California

[dickfoster]

The way I've heard that term used is by locals up in the Northwest - Oregon, Washington - who are appalled by people who were unhappy in California moving there and instead of blending in, bringing with them the same unhappiness and messes they had created for themselves when they lived in California.

I say let those unhappy people move on and take their attitude with them, we don't need them.

Yeah I've seen the same loony lefties move to other places and attempt to recreate exactly the same conditions that made them leave in the first place. One has to wonder about that sort of nitwit. The locals in such infected areas should declare an open season on them with no bag limit. No wonder that Moonbeam is on his what his fourth term now? Masochistic gluttons for punishment? His dad wasn't very good for the state either. I think this state needs another rein like Reagan's but I don't think the state is smart enough to elect one now.
There is little wonder this state gets no respect when we have idiots like Boxer and Pelosi representing us. At least Boxer is history now but I'm sure they'll find as big of a fool to replace her.

 

[MossRoad]

Indiana Moonshine?

Moonshine? Nah! That's corn-based paint thinner. We have a huge market for corn-based paint thinner here. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

We're only about 5 miles from Michigan and 20 or so miles from the SW corner of Lake Michigan. The land is sand and water. There are MANY MANY MANY great vinyards, wineries and orchards in this area. :thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

All right folks, lets let the politics go from the discussion or it'll have to be moved to the oh so friendly politics section.

 

[downsizingnow48]

Too bad folks can't have an evidence-based discussion without throwing in the usual and tiresome rants. Did anyone other than California read the Forbes article on job creation?

 

[MossRoad]

Too bad folks can't have an evidence-based discussion without throwing in the usual and tiresome rants. Did anyone other than California read the Forbes article on job creation?

Yeah, I read it. I wonder how the per-capita income is doing over the last 20 years in CA? Is it lots of good jobs, lots of crummy jobs, or a mix of good and crummy jobs? Is there a larger disparity between the haves and have-nots? I ask, because of several comments in this thread regarding people moving in and raising prices. That's generally referred to as gentrification. So, while the money is pouring onto California's table, who's glass is it actually being poured into? Is everybody reaping the bounty? Averages can be thrown way off if you have a small, yet wealthy segment of society.

A good analogy is a fish pond. I learned this when I was studying pond life as a Boy Scout, so pardon its simplicity....

A given body of water can support X pounds of fish due to the limits of the nutrients in the water.
In our pond, the watershed supplies enough nutrients to support 1000 pounds of fish.
So we can have:
10,000 one tenth of a pound fish.
1000 one pound fish.
100 one hundred pound fish.
or
1 one thousand pound fish.

Or any mix in between but it can never exceed 1000 pounds of fish because there's not enough nutrients (dollars in an economy) to support more.

So, there's about 40 million people in CA.
You can't use percentage to express per capita income because it's an average of the whole. Anyone have the actual numbers as to how many people make, say:
$0-20K
$20K-40K
$40K-60K
$60k-80K
$80K-100K
$100K +

???

It would be interesting.

 

[MossRoad]

Well, here's some numbers from 2013 from this website....
http://www.opendatanetwork.com/region/0400000US06/California/earnings/percent_earning_less_than_$10000/2013?

Percent Earning less than $10,000 (2013): 1.9%
Percent Earning $10,000 to $14,999 (2013): 4.0%
Percent Earning $15,000 to $24,999 (2013): 14.2%
Percent Earning $25,000 to $34,999 (2013): 14.4%
Percent Earning $35,000 to $49,999 (2013): 17.6%
Percent Earning $50,000 to $64,999 (2013): 14.0%
Percent Earning $65,000 to $74,999 (2013): 6.1%
Percent Earning $75,000 to $99,999 (2013): 11.3%
Percent Earning over $100,000 (2013): 16.4%

 

[prichard]

That's a decent mix but in a lot of areas out there less than 100k is poverty.

That's the real problem discussing California. It is such a large diverse state how can any numbers represent the whole picture?

Edit: I should add that the same could be said of many states. I live an hour from Atlanta in the wealthiest part of Georgia. South Georgia is a while different economy.

 

[MossRoad]

In 2013 the per capita income in CA was $28,600.
California State Household Income | Department of Numbers

But the above numbers show only about 26% of the people earning less than $28,000 per year.

So how does that work?
I need an economics lesson.

 

[ultrarunner]

Last I checked a family of 4 would need about 65k income to equal assistance programs.

My county median income is $93,600

Based on that the cut off for Section 8 housing assistance eligibility is $75,150

Qualifying for Housing

The thing to remember is each county is different as to median income.

 

[California]

In 2013 the per capita income in CA was $28,600.
California State Household Income | Department of Numbers

But the above numbers show only about 26% of the people earning less than $28,000 per year.

So how does that work?

Dunno but that never prevented me from expressing an opinion.

To make a guess, per capita is total income reported on State income tax returns divided by population. While earnings per person is average annual wage paid to employed people.

Or something like that.

It's probably explained in the footnotes to those charts.

Gross income in the state is distorted by the huge incomes made by the mega-rich. (from post#1 in this thread "four of the world's 10 largest companies are headquartered in California, including tech heavyweights Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) and Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ: FB). "

This concentration of new tech wealth got us in trouble 15 years ago. The legislature allocated all the new dot-com tax revenue to permanent programs then the dot-com bubble burst and the new dedicated expenditures couldn't be downsized fast enough to avoid budget shortfalls.

Governor Jerry Brown may seem like a nut, he's rightfully earned that reputation, but he really does understand state budgeting. After he took office, Brown got everything back to running smoothly and the state budget has finally left that crisis era behind.


The overall picture is that the state's economy is growing faster than the nation as a whole, in fact you could say that California is pulling up the numbers for the national economy because this performance is such a large component of the national economy.

Added - The fishpond model above isn't applicable to economics. As people mine, farm, manufacture, sell stuff to one another, write computer programs or whole new computer cultures (Facebook etc) new wealth is created and the economy grows. In terms of that fishpond, the dimensions of the pond are increasing.