4 ms·

I don't really see the point, is it for a more strong separation between rich and poor California? edit: It seems they target to have a better ratio senators/c

• BryantD 13y ago
  It's for a more strong separation between rich and poor California. This plan would create the nation's poorest state by per capita income (Central California), and I think Jefferson would also be in the bottom 10. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/02/05/rich-state-poor-state-vcs-six.html?page=all http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/02/05/rich-stat... http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm (per capita income list as of 2012)
  • mktgtheweb 13y ago
    Actually, you think Central CA would be the poorest, although that's assuming policy remains unchanged. Imagine a conservative state within 1+ hr drive of the bay area, that could eliminate personal income tax attracting workers from Silicon Valley, affordable housing, better weather, water control (delta), and agriculture.
    • dllthomas 13y ago
      Because the Altamont Pass isn't enough of a parking lot during the commute.
    • BryantD 13y ago
      Yes, I do, because I'm from New England so I don't have to imagine those things. I've lived in New Hampshire: a conservative state within an hour drive of Boston with no personal income tax and housing that's way more affordable than Boston. These factors don't magically make it more affluent than Boston.