Aug. 28, 2014 @ 9 a.m.
Don, you think private investment is bad, I think it's good. You see rape (is that an economic term?), I don't.
"Private equity is a scam by definition"??? I'm not sure what dictionary you are referencing. For one company to invest in another (profit making) company is a scam? Yet for a private company to invest in a start-up company is good? Oh my!
You claim some FUTURE meltdown in Texas as these nefarious corporate investors gut the companies -- which of course is impossible to refute, as there's ALWAYS the future -- it never gets here. So far -- in spite of this evil investing has been going on in Texas for decades -- your concerns seem to lack substance. Perhaps you can cite some gutting in Texas, along with the magnitude of such transgressions.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:48 a.m.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:12 a.m.
Yes, housing prices in these primo locations have soared back to pre-recession levels. Of course, continuing low interest rates have helped.
But assuming that interest rates rise to a more normal level (1-2% higher than current rates), this housing boom will come to a screeching stop. People simply could not qualify for home loans and/or would choose not to pay such high rates.
Rising home prices has been great for us home OWNERS, but not good for our younger population which has to pay the government scarcity-created prices (or higher rent).
As a result, California ranks 49th worst for percentage of home ownership.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:05 a.m.
As you well know, I'm no fan of John Moores. You and I were prominent critics of the Petco Park giveaway. He's a "rent seeker" -- trying to earn profits via government subsidies that he can't earn in the free market.
But I take no joy in the departure of wealth (and jobs) from California to Texas.
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 8:01 a.m.
I find this assertion puzzling. Apparently you consider venture funds pouring into California for tech a GOOD thing, but funds pouring into Texas businesses a BAD thing.
I don't understand the difference -- it's private funding. Should you not be railing against venture capital ruining our CA tech industries? Seems to me you are PRAISING this trend as a GOOD thing (which I agree with -- it IS a good thing).
Aug. 28, 2014 @ 7:56 a.m.
You ARE correct -- I DID misread it. My apologies.
Aug. 27, 2014 @ 8:51 p.m.
Don, it's okay to "doubt that adjusted for cost-of-living, Texas salaries are higher than those in California," but the evidence seems pretty strong that such is the case. Housing costs are a HUGE portion of a person's (especially a FAMILY's) COL. If you have statistics that refute this -- if the COL differential is significantly less than my sources say, please publish how much (with source, of course).
Here's more to consider: According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2012 median household income in California was $57,020. Texas was $51,926. Hence the median Texas household earns 91% of what a California household earns. Surely you understand that the COL differential is bigger than that 9% differential -- housing cost alone more than makes up this differential. Then there's that income tax difference to consider.
March 23, 2014 @ 1:54 p.m.
NOTE: Here's an aspect of the anti-Prop 209 bill that most will overlook. Included in this new stealth quota system bill is a redress of the longstanding grievance against gender discrimination. It's gone on for generations and continues even today -- ask any liberal.
But here's the thing: The bill will require what amounts to discrimination against the gender that is too frequently admitted -- you guessed it -- WOMEN.
In 2010 the UC system admitted 95,403 women and only 84,178 men -- a PRIMA FACIE case confirming discrimination. I look forward to the innovative progressive implementation of this solution to gender discrimination.
March 23, 2014 @ 1:52 p.m.
Here's an article I wrote in early February on UC affirmative action efforts. There are stats there worth reviewing:
"The 2014 California University Jew and Asian Student Admission Quota Act"
by Richard Rider
A misguided Associated Press "story" says: "In 1995, minority students accounted for 38 percent of high school graduates and 21 percent of those entering as University of California freshmen, Hernandez [a principal proponent of the bill] said. By 2004, they made up 45 percent of high school graduates but 18 percent of incoming UC freshmen, he said, adding the gap is growing."
But go look at the official stats of the demographics of 2013 incoming UC freshman:
http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2013/fall_2013_admissions_table3.pdf (end of the table)
So, what's the percentage of incoming freshmen who are white (INCLUDING the vague "other" category)? 28.1% -- well BELOW the percentage of whites in California (42.3%). And BTW, note that this table shows that the percentage of the selectively designated "oppressed" minority admissions is NOT shrinking -- it's remarkably level. The drop they ballyhoo is the ending in 1996 of the disastrous and discriminatory quota system that existed before we passed Prop 209 to make such discrimination illegal.
This bill is not about countering white privilege. It's about setting up restrictive DE FACTO quotas for ASIANS -- which constitute a (supposedly evil) disproportionately high 36% of admissions vs. 14.9% of the CA population. Apparently these Asian kids "act white" FAR better than even WHITE kids act white!
To make the numbers being used to justify the bill favorable, the affirmative action (not quotas, of course) sponsors made the Asians minority part of the "white" majority (which is not a majority). Ipso presto, discrimination abounds!!
Such racist dishonesty is breathtaking -- until one realizes that, well, this IS California. It's okay to discriminate against Asians in the Golden State -- just as it was once acceptable to establish informal admission quotas on high-performing Jews at Ivy League colleges a century ago.
SAN DIEGO U-T
BID TO UNDO BAN ON USING RACE AT SCHOOLS
State Senate OKs putting affirmative action on ballot
By Associated Press 12:01 a.m.Jan. 31, 2014
To read the article, go to the link:
Sept. 10, 2013 @ 12:14 p.m.
At first it's puzzling why the Jacobs family -- NBA Sacramento Kings co-owners -- would favor a mandated project labor agreement, driving up the cost of the team's new sports arena by $70 million dollars or more.
But the answer is obvious -- though the Kings team owners will profit mightily from the new sports arena, it's the hapless Sacramento TAXPAYERS who will pay for most or all of the cost. And the Jacobs family doesn't even LIVE in Sacramento!
Well, if any city in California has to be screwed by such foolish extravagance, it's poetic justice that it's our profligate state capital.
© 2014 San Diego Reader