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.
California baby boomers use progressive rhetoric to mask their exclusionary policies. They want to hoard California's resources for themselves and not share with others. How progressive is that?
But more than 40 years of exclusionary housing, energy, taxation, and regulatory policies have made California increasingly the province of the affluent, those who bought homes here years ago, and their subsidized service class. Those being excluded are the young, the poor, and the propertyless. “The country doesn’t need to embrace the willy-nilly destruction of structures of genuine historic value,” writes Matthew Yglesias, “but progressives must see that scarcity is the enemy of equality.”
Quote:
But the pro-scarcity coalition is also aging, weakening and threatened by a countervailing movement of younger and hungrier newcomers advocating inclusion and abundance. A coalition founded on those values could challenge and eventually overthrow the old regime. But for that to happen, it will need a new vision of California grounded in current physical, economic, and technological realities, and animated by values at once humanistic and ecological. It is my hope that California in Danger will contribute to the shaping of that vision and to the uniting of that coalition.
This has less to do with "left-wing" politics and more to do with the simple reality of California based on science.
Too many people have moved there chasing the economic boon that often exists in that state, and the state itself is often more resource poor than people commonly understand. Water can be hard to come by, and a good chunk of the state is not very habitable by people - lots of mountains, a big desert, etc.
Many of the suggestions in that article won't work. You want "abundant housing" - OK, where's the water going to come from for all those extra people?
End poverty by embracing automation? What? Automation is often a factor in putting the poor out of work!
9 to 5 school day without homework... what good is this? If the kids aren't interested in learning, that's not going to change.
Create high paying jobs - sounds good, but I'd argue, in an odd way, that's part of the problem. Not that the jobs are high-paying, but too many companies set up shop in California vs. elsewhere, resulting in too many people needing to move there, resulting in very high housing prices and cost of living, and further adding to the water shortage issue.
Now, getting rid of corruption, working on taxes, and improving worker's rights are all great ideas, but, as I said earlier, many of California's problems are based simply on the sheer number of people in the state along with unique aspects of geography and water supply.
This has less to do with "left-wing" politics and more to do with the simple reality of California based on science.
Too many people have moved there chasing the economic boon that often exists in that state, and the state itself is often more resource poor than people commonly understand. Water can be hard to come by, and a good chunk of the state is not very habitable by people - lots of mountains, a big desert, etc.
Many of the suggestions in that article won't work. You want "abundant housing" - OK, where's the water going to come from for all those extra people?
End poverty by embracing automation? What? Automation is often a factor in putting the poor out of work!
9 to 5 school day without homework... what good is this? If the kids aren't interested in learning, that's not going to change.
Create high paying jobs - sounds good, but I'd argue, in an odd way, that's part of the problem. Not that the jobs are high-paying, but too many companies set up shop in California vs. elsewhere, resulting in too many people needing to move there, resulting in very high housing prices and cost of living, and further adding to the water shortage issue.
Now, getting rid of corruption, working on taxes, and improving worker's rights are all great ideas, but, as I said earlier, many of California's problems are based simply on the sheer number of people in the state along with unique aspects of geography and water supply.
Even accepting your claim that California cannot support more people, why should incumbents be advantaged rather than newcomers? Moreover the incumbents' advantage is hereditary when houses are passed on. That's not inclusive.
You're exemplifying the rhetoric in the linked piece. "We're protecting the environment by keeping people out." They're also protecting their lifestyle and bank account.
Even accepting your claim that California cannot support more people, why should incumbents be advantaged rather than newcomers? Moreover the incumbents' advantage is hereditary when houses are passed on. That's not inclusive.
You're exemplifying the rhetoric in the linked piece. "We're protecting the environment by keeping people out." They're also protecting their lifestyle and bank account.
The problem is there IS some truth in "protecting the environment by keeping people out." If the water supply can't support lots more people, or there's no room for them, than it's a valid point.
Similarly, the tax laws that favor people who are already there - if you change them, people's property taxes sky-rocket, and you have lots of old, poor, retired people losing their homes. That's not good, either.
I'm not saying California doesn't have issues, particularly those based on cost of living, population density, and water supply. Nor am I saying the current system is perfect. But some of the suggestions in that article would not have the positive effects desired.
California baby boomers use progressive rhetoric to mask their exclusionary policies. They want to hoard California's resources for themselves and not share with others. How progressive is that?
There is no amount of money, that will make everyone equal.
The experiment has been tried over and over. Because everyone independently makes their own choices, the results are right back where you started.
Give a thousand random people 1 million dollars and comeback to them in 5 years and see where they are.
The people that were poor are poor again and the rich are still rich.
Government can only restrict opportunity. They can never create it, unless they lighten up on their restrictions already in place.
Government is suppose to treat every individual equally. Not try every stupid thing in the world, to fool everyone to believe they can actually make everyone equal.
Even accepting your claim that California cannot support more people, why should incumbents be advantaged rather than newcomers? Moreover the incumbents' advantage is hereditary when houses are passed on. That's not inclusive.
You're exemplifying the rhetoric in the linked piece. "We're protecting the environment by keeping people out." They're also protecting their lifestyle and bank account.
Why shouldn't they?
Maybe the newcomers should earn their place, instead of demanding they be given more of whatever it is they want so its cheaper, and they can afford it.
Here's the irony, some of the newcomers will earn it, and have the house, and lifestyle they want. Guess what, they will become the new NIMBYs.
OP, some day when you grow up, and earned something of value, you won't give it up either.
The problem is there IS some truth in "protecting the environment by keeping people out." If the water supply can't support lots more people, or there's no room for them, than it's a valid point.
Similarly, the tax laws that favor people who are already there - if you change them, people's property taxes sky-rocket, and you have lots of old, poor, retired people losing their homes. That's not good, either.
I'm not saying California doesn't have issues, particularly those based on cost of living, population density, and water supply. Nor am I saying the current system is perfect. But some of the suggestions in that article would not have the positive effects desired.
Millions of young people never owning homes is not good either. Why should the elderly homeowners be advantaged? An age-neutral property tax system that assessed properties periodically rather than upon sale is fair to everyone, whereas the current system favors long-time owners.
Maybe the newcomers should earn their place, instead of demanding they be given more of whatever it is they want so its cheaper, and they can afford it.
Here's the irony, some of the newcomers will earn it, and have the house, and lifestyle they want. Guess what, they will become the new NIMBYs.
Because the baby boomers "earned" their place when it was more equitable and easier, then changed the rules to make it harder to "earn" your place. They pulled up the ladders.
Changing the rules of the game to favor yourself, rather than be neutral, is morally bankrupt and is a market distortion that leads to worse economic outcomes.
There is no amount of money, that will make everyone equal.
The experiment has been tried over and over. Because everyone independently makes their own choices, the results are right back where you started.
Give a thousand random people 1 million dollars and comeback to them in 5 years and see where they are.
The people that were poor are poor again and the rich are still rich.
Government can only restrict opportunity. They can never create it, unless they lighten up on their restrictions already in place.
Government is suppose to treat every individual equally. Not try every stupid thing in the world, to fool everyone to believe they can actually make everyone equal.
That's a strawman. "Making everyone equal" is not the same as "leveling the playing field". I don't know why you're complaining about government overreach when the article linked to cites numerous government policies as the source of the class bifurcation in California.
California has had decades to deal with the water shortage they knew, and were told, was coming. The powers that be did not want to spend the necessary $ to plan ahead with reservoirs and dams. I lived the first half of my life within a short drive of what should have been the Auburn dam in NoCal but it has been blocked for nearly half a century for a frog and a salamander. You reap what you sow. If people thought the cost for preparation was expensive in 1970, I'll bet that looks cheap now.
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.
