|
Post by giantkillers83 on Sept 2, 2020 18:48:12 GMT -8
And? Water is wet. No new info in any of that. Prove it.
|
|
|
Post by giantkillers83 on Sept 2, 2020 18:58:30 GMT -8
From Seattle Times: “There’s already negative recruiting going on,” 247Sports national recruiting editor Brandon Huffman said. “It’s like, ‘Hey, we care about your kid’s wellbeing, but we also still care about football more than the Pac-12 does or the Big Ten does. We’re taking all these precautionary measures, but we’re also still supporting these kids’ efforts to play football.’ “So I think now they’re going to have to deal with the already permeating feeling that football is just not as serious out west. I think the good schools in the Pac-12 are able to offset that. “… Will the Pac-12 even have a spring season? Can you see their states saying, ‘No, we’re not playing in the spring either’? If they end up losing a year, I’m not saying the Pac-12 is going to become a Group of Five conference. But do they pretty much solidify their standing as the least relevant Power Five conference if they don’t play football in the spring? Probably.” “One of the initial responses I heard from the (Pac-12) conference’s fans was, ‘Oh, we’re going to have an easier time recruiting.’ Well, no you’re not,” Huffman said. “The NCAA keeps pushing back the dead period. Coaches have all this free time but no ability to get on the road and evaluate and recruit. I looked at it like with my kids doing activities and playing sports in the spring and summer. I’ve never been more available to go to their events, but if there are no events to go to, then it really doesn’t make a difference. “That’s kind of how coaches are. If they’re not allowed to get on the road, yeah, they’re not having to game plan for State U this weekend. So they can watch more (highlight tapes) and do more zoom calls and all that. But if they’re not getting the face time in person with these guys it really is all for naught.” But if they play, the Pac-12’s omnipresent perception problem will be amplified even more. www.seattletimes.com/sports/uw-husky-football/theres-already-negative-recruiting-going-on-how-fall-sec-acc-and-big-12-football-seasons-would-impact-pac-12-recruiting/If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic. $$$$$$$$
|
|
|
Post by beavers84 on Sept 2, 2020 19:16:07 GMT -8
On the measure of GDP of California, alone, is the 5th largest economy in the world. But you know, somethingsomething socialist, communists, bankruptcy. Whatever. Despite being 1 of 50, it makes up close to 20% of all of America's total GDP. To tack on to beaverbeliever said, California's GDP growth in 2019 was 15th in the country behind Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. That is behind the three states that touch California and the five states that touch those three states. Moreover, California imports approximately 26% of its energy. California imports more energy than the two largest net importing states combined: Ohio and Virginia. The states surrounding California subsidize California's energy needs. And California's energy rates are still almost double what they are in the surrounding three states. California also imports water from Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. California gets 4.4 million acre feet of water per year (more than 10% of its total usage) from the Colorado River alone. Without the other states around to prop California up, California would not be California. The state is an unsustainable economic mirage. Some folks will never understand the importance of an independent energy and water supply until they don’t have it ,say like last week with the rolling blackouts because the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine all of the time when it’s hot and by the way you need to invest in the ole transmission grid. Maybe not divert all of your forest management funds to social programs and you can mitigate some of the horrible fires that are occurring there every year rather than blaming it on global warming. I lived in the Bay Area from 84 to 96 and it has become an exponentially worse place to live or even visit. I have good friends there and many are leaving the day they retire. They are taxing the middle class out of the state as well as many businesses. More people are also going to work remotely now from other states with the Covid mess and they are not going back.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 2, 2020 21:03:42 GMT -8
To tack on to beaverbeliever said, California's GDP growth in 2019 was 15th in the country behind Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. That is behind the three states that touch California and the five states that touch those three states. Moreover, California imports approximately 26% of its energy. California imports more energy than the two largest net importing states combined: Ohio and Virginia. The states surrounding California subsidize California's energy needs. And California's energy rates are still almost double what they are in the surrounding three states. California also imports water from Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. California gets 4.4 million acre feet of water per year (more than 10% of its total usage) from the Colorado River alone. Without the other states around to prop California up, California would not be California. The state is an unsustainable economic mirage. moving ye olde goalposts post of the day. My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians.
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 2, 2020 22:54:54 GMT -8
On the measure of GDP of California, alone, is the 5th largest economy in the world. But you know, somethingsomething socialist, communists, bankruptcy. Whatever. Despite being 1 of 50, it makes up close to 20% of all of America's total GDP. To tack on to beaverbeliever said, California's GDP growth in 2019 was 15th in the country behind Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. That is behind the three states that touch California and the five states that touch those three states. Moreover, California imports approximately 26% of its energy. California imports more energy than the two largest net importing states combined: Ohio and Virginia. The states surrounding California subsidize California's energy needs. And California's energy rates are still almost double what they are in the surrounding three states. California also imports water from Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. California gets 4.4 million acre feet of water per year (more than 10% of its total usage) from the Colorado River alone. Without the other states around to prop California up, California would not be California. The state is an unsustainable economic mirage. California does import a lot of electricity and water, but it is a function of the population size more than anything else. California consistently gets very high marks for water and energy efficiency. People are moving out of the state, but it's not just taxes. The fact is that the cost of living, especially in the coastal areas, is insane. People are making over $200,000 a year and can't afford even an average single-family home in most of the coastal cities between Mexico and Marin County (that's the county just north of the Golden Gate Bridge). There is so much money in California and so many people have moved here, along with foreign investment in the real estate market, that the economic forces have made prices unreachable for a great many people.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Sept 3, 2020 4:29:47 GMT -8
California has roughly 40 million people. Ohio and Virginia have about 20 million people combined. I would assume California would use and need more energy than those two states.
I don't know what the GDP is for those states mentioned but I am guessing that the GDP base for California is so high that even a moderate increase seems small as a percentage compared to a GDP from those other states.
By the way where you going to get fresh fruit and vegetable in January if not for California. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 3, 2020 6:42:42 GMT -8
On the measure of GDP of California, alone, is the 5th largest economy in the world. But you know, somethingsomething socialist, communists, bankruptcy. Whatever. Despite being 1 of 50, it makes up close to 20% of all of America's total GDP. To tack on to beaverbeliever said, California's GDP growth in 2019 was 15th in the country behind Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. That is behind the three states that touch California and the five states that touch those three states. Moreover, California imports approximately 26% of its energy. California imports more energy than the two largest net importing states combined: Ohio and Virginia. The states surrounding California subsidize California's energy needs. And California's energy rates are still almost double what they are in the surrounding three states. California also imports water from Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. California gets 4.4 million acre feet of water per year (more than 10% of its total usage) from the Colorado River alone. Without the other states around to prop California up, California would not be California. The state is an unsustainable economic mirage. I didn't know that the Colorado River belonged to Arizona and Nevada. That's new to me. The mouth of the river is at the Gulf of California, also known as the Cortez Sea. That's Mexico. Maybe the river belongs to them. I've done a lot of large development work in California. California has the greatest percentage use of renewables of all the states. California spends billions and billions of dollars on that. The water from Oregon is from the Klamath basin. It goes to support the San Joaquin valley agricultural industry. It's not used for residential. And you would be amazed at the mitigation efforts even in the solar plants to protect Kangaroo rats. California's environmental standards are the strictest of any state.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Sept 3, 2020 7:25:09 GMT -8
If the Pac 12 sucks so much, how did Oregon net a 5* quarterback and the 5th best recruiting class in the nation? Pretty sure recruitment at Ohio State won’t skip a beat either. I suspect the issues that the Pac 12 have with recruiting are older than the COVID pandemic. $$$$$$$$ There you have it. Last year, you would have given the same answer. And the year before that. So will the Pac 12’s response to COVID damage recruiting? Nope.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Sept 3, 2020 8:40:48 GMT -8
California has roughly 40 million people. Ohio and Virginia have about 20 million people combined. I would assume California would use and need more energy than those two states. I don't know what the GDP is for those states mentioned but I am guessing that the GDP base for California is so high that even a moderate increase seems small as a percentage compared to a GDP from those other states. By the way where you going to get fresh fruit and vegetable in January if not for California. Just saying. Mexico and Central America.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 3, 2020 9:32:32 GMT -8
moving ye olde goalposts post of the day. My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. I give about zero total f%#*s about California. My entire point is the idea that the west coast is full of stupid and/or incompetent socialist is... stupid. Long story short, 40 million people do not move to a place because it sucks. You do not build the largest economy in the US, by a massive margin, because everybody there are morons. Likewise, if you are going to put 40 million people in one place, you are going to have problems. Anybody can cherry pick whatever stat they want to make whatever point they want to make. Anybody can continue to be a malcontent about anything. It doesn't matter where you live, or how great the place is, there WILL be somebody there that hates it and thinks everything is terrible. As the old saying goes, if every where you go, it smells like s%#t, it is time to look under your shoes.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Sept 3, 2020 9:55:51 GMT -8
My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. I give about zero total f%#*s about California. My entire point is the idea that the west coast is full of stupid and/or incompetent socialist is... stupid. Long story short, 40 million people do not move to a place because it sucks. You do not build the largest economy in the US, by a massive margin, because everybody there are morons. Likewise, if you are going to put 40 million people in one place, you are going to have problems. Anybody can cherry pick whatever stat they want to make whatever point they want to make. Anybody can continue to be a malcontent about anything. It doesn't matter where you live, or how great the place is, there WILL be somebody there that hates it and thinks everything is terrible. As the old saying goes, if every where you go, it smells like s%#t, it is time to look under your shoes. Easy, killer.
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Sept 3, 2020 11:31:49 GMT -8
My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. I give about zero total f%#*s about California. My entire point is the idea that the west coast is full of stupid and/or incompetent socialist is... stupid. Long story short, 40 million people do not move to a place because it sucks. You do not build the largest economy in the US, by a massive margin, because everybody there are morons. Likewise, if you are going to put 40 million people in one place, you are going to have problems. Anybody can cherry pick whatever stat they want to make whatever point they want to make. Anybody can continue to be a malcontent about anything. It doesn't matter where you live, or how great the place is, there WILL be somebody there that hates it and thinks everything is terrible. As the old saying goes, if every where you go, it smells like s%#t, it is time to look under your shoes. Huh. Sounds like the same could be said in regards to the USA as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 3, 2020 12:00:50 GMT -8
moving ye olde goalposts post of the day. My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. comparing total gdp to gdp growth. Cool. So you’re saying a state with smaller total gdp has a faster growth rate. And that proves what?
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Sept 3, 2020 13:15:41 GMT -8
My post was in direct response to ATown's post and the other posts before and after ATown's post. The previous posts mentioned housing prices, how great the economy of California is and how much the Federal government takes in in taxes. If I am hijacking the thread, so be it. California is heavily subsidized by the states around it. California is unsustainable. It speaks to the great management of the states around it and the Federal government that California can do what it does without more problems. California is a mirage. It is an excellent example of what not to do. To try and assert otherwise completely ignores the larger picture. As Arizona, Nevada and Oregon continue to fill up, California is going to be put under more and more pressure to be more self-sustaining. I lived in California for three years before the Great Recession. The best view of California is in my rearview mirror as I cross over the Colorado River. The problem with California still is that there are too many Californians. comparing total gdp to gdp growth. Cool. So you’re saying a state with smaller total gdp has a faster growth rate. And that proves what? FWIW, and not that I want to keep talking about California or even defending a place I really don't even care about.... their actual growth in economy between 2018 and 2019 was close to half of Oregon's total economic output. California grew one half an Oregon... yeah, that ranked 15th in percent growth, but lets think of the magnitude involved here.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 8, 2020 13:41:47 GMT -8
California has roughly 40 million people. Ohio and Virginia have about 20 million people combined. I would assume California would use and need more energy than those two states. I don't know what the GDP is for those states mentioned but I am guessing that the GDP base for California is so high that even a moderate increase seems small as a percentage compared to a GDP from those other states. By the way where you going to get fresh fruit and vegetable in January if not for California. Just saying. I am talking about deficits. California only produces 74% of its actual electrical power needs. It imports the other 26% of its electrical power needs. California produces the 12th-most energy in the country but consumes the 2nd-most energy in the country. It has the United States of America's highest GDP, but is 48th in production of GDP per energy used. The only states that are less efficient at turning energy into wealth are Massachusetts and New York (and the District of Columbia). To put another way, the Continental United States is made up of 4-6 electrical energy grids, depending on how independent you consider the Midwest, Reliability First and SERC. They include Florida, the Midwest, the Northeast (seven states), Reliability First, SERC, Texas and Western. Florida, the Northeast, Reliability First and SERC make up what is known as the Eastern interconnection. Texas is its own interconnection and consists of most of Texas. The Western Interconnection consists of the seven westernmost continental states plus CO and WY, most of MT and NM (the Northeastern part of MT and the Southeastern part of NM are part of the Eastern Interconnection), and parts of South Dakota (the Black Hills) and Texas (extreme west). The Western Interconnection also consists of Alberta and British Columbia and part of Baja California. Focusing on the United States' portion of the Western Interconnection, California produces 29% of the grid's total power but consumes 39%. California, Colorado and Idaho are energy importers. Excluding the slivers of South Dakota and Texas, the other eight states in the Western Interconnection are energy exporters. As of 2018, Colorado operates at a deficit of 1,064,201 Mwh. Idaho operates at a deficit of 5,581,388 (the fourth-largest energy importing state per capita behind only DC, DE, MA and MD). California operates at a net deficit of 59,958,864 Mwh. That is more than 56 times larger than Colorado's deficit. Per capita, that is more than eight times larger than Colorado's deficit. The largest single electricity transmission Intertie in the United States is the Pacific Intertie (Paths 65--DC--and 66--AC--collectively), which together can transfer 7,880 MW (up to 69,028,800 Mwh/yr.) from the Bonneville and John Day Dams to California, Nevada and the rest of Oregon. The Intertie consists of four AC lines (three to California and one to Oregon) and one DC line. The DC line alone can serve between two and three million Los Angeles residences and supplies power to almost half of the power to Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (which includes the City of Los Angeles as well as parts of Bishop, Culver City, South Pasadena and West Hollywood).
|
|