6 ms·

Probably the only place on earth companies are fleeing even faster than Germany.

PaulHoule 3y ago
If they're full, it's a good thing. If we could get just 50,000 people to leave CA and go to a few swing states like PA and OH, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it.
- ars 3y ago
  Don't people tend to change party when they move from cities to rural, and vice versa? So we could also end the Democratic party as we know it by convincing more people to move out of cities.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    As someone who grew up rural and has spent most of his adult life in cities, IME people change when going rural → urban, but don’t going the other way. Those who “change” after going rural tend to be those who previously straddled the fence in the city.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Which comes first? People start to have ideas that the city living isn't working out for them because they don't like X, Y, and Z and once they move, they realize that means they are now more red than a decade ago? Or blue-no-matter-who Democrats move to a rural area and then change their beliefs? I suspect it's more the former than the latter (you move after your beliefs change more than before).
- g42gregory 3y ago
  What do you think will happen when the Socialists will take over? Do you think they will look kindly on your various "freedoms" to be "different"? Check out Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China. Don't think for a second that the San Francisco will stay the same under the totalitarian Socialist rule. The "intellectuals" and "different" people will be the first to go. Always happens, according to history, because "think different" people tend to question the authority and it's a big no-no under the Socialism. Oh, and you will get a free (somewhat crappy) healthcare.
  - AskSocialist 3y ago
    Ok, I'll nibble here -- I would describe myself as a Socialist, and I'm happy to have an open conversation about the question you've asked. (Unless your question was rhetorical and not intended to be a discussion.) Can I start by asking you what type of Socialism you are most concerned with? Socialism is a very broad term with different meanings to different people. For example, I am a Socialist who is against autocratic rule. I believe the Soviet style communists (the countries you mentioned) weren't much better than other contemporary autocrats and in many cases were far worse. There are other Socialists who believe that any hierarchy is bad and should be removed. It's a very diverse community of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and a wide variety of beliefs, only a small minority of which believe in totalitarian or single party rule. I support, for example, democratic workers councils, federation of guilds, and other such elective methods of leadership. I just happen to also believe that labor entitles you to a share of the profit of that labor, rather than investment wealth. I'd love to live in a world where every company was a workers-coop, and we reduced our profit motive and increased our work comfort motive.
    - g42gregory 3y ago
      I don't doubt that you are against the autocratic rule. The point is that you won't have a choice. There will be another gentleman (they always appear), who will decide that he should be in charge and will take power, by force. You will complain, he will put you in jail or worse. At that point, you will remember that you had to dismantle democratic checks & balances (how else will you convince people to part with their property!), but it will be too late for you and everybody else.
      - AskSocialist 3y ago
        > how else will you convince people to part with their property! This is a great question, and a common misunderstanding! First, in case there's some confusion by other readers, I'm against private property controlling and directing labor, but not personal property -- that is to say that no one is going to take your xbox or Ford truck away from you. Those things are personal property, they are yours and should stay yours. I do think, however, that private property -- the money used to exert control over others ("I'm the chief investor in X, so you must do what I say") -- should be replaced with cooperative ownership. Either through labor ownership, labor-customer ownership, or the state, as appropriate. But, how do we achieve that? Yes, you could seize all the assets via force. But that's bad. Instead, you structure your incentives so it happens over time. Decrease the costs of running a co-op, reducing taxes or fees for businesses that are collectively owned. Increase taxes and fees proportional to the differences between the compensation of the highest paid individual and the lowest. Increase estate taxes, so no one immediately loses their money, but less capital passes down (obviously with gradients so as not to hurt most people). Expand property taxes to include other property at some nominal rate. The other thing you could do is make it as easy to do the co-operative thing as it is to do the solo thing. Finding a lender to talk about cohousing is MUCH more difficult than finding one to talk about a mortgage. Finding a lawyer who can incorporate a co-op is much harder than finding out how to start an LLC. We would move significantly towards my ideals over time if the education and resources allocated were even close to parity. It doesn't have to be a revolution and it doesn't have to be without the rule of law or anti-democratic.
- dadjoker 3y ago
  Yes, institute policies that trash the state, and then flee the results and take it to other states. What could go wrong?
- jimbob45 3y ago
  Party politics aside, it would be unwise to use past elections to attempt to predict future elections.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  If anyone’s interested, I have a model developed that shows exactly which counties people would have to populate, which ones to ignore completely, while maintaining balance in the democrat areas for me, this is a non-partisan observation population wise, the republican party simply does not have the numbers to do the same. there are very few deeply red or blue counties, but uniquely the deeply red ones are sparsely populated. so most red counties can be swung with a tiny population change to push over 50%, or can be swung by a tiny population moving there. I made the model because I was surprised some super pac or some other well funded interest group didn't already do a relocation program like this I’ll contract it out to super pacs and campaigns, and those interested. I did it in 2022 and it was too late for the midterms but its time now for the national elections
  - ars 3y ago
    You forgot to take into account that people willing to move to rural locations are also more likely to change parties after they move. i.e. you neglected second order effects.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      I didn't neglect that, I didn't write it I think it is very interesting to wonder how effective this would be there are many circumstances where it becomes more apparent that a party isnt representing interests relevant to that area once someone is there, especially since some places would require residency for 7-8 months before being eligible to vote there I don't care about the outcome, I navigate a lot of countries, but I’ll sell things to partisans, they’re very emotional and deeply invested in the outcome
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      Some people move because they think they'll find a place that better matches their politics.
  - justinzollars 3y ago
    There is actually a great Youtube channel on this very topic! Colorado used to be a very nice place. When I visited in 2008 it was idyllic. Then it flipped blue and with it came all the blue problems. Homelessness, Drug addiction, depression, high cost of living, and a general sense of malaise. When I visited Colorado again in 2021 it was unrecognizable. So yes. You will flip the whole country. https://youtu.be/U-nKgfbCXHo?si=XCXROzd8JLwWZ0kv https://youtu.be/U-nKgfbCXHo?si=XCXROzd8JLwWZ0kv
- jcampbell1 3y ago
  What is wrong with the Republican Party? Texas produces more renewable energy than California. The redneck attitude of do whatever you want on your land, and anti-regulation attitudes are far more important than political grandstanding.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    The first question itself has a lot of answers, but sticking to the topic of climate/renewables it would be silly to pretend that the republican party actually cares about the environment (especially if it isn't financially beneficial to them in the short term).
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    One thing that is wrong with them is that they don't believe they lost in 2020. They need to be beaten decisively the way that the Democrats got beat in 1984 to be cured of that.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Texas also produces more non-renewable energy than California. Texas gets 8.5% of its energy from renewables. California gets 16.5%. (The state with the most from renewables is Washington with 50%, followed by South Dakota at 43%, and Maine at 38%). For electricity the US average is 39% from renewables. Texas is a little below average at 33%. California is at 49%. (Highest is Vermont at 99+%, South Dakota at 83%, and Washington at 82%). In terms of CO2 Mt/TWh the US average is 402. Texas is 428. California is 229. (The best are Vermont at 5, Washington at 100, Oregon at 143, and South Dakota at 145). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_consumption_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...

If they're full, it's a good thing. If we could get just 50,000 people to leave CA and go to a few swing states like PA and OH, it would be the end of the Republican party as we know it.

ars 3y ago
Don't people tend to change party when they move from cities to rural, and vice versa? So we could also end the Democratic party as we know it by convincing more people to move out of cities.
- jwells89 3y ago
  As someone who grew up rural and has spent most of his adult life in cities, IME people change when going rural → urban, but don’t going the other way. Those who “change” after going rural tend to be those who previously straddled the fence in the city.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Which comes first? People start to have ideas that the city living isn't working out for them because they don't like X, Y, and Z and once they move, they realize that means they are now more red than a decade ago? Or blue-no-matter-who Democrats move to a rural area and then change their beliefs? I suspect it's more the former than the latter (you move after your beliefs change more than before).
g42gregory 3y ago
What do you think will happen when the Socialists will take over? Do you think they will look kindly on your various "freedoms" to be "different"? Check out Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China. Don't think for a second that the San Francisco will stay the same under the totalitarian Socialist rule. The "intellectuals" and "different" people will be the first to go. Always happens, according to history, because "think different" people tend to question the authority and it's a big no-no under the Socialism. Oh, and you will get a free (somewhat crappy) healthcare.
- AskSocialist 3y ago
  Ok, I'll nibble here -- I would describe myself as a Socialist, and I'm happy to have an open conversation about the question you've asked. (Unless your question was rhetorical and not intended to be a discussion.) Can I start by asking you what type of Socialism you are most concerned with? Socialism is a very broad term with different meanings to different people. For example, I am a Socialist who is against autocratic rule. I believe the Soviet style communists (the countries you mentioned) weren't much better than other contemporary autocrats and in many cases were far worse. There are other Socialists who believe that any hierarchy is bad and should be removed. It's a very diverse community of people from a wide variety of backgrounds and a wide variety of beliefs, only a small minority of which believe in totalitarian or single party rule. I support, for example, democratic workers councils, federation of guilds, and other such elective methods of leadership. I just happen to also believe that labor entitles you to a share of the profit of that labor, rather than investment wealth. I'd love to live in a world where every company was a workers-coop, and we reduced our profit motive and increased our work comfort motive.
  - g42gregory 3y ago
    I don't doubt that you are against the autocratic rule. The point is that you won't have a choice. There will be another gentleman (they always appear), who will decide that he should be in charge and will take power, by force. You will complain, he will put you in jail or worse. At that point, you will remember that you had to dismantle democratic checks & balances (how else will you convince people to part with their property!), but it will be too late for you and everybody else.
    - AskSocialist 3y ago
      > how else will you convince people to part with their property! This is a great question, and a common misunderstanding! First, in case there's some confusion by other readers, I'm against private property controlling and directing labor, but not personal property -- that is to say that no one is going to take your xbox or Ford truck away from you. Those things are personal property, they are yours and should stay yours. I do think, however, that private property -- the money used to exert control over others ("I'm the chief investor in X, so you must do what I say") -- should be replaced with cooperative ownership. Either through labor ownership, labor-customer ownership, or the state, as appropriate. But, how do we achieve that? Yes, you could seize all the assets via force. But that's bad. Instead, you structure your incentives so it happens over time. Decrease the costs of running a co-op, reducing taxes or fees for businesses that are collectively owned. Increase taxes and fees proportional to the differences between the compensation of the highest paid individual and the lowest. Increase estate taxes, so no one immediately loses their money, but less capital passes down (obviously with gradients so as not to hurt most people). Expand property taxes to include other property at some nominal rate. The other thing you could do is make it as easy to do the co-operative thing as it is to do the solo thing. Finding a lender to talk about cohousing is MUCH more difficult than finding one to talk about a mortgage. Finding a lawyer who can incorporate a co-op is much harder than finding out how to start an LLC. We would move significantly towards my ideals over time if the education and resources allocated were even close to parity. It doesn't have to be a revolution and it doesn't have to be without the rule of law or anti-democratic.
dadjoker 3y ago
Yes, institute policies that trash the state, and then flee the results and take it to other states. What could go wrong?
jimbob45 3y ago
Party politics aside, it would be unwise to use past elections to attempt to predict future elections.
yieldcrv 3y ago
If anyone’s interested, I have a model developed that shows exactly which counties people would have to populate, which ones to ignore completely, while maintaining balance in the democrat areas for me, this is a non-partisan observation population wise, the republican party simply does not have the numbers to do the same. there are very few deeply red or blue counties, but uniquely the deeply red ones are sparsely populated. so most red counties can be swung with a tiny population change to push over 50%, or can be swung by a tiny population moving there. I made the model because I was surprised some super pac or some other well funded interest group didn't already do a relocation program like this I’ll contract it out to super pacs and campaigns, and those interested. I did it in 2022 and it was too late for the midterms but its time now for the national elections
- ars 3y ago
  You forgot to take into account that people willing to move to rural locations are also more likely to change parties after they move. i.e. you neglected second order effects.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    I didn't neglect that, I didn't write it I think it is very interesting to wonder how effective this would be there are many circumstances where it becomes more apparent that a party isnt representing interests relevant to that area once someone is there, especially since some places would require residency for 7-8 months before being eligible to vote there I don't care about the outcome, I navigate a lot of countries, but I’ll sell things to partisans, they’re very emotional and deeply invested in the outcome
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    Some people move because they think they'll find a place that better matches their politics.
- justinzollars 3y ago
  There is actually a great Youtube channel on this very topic! Colorado used to be a very nice place. When I visited in 2008 it was idyllic. Then it flipped blue and with it came all the blue problems. Homelessness, Drug addiction, depression, high cost of living, and a general sense of malaise. When I visited Colorado again in 2021 it was unrecognizable. So yes. You will flip the whole country. https://youtu.be/U-nKgfbCXHo?si=XCXROzd8JLwWZ0kv https://youtu.be/U-nKgfbCXHo?si=XCXROzd8JLwWZ0kv
jcampbell1 3y ago
What is wrong with the Republican Party? Texas produces more renewable energy than California. The redneck attitude of do whatever you want on your land, and anti-regulation attitudes are far more important than political grandstanding.
- user_7832 3y ago
  The first question itself has a lot of answers, but sticking to the topic of climate/renewables it would be silly to pretend that the republican party actually cares about the environment (especially if it isn't financially beneficial to them in the short term).
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  One thing that is wrong with them is that they don't believe they lost in 2020. They need to be beaten decisively the way that the Democrats got beat in 1984 to be cured of that.
- tzs 3y ago
  Texas also produces more non-renewable energy than California. Texas gets 8.5% of its energy from renewables. California gets 16.5%. (The state with the most from renewables is Washington with 50%, followed by South Dakota at 43%, and Maine at 38%). For electricity the US average is 39% from renewables. Texas is a little below average at 33%. California is at 49%. (Highest is Vermont at 99+%, South Dakota at 83%, and Washington at 82%). In terms of CO2 Mt/TWh the US average is 402. Texas is 428. California is 229. (The best are Vermont at 5, Washington at 100, Oregon at 143, and South Dakota at 145). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electricity_consumption_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electri...