Why San Fransico is losing population

Here is an article from the SF Chronicle and their token conservative.
[ QUOTE ]
....President Theodore Roosevelt once opined: "It is difficult to make our material condition better by the best law, but it is easy enough to ruin it by bad laws."

[/ QUOTE ]
Lots of details about SF's and California's current fiscal condition, how it got there, and how little hope we have to recover (everything being done is just adding more reasons for businesses and jobs to leave the state).

At the end of the article, the author summarizes:

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, just maybe, the real problem is that the Demo fat cats are simply all busily appeasing their anti-business constituencies, which is their base of support. If you're fed up or concerned, you have two choices: pack your bags and leave the state, or contact your Democratic party legislators and give them a piece of your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

-Bill

Interesting article Bill. I heard the population was declining but I hadn't heard why it was happening.

I'm guessing that an un-biased author or economist could have a better take on this, ie both sides of the issue...especially how hard the dot-com bust hit CA, but I think the best wording out this article is something this country seriously lacks:
"lack of fiscal discipline"

People want their cake, and they want to eat it as well.
Slight rant here, but I can't stand it when people say cut my taxes, and repair my streets and trim my trees while you're at it.

Economics, especially nowadays, just isn't that simple...and has never been black and white.

IMHO



I'm not sure if this is a good example of Fiscal Responsibility, but I called a moratorium on the vending machine at work so that I could afford a ArcLSH...better than the alternative of NOT getting the Arc.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
T.

deleted

The unbiased economist here is probably not needed in this discussion. The state is spending (and has been for several years) at $20-30 million dollars a day more than they have taken in.

The budget has gone up much faster than the combined rate of inflation + rate of population growth. The state government employment has never been more, and as late as February they were discussing if a 3% instead of a 10% increase in employees was going to hurt too much.

The hard part is policy--"we" are giving out entitlements and not paying them with current accounts--but just borrowing $11,000,000,000 to cover last year's (pre-election) deficit spending.

Now that we are still in the hole, we can only save ourselves by raising taxes.

Well, they have continued to raise taxes (and spending) for 3+ years now and it is only getting worse.

Look at the article for Workman's Compensation Insurance rates. A machinist's company pays 10% of salaries in CA vs 2.6% in AZ for the same job. The finance person in our company said that WC has increased 50% since last year. That is a direct 5% point increase in a flat income tax rate since last year.

By the way, California's graduated income tax top rate is a little more than 10% (for the rich).

And the vehicle property tax rate will go up this September from ~1% to ~3% (was dropped to 1% a few years ago during the dotcom boom).

I would be interested in some counter balanced information.

In the end, we can only blame the voters that elect folks by 50% + 1 vote margin that increase spending. And, so far, in California the only way we have learned to restrain government is to restrict the size of the pot of money. Remeber Prop 13 that slashed property taxes and restricted increases--California did very well for many years after that).

-Bill

Someone here probably knows who it was, I can't remember. Who was the man a few hundred years ago that said and of course I will misquote, "Democracy is destined to fail because the people will vote themselves benefits to the point they bankrupt the economy?

Maybe this one?

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Alexis de Tocqueville

Close, but different culprit.

Dave, you're referring to the disturbing "Cycle of Democracy" written by Alexander Tyler in 1770. Specifically:

[ QUOTE ]

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.


[/ QUOTE ]

California is a case study on this concept. I just hate how prescient Tyler appears.

Hmmmmmmm,
I had a history teacher in my senior year of high school say this:

"70% of a population is either ignorant or stupid. Democracy will utimately fail by pandering to the lowest common denominator." American History Teacher, Chicago Illinois 1982

After all these years, the statement makes a lot of sense.

And to California's "Liberal" politicians, Liberty just means the freedom to exploit weakness in the system to their own benefit. The sad thing is it's starting to happen here in NYC under Bloomberg and Hillary Rotten Clinton too. Liberal totalitarianism here we come, big government, bigger debt and all the tax money in the pockets of the wealthy and politically connected while the definition of individual liberties for the average Joe and Jane shrinks through tighter regulation.

TSG /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gman has summed it up quite well...
California used to be the most laid back state in the Union, but now it is one of the most oppressive. I've been here in Ventura County since '83 and find myself looking to relocate as well due to the cost of average home ownership approaching one half million!

There are a handfull of states that I would never EVER live in, PERIOD!

I base this on travels, heresay, and even based on what politician calls it home.

TOPS on my list is Kalifornicatia.
Also New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, and Washington State.

But take heart people. Texas, the great state I call home, is in pretty bad fiscal shape. And the majority here is getting or has gotten Hispanic (aw hell, who am I fooling - MEXICAN!). And many/most of them do not learn English and do not have the manners a mama Baboon teaches her young!

I guess the good (or bad depending on how you look at it) part is in 30-40 years from now (or much less - who knows?) I will be gone. And this fork of my family name will be gone as well.

Goona see some really neat flashlights in the following years!

[ QUOTE ]
BentHeadTX said:
Hmmmmmmm,
I had a history teacher in my senior year of high school say this:

"70% of a population is either ignorant or stupid. Democracy will utimately fail by pandering to the lowest common denominator." American History Teacher, Chicago Illinois 1982

After all these years, the statement makes a lot of sense.





[/ QUOTE ]

This is, of course, very true. Our founding fathers had an answer for this. You couldn't vote unless you had some sort of stake in the system. The legislators came from this same group of stakeholders. When spending money, therefore, the legislators acted like they were spending their own, which they were. That is the utimate fiscal control. "Democracy" does not equal "Universal Sufferage". It starts going wrong when people can vote to take from others via taxes, not for some sort of "common good", but to give it themselves in the form of "entitlements".

California fixed this with regards to property taxes with Prop 13. To raise property taxes requires a 2/3 positive vote of the people who are going to pay the taxes , not the recipients of the funds. Sometimes the property holders say yes, sometimes they say no. Under this system, however, it is always their money first and the government has to ask permission.

Perhaps a similar type of system for fiscal/non-fiscal matters could be implemented at the legislative level. The problem is that there are too many people who like things the way they are (or were, until recently.....)

being a native San Franciscan, It's disturbing to find out that not only are we losing population but the name of the city is about to be changed as well. Because of the influx of gays and Asians over the last 20 years, there is a movement afoot to change the name of the city to Gaysia. Not only is the name of the city going to change but we are about to lose our first place Giants who will be sold to the Phillipines and they will be called the Manilla Folders.

In politics they say: as goes California, so goes the Nation.

Uhh...hate to break to you guys, but the Feds are way ahead of CA when it comes to spending money they don't have...one of the many reasons we have such a huge budget defecit.

I think the quote above is correct for both parties, not democrats or republicans but democrats AND republicans.

Spending money and handing out pork is how they get reelected.

When was the last time you saw a politician win an election because they want to cut projects, lower spending and be more fiscally responsible?


Doesn't happen often because they don't want to risk losing their election when those impacted vote for someone else.

The fact is that when democrats AND republicans talk about cutting out pork and other bad spending, it is always the OTHER states pork/spending patterns...not their own which totally legit and needed for the good people of x-state!

Or I've just gotten too cynical in my old age...

Time to go back and look at flashlights!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

T.