Time Magazine thought California was done in the 70s & again in the 90s (Palo Alto: mortgage, homes)

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by user_id

Huh? The issue I mentioned go beyond the recession. The country is in recession, yet California has one of the highest unemployment rates.

Wrong. There are actually several state with higher unemployment rates. What the wing nuts & haters like to talk about is that California has the highest number of unemployed people in gross terms but what they ignore is that the state also has the highest number of employed people in gross terms.

If you have the largest population then you end up have lots of both.

[Oerdin]

Originally Posted by 4beanie

also 15,000 millionairs moved out of Ca in the early 2000's.

That's a myth. There really weren't that many who moved out. What we did have was the tech bubble bursting so that a lot of people who were paper millionaires suddenly were no longer paper millionaires. The wingnuts at the Heritage Foundation (a right wing astroturf group which came up with this nonsense) simply compared the number of millionaires filing state tax returns in 1998 to the number of millionaires filing state tax returns in 2002 and claimed they'd all moved away because of "high taxes". The reality is the dot.com bubble popping and the first Bush recession caused most of those loses but the people stayed where they were. I remember this myth getting extensively debunked way back in 2002.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

Sure it can't, but the chances of that actually happening are not as great as some make it out to be. And I respectfully disagree with the second part of this statement. SF is not the only place in the Bay Area that would always be desirable.

I said "most areas", not all. Also, its not that unlikely. All that needs to occur is that the current trend continues. Now that there are other areas with a big tech industry the bay area really does need to fight to keep being a major player.

Originally Posted by Ludachris

The people I tried convincing know that it would cost them less to live somewhere else. It doesn't take a calculator to understand that. They simply don't think a lower cost of living will make up for how much they enjoy living where they do.

As I said its easy to say this when you don't directly pay for the extra costs. And it does take a calculator to understand the actual number amount, "less" after all does not say much.

Originally Posted by Ludachris

I just had a few friends come out to visit this past weekend. We discussed CA's future. None of them seemed to think as negatively as you. Sure, they complained about the same stuff, but they felt it would improve over time.

I'm not sure why you think this means something. Are they economists? Have they been following the state? Just 2 years ago it was nearly impossible to convince a California that housing values would go down, all they would say is "but the weather", "everyone wants to live here", etc.

Anyhow, you are not going to get honest answers from most Californians even if they are knowledgeable in the relevant matters. Why? Because they have a vested interest in the state doing good, property values holding up, etc.

Originally Posted by Ludachris

In any event, I'm sure CA will rebound.

People said the same about Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. Things don't always rebound, this is an important observation on many levels.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

Wrong. There are actually several state with higher unemployment rates. What the wing nuts & haters like to talk about is that California has the highest number of unemployed people in gross terms but what they ignore is that the state also has the highest number of employed people in gross terms.

If you have the largest population then you end up have lots of both.

What are you even talking about? People are looking at the unemployment rate, not the raw number of people unemployment.

California has has the 5th highest unemployment rate at 11%, only two states have an unemployment rate that is much higher. Oregon (12%) and Michigan (12.9%).

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by user_id

I said "most areas", not all. Also, its not that unlikely. All that needs to occur is that the current trend continues. Now that there are other areas with a big tech industry the bay area really does need to fight to keep being a major player.


As I said its easy to say this when you don't directly pay for the extra costs. And it does take a calculator to understand the actual number amount, "less" after all does not say much.


I'm not sure why you think this means something. Are they economists? Have they been following the state? Just 2 years ago it was nearly impossible to convince a California that housing values would go down, all they would say is "but the weather", "everyone wants to live here", etc.

Anyhow, you are not going to get honest answers from most Californians even if they are knowledgeable in the relevant matters. Why? Because they have a vested interest in the state doing good, property values holding up, etc.


People said the same about Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, etc. Things don't always rebound, this is an important observation on many levels.

You seem to continue to ignore the fact that people in CA don't care that it costs less to live elsewhere - at least not as much as you do. They are happy where they live and don't necessarily feel the lower cost of living will make up for why they choose to stay. Maybe you've found a "lot" of middle class people who feel it's not worth it. But plenty of us have found a "lot" of middle class people who feel it is. So now what? If it doesn't suit you, you'll end up leaving. But don't try and speak for everyone, especially not the people I know.

As for the current economic trends in CA, it's the same across the nation. Everyone tends to think the nation will rebound. Same goes for CA. If it doesn't, it won't only be CA that's in trouble.

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

You seem to continue to ignore the fact that people in CA don't care that it costs less to live elsewhere - at least not as much as you do. They are happy where they live and don't necessarily feel the lower cost of living will make up for why they choose to stay. Maybe you've found a "lot" of middle class people who feel it's not worth it. But plenty of us have found a "lot" of middle class people who feel it is. So now what? If it doesn't suit you, you'll end up leaving. But don't try and speak for everyone, especially not the people I know.

As for the current economic trends in CA, it's the same across the nation. Everyone tends to think the nation will rebound. Same goes for CA. If it doesn't, it won't only be CA that's in trouble.

The people might not care, but the businesses sure do. Corporations don't surf and they don't care about the lifestyle amenities in the state. Its all about the benjamins. The states economy will continue to hemmorage jobs as long as the hostile business enviroment remains and the costs of living & therefore cost of doing business remains so high.

As for the US economy, do you really think we'll see a strong recovery anytime soon? Especailly with the largest state in the union listing so badly? CA is a huge economic millstone right now and can impair any recovery or even drag the country back into reccession.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by that1guy

Nostalgia inhibits innovation.

And innovation and progressiveness have taken the state where lately?

Some things are tried and true and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand merely because they're not new. That's as limiting as living constantly in the past would be.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

And I think you might find happiness elsewhere. You have to love CA in order to live there. It costs more and it might not suit everyone. But many who live there love it. Just as some might portray those who want to leave as "quitters", you're also seeing those who want to stay (or want to move there) being portrayed as "stupid" because of the higher cost of living isn't a "smart" investment.

Just because you don't like it there doesn't mean that what works for you should work for everyone else. Nor should you try and speak for everyone. As I've stated, the majority of middle class family and friends I have in NorCal still love living there. So I don't buy into the idea that "most" of the middle class in CA finds it not worth it. It's all relative and different things are important to different people. Not everyone sees the financial sacrifice of living in CA as being worth it. Most of the people I know actually do. (Curmudgeon, none of this is directed at you, or anyone else - it's more of a general statement)

I think your statement is absolutely correct. I've was born and have lived most of my life in both southern and northern California. Other than the birth part over which I had no influence, the state has obviously suited me well or I would have left long ago. Now that I'm retired I have the opportunity for the grand adventure of taking up residence in a state that on several levels will, I believe, suit me better. But that's just me and I don't presume that it fits anyone else's plans, nor should it. It's all individual.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by user_id

What are you even talking about? People are looking at the unemployment rate, not the raw number of people unemployment.

California has has the 5th highest unemployment rate at 11%, only two states have an unemployment rate that is much higher. Oregon (12%) and Michigan (12.9%).

I believe that figure is just those who get unemployment. It does not include those whose unemployment has run out or weren't eligible in the first place. Is this correct?

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by Oerdin

That's a myth. There really weren't that many who moved out. What we did have was the tech bubble bursting so that a lot of people who were paper millionaires suddenly were no longer paper millionaires. The wingnuts at the Heritage Foundation (a right wing astroturf group which came up with this nonsense) simply compared the number of millionaires filing state tax returns in 1998 to the number of millionaires filing state tax returns in 2002 and claimed they'd all moved away because of "high taxes". The reality is the dot.com bubble popping and the first Bush recession caused most of those loses but the people stayed where they were. I remember this myth getting extensively debunked way back in 2002.

that makes since, but I do remember during that time all the houses that people lost in that area, so they must of had to move somewhere, but if they were just paper millionaires they wouldn't have been pay taxes except on gains from sales of stock