4 ms·
At least prop 23 went down. To me that is way more significant than prop 19.
by rll 16y ago
At least prop 23 went down. To me that is way more significant than prop 19.
- jpwagner 16y agoI have been unable to find any logical discussion on prop 23. Was AB32 tied to some massive layoffs?
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoWhat do you mean? Texas Oil wanted to stop our environmental bill from taking effect by creating scare about job loss. Californians said "No."
- jpwagner 16y agoWhat do you mean? Where did you find a logical discussion on this topic? Who is Texas Oil? What are the positives about the environmental bill that would be lost? Scare? Does that mean there's no logical argument for potential job-loss?
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoI found it on NPR. http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201010110850/b http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201010110850/b You can find more details on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010... It covers the three refineries that are the primary donors, two from texas and one in kansas city. the fact that ab32's suspension would be for very long time (because unemployment is unlikely to be below 5% for a year for a very, very long time -- if ever.) There is an argument, but it's assumptions aren't good. The long-term job growth from green business will FAR outpace job loss from AB32. Further, if job loss was a real concern, one would expect to see pro-labour interest groups come out in support of prop 23, which did not happen! Even the California utilities (who will lose fiscally) from AB32 have come out against Prop 23.
- rll 16y agoThe way the proponents spin this is that AB32 means higher energy costs which they say results in a loss of blue-collar jobs. The opponents point to the large number of green energy jobs that can be directly attributed to AB32 plus the obvious environmental benefits. Personally I find the job loss argument hard to quantify because there is no direct correlation while it is pretty easy to count the number of green energy companies and the resulting jobs that have sprung up in California. Also, it is pretty much impossible to ignore the fact that the proponents of prop 23 that are touting blue collar job losses as the reason to suspend AB32 are not the folks who traditionally would give a crap about blue collar job losses. The list of Donors for prop 23 is pretty telling: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)#Donors http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi... Compare that to the list of opponents: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_(2010)#Opponents http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi... Pretty amazing that 42% (as of the current numbers) voted Yes on this one.
- jpwagner 16y agoAlthough you come off as somewhat biased, your circumstantial evidence could be convincing.
- rll 16y agoWell, you asked who "Texas Oil" was. I gave you a nice list that told you exactly who they were. It is Valero, Tesoro, Flint Hills, Marathon, Occidental, Tower, World Oil, Frontier, etc. vs. the American Lung Association, Pediatrics, Firefighters, AARP, League of Women Voters, just about every chamber of commerce, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, and even the Teamsters. If you are going to pretend to fight for blue collar jobs and you have the Teamsters against you, something is fishy.