The top ten POOREST states are all RED states: MS, WV, AL, LA, KY, AR, SC, OK, TN, TX

[LV426]

Your "details" never have anything to do with the real issue.

You're trying to make the issue that CA lost population to TX, but when pressed for details that change the picture you're trying to paint by adding valuable context, you get all whiny like this.

Flash, it certainly matters from where people left if you're trying to make an argument that people are leaving CA for a reason that has to do with something ambiguous.

Flash, you're a lazy person who only tells a fraction of the story.

[Flash]

LMAO!

Details about CA's population have nothing to do with CA's population??

WHAT?

Details about who is leaving have nothing to do with whether CA is losing population--about 45-50 k to Texas. LV426: "CA is not really losing population because details show they are only from Mariposa County."

[LV426]

You only bring up irrelevant details when your claims are proven wrong. Listing CA cities that gained population was a poor effort to prove CA was not losing population.

OK...

1. You argued that "tech people" were leaving CA (60,000 a year is what you claimed)

2. But you have no proof that "tech people" left CA because the median income of the places from where these people are presumably leaving consistently increases each year, it never declines.

3. So if the population of SF, SJ, and Oak is increasing, and the median income is also increasing, then the people leaving CA aren't the tech people...they're someone else.

4. So since the population data doesn't show SF, SJ, or Oak shedding people, we must seek out from where the people are leaving CA that is lowering the state's population.

5. By doing the bare minimum amount of work, we find that from 2010-2022, the counties in CA that lost population weren't the counties that LA, SF, SJ, Oakland, or SD are in...they're counties at the fringes of the state, and they're the ones losing population.

[LV426]

The whole concept of a minimum wage is Socialist.

Not really, no, because it's not the state paying the workers.

Continually raising it is just a means for a Socialist government using Statist Capitalism to force employers to pay for that Socialism

So since CA raised their MW, the state got a budget surplus and created more jobs than any other state.

Say...does TX have a budget surplus? THEY DON'T???? But how can that be with all their freedumb?

What happens is a high minimum wage means that low productivity workers are getting paid more than they are worth or produce.

Or, it means they are getting paid exactly their worth.

That forces businesses that cannot meet that wage out of the market.

Good!

No one is entitled to own a business.

The government might prop up such businesses with subsidies if those businesses are still necessary.

Like they do with the oil industry, and the natural gas industry.

I mean, it's quite literally what we did in 2015 to help OK, TX, and ND since they rely on oil revenues and OPEC can fuck that up with a single keystroke.

For higher productivity workers they can feel their work is no longer appreciated

I don't know a single worker who will work less hard because some 18 year old kid at McDonald's gets $15/hr.

And what defines a "higher productivity worker"????

[Flash]

You're trying to make the issue that CA lost population to TX, but when pressed for details that change the picture you're trying to paint by adding valuable context, you get all whiny like this.

Those details did not change the picture. CA is losing population or remained essentially stable. More of those people went to TX.

Those were the only facts I stated. Trying to bring in irrelevant factors such as county of origin or that many cities gained population does not change those facts. You just did not want to believe that fact and added unrelated trivia trying to say those details prove CA is not actually losing people.

You have done this a hundred times. A poster proves something to you and you add irrelevant factors because he did not include those in his discussion since they had no effect on the main point.

[Doc Dutch]

No, they're still run by the state, they just don't want to help the cities because they're full of Black people....

Why do cities force all black people to live there?

[Flash]

So you think that all 875,000 people who live in SF are upper income?

Stupid assumption.

[T. A. Gardner]

Dramatically? To what?

That is not socialism at all.

Socialism would be CA seizing the means of production for something like, say, oil or natural gas, putting them under public ownership.

There are many variations of Socialism that achieve similar results.



So, for example, in Statist Capitalism, a form of Socialism, the means of production remains in private hands but government dictates wages, prices, and production by those companies. Your view of Socialism is horribly outdated.

Raising the MW isn't socialism, it's capitalism.

Absolutely wrong! Minimum wage is dictated by government onto business. It's a form of Statist Capitalism where government is dictating wages rather than in a Capitalist system where the employer / business is free to set whatever wage they and the employee agree upon.

"The productive"?

Who do you mean?

Productivity in a company can be measured several ways. An employee produces some good or service and the company receives payment for that. The amount gotten per unit can vary. For example, if you are working in fast food and you produce say $20 in an hour in goods and services, and the cost of operating the business and paying you is $18 an hour then the company only makes $2 an hour profit.
If your job is so simple that it can be done by automation and that will raise the company profits to $4 an hour, you are unproductive compared to having your job automated and you let go.

Thus:



Raising minimum wage encourages automating low productivity jobs.

[Flash]

Say...does TX have a budget surplus? THEY DON'T???? But how can that be with all their freedumb?

More misinformation from LV426. Texas has a $24 billion budget surplus which they did by not raising taxes.

What to do with Texas’ $24 billion budget surplus? (click2houston.com)

[LV426]

There are many variations of Socialism that achieve similar results.

"Socialism" just seems to be any policy you disagree with that helps any people.

Raising minimum wage encourages automating low productivity jobs

If businesses didn't automate during the once-in-a-century pandemic, even when given PPP loans and a decade of this rhetoric, they are never going to.

[LV426]

More misinformation from LV426. Texas has a $24 billion budget surplus which they did by not raising taxes.]

CA's surplus is 4 times that.

[Flash]

OK...

1. You argued that "tech people" were leaving CA (60,000 a year is what you claimed)

2. But you have no proof that "tech people" left CA because the median income of the places from where these people are presumably leaving consistently increases each year, it never declines.

3. So if the population of SF, SJ, and Oak is increasing, and the median income is also increasing, then the people leaving CA aren't the tech people...they're someone else.

4. So since the population data doesn't show SF, SJ, or Oak shedding people, we must seek out from where the people are leaving CA that is lowering the state's population.

5. By doing the bare minimum amount of work, we find that from 2010-2022, the counties in CA that lost population weren't the counties that LA, SF, SJ, Oakland, or SD are in...they're counties at the fringes of the state, and they're the ones losing population.

Again, none of these "details" disproves the original claims that CA is losing population and about 45-50k are moving to TX. That some cities are gaining population, the counties people are moving from or to, or their income levels do not change the original claim.

Your "work" is irrelevant details to avoid admitting you were wrong.

[Flash]

CA's surplus is 4 times that.

So, now you admit TX does have a surplus? Good for you LV.

[cawacko]

Those details did not change the picture. CA is losing population or remained essentially stable. More of those people went to TX.

Those were the only facts I stated. Trying to bring in irrelevant factors such as county of origin or that many cities gained population does not change those facts. You just did not want to believe that fact and added unrelated trivia trying to say those details prove CA is not actually losing people.

You have done this a hundred times. A poster proves something to you and you add irrelevant factors because he did not include those in his discussion since they had no effect on the main point.

I'm a real estate guy so I love this stuff.

California has lost population the last two years. The biggest losses within the state have been in SF and LA county. Some of those people leaving SF and LA have stayed in state and moved to where's it more "affordable" like the Inland Empire or Sacramento area, and others have just left the state. Texas I believe is where the most have gone but plenty have left to Seattle, Portland, Boise, Denver and Las Vegas as well as others.

People can debate the reasons why, but those facts aren't debatable.

[LV426]

[SIZE=3]Again, none of these "details" disproves the original claims that CA is losing population and about 45-50k are moving to TX.

I didn't dispute that it happened, just its significance.

And I also want to know for sure who left CA for TX and from where, because the only way we can find that out is to drive down into the numbers, which you refuse to do.

That some cities are gaining population, the counties people are moving from or to, or their income levels do not change the original claim.

But it certainly puts the claim in context, doesn't it?

You want people to think CA lost population because people left the high cost areas due to the policies, but those high cost areas all gained population, so your attempt to pin the migration on that fell completely fucking flat.