SpaceX To Shift Starship Work From California To Texas 183
SpaceX is reportedly shifting its work on prototypes of its next-gen "Starship" launch vehicle from Los Angeles to Texas. The news comes less than a week after the aerospace company announced its plans to lay off 10% of its 6,000-person workforce to tackle its more ambitious projects. An anonymous reader shares the report from Space.com: In a statement, SpaceX said it was now planning to build prototypes of its Starship vehicle, the upper stage of its next-generation reusable launch system, at its site in South Texas originally designed to serve as a launch site. An initial prototype version of that vehicle has been taking shape in recent weeks at the site in advance of 'hopper' tests that could begin in the next one to two months. A shift to South Texas, industry sources said, could be a way to reduce expenses, given the lower cost of living there versus the Los Angeles area. However, that region of Texas has a much smaller workforce, particularly in aerospace, compared to Southern California.
California is too expensive for a billionaire... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, when your workers need to make enough to buy a million dollar house that would go for $250k in Texas California seems pretty expensive doesn't it...
Buy a house? No, no, no . . . that's not the plan at all.
SpaceX employees will be given cheap options as beta testers to rent a Tesla Model Mobile Home M, or a Tesla Model Trailer Park Trailer T.
The Boring Company will dig big underground trailer parks.
The future of humanity is electric, and underground. It will prepare us for life on Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
The future of humanity is electric, and underground. It will prepare us for life on Mars.
Yeah, or the methane clathrate gun [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
avoiding the 9.9 quake (Score:2)
I bet he knows a 9.9 quake + tsunami will hit LA.
I wouldnt dare to have operations there, and have it all wiped out , including your work force being dead.
Good luck LA.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can get a cheap house.... but you're in Texas.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm in the Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks area of SoCal and when I travel to Texas I really can't tell the difference.
Same endless suburbia, same big-box retail, same dining options, so as far as "middle class" life is concerned, I see no difference.
-Oh yes, there's the hills and mountains, but nobody here ever goes on them, nor does anyone build on them and other than the occasional brush fire that brings them to everyone's attention for a brief while, they make no difference other than making the travel
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. (Score:4, Insightful)
That reason is plenty of easily developed land, and policies which encourage home building instead of nimby horseshit that strangles home construction until even a hovel sells for a million dollars.
Alot of people don't have a successful startup or massive paycheck in their future. They need to live somewhere too...
Re: (Score:2)
That reason is plenty of easily developed land, and policies which encourage home building instead of nimby horseshit that strangles home construction until even a hovel sells for a million dollars.
Also many areas of Texas have no zoning laws. The Towns/Counties arent telling people what is and is not allowed. They just let the free market handle it, and it works.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:1)
You define the abomination that is Houston as "just works"???
No zoning and it's a total shithole. Look for the DFW area to follow suit.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. (Score:5, Informative)
Also many areas of Texas have no zoning laws. The Towns/Counties arent telling people what is and is not allowed. They just let the free market handle it, and it works.
Ah, you mean no-zoning like in West, Texas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
TL:DR -- A free-market fertiliser plant blew up, killing fifteen Americans and injuring 160, destroying and damaging homes and a school sited next to the plant because there were no zoning regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The school was built a long time after the plant was in place and operating. There were no zoning regs that stopped anyone building homes, hospitals, school or anything else next to the wire fence because It's Texas. The previous poster told us the free markets will bring all those people back to life because free markets can do everything. Really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The school was built a long time after the plant was in place and operating. There were no zoning regs that stopped anyone building homes, hospitals, school or anything else next to the wire fence because It's Texas. The previous poster told us the free markets will bring all those people back to life because free markets can do everything. Really.
If the school came after the plant, then it sounds like a government screw-up. Having that same government come up with the zoning regs doesn't seem like any particular improvement in outcomes would have been likely. They are (poorly) deciding where it is OK to put a school either way. It doesn't sound like the free market is relevant one way or another here.
Posting anon to avoid cancelling moderations.
Re: (Score:1)
If the school came after the plant, then it sounds like a government screw-up.
It's what happens when we eschew sensible planning in favor of "no planning," and we've seen it for hundreds of years. It's why people eventually got sick of it. No, we don't get "the same likely planning" with sensible zoning.
Re: (Score:3)
Wait. That makes no sense.
The people who would have been responsible for the "planning" are the same people that decided where to put the school. Whatever they consider "sensible" got implemented, and we see the results.
Why is there an assumption that people get smart if they land a government position?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a price to freedom: fools suffer. There is a benefit to freedom: the wise prosper. It's a good trade-off.
Re: (Score:1)
So the school administration in this case were fools for having sited a school next to where a fertilizer plant would eventually decide to go? You seem to be missing the basic reason for laws: to make sure that your actions don't unduly (and this is where the rub is) affect others. Getting the balance is really tough... especially when people start spouting religion-like assertions like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
No. The school administration, in this case, were fools for having sited a school next to where a fertilizer plant WAS!
That's actually a significant difference, and goes to show how much "government oversight" is worth.
Re: (Score:2)
The fertilizer plant was there first. That's the moral of the story. The town grew up around the plant, often in very foolish ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The school was put there after the plant was there. You are a complete fucking asshole moron.
Re: (Score:1)
That reason is plenty of easily developed land, and policies which encourage home building instead of nimby horseshit that strangles home construction until even a hovel sells for a million dollars.
Alot of people don't have a successful startup or massive paycheck in their future. They need to live somewhere too...
Have you ever been to Texas? HOAs everywhere. Tolls on every road, tracked by surveillance cameras. Houses on their way to a million bucks. Oh, and exploding warehouses because safety regulations are the devil.
Not just houses [Re: California is too expensive f (Score:3)
It's not just houses: water and roads are also in short supply. If we build more dwellings, freeways will be triple-jammed and water yet even more scarce. There are ways around such, but they are not easy and will require life changes.
Maybe we should find a way to fill underutilized areas back up, like the North East and the rust belt. Dwellings sit empty there. We are out o
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:5, Informative)
There is no "exodus of people and companies from California to Texas". Including in this case. Did you forget that you're reading Slashdot, your source for the news of three days ago? ;) Work is not "moving from" California; only prototypes [twitter.com] are being built in Texas (because it's impractical to transport prototypes to Texas by ship for testing). Musk notes that in this case that the misinformation wasn't the LA Times's fault, it was SpaceX's fault for giving an unclear press statement.
Re: (Score:1)
"There is no exodus of people and companies from California to Texas"
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile in the real world.
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/12/13/1-800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-with.html
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the real world, new companies keep starting or expanding in the state. Facebook has expanded in Menlo Park. Google is buying all the available properties in downtown San Jose for redevelopment. Los Angeles has had a construction boom for the last 10 years that has not slowed down. California still has a positive migration from other states. It is mostly the poor and lower middle classes that are leaving the state.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:3, Funny)
Good riddance. We don't need low class thugs or middle class nobodies. They can't and won't understand our values of beauty and internationalism. In our kinder, gentler liberal future society we cannot allow those deplorable inferior brutes to exist.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad reality of US politics today is that I can read your text and still don't know if you're trolling or completely serious.
Re: (Score:2)
because typical americans cannot detect sarcasm
enjoy the high taxes of CA
Re: (Score:2)
because typical americans cannot detect sarcasm
enjoy the high taxes of CA
Never heard of Poe's law? A person can write the batshit craziest thing, and it is indistinguishable from the batshit craziest idea floating around in someone else's head.
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, this is what the Democrats want for America with their talk of eliminating the Senate and Electoral college.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Democrat and want no such thing.
Your captured data of every detail of every Democrat is flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no exodus of people and companies from California to Texas"
Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile in the real world.
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2018/12/13/1-800-companies-left-california-in-a-year-with.html
Well then, if there is an actual exodus, you can expect Texas to become the next California.
In our area, we got a lot of retireees from California. They sold their overvalued homes before the great recession, and drove up real estate prices because theat 2000 sq foot rance they sold would buy a 2.1 story McMansion here.
So locals making local money couldn't afford to buy localhouses, and the Cali transplant retireees are dying off.
Good luck, and hope that they don't do the same for Texas.
Re: (Score:1)
No.
Texas has a Constitutional block on a state income tax and many other of the socialists style (it's not actual socialism) programs.
Don't come here looking for a hand out, you will be sorely disappointed. Make no mistake, if you fall on hard times, you have resources. But if you come here to leach, you will likely end up living under a bridge in Austin or Houston.
Re: (Score:3)
I think what the above poster was worried about was californians coming here, driving up housing prices, and making the area unaffordable to locals.
I may already own my house, but a raise in property rates affects taxes which can knock me out of my house
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Texas has a Constitutional block on a state income tax and many other of the socialists style (it's not actual socialism) programs.
Don't come here looking for a hand out, you will be sorely disappointed. Make no mistake, if you fall on hard times, you have resources. But if you come here to leach, you will likely end up living under a bridge in Austin or Houston.
Whoosh!
Re: (Score:2)
I think what the above poster was worried about was californians coming here, driving up housing prices, and making the area unaffordable to locals.
I may already own my house, but a raise in property rates affects taxes which can knock me out of my house
Exactly! And it's kind of hard to figure out how he decided to miss that point.
For sycodon:
People move into an area. They need housing.
Supply and demand my bois! If there is demand, the price goes up.
Coupled with these people coming from California who are used to much higher housing prices, and will happily pay for what seems like a real bargain even if it seems high by local standards.
Then there will be plenty of contractors willing to build these higher priced houses.
Locals who won't be maki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't the new house construction increase supply? As a west coaster who went to CA for a job and then back home a few years later my impression of the CA home market is that government restrictions on supply are the main culprit for the high cost of housing there. As long as supply can work to meet demand it seems like things should mostly stay in check.
Remember the demand side. When the Cali retirees moved here, they drove prices up. Yes, a lot of contractors made houses, but these people were willing to pay a lot of money. The demand definitely outstripped the supply.
As a reference, my house darn near doubled in price - during the great depression. I still get a lot of offers from real estate companies. A lot of these Cali transplants bought big McMansions, while I bought my house as a single story. Now that they are aged quite a bit, the McMansion is
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these Cali transplants bought big McMansions, while I bought my house as a single story. Now that they are aged quite a bit, the McMansion isn't so appealing.
Doesn't the reduced appeal and demand for those homes on the current market cause them to drop in value compared to the rest of the market then?
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of these Cali transplants bought big McMansions, while I bought my house as a single story. Now that they are aged quite a bit, the McMansion isn't so appealing.
Doesn't the reduced appeal and demand for those homes on the current market cause them to drop in value compared to the rest of the market then?
Oh hell yeah. Some of these people are losing their butts, because at their age - mid 70's early 80's - they want a single story house. But especially since a lot of the people who can afford to buy housing don't want McMansions. They want single stories now.
In addition, snowstorms show that the McMansions are constructed without much insulation. They have nice pristine roofs from all the heat escaping as they warm the neighborhood.
So the combination of not being allowed to build single story homes,
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, the idiots from CA are buying these 1,500 sq ft homes in Central Austin for $500k
I live outside Austin in a 2,400 sq ft home on 1/4 acre, valued at $300k (3x purchase price).
Seems the idiots are staying close to the other idiots and not migrating out to where the normal people are.
That's how it starts. We had a lot of people moving to a rural community about 20 miles out of town. Got the real estate prices jacked up, got themselves elected to the school board, and have pretty much taken over from the farmers. Good luck. Money speaks.
Re: (Score:2)
In recent years, the migration wave has gained steam as housing prices soar far past other states, but the exodus has been going on for some time, according to the study. Figures show the state has seen net resident losses to other states for more than 15 consecutive years.
Still California's population continues to grow, as the number of births exceeded the number of deaths by about 220,000 in 2017, the study noted.
Figures also show there was an additional 185,000 pe
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to the 350 people a day moving to Austin from California.
Bragging about what is going to happen, eh AC? That redness you love is going to turn purple, then you'll be awash in leeburls.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, while 350 a day leave CA, 3,500 illegals a day arrive in CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Throw those numbers around. Comments at social media sites are as randomly made up as your shit.
To be fair (and I'll up you one to "impartial"), while 350 a day leave CA, 3,500 pregnant squirrels eat banana sandwiches in CA.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody who leaves California is a Democrat. Many of the ones who leave California are sick of the demogoguery.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A demagogue or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
Sounds more like the party of the moral high ground.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the party of the fanatics.
Of course, at this point, I could be talking about either party and it would be true just the same...
Re: (Score:2)
You mean by screaming "Impeach the motherfucker" to a crowd of cheering plebes? That kind of demagoguery?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean by screaming "Impeach the motherfucker" to a crowd of cheering plebes? That kind of demagoguery?
Is your command of language exposing you as working for the Kremlin? What you are describing is in no way shape or form a demagogue. It doesn't even make sense.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt you are earning 400% more, but sure...
Only housing is 400% more expensive. Gas is about 20% more. Most other things are about the same. Fresh produce is cheaper.
If you are getting a high California salary, and willing to live cheaply, you can save a ton of money.
When I moved to Silicon Valley, I lived in my van for two years. Then I got a private office, and slept on a roll-up mat. After a year of that, I had enough for a downpayment on a house, and rode the California real estate rollercoaster from there.
California is much more expensive on average (Score:5, Informative)
Only housing is 400% more expensive. Gas is about 20% more. Most other things are about the same. Fresh produce is cheaper.
Housing is by far most people's biggest cost so that's not a minor thing. Let's get some better data [bestplaces.net] Cost of housing in San Francisco is about 7X that of the US average and California overall is about 3X that of the US average. Median house price in California is around $500K and in the Bay Area it is over a million. Groceries are more expensive on average in CA, albeit modestly so. Gas and transportation in CA are 40-70% more expensive. Gas prices in the Bay area as I type this are around $3.40/gal [eia.gov] versus around $2.10/gal [eia.gov] in the midwest. That is ~60% more expensive for those counting at home.
So the tl;dr version is that CA has substantially and provably more expensive cost of living than most of the country. Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but it is a fact. If Silicon Valley or Manhattan is where you need to be to get where you want to go then do what you need to do. But there is a price tag attached to that.
When I moved to Silicon Valley, I lived in my van for two years.
I'm going to stop you right there. Obviously you didn't have a wife, children, and were young enough to find that a palatable option. (or if you had any of the above you had a VERY unusual wife) That sort of thing is fine when you are young, single, and have limited responsibilities and social obligations outside of work. If you are all about the job and in a position to do that then good on you but few people can or will live that sort of lifestyle and expecting others to do it is unrealistic.
Then I got a private office, and slept on a roll-up mat.
Yeah there are damn few employers who would be ok with you sleeping in the office. Maybe that sort of thing is normal at some companies where you are but that is not normal in general. Certainly not outside silicon valley.
Re: California is much more expensive on average (Score:2)
Everyone I know in Michigan where I grew up pays a higher percent of their income for housing than anyone I know in California where I live now. The salaries more than make up for it.
California expensive as total or percent (Score:3)
Everyone I know in Michigan where I grew up pays a higher percent of their income for housing than anyone I know in California where I live now.
That is factually untrue [priceonomics.com]. Plus I very much doubt you have any idea what percent of your friends/family's income they spend on housing - it's just not the sort of thing people share. People in Michigan spend on substantially less both in total dollars and as a percent of income. There are other data sources [overflow.solutions] too and they ALL show California near or at the top of the most expensive states to live in no matter if you are talking in total dollars or percent of income.
The salaries more than make up for it.
The salaries demonstrably do NOT make up th
Re: California expensive as total or percent (Score:2)
Actually, yes, it is the type of thing people share when you have a good relationship with them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the employers who have a problem with it per se. Sleeping (living) in a building in an industrial zone is a building code violation. A friend of mine who owned a partially empty warehouse was having problems with thieves
Re: (Score:2)
Gas prices in the Bay area as I type this are around $3.40/gal [eia.gov] versus around $2.10/gal [eia.gov] in the midwest.
I'll always remember at some point in the past talking to a friend over AIM, telling him gas was a bit expensive in my area lately. He asked what the price was.... and it was something around $1.25 at the time? Moments later I got the response of: "Gas is $2.50 here." I then realized how insane prices were in California.
Then again, some time later I had moved to Charlotte and a big hurricane damaged something in the oil lines from Texas and we basically ran out of gas. Prices were around $4/gallon by
Texas is cheaper in many categories (Score:4, Informative)
Only housing is 400% more expensive. Gas is about 20% more. Most other things are about the same.
Actually, Texas is cheaper in many categories [numbeo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Housing poverty is usually defined as spending more than 35% of the household income on rent or a mortgage. Of course you also need to save up a deposit if you want to buy.
Since housing is so expensive it forces wages up nearly proportionally. If your rent is $3000/month then you need to take home $9000/month to be out of the poverty zone, which according to a pay calculator I found requires an income of $375,000 in California.
Ouch.
Re: (Score:2)
If your rent is $3000/month then you need to take home $9000/month to be out of the poverty zone,
Uh, what? That's crazy, think about it. I know you're using the 1/3 rule, but while it is good advice there are plenty of caveats. The main one being that it doesn't scale linearly. If you are a single person making $900/ mo and spending 300/mo on housing, the remaining 600/mo could easily be spent on food, transportation, and incidentals. So spending more than 300/mo on housing would be pushing you into the realm of unaffordability.
But in your hypothetical case of a single person making $9000/mo and spend
Re: (Score:2)
https://smartasset.com/taxes/c... [smartasset.com]
Slide it up until your take-home is $9000.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:2)
At $200k/yr I got $5326 take-home bi-weekly, which is about $10,652/mo. That's 36% withheld for taxes from a gross paycheck of $16,666/mo, which sounds about right. Mind you this amount can change significantly depending on your allowances, deductions, and filing status, but it works for crude estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are getting a high California salary, and willing to live cheaply, you can save a ton of money.
When I moved to Silicon Valley, I lived in my van for two years. Then I got a private office, and slept on a roll-up mat. After a year of that, I had enough for a downpayment on a house, and rode the California real estate rollercoaster from there.
Er, well, I could save quite a lot of money by living in a cardboard box in flyover country too.
And that money would go farther, so there, nyeah! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Only housing is 400% more expensive. Gas is about 20% more.
Working is more expensive, too. By up to 12.3%, depending on your tax bracket.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, but if you move from CA to TX, PLEASE don't bring your liberal politics that reduce rights, and raise taxes...or you'll just be ruining the things in TX that you left CA (the peoples republic of CA).
In the south, we don't need your high taxes, govt intrusion into fscking everything, and oppressive attacks on the 2A.
Try to remember why you left CA, and leave those bad and often failed ideals there please.
Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire (Score:2)
It's not a failure to get rid of the useless workers. CA is expensive because everyone makes so much money here. Those who can't cut it move to Texas. Welcome to competition. You just can't compete well enough to live where everyone wants to live.
Re: (Score:2)
I make as much in Texas as I did in Cali. Housing is half as much. You are a fool.
Re: (Score:1)
You must have made a pretty shitty salary in ca then.
Employers will offer you similar salaries when you move to Texas, if you're good. It's all the same to a large company with offices around the country.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad people are downvoting this faggot. Fuck off with your "us folk in the south don't take too kind to your kind"... type attitude.
How do you get that from "if you move here, you might get the same pay and a lower cost of living"? Seriously, how do you get form "it's wonderful here, which is why you should move here" to "we don't want you"?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but if you move from CA to TX, PLEASE don't bring your liberal politics that reduce rights,
lol
and raise taxes...
Stuff costs money.
Texas would have been a blue state about a decade ago if not for gerrymandering. The simple fact is that Texas is around half liberals, not just Austin. You're seriously not even paying attention. El Paso is Mexican, they've come around to liberalism of late as Catholicism begins to lose its hold on them, what with the men in dresses raping children and so on. Austin is Austin. Houston has an international medical community attached to it. Dallas is a college town. Every major city in T
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if that's true, then we can ALL kiss goodbye the great t
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if that's true, then we can ALL kiss goodbye the great things in the US I grew up with....the general culture, etc.
I sure hope so. It was racist and sexist AF.
We can also say goodbye to our rights and hello to massive Federal invasion of our lives and business.
If Trump keeps doing Russia's bidding, that will happen sooner than later.
The radical left have been taking over the Dems, and if they take all 3 branches, say goodbye to anything resembling what made america a free land, and a great country based on the individual.
America is a land of inequality through jiggery-pokery. It's never been a free land, and it's never been based on the individual. In fact, it's based on genocide.
That's what happens (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I never quite get this line of argument. In a "natural capitalist" society you would expect more desirable places to live to be more expensive, while less desirable places would be cheaper. And yet, people who claim to be capitalists somehow use California's expensive status as a sign that things are going wrong here...
1. Depending on exactly what time-frame you use (say within the last 20 years) you can make the argument that either Texas or California is doing better on GDP gains.
2. Texas has been doing b
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:That's what happens (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's an interesting fact: the 3.7 meter Falcon 9 cores are the largest size boosters that SpaceX could get away designing to be transported on roads without making it entirely uneconomical. Here we're talking about nine meter tankage. I can't see that getting from LA to Texas in any other way than through Panama...which is both expensive and inconvenient. And slow.
I dream of the day when once a rocket is finished, its moved out to the launchpad with empty upper stages. Re-usuability will be so everyday, that this rocket will just launch, to land at any other launch pad in the world as needed for the correct orbit and payload for its next launch.
Re: (Score:2)
The move was explicitly because transport was impractical. The rocket uses a 9m fuselage, IIRC, and would only be transportable through the Panama Canal. That was their first plan, then they had a blinding flash of the obvious.
Re: That's what happens (Score:1)
Re: That's what happens (Score:1)
I have lived in California ost of my life. Your post is an excellent example of how to lie with statistics. You use bogus stats but I see nothing that implies you have ever even set foot here. Come to LA or SF, my home town, and walk around the central downtown area. Actually, dont, unless you want to step in a shit covered needle and get mugged.
I am here for the tech, live behind high walls, work behind high walls, use a lot of delivery services and will absolutely be retiring to anywhere but here.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine where SpaceX would be without the taxes that paid for the know how Musk got for free from NASA.
Imagine where the US would be without the taxes that paid for the fire departments, law enforcement, transportation infrastructure etc. that Americans get for free from the government.
TELL ME WHERE WOULD ELON BE WITHOUT THE NASA CONTRACTS THAT KEEP HIM AFLOAT?
Where would ULA be without government contracts to keep them afloat? At least SpaceX has affordable commercial launches to fall back on.
In Texas (Score:2)
Really great housing.
Less of that big state gov feel.
Great news. CA Failed State! (Score:2)
LOL
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Great news. CA Failed State! (Score:4, Funny)
Tolerant liberals on display once again.
Next up, we will call a bunch of high school kids racists and bigots because they wore red hats. Oh wait.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're launch sites because they're the closest (easily accessible) part of the US to the equator so the rockets get a decent boost from Earth's rotation speed. It's hardly rocket science... well, except it is. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it's really handy to have the ocean to your immediate east when you launch. Otherwise, like Russia, your mistakes rain fire form the sky onto whoever happens to live downrange.
Manufacturing remains in California (Score:2)
However... (Score:1)
There'll soon be a wall over Texas to keep out the aliens.
If you were playing a game (Score:1)
you would laugh at people living in California.
In terms of total career work related hours vs leisure time and retirement age the quality of living Texas is objectively better for straight people and Florida is objectively better for gay people.
If you're a productive person you should leave California, they will bleed you dry so that people who can't even support themselves can be lauded as heros for having 8 kids.
Part of an ongoing trend (Score:3, Informative)
Company after company has moved away from high-tax, high-cost California to low-tax, low-cost Texas [battleswarmblog.com].
California's big government system is so pension-debt riddled that Californians pay more and get less, and in return get unsafe streets, failing roads, failing schools, and sky-high housing prices.
Re: (Score:3)
California's big government system is so pension-debt riddled that Californians pay more and get less,
California carries a typical debt load (remember, it's the nation's economic powerhouse, so it can safely carry more debt than any other state) and offers its citizens more than other states, which costs more. In spite of that we have laws which protect residents from sudden rises in property taxes. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. To the extent that we don't have things that other states do, it's because California is one of the states which gets back the least from the feds when it pays t
Re: (Score:2)
Once you control for population, California is only eighth in constant dollars and sixth in current dollars. It is not the economic powerhouse.
That's not how it works. You don't control for population when you're talking about states, only about citizens of states.
Re: (Score:2)
"There are no citizens of the individual states. They are residents, and it is entirely appropriate to judge individual states by their own fraction of GDP"
Yes, that is what I am doing. I'm judging states by their fractions of GDP, instead of judging states by the average resident's output as you suggest. It would be better if you didn't make claims at all, if that's the best you can manage. We also produce about half the food eaten in the USA. You wouldn't starve without us, but it would be boring living o
Re: (Score:2)
"You have to do it on a per capita basis, or it is meaningless. Here's why: if you have a state with one resident, and another state with two residents, the state with two people will necessarily have more GDP than the state with one."
No, it won't. If those people together make less, then the GDP will still be less. Further, people are not islands. One person's output is predicated upon others' activities. The people producing the output are enabled by those who have less. We are talking about states, not p
I mean, what a hellhole! (Score:2)
Markets have spoken and found that should be more expensive in CA. I've been to Texas, all over Taxas, and you definitely get what you pay for.
Locust Migration. (Score:2)
Having destroyed California they need new land to raid.
Marconi plays the mamba (Score:2)
Sounds like corporations playing corporation games.