I just realize we California has another huge advantage over all the other tech hubs. We ban non-compete contracts statewide. Without non-compete engineers are free to jump from one company to the next, and help share learnings:
The claim that non-compete clauses chill innovation should not catch anyone by surprise. Think of Silicon Valley, the world’s technology center. California law forbids Silicon Valley firms from using non-competes, and employees are largely free to move. Workers’ mobility creates knowledge spillovers across firms and throughout the industry, all of which stimulate greater innovation. It was Bob Noyce, the founder of Intel, who hailed “the mobility of our personnel, which quickly diffuses knowledge of new techniques in design, production, and marketing.”
Then, compare Silicon Valley to Boston’s Route 128 tech district. Another study suggested that Silicon Valley thrived, whereas Route 128 declined, due to the greater employee movement allowed in California. In Massachusetts, enforcement of non-compete clauses restricted such knowledge movements and chilled technological breakthroughs. To be sure, old established tech firms benefit from the enforcement of non-compete agreements. But society loses, as the best talent remains stuck in established firms, unable to job hop to start ups.
If we had non-compete in California, Salesforce would never have started. The evil Larry Ellison would no doubt unleash his lawyers on Marc Benioff and crushed it. While CA bans non-compete WA and most other states don’t. Our startup ecosystem is much stronger as a result.
There’s no end to the greed of government to get more tax revenue. Also, the government solution to income inequality is always to take money from “high-income” people and give it to others. Maybe they should try a new idea, because we know that one doesn’t work.
I read more on the income tax. It has zero chance of sticking. The state constitution considers money to be property. It also states property can only be taxed at an equal 1% rate for all. So if the state did do a state income tax, it’d be flat 1% for everyone. They’d have to change the state constitution to do anything else.
Once the camels nose is under the tent it is all over…First they tax the rich…then when that isnt enough they tax everyone. .in 1913 Fed tax was only 1% for the very wealthy. …100 years later most of us pay 20% or more…Same with CA state tax…just keeps growing. .
It amazes me how everything is always painted as good vs. evil. I guess it’s such a common theme our brains immediately identify with it. It’s crazy how the perspective can be completely opposite for similar outcomes. If someone breaks into a home to steal and even out income, then they are a thief and evil. It’s even a crime to do it. However, if you use the government as a middle man to take the money, then the person having their money taken is the evil one. Painting the rich person losing their money as evil provides the moral justification for taking their money.
Oh, and don’t get me started on the homeless problem. The park near me is full of them and their drugs. The little sign that says the park is a drug free zone and drug penalties are doubled does zero to help.
People may not realize, taxing the rich is always the beginning of taxing all.
If the tax code is written to only tax the top 1%, and will always only tax the top 1%, most people might be safer. But they use a fixed number of 250k instead. Government can use inflation to make many people taxed without any tax code change
The original income tax only applied to the top 7%. That’s how they always sell these things. It’s the old analogy of putting a frog into hot water vs slowly turning up the temperature. If you say you’re going to immediately raise taxes on everyone, there’d be revolt. If you say you’re only going to increase taxes on the evil rich, there’ll be enough people that cheer to make you a hero. The people cheering don’t realize those taxes will later apply to them.
“There’s plenty of data that shows that a criminal record does not indicate someone’s ability to be a successful tenant,” said Anibarro.
I would love to call his bluff and ask to see that data. Data says they are more likely to end up in jail again than stay out of jail. It’s hard to be a good tenant if you go back to jail.
"Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:
Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders."
