Why do people say California is so bad ? (Orange, Paradise: apartments, health insurance)

[things and stuff]

Head in the sand.

[lae60]

Why do soooooooooo many people move to CA? Because it is a welfare nanny state.

Why do people say it is bad? Because it is a welfare nanny state that is going bankrupt, with a governor/elected folks that have sooooo many things they wants to fund with money the taxpayers do not have.....

One gets some of the highest benefits in the US without ever having to work when living in CA. Welfare, Social Security Disability, etc. all are much higher rates than most other locations in the US. Add to that, great medical care for free for the poor, even before Obama care. Discounted utility rates. Some very protective rights for rentals/tenants that do not pay their rent. Lots of special programs for special groups--eg. recently a proposition targeted extra low cost housing for veterans. This is well and above what the vets get from the federal government, a special CA extra.

And anyone with a special interest can put that on the ballot as a proposition and the tax payers will have to fund it if it passes--lots of cost for things that the taxpaying base can not afford not that do not benefit CA. Recently there was a proposition that passed to fund medical research ('cuz a movie/tv star has the condition) for a certain condition, paid for with CA taxes and the entire funding when to research out of CA. It did not even create jobs in CA to add to this economy.

There is now a campaign to provide free medical insurance for the illegal immigrants! TONS of radio ads pushing that point.

And all this 'free' for the poor is at a high tax rate for the working. So the working middle class is in an exodus mode and the very wealthy and poor are moving to CA. I was born in CA, but have moved to other states with my job and will be moving from CA when I retire. Main reason is that I do not want to pay for all the ever-growing social programs that are a hand out and not a hand up. I can not afford the taxes they cost me.

[lae60]

Originally Posted by user_id

I meant that relatively, that is, compared to past years this year hasn't been that bad despite a severe drought.

And to put the numbers you're mentioning in perspective, on average around 5,000,000 acres burn each year in California. The year to date figure for this year is 2,600,000. Last year was only 3,400,000

National Interagency Fire Center


My point here is that wild fires have always been common in California and there have been many non-drought years with more widespread wild fire activity. That is to say, the drought ending in California isn't going to mean less wild fires in California.

I live in a forested wildfire prone area and have been evacuated for fires 2 time in recent years. There is a lower fire risk with a drought for one very simple reason. When it does not rain or snow then the seeds and plants do not get the water they need to grow. When there are less plants to burn the fires do not spread as fast. This is especially true when the weeds and grasses do not grow. Granted the trees are dryer and will burn more easily, BUT when there is not grasses and weeds undergrowth the fire does not spread as fast. The slow spread allows the fire departments to get the equipment to the fire for assistance before the fire gets big and totally out of control.

[Mike930]

Originally Posted by Fran66

PS: I really want to move back to CA/San Diego, but I'm not going to move back until the drought and fires let up, which means that I may not be able to move back there before I die -- but I took one good look at Carlsbad on fire and that was the last straw. (Not particularly crazy about earthquakes either but -- at my age -- I'm willing to risk earthquakes. Well, maybe not, if I had to live in LA or The Bay Area.) I LOVE CA -- there are so many good things about CA -- just not THAT much.

I understand your concern about the fires, but most places (if not all) have some natural (and man made) disasters. Fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, flooding, severe winters, ice storms....the list goes on and on.

There are very few places that have no potential for disasters.

[k81689]

Originally Posted by Adrini

I don't live in California, actually, I don't even live in the USA, but I see a lot of people on this forum saying "California is super expensive, full of immigrants, no jobs, high poverty etc.." but yet, people keep moving here (according to Wikipedia) so there must be something good if people keep moving here. So, what is it ?(except the weather)
I'm not here to accuse anybody but some people seem like italians (I live in Italy) that say "oh my god I hate working so much (7-8 hours a day) and I'm poor, Italy sucks. (most of italians go on vacation in other european countries 2-3 times a year, especially during summer). What do you think ?

Money.

[Fran66]

Originally Posted by Mike930

I understand your concern about the fires, but most places (if not all) have some natural (and man made) disasters. Fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, flooding, severe winters, ice storms....the list goes on and on.

There are very few places that have no potential for disasters.

New Mexico doesn't have earthquakes (of course we do -- they are just so tiny we never feel them); no hurricanes (altho' we've had something pretty close -- but very rare -- don't really cause any damage); tornados -- we do, but, again, rare -- in the 8+ years I've been in NM, we've had one that did damage (but it did pretty good damage to a relatively small town but other than that -- ??); we don't have severe winters; we don't have ice storms.

We have had flooding in Albuquerque -- but only twice in the 8+ years I've lived here. The second was rather recent -- a couple of weeks ago -- and caused $400,000 just in damage to our roads. And, of course, NM has fires -- but ABQ and its unincorporated areas have yet to have one, other than something that would constitute a brush fire along some road/freeway.

Albuquerque does have pretty bad L&T storms (primarily in the summer) -- and all too often one or two people are killed by lightening strikes. [But then -- what were they doing in a park -- and under a tree yet? In other words, you don't HAVE to die by lightening here if you have common sense.]

But other than L&T storms and some rare heavy rain (which only floods the 'lowlands' of ABQ -- the lower valleys -- and is rare) -- nothing really happens here.

And I'll tell ya -- not living with the threat of The Big One has been very nice. H, it's been nice living without any detectable earthquakes. And no threatening fires. For 8+ solid years.

Of course, NM has a crime rate that will make you run for cover. I never go out at night alone and rarely go out at night even with another adult, man or woman. But I'm retired -- there almost isn't anything I can't do during the day (including seeing shows at our PACs). However, I wouldn't go out at night in CA either. I worked for the justice system in OC for almost 30 years -- I'm paranoid.

[things and stuff]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Do some research before you make these sweeping claims.

Do you deny that unskilled labor and uneducated single mothers are highly subsidized? Since it is subsidized all over the country, why not move to California and get those benefits? Duh. By the way, it's less in some states (like Texas.)

D.C. ($50,820 per year and $24.43 an hour), Massachusetts ($50,540 and $24.30), Connecticut ($44,370 and $21.33), and New York ($43,700 and $21.01).

States with the lowest welfare benefits were Idaho ($11,150 and $5.36), Mississippi ($11,830 and $5.69), Tennessee ($12.120 and $5.83), Arkansas ($12,230 and $5.88), and Texas ($12,550 and $6.03).

On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes

Let’s take the example of a single mom with two kids, 1 and 4. She has a $29,000 a year job, putting the kids in daycare during the day while she works.

As the above chart – via Gary Alexander, Pennsylvania’s secretary of Public Welfare — shows, the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income & benefits of $57,045.

It would sure be tempting for that mom to keep the status quo rather than take the new job, even though the new position might lead to further career advancement and a higher standard of living.

Julia’s mother: Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job | AEIdeas

Welfare Recipients Can Now Collect More Than Teachers Earn

Welfare Recipients Can Now Collect More Than Teachers Earn | Ben Swann Truth In Media

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

Do you deny that unskilled labor and uneducated single mothers are highly subsidized? Since it is subsidized all over the country, why not move to California and get those benefits? Duh. By the way, it's less in some states (like Texas.)



On Labor Day 2013, Welfare Pays More Than Minimum-Wage Work In 35 States - Forbes




Julia’s mother: Why a single mom is better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than taking a $69,000 job | AEIdeas


Welfare Recipients Can Now Collect More Than Teachers Earn | Ben Swann Truth In Media

Things and stuff - you need to use a little rational thought, rather than buy this crap you are sucking up. The various subsidies rarely add up as you claim.

If it was true that anyone earning no, or a low, income could qualify for all these fantastic benefits, why would anyone work minimum wage jobs and still struggle? Yet California, and the whole country, has millions, and tens of millions, of deeply struggling low wage and minimum wage workers. The movements to increase minimum wages wouldn't exist if it were simple to augment low wages with these earnings and benefits you seem to believe are being handed out like candy.

The various programs exist, but have many requirements for qualifying and time limits for collecting. They have limited budgets, and some of the benefits have waiting lists.

What you are reading are hypotheticals. The actual numbers of people collecting at these rates are few. The funding for these programs isn't endless, as you apparently think.

As I have said a number of times to you: go find the numbers to support your blathering. Find out how many people receive the multiple levels of subsidies that add up to your fictitious totals. And find out how many receive how much for what period of time.

You have zero knowledge of how these subsidies work. Stop spreading false hyperbole.

By the way, you identify yourself as a liberal. Are you not aware that the sources you just quoted are infamous right-wing and libertarian? The AEI, American Enterprise Institute is one of the most stalwart and successful right-wing conservative think tanks in American history. Your Ben Swann Truth In Media source is quoting a report assembled by the CATO Institute, which is a very well known extreme Libertarian think tank.

[things and stuff]

I'm spreading the truth. If you're going to be low income and get super cheap housing, free daycare, etc; why not do it in California? I know I would, for the weather and outdoors alone. If Im making $60k, it's going to be a lot tougher when compared to other parts of the country. It's just the truth.

California is a magnet. That's all I'm saying. Not sure how anyone could dispute this.

As I have said a number of times to you: go find the numbers to support your blathering.

I did!! I even gave you links.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by things and stuff

I'm spreading the truth. If you're going to be low income and get super cheap housing, free daycare, etc; why not do it in California? I know I would, for the weather and outdoors alone. If Im making $60k, it's going to be a lot tougher when compared to other parts of the country. It's just the truth.

California is a magnet. That's all I'm saying. Not sure how anyone could dispute this.

I repeat: if what you say is true, why are there so many low income people struggling to scrape by?

It is not true as you claim. Period. Think. Use your brain rather than listen to extremist propaganda.
Your links are right-wing and liberal extremist think tank sources. They are building hypotheticals and you are sucking it up.