Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To play devil's advocate, there is more migration from blue states to red states than vice versa. So it is not as if red states do not have desirable qualities or so many people wouldn't be leaving the blue states.
California has a high cost of living due to many urban areas and many up-scale industries that are as you say desirable.
Well yes, because the free market can drive people out of the state due to income inequality.
If there was 500 millionaires who decided to buy out every single housing unit in a given city, they'll force everyone out cause the folks already there can't out bid their offer and in a way, the rich can manipulate the market.
I will bet you though, those many people who moved away to red states, if they are given the opportunity to move back, I bet you they would in a heart beat. They want to be there, they just can't economically can't be there. I'm one of these people.
In addition, I think we can see how conservative policies affected our economy nationwide during the Bush years.
Name one.
The housing boom and bust was a perfect example of progressive policy. The bipartisan vote that passed the American dream act tells us 2 things. There are big government economic interventionists on both sides of the aisle and you don't know much about conservative economics.
Name one. The housing boom and bust was a perfect example of progressive policy. The bipartisan vote that passed the American dream act tells us 2 things. There are big government economic interventionists on both sides of the aisle and you don't know much about conservative economics.
Historically, the financial sector was heavily regulated by the Glass–Steagall Act which separated commercial and investment banks. It also set strict limits on Banks' interest rates and loans.
Starting in the 1980s, considerable deregulation took place in banking. Banks were deregulated through:
The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (allowing similar banks to merge and set any interest rate).
The Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (allowing Adjustable-rate mortgages).
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999 (allowing commercial and investment banks to merge).
Well yes, because the free market can drive people out of the state due to income inequality.
If there was 500 millionaires who decided to buy out every single housing unit in a given city, they'll force everyone out cause the folks already there can't out bid their offer and in a way, the rich can manipulate the market.
There will be no market there. btw Rich people are rich for a reason. They're better at managing their money than the average person. They dont go off half cocked and buy up things just because. Reasons matter. Neat example though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857
I will bet you though, those many people who moved away to red states, if they are given the opportunity to move back, I bet you they would in a heart beat. They want to be there, they just can't economically can't be there. I'm one of these people.
Not just the high cost of living but does one get the bang for the buck?
I'm very glad Republicans like their red states better. My blue state has more people trying to buy houses than there are houses available to buy. Blue states are definitely not looking for Republicans to move there.
North Dakota has a real personal income of $58,000 and Democrats are a fringe party there, that is before state income taxes but state income taxes are very low under the states Republicans pledge to let worker's keep their money.
Wyoming is #3 adjusted to cost of living
Nebraska is #5 adjusted to cost of living
South Dakota is #6 adjusted to cost of living.
Cost of living factors in the market. There is nothing in those statistics that says anything about the free market. It was simple social and economic indicators.
Don't try to twist the facts. Yes blue states are more expensive because it's desirable, people want to move there. But this desirability is a result of the social and economic policies (as well as culture and history) adopted in the states that has caused it, it does not tell you how good or bad each state is doing socially/economically speaking.
Sure it's unaffordable, but that's because demand from the outside is pushing everything up. If you get rid of the outside influence, the statistics given in the links, still hold. COL does not.
Then again, cost of living is high because it's desirable. Everyone wants to live there and not enough housing can be built to accomodate the demand. The free market at it's finest right?
Not really, it is mainly red-tape, regulation and government intervention.
Many blue-areas for a reason I can't understand treat the construction industry that just want's to house America's families with disrespect and contempt.
Blue areas have city, county, state agencies working against them with zoning codes, environment codes and other red-tape and regulations that are meant to restrict construction.
Los Angeles had 9,300 new single housing permits last year with 13 million people
Phoenix had 18,500 new single single family housing permits with 4.5 million people in the metro.
Houston had 35,000 single family housing permits.
Houston and Phoenix have higher population growth then the Los Angeles metro area.
Houston and Phoenix combined have less people then Los Angeles, yet 6 times the single-family housing construction.
Republicans believe in less red tape and less market manipulation when it comes to housing construction to keep America's families housed and happy at a wide selection of prices.
Democrats love huge amounts of red tape, they obstruct housing construction because they want to keep housing prices high.
It has nothing to do with how desirable it is, but more that Democrats for some reason have a vendetta against new single-family housing. I don't know if it is the fact they don't like blue-collar construction workers as it doesn't fit with their knowledge-based elite agenda.
I'm very glad Republicans like their red states better. My blue state has more people trying to buy houses than there are houses available to buy. Blue states are definitely not looking for Republicans to move there.
I always find it interesting too, most of the metropolitan centers (centered around some anchor city) are always Democratic but the suburbs are always Republican. I guess they come for the jobs?
I always find it interesting too, most of the metropolitan centers are always Democratic but the suburbs are always Republican. I guess they come for the jobs?
Well where I live, the whole metro is pretty liberal but that's where the jobs are too.
"In other words, an average of 236 people are moving to the Seattle area each day..."
Not really, it is mainly red-tape, regulation and government intervention.
Los Angeles had 9,300 new single housing permits last year with 13 million people
Phoenix had 18,500 new single single family housing permits with 4.5 million people in the metro.
Houston had 35,000 single family housing permits.
Houston and Phoenix have higher population growth then the Los Angeles metro area.
Houston and Phoenix combined have less people then Los Angeles, yet 6 times the single-family housing construction.
Republicans believe in less red tape and less market manipulation when it comes to housing construction to keep America's families housed and happy at a wide selection of prices.
Democrats love huge amounts of red tape, they obstruct housing construction because they want to keep housing prices high.
It has nothing to do with how desirable it is, but more that Democrats for some reason have a vendetta against new single-family housing. I don't know if it is the fact they don't like blue-collar construction workers as it doesn't fit with their knowledge-based elite agenda.
You're trying to open a can of worms as I know quite a bit of policy in this area.
Blue cities are expensive due to regulation: Partially yes
But then you ask, what's the reason for that regulation? What causes prices to be so high and less housing being built?
Various reasons:
1. Prevent culturally important POI from being demolished and rebuilt for more housing (Would you demolish Lady Liberty, or the National Mall, etc.. to make room for housing?)
2. Prevent all lower income residents from being driven out by richer folks (as an economy can't really function when there's no one to clean your toilets or run Starbucks, rent control comes into play here)
3. Preserve sightlines to the city. No one wants random skyscrapers popping up next to their single-family house. Nor skyscrapers to rise up and cover sunlight to a city park.
4. Preserve "tradition", homeowners not willing to give up their land for the city to build higher density housing
Fundamental problem: Scarcity of land
So now do you see a correlation between expensive cities and more regulation? It's not as easy as you put it.
Best example of this issue magnified: San Francisco and NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
