3 ms·

"Proponents say the division would help create a more business-friendly environment, solve the state’s water issues, and ease traffic congestion." Ummm, so if

by nemasu 12y ago

"Proponents say the division would help create a more business-friendly environment, solve the state’s water issues, and ease traffic congestion." Ummm, so if you re-name places on a map, the cars will go away? Wut?

jjoonathan 12y ago
California currently has tax, labor, and real-estate regulations that run counter to his interests (and in some of those cases against ours as well). Unfortunately, California also has a labor pool and other resources that he wants to take advantage of, giving it enough leverage to stay the course. As a shrewd businessman he understands that if he were to chop California into 6 pieces its collective bargaining power would dramatically decrease as he would be able to play each chunk off of the others. It would most definitely be a pro-business move. Whether or not it's in your or my best interest or the interest of the citizenry of California is another matter entirely.
- nowarninglabel 12y ago
  Well, yes and no. As a business working in all 6 states you would then have to comply with 6 more sets of rules and regulations.
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    That's why the business would operate in one state: the state with the lowest taxes, harshest legal noncompetes, etc. Let the race to the bottom begin! To be clear, I think this is a move that would benefit the majority of HN readers living in CA. It would benefit capital the most, it would benefit programmers significantly (so long as the supply/demand balance in our labor market remains as it is), and everyone else would get screwed over (or, equivalently, would get to screw us over less). I'm not to judge one way or another, but we should be realistic about who the winners and losers would be.
- closetnerd 12y ago
  I'd argue that it would be in the interests of the citizens. Big governments are more easily susceptible to corruption and therefor inevitably benefit big corporations.
  - gulfie 12y ago
    Bull pucky. Have you ever been to Louisiana? http://www.businessinsider.com/most-corrupt-states-and-territories-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/most-corrupt-states-and-terri... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territo... If the big government effect was large then California, with the most people in it should be the most corrupt. Check out Mississippi. With a paltry 2.9 million people it should be a bucolic bastion of upstanding government... And Alaska, with only 0.7 Million people must be the shining light of sanity in our world... ( ranks 5th in corruption, remember senator Ted Stevens? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens ) The big government theory doesn't hold water.
    - closetnerd 12y ago
      Heh, I love the use of "bull pucky". Anyways, its quite a long shot to claim the "big government theory doesn't hold water" because of the specific examples you pointed out. Moreover, I'd argue that most of your examples aren't devoid of the influences of big government as all these states are under the increasing central authority of D.C. To clarify, it seems it might be pertinent to explicitly point out that there are many factors involved with corruption: some chance, education, culture, geopolitics, etc. Size of government is what I'm arguing as an important factor. Your examples are NOT without influence of the factors mentioned. Actually, I find the capacity and likelihood of smaller governments being less susceptible to corruption as being quite intuitive as well. Though I'm not arguing by merit of intuition alone. Government theory is exclusively based on human understanding. My understanding of humans is that societies can feel abstracted away from large beuracratic governments. And indeed this is an observation as well. There are logistical issues with large governments as well. Its far more difficult to voice an opinion to large governments because they inevitably fall into the trap of bureaucracies. So when a handful of thousands of people petition online for something it often gets ignored and rejected by some clerk of a secretary working for some office for some congressmen/women. Lots of smaller issues go unchecked by the people. So, though its not an explicit part of the 3 branch government check system, I don't think we need to argue about the fact that the general public is an important, if not the most important check on the government. And if we recognize the fact that the general public has the most crucial responsibility the in the role of the government, then it shortly thereafter follows that it easier for smaller populations to agree, argue, deliberate, process, charge, incriminate, build most suitably.
closetnerd 12y ago
The idea is about local government for local people. I personally believe this to be crucial. This was a large topic of concern for even the founding fathers. Problem is Washing DC for Americans is this ominous den of bureaucratic all pretending to be too busy to address your or my concerns. The same vibe is put out by the California state government. And not enough authority rests at the local city levels for people to give a damn about who they elect. If the silicone valley was its own state, we'd have legalized gay marriage and weed. It be easier to get through to our state government about taxes and traffic and whatever else. I think smaller nations have the benefit of governments which more accurately represent the sentiments of its citizens. Besides, if its just lines on a map (and the number of stars on the flag), then why not do it. People are too easily put off by ideas that are made to "sound" extreme.
gulfie 12y ago
1) business-friendly == 6 newly formulated rule books writen by the corporations will allow the corporations to help themselves to state resources without much in the way to stop them. Think about just a few. a) selling off state parks, b) no more minimum wage, c) no more pollution laws and California mandated MPG ratings for trucks. d) Smog everywhere... remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich , niether will the new states. Contaminating ground water will be a new business right. 2) Solve the states water issues. Dogma. Free markets fix everything. Thus by implementing free markets for water (and first removing historical water rights) everything is solved, because markets are good at that sort of thing.. We just have to start charging people for water ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/213157-how-the-free-market-can-solve-the-worlds-water-crisis http://seekingalpha.com/article/213157-how-the-free-market-c... ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading , and http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=731&Itemid=1177 http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&i... , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization 3) Ease traffic congestion : Two ways this works out. a) free markets logic on cars. Toll ways, road privatization, time of use based pricing etc. or b) free up the environmental regulations to start building more lanes on all the highways everywhere (though that doesn't really help). If it was done well then maybe the 6 states would be a good thing. More likely than not it is simply a way shake up the political apple cart so some people can get more apples than they had before.

by nemasu 12y ago

jjoonathan 12y ago

California currently has tax, labor, and real-estate regulations that run counter to his interests (and in some of those cases against ours as well). Unfortunately, California also has a labor pool and other resources that he wants to take advantage of, giving it enough leverage to stay the course. As a shrewd businessman he understands that if he were to chop California into 6 pieces its collective bargaining power would dramatically decrease as he would be able to play each chunk off of the others. It would most definitely be a pro-business move. Whether or not it's in your or my best interest or the interest of the citizenry of California is another matter entirely.

nowarninglabel 12y ago
Well, yes and no. As a business working in all 6 states you would then have to comply with 6 more sets of rules and regulations.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  That's why the business would operate in one state: the state with the lowest taxes, harshest legal noncompetes, etc. Let the race to the bottom begin! To be clear, I think this is a move that would benefit the majority of HN readers living in CA. It would benefit capital the most, it would benefit programmers significantly (so long as the supply/demand balance in our labor market remains as it is), and everyone else would get screwed over (or, equivalently, would get to screw us over less). I'm not to judge one way or another, but we should be realistic about who the winners and losers would be.
closetnerd 12y ago
I'd argue that it would be in the interests of the citizens. Big governments are more easily susceptible to corruption and therefor inevitably benefit big corporations.
- gulfie 12y ago
  Bull pucky. Have you ever been to Louisiana? http://www.businessinsider.com/most-corrupt-states-and-territories-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/most-corrupt-states-and-terri... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territo... If the big government effect was large then California, with the most people in it should be the most corrupt. Check out Mississippi. With a paltry 2.9 million people it should be a bucolic bastion of upstanding government... And Alaska, with only 0.7 Million people must be the shining light of sanity in our world... ( ranks 5th in corruption, remember senator Ted Stevens? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens ) The big government theory doesn't hold water.
  - closetnerd 12y ago
    Heh, I love the use of "bull pucky". Anyways, its quite a long shot to claim the "big government theory doesn't hold water" because of the specific examples you pointed out. Moreover, I'd argue that most of your examples aren't devoid of the influences of big government as all these states are under the increasing central authority of D.C. To clarify, it seems it might be pertinent to explicitly point out that there are many factors involved with corruption: some chance, education, culture, geopolitics, etc. Size of government is what I'm arguing as an important factor. Your examples are NOT without influence of the factors mentioned. Actually, I find the capacity and likelihood of smaller governments being less susceptible to corruption as being quite intuitive as well. Though I'm not arguing by merit of intuition alone. Government theory is exclusively based on human understanding. My understanding of humans is that societies can feel abstracted away from large beuracratic governments. And indeed this is an observation as well. There are logistical issues with large governments as well. Its far more difficult to voice an opinion to large governments because they inevitably fall into the trap of bureaucracies. So when a handful of thousands of people petition online for something it often gets ignored and rejected by some clerk of a secretary working for some office for some congressmen/women. Lots of smaller issues go unchecked by the people. So, though its not an explicit part of the 3 branch government check system, I don't think we need to argue about the fact that the general public is an important, if not the most important check on the government. And if we recognize the fact that the general public has the most crucial responsibility the in the role of the government, then it shortly thereafter follows that it easier for smaller populations to agree, argue, deliberate, process, charge, incriminate, build most suitably.

closetnerd 12y ago

The idea is about local government for local people. I personally believe this to be crucial. This was a large topic of concern for even the founding fathers. Problem is Washing DC for Americans is this ominous den of bureaucratic all pretending to be too busy to address your or my concerns. The same vibe is put out by the California state government. And not enough authority rests at the local city levels for people to give a damn about who they elect. If the silicone valley was its own state, we'd have legalized gay marriage and weed. It be easier to get through to our state government about taxes and traffic and whatever else. I think smaller nations have the benefit of governments which more accurately represent the sentiments of its citizens. Besides, if its just lines on a map (and the number of stars on the flag), then why not do it. People are too easily put off by ideas that are made to "sound" extreme.

gulfie 12y ago

1) business-friendly == 6 newly formulated rule books writen by the corporations will allow the corporations to help themselves to state resources without much in the way to stop them. Think about just a few. a) selling off state parks, b) no more minimum wage, c) no more pollution laws and California mandated MPG ratings for trucks. d) Smog everywhere... remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich , niether will the new states. Contaminating ground water will be a new business right. 2) Solve the states water issues. Dogma. Free markets fix everything. Thus by implementing free markets for water (and first removing historical water rights) everything is solved, because markets are good at that sort of thing.. We just have to start charging people for water ( http://seekingalpha.com/article/213157-how-the-free-market-can-solve-the-worlds-water-crisis http://seekingalpha.com/article/213157-how-the-free-market-c... ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading , and http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=731&Itemid=1177 http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&i... , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization 3) Ease traffic congestion : Two ways this works out. a) free markets logic on cars. Toll ways, road privatization, time of use based pricing etc. or b) free up the environmental regulations to start building more lanes on all the highways everywhere (though that doesn't really help). If it was done well then maybe the 6 states would be a good thing. More likely than not it is simply a way shake up the political apple cart so some people can get more apples than they had before.