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, once again, is ranked in last place while North Dakota leads in terms of middle class affordability. California residents are struggling to pay the bills and have to live amongst drug addicts and homeless overrunning their neighborhoods. Liberal policies are creating a sharp divide in this once great state where there is a rich, ruling class and everyone else is poor. Nearly half the state is in fact poor by this measure.
Additionally, liberal Seattle is doing as bad as San Francisco these days.
No one is twisting their arms to live in those places. However, they are the ones that let their state stink like dead fish. Better they stay contained than affect the rest of us.
North Dakota is a frozen wasteland of a state with a tiny, now mostly stagnant, economy (after the oil boom bust) and an equally tiny and stagnant population. It has almost nothing of any sort, poor included.
The homeless all left because they aren't interested in freezing to death, and most everyone else who CAN leave has done so, looking for states with actual job opportunities and where winter doesn't last 10 months of the year. So, the only reason they have so few poor is because they have so few people, and nobody sticks around in North Dakota unless they have to. California, on the other hand, has much better climate (attracts the homeless) and a huge, prosperous economy, which attracts people in general and causes an increase in prices, thus an increase in poverty rates.
If you want a fair comparison - which I know is never what right-wingers seek with their one-line talking points on this forum - compare North Dakota and Minnesota.
Both have very similar - COLD! - climates, and neither is cursed with the illusion of being a land with "infinite jobs." And yet, left of center Minnesota has a population about TEN TIMES that of North Dakota, with a far larger, healthier, and more advanced economy. North Dakota can't use "it's cold" as an excuse - so what really happened? Simple - progressive politics work far better than xenophobic and regressive right-wing politics.
The article is not disputing that California is "much richer". It certainly is. However, it is only affordable to 51% of the population. The other 49% are close to destitute. In North Dakota, while people may not have as many Porsches or boob jobs, 68% of them are able to afford a nice middle class living, much higher than in California.
The problems created by "all the jobs" moving to an ever-dwindling number of locations, and the resulting sky-rocketing in housing prices and congestion caused by this economic change is a valid one. The problem is that the OP is not interested in such thoughtful discussions. This is just another "duh, liberals bad, republicans good!" thread, with laughable reasoning based on a random statistic. If low poverty rates determine the best political model, Antarctica wins - 0% poverty rate! - so let's all move there!
It amazes me how the far-right continues to try to hold up states with stagnant, if not dying, economies, dwindling populations, and horrible weather as "success stories."
Do they understand that their extremist, hypocritical, and xenophobic political views won't work in any successful location? And if these right-wing realms are SOOOO great, why doesn't anyone want to move to them? Hmmm...
The problems created by "all the jobs" moving to an ever-dwindling number of locations, and the resulting sky-rocketing in housing prices and congestion caused by this economic change is a valid one. The problem is that the OP is not interested in such thoughtful discussions. This is just another "duh, liberals bad, republicans good!" thread, with laughable reasoning based on a random statistic. If low poverty rates determine the best political model, Antarctica wins - 0% poverty rate! - so let's all move there!
It amazes me how the far-right continues to try to hold up states with stagnant, if not dying, economies, dwindling populations, and horrible weather as "success stories."
Do they understand that their extremist, hypocritical, and xenophobic political views won't work in any successful location? And if these right-wing realms are SOOOO great, why doesn't anyone want to move to them? Hmmm...
Because we have been raising a spoiled, dependent class of people who want to squeeze into expensive designated trendy left wing cities.
ND economy moves with the ups and downs of energy and agriculture. That is so un-hip.
Because we have been raising a spoiled, dependent class of people who want to squeeze into expensive designated trendy left wing cities.
ND economy moves with the ups and downs of energy and agriculture. That is so un-hip.
So.... you're claiming the only "proper" economy is one based on energy and agriculture, and that people move to "left-wing" cities to "be hip?"
California has far more of an economy than North Dakota will ever have, so it is far more qualified to serve as an example of proper economics. So, yeah... go back to enjoying winter 10 months of the year and a population where everyone who can leave, does. So "hip!"
North Dakota is a frozen wasteland of a state with a tiny, now mostly stagnant, economy (after the oil boom bust) and an equally tiny and stagnant population. It has almost nothing of any sort, poor included.
The homeless all left because they aren't interested in freezing to death, and most everyone else who CAN leave has done so, looking for states with actual job opportunities and where winter doesn't last 10 months of the year. So, the only reason they have so few poor is because they have so few people, and nobody sticks around in North Dakota unless they have to. California, on the other hand, has much better climate (attracts the homeless) and a huge, prosperous economy, which attracts people in general and causes an increase in prices, thus an increase in poverty rates.
If you want a fair comparison - which I know is never what right-wingers seek with their one-line talking points on this forum - compare North Dakota and Minnesota.
Both have very similar - COLD! - climates, and neither is cursed with the illusion of being a land with "infinite jobs." And yet, left of center Minnesota has a population about TEN TIMES that of North Dakota, with a far larger, healthier, and more advanced economy. North Dakota can't use "it's cold" as an excuse - so what really happened? Simple - progressive politics work far better than xenophobic and regressive right-wing politics.
Not a good comparison. Minnesota isn't nearly as dry as North Dakota so it isn't a barren wasteland. Actually except for the harsh winters Minnesota is fairly pleasant. Plus the Mississippi River gives it a major commercial corridor running all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing like that in North Dakota.
Not a good comparison. Minnesota isn't nearly as dry as North Dakota so it isn't a barren wasteland. Actually except for the harsh winters Minnesota is fairly pleasant. Plus the Mississippi River gives it a major commercial corridor running all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing like that in North Dakota.
It is an acceptable comparison - far better than California vs. North Dakota, which ignores how nice climates attract the homeless and how North Dakota has few poor people because everyone who can leave that land of eternal winter has done so.
I didn't say the climate between those two states was identical, but the point is that Minnesota and North Dakota compete for the title of coldest state in the lower 48. And yet, oddly, Minnesota is much more populated and has a much bigger economy than North Dakota. Sure, North Dakota being drier, more empty, and having less water hinders them somewhat, but so does the regressive, right-wing policies that govern that state.
So.... you're claiming the only "proper" economy is one based on energy and agriculture, and that people move to "left-wing" cities to "be hip?"
California has far more of an economy than North Dakota will ever have, so it is far more qualified to serve as an example of proper economics. So, yeah... go back to enjoying winter 10 months of the year and a population where everyone who can leave, does. So "hip!"
Sure, that makes sense.. No one said right or wrong, they are simply different. Young people are drawn to gentrified areas, even if they can barely afford to live there on the salary from their good job.
Since people in ND aren't poor it seems they would be in better position to leave if they wanted. Why don't they all leave then? Oh wait, they like freedom and a low crime middle class lifestyle.
Sure, that makes sense.. No one said right or wrong, they are simply different. Young people are drawn to gentrified areas, even if they can barely afford to live there on the salary from their good job.
Since people in ND aren't poor it seems they would be in better position to leave if they wanted. Why don't they all leave then? Oh wait, they like freedom and a low crime middle class lifestyle.
A lot of talented people are drawn to California's large cities because they offer tremendous professional opportunities. It may require living a pretty lean existence for a few years, but eventually the experience can be turned into a lucrative position in a less expensive part of the country. It's short-term discomfort for long-term gain.
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.
