California's Population Increases (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Clara: rent, hotel, income tax)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Wilson502

Or like myself, dont subscribe to any political parties.

That may be true, but even those who aren't big cheerleaders for the red or the blue teams tend to be more moderate / conservative / libertarian.

[KingObeat]

The population increase is probably due more to illegal immigration since california loves them so much.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by KingObeat

The population increase is probably due more to illegal immigration since california loves them so much.

Got numbers for that?

[mrazyattic]

Probably illegal immigrants coming from another state to get some handouts.....

I sure hope the population isn't increasing, there is still a lack of jobs.

Heres the thing liberals.... "california increases jobs" yet you still can't live off the wage they offer, because the col is ridiculously high.

"Californias population increases" yet the increase is probably due to uncontributing members of society.

Can we focus on quality?

[18Montclair]

Yawns at the xeno crew. lol

Anyway here is some annual growth data for the 2 largest regions in the state:

Los Angeles Area(5 counties)
2013 Population: 18,308,524
2012 Population: 18,166,834
1-year numerical change +141,690
1-year percentage change +0.77%

San Francisco Bay Area(12 counties)
2013 Population: 8,418,411
2012 Population: 8,317,563
1-year numerical change +100,848
1-year percentage change +1.21%

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by KingObeat

The population increase is probably due more to illegal immigration since california loves them so much.

Wrong! For the last few years that immigration has been at zero and perhaps even reversed. Can't use that crutch anymore.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yawns at the xeno crew. lol

Anyway here is some annual growth data for the 2 largest regions in the state:

Los Angeles Area(5 counties)
2013 Population: 18,308,524
2012 Population: 18,166,834
1-year numerical change +141,690
1-year percentage change +0.77%

San Francisco Bay Area(12 counties)
2013 Population: 8,418,411
2012 Population: 8,317,563
1-year numerical change +100,848
1-year percentage change +1.21%

Any data to accompany these numbers, specifically income levels? If such data can be found it would put to rest a few of the arguments we see here often. OK, that's being overly optimistic. This is what I'd be curious to know and why:

1. Are the increases mostly due to a net increase in mid to upper income earners? If so that is a good thing. It means there are more skilled/professional jobs available and more taxpayers. This would indicate that population increases are occurring for all of the right reasons, and CA's prospects are hardly on the decline. This is the type of population growth you brag about. It indicates an area that is becoming more prosperous, not just more populous.

2. Are the increases mostly due to a net increase in low income earners? Note that I use the term "mostly". It's possible that increases are occurring across all income levels, but where is it mostly occurring? This would have the opposite meaning of #1 above. It would be nothing to brag about. It would be a trend that does indeed point to a less prosperous future if the trend continues for the next decade or two.

That's what my curious mind would like to know. I couldn't find any obvious answers.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

1. Are the increases mostly due to a net increase in mid to upper income earners? If so that is a good thing. It means there are more skilled/professional jobs available and more taxpayers. This would indicate that population increases are occurring for all of the right reasons, and CA's prospects are hardly on the decline. This is the type of population growth you brag about. It indicates an area that is becoming more prosperous, not just more populous.

2. Are the increases mostly due to a net increase in low income earners? Note that I use the term "mostly". It's possible that increases are occurring across all income levels, but where is it mostly occurring? This would have the opposite meaning of #1 above. It would be nothing to brag about. It would be a trend that does indeed point to a less prosperous future if the trend continues for the next decade or two.

That's what my curious mind would like to know. I couldn't find any obvious answers.

Doing the old "givers vs, takers" Romney thing again, huh? The snobs sure have a lot of money, but how much of that ever sees the light of day? Can't see 'em anyway - too far behind walls and security gates. Licking the toes of the 1% = "nothing to brag about".
Those high-falutin' lifestyles are enjoyed on the backs of those who actually toil for a living. Surely they are glad to be so roundly kicked around.

[CarawayDJ]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

Doing the old "givers vs, takers" Romney thing again, huh? The snobs sure have a lot of money, but how much of that ever sees the light of day? Can't see 'em anyway - too far behind walls and security gates. Licking the toes of the 1% = "nothing to brag about".
Those high-falutin' lifestyles are enjoyed on the backs of those who actually toil for a living. Surely they are glad to be so roundly kicked around.

Hmmm.... are you thinking I'm a right wing extremist? That would be funny.

Where did I say 1%? I said mid to upper income earners. Don't tell me you're a soundbiter? You know, one of those people who come up with ominous sounding soundbites to make someone look evil.

For your benefit, I will exaggerate to make my point. Let's imagine CA gaining 10 million people and they all made $50K+ a year. Now imagine CA gaining 10 million people all earning $18K and needing social assistance. Go ahead and tell me it wouldn't matter. But you know this and have to agree. Maybe you just missed the onslaught of ominous sounding barely true soundbites we all experienced in the last election. You took a matter of fact statement and turned it into something sinister. "This guy doesn't want poor people to move here." That's not what I said.

Your characterization of rich people is funny. How many atheist socialists can there possibly be to drink a beer with on weekends?

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by CarawayDJ

Your characterization of rich people is funny. How many atheist socialists can there possibly be to drink a beer with on weekends?

Lots. Eat the rich.