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

Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 718 posts

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#701

Post by ehvatum »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #569
kls wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Up until recently Dallas / Ft. Worth and Miami where conservative. The Cubans that fled communism held Miami as a conservative metro up until about 15-20 years ago. Orlando and Tampa where the same. Orlando for different reasons but Tampa was largely due to the conservative Cubans as well. Texas and Florida are two of the states that are experiencing meteoric growth and to imply that those moving in are not shifting…

The biggest thing in those states' favor is easily housing policy. They tend to permit much more sprawl, so housing prices in general, and especially the cost of a detached single family home stay more reasonable. Aside from Houston, they're still not great on allowing housing density though. Meanwhile, blue states have a "worst of both worlds" kind of policy. They don't permit much sprawl, and also don't permit much…

Driving on the east coast or west coast, I see hundreds upon thousands of miles of sprawl. Californian sprawl even extends across natural barriers, with houses clinging to steep hillsides, houses built on ridiculously unstable land, houses built in shrub forests that obviously have an annual fire season. If people want to live that way, it’s fine. But they leave, and they build more sprawl wherever they go...

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#702

Post by pandaman »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #695
pandaman wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in your opinion, the initiative comes from the police and DAs have not changed their charging based on prop 47? Then, why did the police change their behavior in your opinion?

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So for the police more "lenient" sentences for first time offenders is offensive. They want to crack skulls. If they can't then they don't care. The SF POA, for instance, threw a ton of money around to defend capital punishment in California while the residents of San Francisco elected a DA (Kamala Harris) who campaigned on a platform of staunch opposition…

Not sure how is capital punishment and a car break in video related to shoplifting so I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police? They did not get to crack skulls before. From their POV nothing has changed at all - they arrest, book, and put the suspect in jail either it's a misdemeanor or a class A felony. No skull cracking happens at all.

The only difference I can see is that making arrests which do not end with charges will show up as the police harassing the citizenry in the statistics so the police, rightfully, avoids making those. The link I posted quotes a police officer saying as much: While misdemeanors, in theory, can bring up to a year in county jail, Fresno Police Sgt. Mark Hudson said it’s not worth it to issue a citation or arrest a suspect who would likely be immediately released because of overcrowding.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#703

Post by pandaman »

RangerScience wrote: post #697
pandaman wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think it's just the parties that have changed, then how about actual policies? Prop 187 has been passed in 1994 with 59% majority, can you imagine anything like that happening in California nowadays? No matter how you see DNC and GOP of 1990s, you surely can see that the California's attitude towards illegal immigrants has completely reversed now.

It's definitely not just the parties that have changed. I have no idea whether that law would've passed today; everyone hears "California" and thinks about SF/LA, forgetting about the large conservative areas. Look how long weed and gay marriage took.

Gay marriage was never passed by popular vote in California, it was a result of judicial activism both on the state level and on federal. In fact, CA voted against gay marriage in Prop 8.

However, the fact that party vote in California changed in 90s, when it's been already a prosperous and desirable state remains. So it does not seem plausible that liberal policies turned it into one. The opposite though, is completely believable - in a rich locale, with a lot of money, politicians who use the money to "buy" votes will eventually rise and will remain in power until the money's gone.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#704

Post by qqqwerty »

syshum wrote: post #699
qqqwerty wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a complicated issue and there were number of unintended consequences. But the main one is that long time property owners (NIMBYs) are insulated from (if not down right incentivized to support) anti-development measures. Because their property tax rates were frozen at time of purchase, they do not feel the impact of rising property prices. It also has a chilling effect on housing 'liquidity', because moving out…

>>And Universal Basic Income was originally proposed by none other than Milton Friedman 100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI. it was a replacement for all welfare. It was the lesser of 2 evils and if you watch any of the talks he gave on the subject it is presented just as that. Better than massive government welfare programs Further with UBI there are "good" ways to do it, (i.e I would be in favo…

> 100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI

Uhhh, you are flat out wrong. They are basically the same thing[1]. Here is a link from CATO (a conservative outlet) talking about how the benefit of UBI is it would replace existing welfare programs[2]. Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims.

> the 90's plan included Tort Reform which is need to lower costs

Tort reform was a straw man argument that was used by Republicans in a desperate attempt to explain why the ACA was not a 'conservative' policy. Pointing out small differences in policy details to try and explain away the origins of the policy is straight up dishonest. And just to be clear, tort reform was left out because it does not have a meaningful impact on health care costs[3]. Including it in the ACA would have been pointless and just added more complexity to an already complex piece of legislation. It was 100% the right thing to do.

> it simply gave the democrats grounds to then claim "it was not enough"

Largely because Republicans have continued to knee-cap the ACA at every turn. We tried to fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy, and you all threw a hissy-fit and decided to do everything in your power to make it fail. So I have zero sympathy with your single-payer fear mongering. The democrats shift towards stronger support for single payer was entirely in response to the shortcomings of the ACA, which largely happened due to Republican obstruction. You brought this on yourselves.

> Republican Party has more or less stayed the same or has shifted slightly to the left since 2000

I posted a link that was using data from a non-partisan research institute, and the conclusions of that research was that Republicans have been shifting rightward, even since 2000. Here is the link again[4]. Please show me credible non-partisan research to support your claim that the 'democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left'. If you think the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren some how proves your point, consider this: Bernie Sanders has been in politics since the 1980s. And as mentioned in my original post, his policy proposals would be considered center-left in any other time or in any other country. The only thing that has changed in the past 25 years in American politics is the complete take over of the Republican party by overzealous ultra right-wing anti-government partisans.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/6djjsj/whats_b... [2] https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/universal-basic... [3] https://publicintegrity.org/health/analysis-the-mythical-ben... [4] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-ha...

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#705

Post by syshum »

qqqwerty wrote: post #704
syshum wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>And Universal Basic Income was originally proposed by none other than Milton Friedman 100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI. it was a replacement for all welfare. It was the lesser of 2 evils and if you watch any of the talks he gave on the subject it is presented just as that. Better than massive government welfare programs Further with UBI there are "good" ways to do it, (i.e I would be in favo…

> 100% false, Friedman's negative income tax WAS NOT a UBI Uhhh, you are flat out wrong. They are basically the same thing[1]. Here is a link from CATO (a conservative outlet) talking about how the benefit of UBI is it would replace existing welfare programs[2]. Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims. > the 90's plan included Tort Reform which is need to lower costs Tort reform was a straw man argumen…

>>>Uhhh, you are flat out wrong.

I am somewhat of a Friedman expect so pretty sure I am not

>>> They are basically the same thing

Not in economics they are not. Negative Income Tax is a poverty prevention plan, designed to ensure people are not living in poverty

UBI Provides a basic income FOR ALL PEOPLE, does not matter if you make 1 billion dollars, or $1 of other income everyone gets the same basic income

>>>Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims.

I have studied economics, and most people in the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics for more than 20 years, I do not really need google to understand the difference between UBI and Negative income taxation

>>> We tried to fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy, and you all threw a hissy-fit and decided to do everything in your power to make it fail.

Well first off lets get one thing perfectly clear, I am not Republican. I am Libertarian. Republicans want far more government than I do, and I believe all income based taxation is theft. I want people to be able to protect their marijuana gardens with fully automatic machine guns. So my positions do not align with either Republicans or Democrats as both parties are generally Authoritarian in nature simply arguing over what area's of my life they want to control never arguing if they have the ethical or moral right to that control

As to "fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy" which of those exactly where suppose to fix Healthcare? Certainly not ACA.

>>> Please show me credible non-partisan research to support your claim that the 'democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left'.

[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...

[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-democrats-have-...

>>> If you think the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren some how proves your point, consider this: Bernie Sanders has been in politics since the 1980s

yes socialists have always been a part of the Democrat party, a minor one. Even Bernie Sanders from 2016 and Bern Sanders in 2020 is WIDELY different having shifted FAR to the left on many issues including immigration (in 2016 is was very much against open boarders, in 2020 he is now not only for Open Boarders but giving everyone in the world Free Medical Care paid for by stealing money from US Workers if that is not extreme left well...)

In the last 4 years alone we have seen the Democrat party take a Hard Left turn and stomp on the Gas....

>>> The only thing that has changed in the past 25 years in American politics is the complete take over of the Republican party by overzealous ultra right-wing anti-government partisans

Yea,,, no. I do not see any of that, If anything in the last 25 years the Ultra Right (generally viewed as the Extreme Religious Right that wants to do things like ban Video Games and porn) have LOST large amounts of power. Of course as with any debate I guess we need to define our terms because what you "Ultra Right" to you may not be what I view as "ultra Right"

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#706

Post by inferiorhuman »

pandaman wrote: post #702
inferiorhuman wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So for the police more "lenient" sentences for first time offenders is offensive. They want to crack skulls. If they can't then they don't care. The SF POA, for instance, threw a ton of money around to defend capital punishment in California while the residents of San Francisco elected a DA (Kamala Harris) who campaigned on a platform of staunch opposition…

Not sure how is capital punishment and a car break in video related to shoplifting so I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police? They did not get to crack skulls before. From their POV nothing has changed at all - they arrest, book, and put the suspect in jail either it's a misdemeanor or a class A felony. No skull cracking happens at all. The only difference I can see is that making arrests whi…

Capital punishment is an example of police demanding to use violent tactics.

I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police?

Their egos got bruised.

They did not get to crack skulls before

If you mean literally, sure they did. If you mean metaphorically then again sure they did. They're literally throwing a tantrum because things that could've been charged as a misdemeanor or felony (at the discretion of the DA) can now only be charged as a felony for a repeat offense. Note that a lot of the anti-Prop 47 rhetoric misses this. Theft of $950 can still be charged as a felony under a variety of circumstances (including the case of simply being a repeat offender).

While misdemeanors, in theory, can bring up to a year in county jail, Fresno Police Sgt. Mark Hudson said it’s not worth it to issue a citation or arrest a suspect who would likely be immediately released because of overcrowding.

So what? Jails and prisons across the state are overcrowded. The state is exporting prisoners to counties and other states. The overcrowding is a not so subtle hint that simply locking people up is not a solution. Prop 47 doesn't change this dynamic, if anything it would reduce the overcrowding (which is a good thing except for those who would like to see petty theft carry a life sentence).

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#707

Post by pandaman »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #706
pandaman wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how is capital punishment and a car break in video related to shoplifting so I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police? They did not get to crack skulls before. From their POV nothing has changed at all - they arrest, book, and put the suspect in jail either it's a misdemeanor or a class A felony. No skull cracking happens at all. The only difference I can see is that making arrests whi…

Capital punishment is an example of police demanding to use violent tactics. I will ask again: what changed from the point of view of police? Their egos got bruised. They did not get to crack skulls before If you mean literally, sure they did. If you mean metaphorically then again sure they did. They're literally throwing a tantrum because things that could've been charged as a misdemeanor or felony (at the discretio…

Okay, I see your point. Police is throwing a tantrum but you are not denying that the criminals are not punished any more.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#708

Post by asdff »

harimau777 wrote: post #683
asdff wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to preserve your sun, traffic, views, whatever, you are free to buy it. Nothing is stopping you from buying your entire neighborhood and leasing to your neighbors, other than your lack of capital. Why should you get something for free that has nothing to do with what you paid for, the parcel and the air 30 feet above it?

It has everything to do with what you paid for. The environment around a home effects the home itself.

It sure does, but you haven't bought the private environment around your property and therefore should have no right to dictate its use by its actual owners.

If someone is doing you legitimate harm, like dumping toxic waste into your drinking water, then you have the public government than can dictate the rights in regard to private use on the toxic waste dumper on behalf of the public. Increasing housing supply in an area with high demand is not doing legitimate harm, it keeps housing affordable and is good for the environment vs. infinite sprawl.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#709

Post by jiaaro »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #645
axaxs wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you cite a single source of Texas "importing" workers, vs people fleeing to Texas and pretending they did so for Texas's own good? Texas was a tech hub before most of us were born.

Uhm sure? All the people that I know who’ve moved to Austin have done so for the career opportunities...no one just picked Texas and said they were going to find a job later. They were pretty mercenary about where they were going. Some were even forced their (eg when IBM closed Boca and moved everyone who didn’t want to quit to Austin). > Texas was a tech hub before most of us were born. Sure, they’ve also been impor…

If you ask Austinites they’ll tell you about lots of folks moving in just for the city and figuring out the rest later.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#710

Post by jshaqaw »

munificent wrote: post #223
refurb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree strongly on taxes. Moving from CA to WA, could save a family making $100,000 nearly $1,000 per month.

ca.gov says state taxes for someone making $100k are $6,466.00. That's less than half your claim.

Not to mention states without income tax fund themselves somehow. There are other taxes which partially offset the lack of state income tax.
Post reply on HN