Silicon Valley VCs: We're gonna make California great again – on its own With protests against Donald Trump's US presidential election victory turning violent in California, a group of venture capitalists from Silicon Valley are funding an initiative to allow the Golden State to secede from the US. Dubbed Calexit, the movement has found a sponsor in Shervin Pishevar, MD at Sherpa Capital – an early …
That's just it. California can't pull up needed resources because the state can't survive on silicon valley alone and they aren't likely to ever do the smart thing and start a desalination plant to get a useful amount of water. The Colorado River supplies most of the water in the southern part of the state so the southland and surrounds will have to renegotiate their water deal with what they consider a hostile nation.
Also, they can kiss goodbye all that lucrative federal government work. JPL goes away, Boeing goes away, all the defense contractors go away, the US military bases go away. How big is that economy really when you take away the federal government? The California economy is the result of vast amounts of federal investment including silicon valley. I'm sorry but the reality is that the federal government is so deeply entwined with the Californian economy that to speak of them being the 6th biggest economy in isolation only shows a deeply flawed analysis as does the simplistic measure of "taxes out" vs "welfare back" definition of being a "net contributor".
It is pretty arrogant to think nothing changes should California prove itself to be nothing more than just another unstable country. Any place that wants to change its entire government simply because the elites didn't get their way is the very definition of unstable.
In the end, a Cal-exit would serve to weaken the U.S. but it would likely be fatal to California. Finally ask yourself this, if California can support itself agriculturally why does more than 80% of the produce in my local LA area market come from Mexico?
Why does most of the produce I get in Alabama says from California ?Marketing? Dunno about the US, but here in Tasmania we grow a huge amount of fresh produce that gets shipped across the Bass Strait to the wholesale market in Victoria. Tasmania's needs are then shipped back to Tasmanian supermarkets (The "Fresh" Food People). My farm used to grow "Collinsvale" swedes (rutabagas) because everyone knows the bestest swedes come from Collinsvale. So the swedes from Franklin used to be trucked to Collinsvale on the opposite side of the city before delivering them to Hobart.
Apropos secession, it amused me that when I first arrived in Tasmania in 1970 there was much talk of this. Our political masters told us it would never work because Tasmania was a net sink for taxes. Closer investigation revealed that many of Tasmania's major businesses had registered head offices in Victoria and New South Wales (because taxes), so income actually earned in Tasmania was deemed to be earned interstate.
It's a strange world.
That's the wrong flag for the New California Republic. It has to depict a mutant two-headed bear born out of the post-apocalyptic nuclear wasteland from the China-United States war of 2077.
See the following encyclopedia entry about it: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/New_California_Republic
In other words: that's exactly how seriously this proposal needs to be taken.
Wait, wait...
California is too commie for the rednecks. OK, got that.
Rednecks want more regulation and redistribution of wealth ('make 'em pay taxes") from the big companies that make so much money and don't pay enough tax. That's a typical socialist idea. A Commie idea, in other, more Trumpy words.
I guess you have to be a university student to be a real Commie. Just wanting stuff from the richer is OK if you are a redneck. Not Commie then. Simples.
However, the real Commie revolutions were always underpinned by the uneducated lower classes...
If only it were possible for the rest of the world to secede from Trump's America, protecting our future generations from the disaster of global warming, which he dismisses despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, we'd all be a lot better off.
Alas, we're all stuck here on this rock with the calamitous buffoon, and our descendants will die with his, probably a lot earlier than we otherwise would have. A bitter-sweet outcome...
All great empires eventually fail. Rome, Greece. Now China, India, Brazil are replacing the US, and Trump and supporters are driving the nails in.
What a pity. Once a nation we could all admire and aspire to, now in such a decline with a leader driving us to moral (waterboarding**) and physical (warming) destruction that we need to look elsewhere.
** http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50536/waterboarding/
Do yourself a favour. Go buy (and read) Tim Marshall's excellent book...Hmmm, I have two of Tim Marshall's books: Weed and Composting. The latter is inscribed "From one rotter to another". I must read this book whereof you squeak.
Texas entered the United States with a contract that says it can exit at any time. This would be highly inconvenient, since the national power grid would be split in twain, but legal.
We should allow California to split into three, as the northern part wants, and lose the bottom two, San Francisco and Los Angeles, to see if anyone notices they're gone before they starve.
With Californias multiple attempts to split itself into upwards of four separate States (Northern, Southern, Eastern, & Seaside IIRC) that have all failed, it comes as no surprise that this old turd has resurfaced from the toilet once Trump won. It seems it floats to see some sunshine after every major event, flails, then sinks back down to pout in the depths from whence it came.
I don't believe it will happen this time either no matter HOW badly those disconnected VCs from Silicon Valley may want; they may bankroll another initiative to get it to the voters, but the voters will slap it/them down once again as the idiocy it is. Split off? And what about all those Federally Matching Funds the State gets for all those pork barrel projects the electorate likes to start? Will those same VCs instead pay to keep those projects funded, or will all those FMF vanish like every other fly-by-night shit-for-brains idea to come out of SV?
I fully agree that California should split itself into Northern & Southern States, that way us Northerners can stop sending all the water^1 & food^2 to Los Angeles/Hollywood to leave us high & dry.
^1: Northern California sends the bulk of the water we receive from mountain run off to the South, thus making olympic swimming pools & mansion lawn overwatering to the tune of a million gallons per month possible, all while the REST of us are dealing with a multi year drought.
^2: We may be the agricultural breadbasket of the State, but the bulk of everything we grow is sent South to feed LA/Hollywood. What they use in a *DAY* could feed the rest of us for a *YEAR*.
So splitting California into North & South makes sense, especially if the North then stops exporting all our resources South to feed the beast that is home of the MPAA/RIAA.
But California splitting off entirely from the USA? I don't see that happening unless we all line up on the San Andreas Fault with prybars & turn the State into an island... Lord knows we Northerners want to do that with SoCal badly enough!
*Cough*
"And what about all those Federally Matching Funds"
Last I checked, the rest of the US returned 96 cents on every dollar that California contributed to the federal coffers ... A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Central Valley as well. Hell, just create a Seaside that contains: San Francisco, the People's Republics of Santa Barbara and Santa Monica, and Los Angeles and put a Wall there too! /sarc
San Diego would stay. It's the major cities against the rest of the state when you look at all the data anyway. [That's true of the country as a whole as well.]
If N California stops sending food south, then S California stops sending the money to pay for it back north. After a moment of thought, each side decides a trade deal is a really good idea. I have no idea if such a deal would be better or worse than what is happening at the moment, but the starvation and poverty plan does not sound like the best idea in the world.
"And what about all those Federally Matching Funds the State gets for all those pork barrel projects the electorate likes to start?"
Well the same situation doesn't seem to have stopped the Brexiteers from convincing the UK to cut its nose off to spite its face with the EU funding its now going to lose.
There's one HUGE difference between the UK losing EU funding and California losing US funding. The UK is paying the EU a pittance, while California pays more federal taxes than any other state. If they lost the federal funding but also lost the federal taxes, they'd come out ahead. The same can't be said for the UK WRT losing EU funding and losing the money they pay the EU.
Of course, as an independent country next door to an aggressive military power like the US, California would have to start its own military. They could pay them in pot though, which should keep the cost down :)
They could pay them in pot though, which should keep the cost down :)Dunno about being paid with drugs, members of the US military certainly subsidise their income with drugs. When the USS Enterprise visited Hobart in 1976 the city was flooded with LSD (branded red,white and blue) and cannabis in several forms. Hobartians were also introduced to smack and speed that had hitherto been rarely used here. I remember thinking: "These fuckers are in charge of nuclear weapons and flying supersonic aircraft while they are completely shit-faced". It was an interesting week to say the least.
We should allow California to split into three, as the northern part wants, and lose the bottom two, San Francisco and Los Angeles, to see if anyone notices they're gone before they starve.
I've long thought New York State needs to kick NYC out. Would be a much more reasonable place without that lot.
I thought when Texas joined there was some sort of written agreement that allowed the state to secede? Or was it just to be able to break up into five smaller states?
Things are becoming way too polarized though. Every election it seems the losing side becomes more extreme in their discontent. I think the internet is a lot of the reason. It used to be you didn't have much choice in your media so you couldn't help but have some understanding how the other side thinks, now you can get it slanted to fit your preferences and people doing that isolate themselves from the other half of the country (or in more extreme cases, even from most of their own party)
I think the modern world probably lends itself better to a coalition form of government with more than two parties, instead of trying to shoehorn it into our antiquated system where it is see as the end of the world to a democrat if a republican wins, or vice versa.
First hit on a google, no, they can't secede: https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/can-texas-legally-secede-united-states/
Of course, "What's the point of a revolution without general copulation copulation copulation " - The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat As Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade
Gee those douche canoes see no problem with multi billion dollar companies having only 40 employees with a CEO on the Forbes list but then wonder when Zed on welfare and oxycontin in Appalachia doesn't share their world view. I understand its not up to the companies to be there to provide jobs but considering Silicon Valley has probably done more than anywhere else outside DC or Wall St. to fuel this the Gilded Age 2.0 its pretty rich of them to complain now.
" Zed on welfare and oxycontin in Appalachia"
I presume that as we speak Zed and his buddy Cooter are screwing the lids firmly back on their jars, packing away the still* and heading for Silicon Valley to take up all those soon to be vacant technical jobs - or maybe they (and a few others) need just a tad more education before the golden dream of a great 'murica with jobs for all comes true..
In the meantime, while Zed and Cooter are finishing their education and completing their engineering degrees, perhaps some of those nice, qualified, people from overseas can keep the industry going until our two friends are ready to take over?
If a company only needs 40 employees it only needs 40 employees, regardless of the size of its balance sheet or how wealthy the owner is - it is not the role of a commercial company to create unnecessary jobs just because they can. In most countries that's a government function realized via publicly funded infrastructure projects, but for some reason the average US citizen appears to consider this to be a blasphemy and dang it, nobody better be thinkin' of taxing me to pay for it!
If you're really concerned about providing long term, viable and local jobs for Zed and Cooter, start pushing for taxpayer funded research on things that will drive industry in their locale that they actually have a hope of being able to work at - clean ways to use coal for energy, so that mining can restart, would be a good beginning for a lot of people in that part of the states.
* Yes, I'm sure that not all of Apalachia is populated by Zed and Cooter, but after watching a few episodes of 'Moonshiners' .........................
>In the meantime, while Zed and Cooter are finishing their education
Ha good one. Ok hyperbole point taken.
>If a company only needs 40 employees it only needs 40 employees,
Which is fine but the owners complaining about the unwashed masses when they are giving king's sums to influence government often in a way that disadvantages everybody but them and their country club buddies comes across as less than genuine. A lot of these asshats are ones you read about doing everything in their power to keep the public away from the beaches they aren't allowed to own. No one drop thinks its responsible for the flood and there is a hell of a lot of Zed and Cooters out there.
I guess disruptive is only good when you are flouting local laws, getting people to work without the protections of being a employee in the gig economy, and jacking up housing prices due to short term rentals and other gentrification bull crap. Why would the proles not think like you (granted they just shot off their balls to prove a point)?
A short time before the election, several articles appeared about self-driving commercial trucks being tested. The most popular refuge job for working persons being openly touted as expendable. And partly by companies like Uber, who are already famous for ripping off drivers.
Links to those articles appeared all over the online trucking forums and news sites. These are people who know how to fix one, but not enough to know that the tech is basically at the level of a Popular Mechanics future-thingie-flying-car cover story, not a real imminent possibility.
Silicon Valley, far as I'm concerned, can just fucking soak in it. It's one of those "what you mean, *we're* surrounded, kimosabe?" kind of moments for me.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Pacific plate isn't subducting under the continental plate, rather they are grinding past each other along a mostly north/south boundary called a "strike slip" fault. In fact, given enough time the LA/San Diego metroplex will become a suburb of the San Francisco Bay Area (not that we want them).
The subducting plate you are looking for was called the Farallon Plate, but that little bit of earthworks mostly finished a couple tens of million years ago. Remnants remain North of the Mendocino Triple Junction and South of the Rivera Triple Junction, but I assure you that none of California is returning from whence it came any time soon.
Possible confusion with the Cascadia subduction zone here on Doc's behalf?
Anyway, California's geology is a very interesting subject.
Self-indulgent, whiny, university-educated drama queens who are lousy Americans.
If Hillary had won and Wyoming or South Carolina had suggested secession (v2.0 for South Carolina!), Hillary supporters would have been laughing at them. Plus when these high-paid dolts leave and take California's safe, blue-state status with them, they screw over their democrat friends remaining in the rest of the country. I guess its solidarity for me, but not for thee!
And no, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in our system.
1: If Hillary had win, you wouldn't have a pervert president. There's a difference between getting someone you don't like, and someone who's not up for the job.
2: Anyone with an IQ over 80 ( although granted that excludes around half of the US electorate, and 52% of the British electorate ) would laugh at Wyoming or South Carolina seceeding; Wyoming is land-locked, and neither have the infrastructure, or economy to go it alone. Trump supporters would be laughing at Vermont or Minnesota going it alone, and Hillary supporters wouldn't be laughing at Texas proposing to go it alone.
3: Your system is what's screwed up here; The electoral college system of US voting means that the Republicans and Democrats have a Duopoly on who's going to be the President of the United States. If the US dropped it's backwards Electoral College system, and embraced Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote, people could vote for who they wanted to be President, and not just against the person they don't.
Sounds like those oaths of loyalty people make at citizenship ceremonies are meaningless repetitions for some who just want a short cut to a better life. Maybe they should quit the pretence and replace the ceremony with a blessing that may you all get filthy rich. Some disposable midwestern kid can be sent to risk their life overseas paving the way for future profiteering since the military is never used to actually defend America any more.
I'm pretty sure California is only agriculturally sufficient thanks to all the cheap (i.e. Federally subsidised) water they get from Arizona. How well do they think California's farmers would do if they had to pay market rates for all the water, while being in competition with California's cities.
What happens when all of the Military-Industrial-Complex corporates leave - Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, BAE, L-3, General Atomics, not to mention NASA, US Marines/Army/Navy/Air Force/Coast Guard?
Water in California is a funny thing. The H2O we get from Arizona goes into the LA basin, to keep all those swimming pools full. On the other hand, we send our own water down into the desert to grow cotton and rice to feed & clothe the rest of the USofA. Without the rest of the US to feed and clothe, we can afford to lose the AZ water supply.
However, while we have plenty of water if we're not growing crops for everyone else, we'd have problems shifting it around to where it's needed without the hydroelectricity from Hoover.
(Note that I'm not pro or anti "Sovereign California" or "Yes California", or whatever it calls itself these days ... I just view the concept as an interesting "what if" mind game, and have done for about 50 years since I first heard about the idea.)
An excellent, accurate, and essential observation.
The Colorado River water (that is, the water from Arizona) indeed goes into the swimming pools and lawns and carwashes of SoCal.
Meanwhile, the water for agricultural here in the Central Valley is from annual snow-runoff from the Sierra Nevada mountains. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for more than a century, has diverted mountain rivers into artificial reservoirs to capture as much as possible in order to slake the thirst of the Central Valley's massive agriculture.
As for domestic water use here in the Central Valley, my municipality has doubled the price of water in the past two years. My front yard is brown. And so shall it stay. As for the pool, I bought the house not because of it, but in spite of it. Surprisingly, the pool demands much less water than a green lawn. And at least the pool means the rest of my backyard is concrete, not lawn turned brown.
I'm pretty sure California is only agriculturally sufficient thanks to all the cheap (i.e. Federally subsidised) water they get from Arizona. How well do they think California's farmers would do if they had to pay market rates for all the water, while being in competition with California's cities.
Kind of like NYC, then. The the big nasty stinkhole down there likes to head upstate and demand everyone run *their* lives just so NYC (which sits on the shores of an OCEAN, mind you) and sip tea in their posh sidewalk cafes on Park Avenue. Yeah, cut them off and let them run their own desalination plants instead.
"How well do they think California's farmers would do if they had to pay market rates"
Errr, what? Rivers flow where they will. You don't have to buy water from an upstream country if the water flows on down to yours anyway.
Unless you think Arizona is planning some big dams and some rather large inland lakes.
Yeah, there might be problems with amount of flow and who uses which amount of water and that might cause some tensions, but still, the water will generally flow where ever the geology makes it go.
There are plenty of countries around the world who mange to live and use the water from rivers which originate in other countries, sometimes passing through more than one other country.
This scheme *would* cause civil war-- *within* California.
California, culturally, is completely polarized.
The California one sees in the movies and on TV (that is, L.A. and S.F.) is a misrepresentation. Culturally, California is *not* a "blue" state.
The aforementioned schemes to split California into upwards of four states are grounded in the following: California is two big blue islands (again, L.A. and S.F, and for convenience I include Silicon Valley with S.F) in a sea of red. Sacramento is an atoll that is "blue". The rest is: San Diego and Orange county (both educational and economic powerhouses), a massive rural agricultural and petroleum output in the Great Central Valley (aka, San Joaquin Valley), isolated forests and mountains, and isolated coasts. In these latter areas, the folks may be few in number in contrast with the populations of the two aforementioned "blue" islands, but they are "red" staunch conservatives who couldn't be further culturally-alienated from the citizens of the two "blue" cities..
Indeed, these rural Californians would take up arms upon any serious attempt by California to secede.
I used to enjoy the stunned looks upon the faces of midwesterners arriving here in Central Valley: "This isn't what we've seen on the tube or in movies!?!"
But for a Californian, such as the sponsor of this secession initiative, to be so completely out-of-touch with his own state is not at all funny.
Sign me,
Lived and worked almost all over California for 36 years.
(and I happen to be "blue" in the sea of "red" that is the Central Valley-- so I just keep my mouth shut and shun bumper stickers on my car. Yes, I am a coward.)
The "divide" between the Red & Blue California isn't all that great. Rural needs to sell food, and urban knows they aren't equipped to produce their own. It's all a bug love-fest, actually.
Besides, we're united in our hatred for Sacramento politics.
Trump seems a bit thick.
He was moaning about not having CFC in his effing hairspray, because he was only going to use it indoors anyway!
How effing thick can a man be? Put him on some basic science classes for god's sake!
A intellectually lazy bullshitter with a talent for talking, and talking, and talking. Would fit right in as commie leader -or any kind of "never stops talking"-dictator.
I can't see him being very effective as prez.
Puppet POTUS with a Liberace hairdo.
And, BTW, if you know you are thick as a brick, DON'T EFFING VOTE!
You will only make things worse. Just abstain. OK?
Trump seems a bit thick....And, BTW, if you know you are thick as a brick, DON'T EFFING VOTE!As thick as you AC? You are supposedly living in a democracy. Yet I just saw on the TV news so-called Democrats calling for the deportation of their fellow citizens for not voting the way you wanted them to. Frankly, I find that disgusting.
"How effing thick can a man be? Put him on some basic science classes for god's sake!"
To me, this seems to be one of the downsides of the US political system. An incoming President surrounds themselves with all of their own advisers and political appointees. So even as President, they don't really ever see the other side of the coin.
Is there anyone in the Whitehouse with actual clout who stays across administration changes?
"Is there anyone in the Whitehouse with actual clout who stays across administration changes?"
The kitchen staff.
And before you scoff, watch My Fellow Americans.
If you don't understand a thing, and therefore get enraged, when educated people talk, then you know you are thick.
If you get exited when someone shouts "get them out of the country", then you know you are thick.
I find yourself shouting and flailing with your arms when some orange baboon agitates from the podium, then you know you are thick.
Any one of these indicators is sufficient evidence.
Simples
NO.
The thing about being thick is that you don't KNOW you're thick. That's why you're thick in the first place: nothing gets through to you, not even the idea that you're thick.
It's like with stupid: a self-reinforcing loop that's extremely difficult to get through. It usually takes a crisis to do it, and if even that doesn't work, odds are they won't be alive to realize it.
"I thought when Texas joined there was some sort of written agreement that allowed the state to secede?"
Err, no.
"Or was it just to be able to break up into five smaller states?"
Yes, kind of.The resolution adding Texas as a US state does say that Texas can be split into as many as 4 additional states, with a comment that any split has to follow the US federal constitution. But that provision was just a meaningless marketing stunt added to impress the ignorant commoners in Texas. The US constitution has always permitted existing states to be split into multiple states if both that state and congress agree - and it has happened a few times (e.g. Maine, West Virginia). The provision didn't add any special new rights to Texas. But that meaningless provision has grown into a "Texas is so very special" myth perpetuated for 150 years by Texan ignorati.
"The point on states splitting with Congress' approval is the sticking point here - Texas' clause allows them to do so without."
No, it does not. Maybe you should read the &%^$#% thing before commenting - even the educated in Texas understand that "under the provisions of the Federal Constitution" means that they have to follow the same process as any other state that wants to split into pieces. Stop perpetuating an ignorant myth.
Actually Texas is the only state that can cesede from the union. But on another note, California will suffer if the manage it. Though they are a maker energy producer they still have to import almost 23 percent of thier power. That will hurt them badly. Yes that have a decent agriculture base, but not enough to support the population. They would have to impose strict border laws or suffer hugely when people come flock to California to immigrate. Import taxes out the nose. We don't need any electronics because those can be imported elsewhere cheaper. Since they wish to be independent, they will be considered a foreign product and not domestic. So they can't climate made in the USA. They have the entertainment industry, some agriculture, electronics and wine. All things we can live without from them. They also have the one of the highest consumer bases. I want to see how free education and Healthcare work out in the Republic of California.
The states of Washington and Oregon will join California - and maybe Nevada too. I would wish they'd like to have Colorado as a nom-contiguous member and perhaps New Mexico too. That configuration would have a decent chance of surviving. Self sufficiency is not required, just the means to make enough money to be successful globally - you can trade for things you don't make/grow yourself.
he thinks the state should go its own way because he doesn't like who has just been elected to the top job in the country.
Incorrect. I'm sure that as a vaguely lefty-liberal Californian type, he wouldn't have liked *any* Republitard. He probably really disliked George W. Bush, but he didn't launch this symbolic independence campaign then, and I very much doubt he'd have done so if we have President-Elect Rubio or Cruz today.
Trump is in a category of his own. The combination of stunning ignorance and an unbreakable belief in his own genius is a recipe for disaster on a scale not seen since the [First] Civil War.
Honestly, could Texas/California survive?
No Federal funding or support.
No military protection
Bases closed down. Ports would shut down because where would all those items go after we shut off the highway infrastructure to Texas/Calif. Once the gas/oil pipelines were shut off to America that would affect them as well. The airports would probably suffer, the NFL would have to pull their teams until they were able to expand to a foreign country. Most all necessities come from other places and not being able to get those would hurt. The trucking industry would suffer not being able to transport to a foreign country and all. Education would suffer as I'm sure that would be a bit mess trying to transfer from a foreign country to US schools. Good or bad it would still be a mess.
I know these are all dumb ideas, but think about it, could Texas or Calif handle all the trickle down once the 'imports' from America stopped, and once their 'exports' stopped ? There would have to be some disruptions while they setup their own distribution systems. Does Calif have enough beef/diary/pork/chicken to support itself?
Sounds dumb, but, if they want to leave, then they best come up with all these things on their own because the US should cut them off completely if that's what they realllllly want
If one part of a country secedes from another part in a democratic fashion, then there will be serious negotiations on the "national" infrastructure, including military resources with both sides wanting to retain cordial relations.
I very much doubt it would happen anyway, but the general feeling I'm getting from the comments is a lot of hate and revenge-like comments, "cut them off", "take back everything", "dam the Colorado". If, as has been said California is a net contributor to the US federal budget, then any negotiations would take into account that California paid for that federal infrastructure, including a portion of the military.
There seems to be an assumption from many here that it would be a forced secession on hostile terms, effectively a revolution and a possible civil war. As with the last civil war, it's worth remembering that there are Californians in the military and many bases plus much military equipment in California if a worst case scenario ever happened.
Likewise, why would the rest of the US "cut off" California, block the roads, shut down pipelines etc.? Do you really think the *only* way out is a hostile way?
Hillary won the popular vote by more than Kennedy or Nixon (or Gore, another sad tale of the electoral college anacrhonism). So there are more "blue" people than "red" people and the "blue" people are more affluent. Do you really think that will change in any way except where the "blue" people actually get richer and the "red" people get poorer. I don't think that's the result any of them are looking for but it is what it is. If they drive the "illegals" out then they can come and mow my lawn and clean my toilet or pick fruit because those are the "good jobs" those "illegals" are taking away from them. There is no way the high paying assembly line jobs are ever coming back - they are gone for good because a robot can do the job better and cheaper than a human being. The upside may be for older tech workers who have recently been replaced with lower paid H1-B folks. There will be jobs for those ready to retire, should they want to keep working. Age discrimination may slow a bit because there definitely are not enough properly educated young folks to step in to all the jobs now held by foreigners.
So the brass state (former golden state) wants to go off on it's own? Fine, California needs the rest of the US far more then we need California.
The radicals running the government of California have pretty much destroyed its economy, just as 0bama and Mrs.Clinton wanted to do to the nations.
The citizens of the United States had a better idea.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
