It would be cool if Kamala runs on an Abundance agenda platform in California. California is the perfect laboratory for Abundance which will most likely work as it did in Colorado under Polis. Kamala may also be able to overpower the stubborn legislature with her long built political capital, connections and donors (primary NIMBYs like A…
It would be cool if Kamala runs on an Abundance agenda platform in California. California is the perfect laboratory for Abundance which will most likely work as it did in Colorado under Polis. Kamala may also be able to overpower the stubborn legislature with her long built political capital, connections and donors (primary NIMBYs like Abbott does to dissidents). If she wants California as a consolation prize then she better stay away. California needs to win the race against Texas imo. Imagine if Hollywood and Silicon Valley had Texas values.
Reporting has it that she is interested in the gubernatorial race and has had "tough" 2028 conversations with her advisors. She will decide by end of summer. Porter has suggested that she will step aside if that happens.
I think the reality is that even if she could win in 2028, it's very likely that a fresh face would perform better than her and be more likely to bring along larger majorities in Congress/majorities at all. California Governor is a top 5 job in American politics, and I think everyone in the party thinks highly enough of her that she could also tack on Secretary of State or Defense or AG afterwards if she wants another spin around the executive branch.
That's what I was thinking as well. I'd rather Kamala Harris be Governor and change the image of California so it's not being looked at as a laughing stock that FL and TX can get benefit from (in an exodus of both businesses and residents). I'd want her to be smarter than what the GOP and Trump think she is and prove them wrong.
You know Florida is not actually even in the top 5 destinations for California emigrants. It's something like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado and Wash. .
Right although I was just arguing FL and TX figuratively speaking. Anywhere where the cost of living is lower elsewhere by comparison to CA is an incentive to move.
Yes but it’s more than just housing. Cost of doing business factors in as well. Of course, with the LA County fires the State of California is certainly having its hands tied. Costs this, costs that, it all ties up together.
I’d rather Democrats not be singular on this agenda. Let initiatives like AI regulation be done at the federal level while the state level be laser focused on addressing the costs of running a business and housing. Both Main Street businesses and corporations factor in.
California does have to prioritize, but I think that its tradition of being the first to push pro-consumer or environmental regulation is great and a fine thing to maintain.
Business operating expenses are going to have a high correlation with housing expenses. It's not a 100% overlap in the venn diagram but it's rather substantial. The higher housing costs, the higher salaries need to be to attract employees. Higher housing costs also strongly imply that land and construction will be more expensive.
Housing costs are driven up in a good portion because of demand. Then there’s also limited space to build housing as well as other factors such as limitation of single-family housing.
Business operations are completely separate from residential housing. This particularly applies to taxes, some of which btw cities like San Francisco are trying to lower or outright eliminate. If there’s correlation with housing, it’s because of salaries and investment the business owners/CEOs/founders make in the business. Otherwise, no correlation.
Residential businesses on the other hand most certainly have correlation with housing. Naturally, it’s all dependent on the salaries and flexibility residents have in paying for rent.
It would be cool if Kamala runs on an Abundance agenda platform in California. California is the perfect laboratory for Abundance which will most likely work as it did in Colorado under Polis. Kamala may also be able to overpower the stubborn legislature with her long built political capital, connections and donors (primary NIMBYs like Abbott does to dissidents). If she wants California as a consolation prize then she better stay away. California needs to win the race against Texas imo. Imagine if Hollywood and Silicon Valley had Texas values.
Is she running? If she plans another presidential campaign I doubt she runs for governor. I'm guessing Katie porter knows it.
Reporting has it that she is interested in the gubernatorial race and has had "tough" 2028 conversations with her advisors. She will decide by end of summer. Porter has suggested that she will step aside if that happens.
I think the reality is that even if she could win in 2028, it's very likely that a fresh face would perform better than her and be more likely to bring along larger majorities in Congress/majorities at all. California Governor is a top 5 job in American politics, and I think everyone in the party thinks highly enough of her that she could also tack on Secretary of State or Defense or AG afterwards if she wants another spin around the executive branch.
hearing from a lot of OC California Dems who voted for KH that most of them would prefer her as Governor and not run for Prez....fwiw.
That's what I was thinking as well. I'd rather Kamala Harris be Governor and change the image of California so it's not being looked at as a laughing stock that FL and TX can get benefit from (in an exodus of both businesses and residents). I'd want her to be smarter than what the GOP and Trump think she is and prove them wrong.
You know Florida is not actually even in the top 5 destinations for California emigrants. It's something like Texas, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado and Wash. .
Right although I was just arguing FL and TX figuratively speaking. Anywhere where the cost of living is lower elsewhere by comparison to CA is an incentive to move.
You hit on the most urgent problem California needs to tackle: the housing crisis. That and the ravages of global warming, especially fires.
Yes but it’s more than just housing. Cost of doing business factors in as well. Of course, with the LA County fires the State of California is certainly having its hands tied. Costs this, costs that, it all ties up together.
I’d rather Democrats not be singular on this agenda. Let initiatives like AI regulation be done at the federal level while the state level be laser focused on addressing the costs of running a business and housing. Both Main Street businesses and corporations factor in.
California does have to prioritize, but I think that its tradition of being the first to push pro-consumer or environmental regulation is great and a fine thing to maintain.
The good regulations need to be kept and the bad need to be repealed.
That's always the case everywhere, right? The debates will be about which regulations are good or bad.
Sure. I agree.
Business operating expenses are going to have a high correlation with housing expenses. It's not a 100% overlap in the venn diagram but it's rather substantial. The higher housing costs, the higher salaries need to be to attract employees. Higher housing costs also strongly imply that land and construction will be more expensive.
It all loops back to housing costs.
It also has a huge effect on rents, which can be a tremendous business expense!
Not always.
Housing costs are driven up in a good portion because of demand. Then there’s also limited space to build housing as well as other factors such as limitation of single-family housing.
Business operations are completely separate from residential housing. This particularly applies to taxes, some of which btw cities like San Francisco are trying to lower or outright eliminate. If there’s correlation with housing, it’s because of salaries and investment the business owners/CEOs/founders make in the business. Otherwise, no correlation.
Residential businesses on the other hand most certainly have correlation with housing. Naturally, it’s all dependent on the salaries and flexibility residents have in paying for rent.