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

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#451

Post by SoftTalker »

carefulfungi wrote: post #442
bilbo0s wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don't understand? We do manufacture things. Just not in California. So why does it even matter if California bans manufacturing dangerous things? Who cares? Just manufacture it in some other state. As a bonus, you don't have to pay those high California taxes. In what world is this a problem?

California produces ~$350B in manufacturing GDP. It is the #1 state in manufacturing jobs in the US.

By its sheer size and population it is probably #1 in almost anything you care to rank.

Re: Banned in California

#452

Post by barelysapient »

lokar wrote: post #392
gorfian_robot wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this does happen to some extent for example with auto emissions and other things. CA is such a large market when it alone makes a change, it often drags along other states or the nation.

Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.

I'd be curious to know if this is really the case.

States have a lot of power to regulate commerce, interstate commerce and the products their citizens have access too.

If indeed they can't, then perhaps its one subject dems and r's could get together on. Instead of blanket tarrifs, tarriffs on products made with slave labor or without strong consideration for environment impact.

Re: Banned in California

#453

Post by hackernews90210 »

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

I'd pick the advanced components and find ways to protect the environment as well, both can co-exist together, Why not Fischgericht?

Re: Banned in California

#454

Post by culi »

kardianos wrote: post #265
Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

> You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean.

Yes exactly. And most of the complaints in this post is not stuff that's outright banned but stuff that's "hard to do".

These companies are complaining about how much more it costs to do this AND keep the environment clean. In an ideal world we would just have environmental protections all over the world so these companies don't simply find some small town with a local gov't they can buy off and do whatever they want

Re: Banned in California

#455

Post by bilbo0s »

CharlesW wrote: post #449
bilbo0s wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I don't understand? We do manufacture things. Just not in California. So why does it even matter if California bans manufacturing dangerous things? Who cares? Just manufacture it in some other state. As a bonus, you don't have to pay those high California taxes. In what world is this a problem?

> We do manufacture things. Just not in California. Texas beats California in total value of manufacturing shipments only because because of its petroleum and coal products manufacturing. And California beats Texas in manufacturing employment.

None of which answers the question of why we can't manufacture things in other states? Things that California clearly doesn't want to manufacture.

Again, what is the reason New Mexico, or Utah, or Nebraska, or Tennessee cannot manufacture these things? And why is it a problem if they do so instead of California?

Re: Banned in California

#456

Post by bloomingeek »

Fischgericht wrote: post #243

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California: After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water. As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively. I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forb…

Who can forget when China closed some factories in 2008 and 2022 so the smog would clear out before the Olympic games could begin? Could we potentially have "clean" factories built in America, maybe. But then could we afford the products they produced, hell no! If it was affordably possible, it would have already happened.

The working class citizens of China have paid the price for all the industrial factories. Don't believe it, look up the cancer studies China has published. (Oh right, communist countries always tell the truth, right?)

Re: Banned in California

#457

Post by lokar »

barelysapient wrote: post #452
lokar wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. CA can regulate import and sales of items based on the what the item does once in CA. They can't really regulate how it was made somewhere else.

I'd be curious to know if this is really the case. States have a lot of power to regulate commerce, interstate commerce and the products their citizens have access too. If indeed they can't, then perhaps its one subject dems and r's could get together on. Instead of blanket tarrifs, tarriffs on products made with slave labor or without strong consideration for environment impact.

I don't think it's unreasonable for indirect impacts like this to be regulated by the federal government.

Re: Banned in California

#458

Post by primis »

ecshafer wrote: post #295
GJim wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why are so many of your citizens without even basic affordable healthcare?

They aren't. Anyone can go to the ER, and if you're poor it'll be billed through Medicaid. When I was young and poor, I had a multi-day hospital stay and multiple surgeries that totaled to $3.50 out of pocket. Urgent cares are everywhere and affordable.

I had a cholecystectomy a few years ago and had a complication that caused a gallstone to get lodged in my common bile duct after removal. Three days after surgery I was in the ER, I let them know I was in debilitating pain and that I just had surgery. They made me sit in the waiting room for 8 hours and only took me back when a doctor walked passed and noticed I was jaundiced. After his shift ended, the nurse who was watching me overnight while I waited to have an emergency surgery (because the surgeon had already gone home for the day by the time I got triaged) was told to keep an eye on me and do blood draws hourly. I didn't get seen once and by morning my liver enzymes were so high they were off the testing scale.

Sure you can go to the ER. The level of treatment you get heavily depends on luck

Re: Banned in California

#459

Post by ryandrake »

wordpad wrote: post #439
ryandrake wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of "grandfathering" rule breakers has always seemed like naked corruption to me. OK, we think this thing is so bad , that we're passing a law to ban it, BUT everyone who was already doing this bad thing can keep doing it forever because... because... because putting an existing company out of business is apparently the worst thing in the world. If our elected officials think something is bad enough to ban…

It's not just for politics but fairness. You can't just one day up and decide to make something illegal that others depending on for livelyhood. It's good enough that it limits growth of the banned thing.

Sure you can. It just takes backbone, which is rarely found in the political class.

If I, as a voter, voted for a politician who promised to ban dumping mercury in the local river, I don't expect them to say "Oh, but any company already dumping mercury in the river can keep doing so, because we don't want to hurt people's livelihood." That's not what I voted for.

Re: Banned in California

#460

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

Aardwolf wrote: post #369
kardianos wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are the incorrect choices. You CAN actually do these processes, and still keep the environment clean. I believe in procedural symmetry: if you ACTUALLY care about people and the environment, then you wouldn't let other poorer do these thing. The USA being richer, can afford to do it right and safer, not through regulation, but through process. There is a difference. So what would you do if you ACTUALLY cared ab…

> But people don't actually care about the environment. They probably do if it's near their backyard

Also I have significantly more influence in my local elections than elections on the other side of the world.
Post reply on HN