Home Off Topic
Hey folks - as a member of the DawgNation community, please remember to abide by simple rules of civil engagement with other members:

- Please no inappropriate usernames (remember that there may be youngsters in the room)

- Personal attacks on other community members are unacceptable, practice the good manners your mama taught you when engaging with fellow Dawg fans

- Use common sense and respect personal differences in the community: sexual and other inappropriate language or imagery, political rants and belittling the opinions of others will get your posts deleted and result in warnings and/ or banning from the forum

- 3/17/19 UPDATE -- We've updated the permissions for our "Football" and "Commit to the G" recruiting message boards. We aim to be the best free board out there and that has not changed. We do now ask that all of you good people register as a member of our forum in order to see the sugar that is falling from our skies, so to speak.
Options

Krispy Kreme and McDonalds

2»

Comments

  • Options
    CigarDawgCigarDawg Posts: 2,568 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited March 30

    Exactly, and don't forget the unions who will be liking their chops to reset their wage scales as well.

    This will get u-g-l-y for certain income sectors, but the media will blame the consequences on anything but overpaid non-skilled labor costs. Other state vote-suckers will hold California up as a model for their nominal dollar wages, but forget to mention the ensuing reduction in purchasing power of those "new" wage dollars.

    Edit: "U-g-l-y" is a banned word? 🙄

  • Options
    YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,112 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    the regulations are onerous but it’s not from tenant rights. It’s from homeowners that want restrictive zoning laws. we need to allow developers to build a ton of units

  • Options
    wpony714wpony714 Posts: 424 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    I just searched and the big mac cost between WA and TX is less than a dollar…..28 cents to be exact.

    It's still comparing apples and oranges. CA does a lot of strange stuff. Did you see what happened to the average cost of meals, fast food and otherwise, during the pandemic. Restaurants added all kinds of nonsense, extra charge for using another plate or utensil, extra charge for cleaning, extra charge for worker safety (facemasks). Food bills now look like a CVS receipt.

    The food has to get to their locations. Gas is more expensive here than anywhere else because we have to have a "special blend". It has made the inflation issue worse than in other states. We pay more for water and power. CA recently suggested we start paying power rates based on income. You know how that will hit fast food restaurants? I don't think any state pays more for grocery/food than Hawaii but right after that comes CA.

    Automation reduces the workforce. Doesn't matter how productive you are if you don't have a job. And frankly, I don't buy that motivational theory. It is an absolute struggle out here for small business owners to even do business. The hoops you have to jump through, the licensing costs, the taxes, the regulations, are a massive burden. Fast food franchise owners are struggling upstream every time the state imposes some **** new fee or regulation.

    And as will all forms of regressive policy, ie taxes, the cost just goes downhill to the consumer. I believe the consumer in CA for food/eating out will hit their limit.

  • Options
    YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,112 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    taxes aren’t inherently regressive. An LVT is actually productive and incentivizes businesses to produce as much as possible. As far as pricing probably depends on the source used but neither here nor there as you pointed out it’s much more complex than minimum wage. Automation is always good as it frees up the labor force to perform more complex tasks instead of doing menial work. This is how our economy has become so advanced in the first place. I don’t disagree that California has some wonky laws especially that food labeling one but I think the impact on cost is also overstated. Source I found has Georgia at 11 and California at 19 for grocery bill

  • Options
    wpony714wpony714 Posts: 424 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Average weekly grocery spending is highest in California ($297.72), Nevada ($294.76), Mississippi ($290.64) Washington ($287.67) and Florida ($287.27).

    https://www.helpadvisor.com/community-health/cost-of-groceries-report#:~:text=1%20U.S.%20households%20spend%20an%20average%20of%20%24270.21,the%20least%20on%20groceries%2C%20on%20average.%20More%20items

    I believe your source (Zippia) used only Los Angeles to represent CA, while using ATL to represent GA. That is not a solid data point comparison.

    For instance, in California, the average weekly grocery spending is $297.72. Cities like Riverside and San Francisco are even higher at $300.50 and $298.44, respectively. Orange County grocery bills are 11% higher than the national average.

    Menial work is needed in any modern society. It is what it is.

    Mid 2022, CA had a budget surplus of $97.5B. 8 months later it had morphed into a $22.5 billion shortfall. The taxes they continue to put in place are erasing the middle class here. I want to leave….and yet with a net worth of at least $2M, which includes a lot of property owners, if you leave, CA will hit you with a .04% exit tax. You can't even leave the state without being punished.

  • Options
    pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,796 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Uh, no. You have never lived in California, have you? It's expensive because of state and local taxes.

  • Options
    BEACHDAWGBEACHDAWG Posts: 3,342 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    They won't have to demand

    In my neighborhood, the trades are slammed busy. Not only are they getting 30 % more than this time a couple years ago, it's a 10 day to 3 week wait to get a job started.

  • Options
    BumBum Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Californians should eat more Big Macs and donuts so they can build more houses? Did we solve it?

  • Options
    YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,112 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    yeah we have a tremendous housing shortage that’s built up over decades and will take decades of building to fix unless we switch to much higher unit density projects. Big cities in California and NYC are particularly bad about building housing. The South particularly Florida and Texas are just now starting to get increased housing costs due to an influx of high earners from high CoL states. They certainly build more but it’s a lot of SFH which leads to sprawl and a lot of inefficiency because they also have some bad regulations

  • Options
    pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,796 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
  • Options
    pgjacksonpgjackson Posts: 17,796 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    Southerners typically don't want congestion. They don't want to live in inner-city population density. I hope we don't follow the European model of just building mega-apartments all over the place. One thing the U.S. has is space. Plenty of room for urban sprawl.

  • Options
    MarkBoknechtMarkBoknecht Posts: 1,546 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    There's an opinion piece from the LA Times from March of 2023 that deals with the issue of housing shortages vs. Environmental regulations. I tried to post a link to the article, but couldn't figure out how to do it.

    Environmental groups, existing homeowners too I suppose, were opposed to infill housing — new housing development in existing areas. But increased rents and mortgages have led to higher rates of homelessness.

    And, developers were moving away from "intown" areas to fringe areas because of less restrictive regulations. Areas situated next to wilderness areas exacerbating climate change because workers would be making longer trips.

    But housing advocates and environmentalists have started working together to support in-town development of multi-family housing. California is facing a shortage of 2.5 million units by 2030.

    At least, that was the point of view from a year ago.

  • Options
    YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,112 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate

    this is mostly correct. Environmental review laws are often used by existing property owners to block any new development. You most often see this to block new housing projects from homeowners but ironically oil and gas companies also use it to block solar and wind projects. It’s truly a bizarre regulatory system in desperate need of reform

  • Options
    YaleDawgYaleDawg Posts: 7,112 ✭✭✭✭✭ Graduate
    edited March 31

    that’s fine if people don’t want that but some do and developers should have the freedom to build for them

    @pgjackson

This discussion has been closed.