patrick.net

lostand confused says

You have to tell me that you are ignoring me. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Online behavior can be funny. I have a creep who pretends to Ignore me, but uses a separate browser to follow me, then replies to my comments while reminding me that he is still "ignoring" me. I think their intent is to tease like sticking their tongue out, but they only make themselves look ridiculous.

joshuatrio says

Yes I have. Spent a considerable amount of time in FL with family in Miami and West Palm, and have been out west for almost 5 years.
Sure, SoCal is a cesspool, but the coastline and beaches beyond LA going North are gorgeous

Ehhh, not so much. The beaches north of LA are *nice* to look at, but they still have crappy sand and cold water. They are less crowded the further you go up the coast, but they all get more shitty the further up the coast.

Monterey, for example, is gorgeous to look at, but not much of a beach if you are trying to actually use it the way most people use a beach.

Florida beaches between St. Petersburg and Pensacola are profoundly beautiful--the sand in Pensacola squeaks under your feet it's so fine and powdery.

Sounds like you lived in South Florida on the Atlantic side, where the beaches are just okay compared to the gulf.

Goran K said: I'm just not convinced Governor Brown can do enough to turn this train wreck around.
You don't need Gov. Brown. Proposition 32 will go a long way towards righting the ship. It curbs special interest influence (and puts more money into the hands of working people).

if/when we have children we're leaving CA at once. i could never do that to my kids. they need more than a closet for a house, need teachers that actually give a crap, need a safe neighborhood where the cops do more than write tickets, need me to be level-headed and not stressed out about a huge debt with little job security, etc. if i stay here, i'll be giving them a much worse life than i had growing up. at least, i would like to give them an equal childhood to what i had.

the kool-aid has always been bite the bullet and enjoy the outdoors... but when every other fucker is also outdoors and crowding the surf breaks it doesn't add up. it's a fine place to be a DINK, i guess. but even so, your housing sucks for the money compared with other places. and if i move inland i still have high taxes and gas prices and traffic... yikes.

getting tired of the temporary workforce bullshit, too. having to change jobs every 18 months is stupid depressing. even if salary increases each time it's a strain. it's not stable.

seems to me the only middle class folks who survive out here with kids are the ones who have parental assistance, or are leveraged to the hills. i don't, and refuse to be.

landtof says

if/when we have children we're leaving CA at once. i could never do that to my kids. they need more than a closet for a house, need teachers that actually give a crap, need a safe neighborhood where the cops do more than write tickets, need me to be level-headed and not stressed out about a huge debt with little job security, etc. if i stay here, i'll be giving them a much worse life than i had growing up. at least, i would like to give them an equal childhood to what i had.

Wow, generalize much? Do you really think all teachers in CA don't give a crap and all police just write tickets? I guess you live in an area completely different than ours.

And no, Prop 32 is not the solution. Read up on it...it's a power grab. If it pertained to ALL corporations and ALL unions, I might be for it. It isn't. Super PACS, Wall St firms, hedge funds, and LLCs are all exempt from the law.

The solution is repeal the commercial portion of Prop 13. That's a joke and it's the original reason for the Prop 13 (Jarvis and the Landlord association), not poor grandma losing her home. The people that pushed that law could have care less if anyone was tossed out on their butt...and the rest of us are paying dearly for ir. California hasn't been the same since.

This is one of the worst threads I've seen in a while on Patrick.net.

California is bankrupt. The dems have destroyed the state. So what's the solution? Keep electing more dems. Are there any sane people who have not left California? Once they're all gone, illegals will be on their own, there will be no one to tax and the state will collapse. Brad and his friends will be holding the bag and he will have to pull his mom from under the bus and apologize.

Waitingtobuy says

Wow, generalize much? Do you really think all teachers in CA don't give a crap and all police just write tickets? I guess you live in an area completely different than ours.

And no, Prop 32 is not the solution. Read up on it...it's a power grab. If it pertained to ALL corporations and ALL unions, I might be for it. It isn't. Super PACS, Wall St firms, hedge funds, and LLCs are all exempt from the law.

The solution is repeal the commercial portion of Prop 13. That's a joke and it's the original reason for the Prop 13 (Jarvis and the Landlord association), not poor grandma losing her home. The people that pushed that law could have care less if anyone was tossed out on their butt...and the rest of us are paying dearly for ir. California hasn't been the same since.

This is one of the worst threads I've seen in a while on Patrick.net.

Except that if you check the link for prop 32 showing the major donors, you will see that the CA teachers union alone has donated as much against it as all of the proponents combined. Yes, there are exceptions, but looking at who is actually throwing money at this tells me all that I need to know. Nearly all of the top donors are various unions, and the unions have done far more damage to CA than private enterprise. If private enterprise was really going to score on this one, they would be tossing cash at it like crazy too. But no, the CA teachers union has dropped nearly $17M fighting it. The unions in CA are what is destroying the state right now and their influence needs to be curtailed. If the unions actually acted in the best interests of teachers, police and firefighters then I might feel differently. But, the unions make short term promises that sound good to those that they claim to represent while guzzling money needlessly and ensuring that there is no actual long-term benefit to their existence.

Total campaign cash:
For: $9MM
Against: $41MM

The labor groups already have VASTLY more representation in CA government, and we have the results for all to see. This would dial down their influence to a level closer to that of the "nefarious, evil" private enterprise boogeymen that the opponents all love to name-drop.

here are the people who are getting out of CA:

1) Blacks, because illegal immigrants
2) Poor White trash because they can't compete with immigrant workers

the rest are doing fine. not everywhere in CA is a dump.

Not really.

I work at a very large tech company with its HQ in Washington. A lot of people have transferred up to the main campus specifically because of the cost of living and the mediocre schools. These are college-educated engineers and managers. Still others have taken jobs in AZ and CO because they can take a 30% pay cut and a corresponding 70% cost of living cut.

If it was just the leaches that you mention leaving, CA would actually be getting into a better position. The people that this place NEEDS are the ones leaving.

mr green says

The dems have destroyed the state.

prop 13 destroyed the state. that's right! big money has won again!

Yes, the Democrats, Prop 13, Mello Roos, local governments (city of Bell!)... all have destroyed California Dream!

bmwman91 says

The labor groups already have VASTLY more representation in CA government, and we have the results for all to see. This would dial down their influence to a level closer to that of the "nefarious, evil" private enterprise boogeymen that the opponents all love to name-drop.

We have a similar political dynamic here in the Rust Belt. Any attempt to dial back the power of *public sector* unions is seen as an attack on *all unions.*

"You don't want teachers to strike? Well then, you're no different than a Pinkerton thug at the Battle of Homestead!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Strike

bgamall4 says

You have been brainwashed by Wall Street. Pension funding can be easily fixed by upping the contributions of current workers. Wall Street wants one thing, power to get the money before Calpers, who has the legal right according to the laws of California.

Most of the websites who are actively bashing Calpers have an adgenda or get funded by Wall Street. That also is fact.

Edit: one more thing, most of the publications opposing calpers are for privatization of all government, and that is also Wall Street.

The CalPERs fund only returned 1% last year, thanks to Benanke, equities are pretty much finished as an asset class for pension funds.

Yes, you could ask for more contributions, but you might have better luck getting blood from a rock. Most cities in California already have budget problems with the current contributions, and are having to layoff CURRENT workers just to support those who are already retired. CalPERs is already doomed despite what you, or I, might argue.

That's not "brain washing", that's simple math. CalPERs doesn't sound like a system that is fiscally maintainable, and no one in their right mind would want to keep it around unless they were part of that system, or already retired.

Another middle class taxpayer leaving. First week of November I'm moving my family out of state. I can't imagine inflicting the Los Angeles school system on my kids. My state tax burden will be cut in half. I'm moving to a property that's got 20 times the land and 3x the living space for the same money. My wife and I will no longer be criminals for carrying firearms for self defense. Also, my vote will actually make a difference in elections. I always wanted to live in California, but 15 years after moving here, I'm just done.

Nospam says

Another middle class taxpayer leaving. First week of November I'm moving my family out of state. I can't imagine inflicting the Los Angeles school system on my kids. My state tax burden will be cut in half. I'm moving to a property that's got 20 times the land and 3x the living space for the same money. My wife and I will no longer be criminals for carrying firearms for self defense. Also, my vote will actually make a difference in elections. I always wanted to live in California, but 15 years after moving here, I'm just done.

Best to you and yours. Smart move.

Goran_K says

The CalPERs fund only returned 1% last year, thanks to Benanke, equities are pretty much finished as an asset class for pension funds.

I thought that with their investment mix that they are counting on a typical 7% annual return. What gives?

pfft. CA schools are terrible, or below average as the reports put it. That's not a generalization that's a fact.

Nospam says

Another middle class taxpayer leaving. First week of November I'm moving my family out of state. I can't imagine inflicting the Los Angeles school system on my kids. My state tax burden will be cut in half. I'm moving to a property that's got 20 times the land and 3x the living space for the same money. My wife and I will no longer be criminals for carrying firearms for self defense. Also, my vote will actually make a difference in elections. I always wanted to live in California, but 15 years after moving here, I'm just done.

Enjoy your major quality of life upgrade and all the extra money you will now have to spend. I am suprised you managed to stick it out for 15 years in this dump.

dublin hillz says

I thought that with their investment mix that they are counting on a typical 7% annual return. What gives?

Remember, the CalPERs fund returned 1% NOMINALLY, meaning in real terms, it actually lost a lot money.

Retirement funds, both public and private, are now seriously underfunded because their investments have failed to produce profits.

The problem with CalPErs is that state and local governments are obliged to make up the difference. A safety net if you will. This is why there is a crisis in public retirement funding. Private funds simply go away.

CalPERS is merely the biggest canary in the coal mine. Arguing about whether CalPERs needs to go away is like arguing about a corpse on the road that's been hit with an 18-wheeler, on whether it will walk again. CalPERs died in 2008. What is left is a heavy stinky shell of what it used to be, and it needs to be put into the garbage where it belongs before it makes things worse.

Goran_K says

Retirement funds, both public and private, are now seriously underfunded because their investments have failed to produce profits.

I don't believe in anyone but myself handing my family money and this is a reason I would never go to a so-called advisor for any funds or stocks.

Yes, they have failed to produce profits but certain organized theives have surely known how to push people into such shite, take their cut while many have lost everything.

The term financial advisor to me is so arsehole ridiculous. My take is if that person knows so much about making money they wouldn't be telling others how to do it for a fee, they would do it themselves with their own money.

Reader says

I don't believe in anyone but myself handing my family money and this is a reason I would never go to a so-called advisor for any funds or stocks.

Yes, they have failed to produce profits but certain organized theives have surely known how to push people into such shite, take their cut while many have lost everything.

The term financial advisor to me is so arsehole ridiculous. My take is if that person knows so much about making money they wouldn't be telling others how to do it for a fee, they would do it themselves with their own money.

Well to be fair, some funds are well run, by people interested in making their clients money. This is proven by their year by year performance numbers.

The biggest problem with CalPERs is that it has a public safety net built into it. If CalPERs were simply allowed to prosper or perish on the weight of its accomplishments, then I would have no problem with it, but to put the burden of its failures on tax payers is ridiculous.

Waitingtobuy said: And no, Prop 32 is not the solution. Read up on it...it's a power grab. If it pertained to ALL corporations and ALL unions, I might be for it. It isn't. Super PACS, Wall St firms, hedge funds, and LLCs are all exempt from the law.
Now you're being a bit silly. Nobody is exempted. Citizens United allows ANY entity (union, corporation, person) to contribute to a SuperPAC. Your beef is with the US Supreme Court, not Prop 32 (and BTW, I will join you in protesting Citizens United).
"I've sat in all of those backroom meetings," she says. "That thing, if walls could talk, well think of me as a wall, and I'm talking. I've had it... Ms. Romero believes the only way to bring down the public unions—and "they will be brought down, they must be brought down"—is to go after "what feeds the beast." In other words: payroll deductions." former state senator Gloria Romero of Democrats for Education Reform, Prop 32 supporter.

Goran_K says

The biggest problem with CalPERs

I see, but I know nothing about CalPERs. In general you see I just don't trust anyone handling my money for a fee.

Reader says

The term financial advisor to me is so arsehole ridiculous. My take is if that person knows so much about making money they wouldn't be telling others how to do it for a fee, they would do it themselves with their own money.

That's why I do not have a "financial advisor." :-)

Nospam said: My state tax burden will be cut in half. I'm moving to a property that's got 20 times the land and 3x the living space for the same money.

And property taxes?

EBGuy says

Now you're being a bit silly. Nobody is exempted. Citizens United allows ANY entity (union, corporation, person) to contribute to a SuperPAC. Your beef is with the US Supreme Court, not Prop 32 (and BTW, I will join you in protesting Citizens United).

Actually, this article does a good job of laying out who is exempted from Prop 32. http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_21635501/proposition-32-is-phony-reform

Corporations are barred from payroll deductions, but they don't use them anyway.

Who is funding the Prop? Are they doing this out of the goodness of their own hearts?

So, the argument against 32 is that unions should have the same corrupt lobbying abilities as crime lords and corporations, and they should continue to have unilateral power of involuntary and unlimited payroll withdrawals over their members to fund whatever they see fit anyway they see fit.

Without corrupt powers of lobbying, the unions can never properly and competitively influence politicians under the table as an end run around taxpayer approval so that they in essence, can control the financial pot by continuing to bribe the politicians.

Without these special corrupting, lobbying powers, the process is just so much more inefficient. It would force the poor unions to actually argue the merits before the taxpayers when otherwise they can simply buy the politicians. It is terrible that taxpayers and voters would actually remove that power to influence and corrupt the politicians from our selfless teachers and government workers, who are only corrupting the pols for the good of the taxpayer, even if the taxpayer does not know or acknowledge this selfless act.

The only slight difference is that corporations are TAXPAYERS and the unions are TAXSUCKEES who are bankrupting our cities, counties and state. The TAXSUCKEES simply want the power to corrupt on an equal footing with the TAXPAYERS, they don't care a bit if the corporations rob us blind in some other venue, honor amongst thieves and all that.

Those are some great selling points for voting against 32, I vote for equal opportunity corruption, no on 32! So glad the unions are taking the high road again!

I have another couple years in the Bay Area before I move to somewhere with affordable housing. As a non-native of this area I have to say that I won't miss it a bit but I am greatful to have rented here. There is no other place I could have saved up so much money so fast by renting and saving. It's because of the Bay Area that I will be able to have such a high quality of living when I move away.

drew_eckhardt says

40% of all high-tech venture spending in America goes into the San Francisco Bay Area so being here maximizes one's chances of doing interesting things for a company with a viable business plan at the right point in its life cycle with a big enough equity share to stop needing to work for money.

Apart from having great sports medicine doctors to put you back together nothing matters more - not beaches, not taxes, not home prices.

As bonuses the weather makes for pleasant bicycling year round and the ethnic food is good.

Wasnt this true back in the 60s 70s 80s and up to the mid 90s ? Except home prices were lower and govt policies fostered growth.

Strategic Renter, did you rent "Falling Down" before coming out?

Strategic Renter says

The middle class is leaving California

also true:
California is leaving the middle class.

Californians are leaving the middle class.

If you and your family need change in California, you must vote the democrats out of office and out of power. You must starve their networks of money and influence from the top down.

Otherwise, our youth all going to be living in cramped 200sqft closets mortgaged for $500k+, while the Joe Bidens, Nancy Pelosis, Barbara Boxers, Elizabeth Warrens and Diane Feinsteins of the world look down, smiling, on us little people from their fraudulently-priced, taxpayer-supported $2m shacks.

The democrats' policies against young people are not ones of stupidity or ignorance. They are of intentional theft, intentional fraud, and intentional malice. The DNC must be destroyed.

Cliches are so passe.

B.A.C.A.H. says

also true:
California is leaving the middle class.

Californians are leaving the middle class.

So what is left is less than 1% who live in very narrow areas and the mass are poor people? Man wouldn't want to see that kind of hellhole after ten years.

Reader says

So what is left is less than 1% who live in very narrow areas and the mass are poor people? Man wouldn't want to see that kind of hellhole after ten years.

"As goes California, so goes the nation."

Or something like that.

freak80 says

Reader says

So what is left is less than 1% who live in very narrow areas and the mass are poor people? Man wouldn't want to see that kind of hellhole after ten years.

"As goes California, so goes the nation."

Or something like that.

No, I think what goes on in Wackoville the rest of the Nation now will watch and learn. The last ten to fifteen years I think has altered perception.

lostand confused says

Cliches are so passe.

And in my view so is California.

Reader says

lostand confused says

Cliches are so passe.

And in my view so is California.

California is a cliche.

E-man says

Could it be that you couldn't make it here?

That's a rather rude statement. It's probably a smart move for a state that is moving towards the direction where only the rich and poors can afford to stay. One would need to make so much, for e.g., in bay area, to be classified as middle class compared to other states. Common conversation for a typical income of 250K in bay area are always housing prices, stock markets, else where, like East Coast, anything but constant preoccupation with money. At one point, ones really need to think if you live to make money or you make money to live.

SparrowBell says

At one point, ones really need to think if you live to make money or you make money to live.

EVERYONE on Patrick.net should read THAT line! Because there are plenty of money loving hungry greedy bastards on here who either live in a dream world or just to me live to fuck people over.

Either way, it all comes back ten-fold so I pity each of them.