How many are thinking of leaving California? (Los Angeles, San Diego: mortgages, homes)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Humanoid

In what sense are the regions wealthy? The state and local governments are going bankrupt.

The Northeast and Bay Area just have the highest incomes and highest concentration of wealth it seems in America and the most expensive real estate. I really don't see what other regions are as wealthy or wealthier. While SoCal does have a lot of wealth, on a per capita basis its not as high as the Bay Area. Probably has to do with more immigrants though too, especially in LA.

I know SF and Oakland have some huge budget deficits but so does San Diego. San Jose doesn't have a deficit from what I read. Vallejo going bankrupt is no surprise, that place largely low income and ghetto. I don't really see a big difference between Bay Area and SoCal municipal budgets.

San Jose is asking for $14 billion from the federal government primary to fund failing transportation projects.

I think that was just a stupid PR stunt, it's yearly budget is only around $3.3 billion and it doesn't even have a deficit. I can't believe the mayor made a fool of himself like that.

Median income in the bay area is high, but this doesn't really tell you about wealth in a meaningful way. The unemployment rate in the bay area is 6.1%, that doesn't really speak of Wealth to me.

But that's lower than the CA unemployment rate as well as all of the metro areas in SoCal.

It speaks of a bubble economy built on pseudo-wealth (Wealth not backed by real production).

How?

The bay area, like much of California is running off fumes at this point. I think Southern California is actually in a better position than the north.

How? I don't really see how one area is better off than the other.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by sav858

The Northeast and Bay Area just have the highest incomes and highest concentration of wealth it seems in America and the most expensive real estate. I really don't see what other regions are as wealthy or wealthier. While SoCal does have a lot of wealth, on a per capita basis its not as high as the Bay Area. Probably has to do with more immigrants though too, especially in LA.

I stated that the bay area has a high median income, but this is a very narrow notion of "wealth". Looking at the real estate prices isn't particularly interesting due to the massive housing bubble in the area, which is now crashing. As far as I know the bay area doesn't have the highest concentration of wealth, just one of the highest median incomes (the two aren't the same). If you have data on wealth (not just income) - real estate, I'd like to see it. Not even sure if this information is tracked, not like you can reliably know the value of people's assets.

But really, this isn't too relevant to my point which is that the bay area is going to go the way of Detroit, Pittsburgh etc etc if things don't change. Citing past and even current numbers doesn't say what is going to happen in the future. Pittsburgh was one of the wealthiest areas in the country and now look at it, less than half the population it had during the boom.

Anyhow, I have lived in enough areas of the country to know that the success and wealth of states/cities ebbs and flows over time. I'm not sure of the actual dynamics for these changes, but no area stays top dog for long. I think possibly what happens is that as the area does better wealth starts to be overly concentrated in too few hands and then these people develop a powerful bloc that shuts out others from competing with them. For example the passing of new regulations often works to shut out new businesses in an industry as only established businesses can afford them. Liberal policies are often used to keep the established order in place, businesses aren't stupid and they know how to manipulate partisan hacks to get what they want. They just change the wording, but the policies end with the same result- keeping the established order in place.

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't really see a big difference between Bay Area and SoCal municipal budgets.

I wasn't referring to the local governments in my comments rather the local economies. Southern California still has a number of manufactures and things of that nature. Both areas are going to be equally destroyed by the collapse of the FIRE economy. Its just that Southern California is likely to have more left after it collapses. But this is more of my personal view than anything else, I haven't spent the time required to dig up the data to see if my personal observations are accurate (current unemployment rates aren't going to tell you much at all though).

Originally Posted by sav858

How?

Rapid changes in either direction of an economy is an indication of bubbles. California is on its second bubble in a single decade, California has been creating debt driven bubbles instead of actual production. But peak credit is here and the game is over. California is going to have a hard time recovering because it has hallowed out its middle-class and reduced its productive capacity. San Fransisco has one of the highest median incomes, but it also has one of the biggest gaps between the "have and have nots".

Its a bit ironic that one of the most liberal areas in the country, has one of the worst distributions of wealth....

[CA central coast]

Originally Posted by happ

If you think living in a place like Arkansas sounds interesting than you don't really enjoy the opportunities that you have in California. .

this would be to afford a house, that's the reason for me. Had I taken care of business when I was younger, I probably wouldn't consider leaving. But I didn't, and the prospect of paying a fat mortgage at 70 isn't appealing.

[jkbatca]

California is about to go into a black hole in terms of budgeting as CA's economy looks bleak (http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/017124.html - broken link) which will drag down all counties / cities. Anyone who thinks CA is in good economic shape right now are either stupid, stoned, or insane. In an economic environment where virtually all CA businesses are going down the tubes, the geniuses in Sacramento are going to raise taxes, which will push most CA businesses off the edge into the black hole. Because the fact that public sector and education / health unions dwarf all other unions combined I doubt there will be any spending cuts either unless CA defaults and has to start from scratch or voters start to get serious (http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/v-print/story/1393261.html - broken link).

Good enough reason to leave California? I wish I could...

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by sav858

The Northeast and Bay Area just have the highest incomes and highest concentration of wealth it seems in America and the most expensive real estate. I really don't see what other regions are as wealthy or wealthier.

When you say that the Northeast has the highest income, you're JUST talking about NYC and surrounding suburbs. You are NOT talking about PA, Ohio, Western NY (Buffalo, NY comes to mind), Maine, Lower NJ, etc. The highest concentrations in wealth sit in NYC, Miami, and the west coast, AFAIK.

[ndfmnlf]

You aren't in the bay area, and I looked up the median salary for Bay area RNs and its $70,000. Only 10% make more than $90,000.

I'm not a nurse, though I'm in the medical profession. The $70K median salary of a nurse is for 1 job only. Nurses can and do work multiple jobs. They also have the option of being in business for themselves (eg home health care agencies). So, nurses can and do make significantly more than $70k....I've seen people take home at the mid to upper $100K. I have no reason to doubt what Sheri is saying.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

I'm not a nurse, though I'm in the medical profession. The $70K median salary of a nurse is for 1 job only. Nurses can and do work multiple jobs. They also have the option of being in business for themselves (eg home health care agencies). So, nurses can and do make significantly more than $70k....I've seen people take home at the mid to upper $100K. I have no reason to doubt what Sheri is saying.

Then don't, I really don't care whether you doubt her or not. As I said before, I doubt it because its not consistent with other comments from her (not comments on this thread). But really, I don't care. I should have said nothing, there is absolutely no point in talking about these sorts of things. There is no way to resolve them.

The point isn't Sheri's salary, the point is that housing in California is still unaffordable for the vast majority of the people that live in the state. But a lot of people in California work more than one job, at least from my experience they seem to have a full time job and then some sort of part-time job (or perhaps work a lot of overtime). I find it a bit depressing, that people have to work so much just to afford basic things here.

[BennyPhoenix]

Originally Posted by happ

It's interesting that some of the most conservative\ against gay marriage posters on this board are the least happy in California & doubt they will be happy anywhere they live.

I am not against gay marriage. I am against the govt being involved in marriage in any ways, straight or gay. I do not care what gays do as long as they leave me out of it. But when they get the govt involved that puts me and everybody else in to it.

[Humanoid]

Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix

I am not against gay marriage. I am against the govt being involved in marriage in any ways, straight or gay. I do not care what gays do as long as they leave me out of it. But when they get the govt involved that puts me and everybody else in to it.

The government issues marriage licenses, so how can you not get the government involved? Getting married in name without the legal backing of the state has no teeth legally.

[gypsy77]

I am going to be moving out of California in the spring. My husband is from the Midwest and we are going back there. Of course I will miss the weather here, and some family members, but it's not the same as I remember it growing up in the suburbs of Sacramento. Sacramento and the surrounding areas have really gone down hill. Too crowded, too expensive, too everything. Too many strip malls, too much concrete, too much traffic, too crowded schools, too many immigrants, and too many Starbucks. I'm sick of it, this is not how I remember my wonderful river town childhood, when I would walk from house in Orangevale down to the river or Folsom Lake and take my dogs for a walk. I went back to the same spot recently and got chased by 3 pitbulls and some white trash man with no pants on. He was drunk and looked as though he lived down there. My peaceful quiet spot has been ruined! I don't know what has happened to the Sacramento Valley but this place is no longer suitable for a middle class family to raise their children. If I was rich, I would stay in CA. But I'm not, so I'm leaving. I do look forward to working less hours, less traffic, less people, more space, bigger house for cheaper, 4 seasons, slower paced life, nicer people, fireflies, good schools, close knit community, and being around my husbands family who has been in the same town for 3 generations. Let's see if I still feel this way when I'm shoveling 6 ft. of snow out of the driveway though! But it's worth it to me, for my kids to have a childhood that consists of more than hanging out at a crowded mall at age 13, with a $400 Coach purse over her shoulder. That is not how I want her to turn out! I want her to have more values than that. Not saying Coach purses and cell phones are bad, but I want my kid to be able to be a kid.
P.S. I support gay marriage, let people do what they want. I think marriage is about love and committment between two people, not necessarily just a man and woman.