For Californians, the golden dream depends on where you live and how much you earn (gated, taxi)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by matzoman

These are some of the only people and their offspring that enjoy life in the golden state. The ones that bought and paid off their family homes in the 80's 90's.

Or a mere eight years ago, when housing prices were at the bottom of that cycle.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/46398743

And their offspring? I disagree. Most of our offspring have been priced out, unless they were old enough to buy during the last decline.

[Racer46]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Or a mere eight years ago, when housing prices were at the bottom of that cycle.

https://www.cnbc.com/id/46398743

And their offspring? I disagree. Most of our offspring have been priced out, unless they were old enough to buy during the last decline.

Sad but true. Glad I was able to buy a home in CA many years ago.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Csonka

Alabama is tops and I believe followed by WV

One is left wondering, with whether the above are the best criteria.

Originally Posted by Csonka

home ownership is, for me, the most important metric for quality of life. Owning your little (or big) piece of the earth is one of life's most gratifying things.

For me, house ownership (why even call it a "home"?) is only attractive if it's a good investment. In an places where real estate is inexpensive, it's inexpensive because, well, prices haven't appreciated much. Unless something dramatic changes, such lack of appreciation is likely to hold in the future... implying that it's not a good investment.

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

The real question is: “why is it important to grow population?”

A growing population is necessary to support increase in investments. It's also necessary to fund retirement programs for the previous generation. It's necessary for land values to rise. It's a fundamental assumption on which we predicate the very concept of setting aside a dollar today, in hopes of it growing faster than inflation tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Avondalist

The California state government's revenue structure is heavily dependent on taxing capital gains and high salaries. These wild swings in revenue always happen with a recession.

For some of us, it is precisely this revenue-model that's so irksome. Contrast that with another West Coast state, that's ostensibly just as "liberal": Washington State. Very different tax-model....

[Huckleberry3911948]

Not at all I got to this land in 1977 with 2 suitcases and $150
The answer to 2 questions determine your success
What can you do
What are you willing to do
I don’t believe in dreams and passions I believe in asking what my community needs and what can I do to meet that need
I have always done the rough jobs that nobody wanted but paid well

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Mmmm? Like Germany, perhaps? Or Japan, Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand ... all of which are more socially progressive by far than California is / can be within the structure of being a United State..

Most/all of those countries (until perhaps recently) did not allow massive numbers of unskilled immigrants into their countries. Canada & Australia have points systems with education/skill levels being factored heavily into who gets in.

Pretty much all of them (except perhaps, Japan) are much lower in corruption than both of the two political parties in the U.S., which is essential in running a good welfare state.

Also, places like New Zealand and Australia, despite having lots of available land, have California style housing prices (with lower average incomes in NZ), so it's not coming up all roses in those places, either.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

“There’s no Alabama dream, no Kentucky dream,” Gov. Gavin Newsom recently said. “There’s only the California dream, attainable and aspirational.”

Obviously, there are huge limitations to that dream. What do you think?

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...609-story.html

I don't think this article went far enough, but everything it said was spot on. It mentioned people making 40K to 79K are the most gloomy. That makes sense. Low income people typically have lower aspirations and live off various government subsidies and benefits. Middle income people, especially those who are under 50 who weren't able to buy homes 25 or 30 years ago (when prices were still high, but more affordable than now), have been getting screwed for years. They're typically stuck paying a ton of money in rent for cheaply built apartments and can't afford to buy anything. Plus they pay higher taxes and fees than most other states, but receive relatively few benefits for what they pay. A 40k to 79K income is ok if you don't want to have kids, but that isn't most people.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Most/all of those countries (until perhaps recently) did not allow massive numbers of unskilled immigrants into their countries. Canada & Australia have points systems with education/skill levels being factored heavily into who gets in.

Pretty much all of them (except perhaps, Japan) are much lower in corruption than both of the two political parties in the U.S., which is essential in running a good welfare state.

Also, places like New Zealand and Australia, despite having lots of available land, have California style housing prices (with lower average incomes in NZ), so it's not coming up all roses in those places, either.

Yeah, so? Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

I agree with the immigration policies of Australia, NZ, and Canada, by the way.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Yeah, so? Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

I agree with the immigration policies of Australia, NZ, and Canada, by the way.

My point is the U.S. does a sh*tty job with the government it already has. If you don't clean up the corruption (and we haven't--in either party) you don't get a decent, well run welfare state; so it's not worth paying extra taxes for, since the money will be wasted.

Aus, NZ, and Canada have sensible immigration policies compared to the mess we have in the U.S. But liberals (and some conservatives, despite what they preach) will never allow the flow of uneducated 3rd world immigrants to stop. There are too many people making money off them or getting votes from them. The lack of enforcement of our existing immigration laws is yet another example of rampant corruption. The left keeps it going by dividing people against each other and calling everyone who doesn't want uneducated immigrants from the 3rd world 'racist', making any reasoned debate impossible.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

My point is the U.S. does a sh*tty job with the government it already has. If you don't clean up the corruption (and we haven't--in either party) you don't get a decent, well run welfare state; so it's not worth paying extra taxes for, since the money will be wasted.

A plausible argument can be made, that a successful "welfare state" is only possible in a relatively small and homogeneous society. What subverts it isn't so much the corruption of the leadership, as the lack of feeling of shared contribution and benefits, by the citizenry. One reason why we struggle with the coronavirus response, for example, is disbelief that we're "all in it together", or that either the sacrifices or the benefits are at all comparable from person to person.

For social-benefits to work, it is necessary for taxpayers to regard themselves as potential recipients, perhaps later in life, or in just slightly altered circumstances; and likewise, for recipients to regard themselves as future taxpayers. Then the taxes and benefits are of a more transactional nature. Humans like transactional relationships. Instead what we have - either in reality, or in perception, or both - a set of persons who overwhelmingly pay, without serious hope of benefits... and a set of persons who overwhelmingly receive, without serious burden of payment. This creates entrenched biases and animosities on both sides.

California is a large and variegated state - more so, than any other state in America. It thus feels the deleterious effects of size and variation, more than any other state.

[CA4Now]

Uh oh. According to the authors of this article, "Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers should stop trying to sell the myth of the California dream. On its current trajectory, this state is socially, fiscally and economically unsustainable."

Op-Ed: Is the California dream finished?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...overty-housing