AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I support voter ID laws. Actually, I support even more than that. I believe there should be some sort of poll quiz before your vote is counted. Too much of that stupid "just go vote" crap. People don't know shit about what they are voting for. They just vote.

What you're advocating is the end of democracy, substituting the current system with something like a technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever you'd call it when access to voting is restricted according to those who possess an arbitrarily defined knowledge base.

Most of us have probably had the following thought at some point in our lives: "They shouldn't even be allowed to vote." Most of us don't commit to that point of view, because we recognize that "they" (however we're defining the category) are equally protected under the Constitution and have every right to help determine who will represent them in our democratic republic.

The elite of our society are over-represented as it is. Higher levels of achievement and education correspond to higher levels of income, wealth, and power. What today's GOP and their right-wing libertarian supporters are now promulgating is a codification of over-representation that only exacerbates this societal inequity. By systematically dismantling every avenue by which the underclass can participate in mainstream American society, they're moving us toward a modern feudalism. They make it increasingly impossible for the disadvantaged to do anything to better their lives, while they criticize and condemn them with increasingly shrill voices as lazy, ignorant, worthless, criminal, and evil. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, in which outcasts become the thing they're accused of being, not because it's their preferred way of being, but because of limited recourse or alternatives. The criminal justice system illustrates this very clearly, that by branding someone with a criminal record and putting restrictions on those individuals' future participation in mainstream society, they are condemned to a life in which crime not only pays, it may just be the ONLY thing that pays.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

What you're advocating is the end of democracy, substituting the current system with something like a technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever you'd call it when access to voting is restricted according to those who possess an arbitrarily defined knowledge base.

Most of us have probably had the following thought at some point in our lives: "They shouldn't even be allowed to vote." Most of us don't commit to that point of view, because we recognize that "they" (however we're defining the category) are equally protected under the Constitution and have every right to help determine who will represent them in our democratic republic.

The elite of our society are over-represented as it is. Higher levels of achievement and education correspond to higher levels of income, wealth, and power. What today's GOP and their right-wing libertarian supporters are now promulgating is a codification of over-representation that only exacerbates this societal inequity. By systematically dismantling every avenue by which the underclass can participate in mainstream American society, they're moving us toward a modern feudalism. They make it increasingly impossible for the disadvantaged to do anything to better their lives, while they criticize and condemn them with increasingly shrill voices as lazy, ignorant, worthless, criminal, and evil. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, in which outcasts become the thing they're accused of being, not because it's their preferred way of being, but because of limited recourse or alternatives. The criminal justice system illustrates this very clearly, that by branding someone with a criminal record and putting restrictions on those individuals' future participation in mainstream society, they are condemned to a life in which crime not only pays, it may just be the ONLY thing that pays.

Thank you for this very well written argument.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Tech House

What you're advocating is the end of democracy, substituting the current system with something like a technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever you'd call it when access to voting is restricted according to those who possess an arbitrarily defined knowledge base.

Most of us have probably had the following thought at some point in our lives: "They shouldn't even be allowed to vote." Most of us don't commit to that point of view, because we recognize that "they" (however we're defining the category) are equally protected under the Constitution and have every right to help determine who will represent them in our democratic republic.

The elite of our society are over-represented as it is. Higher levels of achievement and education correspond to higher levels of income, wealth, and power. What today's GOP and their right-wing libertarian supporters are now promulgating is a codification of over-representation that only exacerbates this societal inequity. By systematically dismantling every avenue by which the underclass can participate in mainstream American society, they're moving us toward a modern feudalism. They make it increasingly impossible for the disadvantaged to do anything to better their lives, while they criticize and condemn them with increasingly shrill voices as lazy, ignorant, worthless, criminal, and evil. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, in which outcasts become the thing they're accused of being, not because it's their preferred way of being, but because of limited recourse or alternatives. The criminal justice system illustrates this very clearly, that by branding someone with a criminal record and putting restrictions on those individuals' future participation in mainstream society, they are condemned to a life in which crime not only pays, it may just be the ONLY thing that pays.

And how is democracy the end all system of government?

The elite of our society keep calling the shots because they have the resources to manipulate the voters.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

What you're advocating is the end of democracy, substituting the current system with something like a technocracy, plutocracy, or whatever you'd call it when access to voting is restricted according to those who possess an arbitrarily defined knowledge base.

Most of us have probably had the following thought at some point in our lives: "They shouldn't even be allowed to vote." Most of us don't commit to that point of view, because we recognize that "they" (however we're defining the category) are equally protected under the Constitution and have every right to help determine who will represent them in our democratic republic.

The elite of our society are over-represented as it is. Higher levels of achievement and education correspond to higher levels of income, wealth, and power. What today's GOP and their right-wing libertarian supporters are now promulgating is a codification of over-representation that only exacerbates this societal inequity. By systematically dismantling every avenue by which the underclass can participate in mainstream American society, they're moving us toward a modern feudalism. They make it increasingly impossible for the disadvantaged to do anything to better their lives, while they criticize and condemn them with increasingly shrill voices as lazy, ignorant, worthless, criminal, and evil. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, in which outcasts become the thing they're accused of being, not because it's their preferred way of being, but because of limited recourse or alternatives. The criminal justice system illustrates this very clearly, that by branding someone with a criminal record and putting restrictions on those individuals' future participation in mainstream society, they are condemned to a life in which crime not only pays, it may just be the ONLY thing that pays.

I don't agree with any of this, but I won't start a fight. This isn't a political board.

[Tech House]

Of course it happens to be the case that there are individuals who are truly unable to vote because of severe mental or other disability, so we have to think of their well-being, and not just our own, when we vote. Similarly, we vote on behalf of anyone who is legally ineligible, especially youth/children, and we even vote on behalf of other species because we have an enormous impact on them. In an ideal situation, maybe there would only be some minority of people voting or maybe there'd be no vote at all, and leaders would act in the best interests of all instead of merely serving their own selfish interests. This is the crux of the issue right now with respect to voting rights and restrictions: those who are most likely to vote have not proven themselves willing and able to vote on behalf of the best interests of all, and instead have abused their situation to re-write laws such that wealth more easily comes to them and concentrates in their hands, while a larger share of the population falls into poverty, the environment suffers, and future generations are saddled with the cost of the greed of the ruling class.

[lzppjb]

I fully support voter ID laws. But I also fully support getting every citizen some sort of acceptable form of ID. If they don't have transportation, we should get them a ride (pay for a taxi, volunteer, etc). If they can't travel for medical reasons, we should help them get one from home.

I don't want ID laws to keep people from voting unless they are doing so illegally. That's all it should be for. That's the ideal situation.

As for what I said about people needing to have knowledge about the issues before they vote, that's my frustration speaking. There should not be a poll tax, and probably should not be a poll quiz either. I say probably because I've seen so many interviews of voters who are so dumb, it amazes me they can put their shoes on in the morning. It's sad.

[the Genral]

We all know people are moving to the Austin area every day. I met 8 groups in the last 3 days that have been here from two weeks to "just got here" two days ago. Three families from CA., one family from MN., a couple from Chicago, a couple from VA., and last night, a young lady from Boise, and a couple from Denver. Since I see many people a day at my job in retail, I'm getting an idea where most of the people I meet are coming from...California. I meet a lot of people from NY, but the majority of them escaped NY at least a few years ago, like me. The ones from CA tell me their decision was mostly due to the lower cost of living here, the other reasons from this group, 3 getting away from the cold, VA couple came for work, Boise girl came to get away from her boyfriend. The couple from Denver thought it was funny how everyone here was "suffering" from the cold...they said it was zero degrees back in Denver. The majority of the CA'ers say they miss CA, but couldn't pass up our more for less real estate and cost of living. A recent CA transplant told me their cost for natural gas was higher than electric. He was from around Oakland. The girl from Boise told me, without me asking, that ducks do land on the blue football playing field...smurf turf...of the Boise St. Broncos, they think its a lake....I guess the ducks aren't too smart up in Idaho.

[KevinFromTexas]

I get what lzppjb is saying, though. While I think everyone should vote, they should be informed. I really have to roll my eyes at the idea of voting becoming some trendy thing to do just so you can say you did, without much meaning behind it. We have too many meaningless trends these days already. I'm not saying voting is worthless or unimportant of course. I'm just wishing people put more thought into it and did their homework a little more, and, relied less on emotion for their decision. All that said, I disagree with restrictions to voting, which in the end up hurting American citizens. We already have pathetic turnouts without discouraging people even more. Americans are a lazy bunch. There were something like 9+ million Texans this time who didn't vote. And those were just the registered ones. There are approximately another 8 million of legal voting age who aren't even registered to vote.

Anyway, I'm ok with these people not voting. I can't believe some people can be so daft.

• Video Link

[austlar1]

Nice well thought out writing, Tech House.

[KevinFromTexas]

I mostly agree with what he's saying. There is a fundamental problem in American politics where money is influence which translates to power, but this phenomenon is not unique to the GOP. Both parties and all politicians have a price to persuade them. This is a pretty good list showing corporate and organization donations to both parties.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I mostly agree with what he's saying. There is a fundamental problem in American politics where money is influence which translates to power, but this phenomenon is not unique to the GOP. Both parties and all politicians have a price to persuade them. This is a pretty good list showing corporate and organization donations to both parties.

There are no corporate donations at the federal level... What you're looking at there are industry and or corporation specific donations. In other words, how much money individuals in a type of industry or particular corporate entity have donated from their personal bank accounts.

Disclaimer: I worked in campaign finance for years until I started pursuing my Ph.D. in political science.

[KevinFromTexas]

I thought this was an interesting map on the migration into Texas, both domestic and international.

61% of the population of Texas is people who were born here. 3% are from California, while 17% are from outside of the US. The rest of the states make up less than 1% each of Texas' population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/up...abt=0002&abg=1

[Syndic]

Great interactive map. That's a lower number of people born outside of the US than I expected. Still, it's higher than most states. Would be nice to see a breakdown of where they're from.

3% seems small from California but that's still 780,000 people. And you can be pretty sure that the vast majority are ending up in our 4 main cities, so it probably feels like more than 3% because of that.

[KevinFromTexas]

Also, am I missing something there. It sure doesn't seem to list many states of origin of people who live in Texas. Surely there are more people living in Texas from other states than those it listed.

Also, the Texas number of foreign born is high, but a few others surprised me that were even higher than Texas'.

California 28%, New York 25%, Florida 23%, Nevada 21%, Hawaii 21%, Massachusetts 18%, Connecticut 17%.

The number of California born Texans is kind of low really. It's higher than a few other states, but Idaho for instance has 4 times as many Californians there than here. We're even tied with Nebraska and Kansas, which would never strike me as destinations for California migrants. There's even more Californians in Oklahoma. lol

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Also, the Texas number of foreign born is high, but a few others surprised me that were even higher than Texas'.

California 28%, New York 25%, Florida 23%, Nevada 21%, Hawaii 21%, Massachusetts 18%, Connecticut 17%.

None of those are surprising. LA, SF, Boston, and Miami are immigrant magnets. Vegas has a high Hispanic population, Connecticut has large Brazilian and Central American populations, and Hawaii has always been a big Asian immigrant center. Texas's in-migration from foreign countries is large, yes, but has usually been lower than those other places.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The number of California born Texans is kind of low really. It's higher than a few other states, but Idaho for instance has 4 times as many Californians there than here. We're even tied with Nebraska and Kansas, which would never strike me as destinations for California migrants. There's even more Californians in Oklahoma. lol

Uh. We might have a lower percent from California than those places, but we have larger absolute numbers.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The number of California born Texans is kind of low really. It's higher than a few other states, but Idaho for instance has 4 times as many Californians there than here. We're even tied with Nebraska and Kansas, which would never strike me as destinations for California migrants. There's even more Californians in Oklahoma. lol

I was in Idaho this summer and you can really feel the California presence, much moreso than in Texas. This is also true of parts of Oregon and the Puget Sound area.

The percentage of Austin residents who are from CA is significantly higher than for Texas as a whole. I don't have access to the stats, but in terms of who is moving where on a year-to-year basis, Austin gets a disproportionate amount of the CA migrants.

In addition, the perception of Austin being overrun by Californians is further driven by the fact that migrants tend to be more visible and active in their adopted homes. For example, if you pick a random Meetup group and attend, you may find that half of the participants are CA transplants. The bulk of the general population in every state and town is mostly "invisible" in that they don't get out and participate in much of anything, and can only be found by visiting a WalMart, state office (DMV, for example), or hospital ER. And these are people who generally don't change things about their lives, they tend to stay put and follow routines. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just observing that it makes immigrants from other states disproportionately visible.

By the way, everything in that last paragraph is made up and not based on anything other than my observations and guesswork, so if I'm wrong then I welcome corrections.

[KevinFromTexas]

That's all true of course, and I assumed the same for some of those. Still, it kind of goes against the immigration debate with the assumption of "thousands" of Mexican immigrants coming into Texas - the US' longest border with Mexico. It means that even with the supposed high number of Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, plus all the other immigrants from other locales, we still wound up with a lower percentage than other states. Point taken on the raw numbers, though, but California still managed a very high percentage relative to its size compared to the other states.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

That's all true of course, and I assumed the same for some of those. Still, it kind of goes against the immigration debate with the assumption of "thousands" of Mexican immigrants coming into Texas - the US' longest border with Mexico. It means that even with the supposed high number of Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise, plus all the other immigrants from other locales, we still wound up with a lower percentage than other states. Point taken on the raw numbers, though, but California still managed a very high percentage relative to its size compared to the other states.

The source of that data is the census, so it's certainly possible it under/doesn't count illegal immigrants.

[lzppjb]

I'm reading an article on the history of South Congress. It's quite fascinating. Many things I knew, but many more small details I'm learning. This quote struck me as being appropriate for today's Austin:

"Austin Being Watched. . . Austin used to be spoken of as "a pretty city, but slow," Within the last few years, however, the old place has taken on a new life and is making a noise like a city. The paving of Congress Avenue – a long-talked of project – is not only an evidence of prosperity, but about the best and most enduring advertisement that Austin people have put their money into."

The Austin Statesman, December 16, 1906

[austlar1]

Thought this might be the right place to solicit opinions about the risk that the crash in oil prices might have some kind of negative impact on development projects in Texas. It seems obvious that the building boom in Houston (and possibly DFW) will be impacted. What about Austin? Most financial analysts are predicting a very hard time for Texas energy producers, especially those involved in expensive fracking and shale oil extraction. This will also effect the institutions that loan money to this sector of the economy as well as a lot of wage earners in Texas. Is development in Austin insulated from this situation. It appears that OPEC is waging a price war against the new suppliers of expensive US fracked petroleum products. This could go on for quite a while. I think it is kind of scary since so much of the growth in the US economy has been in the energy producing states like Texas.