[certifiedfunds]

CACop, still waiting to hear if you're an expert on contract law.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Costs too much to up and leave all at once. What will happen is they will expand in other areas as phase 1. Then as phase two, they will move out when the other area is up and running.

With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.

My town has some HQs but the bulk of the business is elsewhere.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.

What is this opinion based on?

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Instead of playing coy and pretending that you actually countered his point effectively, why don't you provide the relevant information here and teach us. You obviously have great knowledge of it and how it applies.

Vallejo went bankrupt. Pay and benes went to just below median for the area. There was no great victory for either side. You keep waiting to spank public employees but it isn't going to happen. The work still has to get done. You and your fellow taxpayers demand it.

I think what is happening with some smaller government folks is that they realize they are losing hearts and minds so they are trying to drive public employees out of the workforce. All it does is trim any fat and increase turnover. See SJPD for details. They are losing centuries of experience monthly.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

CACop, still waiting to hear if you're an expert on contract law.

Nope just read the relavant case law on public employee pensions. You clearly haven't.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by CAcop

With the bigger names I think they will keep HQ here but most of th work will be done elsewhere. Smaller companies I can see pulling the plug.

My town has some HQs but the bulk of the business is elsewhere.

They will go or stay where they make the most money. Raise taxes in CA to where it is cheaper to go elsewhere and they are gone. Companies are much more loyal to money than anything else.

There is a reason Switzerland has the headquarters of so many companies in it (hint, 13% corporate tax and that is typically after the 10 year tax holiday)

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

I don't know about your state but in CA this matter was handled in the 1940s. The only way out for a city is bankruptcy. Even then they are stuck with certain realities. SJ voters slashed pay and benes by ballot. They are bleeding good employees. The SO in my county just picked up a bunch of guys from SJPD. The resumes of these guys is impressive. Homicide, Narc, SWAT. And that is just one of their guys. I think they even picked up a Sgt. The Assistant Chiefs are bailing too. The Chief is leaving earlier than expected.

Like I said before you can stamp your feet all you want but it isn't goingt o change a thing. In case you didn't notice 2012 didn't turn out quite the way we would like. Of course I live in CA so I have watched this train wreck before.

Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?

I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

What is this opinion based on?

When you read the articles on companies "leaving" CA watch the wording. The latest one posted here talked about CA companies doing "new hiring out of state." It also talked about layoffs unless people were to relocate.

I also know more than a few people in the tech industry and I was a part of it a while back. It is hard to stay out of the loop when it comes to tech in the Bay Area.

I think a lot of the "CA is dying" stories come from people who want this liberal hell to fail. I think they don't grasp the complexities of this state. I certainly think they don't grasp the complexities of the Bay Area.

While it might be easy to paint everyone in CA with a broad brush it just isn't going to stick.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?

I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.

To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Vallejo went bankrupt. Pay and benes went to just below median for the area. There was no great victory for either side. You keep waiting to spank public employees but it isn't going to happen. The work still has to get done. You and your fellow taxpayers demand it.

What's the lesson there? You implied there was a lesson for DanaT if he read up on it.

I think what is happening with some smaller government folks is that they realize they are losing hearts and minds so they are trying to drive public employees out of the workforce. All it does is trim any fat and increase turnover. See SJPD for details. They are losing centuries of experience monthly.

I get it. You're a big government guy.

Actually what is happening is that we're sick and tired of being treated like tax cattle. We're tired of paying for unnecessary government employees and overpaying for the necessary ones. We're tired of seeing politicians spend our money irresponsibly with the contracts they negotiate with employee unions. We're tired of being effectively taxed by politicians who were in office before we were born.

Most of, as the article in the OP shows, there is a major crisis of public employee pensions looming and we know that the government is going to put a gun to our heads and take our wallet to bail them out.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.

You are the one who said that a court could hold an elected state official in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action. Do you really believe that to be true?

Do you really believe a county sheriff can force a state assembly to appropriate money to a certain place?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

Sorry, I can't stop thinking about this. So an a law enforcement officer, you think that a judge could hold a state legislator in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action?

I can't even begin to explain how stunned I am by the lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles.

Yup. And economic principles too.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

Nope just read the relavant case law on public employee pensions. You clearly haven't.

No, but I did pay attention in civics class in junior high. You clearly didn't.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by elsolo

The number of applicants per job opening suggests that the compensation is above average for the requirements for most government jobs.

But real life shows gov't paychecks pay less than private paychecks.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by DanaT

They will go or stay where they make the most money. Raise taxes in CA to where it is cheaper to go elsewhere and they are gone. Companies are much more loyal to money than anything else.

There is a reason Switzerland has the headquarters of so many companies in it (hint, 13% corporate tax and that is typically after the 10 year tax holiday)

CA is in a death spiral but it is going to take 20 years. Realistically it will just change the way CA works.

I forsee rich liberals running company HQ's here for the cool factor so to speak but the bulk of the work will be done elsewhere. Public employees will be the only real middle class. Someone has to teach the gangbangers in the schools until they drop out. Cops have to arrest them when they stab someone. Etc, etc, etc. Those public employees will make lots of money doing it because there is no one around who can or wants to do it. They will then leave for other states. The poor will consist of illegals doing unskilled labor, mostly agricultural.

Since you live in CO I expect you to be where we are now in 20 years, maybe less. Remember CA voted Bush in 1988. It was considered a toss up state in 1992. Who did your state vote for the last two elections?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

To be honest your question was rather silly. There is no way any politician is going to cut off funding to the courts because of one ruling. They are not as impulsive as you. If they have the votes the politicians need to rewrite the law.

Who said they were going to "cut off" funding?

Some reading for you. Apparently CA courts have had their budgets reduced by the state assembly and are working on strategies to get the budget increased......by the CA state assembly.......who you say they will hold in contempt and send a county sheriff to arrest all the assemblymen.

I'm sorry but this is so absurd I honestly can't believe it was typed here.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by 2bgop

You are the one who said that a court could hold an elected state official in contempt for not taking a certain legislative action. Do you really believe that to be true?

Do you really believe a county sheriff can force a state assembly to appropriate money to a certain place?

No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

When you read the articles on companies "leaving" CA watch the wording. The latest one posted here talked about CA companies doing "new hiring out of state." It also talked about layoffs unless people were to relocate.

You don't know much about public affairs either, apparently.

When a company announces new hiring will occur out of state, that means they're laying tracks to relo.

Silicon valley is a bit unique in that there is a disproportionate amount of industry talent there. Don't for a second think that makes it impossible though.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Who said they were going to "cut off" funding?
.

The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.

Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?

Who said that? CA courts are currently trying to get previous funding restored. Courts in general (or any government body) is pretty much perpetually trying to get funding increased. If you don't think legislators will use that politically, you're simply naive.

[CAcop]

How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money? What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system?
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to?
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?


Sounds like he is saying they will cut off funding because they don't like a ruling.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

No. Do you really beleive a state legislature is going to cut off all funding to the courts?

I said they could, which absolutely is true.

You said a sheriff could force a legislature to appropriate money and a court could hold an state legislator in contempt if they didn't take an legislative action. All of which is absolutely not true.

[2bgop]

Originally Posted by CAcop

The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.

Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?

This retard also understands that you are clueless if you think a county sheriff is going to force a general assembly to appropriate money.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

The same retard who said what are the courts going to do if they cut off funding.

Does he really beleive the state is going to cut off funding?

If you're going to call him names you should provide the quote where he said that.

What's really funny here is that I know what 2bgop does for a living. You don't. If you did, you would know how foolish you look.

And while I don't think a legislator would shut down the courts by "cutting off" funding, you bet your ass they could and they will tinker with it punitively.

I still can't believe you posted something so stupid, honestly. A court will hold an entire assembly in contempt for not appropriating money and send a country sheriff to arrest them.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by CAcop

How does a court force a legislature to appropriate money? What does the court do when a legislature says piss off?
Who appropriates to the money to fund the court system?
When a state's court system submits a budget request, who does it go to?
When they present their request, who is the person they call Mr/Mrs Chairman/Woman?


Sounds like he is saying they will cut off funding because they don't like a ruling.

No, it doesn't. You don't know the difference between "cutting off" funding and reducing funding or refusing to increase funding?

Your post earlier about changing careers and getting into the private sector.....forget what I said. Stay where you are. You won't do better out here.