California has a $75bn budget surplus
thehill.com
thehill.com
I wouldn't make the blanket argument that you get what you pay for, in government or anywhere else, but you very rarely get what you don't pay for.
You are definitely correct that California has a massive economy.
I'm not really commenting on California's economy or anyone else's though. I'm simply saying California and things like CalPERS are reliant on high equities valuations to maintain their solvency.
Thank you for asking a question instead of resorting to a flame war. I'll try to come up with a better way to get my point across.
Why do we single out Government for this treatment? We don't generally say "Look at that homeowner, with that mortgage, the just can't help spending more than they have." We certainly don't say that about startups raising funds, either...
1. Pushing pension funds toward solvency (perhaps the rising stock market has helped a bit there already). 2. Reducing fire hazards by burying power lines. 3. Improving the dire housing situation by providing funds for development of more housing, or incentivising cities via money payments to encourage more housing. 4. Providing incentives to companies that are leaving for Texas, thus boosting long-term employment prospects.
Are any of these included in the spending plan? It appears that a huge bulk of it is simply a giveaway to the voter base that is likely to vote for this Governor next year.
The only positive I see is that there appears to be some work to alleviate the housing issues by reducing pressure on renters (and landlords), thereby averting further catastrophes in housing (even more people becoming homeless).
For those of us not familiar with the daily activities of the government of California, can you provide a reference link giving details about "the last time we gave away free houses"?
The government spent around $400k per home that is essentially a single car garage. Economics of these just don’t work. But the politicians get good publicity.
From your link:
"at one-eighth of the standard cost of development...Each bedroom unit has its own bathroom and shower to allow for isolation during the pandemic". So there are special pandemic isolation considerations factored in, which surely increases costs. That doesn't sound terrible if real shelter is being provided.
Do we think that California can just ship homeless people off somewhere else that won't then try to ship them back? Or do we think that the cost of building new infrastructure for them all in the middle of nowhere will be lower than the cost of building housing in already established infrastructure? I mean, it's obviously not as cheap as dumping them in the ocean, but that's not our target standard.
Between your link and the other person:
300 people sounds very different than "them all".
I guess if you get arrested in California after that maybe you get exiled to Siberia or something
Because morality isn't measured by how much money you can save watching your neighbors rot. Well...to some people anyway. We start with the desire to benefit others as the first principle and then determine how to do it. That's called being prosocial rather than antisocial.
The poster was responding to somebody that was being forced to do something that they didn’t want to, and the response was something along the lines of moral obligation. This is obviously not the shared opinion, and has no objective basis to it, so that argument could be, and has been, abused to justify any kind of force.
It would be more honest to just admit that the situation has a lot more to do with power than morals, which I think is what you are getting at: there is no voice, only exit.
But actually you are wrong about that. I paid California taxes for several years spent overseas. The only tie I had was a bank account.
Side note: there are some other jurisdictions around the world that have some innovative public funding models based on payer choice with minimum contribution set by vote. This is sort of like the Marilyn Vos Savant “you cut I choose” model, and it seems to me that such a market model would vastly outcompete the command contribution model for delivering social benefit.
A significant amount of the homeless, really do just need a bit of help. But they also need to get out of California, it's by far the worst state in America for working-class people.