And you think the average American will do the right thing just out of altruism, rather than being a selfish, me first, greedy ****?

I wish I lived in your ivory tower.

And, yes, I've lived in California for almost 30 years. And I'm fairly conservative. I'm just not stupid.

 

privatizing peak demand reserves is actually inspired capitalism. What kind of mooching slacking hippie are you to expect public utilities ?

 

I guess that's the difference - I generally trust the average American to determine what the "right thing" is much more so than the government. In fact, I generally *define* the right thing as what the average American wants. It is a democracy after all. And I don't think average Americans collectively are stupid (except me). I've seen you calling people tin hatters and the like, which is generally a sign that you're not willing or able to make a rational argument. I'm not going to enter the arena at that level.

I acknowledge the promise of EV and I acknowledge the need for regulation. Several decades ago, the EPA regulations on commercial pollution did marvels to clean up the air and water nationwide. But, of course, there's no commercial incentive NOT to pollute, so I very much favor those regulations. And, there was little downside outside of the complaints of the industries that were polluting. And, there was no need to "prepare" the nation to be cleaner. With EV, there are considerable undeniable downsides, risks, and trade-offs, and if you talk about them, then you're called a tin hatter. I'm just saying we need to be rational and thoughtful about these trade-offs and have a plan in place that addresses the challenges directly. But that's NOT what this is about -- this is about CA wanting to virtue signal and be first. You said so yourself -- it's just a goal that can be adjusted as we figure things out. I'll stick with being "stupid" if the alternative is to ignore the lack of a real plan and go in with blind "admiration".

When government gets involved with a heavy hand, you never really know what *could* have been. We're *still* fighting amongst ourselves about abortion because of government overreach -- first 50 years ago and then again this year. Even you're beloved EV's have probably suffered due to government overreach (not the *lack* of it, as you proclaim). The only reason we're talking about this is because of the success of Tesla. (Yes, they had some help, but nobody believes it wouldn't have otherwise happened). Yet, how many little Tesla's would have emerged or how much more quickly would have EV technologies evolved had the government not bailed out big auto? Sounds cruel, but only because we never get to hear from the voices of those that were crushed by unfair competition from the government.

 

"Crater" might be a bit strong, but you make a legitimate point. The thing is, you're making our point for us. It is, in fact, only because of the massive CA economy and tax base that the government is able to get away with many of these policies. (Ok, the weather too, but either way, it's not based on the actual merit.)

 

The demand for these cars so far outweighs the supply, I highly doubt a recession will affect pricing. Look at how down the markets have been with no effect at all. Sorry to disappoint for those hoping for a price drop, but someone had to say the obvious. Everybody knows it will not be long before you can no longer get a car like this.

 

I'm afraid that you are missing out on a key ingredient that helps serve as the "foundation" for why CALIFORNIA is the 4th largest economy in the world.
Ask yourself why Silicon Valley is located where it is, and nowhere else in the nation.

 

Perhaps I am missing the point. Are you suggesting it's the liberal politics that produced the miracle that is Silicon Valley? The dynamic CA university system and the VC activity it invited are certainly prime reasons, but I've never heard it argued that such an environment can only be nurtured in a highly progressive political climate.

 

That's the thing, these are limited production cars (not extremely limited) but they're not pumping out 15k a year. There are waiting list already for the 992.2.

I mean the 991.2 are almost 5-6 years old and desirable builds are still going for over their MSRP which is crazy

 

Not sure where you got that idea.

I've never maintained that CALIFORNIA is where it is economically speaking due to a highly progressive political climate.
Where did I ever suggest that?

I'm 4th generation. My parents and I used to go up to the Feather River and watch the Oroville Dam get built just outside of a little town called Cherokee where my grandfather was born.
Of course that was back when there were only 18 million people in the state. We have nearly 40 million residents now. We have socio-economic and infrastructure challenges that other states cant even begin to imagine. In fact, if LA County were a state it would rank #11 in population just below Michigan and just above New Jersey.

I've traveled a bit and spent 14 years back on the East Coast.... NYC, CT, and RI.

When I see people on Facebook and Cable TV News ripping CALIFORNIA and yapping about a mass "exodus" to score political points . . . I just laugh.
Life is short. Enjoy the choices you make.

 

Sorry. Honestly wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, nor was I ripping California or trying to score political points. I actually did feel like I was missing the point you were trying to make when you said "Ask yourself why Silicon Valley is located where it is, and nowhere else in the nation." What's the answer/point you were guiding me towards? What's the "key ingredient" you were referring to?

As for a mass exodus and Cable TV, etc, I'm not sure what qualifies as a mass exodus, but the trend over the last decade is a reduction in population growth and even some recent decrease in actual population as well as a trend towards negative net migration. Those aren't GOP talking points, those are just facts and we can have a discussion about the reasons. As a native Texan that has mostly enjoyed the choice I've made to live in CA these past 25 years, I think that's concerning and not at all something to just "laugh" at.

 

You mentioned the "key ingredient" when you highlighted the CA university system and research institutions.
On another note, I'm not alarmed by a 1/2 of 1% net migration out of CA.

Suffice to say, the net migration out of California has been anything but an exodus. I dont have the time to bog this thread down with the data, but it can be easily found in the link below.
While foreign worker visas were restricted during Covid which lead to 27,000 fewer international migrants, global travel restrictions also resulted in 53,000 fewer international students in California, a decline of 29% during 2020. Thus, I can make a case that Covid travel/visa restrictions produced half of the net migration number. - - - Meanwhile, the number of people moving into California with higher incomes (over $110,000) continues to increase as does the number of people with higher education (graduate degrees).

E-2 California County Population Estimates and Components of Change by Year | Department of Finance

 

Got it. Then we actually agree on the key ingredient. As for the migration, we also agree -- overall the trend is net negative, but it is, as you point out, demo-specific. Younger and higher income are net positive. But that's always been true. The overall trend is still negative, and that's new, which I believe merits consideration. That's all I'm saying.

 

Thanks.

I would suggest that the overall trend being negative is highly correlated with housing costs.
If you cant afford your single biggest expense, you move elsewhere.

I'm sure you're well aware of how the pandemic impacted real estate prices, especially in the suburbs outside of major metro areas like SF.
They literally went to the MOON.

My home county in the East Bay sported a median home price of $803,750 in Q3 of 2022.
This is in an area where the median household income is at $109,000 per year.
It's not Silicon Valley, but still.

 

Just so I understand; it only works one way; prices go up in a good economy (even for existing rather than new cars) but in a bad economy stay high? What was so different in 2019 vs 2021 when the current GT3 was trading well below MSRP for used examples? And supply is not independent of demand in a practical sense, they're pumping out far more of these cars than they used to, so even a moderate decrease in demand would impact available supply. And not sure if you noticed but prices are significantly lower for 992s vs what they were asking at the beginning. I recall 2 cars out of 20 for sale being priced below $300k at the start of the year on Autotrader and now over 80 cars are under $300k and there are 140 used ones for sale. I can't say where prices will eventually settle but there's a very obvious downtrend going on.

 

Downward trend, or people have already had their GT3s for a year now if not longer. I'm pretty sure people in this space trade in and out of cars pretty often.

Do you guys ever do this analysis on other cars? Like Why is a 2015 Huracan still over $200k?