates were very high compared to currently. So we have way less tax revenue now, the CCI is much higher than inflation and the bill is coming to replace all of that infrastructure.
Every state is in the exact same spot but the most expensive infrastructure to maintain and replace is in fact roads. They only have a 25 year life span (at the best of times) and are very expensive to rebuild. California has way too many roads
Throw in the fact that you have to somehow deal with the stormwater from all the impervious surface and it is by far the most expensive asset for a government to maintain and own.
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
Lets keep that as an assumption. On that basis, please elaborate on how you envision to entice Californians to give up their cars and hop on public transportation instead.
You make it more expensive to drive and cheaper to take public transit. Simple economics. Like everywhere else that has successfully done it.
If you want confirmation of the costs feel free to flip through any engineering journal or check out the american society of civil engineers journal
Your insistence that we maintain the status quo cannot physically be done. We are just pushing the infrastructure deficit down the road
https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/
jonessed
Footballguy
They can't build public transportation where it's needed. NIMBY combined with California's environmental protection laws/regulations add massive amounts of time and cost.
It's why the bullet train design, after years of squabbling, will end up connecting "Nowhere" to "BFE".
Coincidentally, they can't build affordable housing where it's needed for the same reasons.
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
There is no substantial California public transportation infrastructure outside of BART, and to a lesser degree, CalTrain. It would have to built from scratch (which the bullet train proved is not currently possible under CA regulations). That's assuming they could even come up with the hundreds of billions they would need to build the base infrastructure.
Similar threads
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}