view of californians

<p>Don't move to northern va, crap is way to expensive here too.</p>

<p>This new subdivision near me, the houses are good sized, but they're freaking on top of each other. They have like no yard. You could probably throw a baseball across 4-5 lots. There's enough room between the houses for 1-2 car widths. They're selling from the 1millions.</p>

<p>I have friends moving to NC, they said equal houses cost 1/3 what they are costing up here (they live in Md, 30-45 mins away from DC). I want to stay here when I get a job, but I dunno where I could live... blah.</p>

<p>What about Fredericksburg and the surrounding area? I was taken by the town's charm...</p>

<p>Daniel the reason i used the examle of a the militartys was for the purpose of analogy. Which not surprisingly you dont not comprehend. </p>

<p>Its okay. You are simply wrong. Find one state in the union that has a higher median income, than california, and you will have proved your point that they are "more prosperous". The states you mentioned are smaller, cheaper in terms of living, and do not generate income nearly on the same level of california. If you want to argue why california is or the most prosperous state, go ahead, keep arguing with yourself. Everyone understands why california is the most prosperous state here, and your attempt to justify other states pothetic economies is sad. Just because new york or where ever youre from would not be able to stand on its own to feet as a country, does not mean it is necissary to harbor animosity towards california or californians. So you an your east coaster counterparts can dabble in the fact that you have the a higher wealth per head. californians just continue to laugh, just as when east coasters talk of how old their money is we just laugh. As if the age of the money makes up for the fact that new york can generate income as rapidly as california makes a difference. What youre doing is just typical of most east coasters, dabbling in irrelivant facts. The point still stands, CALIFORNIA IS THE MOST MIGHTY STATE IN THE union. AND NO STATE WILL EVER COME CLOSE. California has the majority of countries in the world beat in terms of income. </p>

<p>and to you kids complaining of the cost of housing i suggest looking at california. No joke, costa mesa... 1000 square foot shacks selling for over a million bucks with a pacific ocean view.</p>

<p>California has a very large republican base. Its just that the people are too stupid to incorperate other californians into their political ideals. All the republicans are typically from the wealthy white areas and the rural redneck and migrant farm areas. A combination of goofy conservatives with stupid values (when are these people going to get out of their 1950's fantasy world?) and mexican catholics always gives the republicans some good core support. Nixon (who ran his campaign on "restoring law and order"which at the time everyone knew to mean, they were gonna crack down on potesters, blacks, and drugs), and Reagan, the very FOUNDERS of the conservative movement all came from southern california. But as a northern californian I must say, what WAS the last thing that came out of SMELL-A</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>It’s hard to understand that population alone can be the determinant factor in an economy. I’ve never suggested that population doesn’t make a difference. (Refer to: “You fail to recognize that population alone does not necessarily mean a large, powerful economy.”) In your arguments, you have focused primarily on population size, yet no mentioning of the varied resources that contribute to an economy were mentioned. Certainly having a large population has its advantages. A large pool of workers to draw from is one of them. Yet, population alone does not mean a strong economy. Hence, the references to India and Singapore. Singapore, as a small island, lacks a large population, yet it has a powerful economy (one of the “Asian Tigers”) because of its location as a busy port, tourism, and financial institutions.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Really? Does New York have farming lands to accompany its financial institutions? Does Iowa possess a large IT industry to go along with it’s agricultural economy? Realistically speaking, most states rely primarily smaller portions of the economy. Surely there are accompaniments: New York has its tourism, etc. but compared to a state like California it simply cannot manage an agricultural, manufacturing/industrial, financial, etc. factor. Because of it’s unique location on the west coast, Los Angeles has the busiest port in the United States, for example, yet it has a strong agricultural economy in central California. It has technology in Silicon Valley, while some financial institutions also call California home. These are just a few of the varied sources that make California wealthy, not just its population. Perhaps using “one” was too narrow, and an error on my part. But the points are clear: California has a diversified economy compared to most states.</p>

<p>On a per-capita basis, using your data, California does not fall number 1. And this is due to <gasp> the large population. So in essence, if an economy were measured on a per-capita basis (which should be used with other statistical figures, such as GDP when looking at international economies), having a large population would be hurtful since it lowers the wealth per person. So in an odd paradox, having a large population helps and hurts when it comes to measuring economic power.</gasp></p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Again, not necessarily. Having a large population that has taxable income means more taxes, not having more people in general. It is possible to have a small population, that population can be in the top .5% of the nation’s income compared to a large population where the income falls below the poverty line. It is an extreme example, but it makes clear that a larger population does not mean more taxes.</p>

<p>On another matter that TTTR brought up, why is California in fiscal trouble? The states, in order to fund its numerous programs, has continually compromised a balanced budget in favor of an outdated form of Keynesian economics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Find one state in the union that has a higher median income, than california, and you will have proved your point that they are "more prosperous".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then, you really are ignorant, aren't you? I thought we'd just finished discussing this ad nauseum. But, okay - I'll humour you one more time. Go here for official Census data: <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html&lt;/a> and find that there are no less than 18 states with higher median incomes than California. There. According to you, I've "proved my point." Case closed. Thanks for the discussion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Just because new york or where ever youre from would not be able to stand on its own to feet as a country, does not mean it is necissary to harbor animosity towards california or californians. So you an your east coaster counterparts can dabble in the fact that you have the a higher wealth per head.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am actually from California, as I said at the beginning of this conversation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
californians just continue to laugh, just as when east coasters talk of how old their money is we just laugh. As if the age of the money makes up for the fact that new york can generate income as rapidly as california makes a difference. What youre doing is just typical of most east coasters, dabbling in irrelivant facts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Croberts, nobody would need to bother arguing with you considering you do an excellent job yourself looking like an ignorant troll. You actually think that everybody in the Northeast Corridor is loaded with the "old money," eh? Haha... you are hilarious, kid. And, everybody in California is a movie star too, right?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The point still stands, CALIFORNIA IS THE MOST MIGHTY STATE IN THE union. AND NO STATE WILL EVER COME CLOSE. California has the majority of countries in the world beat in terms of income.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As do other states (as mentiond previously). And again, the United States is the richest country in the world - with or without California. California has the largest economy of any state in this country because it is the most populous state of the world's wealthiest nation. Am I saying that California isn't important? No. Am I saying that California isn't above-average? No. All I'm saying is that the arbitrary borders that make up the "state" of California are meaningless in determining whether one area of the country is "THE MOST MIGHTY." Again, as I asked before, do you really think that if we were to create a new state of equal area and population out of the Northeast of the US that it wouldn't be either comparable or (...dare I say it?) WEALTHIER than California? Settle your brain for a few seconds and ponder that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and to you kids complaining of the cost of housing i suggest looking at california. No joke, costa mesa... 1000 square foot shacks selling for over a million bucks with a pacific ocean view.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is this good? Or bad? And....so what? I'm visiting Long Branch, NJ - a sort of blue-collarish town you've certainly never heard of, and very unimpressive townhouses in the vicinity of the beach are selling for $2,000,000....I would say over $1,500,000 more than they should be. Down the boulevard a little ways, you won't be able to find a "normal" single-family house for less than $9,000,000. I guess that makes New Jersey pretty "MIGHTY" indeed.</p>

<p>ok you guys are arguing about 2 completely seperate things</p>

<p>Daniel is arguing that the per capita in Cali is not as great as some of the other states and Croberts is arguing that the economy of Cali is the largest in the US</p>

<p>BOTH of you guys are rite, but you guys are not talking about the same thing and attacking each other </p>

<p>California DOES have the largest economy in the US due to numerous factors (population, broad economic base, resources, location, tourisim, etc) and brings in the most money than any other state</p>

<p>HOWEVER
the AVERAGE standard of living for each family is def not the best in California
-the income is not close to the highest per family in the nation
-consumer goods and services cost more in cali
-housing is WAY more expensive in Cali too</p>

<p>also while Cali does have a broad economic base in agriculture, maufacturing, AND technology so do a lot of other states..... and they aren't nowhere near that of cali in this,
for ex:
Illinois has a HUGE agriculture base, the suburban area of chicago is a MAJOR tech center in the United States, and the City is a huge business and manufacturing center
Other examples of states like this include Minnesota, Michigian, Pennsylvania</p>

<p>
[quote]
It’s hard to understand that population alone can be the determinant factor in an economy. I’ve never suggested that population doesn’t make a difference. (Refer to: “You fail to recognize that population alone does not necessarily mean a large, powerful economy.”) In your arguments, you have focused primarily on population size, yet no mentioning of the varied resources that contribute to an economy were mentioned. Certainly having a large population has its advantages. A large pool of workers to draw from is one of them. Yet, population alone does not mean a strong economy. Hence, the references to India and Singapore. Singapore, as a small island, lacks a large population, yet it has a powerful economy (one of the “Asian Tigers”) because of its location as a busy port, tourism, and financial institutions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree, eiffelguy. You could never say that population alone is the determinant factor in an economy, and your illustration with India and Singapore certainly shows that clearly. I am in complete agreement with you. However, in this dicussion, we are not comparing third-world countries to California, and that is where I see the illustration become irrelevant. In the United States, the median income is $65,000 p.a. The state with the highest median income is Connecticut at $86,000 and the state with the lowest is New Mexico at $46,000. Granted, the disparity is quite large, but the resultant median of highest and lowest is almost exactly the national median.</p>

<p>Why do I go into this? To argue that while there are certainly disparities of wealth within the United States, people more-or-less fall within a range of wealth that, even at their relative lowest is still higher in comparison to almost all other countries. While it is harder to find data on median income in foreign countries (vs per-capita), I would expect that New Mexico's would still be at least comparable to Japan/Germany/UK/France.</p>

<p>So, for me - arguing that California is the wealthiest state because of some inherent attributes or benefits that no other state can match, just doesn't hold water. There are a large number of states with higher per-capita incomes (or median incomes, whichever) that do not have comparable economies in sheer size because they are smaller and have less population. As you go West, county sizes and state sizes increase exponentially. So, I disagree with the suggestion that California is so much wealthier than other parts of the country. This is not true (as I've already shown croberts - in terms of median income, the figure which he wishes to use, CA is average at best). If we want to compare CA with the Northeast, I say again - does anyone actually think that CA beats the Northeast hands-down in terms of wealth? Isn't is just dumb to compare small states like Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, etc. to California....when they make up a region that is comparable to California in size and population? Why are the borders that form California so significant in proving that there is something exceptional about the wealth found inside when it is only comparable to the American average? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Really? Does New York have farming lands to accompany its financial institutions? Does Iowa possess a large IT industry to go along with it’s agricultural economy? Realistically speaking, most states rely primarily smaller portions of the economy. Surely there are accompaniments: New York has its tourism, etc. but compared to a state like California it simply cannot manage an agricultural, manufacturing/industrial, financial, etc. factor. Because of it’s unique location on the west coast, Los Angeles has the busiest port in the United States, for example, yet it has a strong agricultural economy in central California. It has technology in Silicon Valley, while some financial institutions also call California home. These are just a few of the varied sources that make California wealthy, not just its population. Perhaps using “one” was too narrow, and an error on my part. But the points are clear: California has a diversified economy compared to most states.</p>

<p>On a per-capita basis, using your data, California does not fall number 1. And this is due to <gasp> the large population. So in essence, if an economy were measured on a per-capita basis (which should be used with other statistical figures, such as GDP when looking at international economies), having a large population would be hurtful since it lowers the wealth per person. So in an odd paradox, having a large population helps and hurts when it comes to measuring economic power.

[/quote]
</gasp></p>

<p>A great number of states have a diversified economy - certainly in the Northeast (which is what I know best outside of California). I cannot see how California has such a more greatly diversified economy than other areas of the country (though, I do see your point and am sure that it does apply in a number of states). </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, not necessarily. Having a large population that has taxable income means more taxes, not having more people in general. It is possible to have a small population, that population can be in the top .5% of the nation’s income compared to a large population where the income falls below the poverty line. It is an extreme example, but it makes clear that a larger population does not mean more taxes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In this case, though, it does - does it not? You speak in hypotheticals that - as far as I know - don't exist.</p>

<p>Thank you, mrkushal, for putting it so nicely. I agree with you completely.</p>

<p>DanielJ: Thanks for clearing it up and I understand your point. I was measuring California's economy not on a individual "wealth," but "wealth" in the sense of various aspects of the economy (i.e. breakdown in communication).</p>

<p>Happy we could have a profitable dialogue. :-)</p>

<p>Hahahahaha...instead of a free-for-all attack on each others personalities, you mean?</p>

<p>Precisely. ;-)</p>

<p>Well daniel, first the data you gave says on the title, median income for 4 person families, by state. are you really that stupid? haha why not just show me data from 3 person or 9 person families. again, i challenge you to find coherent data that would suggest the median household family incomes period. not data from any specific number of families.</p>

<p>and you making generalizations like "you think all east coasters rich old money are blah blah". if you're going to put words in my mouth. use a quote in which i said ALL east coasters are....putting words in my mouth is just a high school kid thing to do. as well as trying to over analize a sentance.</p>

<p>and if you actually look at your data, it shows that alaska has the highest median income in 1980 for a 4 person family.(which leads me to question the relavence of the website you posted. ) they seem pretty un populated to me.. population never alone effects california's economy. Its the fact that we put the hammer down on tech manufactoring, pop culture(music and movies), vast sea ports, and not so much population as sheer land mass.</p>

<p>more data for you to look up, california is the largest agricultural state in the nation. wisconsin may be america's dairy land but we are the nations #1 producer in dairy, veggies, and fruits. </p>

<p>as eiffelguy stated we have the most successful economy and its due to its diversity. new york will always have its function, but face it weve got everyone economically wooped. No other state in the country can claim that they are economically stronger than the one of the "BIG 5( thats brittian, us, ruskies, china, and france). Not one. </p>

<p>California also is the leads the nation in terms of college. More nobel prize winners have come from california than any other state in the union. Californias public university system is world renound. Its so competitive out of staters that get in to the top uc probably could have gotten into lower ivies ( due to the high standars the uc system places on out of staters). </p>

<p>New York is a relic, and in my opinion New York fell off with the world trade towers. </p>

<p>and if you think his hypothetical situation "doesnt exhist" for a small community to be in the top one or .5 percent, just look at all the blue money towns in new england. if as far as you know situations like that dont exist, you live in a fantasy world. Dont try and scare eiffel guy with words like "hypothetical" that your little arse sounds rediculas using.</p>

<p>And so if were so good off... why are buissnesses leaving the state to places like Nevada... and many residents emigrating to the East Coast?</p>

<p>If indeed we have the greatest economy in the entire nation...why are in such a ****ing bad shape?</p>

<p>Energry problems...education ills... albeit there are states lower then us in some cases... but with this financial base... shouldn't we be at the forefront... And for those of you who knock Governor Schwarzenegger,
the LA Times published a poll they conducted showing that 57% of Registered voters are unsatisfied with the state legislature. Arnold's disapproval rating was 53%... hmm that little fact sure seems to elude the media as they bash at him and the Republicans in the state...</p>

<p>Alot of places are leaving california for places like nevada, arizona, and colorado, because they are following the white californians who seek cheeper housing in those states in my opinion. it would only make sense that the shift in business is consistant with the shift in populations. But it really doesnt matter, because the companies who cant afford to stay in california leave, and the wealthy ones keep staying and paying. and for every suburban californian who moves to a new state, there's a gangload of illegal immigrants waiting to take their place, so they can work and send money back home to their families. </p>

<p>this doesnt bother me. unlike what I observed on my trip to the eastern half of the us: im all for diversity in population and socio economics. I think a diverse economy wil ultimatly help an economy prosper, as california did under clinton. </p>

<p>as far as typical economic problems i look at it like this: california- nations largest state in terms of economy. </p>

<p>america- in deficit.</p>

<p>it would only make sense that the biggest state will mirror the nation in terms of economic woes(or dare i suggest california's bust- hurt the nation to the point where it couldnt not recover for decades HEHE I wonder some times, are we really THAT? influencial?...Yea we are.Lets face it the majority of trends from fashion to crime to increasing home prices always seem to start in california)</p>

<p>I challenge you to find some states with surplus economies at the moment.</p>

<p>California should be its own country none the less. if california was able to successfuly leave the union, it would cripple the us economy enough to the point where Japan would be able to have the us beat in terms of economy. They are the worlds second strongest economy. the euro and the yen are on the same level for the dollar if not more. china is really tearing it up by offering their people us dollars for chinese dollars. i hope that when america finally is finished that california will one day be able to enjoy an independent and rightful peace and prosperity.</p>

<p>Ho ho ho... Your support Illegal Immigrants is what's costing the state it's prosperity in part... and sending money home to their people in Mexico? How the hell does that help the US?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1563&c=9%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.fairus.org/Research/Research.cfm?ID=1563&c=9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I have a state with a surplus economy...MINNESOTA!!!</p>

<p>oh...wait...sorry, I forgot. We turned that one around into a massive deficet really quick and our government faces total shutdown in less than a week. Thats right...in week, it is more than likely that all of our non-critical governmental functions will shut down (good thing school is out).</p>

<p>Oh...and thats with a governor who many imagine will replace bush...</p>

<p>And TTTR, While its true that illegal immigrants hurt in some ways, they also contribute way more to the tax and social security system than any other group of people. </p>

<p>They mostly work off of fake/not-their-own social security numbers so they still pay income tax and FICA but they will never see a penny of that tax or social security returned to them. When everyone else gets nice rebate checks and (when they get old) social security, those illegals are still working their butts off.</p>

<p>Plus, how would californian wineries be able to compete with the French if not for the help of newly-legal or illegal migrant workers?</p>