California's progressive tax is a massive failure!

a reply to: JAGStorm

As I said, it’s still the most populated state. You can paint a picture of all the people there being unhappy all you want, it’s still a fallacy. People are leaving? They’ve always been leaving. And yet people still live there and move there too. It’s a state, some people like it, some people don’t. Americans are transitory people now, and they move from place to place. And if you want to blame someone for property prices put the blame where it’s due. On bankers that create housing bubbles and ridiculous prices. A homes cost is based largely upon what a bank values it at. They have the final say on whatever made up costs a house incurs. Bubbles are the driving force for our economy now. And it all comes down to capitalist exploitation of other people’s work.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: dfnj2015

Socialism is supposed to make the people equal. If socialism made the state rich but the people are suffering either you are doing it wrong or it doesn't work.

Socialism is not about making people equal.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DJMSN

You are overstating your case in my opinion when you're not outright exaggerating beyond all rationality.

The housing market is expensive because of DEMAND for housing in CA not the failure of government.

PG&E is a private CORPORATION that has benefited from government subsidies yet, has not reinvested profits or even maintained its infrastructure ... arguably a mini-study in the absolute failure of the theories behind the so-called Laffer Curve.

And so on ...

Those are not universal problems across the entire state of CA.

These are the regurgitated talking points of the right-extremist corporate media.

Housing is expensive in CA because leftist regulations and NIMBYism have constrained supply of housing.

Developers cant build anything and the basic cost are so expensive the only housing worth building is high end homes.

I mean no disrespect, but that is a one-sided and overly simplistic view of the question. I too made simplistic claims above. The fact is that the housing situation in CA is a complex equation with many variables that include both supply-side and demand-side factors.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: JAGStorm watch what you read,because you end up sounding like a fool,just like a millenium,stick foot in mouth,spend majority of time trying to extract it

Since your location is California, call me whatever you want, you'll have to suffer in that sorry state, sooner or later! HA

In my opinion, this statement by the author clearly sums up the real intention of the thread.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DJMSN

You are overstating your case in my opinion when you're not outright exaggerating beyond all rationality.

The housing market is expensive because of DEMAND for housing in CA not the failure of government.

PG&E is a private CORPORATION that has benefited from government subsidies yet, has not reinvested profits or even maintained its infrastructure ... arguably a mini-study in the absolute failure of the theories behind the so-called Laffer Curve.

And so on ...

Those are not universal problems across the entire state of CA.

These are the regurgitated talking points of the right-extremist corporate media.

Housing is expensive in CA because leftist regulations and NIMBYism have constrained supply of housing.

Developers cant build anything and the basic cost are so expensive the only housing worth building is high end homes.

I mean no disrespect, but that is a one-sided and overly simplistic view of the question. I too made simplistic claims above. The fact is that the housing situation in CA is a complex equation with many variables that include both supply-side and demand-side factors.

It isn't all that complex... it is only complex to progressives who don't have an ability to connect dots between a policy and the economic reaction to the policy.

From a Wall Street Jouranl editorial this morning:

Fifty years ago, housing costs in the Bay Area were just as affordable as in many other parts of the country. By 2017 median house prices in places like San Francisco and San Jose had risen to nearly 250% above the national average, according to census data. Liberals blame the housing shortage on the growth of Silicon Valley, but the real culprit was government intervention in housing markets. Starting in the 1970s, California implemented all manner of “open space” laws and “smart growth” policies to restrict housing construction. It worked.

“In California, production has fallen so far that Houston—a single Texas metropolitan area—produced as many new homes in 2014 as the entire Golden State,” writes demographer Joel Kotkin. “Given the extraordinary costs of land in places like California, many developers only find it worthwhile to build homes largely for the affluent.”

There is no affordable housing because progressive policies have restricted supply. In San Franfeces, they restrict supply of units by preventing high rise developments. In addition, affordable housing policies actual raise the cost of housing for everyone else.

Here is a good video on how progessive politices / NIMBYism keeps housing cost high in CA. To summarize, a dry cleaner owner wanted to sell his building/land to a developer to build condos (increasing supply) but the neighborhood activist have been trying to block the sale want cheaper units. The only way a developer can do that is to charge more of the market rate units (restricting supply).

a reply to: Gryphon66

In my opinion, this statement by the author clearly sums up the real intention of the thread.

Nope, my intention is: socialism doesn't work, period. I don't care if the story was from Texas.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Gryphon66

In my opinion, this statement by the author clearly sums up the real intention of the thread.

Nope, my intention is: socialism doesn't work, period. I don't care if the story was from Texas.

Indeed. That's why the title of the thread is a bit misleading and misplaced. Your intention wasn't to discuss the effect on California population of tax increases, that was merely the hook.

I do appreciate your honesty though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed. That's why the title of the thread is a bit misleading and misplaced. Your intention wasn't to discuss the effect on California population of tax increases, that was merely the hook. I do appreciate your honesty though.

California was the hook because that is where the research was done. Very soon this story will read:
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Washington State..

a reply to: Edumakated

Being progressive (or not) has nothing to do with the ability to analyze; that's just political baiting and needless ad hom.

Your claim is that one WSJ article (also extremely partisan rather than objective) is a summation of all market factors affecting housing in CA over a period of several years.

I find that claim ridiculous on its face, but let's continue.

Your article claims that "liberals blame the housing shortage on Silicon Valley" ... well, that's just a dopey, vague and meaningless argument. It's also fallacious but in parallel with the claims of your post.

It's common knowledge that markets are complex. This isn't a liberal or conservative view; it's accepted fact. The interplay between the forces of supply and demand affect and determine EVERY MARKET EVERYWHERE, so on the outset of your argument, you're contradicting known facts by focusing on only one factor that squares with your own political beliefs and that's the fundamental flaw in your argument.

I would agree that legislation is part of one aspect of the problem, but it has nothing to do with "progressive" ideology per se, it has to do with giving local control to homeowners over zoning ordinance and build approval. Greater local control is not soley a progressive concept.

The argument that phenomenal job growth has nothing to do with the situation is also absurd:

For the first time, the nine-county Bay Area has topped 4.1 million jobs, an employment winning streak that now has extended to 10 consecutive months, a state government labor report released on Friday shows.

In a fresh indication that any potential economic downturn remains beyond the horizon, the Bay Area added 5,100 jobs during August. Last month’s upswing was led by the region’s three major employment hubs, the South Bay, East Bay, and San Francisco-San Mateo region, the state’s Employment Development Department reported.

Mercury News, September 20, 2019

That's the guts of your argument countered. I do agree that your points have validity but the situation is not created by any single factor but by a constellation of forces and factors.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: Gryphon66

Indeed. That's why the title of the thread is a bit misleading and misplaced. Your intention wasn't to discuss the effect on California population of tax increases, that was merely the hook. I do appreciate your honesty though.

California was the hook because that is where the research was done. Very soon this story will read:
Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Washington State..

I've pointed out what the ACTUAL study said rather than the summary article you read and cited.

It is your opinion that what you see as "Blue" states are the ones that will suffer, but that's quite clear a factor of your hopes rather than anything that is substantilaly true.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Being progressive (or not) has nothing to do with the ability to analyze; that's just political baiting and needless ad hom.

Your claim is that one WSJ article (also extremely partisan rather than objective) is a summation of all market factors affecting housing in CA over a period of several years.

I find that claim ridiculous on its face, but let's continue.

Your article claims that "liberals blame the housing shortage on Silicon Valley" ... well, that's just a dopey, vague and meaningless argument. It's also fallacious but in parallel with the claims of your post.

It's common knowledge that markets are complex. This isn't a liberal or conservative view; it's accepted fact. The interplay between the forces of supply and demand affect and determine EVERY MARKET EVERYWHERE, so on the outset of your argument, you're contradicting known facts by focusing on only one factor that squares with your own political beliefs and that's the fundamental flaw in your argument.

I would agree that legislation is part of one aspect of the problem, but it has nothing to do with "progressive" ideology per se, it has to do with giving local control to homeowners over zoning ordinance and build approval. Greater local control is not soley a progressive concept.

The argument that phenomenal job growth has nothing to do with the situation is also absurd:

For the first time, the nine-county Bay Area has topped 4.1 million jobs, an employment winning streak that now has extended to 10 consecutive months, a state government labor report released on Friday shows.

In a fresh indication that any potential economic downturn remains beyond the horizon, the Bay Area added 5,100 jobs during August. Last month’s upswing was led by the region’s three major employment hubs, the South Bay, East Bay, and San Francisco-San Mateo region, the state’s Employment Development Department reported.

Mercury News, September 20, 2019

That's the guts of your argument countered. I do agree that your points have validity but the situation is not created by any single factor but by a constellation of forces and factors.

Supply and demand. No one has argued that there isn't demand. The issue is supply. Again, progressive policies have constrained supply and with demand being high, you have surprise.... high housing prices. Because of the high demand for housing, it is understandably expensive because developers cannot build enough housing to keep up with demand.

Again, not very complex. I can literally point to several regulations, zoning, and other issues over the past 50 years that all add up to why housing supply is constrained.

It is only complex because you choose not to recognize what is going on. Again, not connecting dots.

Your entire argument is like debating why it is raining.

Me, "it is cloudy outside, looks like rain. Maybe I'll carry an umbrella."

You, "Well, it is actually more complex than that... see we have to look at barometric pressure and what type of cloud it is in the sky. We also have to consider the weather forecast. You know, climate change can also have an effect. I'm not sure it is going to rain, but it might. Not sure if I need an umbrella. OMG, I am getting wet! How could I have possibly known it might rain?"

So you’re saying the people that live there didn’t want a housing complex built. Well, they are the locals and if that’s their decision so be it.

originally posted by: pexx421
So you’re saying the people that live there didn’t want a housing complex built. Well, they are the locals and if that’s their decision so be it.

And that is why housing is expensive. They are constraining supply and then those same people were turn around and complain about it...

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: M5xaz

Hm. And what country was socialist? Russia? How were their policies socialist, exactly?

Seriously ?
That old trope about true socialism having never been tried ?

In the Iron Curtain, the government owned EVEVRYTHING and the people were poor and truly oppressed by SOCIALISM, complete with the Berlin wall where you were shot if you dared to try to escape that worker's "paradise"

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government

a reply to: Edumakated

It depends on whether we were discussing the process of why it rains or how to keep from getting wet.

Best, thanks for the convo.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: JAGStorm

As I said, it’s still the most populated state. You can paint a picture of all the people there being unhappy all you want, it’s still a fallacy. People are leaving? They’ve always been leaving. And yet people still live there and move there too. It’s a state, some people like it, some people don’t. Americans are transitory people now, and they move from place to place. And if you want to blame someone for property prices put the blame where it’s due. On bankers that create housing bubbles and ridiculous prices. A homes cost is based largely upon what a bank values it at. They have the final say on whatever made up costs a house incurs. Bubbles are the driving force for our economy now. And it all comes down to capitalist exploitation of other people’s work.

Pretty much everything you just said is crap. Sorry to put it so harsly but let's break it down.

-Yes, Cali is big, which is why percentages come in to place.
If 1 person out of 10 move from podunktown, it is the same as 10K moving out of a Cali city.
All statistics say California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey etc... have more population moving out than in.

A homes cost is based largely upon what a bank values it at.

No, a house is based on what people are willing to pay for it. That is why a house is a million dollars in Hollywood, and only 50K in Milwaukee. The same bank can mortgage people in both those places.

And it all comes down to capitalist exploitation of other people’s work

Socialist ideology is that nobody owns anything regardless of the work or craft or talent put in, that is as exploitative as it gets.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: M5xaz

Hm. And what country was socialist? Russia? How were their policies socialist, exactly?

Seriously ?
That old trope about true socialism having never been tried ?

In the Iron Curtain, the government owned EVEVRYTHING and the people were poor and truly oppressed by SOCIALISM, complete with the Berlin wall where you were shot if you dared to try to escape that worker's "paradise"

so·cial·ism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government

Actually it’s supposed to be owned by the workers. But to recall, the first thing the Soviet Union did was to give all the land away to citizens for private ownership. How’s that fit in with the “govt owns everything” narrative.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: JAGStorm

As I said, it’s still the most populated state. You can paint a picture of all the people there being unhappy all you want, it’s still a fallacy. People are leaving? They’ve always been leaving. And yet people still live there and move there too. It’s a state, some people like it, some people don’t. Americans are transitory people now, and they move from place to place. And if you want to blame someone for property prices put the blame where it’s due. On bankers that create housing bubbles and ridiculous prices. A homes cost is based largely upon what a bank values it at. They have the final say on whatever made up costs a house incurs. Bubbles are the driving force for our economy now. And it all comes down to capitalist exploitation of other people’s work.

Pretty much everything you just said is crap. Sorry to put it so harsly but let's break it down.

-Yes, Cali is big, which is why percentages come in to place.
If 1 person out of 10 move from podunktown, it is the same as 10K moving out of a Cali city.
All statistics say California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey etc... have more population moving out than in.

A homes cost is based largely upon what a bank values it at.

No, a house is based on what people are willing to pay for it. That is why a house is a million dollars in Hollywood, and only 50K in Milwaukee. The same bank can mortgage people in both those places.

And it all comes down to capitalist exploitation of other people’s work

Socialist ideology is that nobody owns anything regardless of the work or craft or talent put in, that is as exploitative as it gets.

Socialist ideology is that everyone is supposed to own everything they create. But I understand why you don’t like what you describe. I don’t like that either. The difference, I suppose, is that I also don’t like exploitation and injustice. So I prefer a system where people actually GET the fruits of their personal labors. Which means I don’t like it when, like our system, other people steal the fruits of your labors and call it their profit. It’s not their profit. It’s your profit, they just take it.

Socialist ideology is that everyone is supposed to own everything they create. But I understand why you don’t like what you describe. I don’t like that either. The difference, I suppose, is that I also don’t like exploitation and injustice. So I prefer a system where people actually GET the fruits of their personal labors. Which means I don’t like it when, like our system, other people steal the fruits of your labors and call it their profit. It’s not their profit. It’s your profit, they just take it.

Are you high?

Socialist ideology is when the government owns everything you create. Only capitalism allows an individual to own what they create. Capitalism is what allows you to get the fruits of your labor.

The problem you have is that some people work harder than others and may wind up with more fruits so to speak.

Funny, you don't consider redistribution of wealth stealing. You don't consider digging into my pocket to take my earned money to give to someone else who didn't earn it stealing?

a reply to: crayzeed

Nope it was from whoever wanted to purchase something from them that they wanted at a price they were willing to pay.

You act as if they are those people more than what they got for their money lol.

You Communists are all the same, gimme, gimme, gimme.

How about you go out and try and come up with something that people want and work towards providing it, instead of expecting handouts?

That won't happen though because you don't have the drive creativity out ability to do so.

Well you can't have mine.

Jaden