• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Northeast Loses 40% of House Seats

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
senseamp said:
California went from 23 to 53 House seats in the 1950-2014 time period of the article, completely disproving the cheap and unsubstantiated claim of people fleeing because of high taxes.
Click to expand...

That is not accurate. From 1950 -1990 CA went from 30-52 seats. In 2000, CA gained 1 more seat to 53.

From 1899-1991, the period of greatest growth, Republicans held the governorship all but 20 of those years possibly indicating CA was more conservative then than it is today.
 
Poor conservative regions of the USA - they have to battle ebola flinging illegals and now, aborted fetus swinging liberals from invading their land,...
 
xBiffx said:
You're making the mistake of using California as reasons why the OP/article is incorrect.

So its OK for you to use a so called outlier but when I do it, its a mistake?

Fuck off.
Click to expand...

I'm using the [/b]exact example the article chose to use.[/b]

Don't try to blame me because the OP's article used an example that defeated their own argument.

Additionally, in this case and in any other it is often a mistake to attempt to use % change to compare two entities of vastly different size. This is what marketers commonly use in their bullshit. Sales go from 1 a year to 5? A 500% increase! 10,000,000 to 15,000,000? Ten times slower!
 
eskimospy said:
I'm using the [/b]exact example the article chose to use.[/b]

Don't try to blame me because the OP's article used an example that defeated their own argument.

Additionally, in this case and in any other it is often a mistake to attempt to use % change to compare two entities of vastly different size. This is what marketers commonly use in their bullshit. Sales go from 1 a year to 5? A 500% increase! 10,000,000 to 15,000,000? Ten times slower!
Click to expand...

However it doesn't defeat its own argument. California's taxes haven't changed much until very recently. Also, they haven't been the highest over the years either.

You're making the mistake of using one state, that doesn't support your counter argument to say that the article is completely wrong. Fact remains, they've lost seats, and they've lost those seats to states with lower taxes for the most part.

Of course, correlation does not imply causation, but then again, its what you did with the A/C argument so w/e.
 
I just thought it was interesting trend. I had no idea that the NE had lost so many seats since the fifties. But I see the usual suspects are all in a rage yet again. Should have just put it in OT.

Rage on oh tolerant ones.
 
senseamp said:
California went from 23 to 53 House seats in the 1950-2014 time period of the article, completely disproving the cheap and unsubstantiated claim of people fleeing because of high taxes.
Click to expand...

First half of that time period has something notable about it.

Ronald Reagan was the governor of California for two terms, once in 1967 and again in 1971. He left office in 1975
Click to expand...
The Democrat super majority is something it turned towards recently, the past two decades. I attest that the only reason California is not losing population is due to its immigrants.
Americans ARE fleeing it, especially when the impact of this drought hits.
 
xBiffx said:
However it doesn't defeat its own argument. California's taxes haven't changed much until very recently. Also, they haven't been the highest over the years either.
Click to expand...

What data is this based on?

You're making the mistake of using one state, that doesn't support your counter argument to say that the article is completely wrong. Fact remains, they've lost seats, and they've lost those seats to states with lower taxes for the most part.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the article is so poorly written that they used arguments that were self defeating. The conclusions of something written so sloppily are...suspect.

Of course, correlation does not imply causation, but then again, its what you did with the A/C argument so w/e.
Click to expand...

That of course is not what I did with the AC argument, I simply mentioned all the other confounding variables that their analysis hadn't taken into account. What was written there is red meat for stupid people who want to hear what they already believe. It was not a genuine attempt to analyze trends.
 
Jaskalas said:
The Democrat super majority is something it turned towards recently, the past two decades. I attest that the only reason California is not losing population is due to its imports. Americans ARE fleeing it, especially when the impact of this drought hits.
Click to expand...
My grandson is headed there next week in part for school and in part to get out on his own. We mentioned the water rationing to him and he shrugged it off. He's going to be sharing a place with three other people so that water thing is going to get interesting. I imagine if you're a landlord it's going to be a real headache. I haven't broken the news to him yet that he's going to have to enter into a contract to get laid. I'm sure he'll shrug that off too.
 
xBiffx said:
Do some goggling on California tax rates over the years.

Here is one that encompass some of the years in question.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-one-year-1977-2011
Click to expand...

This is of little help, as it doesn't say where California's tax rates were from 1950-1977, which is a huge part of the time under discussion. What it does show though tends to lend more support to my view, however. California continued to grow rapidly through 1990, and all of those years California was one of the most highly taxed states in the country. In fact, for a number of years after 1990 California was taxed more lightly in comparison to the remainder of the country, yet this is a period in which people say growth flatlined.

I feel pretty confident that if I analyzed those numbers you would come out with a statistically insignificant result.
 
Let's just agree that while there is not one single cause for this phenomenon, both high taxes and high population densities figure into it along with other things such as climate and heating costs.
 
eskimospy said:
This is of little help, as it doesn't say where California's tax rates were from 1950-1977, which is a huge part of the time under discussion. What it does show though tends to lend more support to my view, however. California continued to grow rapidly through 1990, and all of those years California was one of the most highly taxed states in the country. In fact, for a number of years after 1990 California was taxed more lightly in comparison to the remainder of the country, yet this is a period in which people say growth flatlined.

I feel pretty confident that if I analyzed those numbers you would come out with a statistically insignificant result.
Click to expand...

I feel pretty confident that no matter the analysis, if it doesn't fit your conclusion it won't matter. I really don't care what you think the reasons are. But when several of the states gaining seats in the article are no income tax states and many others are lower income tax states, ignore taxes as the likely reason is retarded. The fact remains, people are pouring out of the northeast and it will change the makeup and therefore politics of Congress.
 
Last edited:
xBiffx said:
I feel pretty confident that no matter the analysis, if it doesn't fit your conclusion it won't matter.
Click to expand...

When you can't win on the evidence, declare the other person unreasonable!

I really don't care what you think the reason are. The fact remains, people are pouring out of the northeast and it will change the makeup and therefore politics of Congress.
Click to expand...

Okay.

You realize it will likely change the makeup and politics of Congress to make it more liberal, right? (dense populations are underrepresented in the House)
 
California has high taxes but that hasn't stopped them from gaining population. It does slow them down compared to places like Texas with lower taxes but high taxes aren't the only issue.

The northeast is already very crowded. It was the first and most heavily populated area in the country. And it's cold there. North dakota and montana have low taxes but they didn't gain any population until the shale boom because it is fricken cold there.

The southwest is gaining population because it is warm and lightly populated. It is merely the continuation of the westward migration that started since the founding of the country.
 
From 1950 to 2010 only one state lost population and that was West Virgina with 7.6% decline. All the other states gained in population. Flight not found. The District of Columbia lost 26.1% of its population over that time period. Must be the effect of smaller government. Statistics are fun.
 
xBiffx said:
Why not, you have. Oh right, supposition is the new evidence.
Click to expand...

Uhmm, that's how this works.

The person putting forward a conclusion needs to provide evidence to back it up. The person saying their conclusion is based on insufficient evidence doesn't.
 
xBiffx said:
The problem is that these loons are fleeing there and infecting the rest of us with their leftist bullshit. Look at what they are trying to do to Texas.
Click to expand...
Then they are failing miserably because Texas is still a rightwing cesspool with no respect for human rights.
 
eskimospy said:
Uhmm, that's how this works.

The person putting forward a conclusion needs to provide evidence to back it up. The person saying their conclusion is based on insufficient evidence doesn't.
Click to expand...

You started with the conclusions here, not me. I'm calling into question your conclusions on the article/OP.

Ass.
 
IronWing said:
Then they are failing miserably because Texas is still a rightwing cesspool with no respect for human rights.
Click to expand...

Good. I'd rather see Texan bee a rightwing cesspool than a bastion of liberalism. Makes me feel more protected see is how Texas is the biggest border state.

We don't need another California thank you very much.
 
xBiffx said:
You started with the conclusions here, not me. I'm calling into question your conclusions on the article/OP.

Ass.
Click to expand...

The only thing I brought up was all the basic analytic failures that the OP had in it. I'm sorry if that made you mad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top