|
Post by jeffolie on Jun 18, 2011 17:46:46 GMT -6
leaving CA: 5 times faster than 2009 Why? What has changed from 2009 to this time in 2011? Government has not changed ... taxes have not changed ... regulations remain approximately the same Federal government changed with Obama's election but I do not precieve significant anti California Obama policy. The 20 to 40 % advantage of doing business in other states stated in the below piece did not change from 2009 to this time in 2011. The economy sank everywhere and CA suffered more than most state in construction/Real Estate resulting in lost income across the board inside California but these types of companies just terminated and did not likely relocate or 'leave' to "...1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina...". So, I wonder what kind of companies 'leave' CA to go to other state? Uprooting is hard when your home is underwater and no buyers will let you out of your house with a break even offer. Plus your relatives in CA are also housebound so leaving CA means they remain which adds to the social/emotional difficulty of uprooting. =============================== Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers California currently ranks #49 among U.S. states for "business tax climate" (Tax Foundation) and #48 for for "economic freedom" (Mercatus). It shouldn't be any surprise then that companies are leaving the "Golden State" in record numbers this year (see chart above) for "golder pastures" and more business-friendly climates in other states. From Joe Vranich: "Today, California is experiencing the fastest rate of disinvestment events based on public domain information, closure notices to the state, and information from affected employees in the three years since a specialized tracking system was put into place. Out-of-state economic development officials are traveling through the state to alert frustrated business owners and corporate executives to their friendlier business climate versus California's hostility toward commercial enterprises. •From Jan. 1 of this year through this morning, June 16, we have had 129 disinvestment events occur, an average of 5.4 per week (see chart above). •For all of last year, we saw an average of 3.9 events per week. •Comparing this year thus far with 2009, when the total was 51 events, essentially averaging 1 per week, our rate today is more than 5 times what it was then. Our losses are occurring at an accelerated rate. Also, no one knows the real level of activity because smaller companies are not required to file layoff notices with the state. A conservative estimate is that only 1 out of 5 company departures becomes public knowledge, which means California may suffer more than 1,000 disinvestment events this year. The capital directed to out-of-state or out-of-country, while difficult to calculate, is nonetheless in the billions of dollars. The top five destinations are (1) Texas, (2) Arizona, (3) Colorado, (4) Nevada and Utah tied; and (5) Virginia and North Carolina tied. Based on the legislature’s recent rejection of business-friendly legislation and Sacramento’s implementation of additional regulations, signs are that California’s hostility towards business will only worsen. California is such fertile ground that representatives for economic development agencies are visiting companies to dissect our high taxes, extreme regulatory environment and other expenses to show annual savings of between 20 and 40 percent after an out-of-state move." mjperry.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 18, 2011 20:42:22 GMT -6
I have a personal experience with regulations.
My business is selling insurance. We're not allowed to demand social security numbers from customers, which makes it impossible for us to run credit checks. People with bad credit are better off in California than anywhere else in the country.
In my experience, regulations only serve to keep US from screwing YOU over.
So when businesses move out of state, basically they're looking for ways to jones the hell out of the consumer. Or pollute the hell out of the water and air with their toxic waste. Or exploit loopholes to discriminate against their employees on account of gender, race, etc.
All I can say is get the hell out and go ruin someone else's state.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jun 19, 2011 23:20:40 GMT -6
Thank you, Jacque.
Texas has a little $12 Billion budget problem, too. Maybe it's from too many giveaways to businesses.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jun 20, 2011 4:54:15 GMT -6
Probably what they call a "crash" but in a different context. Don't worry it will happen to the entire country soon.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 20, 2011 10:30:19 GMT -6
Thank you, Jacque. Texas has a little $12 Billion budget problem, too. Maybe it's from too many giveaways to businesses. GB You know, I'm not opposed to regulatory reform. No system is perfect. But if people are going to say we're being overtaxed and over-regulated, it may very well be true, who knows! - but at least substantiate it. Give examples. Show which regulations are bad, and make a case for why. Is that not too much to ask? The fact that businesses and advocacy groups cannot seem to give examples, suggests that most of the complaining is being done by a bunch of bad actors who just don't like playing well with others. Go to other countries where they have free reign and you find hell has broken loose in their wake. See: the collapsing mines in China and the pollution in India.
|
|
|
Post by mdub on Jun 22, 2011 23:22:40 GMT -6
I have a personal experience with regulations. "My business is selling insurance. We're not allowed to demand social security numbers from customers, which makes it impossible for us to run credit checks. People with bad credit are better off in California than anywhere else in the country." It's easy to see from your post why an insurance company would want to leave CA in this situation. If you can't run a credit check then you have to assume that everyone has bad credit just so you are safe. If I was in this position I would charge everyone a high rate to cover my ass. This may benefit some with really bad credit, but it would hurt those with avg. or good credit. Or I could just move to another state where I am allowed to check credit scores and charge my customers a fair rate that is based on their score, among other things like income. This is a great example of a stupid regulation that hurts customers as much as businesses, as most people don't have bad credit. There should have basic health, safety, and environmental regulations. We should keep the 40 hr week with overtime, and other basic things. But a lot of the things business owners have to deal with are just rediculous. Here's an article on the topic.... theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/start-a-business-in-the-united-states-are-you-kidding-me
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 23, 2011 11:08:02 GMT -6
I have a personal experience with regulations. "My business is selling insurance. We're not allowed to demand social security numbers from customers, which makes it impossible for us to run credit checks. People with bad credit are better off in California than anywhere else in the country." It's easy to see from your post why an insurance company would want to leave CA in this situation. If you can't run a credit check then you have to assume that everyone has bad credit just so you are safe. If I was in this position I would charge everyone a high rate to cover my ass. This may benefit some with really bad credit, but it would hurt those with avg. or good credit. Or I could just move to another state where I am allowed to check credit scores and charge my customers a fair rate that is based on their score, among other things like income. This is a great example of a stupid regulation that hurts customers as much as businesses, as most people don't have bad credit. There should have basic health, safety, and environmental regulations. We should keep the 40 hr week with overtime, and other basic things. But a lot of the things business owners have to deal with are just rediculous. Here's an article on the topic.... theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/start-a-business-in-the-united-states-are-you-kidding-meWhat if customers with bad credit decide to leave for a state where their credit rating doesn't hurt their rates? Mind you, that's a WHOLE LOT of people now. Edit: Ah, I see. There are 80,000 pages in the Federal Register, full of laws waiting to ambush me. I haven't been ambushed; nor have a lot of other businesses I compete with or ones that I service. Methinks the article you posted is a little paranoid? "Start A Business? In The United States? Are You Kidding Me?" Really? I'm not sure this author realizes how many businesses have been started by little people, and successfully, in the United States, every day.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 23, 2011 11:25:13 GMT -6
Wow. From that above website, this is the mindset of the anti-regulation crowd.
At least this monster was being honest...
|
|
|
Post by judes on Jun 23, 2011 17:22:38 GMT -6
Wow, monster indeed. I agree with your sentiments jacque. And this conversation raises (what may be construed as naive) questions in my mind. But why should someones credit rating effect the rate they are given on an insurance policy? Wouldn't you just stop the insurance when they stop paying? Or even worse why should ones credit rating effect their chances of employment? Those with the worst credit probably are in most dire need of a job. It's just seems to be another way to fleece the poor and benefit the wealthy, as the wealthy have the best credit.
I can see where a credit score may be relevant to giving someone a loan, because risk of repaying the loan would be higher with poor credit. So isn't it odd that the one area that really is relevant to credit rating is the area where regulations were ignored or removed so loans could be given to anyone who could fog a mirror?? This seems so backwards to me, I wonder why? hmmm.
|
|
|
Post by mdub on Jun 24, 2011 1:39:05 GMT -6
I should have asked what insurance you sell. From your post I assumed that the credit score had some relevance. And I think people with bad credit willl always pay a higher rate, as they should. There is no reason why someone like myself, with good credit, should be put in the same category as those with bad credit. I know times are tough and many people are using their CC to get by, but businesses still need to cover their rears...
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 24, 2011 7:33:27 GMT -6
I should have asked what insurance you sell. From your post I assumed that the credit score had some relevance. And I think people with bad credit willl always pay a higher rate, as they should. There is no reason why someone like myself, with good credit, should be put in the same category as those with bad credit. I know times are tough and many people are using their CC to get by, but businesses still need to cover their rears... The credit card industry needs to cover their rears when it comes to bad credit. Employers and insurance people do not. You're just kicking people with bad credit further down so they cannot recover. Inevitably, it's bad for everyone. Why is this a huge issue with me? Because I would be a hypocrite if it weren't. I was once a working class schmuck, those are my roots. Furthermore, I also know the bad credit = employment / insurance risk story is a scam that big business foists upon us to rip people off while further dividing the working class against each other. People with bad credit do not necessarily have higher claims. I do not like being lied to or bullshitted. I sell fire & casualty - homeowners and auto, primarily, and I am licensed to sell other things when I am really pushed to. I can say reasonably that bad credit does not necessarily make a bigger insurance risk.I paid off my credit cards and debt years ago. But I work face-to-face with plenty of people every day that would be affected by bad credit beyond just getting a loan. It would cost them higher rates even though they have no higher number of at-fault accidents or claims than people with good credit, and why should they have to pay higher rates? Homeowners insurance is about insuring risks to your house, auto insurance is about insuring the potential for an accident, if you have a clean history in both, that should be what you pay for, not your credit rating. The insurance industry can get actuaries to tell them anything they want. If you're poor making under $100k a year they can concoct higher accident rates for your demographic. Black? More accident risk! Living in the wrong place? More house fires risk! Got irritable bowel syndrome or a family history of cancer? Brown eyes instead of blue? Actuaries can find a way to work the statistics to make you look like a bigger accident risk then, too. Yes, accident risk. Not to mention health risks. Fortunately the Government doesn't allow the industry to set your rates based on a lot of these things. I can (as an auto/homeowners insurance industry, not an agent) can get you on not only your credit rating, but also your family health history, genetics, race, religion, location... if the Government lets me. Here in California, the law cripples an insurance company's ability to get a credit score. We're doing quite fine here. All the theories that bad credit = bigger risk are not playing out as true here. It's simply not happening. Any more than people with brown eyes and family history of diabetes or any other irrelevant thing are causing us huge auto or homeowner claims.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 24, 2011 7:34:59 GMT -6
Wow, monster indeed. I agree with your sentiments jacque. And this conversation raises (what may be construed as naive) questions in my mind. But why should someones credit rating effect the rate they are given on an insurance policy? Wouldn't you just stop the insurance when they stop paying? Or even worse why should ones credit rating effect their chances of employment? Those with the worst credit probably are in most dire need of a job. It's just seems to be another way to fleece the poor and benefit the wealthy, as the wealthy have the best credit. And they do the most damage, too. What was Bernie Madoff's credit? Or the credit rating of the CEOs of the big banks?
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 24, 2011 7:41:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by judes on Jun 24, 2011 8:16:48 GMT -6
OMG!!! when you think you've seen it all!! Jaque, you are a breath of fresh air!! I couldn't agree more with you. Do you think Turbo Timmy Geitner took a credit rating hit for not paying his taxes??
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 24, 2011 8:46:30 GMT -6
OMG!!! when you think you've seen it all!! Jaque, you are a breath of fresh air!! I couldn't agree more with you. Do you think Turbo Timmy Geitner took a credit rating hit for not paying his taxes?? Turbo Timmy hahahahh that's great!!!
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jun 24, 2011 21:33:59 GMT -6
Using credit scores outside of getting a loan is bullshit. It's another excuse to jack up rates or not hire a person.
Hell being unemployed is now a black mark on getting hired. Most companies won't even look at resumes where the person is unemployed.
Of course you have plenty of people who support this shit because it makes them feel good and they can look down at all the "losers", even though they are themselves one step away from unemployment or a debt collector. That's what so idiotic. These clowns think they are part of some select group when they are in reality nothing but porch monkeys for the rich who set these policies. The rich laugh at them.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 25, 2011 10:13:28 GMT -6
Using credit scores outside of getting a loan is bullshit. It's another excuse to jack up rates or not hire a person. Hell being unemployed is now a black mark on getting hired. Most companies won't even look at resumes where the person is unemployed. Of course you have plenty of people who support this shit because it makes them feel good and they can look down at all the "losers", even though they are themselves one step away from unemployment or a debt collector. That's what so idiotic. These clowns think they are part of some select group when they are in reality nothing but porch monkeys for the rich who set these policies. The rich laugh at them. Turbo Timmy. Porch monkeys for the rich. Man, you guys are on a roll here. Seriously, though, you said it as best as I could hope to. It's all about pitting the working class against each other by creating false divisions. Those with bad credit are now suddenly, magically, by the power of the almighty reality-distorting actuaries, a threat to homeowners insurance policyholders who have good credit. More ways to divide people. More ways to keep them at each other's throats. More ways to distract them from the billionaire bankers and industrialists who are sharpening their scythes in plain sight in preparation for the harvest. Damn, we can't just keep letting these guys divide us like this.
|
|
|
Post by mdub on Jun 26, 2011 1:47:10 GMT -6
I know how the world works and I know the biggset criminals are the ones at the top, like Timmy Geithner. I know they try to play people off each other with the phony left/right thing. I realize that insurance companies are some of the biggest slimeballs and have a giant lobby....
Sure, your race and health have nothing to do with you being a bad driver. But if you have a history of making late payments or missing payments on your CC, it may mean that you will do the same with your insurance premiums. So you can have a spotless driving record and still be a risk.
|
|
|
Post by jacquelope on Jun 26, 2011 8:34:35 GMT -6
I know how the world works and I know the biggset criminals are the ones at the top, like Timmy Geithner. I know they try to play people off each other with the phony left/right thing. I realize that insurance companies are some of the biggest slimeballs and have a giant lobby.... Sure, your race and health have nothing to do with you being a bad driver. But if you have a history of making late payments or missing payments on your CC, it may mean that you will do the same with your insurance premiums. So you can have a spotless driving record and still be a risk. Okay, well they might also be a risk for not paying their electric bill; so why not charge them higher rates for electricity, too? That's equally as logical. Of course, electric companies charge a deposit for those who are bad at paying their electric bills - but only those who don't pay their electric bills. And insurance companies also charge a one-month deposit, regardless, just to cover late payers. Like I said, we in California do not allow this. I'd like to see the harm measured in dollars that has been done to the insurance industry by California's laws which cripple the use of credit ratings to determine insurance rates. I want to see this theory backed up by actual numbers.
|
|