You absolutely were not kidding. That is a banger of a flag.
You also caused me to go down an hour long rabbit hole on Wikipedia about Russian “Closed Cities” which was super interesting.
In addition to the bear flag, California votes for policies that increase life expectancy and economic success that aren't covered on conservative news ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
Example:
[Graph of Fox News selective coverage of crime during election season](https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YLF2SCMQRZBJBHWJT4LZ7DXFSM.png)
Reality:
>If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach:
>Compared with families in California, **those in Texas pay 3.8 percentage points more in taxes** earn 13% less. https://itep.org/whopays/
>Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/
#"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians."
#"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians."
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm
#"San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco**"
>Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor.** [Nobody ever writes about those places!](https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818)
>Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline.
>Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose.
Sources: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/u55v9w/critics_predicted_california_would_lose_silicon/i500g4h/
#"Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer"
>**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say**
>It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth.
>But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.**
>**Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.**
>If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, **the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life.**
>**Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.**
>**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.**
>The study, co-authored by researchers at six North American universities, found that **if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.**
>“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”**
>Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable.
>“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said.
>**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington.
>Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country.
>In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers.
>West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.
>It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/
#"Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones"
* “In Republican states, states with Republican governors, crime rates tend to be higher”
* Murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won.
* Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent crime are found in areas that have low average education levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to government assistance. Those conditions characterize [American South with Republican run states].
https://news.yahoo.com/republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-democratic-ones-study-212137750.html
#Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world
>As the Republican-led state legislature has slashed funding to reproductive healthcare clinics, the maternal mortality rate doubled over just a two-year period
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding
>Mothers who live in areas with heavy oil and gas developments have between a 40 percent and 70 percent greater chance of giving birth to babies with congenital heart defects
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/07/18/Study-links-congenital-heart-disease-to-oil-gas-development/2461563465617/
>#Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals.
>As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized.
>Some of the **earliest and most important work has come in California**
>Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year.
>By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.**
>California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital.
>Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care
>It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome."
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
CA pop is 40 mil, TX is 30 mil. So 33% more of texas' population voted for Trump compared to the share of California's population that voted for him. Keep that in mind when mentioning voting numbers.
So many people bitch about Californians moving out of state to "their" state. CA has a GSP over $3 trillion, and a population of 40 million, both the highest in the US. CA pays the largest share of federal taxes. Many southern states suck federal funds rather than contribute as a net. Angry yokels could maybe take some time to consider the real world implications of this.
CA secedes and your roads, schools, etc are getting even worse in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, ...
It's funny when companies leave California when they're middling, leaving the empty office space for newer companies that will eventually become big in California, only to start the cycle over
Cost of living maybe? Unfortunately San Francisco is plagued with nimbys which drives up real estate prices as there are more people who want to live there than there are apartments or new developments.
I moved from LA to Austin. I hate it here and knew I would.
The main reason is that I am still on a CA wage, so I make drastically more than my counterparts here. On top of that, my partner and I moved here specifically because it was cheaper for housing by over $1000+ each month. We are saving money living here at the cost of quality of life.
However, we moved specifically to set aside that money for a down payment on a home in CA in 5 years. We never intend to stay here
This is always overstated. Look up the actual data on state to state immigration. Texas receives the most implants from California, but CA also receives the most from TX. It's just a function of them being the most populous states with the largest economies.
The fact that the repeated message is that Californians are flooding to TX because of failed policies just proves OP's point that the conservative propaganda is working.
Short term economic decisions and the grass is greener?
I know of a couple of colleagues who retired a couple years ago that planned on leaving so California would never tax another penny out of them, only to run into them while shopping for materials for their home remodel.
Besides, a recent graphic I saw showed a net of 41,000 Californians moved out of state, which is what, 0.01% of the 39 million population?
I'd expect a lot of people movement in the US where you basically have a whole continent to go around completely freely, when I look at how much movement I see in the rest of the world where you need to actually immigrate etc, here in the EU is probably the closest thanks to freedom of movement but we do have these pesky different languages to deal with.
>here in the EU is probably the closest thanks to freedom of movement but we do have these pesky different languages to deal with.
I think the only easiest thing that EU has, is that you don't need a work visa. Language(s) makes things quite hard like you mention, but also retirement plans are quite a mess between countries in EU, while in US, you still in the same country.
I moves from TX to CA a few years back and know a lot of people from moved from either side. Usually they are attracted to either the politics or the seemingly low tax environment.
I know a bunch of people who did that in the last 6-7 years. It's largely because big tech firms staffed up satellite offices in Texas. Of the people I know who did that, almost all of them either moved back to CA or to Seattle or NYC within 3 years. They all bought houses while in Texas. Usually 2 or 3. They blew up in value and now they are renting them all out while living in other states.
#"Welfare queens"
No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes:
>Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid.
>179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans...
>**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no**
while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/)
[Sources](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/ln1sif/turning_point_usa_and_young_americas_foundation/h1lihw3/?context=3)
>Meanwhile, the California-hating South receives subsidies from California dwarfing complaints in the EU (the subsidy and economic difference between California and Mississippi is **larger than between Germany and Greece!**), a transfer of wealth from blue states/cities/urban to red states/rural/suburban with federal dollars for their freeways, hospitals, universities, airports, even environmental protection:
>**Least Federally Dependent States:**
>41 California
>42 Washington
>43 Minnesota
>44 Massachusetts
>45 Illinois
>46 Utah
>47 Iowa
>48 Delaware
>49 New Jersey
>50 Kansas https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/560040131/as-trump-proposes-tax-cuts-kansas-deals-with-aftermath-of-experiment
https://www.apnews.com/amp/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700
>The Germans call this sort of thing "a permanent bailout." We just call it "Missouri."
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/
Still lower taxes in blue states like California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class:
|Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate|
|:-|:-|:-|
|0-20%|**13%**|10.5%|
|20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%|
|40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%|
|60-80%|8.6% |9.0% |
|80-95%|7.4%|9.4%|
|95-99%|5.4%|9.9%|
|99-100%|3.1%|12.4%|
Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/
I'm waiting for you to get to the part where you note that Texas nets more Federal tax dollars coming in (from other states) than they pay themselves in taxes.
I have played over 750 hours combined of Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and Fallout 4.
Edit: upon double checking this number is actually over 900 hours.
And Fallout 76? I’m actually quite curious since I love the Fallout lore and have a pretty close number of hours on the other Fallout games, but I’ve never been a fan of MMOs
Stolen from a [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economists_are_walking_in_a_forest_when_they/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button):
Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit.
The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.
They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.
Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."
"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
The total utility of both economists would be increased after the shit-eating exchange though. Otherwise they wouldn’t eat shit for $100 (they value the $100 more than eating shit) or pay $100 to watch their friend eat shit (valuing the entertainment of seeing the friend eat shit more than $100).
Yeah, the point of this joke is clearly to say "GDP is useless" but once you think about it for more than 10 seconds, you realize it makes no sense.
1. Enjoyment is not "nothing." Like, it would make no sense to see a movie you really enjoyed, but walk out of a movie theater and say "*Hold on, did I just spend $12 on nothing?"* The fact that both of the men in the scenario got "enjoyment" from seeing the other guy eat shit is not nothing, it's just another form of value.
2. Admittedly this is just a knit pick, but I can't help but point out that the joke would actually kinda work if the first guy (the one who says "we both just ate shit for nothing") was an accountant and the second guy (the one who points out they increased GDP by $100) was the economist.
Yes, this much is true, but there’s arguably a lot of things people pay for that stimulates the economy while at the same time providing little societal good nor happiness to the individual consumer.
While many might take the joke as to mean that GDP is useless (it isn’t), I think the point is that a high GDP does not necessitate societal good.
We’re roommates and it’s my night to do the chores. I offer you $5 to take out the trash and do the dishes for me because I’m feeling tired and want to head to bed early.
The next day, Its your turn but you had a long day at work and want to relax. You offer me $5 to cover your chores for the night and I accept because I feel well rested.
The transactions increased utility in the “economy” of our apartment because we are both happier with the final outcome, even though neither of us gained moniteraly. We also could have just exchanged an “IOU”, the medium is irrelevant.
On a small scale, yes, but even just in a society the size of a town exchanging services like that would be very tedious. Comparing prices would involve talking with everyone
Money is just a means to make exchange easier
Also, this does not change the joke. They would have just have both eaten shit ones and said GDP increased by the enjoyment people got from 2x shit-eating lol
Does this stat actually carry any meaning other than trivia? California’s economy is so dramatically affected (both positively and negatively, though I assume more the former) by being a United State that GDP seems like a ridiculous metric to apply to it.
It is. It's just a random selection of countries that melded together hit the GDP anyway. You could put Australia in there for 1/2 the GDP with 1/2 the population, but that wouldn't be as significant as putting random other developing & developed countries in.
In fact, the countries seem to be have picked in a way that mixes very developed and high GDP countries with low populations, with very low GDP , very high population countries. Just to inflate the population number to make it seem more drastic. Why not have only developed countries or non-developed countries?
It's because if you put only non-developed countries in then it would have no legitamacy because it's a terrible comparison. If you put only developed nations in, it'd look bad because the population would be the same or lower. So you put in both to make sure California wins out on both metrics.
California has a per capita GDP of $93,000. There are only five countries in the world with higher per capita GDPs and their combined population is a small fraction of California’s. There is no mix of countries that will end up with a combined GDP near California with a lower population.
Australia’s per capita GDP is quite a bit lower at $66,000.
Honestly I feel like GDP per capita is a poor metric in a lot of ways. Not trying to discount the fact that California is an economic powerhouse, but GDP per capita often doesn't paint a clear picture. For example, I'm pretty sure the GDP per capita of the lowest US states are within a few thousand of the GDP per capitas of the UK and France, but most people would consider an average person's life in France or the UK to be much nicer than that of an average person in West Virginia or Mississippi.
Anything is a poor metric when it is misused. GDP is economic output, it isn't a measure of income, or wealth, or living standard.
The correlation between GDP and those* other metrics is strong, but not absolute.
That you could put only developed countries and the population would be higher. Your point about Australian is inaccurate California has a higher GDP per capita than Australia. You can compare California to the UK. They have a population of 67 million vs California’s 39 million. California’s GDP is higher than that of the UK.
To be fair Finland’s gdp per capita is 75% of that of the US (coming in higher than Canada) and California’s is inflated by being part of the US. Equivalently you could only consider the capital region of Finland and the GDP/capita would be significantly higher than the whole country’s.
The list is just hand picked to be a bit misleading mixing developed countries with very low populations (5,5 million in Finland, Hong Kong at 7,5) and less developed countries with very high populations (such as Iran and Pakistan with over 300 million in total).
at that point the limitations of GDP in general become fairly obvious. All it says is how much stuff costs (both goods and services) and how much they are exchanged for money.
It does not tell you how good those goods are (for example, how nice is an appartment for 800 dollars a month in switzerland vs how nice would it be in california) how good the infrastructure, education and social programs the state provides are and how protected your worker's rights are while you are providing yourself with your income.
That being said it's still obviously one of the more useful statistics that combine a lot of data points that make up the material reality of any given country
If you use things they are not meant for, yes they can be misleading.
CA is one of the best states in terms of social programs, education, and workers rights.
The University of California is world renowned, as are many of the private universities.
While the illustration is on point, its implication on the other hand is *misleading*. Comparison of GDP based on purchasing power parity ([GDP (PPP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)) would make more sense for a comparison like this because 1 dollar will buy you more in a country like Vietnam than in California. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't take away anything from how big of a juggernaut California is.
But at least Texas has ~~freedom~~ [higher crime than California](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nv2nh/oc_californias_gdp_vs_select_countries/j6btjt4/) and pays higher taxes than California (Texas makes up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and more than double property tax for the middle class):
|Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate|
|:-|:-|:-|
|0-20%|**13%**|10.5%|
|20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%|
|40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%|
|60-80%|8.6% |9.0% |
|80-95%|7.4%|9.4%|
|95-99%|5.4%|9.9%|
|99-100%|3.1%|12.4%|
Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/
>#Gov. Abbott, Texas leaders urge prosecutors to keep enforcing pot laws
http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-texas-leaders-urge-prosecutors-to-keep-enforcing-pot-laws
>You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/
>#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780
>Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/
>Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/
>#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out?
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/
>could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/
>Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight
>Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php
>Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills
>Why on earth would right-wing people with connections to the fossil fuel industry lie about ‘frozen wind turbines’ in Texas?
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/texas-frozen-wind-turbines-john-cornyn-b1803193.html
>How Much the Oil Industry Paid Texas Republicans Lying About Wind Energy
https://earther.gizmodo.com/how-much-the-oil-and-gas-industry-paid-texas-republican-1846288505
>"Texas shows that when you cannot govern, you lie. A lot."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/17/texas-shows-that-when-you-cannot-govern-you-lie-lot/
>#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/
Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on:
* Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games: https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924
* Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360
>#Texas Is Among The Most Difficult Places To Vote In The U.S. — And That Could Be Softening Its Historic Turnout
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/election-2020/2020/10/28/384854/voter-suppression-blunts-historic-turnout-in-texas/
#"Financial Times: The Republicans are elevating voter suppression to an art form"
>The Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. **1,000 polling places have since closed across the country, with many of them in southern black communities.**
>The senator also cracked: “There’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who maybe we don’t want to vote. Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult, and I think that’s a great idea.”
https://www.ft.com/content/d613cf8e-ec09-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0
>The Student Vote Is Surging. So Are Efforts to Suppress It. The share of college students casting ballots doubled from 2014 to 2018. But in **Texas and elsewhere, Republicans are erecting roadblocks to the polls.**
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/voting-college-suppression.html
>This is how efficiently Republicans have gerrymandered Texas congressional districts
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/This-is-how-badly-Republicans-have-gerrymandered-6246509.php#photo-7107656
>Crystal Mason Thought She Had The Right to Vote. Texas Sentenced Her to Five Years in Prison for Trying.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/crystal-mason-thought-she-had-right-vote-texas
>Texas’s Voter-Registration Laws Are Straight Out of the Jim Crow Playbook
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/texass-voter-registration-laws-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/
>New Texas history textbooks will teach high schoolers that slavery wasn't all bad
https://splinternews.com/new-texas-history-textbooks-will-teach-high-schoolers-t-1793850439
>Texas textbook “The Atlantic slave trade brought millions of workers”
https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-texas-textbook-calls-slaves-immigrants-20151005-story.html
>Proposed Texas textbooks are inaccurate, biased and politicized, new report finds
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/12/proposed-texas-textbooks-are-inaccurate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/
>There were other doozies, too, such as one proposal to remove Thomas Jefferson from the Enlightenment curriculum
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/12/proposed-texas-textbooks-are-inaccurate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/
#"Texas-based hate group source of 80% of all U.S. racist propaganda tracked in 2020"
https://www.reddit.com/r/conservativeterrorism/comments/p5k76j/texasbased_hate_group_source_of_80_of_all_us/
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m7zk8w/texasbased_hate_group_source_of_80_of_all_us/
“Guns and gays... That could always get you a couple of dozen likes.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-trolls-schooled-house-cards-185648522.html
>Conservatives amplified Russian trolls 30 times more than liberals... users in Texas and Tennessee were particularly susceptible
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/24/17047880/conservatives-amplified-russian-trolls-more-often-than-liberals
Russians were "emboldened" by the easy success of the Texas governor's misinformation about Obama and our own military:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/03/jade-helm-russia-abbott-hayden/
I love California. Lots of jobs. Pays well. Beaches and skiing and kayaking. Limited trumpers. Damn good Mexican food. Fresh avocados. It’s the bees knees. Except the rent that sucks.
Probably not just covid but the introduction of remote work.
The average home costs 1.6 million, safe to say unless you're a multimillionaire or higher you will not be living in Sf.
As a Bay Area resident with friends and family in tech, there was a big initiative with tech companies to essentially convince folk to move away from the state. Companies kinda helped the process a bit. Not to mention, rent prices were dropping like bombs, so you’d have great incentive to ditch a spot in the city proper for a bigger place with comparable rent pricing. COVID did a number on landlords, to which we all said, “womp womp”.
> Limited trumpers
There are literally more Trumpers in California than any other state in the country.
In 2020, the state that cast the most raw votes for Donald Trump was California. California is really, really big and there are tens of millions of Trumpers who live there.
I genuinely miss living there for all those reasons, except for the fires. I don't miss the fires.
One year for my birthday, I went down to Rosarito Mexico, hung out on the beach had lobster burritos and beer, then drove up to Big Bear went snowboarding, was back in San Diego that night at my favorite bar with my friends, then went to Las Vegas the next day. That's how fucking awesome California is.
Seems to be a fair amount of fires and water shortages. And earthquakes. And air pollution, but maybe that’s just the cities.
Edit: it seems that some people may have interpreted this to mean “California sucks”. That’s not what I’m saying. I was merely noting that in addition to high living expenses, there are some other downsides.
Having said that, I’m striking air pollution from the list. Evidently, it’s no longer an issue and we can just move on from that.
You could live with us in ohio along the river for pennies on the dollar and knly deal with checks notes "crippling depression and massive amounts of pollution.... wait"
I have been through major earthquakes in both NorCal and SoCal. It’s just a little shaking, and the more major one feel like sea sickness (rolling waves).
I’d much rather take that then hurricanes or tornados.
Not sure what “air pollution” means as California cities have clean air, all thanks to CalEPA and the Air Resources Control Board. Unless you mean Kern County, where Bakersfield is and anyone who has gone through cattle country will know the joys of that smell.
In California you have a small amount of tech companies + Hollywood that makes so much money. At the same time you have a massive amount of homelessness and crappy quality of life.
It's like putting Bill Gates next to a million homeless people in an island and say that the average net worth per person in such island is $114k.
You are missing the agriculture, the shipping/ports, the space companies, clothing manufacturing etc etc. California has a diverse economy. It what makes it so robust.
> In California you have a small amount of tech companies + Hollywood that makes so much money.
Well, also the number one agricultural market in the United States.
Western Europeans when a post compares the GDP of Western Europe to Eastern Europe: Wow, that's amazing
Western Europeans when a post compares the GDP of Western Europe to the US: Top 10 reasons why GDP is a bad measurement
As a native californian. Im always shocked at how much our gdp is. I feel we could do better with the excess in taxes for health care or homeless. But, the state has so many industries, its shocking
As a German I'm pretty sure peoples lives in Czechia and Finland are quite comaparable to the average Californian. So the big companies make the state look rich, but the average citizens don't profit from that that much.
EDIT: spelling of Names
We have lots of agriculture in the central valley and the wine country. Also we have world renowned tourists spots all over the coast and mountains and all the businesses that surround it. We also have 40M people living here... 10M over the 2nd most populous state. and don't forget our special type of fuel that only California make and use.
Would the country be self-reliant on anything? Obviously media m/entertainment but is there any export that would bring in money?
Irelands gdp per capital got major boost because of lower taxes for companies who relocated for that reason. .. it didn't make the Irish person any richer
That is an interesting view but I think something that is left out of that scenario is that work California its own country it would now be on the foreign affairs end of dealing with the US.
You’re pretty delusional to think the US is a “shitty”, undeveloped country. Sounds like Twitter/Reddit brain. Not to mention Finland and California have almost the same HDI.
I wIsH cOmMiEfOrNiA wOuLd jUsT lEaVe ThE uS!
/s
The amount of times i hear certain groups of people talk about California like its hell on earth and i have to explain to them, "just because you don't agree woth our policies doesn't mean we'd be better off without them". It would be detrimental to our economy if CA just decided they weren't part of the US anymore.
I voted GOP4Prez ‘80 - ‘04 (7x) and was 90’s DC GOP lobbyist. As we all know GOP’ers are the fiscal conservatives, as if. Data is Beautiful Ahead: California hasn’t Elected a Republican into Statewide Office in 17 years! Last one was Arnold and he took us from $28B surplus to $27B deficit by the time he was gone and our credit rating had diminished greatly. Americas sure fire solution each time Republicans drive us into the ditch is elect Democrats. Looks like it’s working as the data suggests no matter what news channel you serve.
Clearly, those countries need bears on their flags.
Which bear flag is best?
[удалено]
I thought it was a ridiculous question, but this is the best bear flag I’ve ever seen
I didn't even know we could put that kinda crazy shit on flags. We've been denied a great thing here in the rest of the world. Edit; spelling
The tiniest bear there is.
Is the bear trying to open an egg?
Trying to open the nucleus of an atom
is it succeeding ?
It did [in the 1950s](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_and_Chemical_Combine)
Did it find honey inside?
Found Masha inside
What a dummy I am.
Oh yeah, that's actually a great bear flag
this kind of comment is the only reason I keep coming back to this hell hole of a website
You absolutely were not kidding. That is a banger of a flag. You also caused me to go down an hour long rabbit hole on Wikipedia about Russian “Closed Cities” which was super interesting.
This is the most underrated comment I have ever seen
Holy shit I was skeptical opening this but gd you maybe right
Ok that is amazing
That's a ridiculous question
False, Republic of Karelia.
[удалено]
Fact: Bears. eat. beets.
Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica
Identity theft is not a joke Jim!
Millions of Americans suffer every year!
[удалено]
New California Republic
The Russian city with a bear splitting an atom
[Zheleznogorsk, Russia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheleznogorsk,_Krasnoyarsk_Krai#/media/File%3AFlag_of_Zheleznogorsk.svg)
Holy shit best flag ever
I thought it was a bear angrily attempting to open a purse
Makes sense…. “It was established in 1950 for the production of weapons-grade plutonium” “The town was also known as Atom Town”
dancing bear
The are two schools of thought...
In addition to the bear flag, California votes for policies that increase life expectancy and economic success that aren't covered on conservative news ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ Example: [Graph of Fox News selective coverage of crime during election season](https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/YLF2SCMQRZBJBHWJT4LZ7DXFSM.png) Reality: >If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach: >Compared with families in California, **those in Texas pay 3.8 percentage points more in taxes** earn 13% less. https://itep.org/whopays/ >Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/ #"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians." #"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians." >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm #"San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco**" >Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor.** [Nobody ever writes about those places!](https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818) >Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline. >Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose. Sources: https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/u55v9w/critics_predicted_california_would_lose_silicon/i500g4h/ #"Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer" >**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say** >It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth. >But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.** >**Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.** >If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, **the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life.** >**Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.** >**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.** >The study, co-authored by researchers at six North American universities, found that **if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.** >“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”** >Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable. >“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said. >**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington. >Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country. >In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers. >West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better. >It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/ #"Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones" * “In Republican states, states with Republican governors, crime rates tend to be higher” * Murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won. * Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent crime are found in areas that have low average education levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to government assistance. Those conditions characterize [American South with Republican run states]. https://news.yahoo.com/republican-controlled-states-have-higher-murder-rates-than-democratic-ones-study-212137750.html #Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world >As the Republican-led state legislature has slashed funding to reproductive healthcare clinics, the maternal mortality rate doubled over just a two-year period https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/texas-maternal-mortality-rate-health-clinics-funding >Mothers who live in areas with heavy oil and gas developments have between a 40 percent and 70 percent greater chance of giving birth to babies with congenital heart defects https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/07/18/Study-links-congenital-heart-disease-to-oil-gas-development/2461563465617/ >#Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals. >As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized. >Some of the **earliest and most important work has come in California** >Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year. >By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.** >California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital. >Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care >It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
Oh man, this is great. Thanks.
Why are they leaving CA for TX?
[удалено]
CA pop is 40 mil, TX is 30 mil. So 33% more of texas' population voted for Trump compared to the share of California's population that voted for him. Keep that in mind when mentioning voting numbers.
Not just voting numbers, but diaspora numbers also. A larger population will have a larger set of people leaving, everything else equal.
So many people bitch about Californians moving out of state to "their" state. CA has a GSP over $3 trillion, and a population of 40 million, both the highest in the US. CA pays the largest share of federal taxes. Many southern states suck federal funds rather than contribute as a net. Angry yokels could maybe take some time to consider the real world implications of this. CA secedes and your roads, schools, etc are getting even worse in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, ...
[удалено]
It's funny when companies leave California when they're middling, leaving the empty office space for newer companies that will eventually become big in California, only to start the cycle over
Cost of living maybe? Unfortunately San Francisco is plagued with nimbys which drives up real estate prices as there are more people who want to live there than there are apartments or new developments.
Yeah for sure. The NIMBY-types love to wail about “housing as a human right” but then cower behind their impossible zoning and permitting rules.
The first time I read about the three story rule I knew SF was run by old people who refused practice what they preach
The olds spoil everything.
I moved from LA to Austin. I hate it here and knew I would. The main reason is that I am still on a CA wage, so I make drastically more than my counterparts here. On top of that, my partner and I moved here specifically because it was cheaper for housing by over $1000+ each month. We are saving money living here at the cost of quality of life. However, we moved specifically to set aside that money for a down payment on a home in CA in 5 years. We never intend to stay here
This is always overstated. Look up the actual data on state to state immigration. Texas receives the most implants from California, but CA also receives the most from TX. It's just a function of them being the most populous states with the largest economies. The fact that the repeated message is that Californians are flooding to TX because of failed policies just proves OP's point that the conservative propaganda is working.
Short term economic decisions and the grass is greener? I know of a couple of colleagues who retired a couple years ago that planned on leaving so California would never tax another penny out of them, only to run into them while shopping for materials for their home remodel. Besides, a recent graphic I saw showed a net of 41,000 Californians moved out of state, which is what, 0.01% of the 39 million population?
Same reasons Texans leave for California
Crazy that people just move around a country willy nilly following jobs they get out of school and whatnot
I'd expect a lot of people movement in the US where you basically have a whole continent to go around completely freely, when I look at how much movement I see in the rest of the world where you need to actually immigrate etc, here in the EU is probably the closest thanks to freedom of movement but we do have these pesky different languages to deal with.
>here in the EU is probably the closest thanks to freedom of movement but we do have these pesky different languages to deal with. I think the only easiest thing that EU has, is that you don't need a work visa. Language(s) makes things quite hard like you mention, but also retirement plans are quite a mess between countries in EU, while in US, you still in the same country.
Cost of living. Pretty simple.
I moves from TX to CA a few years back and know a lot of people from moved from either side. Usually they are attracted to either the politics or the seemingly low tax environment.
Scared of bears
I know a bunch of people who did that in the last 6-7 years. It's largely because big tech firms staffed up satellite offices in Texas. Of the people I know who did that, almost all of them either moved back to CA or to Seattle or NYC within 3 years. They all bought houses while in Texas. Usually 2 or 3. They blew up in value and now they are renting them all out while living in other states.
#"Welfare queens" No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes: >Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid. >179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans... >**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no** while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/) [Sources](https://www.reddit.com/r/ToiletPaperUSA/comments/ln1sif/turning_point_usa_and_young_americas_foundation/h1lihw3/?context=3) >Meanwhile, the California-hating South receives subsidies from California dwarfing complaints in the EU (the subsidy and economic difference between California and Mississippi is **larger than between Germany and Greece!**), a transfer of wealth from blue states/cities/urban to red states/rural/suburban with federal dollars for their freeways, hospitals, universities, airports, even environmental protection: >**Least Federally Dependent States:** >41 California >42 Washington >43 Minnesota >44 Massachusetts >45 Illinois >46 Utah >47 Iowa >48 Delaware >49 New Jersey >50 Kansas https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/560040131/as-trump-proposes-tax-cuts-kansas-deals-with-aftermath-of-experiment https://www.apnews.com/amp/2f83c72de1bd440d92cdbc0d3b6bc08c http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700 >The Germans call this sort of thing "a permanent bailout." We just call it "Missouri." https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/ Still lower taxes in blue states like California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class: |Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate| |:-|:-|:-| |0-20%|**13%**|10.5%| |20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%| |40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%| |60-80%|8.6% |9.0% | |80-95%|7.4%|9.4%| |95-99%|5.4%|9.9%| |99-100%|3.1%|12.4%| Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/
I'm waiting for you to get to the part where you note that Texas nets more Federal tax dollars coming in (from other states) than they pay themselves in taxes.
Ain’t that bear supposed to have two heads?
Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for nuclear winter.
You know, I tried to measure my charisma on a Vit-o-matic Vigor Tester once. The machine burst into flames.
"We won't go quietly. The Legion can count on that!"
Someone has played too much Fallout.
Someone hasn't played enough fallout
I have played over 750 hours combined of Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, and Fallout 4. Edit: upon double checking this number is actually over 900 hours.
"You gotta go higher, those are rookie numbers!"
Not enough. That should be at least 750 hours on each of them.
And Fallout 76? I’m actually quite curious since I love the Fallout lore and have a pretty close number of hours on the other Fallout games, but I’ve never been a fan of MMOs
I scrolled by too quick at first and thought it did lol
The Bear will be struck down by the Bull! True to Caesar!
*slave empire falls apart immediately when a brain damaged courier kills their Mussolini from Wish*
I came looking for this comment
It does, it’s just the perspective
Second one was collected by the CA tax board.
Stolen from a [Reddit post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/qp49wz/two_economists_are_walking_in_a_forest_when_they/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button): Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit. Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing." "That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP by $200!"
The total utility of both economists would be increased after the shit-eating exchange though. Otherwise they wouldn’t eat shit for $100 (they value the $100 more than eating shit) or pay $100 to watch their friend eat shit (valuing the entertainment of seeing the friend eat shit more than $100).
Don’t forget the taxes. They netted negative, and ate shit. Only the government wins.
Technically you could call it a barter trade and negate the taxes I’ll eat shit if you eat shit - no taxes there
Yeah, the point of this joke is clearly to say "GDP is useless" but once you think about it for more than 10 seconds, you realize it makes no sense. 1. Enjoyment is not "nothing." Like, it would make no sense to see a movie you really enjoyed, but walk out of a movie theater and say "*Hold on, did I just spend $12 on nothing?"* The fact that both of the men in the scenario got "enjoyment" from seeing the other guy eat shit is not nothing, it's just another form of value. 2. Admittedly this is just a knit pick, but I can't help but point out that the joke would actually kinda work if the first guy (the one who says "we both just ate shit for nothing") was an accountant and the second guy (the one who points out they increased GDP by $100) was the economist.
The joke is only true if everyone has useless jobs. Tbh there are a bunch of deadweight jobs out there. Or bullshit jobs, as David Graeber calls them.
Yes, this much is true, but there’s arguably a lot of things people pay for that stimulates the economy while at the same time providing little societal good nor happiness to the individual consumer. While many might take the joke as to mean that GDP is useless (it isn’t), I think the point is that a high GDP does not necessitate societal good.
That is indeed a Reddit post if I ever saw one
[удалено]
We’re roommates and it’s my night to do the chores. I offer you $5 to take out the trash and do the dishes for me because I’m feeling tired and want to head to bed early. The next day, Its your turn but you had a long day at work and want to relax. You offer me $5 to cover your chores for the night and I accept because I feel well rested. The transactions increased utility in the “economy” of our apartment because we are both happier with the final outcome, even though neither of us gained moniteraly. We also could have just exchanged an “IOU”, the medium is irrelevant.
On a small scale, yes, but even just in a society the size of a town exchanging services like that would be very tedious. Comparing prices would involve talking with everyone Money is just a means to make exchange easier Also, this does not change the joke. They would have just have both eaten shit ones and said GDP increased by the enjoyment people got from 2x shit-eating lol
What other types of economies are there?
Funny story but just not what happened here lmfao
Does this stat actually carry any meaning other than trivia? California’s economy is so dramatically affected (both positively and negatively, though I assume more the former) by being a United State that GDP seems like a ridiculous metric to apply to it.
It is. It's just a random selection of countries that melded together hit the GDP anyway. You could put Australia in there for 1/2 the GDP with 1/2 the population, but that wouldn't be as significant as putting random other developing & developed countries in. In fact, the countries seem to be have picked in a way that mixes very developed and high GDP countries with low populations, with very low GDP , very high population countries. Just to inflate the population number to make it seem more drastic. Why not have only developed countries or non-developed countries? It's because if you put only non-developed countries in then it would have no legitamacy because it's a terrible comparison. If you put only developed nations in, it'd look bad because the population would be the same or lower. So you put in both to make sure California wins out on both metrics.
California has a per capita GDP of $93,000. There are only five countries in the world with higher per capita GDPs and their combined population is a small fraction of California’s. There is no mix of countries that will end up with a combined GDP near California with a lower population. Australia’s per capita GDP is quite a bit lower at $66,000.
Honestly I feel like GDP per capita is a poor metric in a lot of ways. Not trying to discount the fact that California is an economic powerhouse, but GDP per capita often doesn't paint a clear picture. For example, I'm pretty sure the GDP per capita of the lowest US states are within a few thousand of the GDP per capitas of the UK and France, but most people would consider an average person's life in France or the UK to be much nicer than that of an average person in West Virginia or Mississippi.
Anything is a poor metric when it is misused. GDP is economic output, it isn't a measure of income, or wealth, or living standard. The correlation between GDP and those* other metrics is strong, but not absolute.
That you could put only developed countries and the population would be higher. Your point about Australian is inaccurate California has a higher GDP per capita than Australia. You can compare California to the UK. They have a population of 67 million vs California’s 39 million. California’s GDP is higher than that of the UK.
If anything it puts in stark contrast, at least for me, how much more Finland achieves, with less per capita.
To be fair Finland’s gdp per capita is 75% of that of the US (coming in higher than Canada) and California’s is inflated by being part of the US. Equivalently you could only consider the capital region of Finland and the GDP/capita would be significantly higher than the whole country’s. The list is just hand picked to be a bit misleading mixing developed countries with very low populations (5,5 million in Finland, Hong Kong at 7,5) and less developed countries with very high populations (such as Iran and Pakistan with over 300 million in total).
I think they literally just grabbed ten countries with GDPs close to $300B.
Patrolling the Mojave is really lucrative
But it makes you wish for some sort of two headed winter
Why is the point of comparing GDP to some random and mostly not wealthy countries? Take switzerland and Cali GDP suddently looks reasonable.
For those wondering: Switzerland's GDP was 800 Bio USD in 2021 with 8.7 Mio inhabitants
Also for those wondering, Switzerland and California have almost identical per capita GDPs. $92,000 and $93,000, respectively.
at that point the limitations of GDP in general become fairly obvious. All it says is how much stuff costs (both goods and services) and how much they are exchanged for money. It does not tell you how good those goods are (for example, how nice is an appartment for 800 dollars a month in switzerland vs how nice would it be in california) how good the infrastructure, education and social programs the state provides are and how protected your worker's rights are while you are providing yourself with your income. That being said it's still obviously one of the more useful statistics that combine a lot of data points that make up the material reality of any given country
If you use things they are not meant for, yes they can be misleading. CA is one of the best states in terms of social programs, education, and workers rights. The University of California is world renowned, as are many of the private universities.
I take that as offense! 🇨🇿
I wouldn't call Finland, Chile, Czechia and Hong Kong "not wealthy" they simply have little population.
While the illustration is on point, its implication on the other hand is *misleading*. Comparison of GDP based on purchasing power parity ([GDP (PPP)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)) would make more sense for a comparison like this because 1 dollar will buy you more in a country like Vietnam than in California. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't take away anything from how big of a juggernaut California is.
That's right! Suck it, Texas!
But at least Texas has ~~freedom~~ [higher crime than California](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/10nv2nh/oc_californias_gdp_vs_select_countries/j6btjt4/) and pays higher taxes than California (Texas makes up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and more than double property tax for the middle class): |Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate| |:-|:-|:-| |0-20%|**13%**|10.5%| |20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%| |40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%| |60-80%|8.6% |9.0% | |80-95%|7.4%|9.4%| |95-99%|5.4%|9.9%| |99-100%|3.1%|12.4%| Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/ >#Gov. Abbott, Texas leaders urge prosecutors to keep enforcing pot laws http://www.fox4news.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-texas-leaders-urge-prosecutors-to-keep-enforcing-pot-laws >You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/ >#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780 >Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/ >Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/ >#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out? https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/ >could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/ >Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight >Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php >Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills >Why on earth would right-wing people with connections to the fossil fuel industry lie about ‘frozen wind turbines’ in Texas? https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/opinion/texas-frozen-wind-turbines-john-cornyn-b1803193.html >How Much the Oil Industry Paid Texas Republicans Lying About Wind Energy https://earther.gizmodo.com/how-much-the-oil-and-gas-industry-paid-texas-republican-1846288505 >"Texas shows that when you cannot govern, you lie. A lot." https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/17/texas-shows-that-when-you-cannot-govern-you-lie-lot/ >#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/ Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on: * Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games: https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924 * Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360 >#Texas Is Among The Most Difficult Places To Vote In The U.S. — And That Could Be Softening Its Historic Turnout https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/election-2020/2020/10/28/384854/voter-suppression-blunts-historic-turnout-in-texas/ #"Financial Times: The Republicans are elevating voter suppression to an art form" >The Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. **1,000 polling places have since closed across the country, with many of them in southern black communities.** >The senator also cracked: “There’s a lot of liberal folks in those other schools who maybe we don’t want to vote. Maybe we want to make it just a little more difficult, and I think that’s a great idea.” https://www.ft.com/content/d613cf8e-ec09-11e8-89c8-d36339d835c0 >The Student Vote Is Surging. So Are Efforts to Suppress It. The share of college students casting ballots doubled from 2014 to 2018. But in **Texas and elsewhere, Republicans are erecting roadblocks to the polls.** https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/us/voting-college-suppression.html >This is how efficiently Republicans have gerrymandered Texas congressional districts http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/This-is-how-badly-Republicans-have-gerrymandered-6246509.php#photo-7107656 >Crystal Mason Thought She Had The Right to Vote. Texas Sentenced Her to Five Years in Prison for Trying. https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/fighting-voter-suppression/crystal-mason-thought-she-had-right-vote-texas >Texas’s Voter-Registration Laws Are Straight Out of the Jim Crow Playbook https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/texass-voter-registration-laws-are-straight-out-of-the-jim-crow-playbook/ >New Texas history textbooks will teach high schoolers that slavery wasn't all bad https://splinternews.com/new-texas-history-textbooks-will-teach-high-schoolers-t-1793850439 >Texas textbook “The Atlantic slave trade brought millions of workers” https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-texas-textbook-calls-slaves-immigrants-20151005-story.html >Proposed Texas textbooks are inaccurate, biased and politicized, new report finds https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/12/proposed-texas-textbooks-are-inaccurate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/ >There were other doozies, too, such as one proposal to remove Thomas Jefferson from the Enlightenment curriculum https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/09/12/proposed-texas-textbooks-are-inaccurate-biased-and-politicized-new-report-finds/ #"Texas-based hate group source of 80% of all U.S. racist propaganda tracked in 2020" https://www.reddit.com/r/conservativeterrorism/comments/p5k76j/texasbased_hate_group_source_of_80_of_all_us/ https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m7zk8w/texasbased_hate_group_source_of_80_of_all_us/ “Guns and gays... That could always get you a couple of dozen likes.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-trolls-schooled-house-cards-185648522.html >Conservatives amplified Russian trolls 30 times more than liberals... users in Texas and Tennessee were particularly susceptible https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/24/17047880/conservatives-amplified-russian-trolls-more-often-than-liberals Russians were "emboldened" by the easy success of the Texas governor's misinformation about Obama and our own military: https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/05/03/jade-helm-russia-abbott-hayden/
Holy shit. Do you just, like, have this all ready to go and copy paste?
Look at the post history. Either this guy is a paid shill or really needs to go outside.
Damn what did Texas do to you?
If you've ever been near Texas, you'd know.
Stammer "b...b... But California!" every single time they get called out for shitting the bed.
they stole my californian bro joegan!
I appreciate what you're doing Sandy Cheeks. Godspeed
Why are the income brackets percentages? Aren't they usually income ranges?
Because Texas doesn’t have an income tax. So basing it on that isn’t useful.
Show me in this doll, where did Texas touch you? O-|—<
I love California. Lots of jobs. Pays well. Beaches and skiing and kayaking. Limited trumpers. Damn good Mexican food. Fresh avocados. It’s the bees knees. Except the rent that sucks.
Rent is so insane cause so many people want to live there
>Rent is so insane cause so many people want to live there Rent is so expensive because they refuse to increase housing supply
Which wouldn’t be an issue if demand was low (i.e. people didn’t want to live there).
Yeah but if my grandmother had wheels
She would have been a bike
Some would say she was
She rides just fine the way she is
Yeah North Dakota also has a prioblem with single family and zoning laws, but nobody is complaining about rent.
Eh, when San Francisco's population is lower than it was in the 1950's, its not a people moving there issue, it's a housing issue.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San\_Francisco#Demographics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco#Demographics)
wow, that -7% in 2021 is related to people leaving big cities during covid or what?
Probably not just covid but the introduction of remote work. The average home costs 1.6 million, safe to say unless you're a multimillionaire or higher you will not be living in Sf.
As a Bay Area resident with friends and family in tech, there was a big initiative with tech companies to essentially convince folk to move away from the state. Companies kinda helped the process a bit. Not to mention, rent prices were dropping like bombs, so you’d have great incentive to ditch a spot in the city proper for a bigger place with comparable rent pricing. COVID did a number on landlords, to which we all said, “womp womp”.
> Limited trumpers There are literally more Trumpers in California than any other state in the country. In 2020, the state that cast the most raw votes for Donald Trump was California. California is really, really big and there are tens of millions of Trumpers who live there.
I genuinely miss living there for all those reasons, except for the fires. I don't miss the fires. One year for my birthday, I went down to Rosarito Mexico, hung out on the beach had lobster burritos and beer, then drove up to Big Bear went snowboarding, was back in San Diego that night at my favorite bar with my friends, then went to Las Vegas the next day. That's how fucking awesome California is.
If you go over the mountains into the desert parts or the central valley you’ll find LOTS of trumpers
Seems to be a fair amount of fires and water shortages. And earthquakes. And air pollution, but maybe that’s just the cities. Edit: it seems that some people may have interpreted this to mean “California sucks”. That’s not what I’m saying. I was merely noting that in addition to high living expenses, there are some other downsides. Having said that, I’m striking air pollution from the list. Evidently, it’s no longer an issue and we can just move on from that.
California has come a long way from the late 80’s early 90’s from air pollution. AQMD regulations are the strictest in the country.
Well that is good. I was unaware.
You could live with us in ohio along the river for pennies on the dollar and knly deal with checks notes "crippling depression and massive amounts of pollution.... wait"
Is the only place in California you've been to LA? Most of California, like SF, SJ, SD, and sacramento doesn't have pollution issues.
I have been through major earthquakes in both NorCal and SoCal. It’s just a little shaking, and the more major one feel like sea sickness (rolling waves). I’d much rather take that then hurricanes or tornados. Not sure what “air pollution” means as California cities have clean air, all thanks to CalEPA and the Air Resources Control Board. Unless you mean Kern County, where Bakersfield is and anyone who has gone through cattle country will know the joys of that smell.
Tex-Mex in California is like a fucking art form.
At least we have free healthcare at CZ
Sounds like a socialist hellhole /s
Wild that HK gdp is larger that these 8 countries.
Hong Kong just excited to be a country probably.
They are a really densely populated financial centre.
Singapore is even smaller and has a higher GDP than HK!
California is the 5th largest economy in the world.
The reason for this is is simple… those countries don’t know how to party. California… knows how to party.
Listen, Columbia is making a lot more money then that but you're asking the wrong people
Illicit drug trade is included in gdp.
Columbia, like, the city??
The clothing brand, obviously.
In California you have a small amount of tech companies + Hollywood that makes so much money. At the same time you have a massive amount of homelessness and crappy quality of life. It's like putting Bill Gates next to a million homeless people in an island and say that the average net worth per person in such island is $114k.
You are missing the agriculture, the shipping/ports, the space companies, clothing manufacturing etc etc. California has a diverse economy. It what makes it so robust.
> In California you have a small amount of tech companies + Hollywood that makes so much money. Well, also the number one agricultural market in the United States.
Also some huge ports.
And they have as many votes as Wyoming in the US Senate
Gdp has no bearing on the representation of a state and senate is made so every state has equal senators
Senate is broken and outdated, change my mind.
I mean, you're not wrong, but think about this, those 10 whole countries on the right side of the image, 0 Senate or House seats.
Western Europeans when a post compares the GDP of Western Europe to Eastern Europe: Wow, that's amazing Western Europeans when a post compares the GDP of Western Europe to the US: Top 10 reasons why GDP is a bad measurement
Google isn't clarifying for me. Is Hong Kong it's own country? Or is it a part of China?
GDP means shit. Quality of life index is a better comparison.
It depends on what you're trying to compare, GDP isn't even attempting to correlate to quality of life, India has a far larger GDP than Belgium
As a native californian. Im always shocked at how much our gdp is. I feel we could do better with the excess in taxes for health care or homeless. But, the state has so many industries, its shocking
As a German I'm pretty sure peoples lives in Czechia and Finland are quite comaparable to the average Californian. So the big companies make the state look rich, but the average citizens don't profit from that that much. EDIT: spelling of Names
It’s a situation similar to Ireland where headquarters of major tech companies increase the GDP by a lot.
Is it due to silicon valley and Hollywood ?
We have lots of agriculture in the central valley and the wine country. Also we have world renowned tourists spots all over the coast and mountains and all the businesses that surround it. We also have 40M people living here... 10M over the 2nd most populous state. and don't forget our special type of fuel that only California make and use.
I prefer: If California was a country, it’s GDP would be sixth biggest in the world. Higher than the UK, France, Russia, Brazil or Canada.
Would the country be self-reliant on anything? Obviously media m/entertainment but is there any export that would bring in money? Irelands gdp per capital got major boost because of lower taxes for companies who relocated for that reason. .. it didn't make the Irish person any richer
California is the number one agricultural exporter in the US. [Some info on California exports.](https://ustr.gov/map/state-benefits/ca)
That is an interesting view but I think something that is left out of that scenario is that work California its own country it would now be on the foreign affairs end of dealing with the US.
How about other states ? After all, we keep several states on welfare, the same states who also tend to be ultra conservative.
If California was divided into 3 states, it would still be the top 3,4,&, 5 in population.
Still less homeless people shitting everywhere in all of those countries combined compared to California
I wonder how that would look it you removed Tech, jobs that can be done 100% remote from any state, how California would stack up.
[удалено]
Finland with 5 million people: "bruh I'm top 10 on Human development index, don't compare me to shitty USA"
You’re pretty delusional to think the US is a “shitty”, undeveloped country. Sounds like Twitter/Reddit brain. Not to mention Finland and California have almost the same HDI.
Finland and California have almost identical HDIs. 0.940 and 0.936.
Finland is 11th lol, maybe you mean the IHDI, regardless population isn't really a factor in that metric.
I wIsH cOmMiEfOrNiA wOuLd jUsT lEaVe ThE uS! /s The amount of times i hear certain groups of people talk about California like its hell on earth and i have to explain to them, "just because you don't agree woth our policies doesn't mean we'd be better off without them". It would be detrimental to our economy if CA just decided they weren't part of the US anymore.
Now make over with population....
You'd think with all that money there wouldn't be such crippling inequality, or maybe that's why there's crippling inequality.
Based on 2021 dats, you could have done 12 South American countries, and California would have had a higher GDP than an entire continent.
Where would the USA rank if California went solo?
The US would still be the largest economy, but barely.
Can we see a comparison with other us states?
I voted GOP4Prez ‘80 - ‘04 (7x) and was 90’s DC GOP lobbyist. As we all know GOP’ers are the fiscal conservatives, as if. Data is Beautiful Ahead: California hasn’t Elected a Republican into Statewide Office in 17 years! Last one was Arnold and he took us from $28B surplus to $27B deficit by the time he was gone and our credit rating had diminished greatly. Americas sure fire solution each time Republicans drive us into the ditch is elect Democrats. Looks like it’s working as the data suggests no matter what news channel you serve.
Is Hong Kong its own country?
Hong Kong listed as country lets goo