OT: Why there are no new jobs

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:42:42 -0400, "P E Schoen" <paul@pstech-inc.com>
Gave us:

It was a poor attempt at a joke, taking a stab at the right-wingers who
think Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and of course the entire Republican party is

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You misspelled Democrat

a joke in its own "right".

Perhaps my emoticon was not noticed

No emoticon needed. It is true once the spelling error is corrected.

Paul

 

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 10:29:22 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout America's
ghettos. For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.


Texas is mostly toast. I can't really speak for Austin, which is
probably above the norm, but the Dallas area was pretty hot for a long
time and it's not any more.

Some of that was Sarbox, some of it was the Kaleeforhnyuh VC
community recoiling in horror at Enron.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.


It should, but it's not nearly prevalent enough.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.


That would fix San Franciso's crowding problem too.


One of the very rare sensible observations that Obama has made (no
doubt by accident) is that subsidized housing should be dispersed. His
reason why is sort of wrong, but the concept is good.

Problem is, minorities like to be around people like themselves. No
black kid wants to be the only one in a suburban high school.

I remember your description of New Orleans' well-adjusted salt-and-pepper
neighborhoods, prior to federal interventions that turned them into today's
salt-and-prepper plus Mad Maxian wastelands.

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested cockroach
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can afford
it!"


Seriously - everybody I have known who lived in NOLA loved it. Bugs and
all

I'll have to ask my pals. They griped about prices, didn't mention crime.
Maybe it's better since the big rinse-cycle.

I think of it as the land of the thirty-seven forms of moisture.

I've actually enjoyed every place I've ever lived, NOLA included. It definitely
has its charms (including the bugs), but nothing that justifies the housing
hikes--that's taxpayer magic.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 9:29:51 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.

If you have UPS and internet, you can run a company anywhere. If
there's a ski run or a beach nearby, even better.

Doesn't work in all cases for all workers, plainly, but for some, yes.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.

Wow, things are worse there?

Apparently so. We evidently run a great deal lighter and faster, so I was
told.

[...]

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested cockroach
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can afford
it!"

Nola sounds better post-hurricane. And it's become a cool place to
visit and move to. There are lots of NOLA fans here in SF, I can now
buy a very decent King Cake at the bakery down the hill.

I'd never have expected that. One assumes they all know it'll flood again.
Or not.

It has an active entrepreneur movement, but unfortunately is mostly
about making VC pitches and coding apps. New Orleans is always
charmingly behind the times.

Tulane has a very interesting dual-major 5-year program, in
cooperation with other universities. Things like engineering+physics,
engineering+biology, stuff like that.

Interesting. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to make a cool spot
anywhere. It comes down to various political policies first and foremost,
and second maybe is the local culture.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[krw]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 07:34:48 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:30:41 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 10/1/2015 3:54 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-10-01 9:57 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 12:13:10 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 10/01/2015 12:05 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

There is an argument that used stuff should not be taxed. That lets
poor people buy used things cheaper.


The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

I was thinking about a national sales tax to replace the income tax,
and especially replace multiple business taxes. Imports now have a
huge advantage over USA products, and a sales tax on both would
equalize things and create US jobs.

But politicians don't use logic, or work for the greater good, so it
won't happen.

The main problem is the double taxation of accumulated assets due to the
change. It wouldn't be such a problem with houses, say, since
everybody's income would effectively go up to match the tax. Normal
IRAs and 401(k)s would be okay too, since they're pre-tax. With
after-tax financial assets (including Roth IRAs) it would be a real
blow. It would also hurt LLCs as well (such as mine), since I can
expense everything I buy for the business.

The Fair Tax is a proposal for a nat'l sales tax like John's, that
would replace
all other federal taxes (corporate, SS, Medicare, personal income,
etc.). The FT
has a 'prebate' provision that sends every citizen a fixed
check--everyone gets
the same, regardless of how rich or poor--for the tax on their basic
living
expense, then taxes all sales of NEW goods (not used) at XX%, XX
~=22. That's
a simple way of capturing XX percent of GDP to fund the federal
government, with
a minimum of hassles.

It has the (transitional) problem you mentioned of taxing post-tax
assets like
Roth IRAs, which I brought up in person with one of the plan's authors.
His reply was that they expected politicians to work those things out.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nobody in their right might would ever believe that to be possible anymore.

The real issue with a 22% Federal sales tax is that it is too high for
people to not try to avoid it. As you mention below, people will be
working the system or working around the system.

That's true, but is it worse than people avoiding a 25% tax on income?

The Europeans have 20%-range VATs, AND income taxes too.

We have state and local taxes, too.

VAT is sneaky. It hides the tax in the final price, and places the accounting
burden on everyone participating in the production chain.

Adding tax at the point-of-sale is honest, burdens fewer people with the
accounting.

The impact of a more reasonable tax system--either Fair, flat, or just cutting
corporate rates to world-competitive levels--would be huge. Just imagine, for
example, if there were no tax advantage for Apple to offshore profits.

It would ruin Democrat's day. They'd have one less thing to whine
about.

 

[krw]

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:52:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 19:29:16 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:39:47 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

I don't blame any company for using foreign labor to save money. I
blame US government policy for making US labor so expensive.

With what? Minimum wage declarations? They have always been far
behind actual need and *never* even kept up with normal middle class
living standards.

Payroll tax. Unemployment insurance. Workman's comp insurance.
Corporate income tax, almost the highest in the world. City gross
receipts tax. Property tax. Permits. Inspections. City equipment tax.
Graffiti penalties. Estate tax.

Lawyers and bookkeepers and accountants to manage all that.


When I left high school, a single job at the box factory could get a
person a 2 br apt.

Now, it takes a minimum of two incomes of kids fresh out of high
school to afford the same. So things are at least twice as bad now as
they were then. Then there are utilities and food... everything has
greedily overinflated through the roof.

Immigrant labor has squashed the low end of the income scale. Those
boxes are made by illegals here, or legals in Mexico.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jobs-up-only-for-immigrants-14000-down-262000-for-native-borns/article/2573290
"Over the past three months, the job numbers for native-born have dropped
by nearly 1 million, exactly the number of jobs President Obama promised
to add when he ran for re-election in 2012.

He never promised to add jobs for citizens.

> During that period, jobs for immigrants grew 218,000."

Does that include illegals?

Food isn't expensive; we have lots of cheap farm labor to grow it for
us. Housing is expensive, because too many people are competing for
it.

Yep. Dr. Thomas Sowell marks that down to building restrictions.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/09/29/the-affordable-housing-fraud-n2058059

"Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles
around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But,
beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed
to three or four times the national average.

Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or
banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is
called preserving 'open space,' and 'open space' has become almost a cult
obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are
sufficiently affluent that they don't have to worry about housing prices."

...and already own property in the area, receiving the benefit of
inflated prices.

San Francisco would get a premium no matter what, but the current premium
may be much higher than need be.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 4 October 2015 10:44:21 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout
America's ghettos.
For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.

Loads of software engineers live on the Isle of Skye, which does have a bridge to the rest of Scotland.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.

But probably to immigrants from Germany, like Jeorg. In reality, Germany has got a population of 80 million and the US has a population of 320 million, and should be able to support a wider range of specialist designers.

In a close-linked world, you'd expect some international design out-sourcing just to get access to very narrow specialities.

That would fix San Franciso's crowding problem too.

One of the very rare sensible observations that Obama has made (no
doubt by accident) is that subsidized housing should be dispersed. His
reason why is sort of wrong, but the concept is good.

Problem is, minorities like to be around people like themselves. No
black kid wants to be the only one in a suburban high school.

I remember your description of New Orleans' well-adjusted salt-and-pepper
neighborhoods, prior to federal interventions that turned them into today's
salt-and-prepper plus Mad Maxian wastelands.

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can
afford it!"

Sounds like New York or London. Places like Sydney and Berlin do have rough neighbourhoods, but effective social security and adequate council services do seem to have made them less attractive to rats.

As pointed out in "The Spirit Level" the US as whole is something of a slum, though some areas are more egalitarian and less slum-infested than others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 4 October 2015 11:43:12 UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:06:36 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:52:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:


Immigrant labor has squashed the low end of the income scale. Those
boxes are made by illegals here, or legals in Mexico.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jobs-up-only-for-immigrants-14000-down-262000-for-native-borns/article/2573290
"Over the past three months, the job numbers for native-born have dropped
by nearly 1 million, exactly the number of jobs President Obama promised
to add when he ran for re-election in 2012.

He never promised to add jobs for citizens.

During that period, jobs for immigrants grew 218,000."

Does that include illegals?

I believe so, yes, since we don't discriminate.

Food isn't expensive; we have lots of cheap farm labor to grow it for
us. Housing is expensive, because too many people are competing for
it.

Yep. Dr. Thomas Sowell marks that down to building restrictions.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/09/29/the-affordable-housing-fraud-n2058059

"Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles
around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But,
beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed
to three or four times the national average.

Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or
banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is
called preserving 'open space,' and 'open space' has become almost a cult
obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are
sufficiently affluent that they don't have to worry about housing prices."

..and already own property in the area, receiving the benefit of
inflated prices.

I'm actually not a fan of CA's Prop 13 tax cap. It has created a system
where only a few new people pay most of the tax, and the rest don't really
care about tax rates since they pay so much less.

Good idea, unintended results.

It has also created perverse incentives for cities to drive out residents,
develop, and other things to drag in more $$$ for their pipedreams.

The solution to not taxing Granny out of her house is to not tax so much
in the first place.

That's a solution. It usually goes with absence of council services that would have helped her stay in her house a bit longer. There's not a lot of point to not taxing out of her house if she ups and burns it down, with her in it, as elderly Grannies have been known to do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout America's
ghettos. For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.

If you have UPS and internet, you can run a company anywhere. If
there's a ski run or a beach nearby, even better.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.

Wow, things are worse there?

That would fix San Franciso's crowding problem too.


One of the very rare sensible observations that Obama has made (no
doubt by accident) is that subsidized housing should be dispersed. His
reason why is sort of wrong, but the concept is good.

Problem is, minorities like to be around people like themselves. No
black kid wants to be the only one in a suburban high school.

I remember your description of New Orleans' well-adjusted salt-and-pepper
neighborhoods, prior to federal interventions that turned them into today's
salt-and-prepper plus Mad Maxian wastelands.

Yes. Nola was segregated block by block, not mile by mile, until the
feds built the gigantic projects and funded single motherhood. Even
the cops wouldn't go into Desire.

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested cockroach
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can afford
it!"

Nola sounds better post-hurricane. And it's become a cool place to
visit and move to. There are lots of NOLA fans here in SF, I can now
buy a very decent King Cake at the bakery down the hill.

It has an active entrepreneur movement, but unfortunately is mostly
about making VC pitches and coding apps. New Orleans is always
charmingly behind the times.

Tulane has a very interesting dual-major 5-year program, in
cooperation with other universities. Things like engineering+physics,
engineering+biology, stuff like that.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:32:16 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout America's
ghettos. For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.


Texas is mostly toast. I can't really speak for Austin, which is
probably above the norm, but the Dallas area was pretty hot for a long
time and it's not any more.

Some of that was Sarbox, some of it was the Kaleeforhnyuh VC
community recoiling in horror at Enron.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.


It should, but it's not nearly prevalent enough.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.


That would fix San Franciso's crowding problem too.


One of the very rare sensible observations that Obama has made (no
doubt by accident) is that subsidized housing should be dispersed. His
reason why is sort of wrong, but the concept is good.

Problem is, minorities like to be around people like themselves. No
black kid wants to be the only one in a suburban high school.

I remember your description of New Orleans' well-adjusted salt-and-pepper
neighborhoods, prior to federal interventions that turned them into today's
salt-and-prepper plus Mad Maxian wastelands.

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested cockroach
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can afford
it!"


Seriously - everybody I have known who lived in NOLA loved it. Bugs and
all

I lived there for 30 years and left. It's not the best place to do
electronics.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 18:29:53 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 16:44:08 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout America's
ghettos. For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.

If you have UPS and internet, you can run a company anywhere. If
there's a ski run or a beach nearby, even better.

There's a beach about 300' in front (and seven floors down) from right
now, great Internet connection, too. Got the board layout done, all
the parts at the CM and everyone has all the files they need to do
their job. I'm sticking my toes in the sand this week. ;-)

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.

Wow, things are worse there?

One of our sister companies is in Germany but they don't do a lot of
hardware design. Perhaps that's why.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 8:06:36 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:52:47 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 8:36:05 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:


Immigrant labor has squashed the low end of the income scale. Those
boxes are made by illegals here, or legals in Mexico.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jobs-up-only-for-immigrants-14000-down-262000-for-native-borns/article/2573290
"Over the past three months, the job numbers for native-born have dropped
by nearly 1 million, exactly the number of jobs President Obama promised
to add when he ran for re-election in 2012.

He never promised to add jobs for citizens.

During that period, jobs for immigrants grew 218,000."

Does that include illegals?

I believe so, yes, since we don't discriminate.

I figured there would be forty or fifty times that many jobs for
illegals. Democrats and country club Republicans have a lot of
nannies and housekeepers.

Food isn't expensive; we have lots of cheap farm labor to grow it for
us. Housing is expensive, because too many people are competing for
it.

Yep. Dr. Thomas Sowell marks that down to building restrictions.
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2015/09/29/the-affordable-housing-fraud-n2058059

"Housing prices in San Francisco, and in many other communities for miles
around, were once no higher than in the rest of the United States. But,
beginning in the 1970s, housing prices in these communities skyrocketed
to three or four times the national average.

Why? Because local government laws and policies severely restricted, or
banned outright, the building of anything on vast areas of land. This is
called preserving 'open space,' and 'open space' has become almost a cult
obsession among self-righteous environmental activists, many of whom are
sufficiently affluent that they don't have to worry about housing prices."

..and already own property in the area, receiving the benefit of
inflated prices.

I'm actually not a fan of CA's Prop 13 tax cap. It has created a system
where only a few new people pay most of the tax, and the rest don't really
care about tax rates since they pay so much less.

I figure that anything CA can do, I can laugh at.

Good idea, unintended results.

The Democratic way!

It has also created perverse incentives for cities to drive out residents,
develop, and other things to drag in more $$$ for their pipedreams.

The solution to not taxing Granny out of her house is to not tax so much
in the first place.

But how are they gong to control your life if they leave with any
money?

 

[Les Cargill]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:14:18 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoo...@yahoo.com
wrote:

The real problem is you've got a monopoly on--an unfair share of--tech
companies forming a critical mass that sucks more and more suckees into
its vortex.

There are some positive-feedback effects that make technology
companies and people cluster. Universities tend to seed that.


There's no avoiding it. We need Barack Obama to forcibly relocate those
companies away from greedy areas, and spread them evenly throughout America's
ghettos. For fairness. You know, "spread the wealth around." (Like
the way he's sending all those aliens and refugees to where he vacations on
Martha's Vineyard.)

There are some "lifestyle" areas that have tech clusters, for the less
urban outdoorsey types. Like Grass Valley and a bit around Lake Tahoe,
and probably some other areas around the country.

Don't forget Texas, or North Carolina's Research Triangle.

Texas is mostly toast. I can't really speak for Austin, which is
probably above the norm, but the Dallas area was pretty hot for a long
time and it's not any more.

Some of that was Sarbox, some of it was the Kaleeforhnyuh VC
community recoiling in horror at Enron.

I think the internet and California's overlords combined offer excellent
prospects for changing that. It's getting to where the internet-linked
cottage model works, at least for some segment of the work load.

It should, but it's not nearly prevalent enough.

German companies are outsourcing design to the U.S., rather than have to hire
at home and carry all those burdens.


That would fix San Franciso's crowding problem too.


One of the very rare sensible observations that Obama has made (no
doubt by accident) is that subsidized housing should be dispersed. His
reason why is sort of wrong, but the concept is good.

Problem is, minorities like to be around people like themselves. No
black kid wants to be the only one in a suburban high school.

I remember your description of New Orleans' well-adjusted salt-and-pepper
neighborhoods, prior to federal interventions that turned them into today's
salt-and-prepper plus Mad Maxian wastelands.

Friends say post-Katrina federal dollars have sent New Orleans real estate
soaring. It's amazing. Listing: "Prime post-apocalyptic rat-infested cockroach
farm, tenement-adjacent, IF you're one of the discriminating few who can afford
it!"

Seriously - everybody I have known who lived in NOLA loved it. Bugs and
all

Cheers,
James Arthur

--
Les Cargill

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-10-01 6:48 PM, krw wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:46:33 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 7:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:37:27 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-28 5:57 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:12:57 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 4:00 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:17:08 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:


[...]

... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(

My employer hires boatloads of H1B[*] programmers. I don't think
they're underpaid. The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around
$125K. Without H1Bs, all of the jobs would likely be somewhere else,
though they've started moving some of that work off-shore anyway (for
tax reasons, I'm sure).


Then you employer adheres to the letter of the law. That's what H1B is
supposed to do, bring in talent where we can't find suitable US engineers.

When I said "all of the jobs", I meant mine too. There likely
wouldn't be any presence in the US.


Exactly. If one would curb H-1B and thereby companies would be forced to
leave some employees overseas then they will eventually move the whole
operations overseas. Because it would make sense, not so much
financially but to facilitate collaboration.

This is something leftists will likely never understand. I have been
part of a few location decisions and it is mindboggling how fast and how
final that process is.


[*] All H1B job postings have to be displayed on company boards, along
with descriptions and salaries. These listings have from one to over
a hundred positions each, so there are a *lot* of jobs involved. The
number is sorta amazing since there are only 65K H1Bs allowed.


We had our ads everywhere, with the IEEE jobs board being one of the
most likely sources of good candidates. To our surprise we even found a
good analog guy though that (but needed more than one). Problem is, in
consequence another company lost a good analog guy because of us hiring
him away. So not importing one didn't help our country.

Our HR people are constantly complaining that they can't find the
right people. Obviously they're not willing to pay enough but you're
right, that would just shuffle the deck, from a national standpoint.
It wouldn't hurt the profession, though.


Above you wrote "The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around
$125K". $125k is a princely salary for an engineer, at least outside
Silicon Valley. If that doesn't attract talent then chances are there
aren't enough people available. Plus that salary level indicates a trend
towards a zero-sum game where, inside one country, Peter begins to rob
Paul and vice versa. That is not good for an economy.

The Brat is working on her MBA at Berkeley. She reports that there is
a lot of discussion of offshoring, with the emphasis that it often
doesn't work very well.

I've seen high-tech companies move manufacturing and engineering
offshore with pretty disastrous results. ...


With engineering I have often seen poor result when companies offshore.
I just went through a case with a vendor and it cost us more than two
months of schedule slip.

We're doing OK. We *are* the off-shoring. ;-)

... I guess it does make sense
for Apple to use Chinese child labor at 17 cents an hour to make $600
iPhones.


Production will always be offshored. The more unions strangle employers
here in the US the more jobs will leave. It is foolish to stick the head
into the sand about it like some do. It's a fact and I have seen it
first hand many times. Like one of my older designs that is still in
production, initially produced in Southern California and when that
gradually turn socialist it went to Guangdong. Those jobs will never
come back.

Our production was moved to Mexico in '08. It certainly hasn't all
been roses but better than China.

My experience was almost exactly the opposite.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-10-01 7:08 PM, krw wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]

The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

The "Fair Tax" doesn't tax the second transfer.

But it does tax the savings that have already been taxed.

The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

They would have to declare Oregon residency, then would probably get
gigged for out-of-state income tax.

Not really. You just need a 2nd home there. Your main residence one can
be in another state where you make a living.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-10-01 4:23 PM, P E Schoen wrote:

"Joerg" wrote in message news:d75re2Fseh0U1@mid.individual.net...

Production will always be offshored. The more unions strangle
employers here in the US the more jobs will leave. It is foolish to
stick the head into the sand about it like some do. It's a fact and I
have seen it first hand many times. Like one of my older designs that
is still in production, initially produced in Southern California and
when that gradually turn socialist it went to Guangdong. Those jobs
will never come back.

So you blame Socialism for Capitalistic companies sending jobs to a
Communist nation?

Interesting...

Ever heard of the term "goulash communism"? That's what Hungary did, the
country that invented this wonderful meat dish which I could eat all day
long. Outwardly teh country looked communist so the comrades from the
Soviet Union would not become too upset. Yet they allowed all kinds of
enterprise which was not communist at all. That's just what China does
but on a mucn larger scale.

Production is even sent to real communist countries. As long as no trade
secrets are at stake and no large investemnet is needed that could
evaporate after the next regime change such outsourcing can be a very
lucrative move.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[krw]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:04:38 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

On 2015-10-01 6:48 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:46:33 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 7:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:37:27 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-28 5:57 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:12:57 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 4:00 PM, krw wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 08:17:08 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-24 10:00 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/24/2015 8:23 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2015-09-24 1:37 PM, rickman wrote:


[...]

... Seems like plenty of folks are trying to get into the
US to have those. H-1B visas ring a bell? Obviously we still have a
very competitive market for Engineering.


Sure. Engineering jobs are plentiful here. I want to partially retire
and my clients don't let me.

H-1B is abused. People often come in because making $35k/year is still
better than making $15k where they came from. This abuse is trivially
easy to stop and I have explained numerous times how. Sad to say but it
seems the only other person that seems to understand how or is willing
to even say it is ... Donald Trump :-(

My employer hires boatloads of H1B[*] programmers. I don't think
they're underpaid. The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around
$125K. Without H1Bs, all of the jobs would likely be somewhere else,
though they've started moving some of that work off-shore anyway (for
tax reasons, I'm sure).


Then you employer adheres to the letter of the law. That's what H1B is
supposed to do, bring in talent where we can't find suitable US engineers.

When I said "all of the jobs", I meant mine too. There likely
wouldn't be any presence in the US.


Exactly. If one would curb H-1B and thereby companies would be forced to
leave some employees overseas then they will eventually move the whole
operations overseas. Because it would make sense, not so much
financially but to facilitate collaboration.

This is something leftists will likely never understand. I have been
part of a few location decisions and it is mindboggling how fast and how
final that process is.


[*] All H1B job postings have to be displayed on company boards, along
with descriptions and salaries. These listings have from one to over
a hundred positions each, so there are a *lot* of jobs involved. The
number is sorta amazing since there are only 65K H1Bs allowed.


We had our ads everywhere, with the IEEE jobs board being one of the
most likely sources of good candidates. To our surprise we even found a
good analog guy though that (but needed more than one). Problem is, in
consequence another company lost a good analog guy because of us hiring
him away. So not importing one didn't help our country.

Our HR people are constantly complaining that they can't find the
right people. Obviously they're not willing to pay enough but you're
right, that would just shuffle the deck, from a national standpoint.
It wouldn't hurt the profession, though.


Above you wrote "The salaries range from $75K to somewhere around
$125K". $125k is a princely salary for an engineer, at least outside
Silicon Valley. If that doesn't attract talent then chances are there
aren't enough people available. Plus that salary level indicates a trend
towards a zero-sum game where, inside one country, Peter begins to rob
Paul and vice versa. That is not good for an economy.

The Brat is working on her MBA at Berkeley. She reports that there is
a lot of discussion of offshoring, with the emphasis that it often
doesn't work very well.

I've seen high-tech companies move manufacturing and engineering
offshore with pretty disastrous results. ...


With engineering I have often seen poor result when companies offshore.
I just went through a case with a vendor and it cost us more than two
months of schedule slip.

We're doing OK. We *are* the off-shoring. ;-)




... I guess it does make sense
for Apple to use Chinese child labor at 17 cents an hour to make $600
iPhones.


Production will always be offshored. The more unions strangle employers
here in the US the more jobs will leave. It is foolish to stick the head
into the sand about it like some do. It's a fact and I have seen it
first hand many times. Like one of my older designs that is still in
production, initially produced in Southern California and when that
gradually turn socialist it went to Guangdong. Those jobs will never
come back.

Our production was moved to Mexico in '08. It certainly hasn't all
been roses but better than China.


My experience was almost exactly the opposite.

Customers are specifying our Mexican plant over the Chinese.
Everything being equal, they wouldn't care.

 

[krw]

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:10:18 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

On 2015-10-01 7:08 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]


The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

The "Fair Tax" doesn't tax the second transfer.


But it does tax the savings that have already been taxed.

The Fair Tax doesn't tax *any* savings. Only spendings. It's really
more of a VAT tax, with a pile more honesty, and a "prebate" to make
it progressive enough to have a chance (there's something for the
lefties to tweak).

The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

They would have to declare Oregon residency, then would probably get
gigged for out-of-state income tax.


Not really. You just need a 2nd home there. Your main residence one can
be in another state where you make a living.

No, you have to declare residency. If your driver's license says CA,
you're going to pay CA tax, sooner or later.

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-10-05 3:58 PM, krw wrote:

On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:10:18 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-10-01 7:08 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]


The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

The "Fair Tax" doesn't tax the second transfer.


But it does tax the savings that have already been taxed.

The Fair Tax doesn't tax *any* savings. Only spendings. It's really
more of a VAT tax, with a pile more honesty, and a "prebate" to make
it progressive enough to have a chance (there's something for the
lefties to tweak).

Ok, let me explain this with an example:

a. Mr. "Spend-it-all" earns $1300, pays no tax, then buys a big TV for
$1000 plus $300 in "new VAT". So $1300 from the fruits of his labor buy
him a TV.

b. Mr.Frugal earned $1300 in the pre-VAT days, pay $300 in taxes and
saves the remaining $1000 for a rainy day. Eventually he decides that he
has sufficient savings and wants ti buy the same big TV set. But now
they instituted the new VAT. He finds out that they double-taxed him
because while Mr.Spend-it-all got his TV with $1300 of wages Mr.Frugal
no longer can. He must pay $300 more than Mr.Spend-it-all.

Fair? Not. Therefore, I will not support this.

The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

They would have to declare Oregon residency, then would probably get
gigged for out-of-state income tax.


Not really. You just need a 2nd home there. Your main residence one can
be in another state where you make a living.

No, you have to declare residency. If your driver's license says CA,
you're going to pay CA tax, sooner or later.

I think you misunderstand. You can have income in two different states
and get taxed in each state proportionately. You can also have a
residence in two or more states and what you buy there and what stays in
each is taxed per regulations in that state. I know people like that.
Ask a CPA.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[krw]

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 07:30:17 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com>
wrote:

On 2015-10-05 3:58 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:10:18 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-10-01 7:08 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]


The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

The "Fair Tax" doesn't tax the second transfer.


But it does tax the savings that have already been taxed.

The Fair Tax doesn't tax *any* savings. Only spendings. It's really
more of a VAT tax, with a pile more honesty, and a "prebate" to make
it progressive enough to have a chance (there's something for the
lefties to tweak).


Ok, let me explain this with an example:

a. Mr. "Spend-it-all" earns $1300, pays no tax, then buys a big TV for
$1000 plus $300 in "new VAT". So $1300 from the fruits of his labor buy
him a TV.

b. Mr.Frugal earned $1300 in the pre-VAT days, pay $300 in taxes and
saves the remaining $1000 for a rainy day. Eventually he decides that he
has sufficient savings and wants ti buy the same big TV set. But now
they instituted the new VAT. He finds out that they double-taxed him
because while Mr.Spend-it-all got his TV with $1300 of wages Mr.Frugal
no longer can. He must pay $300 more than Mr.Spend-it-all.

Fair? Not. Therefore, I will not support this.

Yes, there is the problem of retirees, particularly Roths but I
predict they'll get screwed anyway). That'll have to be fixed. The
plan won't fly anyway because it requires a Constitutional amendment
and that'll never happen again.

The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

They would have to declare Oregon residency, then would probably get
gigged for out-of-state income tax.


Not really. You just need a 2nd home there. Your main residence one can
be in another state where you make a living.

No, you have to declare residency. If your driver's license says CA,
you're going to pay CA tax, sooner or later.


I think you misunderstand. You can have income in two different states
and get taxed in each state proportionately. You can also have a
residence in two or more states and what you buy there and what stays in
each is taxed per regulations in that state. I know people like that.
Ask a CPA.

....and wait for the state of residency to catch up with them. They'll
lose.

 

[Joerg]

On 2015-10-06 8:02 AM, krw wrote:

On Tue, 06 Oct 2015 07:30:17 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-10-05 3:58 PM, krw wrote:
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 14:10:18 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-10-01 7:08 PM, krw wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 08:05:20 -0700, Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com
wrote:

On 2015-09-30 12:26 PM, John Larkin wrote:

[...]


The best tax is sales tax. If you want a Porsche or a 4K teevee, buy
it and pay the tax.


And then when you sell the Porsche the next guy must pay sales tax
again. A double-dipping grab at its finest.

The "Fair Tax" doesn't tax the second transfer.


But it does tax the savings that have already been taxed.

The Fair Tax doesn't tax *any* savings. Only spendings. It's really
more of a VAT tax, with a pile more honesty, and a "prebate" to make
it progressive enough to have a chance (there's something for the
lefties to tweak).


Ok, let me explain this with an example:

a. Mr. "Spend-it-all" earns $1300, pays no tax, then buys a big TV for
$1000 plus $300 in "new VAT". So $1300 from the fruits of his labor buy
him a TV.

b. Mr.Frugal earned $1300 in the pre-VAT days, pay $300 in taxes and
saves the remaining $1000 for a rainy day. Eventually he decides that he
has sufficient savings and wants ti buy the same big TV set. But now
they instituted the new VAT. He finds out that they double-taxed him
because while Mr.Spend-it-all got his TV with $1300 of wages Mr.Frugal
no longer can. He must pay $300 more than Mr.Spend-it-all.

Fair? Not. Therefore, I will not support this.

Yes, there is the problem of retirees, particularly Roths but I
predict they'll get screwed anyway). That'll have to be fixed. The
plan won't fly anyway because it requires a Constitutional amendment
and that'll never happen again.

And it shouldn't happen.

The rich folks would buy the Porsche in Oregon, pay no tax and
"officially" keep it there for a while.

They would have to declare Oregon residency, then would probably get
gigged for out-of-state income tax.


Not really. You just need a 2nd home there. Your main residence one can
be in another state where you make a living.

No, you have to declare residency. If your driver's license says CA,
you're going to pay CA tax, sooner or later.


I think you misunderstand. You can have income in two different states
and get taxed in each state proportionately. You can also have a
residence in two or more states and what you buy there and what stays in
each is taxed per regulations in that state. I know people like that.
Ask a CPA.

...and wait for the state of residency to catch up with them. They'll
lose.

AFAIR California lost a major case in that respect, to the tune of many
million Dollars in jury awards.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/