Have you ever left CA, and later returned… if so, why? (business, place)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Grew up in CA, moved to WA out of high school (knew hippy friends there, got job there, married, etc.), moved to TN for work, moved back to WA because my daughter moved back there. Moved back to CA and my daughter shortly followed me and she stayed in CA, too.

Weather and the culture brought me back.

This! And beach + redwoods.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Just listen to yourself, you're obviously very unhappy living here, and mostly for economic reasons (regardless who or what you wanna blame them on).

I didn't say anything about being "very unhappy living here", I said I regret moving back to California for a number of reasons some of which I listed. And no, its not mostly for economic reasons, the state's economy doesn't play a big role in my personal experience in California because I'm wealthy enough to deal with high housing costs and not dependent on finding a job. My concern,instead, is about the people around me.......a lot of people I grew up with, family members, etc are struggling to survive in California. My primary issues with California are its government, the cultural climate in the major metro areas, ugly and poorly developed cities, etc. But, as I noted, these issues aren't uniform across the state and some of them can be mitigated by moving to some of the less developed parts of the state.

Originally Posted by mateo45

But not everyone, or even most, apparently share your negative POV, which begs the question… what are you doing differently? And frankly, if there's some mythical "Shangri-la" somewhere else, then what's keeping you?

Of course not everyone shares my view, what is your point? Everyone is different, the idea that if someone doesn't enjoy California it means they are doing something wrong is ridiculous.

And a post like this wouldn't be complete without the "why are you still here" question. I'm still here for pragmatic reasons, not everyone can just pick up and move across the country at will. I have a business in the state and the vast majority of my family is in California. But when my business leases expire in the next 1~2 years I do plan on moving, at the very least, to a more tolerable area of California......unfortunately I'm not sure if I can work out a big cross country move anytime soon.

[SimpleHope]

Moved to the Midwest with a lure of a great job for hubby and cheap housing prices. We were stupid enough to buy the big house and then try to heat it / cool it. There were only about 4 months out of the year we didn't need to be running the heater or the AC. Those bills! Between that, my hubby losing his job, and me never ever wanting to drive in or shovel snow again, here we are.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by user_id

...I've been talking about California.

I'm still curious about specific "transfers of wealth" you referred to. I don't see anything really out of balance in a larger picture. And I certainly don't see how the boomers have done anything but live the evolution of society. A constantly changing picture with many unforeseen consequences.

What could the common man have known and done differently? We spent our lives building the vision of what we were conditioned to believe would be a better world for our children, and theirs. Do you propose otherwise?

Do you propose that now we boomers should somehow contribute what we have for our remaining years back into some fund for youth? As if the boomer generation has squirreled away resources that we aren't passing on soon enough anyway?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by user_id

The age you started to receive your pension is besides the point, your pension wasn't properly funded by your contributions and as a result it must be subsidized by younger, and working, Californians both in the public and private sector.


I didn't say anything about social security and social security system has nothing to do with California in particular....so I'm not sure why you'd be guessing that.


As I said above, I said absolutely nothing about social security.....I've been talking about California.

And after all those years of paying into the infrastructure, etc I still get nothing from CA. What does a pension have to do with anything unless it is bloated as many were for a while? I sold my home of many years and made a profit, so what?

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I'm still curious about specific "transfers of wealth" you referred to. I don't see anything really out of balance in a larger picture. And I certainly don't see how the boomers have done anything but live the evolution of society. A constantly changing picture with many unforeseen consequences.

I gave you more details in a prior post and this isn't about what older generations have done as individuals but instead state policies that allow for transfers of wealth from younger to older generations. These transfers make California, especially in the urbanized areas, a difficult place for younger families. Perhaps you haven't noticed but....the people that are most unhappy with California end to be younger. Of course some people discount these complaints as "whining".....

Originally Posted by expatCA

And after all those years of paying into the infrastructure, etc I still get nothing from CA. What does a pension have to do with anything unless it is bloated as many were for a while? I sold my home of many years and made a profit, so what?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here....but California state pensions were bloated and it will be younger workers that get to pay for the bloat while receiving reduced benefits when they retire.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by user_id

I gave you more details in a prior post and this isn't about what older generations have done as individuals but instead state policies that allow for transfers of wealth from younger to older generations. These transfers make California, especially in the urbanized areas, a difficult place for younger families. Perhaps you haven't noticed but....the people that are most unhappy with California end to be younger. Of course some people discount these complaints as "whining".....

Okay. I see what you are saying - in part. I found your "detail" examples kinda lacking. You didn't flesh them out to any real extent.

But your clarification of state policies, as opposed to individuals, helps. Perhaps you can agree then, that your initial comment would have been more appropriately stated if you said something along the lines of "the state policies of the post war (WWII) years have created some transfers of wealth from younger generations to older generations that are causing some challenges to young working families now". The way you expressed it, as a generational error, not only isn't going to sit well with a lot of folks, it is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by user_id

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here....but California state pensions were bloated and it will be younger workers that get to pay for the bloat while receiving reduced benefits when they retire.

Yes. Well, in the larger picture of life, most people carry each other's burdens in various ways. We aren't solitary creatures. We live in societies that ebb and flow and evolve. Meh.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Okay. I see what you are saying - in part. I found your "detail" examples kinda lacking. You didn't flesh them out to any real extent.

I didn't intend to "flesh them out" because that isn't what this thread is about.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The way you expressed it, as a generational error, not only isn't going to sit well with a lot of folks, it is inaccurate.

California has an elected government so, in some sense, it is a generational error at least in the aggregate. So when I said its about state policies instead of individuals, I mean that its the state policies that are creating the transfers not individuals running around taking money out of people's pockets. Whenever one talks about these things people often think of the latter.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yes. Well, in the larger picture of life, most people carry each other's burdens in various ways. We aren't solitary creatures. We live in societies that ebb and flow and evolve. Meh.

I guess I prefer to live in a society that has a sense of fairness between its members?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by user_id

I didn't intend to "flesh them out" because that isn't what this thread is about.

Ah. I see. But it is what I asked, and several others asked, several times. You inserted a rather inflammatory assertion. We asked for your explanation.

Originally Posted by user_id

California has an elected government so, in some sense, it is a generational error at least in the aggregate. So when I said its about state policies instead of individuals, I mean that its the state policies that are creating the transfers not individuals running around taking money out of people's pockets.

No. It's not a generational error in the aggregate. Elections are reflections of public conditioning by controlling powers. The electorate buys into sophistry. That is not a generational specific reality. The generations voting now span nearly five categories. All responding to various psychological appeals and distastes. All very easily done and I suspect very strongly that you know that. Bad policies are errors of manipulative power. Generations are the flowing water into which pollution is dumped.

Originally Posted by user_id

Whenever one talks about these things people often think of the latter.

Oh horsepucky

Originally Posted by user_id

I guess I prefer to live in a society that has a sense of fairness between its members?

Sure. So do I. And what I wrote doesn't contradict that one bit. It was a simple statement of fact. Often summed up by the familiar little homily: "Shirt happens".

It happens in one form or another constantly, as a matter of fact. As the Catholics like to chant: "Without end". Most everybody gets a turn in one barrel or another. Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it. And no generation selfishly dumps on another.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

We asked for your explanation.

And I explained, I just didn't write a treatise on it.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. It's not a generational error in the aggregate. Elections are reflections of public conditioning by controlling powers. The electorate buys into sophistry. That is not a generational specific reality. The generations voting now span nearly five categories.

I see, so we can't blame voters because they are all being manipulated by some sort of supreme controller....

A variety of groups, which have divergent interests, certainly try to influence the way people vote but they also cater to the beliefs of the voters. Its a two way street. The boomer generation, due to their large size, had a big influence on public policy over the last few decades and politicians could win favor by doing what this group wanted.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Often summed up by the familiar little homily: "Shirt happens".

And I still prefer sound government policies over just attempting an unfortunate situation. But realistically speaking, not much is going to change in California any time soon so I would recommend that young productive families look into other areas of the country that are more friendly to their needs.