The Great Migration – California Businesses

by Jack Lee

Angela Casler, a managing partner in the consulting firm of SMC and an instructor in business management at CSUC, gave a dynamic presentation to the Retired Public Employees Association yesterday that highlighted the economic health of California.

Casler pointed out a change in California she calls the Great Migration. In part, this includes a significant shift away from manufacturing jobs to service jobs which pay substantially less. The strings attached to running a company has caused some to leave the State while others have simply gone out of business.

The trucking business in California has been particularly hard hit due to C.A.R.B. regulations that have caused trucks to be re-fitted with expensive filters and anti-smog devices that often exceeded the value of the truck. Small business trucking companies lacked the capitol to make the changes demanded and were left with few good choices; sell their trucks to out of state buyers who do not have to comply with such strict emissions laws or stop doing business in California. This will lead to higher overall freight costs that must be passed along to the consumers.

Ironically the costly emission devices that were supposed to lower one form of green gas (nitrogen oxides or Nox) caused another form (ammonia) that has been equally destructive and has been shown to cause holes in the ozone. “A well known example is urea used as a NOx reductant in SCR catalyst systems—emissions from SCR engines can include ammonia, as well as a number of products from incomplete decomposition of urea.” Diesel Emissions by W. Addy Majewski

Casler noted that the portion of California’s population that is dependent on some form of government subsidy has created a significant burden on the funds available for other budgetary obligations. When this is coupled to a low jobs growth (California ranks in the bottom five states) the prospects for an economic reversal become slim. Casler says California is probably looking at at least 7 more years of economic contraction and possibly longer. Other states have been experiencing just the opposite, they’re seeing an economic boom thanks in part to the manufacturing jobs that left California as well as great sell off of equipment and infrastructure at bargain basement prices.

According to a recent employment study by CNN, California ranks 45th, and Washington D.C. Is 43rd.

California currently is the most taxed State in the nation and with the declining jobs and business migration heading out of the state, it is expected that government will have no choice but to raise taxes again while making more cuts to services. However, those cost cutting measures won’t be extending to our legislators that are now the highest paid in the nation and ironically have the worst approval rating in the nation.

Governor Brown just signed into law AB 327 which will increase electricity rates about 10% in order to provide a 35% subsidy to low and no income households in Southern California where their hot climate leads to higher consumption than in the cooler regions of Northern California. Businesses will see their rates climb by about 25% within a few years, said Casler.

The cumulative effect of doing businesses in California will all be passed along to the consumers, there is no other option. This will result in taking more discretionary money out of the family budget and ultimately it will have a negative impact on the local economy and the state tax revenues. Contraction in State expenditures are inevitable. Future cost cutting will impact schools, public safety, and other major infrastructure in order to sustain the growing subsidized population against the shrinking tax revenues.

The Great Migration represents a significant change in the State’s employment and economy.  (Thank you democrats!)

 

More on AB 327…”

Finally, the bill makes clear that a state law calling for utilities to get a third of their power from renewable sources is a minimum, not a maximum requirement.

That interpretation spurred strong opposition from some business groups such as the California Manufacturers & Technology Assn., which complained that California’s already high electric rates would be pushed even higher.

In related actions Monday, the governor signed AB 217 by Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), providing rebates for the installation of solar systems by qualified low-income households and AB 270 by Bradford, requiring utilities to make more information available on ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Great Migration – California Businesses

  1. Libby says:

    From the article: “authorizing the state Public Utilities Commission to come up with a new formula aimed at lowering electric bills for people living in hot hinterlands, such as the Inland Empire, Central Valley and high desert ….”

    That would be the north state, two out of three, would it not?

  2. Tina says:

    RE: “According to a recent employment study by CNN, California ranks 45th, and Washington D.C. Is 43rd.”

    This must be for the private sector only. DC is one of the most prosperous areas in the nation…for those working for government.

  3. Tina says:

    Craig Steiner exposes the myth of the Bill Clinton surplus:

    The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000–though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

    While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it’s curious to see Clinton’s record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

    Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government’s fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton’s budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here’s the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets: (see chart)

    As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of “only” $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero–let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton’s last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

    Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton’s. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush’s tax refunds which were not part of Clinton’s last budget, that still means that Clinton’s last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 – 38 = $95.29 billion.

    Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn’t leave President Bush with a surplus.

    So why do they say he had a surplus?

    As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

    Mr. Steiner offers part 2 after the arguments roll in here. Reading it might save some time here.

    lets face it, the government just gets bigger and bigger, demanding more money to be taken from the private sector…you and me. The growing debt is unsustainable and the only answer is reforms that include free market principles and personal ownership!

  4. Princess says:

    The massive debt we have acquired can be attributed to entities like DHS and the NSA. We spend more on private contractors than we do on our military. If you fought in Iraq in the military you were paid a pittance and treated like garbage if you came home hurt. If you worked for Blackwater you made a fortune. We stopped using members of our military and now hire everything out to private contractors who suck up the tax dollars. We aren’t saving any money. Defense contractors sub out to other countries. They aren’t even hiring Americans.

    I am so pissed at the Republicans in the House of Representatives. They are worthless. Instead of trying to just obstruct and work few and fewer days every year, why can’t they just get the most obvious things done? First they should require that anyone working on a government contract has to be an American citizen. Just that requirement would employ thousands of Americans and keep the money here. I can’t believe they won’t do that. If the house passed it the Senate would have to follow suit. Instead they vote to repeal Obamacare 40 times. Lame.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    Huge problem created by the progressive, anti-business, Marxist progressive Democratic Party Machine that runs this state.

    On a different note, Rush Limbaugh gets it —

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/08/limbaugh-to-media-matters-quote-me-obama-wants-everyone-to-lose-the-health-care-plan-audio/

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #4 Tina :

    Don’t blame Dewey (not that you did). He is just another lazy, factually challenged progressive.

  7. Jim says:

    I am the only one who sees the irony of this being said at the “Retired Public Employees Association” ?

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Hoooo boy, now here is a fun one (completely off topic).

    Animal activist on the college circuit tones down his “women who wear fur should be viciously raped”.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/08/animal-activist-who-once-said-fur-wearing-women-should-be-raped-gets-busted-again-after-student-secretly-records-outrageous-lecture/

  9. Libby says:

    Uh-huh. So … we are completely ignoring the fact that Jerry’s utility subsidy will directly benefit both valley almond/rice growers and high desert alfalfa growers.

    Well don’t think that the anti-Jefferson lobby is going to ignore it !

    • Post Scripts says:

      The utility subsidy does not benefit NorCal business and that includes farmers. Jefferson people don’t believe in ANY farm subsidies. They see that as corp welfare and they don’t want any part of it.

  10. Peggy says:

    Off topic again, but I absolutely agree with Craig Anderson’s plan.

    2016 – How to Make Liberals Say, “OH SH..”
    By Craig Andresen on November 7, 2013

    http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2013/11/07/2016-how-to-make-liberals-say-oh-sh/

  11. Pie Guevara says:

    Veteran’s Day 2013 — WWII Doolittle Raiders plan final toast

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/09/wwii-doolittle-raiders-making-final-toast/

  12. Libby says:

    “The utility subsidy does not benefit NorCal business and that includes farmers.”

    Well, you’ll have to explain that. Why would a discounted utility rate not benefit a business and/or farmer?

    “Jefferson people don’t believe in ANY farm subsidies. They see that as corp welfare and they don’t want any part of it.”

    Yeah, right. I’ll believe that the day a Jefferson proponent sends his subsidy back to the Treasury Department.

Comments are closed.