NJ might be in a better spot, but Illinois' pension program is unsustainable.
If you don't want to hear it from me, maybe you'll be more receptive to CNN saying it:
How Illinois became America's most messed-up state
(unless you consider CNN to be "ultra-right-wing conservative"?)
They, in detail, explain how the problem arose back in the 80's, how it got much worse by 1995, and how the problem has been snowballing since 2001.
I'm sure Illinois' problem would be helped and even eliminated if they didn't hemorrhage billions of dollars to the federal government which then get redistributed to other states instead of going back to the state of Illinois. As for NJ, two conservative governors decimated our pension program - Whitman and Chris Chrispie.
The CNN report never mentions how Illinois could be helped if they stopped bleeding money to red states. Chicago is a productive city, third largest in the nation. It is almost like NYC or L.A. and is wealthy and lucrative. It can carry the whole state of Illinois on its shoulders with tons of money left to carry other states (which is what it does). At some point it becomes too much. Conservative red states live to bleed dry the blue states and cities which drive this nation's economy. How you don't understand that is beyond me.
For lower and middle class earners, that may be true...however millionaires aren't as easy to "replace" as there are far fewer of them.
In terms of Taxation, 1 Brad Pitt leaving, and 15 lower-middle class people coming in is a net negative in terms of tax revenues for the state.
Andrew Cuomo has even acknowledged this with his own state.
Millionaires are just as easily returned or replaced as any other demographic, I don't know why you think otherwise. People living in states like NY and NJ vs other states is an issue of simple market economics, supply and demand.
It is expensive to live in NY or NJ (and other similar states) for a reason. You get what you pay for. If people don't perceive a value (i.e. they don't believe they're getting what they're paying for) they will leave. If they leave and demand shrinks, supply grows. If supply grows, prices go down. When prices go down, people at some point return to buying. It's that simple.
People want to live in NY and NJ because these states, especially around NYC and Philly, offer so, so much. The proof is in the pricing. Home costs, taxes, etc. are very high and there is no shortage of people paying.
Yes, people are leaving. That is because demand has been so high for decades that prices are higher than ever. This is a correction in the market. It's just like any other hot item that sells at a high price when demand is high and then when demand cools prices come down. It doesn't mean that item is on its way out. It means the item isn't as hot as it was. But the item can still be a hot and coveted item and continue to sell at a high price, albeit not as high. Sales can remain high, albeit not as high.
What do you think will happen when a $1 million apartment in NYC drops to half of that? Or a quarter of that? Will a millionaire say "well, I'd rather save $50,000 and live in Paduca, Kentucky!"??? No. The millionaire will jump all over that just for the investment alone.
I WISH that NY and NJ would see a more drastic drop in prices and costs. That would make my life so much easier here! It won't happen. Then again, I don't see myself being nearly as happy living in Fort Wayne, Indiana, no matter how much money I'd save. It's not worth the trade-off for the overall quality of life.
In your view, is everything that's not left of the Overton window "Ultra-right-wing conservative"? It's not the first time you've made that accusation.
We've already covered in this in other threads.
I'm moderate on guns
I'm in favor of single payer healthcare
I'm in favor of gay marriage
I support a woman's right to choose
I'm in favor of marijuana legalization
I accept climate change
I'm a staunch advocate for the separation of Church and State
Because I may be a tad to the right of center on a few regulatory and tax issues, and don't immerse myself in PC culture, that doesn't equate to "Ultra-right-wing conservative"...if it does in your book, then you're using a different book than 99% of the population.
You have stated that you're a libertarian and that is the ultra-right wing of conservatism. It is anarcho-conservative but radical. It is based on survival of the fittest and let everyone duke it out wherever money and the market can't settle things. It is rooted in Ayn Rand's anti-Christian philosophy (shared by most pagan/occult religions) of materialism/idolatry and ultra-selfishness.
You're a libertarian and that is radical right-wing. Wanting to eliminate laws against killing babies, prostituting and trafficking women, selling narcotics, destroying traditional marriage, etc. doesn't mean you're not a conservative - most conservatives espouse these many non-Christian political views even if they are Christians.
