Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
chop2chip
Well-known member
Good luck NYC
We could always just not let him destroy our crown jewel city.
sturg33
I
It’s getting bad - your ideas will become more mainstream.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I’ll enjoy with popcorn from afar
Maybe because its close to home but I also get angry at seeing whats happened to LA/Chicago/SF/etc....
This guy isn't hiding what his beliefs are and we know how dangerous communism is.....
chop2chip
Well-known member
SF tried the Mamdani approach to crime with Chesa Boudin
They’ve reversed course to predictable effects
But how much unnecessary damage (including deaths) were inflicted as a result?
It should just be a no brainer to say "You're communist? - You can't be an elected politicians".
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
what would happen to the united states if you excised tech hubs like San Jose, San Francisco, New York, Boston and Seattle and the technological spillovers from them
ChatGPT said:
That’s an excellent counterfactual — it gets to the heart of how dependent U.S. prosperity and dynamism are on a handful of metropolitan innovation engines. Let’s unpack the likely consequences if you excised the core tech hubs—San Jose, San Francisco, New York, Boston, and Seattle—and eliminated their technological spillovers.1. Immediate Economic Impact
| Category | Share of National Output (approx.) | Consequence of Removal |
|---|---|---|
| GDP | ~25–30% of U.S. GDP originates directly from these metro areas | National GDP would shrink by roughly one-quarter overnight, before accounting for knock-on effects. |
| Federal Revenue | These metros contribute 35–40% of federal tax receipts | Fiscal capacity would collapse; the U.S. would lose much of its progressive tax base. |
| Venture Capital | ~80% of VC investment originates in or flows through these ecosystems | Startup formation elsewhere would dry up without reinvestment cycles and mentorship networks. |
2. Technological and Productivity Spillovers
Even more consequential than the direct GDP hit is the loss of spillovers—the diffusion of new ideas, management practices, and human capital.Mechanisms Lost
- Talent circulation: Researchers and engineers moving from Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, MIT, and Stanford seed the rest of the economy.
- Open-source diffusion: Many major frameworks (TensorFlow, PyTorch, Kubernetes) originate in these hubs.
- Knowledge spillovers: Regional patents cite each other; Boston–Silicon Valley–Seattle form the “triangular spine” of modern tech diffusion.
Macroeconomic Effects
- U.S. TFP (total factor productivity) growth might fall by 60–70%.
- Over a decade, per-capita GDP could drop by one-third relative to its baseline path.
- High-tech exports and semiconductor innovation would relocate abroad (Taiwan, South Korea, or Europe’s Golden Triangle).
3. Institutional and Cultural Ripples
| Domain | Lost Function | Downstream Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Universities | MIT, Stanford, Harvard, UW, UC Berkeley act as the training grounds for the national innovation system. | The PhD and postdoc pipeline in AI, biotech, and advanced engineering would contract drastically. |
| Corporate Networks | Headquarters concentration in those metros sustains legal, financial, and design clusters. | Supply chains for innovation—IP law, venture finance, chip design—would fracture. |
| Cultural Capital | These hubs have cultures tolerant of failure and high mobility. | Remaining regions may revert to risk-averse norms, reducing entrepreneurship. |
4. Regional Repercussions
- Winners (relative): Austin, Raleigh-Durham, Denver, Chicago, and Atlanta could absorb fragments of displaced activity, but they lack comparable density of capital, researchers, and global networks.
- Losers: The Midwest and South would see fewer spillovers from automation, biotech, and AI that currently diffuse from coastal hubs. Manufacturing productivity would stagnate.
- Inequality: Paradoxically, national inequality might narrow because the top end collapses, but average incomes would fall substantially.
5. Global Power Shift
Without its tech clusters, the U.S. would:- Lose dominance in AI and cloud infrastructure to China, the UK, and the EU.
- Cede semiconductor leadership to Taiwan and South Korea.
- See its reserve-currency advantage weaken as the tech-driven export surplus erodes.
sturg33
I
Prompt:
What do you think would happen to the outcomes of the two states if the state government of California was swapped with the state government of Florida. Everything else the same, the governors and the entire legislatures were swapped. Think about things like economy, innovation, housing, poverty, and crime? Consider yourself to be an expert on all these things, so make a definitive answer
Answer:
Swapping the state governments of California and Florida—while keeping populations, geographies, businesses, infrastructure, and federal overlays identical—would lead to markedly different trajectories for the two states over time. California's government, characterized by high taxes, extensive regulations, stringent environmental and labor mandates, and expansive social spending, would transplant to Florida. Florida's government, with lower taxes, lighter regulatory touch, emphasis on business incentives, and stricter law enforcement priorities, would take over California. This thought experiment isolates policy levers from deeper cultural or demographic factors, revealing how governance shapes outcomes.
In Florida under California's government, economic growth would decelerate. The imposition of higher income and corporate taxes (California's top marginal rate exceeds 13%, versus Florida's zero state income tax) would discourage business investment and migration of high earners, eroding Florida's edge in logistics, tourism, and real estate development. Innovation would stagnate as added bureaucratic hurdles—such as California's complex permitting processes—slow tech and biotech startups, diverting capital to less regulated states. Housing costs would surge due to transplanted zoning restrictions and environmental reviews that limit supply, pricing out middle-class families and fueling shortages in high-growth areas like Miami. Poverty rates would climb, as elevated living expenses outpace social program expansions, which often come with work disincentives and administrative bloat. Crime would rise, particularly property and violent offenses, mirroring California's lenient prosecution thresholds and reduced sentencing, which have correlated with urban disorder in places like San Francisco.
Conversely, California under Florida's government would accelerate. Tax reductions and deregulation would unleash pent-up entrepreneurial energy, drawing more domestic investment into Silicon Valley and beyond, boosting GDP per capita beyond its current trajectory. Innovation hubs would thrive further with streamlined approvals for R&D and energy projects, countering California's historical drag from mandates like aggressive emissions standards that inflate costs without proportional benefits. Housing affordability would improve dramatically as Florida-style reforms—easing density restrictions and expediting builds—flood markets with supply, potentially halving median home prices in coastal metros over a decade. Poverty would decline through job creation and lower costs of living, with Florida's leaner welfare approach emphasizing self-sufficiency over dependency. Crime rates would drop sharply, as Florida's proactive policing and "tough-on-crime" statutes (e.g., mandatory minimums and bail reforms) restore order in cities like Los Angeles, reducing theft and homicide by incentivizing deterrence over rehabilitation-first models.
Overall, Florida would converge toward California's current challenges—slower growth, inflated costs, and social strains—diminishing its status as a Sun Belt magnet. California, leveraging its inherent assets like ports, universities, and talent pools, would outperform its baseline, emerging leaner, more dynamic, and prosperous. This underscores that while geography and people provide foundations, governance determines whether potential is realized or squandered: Florida's model amplifies advantages, while California's hampers them.
What do you think would happen to the outcomes of the two states if the state government of California was swapped with the state government of Florida. Everything else the same, the governors and the entire legislatures were swapped. Think about things like economy, innovation, housing, poverty, and crime? Consider yourself to be an expert on all these things, so make a definitive answer
Answer:
Swapping the state governments of California and Florida—while keeping populations, geographies, businesses, infrastructure, and federal overlays identical—would lead to markedly different trajectories for the two states over time. California's government, characterized by high taxes, extensive regulations, stringent environmental and labor mandates, and expansive social spending, would transplant to Florida. Florida's government, with lower taxes, lighter regulatory touch, emphasis on business incentives, and stricter law enforcement priorities, would take over California. This thought experiment isolates policy levers from deeper cultural or demographic factors, revealing how governance shapes outcomes.
In Florida under California's government, economic growth would decelerate. The imposition of higher income and corporate taxes (California's top marginal rate exceeds 13%, versus Florida's zero state income tax) would discourage business investment and migration of high earners, eroding Florida's edge in logistics, tourism, and real estate development. Innovation would stagnate as added bureaucratic hurdles—such as California's complex permitting processes—slow tech and biotech startups, diverting capital to less regulated states. Housing costs would surge due to transplanted zoning restrictions and environmental reviews that limit supply, pricing out middle-class families and fueling shortages in high-growth areas like Miami. Poverty rates would climb, as elevated living expenses outpace social program expansions, which often come with work disincentives and administrative bloat. Crime would rise, particularly property and violent offenses, mirroring California's lenient prosecution thresholds and reduced sentencing, which have correlated with urban disorder in places like San Francisco.
Conversely, California under Florida's government would accelerate. Tax reductions and deregulation would unleash pent-up entrepreneurial energy, drawing more domestic investment into Silicon Valley and beyond, boosting GDP per capita beyond its current trajectory. Innovation hubs would thrive further with streamlined approvals for R&D and energy projects, countering California's historical drag from mandates like aggressive emissions standards that inflate costs without proportional benefits. Housing affordability would improve dramatically as Florida-style reforms—easing density restrictions and expediting builds—flood markets with supply, potentially halving median home prices in coastal metros over a decade. Poverty would decline through job creation and lower costs of living, with Florida's leaner welfare approach emphasizing self-sufficiency over dependency. Crime rates would drop sharply, as Florida's proactive policing and "tough-on-crime" statutes (e.g., mandatory minimums and bail reforms) restore order in cities like Los Angeles, reducing theft and homicide by incentivizing deterrence over rehabilitation-first models.
Overall, Florida would converge toward California's current challenges—slower growth, inflated costs, and social strains—diminishing its status as a Sun Belt magnet. California, leveraging its inherent assets like ports, universities, and talent pools, would outperform its baseline, emerging leaner, more dynamic, and prosperous. This underscores that while geography and people provide foundations, governance determines whether potential is realized or squandered: Florida's model amplifies advantages, while California's hampers them.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
If Florida's policies and cultural ethos were grafted onto California, what would happen?
Let’s break this down across major dimensions: governance, economy, demography, culture, environment, and long-run national impact.
In twenty years it would be larger, cheaper, hotter—and intellectually poorer.
In short:
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating counterfactual — you’re basically asking what would happen if Florida’s policy regime and cultural orientation were transplanted into California’s economic and geographic setting.Let’s break this down across major dimensions: governance, economy, demography, culture, environment, and long-run national impact.
1. Policy Architecture: The “Florida Model” in California
| Domain | Florida’s Approach | Effect if Grafted onto California |
|---|---|---|
| Taxation | No state income tax; low corporate tax | Short-term business boom, but large fiscal hole (California relies on high-income tax revenue for ~45% of its budget) |
| Land-use & zoning | Pro-growth, permissive construction | Rapid housing expansion; housing prices fall; suburban sprawl replaces density |
| Education & social policy | Cultural conservatism, curriculum restrictions, “parents’ rights” emphasis | Clash with California’s progressive institutions; possible brain drain from public universities |
| Climate & energy | Deregulated energy markets, limited environmental mandates | Fossil fuel use rises; emissions increase sharply; grid reliability strained by higher air conditioning load |
| Health & social welfare | Limited social safety net | Reduced coverage, especially for immigrants and low-income residents; initial budget relief, long-term inequality growth |
| Labor & unions | Right-to-work; anti-union posture | Labor costs fall; entertainment and tech sectors resist; strikes possible; wage compression over time |
2. Short-Term Effects (Years 1–5)
A. Economic Realignment
- Business taxes plunge → capital inflows surge.
- Some firms (particularly logistics, manufacturing, and crypto) relocate to California for low tax, abundant land, and West Coast ports.
- Housing construction accelerates dramatically — prices drop in outer metro areas, though coastal real estate remains expensive.
- State revenues collapse without a matching VAT or income tax; public universities, transit, and healthcare systems face austerity.
B. Cultural Shock
- Universities and Hollywood revolt against censorship-style education laws or cultural regulation.
- Tech sector becomes politically fragmented: libertarian enclaves thrive, but socially progressive engineers depart for Canada or Europe.
- A cultural “secession” of coastal elites to enclaves like the Bay Area and Santa Monica mirrors the Red–Blue divide within one state.
3. Medium-Term Consequences (Years 5–15)
A. Economic Winners
- Construction and real estate: cheaper permitting, large-scale suburban growth across the Central Valley and Inland Empire.
- Logistics & manufacturing: new megafactories and warehouses, benefiting from ports and looser labor law.
- Tourism & retirement: “Sunbelt California” emerges—massive retirement migration from colder states.
B. Economic Losers
- Public services and education: chronic underfunding leads to decline of the UC system and local schools.
- Climate industries: clean tech and renewable energy sectors relocate to Washington, Oregon, and Europe.
- Film, biotech, AI: talent flight to states or countries with stronger academic and social institutions.
C. Cultural Polarization
- Northern and coastal California effectively secede culturally, retaining “mini-Europes” with private funding and local taxes.
- Inland and southern regions align more closely with Texas and Florida politics — creating an internal cultural border.
4. Environmental Feedbacks
Florida’s deregulatory ethos applied to California’s geography would be catastrophic over decades:- Water policy: unrestricted suburban expansion depletes aquifers; water wars intensify.
- Wildfire risk: relaxed land-use and insurance standards magnify losses.
- Climate emissions: rollback of clean-energy mandates raises CO₂ emissions by tens of millions of tons annually.
- Coastal management: relaxed building codes along the Pacific worsen erosion and flood vulnerability.
5. Demographic and Social Effects
- Population boom: lower housing costs attract millions; California’s population surges past 50 million.
- Demographic bifurcation: wealthy enclaves remain globally cosmopolitan; interior suburbs grow less diverse economically but more culturally conservative.
- Migration chains reverse: progressive professionals leave, middle-income families move in — reversing current patterns.
6. Long-Run (20+ Years)
| Domain | Outcome |
|---|---|
| GDP | Rises initially, but productivity per worker stagnates once education and infrastructure decay. |
| Innovation | Declines steeply; Silicon Valley hollowed by brain drain. |
| Environment | Chronic drought, blackouts, and coastal damage; insurance retreat from high-risk zones. |
| Governance | Fiscal crises; high inequality; fragmented local tax regimes. |
| National role | California becomes a massive, deregulated consumer economy—rich in land and logistics, poor in public goods—more like Texas + Florida combined than the global innovation hub it once was. |
7. Global Symbolism
- The U.S. innovation frontier would shift north (to Seattle, Vancouver, Toronto) or abroad (Zurich, London, Singapore).
- The American cultural avant-garde would leave California, marking the end of the state’s century-long role as a generator of global imagination.
- Florida-style governance would prove viable only so long as inherited infrastructure and climate tolerances last—about a generation.
8. Bottom Line
“Florida-fied California” would initially boom in construction, consumption, and migration, but it would sacrifice the high-productivity, high-human-capital equilibrium that made California globally preeminent.In twenty years it would be larger, cheaper, hotter—and intellectually poorer.
In short:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
short-run prosperity, long run dessication
but we do live in the short-run and lest anyone forget:
Per capital GDP growth in the past 10 years:
California 42%
Florida 22%
it is what it is...the scoreboard don't lie
Tapate50
Well-known member
California literally has 0 SEC championships