5 ms·

> Reasonable people are going to other states. People with similar belief than you about "value" (really, only money) creation and regulations/taxes are going

> Reasonable people are going to other states. People with similar belief than you about "value" (really, only money) creation and regulations/taxes are going to other states. This has nothing to do with being reasonable. Someone perfectly reasonable could think better safety nets and less inequality is a worthy trade-off for less growth.

rayiner 6y ago
> Someone perfectly reasonable could think better safety nets and less inequality is a worthy trade-off for less growth Except California also has among the highest levels of income inequality and highest cost-of-living adjusted poverty rates in the entire country: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-poverty-rate-20180913-htmlstory.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio... It's not just about potentially different priorities about growth versus safety nets. It's also a question of whether you believe that you should double down on the policies that have made California and New York among the hardest places to live for the middle and lower middle class. In places like California and York, so much money meant to go to "better safety nets and less inequality" actually goes to providing secure middle class lifestyles for college educated white people. California, for example, is drowning in teacher pension debt despite having some of the highest state taxes in the country. But over 60% of California teachers are white, in a state where just 23% of schoolchildren are white. So when people look at white-hispanic test score gaps (California having among the largest gaps in the country), and vote for more education funding, the actual impact on reducing inequity is extremely attenuated. Likewise, on housing policy, people act very concerned about it in New York and California, but how much money and legislative effort goes to actually providing housing for people who need it, versus paying salaries for college-educated administrators and bureaucrats, versus propping up housing prices in middle/upper middle class racially segregated neighborhoods? I'll note that LA teachers are demanding that as a condition for schools reopening, charter schools be shut down: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-26/citing-coronavirus-risks-l-a-teachers-union-calls-for-new-limits-on-charter-schools https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-26/citing-c.... Charter schools are, of course, a policy that's supported by the majority of the black and hispanic people that actually have kids in the school districts. (White Democrats are the only group where a majority oppose charter schools and vouchers.) This is a really telling illustration of what the real priorities are. If, for the taxes Californians and New Yorkers pay, they actually got a robust safety net, good schools, and good transit, I imagine that a lot fewer people would leave.
- jahaja 6y ago
  You suddenly forget that there are successful examples in pretty much all of west-Europe?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I'm not forgetting about that. I'd bet if New York and California public services were run as efficiently as The Netherlands or Germany (producing good service for the dollar), people would not only not be leaving, but would be willing to spend more money in taxes in those states.
kemitchell 6y ago
Some perfectly reasonable people could think safety nets and inequality for growth is a false trade-off.
- shawnz 6y ago
  If your money is in a "safety net" then how could it be used for growth?
  - adventured 6y ago
    Because obviously all of your money isn't in a safety net, only some of it is. See: Canada and Sweden, both of which have soundly demonstrated the combination of a safety net and growth over the last 40 years.
    - Voloskaya 6y ago
      Both having higher tax rate than california.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      But the money that is in the safety net can't be used for growth. I am not talking about the rest of the money. That is what makes it a trade-off.
juniper_strong 6y ago
Utah is the most equal state in the US, based on Gini coefficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co.... California is 47th. Moving from Utah to California is moving from one of the worst states for equality to the best. There is no trade-off needed regarding inequality, and I doubt there is one needed for safety nets either, Utah is unsurprisingly progressive in that area.

rayiner 6y ago

> Someone perfectly reasonable could think better safety nets and less inequality is a worthy trade-off for less growth Except California also has among the highest levels of income inequality and highest cost-of-living adjusted poverty rates in the entire country: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-poverty-rate-20180913-htmlstory.html https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio... It's not just about potentially different priorities about growth versus safety nets. It's also a question of whether you believe that you should double down on the policies that have made California and New York among the hardest places to live for the middle and lower middle class. In places like California and York, so much money meant to go to "better safety nets and less inequality" actually goes to providing secure middle class lifestyles for college educated white people. California, for example, is drowning in teacher pension debt despite having some of the highest state taxes in the country. But over 60% of California teachers are white, in a state where just 23% of schoolchildren are white. So when people look at white-hispanic test score gaps (California having among the largest gaps in the country), and vote for more education funding, the actual impact on reducing inequity is extremely attenuated. Likewise, on housing policy, people act very concerned about it in New York and California, but how much money and legislative effort goes to actually providing housing for people who need it, versus paying salaries for college-educated administrators and bureaucrats, versus propping up housing prices in middle/upper middle class racially segregated neighborhoods? I'll note that LA teachers are demanding that as a condition for schools reopening, charter schools be shut down: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-26/citing-coronavirus-risks-l-a-teachers-union-calls-for-new-limits-on-charter-schools https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-26/citing-c.... Charter schools are, of course, a policy that's supported by the majority of the black and hispanic people that actually have kids in the school districts. (White Democrats are the only group where a majority oppose charter schools and vouchers.) This is a really telling illustration of what the real priorities are. If, for the taxes Californians and New Yorkers pay, they actually got a robust safety net, good schools, and good transit, I imagine that a lot fewer people would leave.

jahaja 6y ago
You suddenly forget that there are successful examples in pretty much all of west-Europe?
- rayiner 6y ago
  I'm not forgetting about that. I'd bet if New York and California public services were run as efficiently as The Netherlands or Germany (producing good service for the dollar), people would not only not be leaving, but would be willing to spend more money in taxes in those states.

kemitchell 6y ago

Some perfectly reasonable people could think safety nets and inequality for growth is a false trade-off.

shawnz 6y ago
If your money is in a "safety net" then how could it be used for growth?
- adventured 6y ago
  Because obviously all of your money isn't in a safety net, only some of it is. See: Canada and Sweden, both of which have soundly demonstrated the combination of a safety net and growth over the last 40 years.
  - Voloskaya 6y ago
    Both having higher tax rate than california.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    But the money that is in the safety net can't be used for growth. I am not talking about the rest of the money. That is what makes it a trade-off.

juniper_strong 6y ago

Utah is the most equal state in the US, based on Gini coefficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co.... California is 47th. Moving from Utah to California is moving from one of the worst states for equality to the best. There is no trade-off needed regarding inequality, and I doubt there is one needed for safety nets either, Utah is unsurprisingly progressive in that area.