Why Should I Care About California?

[don_equis]

I thought history books were written by the winners? Anyways it's hard not to take into consideration all them social services provided by a large group of illegals and not compare it to a vacumm that just sucks money and never replaces it, add to that bad political-economical choices of taxing everything and all that money that is going to those so called "going green bullshit", that proves that not only California but the whole Nation is so deeply concerned about the polar bears while the illegals get all the blame and this country too for the bad stuff that happening in the world.

I think they good on their last election, now let's see what the Governator is going to do (probably beg Obama for more money). The thing that concern me is is thius the way we are heading as a Nation? Will this be the U.S. in 10 years or less from now, begging perharps China for a bail out?

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

One economic consideration seems to be missing in this discussion. How much does the dirt cheap labor of illegal immigrates reduce the cost of good they produce. I would think things like food and clothing would be a hell of a lot more expensive. Anyone for a five dollar potato. This certainly reduces the financial impact of illegal immigration and benefits all of us.

Using cheap labor retards invention in things that ultimately bring down the price of products.
Also, why haven't meat prices fell since the illegals who invaded meat packing plants like in Iowa made half as much as an American citizen? The prices didn't fall with the influx of cheap labor. The meat packing plants killed two birds: they got cheaper labor and the meat prices stayed the same and the rich get richer. People that make that argument are so off base it's down right criminal.

Utter rubbish (especially that "livable wages" part).

If you understood "business" then you'd realise how preposterous your argument really is.

No business is going to hire labor for "higher" wages than they can afford. American, Mexian, whoever - the sole motive for "business" is the profit margin (else why bother staying in business?) Cheaper labor means cheaper products, it's that simple.

Read above^

The sad fact (in some ways) is that the immigrants - legal or otherwise - are being blamed for the labor problem (while they are being exploited to the hilt because they can't seek redress through legal channels), when the opposite it actually true. Without cheap labor, a lot of things Americans take for granted to be "affordable" wouldn't be "affordable" anymore. Coupled with the fact that our asinine policies reward expenditure over thrift and the ever growing Welfare State and soon enough you encounter the pickle we are in currently.

Immigration law arbitrarily restricting the flow of labor or goods, is stupid and counter productive. Frederick Bastiat famously said that: "If commerce doesn't cross borders, armies will".

Exploited? They are not exploited in the least. The people being exploited here are American citizens who get shafted because their wages are retarded because they are fighting with a foreign invader force of labor. Ever worked in construction? Do you have any idea how many illegals have taken jobs in that sector of American labor, from American citizens? Good money. They aren't making peanuts here, I can attest. You are naive and ignorant; you must be extrmemely wealthy. For someone who seems somewhat intelligent, you sound like an 8th grader on this issue. I find it offensive that you, a military vet, would side with an ivading force.

Cheap labor is an asset, not a crime.

An asset to who? :dunno: Some rich guy somewhere who has a yacht and three houses, and a dozen fancy sports cars.

 

[D-rock]

No business is going to hire labor for "higher" wages than they can afford. American, Mexian, whoever - the sole motive for "business" is the profit margin (else why bother staying in business?) Cheaper labor means cheaper products, it's that simple.

There is a difference between not being able to afford something, and doing absolutely anything possible to maximize profit to the nth degree because you can no matter what the other effects besides making that profit are. It's not that we can't have a system where people are able to be paid more and have the bussinesses be able to afford it, they just don't want it. We reward people that take it to the limit of what they can get away with when they make a profit and we actually punish everybody that's willing to take less for the benifit of their socitey. That seems like a screwed up system to me.

The sad fact (in some ways) is that the immigrants - legal or otherwise - are being blamed for the labor problem (while they are being exploited to the hilt because they can't seek redress through legal channels), when the opposite it actually true. Without cheap labor, a lot of things Americans take for granted to be "affordable" wouldn't be "affordable" anymore. Coupled with the fact that our asinine policies reward expenditure over thrift and the ever growing Welfare State and soon enough you encounter the pickle we are in currently.

That ignores the fact that if more people had better paying jobs they would be more able to afford things that cost more. Your statement also completely and conveniently ignores the unethical and immoral aspects of cheap labor. And no, just because somebody is willing to do something doesn't make it ok. Effectiveness doesn't justify something that's is wrong. That whole "Without cheap lobar a lot of things Americans take for granted to be "affordable" wouldn't be affordable anymore" or the thought we couldn't economically cope without it was pretty much one of the main reason for not wanting to give up slavery in this country. Now again we have the same type of thing happening with people bellowing how we wouldn't be able to cope with cheap labor anymore. Just like before I think the US can manage.

Immigration law arbitrarily restricting the flow of labor or goods, is stupid and counter productive. Frederick Bastiat famously said that: "If commerce doesn't cross borders, armies will".

How so? I guess maybe if one believes in the magical theories of a free market/economic libertarian sort of way that doesn’t work in the real world. The overwhelming majority of people I know are still waiting for all those wondrous benefits free trade was supposed to give us.

Cheap labor is an asset, not a crime.

Really, it seems like exploitation to me. (See where I mentioned slavery above. In many ways exploiting cheap immigrants and outsourcing is just the modern day slavery.)

The recent tirades against "immigrants" (notice how almost always, the tirade is directed against those South of the Border versus say Norwegians or Russians or Italians or Poles or whathaveyou?) is not a new one.

Most of those people you mention have a much higher percentage of them that
1. Aren't illegal
2. Are skilled workers, and don't take jobs away from Americans by making ridiculously low wages.
3. Don't drain social services nearly as much.
4. Don't have 1/10th of their entire country here illegally.
5. Don't go out of their way to change large sections of American's culture to what they want.
6. They themselves have had to take a back seat to illegals, mostly from south of the border, that have taken it upon themselves to skip ahead of them when they tried to do things honestly.
7. Don't have the government of the country they came from throwing a hissy fit if we want to increase enforcement of immigration rules because the immigration benefits them even though they themselves don't mind having stiff immigration rules themselves.
Or they have some combination of those factors that make them different from people south of the border.

 

[Nina_Mercedez]

Actually, I think the history you read is the bullshit one, and the one I learned is the accurate one. Are you claiming Mexican history books are more honestly written and accurate? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
You do speak on things you don't know about, and I think you need to study the reasons behind the invitation of the Texicans to settle in by the govt of Mexico way back when, as well as the actual population of Texas before the Republic was established.

I wasn't blaming the illegals for California's downfall, only pointing out their large part in the mess, as did other posters.
And Obama is only part Black; no more amazing than any other scholastically accomplished politician

You know what Philbert it is useless to argue with you because you don't have a clue and I have a feeling face to face this would be a very different conversation. Please for me open your eyes and educate yourself on my heritage both Mexican and American Indian because people like you are why my people are always to blame! Take some of the blame yourself! Don't bother to respond this thread saddens me and I will not be back on!

 

[don_equis]

You know what Philbert it is useless to argue with you because you don't have a clue and I have a feeling face to face this would be a very different conversation. Please for me open your eyes and educate yourself on my heritage both Mexican and American Indian because people like you are why my people are always to blame! Take some of the blame yourself! Don't bother to respond this thread saddens me and I will not be back on!

I am responsible for this thread and as you can read in the title it is about California. However I am not responsible for the contents and opinions in this thread as is the same in the many other threads that get posted here. Keep in mind that although it seems that You Might have gotten offended by another poster, I believe and think that the moderators will agree that no rule has been broken here.

You are more than welcome to come back here and please don't take things personal from other people in here we are all just giving our opin

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

I am responsible for this thread and as you can read in the title it is about California. However I am not responsible for the contents and opinions in this thread as is the same in the many other threads that get posted here. Keep in mind that although it seems that you might have gotten offended by another poster, I believe and think that the moderators will agree that no rule has been broken here.

You are more than welcome to come back here and please don't take things personal from other people in here we are all just giving our opin

Illegal aliens aren't the only issue pertaining to the original point of this thread, but there is no question that they are not helping California out and that they are a billion dollar a year burden on that state. No question. It had to be stated.

 

[bustybbwlover]

yeah but how many shit jobs do illegals do? jobs that wouldn't get done otherwise? well... now with the economy fucked maybe some americans might work them i suppose. where do they buy their groceries (which are taxed) and all their other potent potables (which are taxed), so they can't entirely be a drain

 

[shayd]

All of you guys are off base. The impact on CA's social services by illegals not nearly the problem. After all, California isn't the only border state with mass influxes of illegals.

California's fiscal house fell apart due to the gaming of it's energy grid by Enron and Reliant which caused the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric and the state bailout of So Cal Edison in 2000 and 2001.

This cost the state at least $15 billion.

Um, that's exactly what I said.

 

[Hot Mega]

Um, that's exactly what I said.

Hmm, your post was right before mine...maybe we were writing our posts at the same time:dunno:

In either case in reading your response obviously I think you're spot on.:thumbsup:

 

[shayd]

Hmm, your post was right before mine...maybe we were writing our posts at the same time:dunno:

In either case in reading your response obviously I think you're spot on.:thumbsup:

Gotcha, my mistake good sir.

 

[Ceska]

I'm no proponent of illegal immigration but what "FAIR" doesn't tell nor can they is whether that is ultimately offset by the spending of illegals??

To be "FAIR" to the discussion, wouldn't one kinda need to know that?
:hatsoff:

Well, come with a number and a reputable source citing it and that will be the end of the discussion. Simple right?

==> Illegal immigrants make up about 10% of Californians.
(10 percent of California's work force is undocumented, while close to 14 percent of the state's schoolchildren have at least one parent in the country illegally)
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1781007.html

==> Illegal immigrants pay sales tax but not income tax

==> According to Bruce Bartlett of the Wall Street Journal.
"California is burdened much more by illegal aliens than Texas. The latter has no state income tax and raises almost all of its state-level revenue from general and selective sales taxes. In 2005, Texas obtained 79% of state revenue from these sources. By contrast, California raised a majority of its state revenue from income taxes, with just 38% coming from sales taxes."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114800257492157398.html

Actually Bartlett understates the problem.
==> California gets only 29% of its revenue from Sales tax (including liquor and tobacco)
==> While the services services provided to them mentioned in the FAIR estimate (Education, Health care and Incarceration) represent about 80% of California expenditures.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budget/historical/2008-09/governors/summary/documents/SSUM.pdf

Furthermore:
==> While immigrants probably utilize those 3 services (Education, Health care and Incarceration) to about the same degree as other citizens (on a per capita basis), they probably do not contribute to sales tax in an equally representative way since (being typically relatively lower income) their expenditures will more heavily favor items not subject to sales tax (such as food).

In addition:
==> The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimate does not take into account other services illegal immigrants are also provided (Judicial, Transportation, Emergency, Policing and so on).

==>In fact, their estimate for the impact of illegal immigration on the State of California may indeed be low.

==>California is harmed not only because it has so many illegal immigrants or because it provides so many services to those immigrants, but also because its revenue sources are structured in such a way that they are disproportionately dependent on income tax.

As for the impact of illegal Mexican immigration on the United States generally, I'll leave that to Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=2


==>While illegal immigration is a huge part of the problem for California, it is by no means the only problem.

In fact, the same California tax structure that magnifies the illegal immigration burden is actually a big problem in other ways.
When state revenue relies too heavily on income taxes, it can be subject to wild fluctuations.

==>Per the Los Angeles Times (Evan Halper):
"California is extremely reliant on personal income taxes to fund government. It is a source of cash that is unpredictable and subject to huge swings. When the stock market is soaring, it is great for the state.

California's millionaires and billionaires contribute wads of capital gains taxes in those good years, and the state has consistently used that money to grow programs.

The richest 1% of residents end up contributing half of all the personal income tax the state collects.

As soon as the economy takes a dip and the stock market stalls, the money stops flowing and the state plunges into a crisis."

This is among the items the LA Times has cited in its list of policies that represent poor fiscal management by the state of California.

1) Tax Structure Too Dependent on Personal Income - Leads to unpredictable fluctuations in revenue
2) The Two-Thirds Rule - too much consensus required to pass the budget leading to gridlock, a rushed budget, and eventual borrowing.
3) Reining in Citizen Initiatives - Californians approve many programs and initiatives but do not allocate enough money to pay for them
4) Building a Serious "Rainy Day Fund" - The current one is easy to "dip into" and therefore is frequently depleted.
5) Getting Some Real Oversight - Powerful groups have resisted putting in place strict "performance standards" on government programs to ensure they are efficient, effective, and remain within budget.

- "The state has become a laboratory for what not to do when it comes to managing finances."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget24-2009may24,0,1725878.story?page=1

Granted, California has been hit with several financial burdens, but it is also poorly organized to handle them.

 

[Member2019]

Three strikes ... you're out ...

First California fucked their engineering industry.

Then California fucked their environmental policies.

Then California just fucked their entire social infrastructure.

Now they're just fucked.

People vote what they think is "right." Unfortunately, as so many philosophers will tell you, "right" is not always "right." Even worse is "right" from a standpoint of ignorance.

If there was ever a poster for environmental ignorance, it is California. Their environmental policies on everything from generation to transit have actually regressed their environmental results.

I said it in the '80s, I will never live in California. Also know that Nevada, Oregon and several other, nearby California states are very Libertarian-Capitalist for a reason. They've seen how hard Libertarian-Socialist policies have fucked California into one of the worst environmental and fiscal fuck-ups.

 

[titsrock]

Ceska is talking about the real problem(s) with California. As usual, the wackoes in the thread want to blame non-whites for everything that's wrong with the state and the Nation.

As I've pointed out in several other threads before, and as a former Californian I actually know what I'm talking about, the root of California's demise was the passing of this piece of legislation in 1978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

If Californians ever want to actually fix their state and return it to the "Glory Days" of the late 60s and 70s than repealing this Prop needs to occur. Otherwise, the "super majority" bullshit legislative policy will prevent any actual "change" from ever occurring in the state.

California has a revenue problem. If the white wackoes want to kick out all Latinos from California, the resulting wage requirement needed to get white people to "do the work" in the fields and in the fast food chains and the landscaping would force massive tax increases the likes of which even the dumbest Californian Republican has no real concept of...

 

[Hot Mega]

==>While illegal immigration is a huge part of the problem for California, it is by no means the only problem.

This is my effin' point. To lay at the feet of illegals ALL of California's fiscal problems is fairly ignorant IMO.

In proper context, this is like saying for example...crime in general is a problem. Well, yeah but to say crime is crippling our society to the point that we can't function is absurd.

Also while illegals don't pay income taxes in many cases the impact of their spending should not simply be thought of in the linear terms of sales tax.

Spending is a logarithmic function in an economy. e.g. spendings impact on demand, demand's impact on production, production's impact creating more jobs, more jobs' impact of on spending, sales tax, more jobs, etc.

So I think it's hard determine overall fiscal impact and again...it's not the reason California is in the straits she finds herself. The beginnings of California's current fiscal problems are the result of the energy crisis earlier this decade. Like many other states California's fiscal problems were exacerbated by the high gas prices and it's depressing effect on the sales of other goods and services.

 

[Member2019]

Ceska is talking about the real problem(s) with California. As usual, the wackoes in the thread want to blame non-whites for everything that's wrong with the state and the Nation.

I love this ... "non-whites for everything that's wrong"

This is what I love about you bleeding heart liberals, you will apply a racial context when one does not apply!

What some people are trying to say that in a state with a GDP of $1.7T, if income taxes were actually collected on the illegals, there wouldn't be a shortfall. But it's not even that. The social costs of illegal immigrants, who should have basic health coverage and other things provided by their employers, is far worse!

The problem is that Californians themselves continue to tolerate the abuse by their fellow Californians who, instead of helping them establish citizenship, pay taxes and give them health coverage, they "throw them back at the system" which is on other taxpayers. Too many Californians allow this.

The problem has never been the illegal immigrant, but the American willing to abuse them. The laws are being written to stop the abuse, not encourage it. But any time some of us start getting into the real, fiscal realities of the "immigration problem," you bleeding heart liberals label us as Aryan nation fools.

And the problem persists, instead of letting responsible citizens punish bad ones. You're both taking away a huge chunk of revenue as well as pushing the social problem on the taxpayer. I have never been against people who want to "work hard" and "earn their keep" in this country. If anyone harbors illegals but pays them fair wages and holds their social security and taxes in escrow, then I would never badmouth them.

But the reality is, how many people really do that? It's about a few people, including California citizens, abusing the system that other taxpayers fund. It's never been about the illegal immigrants themselves. Wake up! Stop looking at it at the depth of a 5 year-old (just like the Moon Shot, 9/11, North Korea, etc...) and actually look at the argument being made!

This is my effin' point. To lay at the feet of illegals ALL of California's fiscal problems is fairly ignorant IMO.

No, it's your ignorance to ass-u-me that's our argument.

Same deal on protectionalism, healthcare, freedom, etc... You Democrats and Republicans will go at it to the point that you utterly forget the real problems and real issues because they are long removed from the rhetoric. We Libertarians try to laugh it off, but you're both pissing the country down the drain.

California started fucking itself in the '80s. The damage is well beyond done.

 

[titsrock]

I love this ... "non-whites for everything that's wrong"

This is what I love about you bleeding heart liberals, you will apply a racial context when one does not apply!

Prof, you've got it backwards! It's the wacko/conservative/Republicans in this thread who are "applying a racial context when one does not apply!"

I agree with you! Blaming undocumented workers for the miseries of an entire state is just simplistic scapegoating.

We probably go our separate ways with repealing Prop 13, and I won't really argue my position with you on that since neither of us are California residents. I will say that repealing Prop 13 WILL create a "Free" Market for California Real Estate and will prevent the Boom/Bust/Bullshit cycle that California routinely gets caught up in.

There are 3 things that Liberals and Libbytarians can agree on when it comes to Immigration.
1. Call a moratorium on all Immigration and Naturalization for 20 years. We, as a nation, no longer need anymore citizens. We have enough.

2. Get rid of auto-citizenship provisions in the Constitution--children born in the U.S. by non-citizen parents are not auto-citizens. Naturalized citizens or "green card" spouses should not be able to "bring in their families."

3. Halt all Student Visas and Tech Worker Visas for 20 years. No athletic scholarships for foreign student athletes either. Again, we have enough students and workers *locally*. We do not need to educate or bring about our own white collar insource/outsource demise.

My basic immigration position is that our country has enough citizens. We need to do a much better job taking care of the citizens we have. More citizens = more natural resource drain (water, food, electricity, etc.)

I am in full support of blanket amnesty for all undocumented workers wherever they originate from. I don't think Americans could stomach "rounding up" undocumented people in Gestapo-like paddy wagons. That's not the kind of country we are.

 

[Ceska]

This is my effin' point.

I know. I was agreeing with you.

While illegal immigration is a huge part of the problem for California, it is by no means the only problem.

...The beginnings of California's current fiscal problems are the result of the energy crisis earlier this decade. Like many other states California's fiscal problems were exacerbated by the high gas prices and it's depressing effect on the sales of other goods and services.

To lay at the feet of illegals ALL of California's fiscal problems is fairly ignorant IMO.

In proper context, this is like saying for example...crime in general is a problem. Well, yeah but to say crime is crippling our society to the point that we can't function is absurd.

Perhaps, but nobody is saying that.
They aren't saying it's ALL due to illegal immigration (at least I'm not), any more than you are saying it is ALL due to "the energy crisis earlier this decade."

However, it appears they were saying illegal immigration is a larger factor than "the energy crisis earlier this decade."
Aren't they correct in this?

Also while illegals don't pay income taxes in many cases the impact of their spending should not simply be thought of in the linear terms of sales tax.

Spending is a logarithmic function in an economy. e.g. spendings impact on demand, demand's impact on production, production's impact creating more jobs, more jobs' impact of on spending, sales tax, more jobs, etc.

The answer to that is more complicated but the short answer has already been given.

Paul Krugman already indicated the aggregate result in the link provided above...
"...the net benefits to the U.S. economy from immigration, aside from the large gains to the immigrants themselves, are small."

While nationally the impact of immigration can be about a wash (and then only primarily from the standpoint of the federal government and some wealthy native citizens)
....in California's case it most certainly is not.
State governments in general are primarily impacted negatively as are certain industry sectors and poorer and low-skilled native citizens.

"States pay most of the cost of providing public services to immigrants ... " (CFR page 25)
"1980-2000 immmigration contributed to a decrease in average U.S. wages of 3 percent" (CFR page 20)
"1980-2000 wages of low skilled workers without a high school degree fell 9 percent as a result of immigration" (CFR page 20)

I am not sure exactly to what "logarithmic function" you are referring.
I can tell you how the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations performed the calculation.

To calculate illegal immigration's impact on GDP, as you might imagine, is complicated and is not done very often.
However the CFR did such an analysis in 2007 based mainly on data from 1996. I will summarize it here.

The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration
By Gordon Howard Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations
Benefits and Costs of Immigration - pages 19 -26
http://books.google.com/books?id=FJoXbhBivAwC

==> (Pretax income gains from immigration + net tax contributions) = = Estimate of the net impact of immigration on the U.S economy


==>Net Tax Contributions = (Tax payments - Value of Government Services Used)

In 1996 immigration surplus was .1 percent of GDP (Borjas - Heavens Door)
(or about $100 per native household)
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6677.html

And while the national fiscal burden was .2 percent of GDP ($200 per household) - California's was ($1200 per household) or 6 times as high.

CFR gives several reasons for why California is much higher than the national average. "The impact of immigration on California is more negative because immigrant households in the state:
a) Are more numerous relative to the native population.
b) Have more children causing them to make greater use of public education
c) Have lower incomes leading them to pay less tax and make greater use of public assistance"
(and on the page 22)
d) Are less skilled
e) Have a higher percentage without at least a high school education
and f) California offers more generous benefits

"The immigrants that account for the negative fiscal impact of California and the United States as a whole are primarily individuals with low skill levels. (This includes both legal and illegal immigrants)"

The above reasons leading to California's negative net impact of immigration are likely even more significant now than they were in 1996.

==> In 1996 illegal immigrants numbered 5 million compared to over 12 million today.
==> California's illegal immigrants are primarily low-skilled workers therefore...
==> California now not only has a larger number of total low-skilled workers (the ones that the CFR found had a greater negative fiscal impact) but also a greater number relative to the native population.

 

[Hot Mega]

No, it's your ignorance to ass-u-me that's our argument.

Same deal on protectionalism, healthcare, freedom, etc... You Democrats and Republicans will go at it to the point that you utterly forget the real problems and real issues because they are long removed from the rhetoric. We Libertarians try to laugh it off, but you're both pissing the country down the drain.

California started fucking itself in the '80s. The damage is well beyond done.

Take it up with those who were making that argument. It's been argued and implied over and over in this thread that illegals were to blame.

It's not a perfect world and like I said making the point that illegal immigrations is a problem is no more profound than saying crime in general is a problem. The question in this thread is, why should someone "care about California?" The simple answer to that question should be obvious since California is by far the most dominate economy in the nation and contributes more to the federal gov. than it receives.

As far as my own philosophy, I believe there is no one ideology that will make our country great. Ideologies are like human emotion in that they are necessary in the correct balances but destructive in the extremes.

We need conservatism, liberalism, and all the other "isms" but ultimately in America we're striving for egalatarianism.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Where's Facetious?! He's a Cali resident and a schooled individual. :hatsoff: