Why hasn't Europe managed to produce a single important tech company in the last 10 years?

whyyoubesodumb wrote:

4runner wrote:

27% of Californians are foreign-born--higher than any other state in the country.

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/foreign-born-population-percent#chart

If immigrants are bad for growth, California should be suffering more than any other state in the union.

But yet it is not. Amazing how that happens.

Hey, Mr Anecdote still thinks he's making points here!! Haha!!

Wait, wait, wait, do you think California- the state as a whole- is doing well economically? Currently 43rd in the nation in unemployment at 6.3%. That is just wonderful. Right on par with Louisiana and New Mexico. Not as good as Alabama though. And remember, that figure is for LEGAL residents. Which really is the core of this idiotic point you keep trying to make; both sides are actually FOR productive, well-educated immigrants coming here legally. So stop trying to twist that weak point.

Anyhow, median income in Cali is down 10% from its 2006 peak, which is worse than the national average. And a final horrendous, absolutely deplorable statistic for such a fine, innovative, progressive state with pretty much the ideal topography and weather: as of 2013, Cali had a debt in excess of $600 BILLION. That was over TWICE the total of the state in second, which was New York of course. Outstanding bonds, unfunded pensions, and other budgetary gaps... Over $600B. And if you noticed, there have been more and more comments from the wealthy, celebrities (Bill F'n Maher?!), etc about how high the taxes are in the state. So that, and the fact that the ultra nice areas like SF, the Valley, nice LA suburbs, etc. have little-to-no middle class presence, makes it clear that it is not a thriving economy being driven by the utopian liberal values and the infamous middle class.

4runner wrote:

whyyoubesodumb wrote:

Hey, Mr Anecdote still thinks he's making points here!! Haha!!

Wait, wait, wait, do you think California- the state as a whole- is doing well economically? Currently 43rd in the nation in unemployment at 6.3%. That is just wonderful. Right on par with Louisiana and New Mexico. Not as good as Alabama though. And remember, that figure is for LEGAL residents. Which really is the core of this idiotic point you keep trying to make; both sides are actually FOR productive, well-educated immigrants coming here legally. So stop trying to twist that weak point.

Anyhow, median income in Cali is down 10% from its 2006 peak, which is worse than the national average. And a final horrendous, absolutely deplorable statistic for such a fine, innovative, progressive state with pretty much the ideal topography and weather: as of 2013, Cali had a debt in excess of $600 BILLION. That was over TWICE the total of the state in second, which was New York of course. Outstanding bonds, unfunded pensions, and other budgetary gaps... Over $600B. And if you noticed, there have been more and more comments from the wealthy, celebrities (Bill F'n Maher?!), etc about how high the taxes are in the state. So that, and the fact that the ultra nice areas like SF, the Valley, nice LA suburbs, etc. have little-to-no middle class presence, makes it clear that it is not a thriving economy being driven by the utopian liberal values and the infamous middle class.

Yea-- so let's pick through this bit-by-bit, shall we?

California is a big state. The Republican areas are-- in general-- agricultural and poor. Just like-- in general-- the US. There is extreme poverty in California in the places that look and vote a whole heck of a lot like Louisiana and Mississippi. The places in CA where the economy is still suffering had economies that resemble FL and NV and were overly dependent on construction and real estate.

As for both sides being for "productive, well-educated immigrants coming here legally"-- I simply do not see this. Instead, I see a whole bunch of ads and discourse about "real America" and "real American values" being some all-white, all-hetero suburb in the Midwest, as if places like California and New York were somehow un-American.

As for the budgetary difficulties-- yes-- California has them. To begin with, California pays too much in Federal taxes for the benefits it receives, and the state legislature is dysfunctional in amazing ways. But California also has the most dynamic, most diverse industrial base in the country. Borrowing money to put it to productive uses is a good thing.

As for little-to-no middle class presence-- this is the funniest bit. The median household income in places like SF, San Jose, and LA is so high because the middle class is actually earning that sort of income there. In other words, 80-90k$ per year is middle class in those cities.

That is a great thing. It should be celebrated. In fact, it is a shame that the median income in the rest of the country isn't that high.

whyyoubesodumb wrote:

4runner wrote:

Yea-- so let's pick through this bit-by-bit, shall we?

California is a big state. The Republican areas are-- in general-- agricultural and poor. Just like-- in general-- the US. There is extreme poverty in California in the places that look and vote a whole heck of a lot like Louisiana and Mississippi. The places in CA where the economy is still suffering had economies that resemble FL and NV and were overly dependent on construction and real estate.

As for both sides being for "productive, well-educated immigrants coming here legally"-- I simply do not see this. Instead, I see a whole bunch of ads and discourse about "real America" and "real American values" being some all-white, all-hetero suburb in the Midwest, as if places like California and New York were somehow un-American.

As for the budgetary difficulties-- yes-- California has them. To begin with, California pays too much in Federal taxes for the benefits it receives, and the state legislature is dysfunctional in amazing ways. But California also has the most dynamic, most diverse industrial base in the country. Borrowing money to put it to productive uses is a good thing.

As for little-to-no middle class presence-- this is the funniest bit. The median household income in places like SF, San Jose, and LA is so high because the middle class is actually earning that sort of income there. In other words, 80-90k$ per year is middle class in those cities.

That is a great thing. It should be celebrated. In fact, it is a shame that the median income in the rest of the country isn't that high.

Mr Anecdote comes back for more! All anecdotes, all the time! Love it.

Your obsession with "red vs blue" logic - and your clearly non-technical/quantitative educational background - clouds your ability to grasp rather basic economic concepts. Your arguments are very predictable, and typical of an extremely loyal, brainwashed leftist. Where you should be starting a response focusing on DATA and facts, you start with "red vs blue", and then grab an anecdote or correlation that aligns with your political stance. When I saw "Republican..." near the top of your post, I just shook my head.

Your comment about the middle class in what you would call "blue" California cities is quite ignorant. It is a fairly well-documented phenomenon that these cities have/are experiencing a "hollowing out" of the middle class (meaning the rich and poor are growing...resulting in extreme income inequality). As the below article points out, the portion of middle class in SF (50-150% of the median) is trending down to 30% of residents:

http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/are-you-part-of-san-franciscos-disappearing-middle-class/Content?oid=2670373

This is not uncommon however, as most of these major "blue" cities do, in fact, experience extreme income inequality:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/

So... The humorous part of you saying "that is a great thing...it should be celebrated" about the SF median income being so high, given the extreme decrease in middle income presence there, is that you're directly opposing the liberal ideology that the middle-class is the economic growth engine [and that the wealth gap is bad]. Think about it. YOU just said that "it is a great thing" that the median income in SF is so high. Ok, I agree. High median income must be better, right? But as the data shows, it's absolutely NOT being driven from the middle class (and all the other liberal ideologies you mentioned a few posts ago)- but pulled upward from the increase in upper/rich income. Do you see your massive contradiction there? It's NOT "blue" ideology that's driving these cities' wealth. Get it? (Please do. This is about as basic as it can get.)

You leftists latch onto the fact that these cities tend to vote Democrat (mostly because of social issues), and then try to also claim that is the reason behind their wealth. It couldn't be further from the truth.

4runner wrote:

whyyoubesodumb wrote:

Mr Anecdote comes back for more! All anecdotes, all the time! Love it.

Your obsession with "red vs blue" logic - and your clearly non-technical/quantitative educational background - clouds your ability to grasp rather basic economic concepts. Your arguments are very predictable, and typical of an extremely loyal, brainwashed leftist. Where you should be starting a response focusing on DATA and facts, you start with "red vs blue", and then grab an anecdote or correlation that aligns with your political stance. When I saw "Republican..." near the top of your post, I just shook my head.

Your comment about the middle class in what you would call "blue" California cities is quite ignorant. It is a fairly well-documented phenomenon that these cities have/are experiencing a "hollowing out" of the middle class (meaning the rich and poor are growing...resulting in extreme income inequality). As the below article points out, the portion of middle class in SF (50-150% of the median) is trending down to 30% of residents:

http://archives.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/are-you-part-of-san-franciscos-disappearing-middle-class/Content?oid=2670373

This is not uncommon however, as most of these major "blue" cities do, in fact, experience extreme income inequality:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/10/why-are-liberal-cities-so-unaffordable/382045/

So... The humorous part of you saying "that is a great thing...it should be celebrated" about the SF median income being so high, given the extreme decrease in middle income presence there, is that you're directly opposing the liberal ideology that the middle-class is the economic growth engine [and that the wealth gap is bad]. Think about it. YOU just said that "it is a great thing" that the median income in SF is so high. Ok, I agree. High median income must be better, right? But as the data shows, it's absolutely NOT being driven from the middle class (and all the other liberal ideologies you mentioned a few posts ago)- but pulled upward from the increase in upper/rich income. Do you see your massive contradiction there? It's NOT "blue" ideology that's driving these cities' wealth. Get it? (Please do. This is about as basic as it can get.)

You leftists latch onto the fact that these cities tend to vote Democrat (mostly because of social issues), and then try to also claim that is the reason behind their wealth. It couldn't be further from the truth.

IOnce again, this is funny. So many people in SF are making too much money that the number of people who are "middle class" is declining, when you define middle class by 50% of median income.

So-- let's look at it this way:

CITY 1: Seven households, one making 0$, five making 50k$, one making 100k$.

Median is 50k$, and 5/7s of city is "middle class."

CITY 2: Seven households, one making 0$, three making 50k$, three making 100k$.

Median is 50k$, and 3/7s of city is "middle class."

Oh my god!!!