Gyroscopic Investing

Freedom_Found wrote: I have a friend who is a screenwriter, he has always felt he needed to be in or around Hollywood/LA area. Less than a year ago, he bought and moved to a lake house in North Idaho. He loves it and says he will never move back to CA, and career wise, he has been doing just as well as he was here. Of course, not every job can be done remotely, but many can, esp. in technology.

Freedom_Found, that link that edsanville put above made out that physical proximity causes a collective energy :
http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html
I agree that in principle many jobs can be done remotely but perhaps a can do attitude requires more to create it than gets communicated over the internet?

That's a good article and true. Different areas have different values. And there is something to be said for collective energy. Everyone is their own individual and will decide what is important to them. This is, coincidentally (as Harry Browne explains in his books) the reason why nobody can "figure out" the markets. Millions of people making millions of different decisions for millions of different reasons.

I personally, as a small business owner, will not be happy living in a state which is rated #49 out of 50 for business climate and regulations. As a libertarian, I am not happy with the highest tax rates in the nation, the most severe gun restrictions (by far) and the out of control welfare benefits which encourage sloth and laziness. Not to mention the some of the highest costs of living around. Regardless of the specific "collective energy" of any cities in CA, I can't see myself living with others who have decided these things are not particularly important to them, and make a conscious choice to live in a place where these things are prevalent.  

During the last census, CA lost population to the point where many were worried the state would lose a congressional seat because of it. Even those figures are skewed, because as people with the financial wherewithal to relocate do so, they are replaced by illegals and low income residents, and "anchor babies" (legally born children of illegals.) It may take 30-50 years, but CA will be the next Detroit. 

I personally will take great pleasure in moving our 8 jobs and 3M/year of business to a state which respects my freedoms.

Freedom_Found,

Over the years I have noticed that the "stupidocracy" that California state government seems to aspire to has a way of making people more libertarian than they might have otherwise been.  It's sort of like what working in a sausage factory might do to your personal diet.

I have never understood why so many people stayed in California.  It always seemed to me that the taxes, high cost of living, pollution, dysfunctional state government, and crime would have caused the place to simply be abandoned, sort of like a political Superfund site.

Well Tex, it's like the kids who grow up with super strict (often religious) parents. Typically, when they get out on their own, they go crazy with partying, etc. It's human nature for most people to want what you can't have, and to push back twice as hard when someone is trying to keep you down. That's my nature at least. I think I would have been libertarian anyway, but living here has really driven home the value of it. I think that's true with most everything in life, nobody appreciates something more than he who has had it stripped from him by others.

MediumTex wrote: I have never understood why so many people stayed in California.  It always seemed to me that the taxes, high cost of living, pollution, dysfunctional state government, and crime would have caused the place to simply be abandoned, sort of like a political Superfund site.

Perfect mild weather, gorgeous varied terrain from beaches to deserts to mountains all within a 2-hour drive, and some of the most beautiful women in the world doesn't hurt.

- Taxes and high cost of living: They are higher here, but salaries tend to be higher here, too.

- Pollution: If smog is one's issue, just don't live near the Los Angeles basin. There are other places to live in CA. Most of the time, when people complain about smog I get the sense they're complaining more about the idea of smog rather than the smog itself. I've lived in or near L.A. for most of my life and have never developed respiratory issues from smog.

- Crime: Practically a non-issue if you live in a middle-to-upper class area populated by well-educated people. Stay away from the ghetto and the barrio, and you probably won't get mugged.

Personally, I find the biggest drawback to living in CA to be the obnoxious, selfish attitudes of so many CA residents. It's ingrained in the local culture. But I think that's more of an issue here in Southern CA than in Northern CA (such as the S.F. Bay Area).

Tortoise,

I've never lived in Cali, but totally agree.  I've spent some time at Huntington Beach and near downtown, and it was near paradise for me... Yes it was a bit of a melting-pot, but by no means was it dirty, so it was actually a GOOD thing, not some kind of ethnic slum... in fact it was gorgeous.. the beach was beautiful, too.

All at 80 degrees with no humidity.

Where I really felt like I didn't like Cali was the snobbish, plastic areas with 30-year-old ex-model trophy-wives driving Mercedes everywhere.  Not in some kind of welfare state slum-hood.

There are a lot of eccentric personalities there that clash with my midwest attitude.

San Diego was another charmer.  I don't see how ANYONE could live in the Southeastern quadrant of the US... The heat and humidity down there just aren't worth it compared to out west.  Though I know some people feel attached to that area, so I'm not going to judge... much.

Tortoise wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I have never understood why so many people stayed in California.  It always seemed to me that the taxes, high cost of living, pollution, dysfunctional state government, and crime would have caused the place to simply be abandoned, sort of like a political Superfund site.

Perfect mild weather, gorgeous varied terrain from beaches to deserts to mountains all within a 2-hour drive, and some of the most beautiful women in the world doesn't hurt.

- Taxes and high cost of living: They are higher here, but salaries tend to be higher here, too.

- Pollution: If smog is one's issue, just don't live near the Los Angeles basin. There are other places to live in CA. Most of the time, when people complain about smog I get the sense they're complaining more about the idea of smog rather than the smog itself. I've lived in or near L.A. for most of my life and have never developed respiratory issues from smog.

- Crime: Practically a non-issue if you live in a middle-to-upper class area populated by well-educated people. Stay away from the ghetto and the barrio, and you probably won't get mugged.

Personally, I find the biggest drawback to living in CA to be the obnoxious, selfish attitudes of so many CA residents. It's ingrained in the local culture. But I think that's more of an issue here in Southern CA than in Northern CA (such as the S.F. Bay Area).

All of those things sound nice.

It sounds sort of like Greece.  Maybe being a nice destination just gives the politicans more rope with which to hang themselves.

I confirm what Tortoise said. It's important to understand that California is a big state with different climate zones and different types of people, sometimes even 20 miles make a big difference. I live in Bay Area and love the weather. I think climate is one of the biggest magnets for people, some people keep saying they'd like to move out of state but somehow they never leave.

Tortoise, it seems like more beautiful women live in the Southern California, perhaps because it's warmer and farther from the craze of work-obsessed Silicon Valley.  :)  

I do agree with the above, it is a great place to visit with great weather. On the surface everything is nice. Last year, (being the self sufficient people we are) we decided to install a wind turbine on our property. LA county wanted $8400 just for the PERMIT. For a piece of paper. As long as you're on vacation or visiting, and don't have to deal with any in-depth issues that greatly affect your life, everything is good.

Speaking of pretty girls, that's a pretty good analogy to CA. Spend a few nights and you'll love it, but once you get married, you better watch out. (not that all pretty girls are like that, but you know the kind I am talking about)

I'm a native Texan currently living in Silicon Valley.  So I've lived both sides.

Yes the politics in CA are ridiculous -- gun rights are scarce, union entitlement is infuriating, yada yada yada.  But every state has its pluses and minuses.  Keep your mind open and your plans flexible, and you can reap the benefits of multiple places.

I moved out here for the job opportunities.  In my line of work (product development) there's no better place in the world for work. And in Silicon Valley there are lots of people like me -- it's very much a migrant area full of tech geeks who come here from all over the world.  In a lot of ways I think the Bay Area takes that high-income migrant community for granted (assuming it's the natives fueling the economy) so as that unwinds and the mobile professionals start moving in even greater numbers to places like Austin and Raleigh I don't see the local entitlement economy as being at all sustainable. But for now it works for me, and that's all I can ask.  When it doesn't, I'll move.  ;)

I personally see myself staying out here for a while to maximize my career (and feed my PP), and eventually retire back to a more affordable state more in line with my personal values.  Rent instead of buy, enjoy the great parts of California (and there are many) while not getting too caught up in the politics, and it's a very nice place to live.

foglifter wrote: Tortoise, it seems like more beautiful women live in the Southern California, perhaps because it's warmer and farther from the craze of work-obsessed Silicon Valley.   

Yes, I think you're right. The most beautiful women seem to enjoy living a lifestyle that allows them to show off their beauty and maintain it with minimal effort. In warm and sunny SoCal, women are able to show a lot of skin and exercise outdoors almost year-round. Combine that with the close proximity to Hollywood (modeling, acting, singing, etc.) and the large number of high-earning men in the coastal areas looking for trophy wives, and you've got yourself a virtual magnet for beautiful women. The trophy wife culture here in the coastal areas of SoCal is amusing to observe sometimes.

I read somewhere that the female-to-male ratio up in Silicon Valley is unusually low since that area is largely populated by engineering/math/science geeks--who tend to be almost exclusively male. When I was in college studying engineering, probably 99% of the beautiful women I saw walking around campus were in humanities, arts, social sciences, education, film, communication, etc. The few who were in engineering, math, and science (excluding pre-med) were often... how shall I put this... not exactly model material

MediumTex wrote: Freedom_Found,

Over the years I have noticed that the "stupidocracy" that California state government seems to aspire to has a way of making people more libertarian than they might have otherwise been.  It's sort of like what working in a sausage factory might do to your personal diet.

I have never understood why so many people stayed in California.  It always seemed to me that the taxes, high cost of living, pollution, dysfunctional state government, and crime would have caused the place to simply be abandoned, sort of like a political Superfund site.

You probably wouldn't understand it unless you spent a few weeks there.  If real quality of life matters, like being 1 hour from the beach and 4 hours from the ski slopes, having beautiful 75 degree weather year round, and probably the most ideal weather and climate for human existence, it's a great place to be.  If you are worried about paying 10% instead of 7% of your income on state taxes (well, since you're from TX it's more like 10% instead of 0%) it's not the place for you.  If you are worried about paying too much for a house, it's probably also not the place for you.  But, think about it for a minute - there must be a reason why the house prices are so high - it's because everybody wants to live there.  A few libertarian gun nuts aside, it's pretty much one of the best places on earth to live if you appreciate nature, the outdoors, living healthy, and enjoying your short time on earth.

I look at it sort of like "why would you want to live in Germany and pay higher taxes when you could live in the US?"  Well, a lot of Germans certainly seem to think that paying a slightly higher tax rate, yet enjoying real benefits like 6 weeks paid vacation a year, 6 month paternity leave, collective bargaining agreements that protect workers rights, and a fully functional social safety network is worth it.  You can call Californians stupid or ignorant if you want, but meanwhile, they're living in paradise, and making pretty good salaries as well.

Storm wrote:
If real quality of life matters, like being 1 hour from the beach and 4 hours from the ski slopes, having beautiful 75 degree weather year round... it's a great place to be.

When we are willing to slowly trade away our freedoms for the things listed above, I think it is a serious problem, and a big factor in why our country is in the serious trouble that it is in.

MediumTex wrote:[California is] sort of like a political Superfund site

You have a gift for understatement

TripleB wrote:
That's interesting because those 2 issues are my primary drivers for where I will live because they directly impact me on a daily basis:

1) How much money I have in my pocket to spend
2) Whether I'm able to defend myself and my loved ones from a violent criminal

Weather and everything else is nice too, but without money and the means to defend myself, everything else seems less important.

Wow, just reading this, and i find this kind of sad. We are all entitled to different opinions, and no one is going to change anyone else's on this matter. But for me, the ideal place to live would be one that i do not have to think about money very often and i do not feel the need to own a gun for self defense.

My very limited experience of California as an adult has been a couple of vacations and I loved it (even though I was mugged). That was why I have been flabbergasted by the fact that when I was two years old and my parents lived there for six months they hated it. Apparently after six months my mother burst into tears about living there and so they left earlier than they had intended. They were in Santa Cruz. When I've asked what was wrong with the place, my dad said that no one in Santa Cruz goes to a Chinese restaurant, they go to a Sichuan or Cantonese restuarant . They have liked other parts of the USA though. We lived in Austin for a year when I was ten years old and they loved it. They also lived on Long Island for a year before I was born. I sort of wonder whether it was an issue with Santa Cruz rather than with California as a whole. I don't suppose everyone in Oakland has an intimidating sophistication about Chinese cuisine?

stone wrote:I don't suppose everyone in Oakland has an intimidating sophistication about Chinese cuisine?

The phrase "intimidating sophistication" is very apt and does describe one aspect of California that can be annoying.  "Pseudo-sophistication" is in the ballpark as well.

Freedom_Found wrote:

Storm wrote:
If real quality of life matters, like being 1 hour from the beach and 4 hours from the ski slopes, having beautiful 75 degree weather year round... it's a great place to be.

When we are willing to slowly trade away our freedoms for the things listed above, I think it is a serious problem, and a big factor in why our country is in the serious trouble that it is in.

Your freedom to do what exactly?  Wave a high powered assault rifle in the air while shouting fire in a crowded theatre?  California follows the same US constitution and bill of rights as the other 49 states.  Your freedom to pay a lower tax rate might be significant.  Personally, I don't live in CA any more since I live on the East Coast now, but I'd much rather take a $150K a year job in Cali and pay a slightly higher tax rate than take a $75K a year job in flyover country and pay a lower tax rate.  The California job still leaves me with a higher savings (total amount saved, not percentage) and a better quality of life.

If I want the best of both worlds I can work in CA for 10 years, save a ton of money, and do an early retirement in flyover country.

BearBones wrote:

TripleB wrote:
That's interesting because those 2 issues are my primary drivers for where I will live because they directly impact me on a daily basis:

1) How much money I have in my pocket to spend
2) Whether I'm able to defend myself and my loved ones from a violent criminal

Weather and everything else is nice too, but without money and the means to defend myself, everything else seems less important.

Wow, just reading this, and i find this kind of sad. We are all entitled to different opinions, and no one is going to change anyone else's on this matter. But for me, the ideal place to live would be one that i do not have to think about money very often and i do not feel the need to own a gun for self defense.

Seriously, I have to agree.  If you are living your life in such a place that you have a daily fear that violent criminals will kill your family, you need to either:

1.  Move, right now, to any state in the country because the vast majority of US cities have no such issues.  Violent crime is way down in the last few decades.
2.  See a psychiatrist because your paranoia is ruining your life.

I guess guns tap into a sort of primal defense instinct that is more than just about wanting to be safe. Perhaps there might be a bit of yearning for a lack of safety? At least going to the firing range is fairly free from real hazard. Its probably much better than people satiating a desire for peril by getting stuck up a mountain or whatever.

Storm wrote:

Your freedom to do what exactly?  Wave a high powered assault rifle in the air while shouting fire in a crowded theatre?  California follows the same US constitution and bill of rights as the other 49 states.  

People who don't actually own and shoot guns in real life basically get everything they "know" about them from the movies. Herein lies the problem. Waving a rifle around in a crowded place has zero to do with the actual situation. A gun is like a seat belt. I'm sure (if you have any sense at all) you wear your seat belt every time you drive anywhere. The chances of you being in a collision which is severe enough for your seat belt to save your life or keep you from being ejected from the vehicle are very, very small. But the one in a million times when you DO need it (which will likely be for only a fraction of a second), you'll be darn glad you had it.

Guns are the same thing. If you live in any kind of reasonably safe (non slum or barrio) type of area, you'll likely never need it. But, if the time should come when you DO need it, (and again, it will probably only be for a fraction of a second), you'll be darn glad you had it.

But meanwhile, I don't see people being ridiculed for wearing their seat belt because they'll probably never need it. I don't see people saying: "If you don't feel safe enough to not need a seat belt when driving, you need to find a different method of transportation..."

As far as the Constitution, each state has their own constitution. Many (most?) of the states guarantee their citizens the right to keep and bear arms, just as the federal does. California has no such right.

During the LA riots, entire neighborhoods were burned to the ground. The entire police dept. was completely GONE (as in nowhere to be found.) Those with guns were able to fight back and save their shops and livelihoods. You can see it live if you look up the news coverage of it on you tube. In that situation (which is recent enough for me to remember happening, and I am only 35) guns made the difference between opening up your businesses doors the following week and continuing to feed your family and pay your bills, verses looking at your life's work and livelihood reduced to a worthless smoking hulk. Sure, some may have had insurance, but how many didn't, and of those who DID have insurance, how many insurance companies had some kind of "clause" that allowed them not to pay because of some small detail of the situation that was written into the policy.

Don't worry, if we ever found ourselves in a similar precarious situation, I would be willing to promise not to use my guns to help protect you, your family, or your property. Please rest assured.  

Freedom_Found wrote:A gun is like a seat belt. I'm sure (if you have any sense at all) you wear your seat belt every time you drive anywhere. The chances of you being in a collision which is severe enough for your seat belt to save your life or keep you from being ejected from the vehicle are very, very small. But the one in a million times when you DO need it (which will likely be for only a fraction of a second), you'll be darn glad you had it.

One in a million?? According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, you have a 30% chance of being in a motor vehicle accident at some point over the course of your lifetime.

And according to National Safety Council, your chances of dying in a motor vehicle accident, over the course of your lifetime, are 1 in 88. Death by motor vehicle accident is the #1 killer after heart disease, cancer and stroke and it is the leading cause of death for people age 3 through 34. 64 percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing their seat belts. Seat belts have been proven to be effective in reducing motor vehicle deaths. Seat belts save lives — there is no denying that.

Your chances of dying in an assault by firearm are 1 in 306.

Your chances of being (accidentally) killed by a firearms discharge is 1 in 6,309.

http://www.nsc.org/NSC%20Picture%20Libr ... cts_37.pdf

There is no evidence that firearms actually save lives.

Freedom_Found wrote:Guns are the same thing.

You are far more likely to die in a car crash than from anything you can defend yourself from. They are hardly comparable.

Gumby,

I completely agree. Let's ban guns. I'll turn all of my guns in, as soon as:

1) All criminals do the same
2) All government personnel do the same

Until then, I'll need to use my guns to:

a) Prevent against armed criminal assaults
b) Prevent against the formation of an armed oppressive government as the 2nd amendment specifically intended

Since no law will prevent criminals from acquiring and using guns (because they are criminals after all, and by definition don't follow the law), and the government will never turn in their guns (since they are the government and police officers with 30 minutes of firearms training every 6 months are the only ones truely professional enough to carry firearms), then I'll choose to live in a state that allows me the ability to own, carry, and use firearms.

Gumby wrote:
There is no evidence that firearms actually save lives.

Wow, we better tell that to every police officer in the country, then. They better stop carrying them right away.

I can look up plenty of statistics which refute your statistics, but I am not a politician, and you know what they say about statistics.

Bottom line is that if you DO happen to be the ONE in whatever, (whether it's a gun or a seat belt) which protects you, your family, or your property, you will be glad you had it.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Those with the opinion that I should not be allowed to own guns because they don't feel it is necessary enough, makes me and my families life a little less safe. I do resent that, however I am not going to waste anymore time arguing on the internet about it.

Happy holidays, everyone!

If you live in an area that's so unsafe that you need guns to survive and protect your family, then by all means protect yourself however you see fit.

Freedom_Found wrote:

Gumby wrote:
There is no evidence that firearms actually save lives.

Wow, we better tell that to every police officer in the country, then. They better stop carrying them right away.

Don't worry, many police officers are already realizing this, on their own, and are now choosing to pull out their Tasers over their hand guns for everyday law enforcement. Taser itself claims that more than 500,000 law enforcement officers in the United States, in more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies, now carry Tasers.

I'm not convinced that one needs use deadly force to defend themselves.