For those leaving California - Conservatives (Los Angeles, San Diego: mortgage, how much, homes)

[rbwpi]

Originally Posted by bad debt

Now of course it's all of these rural areas of California where the people are leaving because they're a bunch of gun toting whackjobs that need to go live with their KKK brethren in Utah or Montana...

How erudite.

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I'm only conservative by Bay Area standards. I'm probably more a right leaning libertarian than anything. Here's my list of issues:

--High cost of housing is the biggest. Even some people on the left are now admitting costs are high because of 40 years of underbuilding. As far as I'm concerned, the artificially high cost of housing acts like a huge tax all by itself.
--Bored with job. I know I need to do something different.
--Homeless situation that they don't do anything about. Part of that is the fault of the courts, but not all of it.
--Earthquake risk. Both NorCal and SoCal are overdue for earthquakes larger than 7.0. I don't want to be here when it / they happen.
--Tired of the general rigid PC mentality and that anyone who doesn't agree with it is a Nazi/racist, etc. Not everyone is like this, but many are, especially the decision makers / movers and shakers in business and government.
--I don't even own a gun, but I find the constant assault on gun rights to be troubling.
--I also agree the illegal immigration situation and the "sanctuary city" BS is a slap in the face to taxpaying citizens and legal immigrants. I'll also say that it's quite a contradiction that we're a state that welcomes all these newcomers yet won't build anywhere near enough housing for them or anyone else.
--I believe California is vulnerable to being attacked by the Chinese (nothing against Chinese people, but the government is another story). I don't want to be here if/when that happens.

I completely understand that many of these are not unique to CA, but they are felt more intensely here. I understand that moving isn't a panacea, but you do what you can to reduce the impact.

I pretty much think America is in serious decline (as is much of the Western World) and that all h*ll is going to break loose at some point. I don't want to be in a densely populated area if/when that happens. But I also know I need to be doing something to at least reduce/control the damage. I've been talking too much on CD and not doing enough in real life. That's gonna change.

So you going to move to Montana and build yourself an apocalypse bunker?

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by rbwpi

How erudite.

Not sure why I wrote Utah and Montana. Definitely Idaho is groundzero for that type of stuff. Thanks for catching that.

[nmnita]

Man is this thread filled with a lot of reasons for leaving and I want to say, though I didn't read every single response, I think most struck to the topic without too much bashing.

Here is our story: we left in 1981 to work for our president in the DC area. Many of our friends also left for that reason, Some returned to Ca, others relocated throughout the USA> We had made up our minds before we left we would likely not return. Only when my parents started to age were we tempted to return, but have to say we do not regret our decision to live elsewhere. For us it was a combination of family, finances and yes, politics. We have some very good friends who are in the process right now of moving to AR to be closer to family There daughter and son in law live in Little Rock and their son and daughter in law just left Colo to be closer to the family in AR. For them it had more to do with politics than anything. Isn't it interesting so many people from AR and OK moved to CA after WW2 for economical reasons and now people are leaving ca and moving to the mid west and upper southern states. I have 2 nieces who will be leaving CA, one to AZ ad the other here. For them it is mainly political and our daughters best friend just moved here as well.
I realize the majority of people in CA will stay for ever and that is good if that is what they want to do. Ir seems like the reason people are leaving has more to do with money than anything. Politics and family would be next.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by bad debt

Shall I list all of the people I know that have moved into California over the past 10 years?

This is true, but all of the stories here so far are completely biased. You would think that millions of Californians are leaving and nobody is moving in. Instead, on a net basis it's practically imperceptible. Now of course it's all of these rural areas of California where the people are leaving because they're a bunch of gun toting whackjobs that need to go live with their KKK brethren in Utah or Montana, and all of the immigration coming into the state is going to the big cities. So from their perspective it looks like the wheels have come off. But in reality, the major drivers of the state economy are on an absolute tear and total population is up approximately 6% which from an economic perspective is a good thing (from a QOL or environmental standpoint, there is certainly disagreement).

California's NET domestic migration between 2010-2017 was -156,000. From a current population of 39,557,000 people that's a -0.4% loss. Whoopdeedoo. From the cries of people on this on this forum you would think half the state has left. The poor people are leaving and rich people with high paying jobs are moving in. Sounds good to me.

These charts are really not as important as some thing they are: consider the job avail, the size of the major cities, etc. Just a chart is only used to try and prove a point, but is far to simplistic. Here in AR is an example: the state has grown but very slowly, but if you were to check into stats for say, NWA where we live you would be shocked at the growth. This is true about other aspects of these charting systems. One needs to look deeper than just a chart to get a clear picture. this can be said about crime rates, poverty, educational systems, and many other groupings. You do have to take into consideration the type of peopl who are moving into a state and why. This goes for any state including CA. Thateatd

[aslowdodge]

To put a bit in perspective, to live in my old home town in Ca
I would have to sell my house here in Marietta with about 22% equity similar to this one and one of my cars-the one worth the most.






the sale would give me 20% down to buy a house in Ca like this



The house would drop from 5200 sq ft to 1300 sq ft.
Payments now for me is about $1022 on my house. My new payments on the smaller house in Ca would be 4844 a month. That leaves me 3821 a month short.
To make up for that shortfall I would sell my everyday driver LS460 which would leave me 3249 a month short.

I would then give up the 25,000 a year set aside for travel leaving me 1166 a month short. I could get a room mate to share the smaller house which would bring me back to even more or less.

I can swing it, but for me would give up too much to come back to California

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by nmnita

These charts are really not as important as some thing they are: consider the job avail, the size of the major cities, etc. Just a chart is only used to try and prove a point, but is far to simplistic. Here in AR is an example: the state has grown but very slowly, but if you were to check into stats for say, NWA where we live you would be shocked at the growth. This is true about other aspects of these charting systems. One needs to look deeper than just a chart to get a clear picture. this can be said about crime rates, poverty, educational systems, and many other groupings.

Oh. So what you're saying is that you shouldn't just generalize things about the state. Got it.

And yet... we have people on this thread all day who generalizing about how there are needles all over the street or poop maps, or homeless, or traffic, or whatever other crisis de jour has shown up on their Faux News broadcast that morning. How come you chose not to chastise them and tell them they shouldn't generalize things that are happening in say a square mile of San Francisco and then say that the 158,706 square mile state is in shambles?

[bad debt]

Originally Posted by aslowdodge

To put a bit in perspective, to live in my old home town in Ca
I would have to sell my house here in Marietta with about 22% equity similar to this one and one of my cars-the one worth the most.






the sale would give me 20% down to buy a house in Ca like this



The house would drop from 5200 sq ft to 1300 sq ft.
Payments now for me is about $1022 on my house. My new payments on the smaller house in Ca would be 4844 a month. That leaves me 3821 a month short.
To make up for that shortfall I would sell my everyday driver LS460 which would leave me 3249 a month short.

I would then give up the 25,000 a year set aside for travel leaving me 1166 a month short. I could get a room mate to share the smaller house which would bring me back to even more or less.

I can swing it, but for me would give up too much to come back to California

Yep. See this makes sense (despite your img tags being busted). Moving somewhere (or more commonly retiring somewhere) due to COL factors i.e. economic arbitrage is completely reasonable and often is part of people's financial planning. However, I would say it depends on the career, skillset, and education level for most people. And then there's the actual choice of where do you WANT to live and determining what are the most important factors that go into that decision.

My wife and I had to make that decision when we were making residency rank lists, but thank god we matched in #1 SoCal (where I'm from) instead of the #2 choice Dallas (where her parents live).

[veritased]

Originally Posted by bad debt

If you're running some easy unskilled labor job like auto manufacture assembly it is absolutely in your best interests to move to a low cost place like Tennessee where you have a huge labor pool of unskilled labor, favorable labor laws, and excellent transportation options to access something like 60% of the country's population. If you're a company like Salesforce, Google, Facebook, SpaceX, Amgen, Blizzard, Apple, etc. etc. then you want to be in the place where those workers want to live. AKA California. Not Mississippi or Oklahoma or Montana.

Typical arrogant California progressive. Thinks life starts and ends with their college degree. This is the attitude that will usher in another Trump term.

So why don't you go work on the line at an auto plant, and see just how unskilled it is. Maybe you'll discover that actually they do have plenty of proprietary job specific skills, just not of the solving differential equations type, and that their work is essential to moving your bloated carcass from point A to point B.

If you're a high tech company, no you don't want to start or be located in those areas of California, because they are extremely hard to recruit towards, and extremely expensive in terms of salaries. You speak of yet another armchair expert who participates in none of which they opine. There now exists remote office complexes of Google, Apple, Facebook, Salesforce, Amazon outside of SF and SJ, and the trend will see the further spread of tech outside California.

And Blizzard? What the heck? Who cares about Blizzard as a contributor to society, or high tech, or productivity of our nation?

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Stratto22

so you're telling me that the president isnt "redistributing" money to the farmers?

and most of these farmers are the corporate farm variety..operating tens of thousands of acres