Jerry Brown dragged Rick Scott (Florida Gov.) over California visit (Winchester: house, income)

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Living inside a box with strangers does suck. But that's not anything like how most people live in CA. That describes a really small percentage of mostly very young newcomers trying to see how they / if they can make a place / life for themselves here. It's pretty much also a short term thing, not a lifestyle.

But, that aside, you glossed right over the point I made. Whether pools are commonplace or not, they represent an unsustainable approach to living when installed in nearly every unsustainably LARGE home. As, of course, do the houses especially. You are promoting a ridiculous standard for QOL.

It's not a ridiculous standard for quality of life, it's just something not attainable by 99% of Californians because the cost of living is so high it only seems like a fantasy for Celebrities. This is why I'm saying... it's funny to hear someone brag about the size of the GDP when talking about quality of life. Who cares what the GDP is when you live in a box with strangers.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Not accurate. More people have been leaving California for other states than arrive from other states. But California continues to add population through immigration (yes, legal) and births. So ...

And more people move to Florida from other states than leave? Yes. That's a good thing if you think developing every square mile possible and filling with retirees is your idea of paradise. Fine.

There is a difference between population growth and QOL, too.

Both States have babies. The QOL in CA is going down and people are leaving who have lived there. Fewer people are moving in.

FL is seeing more people move in because the QOL is overall better. Fewer leave and yes babies are born and immigrants come. Retirees are not the major population of FL anymore than they are of CA. However I suspect more people will retire in FL than CA due to QOL.

Now CA has some nice areas, but the best for most, are way more crowded with people than FL, though some areas in FL (smaller in size and population) are nearly as bad. The whole State however is overall a more popular destination these days due to QOL. Plus you have to work hard at being more than 2 hours from the beach in FL. In SoCal just live anywhere over 20 miles inland and it can be at least an hours drive in the Summer.

Will that ultimately lead to FL being an over populated mess like the populated areas of CA, yes. Unavoidable that it will happen as people keep having babies.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

It's not a ridiculous standard for quality of life, it's just something not attainable by 99% of Californians because the cost of living is so high it only seems like a fantasy for Celebrities. This is why I'm saying... it's funny to hear someone brag about the size of the GDP when talking about quality of life. Who cares what the GDP is when you live in a box with strangers.

It IS a ridiculous standard ... Because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE wherever it occurs on the planet. 7 billion people heading for 12 billion before leveling off says large SFH, with or without pools, but even more so with pools, is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Question for you:
how many rooms / how much space can you occupy at any given moment?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Both States have babies. The QOL in CA is going down and people are leaving who have lived there. Fewer people are moving in.

FL is seeing more people move in because the QOL is overall better. Fewer leave and yes babies are born and immigrants come. Retirees are not the major population of FL anymore than they are of CA. However I suspect more people will retire in FL than CA due to QOL.

Now CA has some nice areas, but the best for most, are way more crowded with people than FL, though some areas in FL (smaller in size and population) are nearly as bad. The whole State however is overall a more popular destination these days due to QOL. Plus you have to work hard at being more than 2 hours from the beach in FL. In SoCal just live anywhere over 20 miles inland and it can be at least an hours drive in the Summer.

Will that ultimately lead to FL being an over populated mess like the populated areas of CA, yes. Unavoidable that it will happen as people keep having babies.

The QOL in CA, like anywhere, is a subjective individual valuation. However, it can be surveyed for averaging. Gallup, for example, has recently surveyed what percentage of residents in all 50 states would like to move to another state. California is exactly average for satisfaction/dissatisfaction among the 50. Florida is 3 % points more inclined to stay where they are. Sound like people in California are subjectively dissatisfied with their QOL to you? Especially consider that Florida has such a high % of retirees who have moved their in their advancing years and as such speculation would beg they are less inclined to consider moving again.

Fewer people are, unfortunately, not moving in to CA. Check the stats and charts:
Three States Account for Nearly Half of U.S. Population Growth

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It IS a ridiculous standard ... Because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE wherever it occurs on the planet. 7 billion people heading for 12 billion before leveling off says large SFH, with or without pools, but even more so with pools, is NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Question for you:
how many rooms / how much space can you occupy at any given moment?

It's only ridiculous to you because you've been told by elites that it isn't sustainable meanwhile they have 10 vacation houses yet preach about sustainable living. Once again, we are talking about quality of life, not what the bare necessities are... You don't need clothes, elecriticity, etc but you use it right?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

It's only ridiculous to you because you've been told by elites that it isn't sustainable meanwhile they have 10 vacation houses yet preach about sustainable living. Once again, we are talking about quality of life, not what the bare necessities are... You don't need clothes, elecriticity, etc but you use it right?

No. I / we haven't been told any such thing by "elites". We've been told it's unsustainable by science and math. Elites tell us the lifestyle is within everyone's reach. They tell us that because they are selling it.

As for trying to attack me for consumption, personally? Hilarious. No one on this board comes close to having as little as I do, using as little as I do. Electricity, water, clothing, (no) house. You name it. Lmao. I live in 64 square feet of operating space, plus a bit of storage. Yes. 7 billion people can easily live at the level of consumption I practice. Although, I still say the real trick is to have about 2/3 or 3/4 fewer people and then not have to worry about sustainability.

[sourdough]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. I / we haven't been told any such thing by "elites". We've been told it's unsustainable by science and math. Elites tell us the lifestyle is within everyone's reach. They tell us that because they are selling it.

As for trying to attack me for consumption, personally? Hilarious. No one on this board comes close to having as little as I do, using as little as I do. Electricity, water, clothing, (no) house. You name it. Lmao. I live in 64 square feet of operating space, plus a bit of storage. Yes. 7 billion people can easily live at the level of consumption I practice. Although, I still say the real trick is to have about 2/3 or 3/4 fewer people and then not have to worry about sustainability.

Feels like the population bomb is already set to go BOOM in my little 35 MPH town. Trick is going to be behind the blast…

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. I / we haven't been told any such thing by "elites". We've been told it's unsustainable by science and math. Elites tell us the lifestyle is within everyone's reach. They tell us that because they are selling it.

As for trying to attack me for consumption, personally? Hilarious. No one on this board comes close to having as little as I do, using as little as I do. Electricity, water, clothing, (no) house. You name it. Lmao. I live in 64 square feet of operating space, plus a bit of storage. Yes. 7 billion people can easily live at the level of consumption I practice. Although, I still say the real trick is to have about 2/3 or 3/4 fewer people and then not have to worry about sustainability.

Nice try, but it's the elites who have brainwashed you and you don't even notice that they live the opposite lifestyle of you. Keep the masses content by telling them its for the greater good.

I've driven across the country multiple times and 99% of it is just open land. By the time we ever reach capacity, we will have new technology, but it's good you live in a shoe box, do you want a congratulations? lol

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Nice try, but it's the elites who have brainwashed you and you don't even notice that they live the opposite lifestyle of you. Keep the masses content by telling them its for the greater good.

Your post makes no sense. The elites do not tell people to live minimally. They preach consumption as god. Their entire position in life is based on consumerism. How could I fail to notice they live opulant lifestyles? Have you been drinking heavily this afternoon?

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Your post makes no sense. The elites do not tell people to live minimally. They preach consumption as god. Their entire position in life is based on consumerism. How could I fail to notice they live opulant lifestyles? Have you been drinking heavily this afternoon?

It's the only explanation for you actually believing living in a house with a pool is unsustainable living. You've been brainwashed and I am trying my best to open your eyes. You're welcome