Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX To Shift Starship Work From California To Texas

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.

183 comments

  1. California is too expensive for a billionaire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  2. It makes sense, cheaper is cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "However, that region of Texas has a much smaller workforce, particularly in aerospace, compared to Southern California." = Importing it.

  3. next location after Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be some third world country. They have larger workforce over there...

  4. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But then they have to live in Texas, exactly. The trade off. It's there for a reason, that's why it's cheaper. No magic Jeb stuff.

  5. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only problem: that cheap house is in Texas.

    Being located in California is easily worth a 400% premium.

  6. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt you are earning 400% more, but sure...

  7. Ehm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pork pork pork pork pork, squeeeek!

  8. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

  9. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But then they have to live in Texas, exactly. The trade off. It's there for a reason, that's why it's cheaper. No magic Jeb stuff.

  10. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just keep telling yourself that as the exodus of people and companies from California to Texas continues...

  11. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Rockoon · · 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.

    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.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  12. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · 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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  13. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Rei · · 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 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.

    --
    Hey, guys, I'm just pleased as punch to report that it's a fleet of a hundred Vogon Battle Destroyers!
  15. That's what happens by bblb · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That's what happens when liberals raise taxes, attack businesses, and generally fuck everything up... between anti business policy and sky high cost of living forcing wages to be artificially high, there's just no economic or business sense in staying in California, and it'll only worsen with Newsome.

    1. Re:That's what happens by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      That's what happens when liberals raise taxes, attack businesses, and generally fuck everything up...

      Yes without taxes it would be practical to transport constructed rocket prototypes to the testing range in Texas. Damn librulhs they're even affecting physics with their taxes.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:That's what happens by bblb · · Score: 1

      Yeah... cause we never move products from one coast to the other in this country, it's not like there's railways or established commercial routes for the relocation of rocket components or anything. It's not like NASA successfully moved components to Kennedy for assembly for decades or anything like that. I'm sure he's just doing for the convenience, not the costs... Ya, you're right, that makes more sense.

    3. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Imagine where SpaceX would be without the taxes that paid for the know how Musk got for free from NASA. Or where would they be if they could not have poached a bunch of talented NASA engineers. Scratch that, that's peanuts.

      TELL ME WHERE WOULD ELON BE WITHOUT THE NASA CONTRACTS THAT KEEP HIM AFLOAT?

      Where?

    4. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting how NASA essentially stole the know-how from Germany. Where would the US be without this.

    5. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Imagine where SpaceX would be without the taxes

      The same place Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc would be without government contracts. Broke.

      if they could not have poached a bunch of talented NASA engineers.

      I hate to break it to you, nobody actually wants to be a direct government employee for the most part. A large number of NASA engineers are contract employees from various large government contracting firms. Its not like NASA was building rockets itself anyways...

      The US government does have an interest in ensuring the national capability to launch rockets. This includes making sure the US has enough engineering knowledge to do so. Also there is the upside that when NASA or DoD have an option beyond just ULA developed rockets.

      I guess Russia doesn't like competition for cheap rocket launches. Or the fact that the market for their RD-180 engines is drying up since Atlas V launches aren't all that affordable anymore.

      We'll just ignore the fact that pretty much all space fairing nations fund their rocket manufactures in some way, be it direct or indirect funding.

      Flap on head flapper, flap on.

    6. Re: That's what happens by bblb · · Score: 1

      The can't even get past the irony of trying to talk about not being able to fund schools while the entirety of the LA county teachers union is on strike long enough to rebut the false equivocation of economic comparison between CA and KS or your wild misrepresentation of interstate migration numbers. Keep your head in the sand buddy, CA is paradise and just gonna get even better...

    7. Re:That's what happens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Omg, the fucking eurofags who havent contributed anything to the world in countless generations always spew about the early US stealing factory plans 250 years ago and now you are trying to claim tech developed by Hitler? Seriously? The Nazis? That is who you want to own?

      My god, you guys are so fucking lame. Just stfu and keep importing high breeding rate sharia law loving rapists to replace your low-T natives so someone else can write about you in the history books. Any people who refuse to defend their existence will go extinct. You useless dummies are well on the way. You laugh about Trump yet you morons keep Merkel and her Germany hating party in power. You are brain washed into cultural suicide. That is the definition of diversity: killing off native western culture to be replaced by third worlder locusts who already destroyed their homelands and now want what your ancestors built.

    9. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is how we recognize that while a Market Economy is necessary for the production of unique solutions and to encourage social mobility, Capitalism is a joke when it comes to societal progress.

      When raising taxes to provide better services for a community is viewed as an "attack", you know we've created a poor excuse for a society.

    10. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    11. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you've never been to Europe.

    12. Re:That's what happens by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And railways and interstate highways are generally funded by what source of revenue????

    14. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you have been selected for the "Dumbest Man on the Internet" award for January. If you wold please provide us with your bank account information we will transfer your winnings within the next business day.

    15. Re:That's what happens by lgw · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too cheap to be true is a thing. Launch while you still can :)

    17. Re:That's what happens by larkost · · Score: 2

      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 better for a while on number of jobs added
      3. California has been doing better on wages added (so less new jobs, but those jobs pay a lot more)
      4. Texas's gains have largely been in gas/oil production (so will run out) where California's seem to be based on Film and IT, either of which could suddenly decide to flee the state (although there is no real sign of that).

      So when you get down to brass tacks, there is no real evidence that one approach is generically better than the other.

    18. Re:That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. I thought he taught himself about rocketry. Wtf.

    19. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap commercial launches. LUL.

    20. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes the repubtards feel good about themselves. That's all. Nothing else. They can point at an imaginary boogeyman and say "he's ruining my life" because they don't know how to take responsibility for their stupid actions.

    21. Re: That's what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sounds like a win-win, because stupid doesn't solve problems."

    22. Re:That's what happens by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:That's what happens by bblb · · Score: 1

      Has nothing to do with things being naturally more expensive... we accept that in California. The issue at hand is that things are ARTIFICIALLY more expensive because of unnecessary regulatory costs and exorbitant taxation, taxation which invariably fails to be used for the claimed problem that taxation was meant to address. Case in point, the gas tax which was meant to be used for roads is already being targeted by Newsome as a source of revenue to promote his healthcare for illegals program. It's always easy to step back and make irrelevant comparisons to try and shoot down the idea that California isn't a socialist shithole that embodies and exemplifies everything that's wrong with liberalism in this country and socialism in general but once you actually start looking at the realities of living here, it's pretty obvious why this state is failing. From wasting billions on cronyism projects like the idiotic railway to pointless feel good legislation like the straw ban to freedom infringing oppressive legislation like the arbitrary CA 'assault weapons' ban to outright idiotic legislation like letting folks shit on the streets, this state is a joke to any rational human being and caters to nothing but leftist extremism and those wealthy enough to isolate themselves from it. California is everything this country should hope to never become.

    24. Re: That's what happens by bblb · · Score: 1

      Did that make sense in your head before you said it or did you know how stupid it would sound and just said it anyway? Newsflash... I earn in the very high six figures each year and honestly couldn't care less about California tax policy because it really doesn't affect my lifestyle in any way. I live behind gates with paid security staff and work behind walls with paid security... I was able to foot the bill and develop the contacts for a concealed carry permit in one of the most restrictive places in the country. My kids go to elite private schools and I'll easily afford college tuition for them wherever they choose to go. When the Sacramento politicians come up with a new tax or can't afford to pay public school teachers or have to double classroom sizes, it doesn't impact me at all. It impacts the poor... the single mom making just above minimum wage who has to decide between having enough money to put gas in the car to get to work all week or cooking a healthy dinner tonight. When idiotic policy funds scholarships for illegal aliens and limits the places available for the poor citizens fighting for scholarships, it doesn't impact the future of my kids who'll get in wherever they want to go and I'll easily be able to afford it, it screws the kids raised by good old middle class Americans who worked their asses off to get good grades in overstuffed classrooms while learning from subpar teachers preoccupied with dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator and pushing the latest common core idiocy. My kids will have the benefit of the best education money can buy, established relationships with peers who were born to even more elitist lifestyles than our own, and the added bonus of our black skin color benefiting them through affirmative action. Make no mistake... my life hasn't been ruined in the slightest by any of the stupidity that passes for governance in this state, quite the opposite in fact, I benefit from it in nearly every way. I was raised to compete on level playing fields though and I can recognize the absurdity of calling this fair when it's anything but. I just sit back and laugh as my life and the future for my children gets easier and easier but I also have to shake my head in sadness that folks like you are actually stupid enough to think that this is a good thing for the future of the country.

  16. In Texas by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    a company can have its own employee cafeteria too.
    Really great housing.
    Less of that big state gov feel.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:In Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking moron.

    2. Re: In Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Texans swear they do everything the best. No inncome tax but my property tax is about to shoot thru the roof. Fuck off repubtard. Texas sucks; the govt there is shit. You aren't special.

      Just concede and break off from America. You are too pussy to do that tho because you need daddy government to suck at its tit.

  17. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drive across the border into Baja California. Ensenada is inexpensive and has lovely beaches. TV news says migrants hate it there though and they really really want to pay rent in American California. Go figure...

  18. Great news. CA Failed State! by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    LOL

    1. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 0

      Texas and Florida have always traditionally been launch states. Because if they explode, well hey, maybe nobody will even notice.

    2. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the hat fits...

    4. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by theM_xl · · Score: 1

      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. ;-)

    5. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by lgw · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Great news. CA Failed State! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing precisely what you're accusing people wearing those hats of doing. That is pot calling kettle.

    7. Re: Great news. CA Failed State! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't no accusing, it happen, a bunch of brain washed kids. That's all it was.

    8. Re: Great news. CA Failed State! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it's working as intended in Russia.

  19. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AND the coming nuclear war between Russia and the USA. Gotta cool the planet down somehow, might as well be through a nuclear winter. Save the Earth MFer's!

  20. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That kinda sounds cool.. you've got me intrigued

  21. Manufacturing remains in California by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    What is going on, is that assembly takes place in texas where a launchpad is at. This makes it trivial to move any rockets to another site.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Manufacturing remains in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/2...
      Both should just manufacture in China. It's where the talent is.

  22. However... by lloy0076 · · Score: 1

    There'll soon be a wall over Texas to keep out the aliens.

  23. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · 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

  24. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  25. If you were playing a game by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  26. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  27. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Interfacer · · Score: 4, 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.

  28. California is much more expensive on average by sjbe · · 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 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 versus around $2.10/gal 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.

    1. Re: California is much more expensive on average by reanjr · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:California is much more expensive on average by Solandri · · Score: 1

      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.

      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 breaking in to steal copper wiring. He's incredibly cheap, so he set up a mattress and sleeping bag and began spending the night there instead of hiring a security guard. There happened to be a building inspection shortly after, and when the inspector saw the mattress and sleeping bag, he tagged him with a $500 fine for it.

    3. Re: California is much more expensive on average by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $500 fine is cheaper than paying a security guard to guard your property for 12 hours when you aren't there.

      Just saying.

    4. Re:California is much more expensive on average by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Gas prices in the Bay area as I type this are around $3.40/gal versus around $2.10/gal 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 the time gas became mostly unfindable (except some station with a $6/gallon price some people claimed existed)

  29. Part of an ongoing trend by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Informative

    Company after company has moved away from high-tax, high-cost California to low-tax, low-cost Texas.

    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.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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 tax money into the system. Any financial problems we're having are not the result of our social policies, but those of other states whose bills we pay. We are also the tech center of the country, in spite of IBM's long history in NY (and TX.) Without California, the USA would be an also-ran.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've worked as a software contractor in cali in a variety of locations for years. The roads are nice, the people are chill, the weather is amazing, the beaches are beautiful, and the work is interesting and pays well. The taxes, water restrictions, earthquakes, forest fires, mud slides, cost of living and two year restriction on contractors at a single company are really the only cons tbh.

    3. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While true, it's an unfortunate fact that the California refugees tend to vote the same way wherever they end up, leading to the californication of places like Colorado, New Mexico, and increasingly Texas (hello Austin).

      Which just means they're bringing the problems with them. Give it a few years.

    4. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell is this informative? That link had exactly one mention of taxes. In a tag. On a story halfway down the page. On a personal rant blog.

      So yay. Rah rah rah. Good site for "my side is way smarter and obviously more right than the other side in all cases" supporters to get more "information" I guess.

    5. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per_capita

      Once you control for population, California is only eighth in constant dollars and sixth in current dollars. It is not the economic powerhouse.

    6. Re: Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Austin has been a blue state. The only reason Texas is still red is because of gerrymandering. And that's a fact.

    7. Re: Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to slashdot.

    8. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 and population. Otherwise, you can't make your original claim at all.

    10. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "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 on just corn and wheat. And you'd have to eat crops you're currently exporting, which means a further reduction in revenues.

      You need us. We don't need you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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. Just having more people gives you more GDP because of how the western economic system is set up. That's also why the west is importing people to prop up their economies.

      However, that doesn't tell the whole story. Certain people are more productive than others. You can have situations where that one person may be as productive as the other two, or maybe three, or even more. The fraction assignable on a per capita basis is, therefore, the only legitimate way to determine which state is an economic powerhouse. You must control for population to determine how productive your population is.

      As an aside, California also produces food for export at an unsustainable pace with respect to water usage, but that is irrelevant for this discussion.

    12. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "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 people, so your insistence upon per capita measurements seems a sign of idiocy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Part of an ongoing trend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 people, so your insistence upon per capita measurements seems a sign of idiocy.

      It is clear you are being purposefully obtuse because taking your argument to it's logical conclusion would mean that GDP by state is meaningless and GDP by country is meaningless since "output all over the world is predicated upon others' activities." Yuri Bezmenov would be proud.

  30. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually disagree with the statement of policies that encourage home building in Texas. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Texas doesn't have a state income tax and instead has very high property taxes to fund their government. If I'm correct on that, then that is a policy that discourages home building.

  31. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've not lived in Texas, but I'm originally from California. I don't live there anymore. I honestly can't think of anywhere I'd want to live less than California. It is a properly awful place to live. I can't even give the specifics, it's just everything. From the absurdity of my hotel room having a sign of saying "this hotel is built with materials knows to cause cancer in the state of CA", to which I say they should have built it somewhere else so it wouldn't cause cancer, to the fact that driving down in to LA, you know there's mountains there, but you can't see them. Then god help you if you're at a restaurant and trying to get your server to actually serve you because after all, they're not actually a waiter, they're actually an actor. Nobody can be bothered to talk to you, you literally can't get around without a car. I remember trying to cross a street and the cross walk gave you enough time to get across at a run, because the cross walks are literally not meant to be used. When visiting relatives, within about 24 hours I'm just desperate to go home.

  32. Texas is cheaper in many categories by virtig01 · · Score: 3, 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.

  33. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  34. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a fuckwit.

  35. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your tin foil bigoted mind maybe. fortunately not everyone is a dip shit bigot like yourself. You stay in California and keep your bigoted big goverment opinion to yourself. Hopefully you run out of water and your house burns down after illegals rape both your wife and children.

  36. Still wrong as always WindBourne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a statement, SpaceX said it was now planning to build prototypes

    Guess the first line of the quoted summary was too far down for you to read...

  37. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    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! ;)

  38. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  39. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/ktvu-...

    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 people that immigrated to the state last year from outside the country.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  40. avoiding the 9.9 quake by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  41. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    because typical americans cannot detect sarcasm

    enjoy the high taxes of CA

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  42. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    Sure, you can get a cheap house.... but you're in Texas.

  43. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by nojayuk · · Score: 4, 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/...

    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.

  44. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell that to the 350 people a day moving to Austin from California.

  45. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    So, who is going to support your Sybaritic lifestyle if the costs on that is pushed to the lower classes? Already, people who can have bailed to other states where it is cheaper to live, and there is less regulations. The costs of stuff have to go onto someone's backs, and since the upper class doesn't get taxed, the middle class is dying out. Are you going to tax that bum who is pooping on your doorstep?

    Problem with California is that their state senate is all done by popular vote. In fact, their entire government is done by popular vote. Which means that if you live outside of SF, LA, or other coastal cities, you have no say whatsoever, and your only resource are Federal lawsuits.

    Keep on partying. Don't pay attention that the other end of the ship has a hole in it and is sinking, causing your end to rise up in the air. Let the band play on.

  46. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  47. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Living in a van is a lot more difficult now than in the past. LA has banned it, and even runs helis with FLIR to catch vandwellers to have their vehicles impounded. The Bay Area, similar. Then comes things like showering, laundry, cooking, and the like.

    Oh, a decent van? Expect to pay six digits. Just a bare bones Sprinter chassis goes for $60k+.

  48. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 & commute shitty and concentrating housing into a fewer areas thus driving up costs of it.
    So what's wrong again with "Texas" and why are we supposed to hate it?

  49. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    Yeah get rid of all the scrubs so there are only the elite left and then the elite become the new scrubs and if you aint a billionaire then you aint shit.

  50. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Who the fucks builds a chemical plant next to a school, or vice versa? That's just a bad idea even if you are technically allowed to do it.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  51. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by nojayuk · · 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.

  52. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
    Geez.

    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.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  53. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · 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

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  54. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  55. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  56. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by reanjr · · Score: 1

    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.

  57. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The future of humanity is electric, and underground. It will prepare us for life on Mars.

    Yeah, or the methane clathrate gun.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  58. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The future of humanity is electric, and underground."

    You got that right, but powered coffins ? what will they think of next

  59. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I suppose that the land next to the chemical plant is dirt cheap after all so what's good for the bottom line...

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  60. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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 Texas has some good reason to go blue.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep telling yourself that, lowlife. Why am I even wasting time answering to someone who can't understand?

  62. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hawthorne, the city where SpaceX is located, is a ghetto. The cost of housing there is not that high.

  63. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Interestingly, this is what the Democrats want for America with their talk of eliminating the Senate and Electoral college.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  64. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by sycodon · · Score: 0

    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.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  65. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-losing-low-income-people-gaining-wealthy-people-per-report-20180221-htmlstory.html

  66. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by sycodon · · Score: 0

    To be fair, while 350 a day leave CA, 3,500 illegals a day arrive in CA.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  67. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're already doing that to Phoenix. The next recession (of the type with mass layoffs) will fix it I think.

  68. California expensive as total or percent by sjbe · · 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.

    That is factually untrue. 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 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 the difference.

    1. Re: California expensive as total or percent by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes, it is the type of thing people share when you have a good relationship with them.

  69. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everybody who leaves California is a Democrat. Many of the ones who leave California are sick of the demogoguery. I.e either you go on Twitter every day to talk about how the world is racist, and then make sure that the world knows how much you hate Trump so much that you're always looking for articles about him in the news and that you can't stop talking about him, and if you're not that kind of person, then surely you are a Nazi and worship Hitler.

  70. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  71. Leaving California is a smart move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leaving the People's Republic of California right away is a very smart move. California is completely controlled by progressives, socialists, communists, and a variety of wack-jobs that want to continually raise taxes and regulated every aspect of people's lives.

    1. Re: Leaving California is a smart move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "progressives, socialists, communists,"

      Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

      You are a loon.

  72. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is a price to freedom: fools suffer. There is a benefit to freedom: the wise prosper. It's a good trade-off.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  73. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by lgw · · Score: 1

    I make as much in Texas as I did in Cali. Housing is half as much. You are a fool.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  74. Re: California is too expensive for a billionair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They hate demagoguery, so they go to the party of trump...

  75. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But GP is a +5 fuckwit, while you and I are lowly insignificant forgettable AC's.

  76. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must have made a pretty shitty salary in ca then.

  77. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by JackieBrown · · 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

  78. I mean, what a hellhole! by cahuenga · · Score: 1

    Got to agree with this... everybody move to Texas and we'll rough it out here in CA alone.

    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.

  79. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by lgw · · Score: 0

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  80. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · 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.

    Whoosh!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  81. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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 making as much money as the newcomers then get shut out of the market. This is simple market supply and demand, and exactly what happened in my area - not liberal socialism or whatever axe you have to grind.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  82. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  83. Locust Migration. by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Having destroyed California they need new land to raid.

    1. Re:Locust Migration. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats what Colorado is for.

  84. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    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.

  85. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    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 isn't so appealing.

    One of the funniest things is that most covenents in the developments banned single story houses. Which is exactly what people want now.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  86. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Kyr+Arvin · · 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.

  87. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    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?

  88. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot. I want idiots like you to hang for treason.

  89. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  90. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    I'm a Democrat and want no such thing.

    Your captured data of every detail of every Democrat is flawed.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  91. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  92. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by larkost · · Score: 0

    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.

  93. Not just houses [Re: California is too expensive f by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    plenty of easily developed land, and policies which encourage home building instead of nimby horseshit that strangles home construction

    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 of kilter somehow.

  94. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by joelgrimes · · Score: 1

    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.

  95. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL you are an idiot. Go grab your guns tho, some Mexicans are at our borders.

    Why aren't you protecting the borders? You want the guns, you got them, Gave them to your 15 year old children. Now strap up and do what you said you would do.

  96. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are talking to a person, who thought it was a good idea; to give his 12 year old son a gun for his birthday.

    Because you know, tradition. LUL. Never know when you are gonna need that militia.

  97. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. Empty slogans mean nothing.

  98. They should just move that work to Disneyland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where dreams really do come true.

  99. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
  100. I can agree with this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at how shitty Texas drivers are. They don't even wait for an on/offramp to enter/exit the interstate!

    I mean seriously anyone who has ever been on the interstates in Texas (particularly the N/S ones) will have seen the grooves through the dirt/grass along the roads. The thousands or tens of thousands of dead armadillos, and if they went far enough south, the dirty polluted air caused by the dirty polluted gas of south texas.

    Having said that, if you're small town person, and you stay out of the shitty big cities, Texas can have a lot to offer you. Most of the worst parts of texas are related to the yuppie migration from their original Silicon Valley back in the 20s-50s, which I will note is where all the initial seeders of silicon valley came from (and why they chose farm country!)

  101. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    The tighter the grip, the more control you lose.

  102. Will Dragon replace Space Shuttle TX License? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I miss the Space Shuttle log in the Texas License place. Will Space X Dragon show up in the Texas License plate?

  103. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Weak troll is weak.

  104. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    You mean by screaming "Impeach the motherfucker" to a crowd of cheering plebes? That kind of demagoguery?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  105. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Shotgun · · Score: 2

    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?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  106. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  107. Musk should leave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple fact of the matter is that he is a rich, white, male who builds giant phallus's. These types are not welcome there.

  108. CA has gone insane politically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The voters elected a whacko (Jerry "moonbeam" Brown) and a super-majority of Democrats in both the Assembly and the Senate and Democrats to all other state offices. These politicians went wild with leftist activity, increasing poverty and homelessness in the state, driving middle class people out of the state, hammering businesses with taxes and regulations, and wasting BILLIONS of tax dollars per year (23 Billion on illegal aliens alone in 2017, including free lawyers. Billions on a a slow "highspeed train" to nowhere. etc).

    In the recent Novemer elections, the voters doubled-down and elected Gavin (a younger and far more left wing version of Jerry) and boosted Democrat control of the state to far more than even super-majorities. CA is now effectively a one-party state with elections rigged so that it may be impossible to ever recover it. If you are going to start or grow a non-internet company (one that MAKES things rather than just pushing bits) and you plan to be in business 10 years from now, you are insane to start or grow it in California.

  109. Marconi plays the mamba by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Sounds like corporations playing corporation games.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  110. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    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 Texas has some good reason to go blue.

    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.

    We can also say goodbye to our rights and hello to massive Federal invasion of our lives and business.

    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.

    The 2nd amendment will be run over....and when that goes, you can bet other constitutional protected things will be cut away too, like the 1st....and 4th...and....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  111. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by balbeir · · Score: 1

    That makes sense. There is not much to see above ground in most of Texas anyway.

  112. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  113. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by lgw · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  114. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by lgw · · Score: 1

    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"?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  115. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  116. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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, and the demand for them might push my house toward a million here soon. In that case I'll sell it and move to a less expensive area, and keep 500 K of the money.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  117. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  118. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    If only you came with something that was true. But you didnt.

    The school was put there after the plant was there. You are a complete fucking asshole moron.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  119. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Rutulian · · Score: 1

    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 spending $3000/mo on housing that leaves $6000/mo left for "not housing." If you dump 1/3 of your income into retirement, which is highly recommended, that still leaves $3000/mo, which is quite a lot. So that's why you'll see people at this income level often spend significantly more than 1/3 on housing. Whether that's affordable depends on what you need the rest of your income for. If you are paying off lots of debt (ex: med school loans), you won't find it affordable. But if you are mostly debt free, you can spend more on housing easily and probably also still afford a tesla. ;) Either way, it is nowhere close to poverty.

    which according to a pay calculator I found requires an income of $375,000 in California.

    You clearly don't know how to use that pay calculator then. If your numbers were right, your hypothetical person would be having a ~2/3 withholding from their paycheck, which is ludicrous, even if you consider all levels of taxes and things like the AMT. A single person making ~$200k could theoretically be taking home ~9k/mo after withholding, which is a high, but not crazy salary. Two people living together could easily make that as joint income.

  120. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Oh+really+now · · Score: 1

    The stunningly large number of California license plates showing up in my new'ish master planned community in Texas year after year says you're dead wrong.

  121. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    https://smartasset.com/taxes/c...

    Slide it up until your take-home is $9000.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  122. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Rutulian · · Score: 1

    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.

  123. Re:California is too expensive for a billionaire.. by dougTheRug · · Score: 1

    It looks like the stainless steel spacecraft prototype was destroyed in a storm. https://www.reddit.com/r/Enoug...

  124. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    Both.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  125. Re: California is too expensive for a billionaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not GP.

    Lol you're such an idiot.

    How, specifically, is "Trump doing Russia's bidding?" And how has it affected this country? I don't expect an answer from you that hasn't been regurgitated from whatever tf the news has been feeding you. Inb4 "RUSHHAAN TROLLLLE"