Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#101

Post by h4nkoslo »

erentz wrote: post #29

Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the ver…

Some of the things CA "receives" from the federal government are zero percent interest rates and preferential access to vast capital markets, a heavy implicit labor cost subsidy via immigration policy, an implicit promise of massive earthquake insurance, access to the Colorado River, copyright & patent protections for its primary industries...

Looking at fiscal inflows and outflows isn't the benchmark of who gains from a relationship and whether it is positive-sum.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#102

Post by FireBeyond »

mtviewdave wrote: post #50
davidf18 wrote: post #3

Money if fungible. California spends an enormous amount of money on illegal aliens (illegal immigrants). For example, there was an NYT op-ed piece which explained that 200 illegal aliens are allowed to attend at in-state tuition UC Berkeley. Thus, the Federal Funds noted in this article were in fact being used to fund people who are residing in this country illegally. We don't even have enough money for the poor who…

I see that you don't say you want immigration labor laws enforced. What you say is that you don't want illegal immigrants to get benefits. This is sadly typical. There are plenty of people here in California who are fine with using illegal immigrant labor to save money getting crops picked or construction built, but if one of these laborers slices their hand open on piece of equipment and needs to go to the emergency…

Right. I have heard people make the literal argument that while we should go after illegal aliens, we should _NOT_ go after those who hire undocumented workers, as to punish or penalize them for doing so would be "unfair" to them, because it would make them noncompetitive against other employers doing the same.

And at the same time they stammer that the idea of a drug dealer telling a cop "It's unfair to me, because all these other people are out here selling drugs too!" is somehow in no way the same thing.

Capitalism writ large. It's perfectly acceptable to break the law to make a profit if you're a company, but not to be breaking the law to give yourself a livelihood.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#103

Post by magila »

hueving wrote: post #77

>Caltrain plans to use the money to switch to modern electric trains, from old diesel locomotives that are prone to failure. I ride the Caltrain about once a week and I haven't encountered a delay due to a locomotive failure. How often does this happen?

I commute daily between SF and San Mateo, which covers about a third of Caltrain's line. I get delayed due to mechanical failures (usually on other trains) once a month or so on average.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#104

Post by FireBeyond »

davidf18 wrote: post #86
1_2__3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not certain why people have a problem with that. I'm even less certain you're willing to listen to anyone who tries to explain to you how faulty your logic is. Especially since you repeatedly try to distill down the complicated topics to bumperstickerisms.

Please explain why taxpayer funds should be funding people who live in this country illegally. To state that it is a bumperstickerism without providing an explanation for why this is so is an ad hominem attack.

The Federal government is also notoriously lax on prosecuting employers who use undocumented workers. Can you explain why:

a) the Fed withholding funds from California somehow "because" they have spent money supporting illegal aliens is somehow different from:

b) California wanting to withhold funding from the Fed because of their relative disinterest in prosecuting those who knowingly employ undocumented workers (thus exacerbating, if not indirectly causing situation A in the first place)?

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#105

Post by jedberg »

erentz wrote: post #29

Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the ver…

That dividend would be federally taxable income. :)

I mean I guess they could keep taking more and more money from you every year and giving more and more back, but generally any money they give you would be subject to federal taxes, unless they give it and take it all away again every year, just to give it back again.

It would be a huge headache but I suppose it could work. Especially if they made it like a voluntary tax overpayment or something.

Edit: Also, unless you have it all sitting around in cash, any money you spent during the year on non-deductible things you'd have to pay tax on.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#106

Post by natch »

davidf18 wrote: post #86
1_2__3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not certain why people have a problem with that. I'm even less certain you're willing to listen to anyone who tries to explain to you how faulty your logic is. Especially since you repeatedly try to distill down the complicated topics to bumperstickerisms.

Please explain why taxpayer funds should be funding people who live in this country illegally. To state that it is a bumperstickerism without providing an explanation for why this is so is an ad hominem attack.

I'll assume you are sincere, and write an answer. There are a few reasons I can think of.

1. They (people who live in this country illegally) and their families are often also taxpayers, so... why shouldn't they benefit?

2. It helps promote social stability and harmony.

3. It offers stable households for children growing up in their families.

4. It's the humane way to run a society. It makes our society more humane and less mean spirited, and thus better not just for them, but for the rest of us as well. Maybe this looks like a restatement of #2 but if you think about it, #2 follows from this one. Many of the points follow from each other. For example, the next one:

5. It arguably reduces the types of crimes that emerge when people are in desperate circumstances, which can include theft, burglary, violence, extortion, scamming, and others.

6. It increases public safety, for example if they can get driver licenses, then the existing system which gives everybody an incentive to learn and follow traffic rules will also apply to them, without the extra costs that would be incurred were we to deal with them as extraordinary cases using some other special system.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#107

Post by [deleted] »

davidf18 wrote: post #89
erentz wrote: post #29

Question: the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers from the federal government is pretty crazy to me. I'll grant some imbalances are necessary - you will always have richer and poorer areas of the country. But when he gap is as wide as it is, and then it is turned into a tool for punishing CA due to our politics, at what point should CA seek to seriously tackle this? Firstly of course is the ver…

Much of the wealth in California comes from high technology. The research of the high technology came from the Federal Government. The training of the PhDs that created the research (think semiconductors) came from the NSF and NIH and other federal funds. Thus, it is not unlike a VC making early stage investments in a company. BTW, I'm in NY State and it also has net tax outflows.

[deleted]

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #42
JamilD wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many workers in the Central Valley do commute to the Bay Area or LA. http://kvpr.org/post/two-hour-daily-commute-thousands-valley...

How would Pacheco duplicate the extant ACE?

It wouldn't; the route the ACE covers isn't the only place people commute to the Bay from the Valley along.

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#109

Post by dredmorbius »

guyzero wrote: post #95
masonic wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the imbalance between what California contributes vs receivers Do you have a firsthand source for that, or are you just quoting unsupported media quotes? The one study on that topic that I've seen omitted a lot of Federal spending in CA, such as transfer payments, military personnel, CA's share of defense spending, etc. Remember that CA has had a lot of power in Congress under Democrats, including two senior Senators…

Every state gets two senators and the one that's served the longest is called the "senior" senator and the other the "junior". By definition a state can't have two senior senators.

A charitable interpretation would be to note that as of the 114th Congress, both California's senators have high seniority, which is how senate rank and privileges are determined.

Boxer's retirement leaves CA in the 115th Congress with Feinstein, 8th, and Harris, 97th.

http://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/seniority/

Re: A Silicon Valley Train Gets Stuck

#110

Post by guyzero »

dredmorbius wrote: post #109
guyzero wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every state gets two senators and the one that's served the longest is called the "senior" senator and the other the "junior". By definition a state can't have two senior senators.

A charitable interpretation would be to note that as of the 114th Congress, both California's senators have high seniority, which is how senate rank and privileges are determined. Boxer's retirement leaves CA in the 115th Congress with Feinstein, 8th, and Harris, 97th. http://www.periodicalpress.senate.gov/seniority/

That plus each CA senator represents over 18 million people as a contrast to Wyoming's senators which represent a hair over 284,000 people each.
Post reply on HN