The Great California Exodus Accelerates (Oakland, Lincoln: crime, Home Depot, schools)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by sub

There’s a housing shortage pretty much everywhere right now.
I live in a midwestern town with almost 0 growth and houses get snatched up as soon as they hit the market.

To address the poster who tried to use traffic as some sort of indicator, no offense but Detroit still has ridiculous traffic.


No, the exodus is a fact. Like I said earlier, you still have just enough incoming to offset those who leave, but California is no longer the fast-growing magnet it once was. It used to be really appealing, but not so much anymore.

Lol. People leaving IS appealing ...

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why virtually everyone thinks perpetual growth is a good thing.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey

We don’t have a housing problem - inventory or cost.
We don’t have a traffic problem.
We don’t have an energy problem.
We don’t have a pollution problem.

We have a population problem.

[sub]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol. People leaving IS appealing ...

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why virtually everyone thinks perpetual growth is a good thing.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey

We don’t have a housing problem - inventory or cost.
We don’t have a traffic problem.
We don’t have an energy problem.
We don’t have a pollution problem.

We have a population problem.

I would agree.
I purposely choose to live in a slow-growth place that’s not at all popular yet still has an above average quality of life. Our politics are fantastically 50/50 as it should be.
Basically, it gets cold a lot. Apparently modern humans have an issue with wearing jackets which is a win for me.

I think it’s good California’s growth has slowed. My concern is what’s causing it.
Issues surrounding overpopulation certainly are a contributing factor but I wouldn’t ignore the lopsided government there that only serves to exasperate the problems.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by sub

I would agree.
I purposely choose to live in a slow-growth place that’s not at all popular yet still has an above average quality of life. Our politics are fantastically 50/50 as it should be.
Basically, it gets cold a lot. Apparently modern humans have an issue with wearing jackets which is a win for me.

I think it’s good California’s growth has slowed. My concern is what’s causing it.
Issues surrounding overpopulation certainly are a contributing factor but I wouldn’t ignore the lopsided government there that only serves to exasperate the problems.

For me the issue with the 'exodus' isn't growth or absence thereof, but what it does to the population structure.



I believe a large, healthy, settled middle-class is vital for the sustainability and stability of a society. If transient elements play too big a role, if the lower or the upper classes have an oversized presence at the expense of the middle, you're going to run into unrest & upheaval.


I feel like CA at the moment goes about it exactly the wrong way - it has plenty of incentives for the super-rich, and it has plenty of incentives for the very poor. It's the working and middle classes that they seem to say they can do without.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by sub

No, the exodus is a fact. Like I said earlier, you still have just enough incoming to offset those who leave, but California is no longer the fast-growing magnet it once was. It used to be really appealing, but not so much anymore.

Your last sentence isn't a "fact", it's you're opinion. Have a great day!

[sub]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

For me the issue with the 'exodus' isn't growth or absence thereof, but what it does to the population structure.



I believe a large, healthy, settled middle-class is vital for the sustainability and stability of a society. If transient elements play too big a role, if the lower or the upper classes have an oversized presence at the expense of the middle, you're going to run into unrest & upheaval.


I feel like CA at the moment goes about it exactly the wrong way - it has plenty of incentives for the super-rich, and it has plenty of incentives for the very poor. It's the working and middle classes that they seem to say they can do without.

That's one of the biggest issues. If they're middle class, a person has very little choice but to leave. I realize inland is cheaper, but at that point one can be so much better off elsewhere outside CA.

Originally Posted by apple92680

Your last sentence isn't a "fact", it's you're opinion. Have a great day!

No kidding.
The exodus is fact. Personal opinions of what's "appealing" are just that: opinions.
I was just pointing out that fewer and fewer people find California to be appealing, at least not appealing enough to put up with all the political and social downsides of living there or struggling greatly just to eek out a living.
A little introspection on what's being allowed to happen to CA would be nice but instead too many people seem fine with going full-throttle down this path.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

For me the issue with the 'exodus' isn't growth or absence thereof, but what it does to the population structure.



I believe a large, healthy, settled middle-class is vital for the sustainability and stability of a society. If transient elements play too big a role, if the lower or the upper classes have an oversized presence at the expense of the middle, you're going to run into unrest & upheaval.


I feel like CA at the moment goes about it exactly the wrong way - it has plenty of incentives for the super-rich, and it has plenty of incentives for the very poor. It's the working and middle classes that they seem to say they can do without.

Oh? Like Turkmenistan? Strange place. One of the world’s most expensive countries to live in right now amidst runaway inflation ... yet the majority of agrarian citizens are near-impoverished while an elite live like royalty mostly associated with the gas and oil reserves that are among the world’s leading supplies.

And yet, Turkmenistan is considered an oasis of political and cultural stability in that region of the world.

Huh.

And what remarkable “incentives” does California offer the poor?

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Oh? Like Turkmenistan? Strange place. One of the world’s most expensive countries to live in right now amidst runaway inflation ... yet the majority of agrarian citizens are near-impoverished while an elite live like royalty mostly associated with the gas and oil reserves that are among the world’s leading supplies.

And yet, Turkmenistan is considered an oasis of political and cultural stability in that region of the world.

Huh.

And what remarkable “incentives” does California offer the poor?

A dictatorship can of course remain stable for some amount of time even when there are large discrepancies in wealth and power. Not sure I'd consider Turkmenistan a model for just about anything, but that's just me.



With regard to incentives for the poor...California has some pretty generous spending on public welfare: https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/stat...ditures-capita


It also offers more expansive protections for lower level employees than most states: https://policy-practice.oxfamamerica...tates-to-work/


It has one of the most generous minimum wages in the country:
https://www.paycor.com/resource-cent...-wage-by-state


None of that should be surprising given near permanent Democratic Party rule.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

A dictatorship can of course remain stable for some amount of time even when there are large discrepancies in wealth and power. Not sure I'd consider Turkmenistan a model for just about anything, but that's just me.

I didn’t offer that Turkmenistan was a model of any kind. I merely responded to your generalization that socio-economic extremes that exclude a strong middle were a recipe for unrest and upheaval. Unrest and upheavals happen around the world in places of limited development ... yep. California doesn’t fit the criteria.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And what remarkable “incentives” does California offer the poor?

I was wondering that myself.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I didn’t offer that Turkmenistan was a model of any kind. I merely responded to your generalization that socio-economic extremes that exclude a strong middle were a recipe for unrest and upheaval. Unrest and upheavals happen around the world in places of limited development ... yep. California doesn’t fit the criteria.

It ultimately doesn't matter whether there is extremely high development for the top 10% if there's a brutal drop to the bottom 90%. The top 10% live extremely well in Mexico or Brazil. But that doesn't make those places any less volatile and vulnerable to unrest.


And in case you didn't notice - we did see unrest in CA this summer. So maybe it starts to fit the criteria.