Why do people still want to live in California? (Sacramento: condos, big home)

[evening sun]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Why not just drive out to California and spend a few days and you will be able to see for yourself? I think hatred for Newsom just goes along with the territory, his approval rating is actually pretty darned good - 64% in late September. If all you have to judge Newsom with are the posts here by disgruntled (mostly right wing) people you'd think he's the antichrist.

I agree, you need to see for yourself. I have seen a few Recall Newsom signs, but I have not heard anyone talk about it. I think, no matter who is Governor or President, someone is going to be unhappy. They have been collecting signatures for a recall for months now, & I think they still are short of the amount needed to qualify it.

[vunderbar]

Three family members moved back to CA in the past year. I will be joining them one of these days, too. Why?

* gorgeous weather
* ocean, mountains, rivers, forests, desserts and at least one great city (I don't knock LA, but it's no city.)
* so diverse! Land at LAX and SFO and you see people of every color speaking half a dozen languages. Some of us find that exciting
* dynamic economy, progressive ideas, forward thinking population. Some of us respect that.

If you have the means, you can live beautifully in the Golden State. You can limit your threat of fire, mudslides, or death by earthquake. As the climate heads toward the cataclysmic changes we all know are coming, no place is really "safe." At least CA - with its enormous economy and resources, its talented workforce and visionary leaders (OK, some of them) - CA will likely be better prepared than those states governed by obese old white guys with their heads in the sand, or up someone's arse.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Well it would certainly hurt the state if net tax payers leave and are replaced by net consumers of state funds. That would seem to generate budget shortfalls that then need to be made up for via taxation and/or borrowing.


I don't know if that is the case but it certainly would be a very real price to pay for the state and its remaining residents.

It isn’t. Lower income make up the vast percentage who leave. And California has a tiered income tax structure where the low and moderate income folks pay modestly.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Finper

If you won’t live elsewhere why does your location say Ca and Brazil? Disgruntled people haven’t had a say in Ca politics since Reagan and Ca is paying a dear price for it. What makes you think the OP is white? Your blatant racism???

Disgruntled people should move, you did right?

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

It isn’t. Lower income make up the vast percentage who leave. And California has a tiered income tax structure where the low and moderate income folks pay modestly.

Well what's lower income? According to the often cited "calmatters.org" you need to have an income of $100,000 to pay for a median price house in California. I would imagine that this figure would be significantly higher in L.A. and the Bay Area. So is everyone making less than say $140-150k there 'lower income' and therefore undesirable surplus?

That seems like a rather pungent Gilded Age mentality and not especially in line with the values of this country.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Well what's lower income? According to the often cited "calmatters.org" you need to have an income of $100,000 to pay for a median price house in California. I would imagine that this figure would be significantly higher in L.A. and the Bay Area. So is everyone making less than say $140-150k there 'lower income' and therefore undesirable surplus?

That seems like a rather pungent Gilded Age mentality and not especially in line with the values of this country.

Everything is relative, of course, Veritas. And I don’t set any measure points on the scales.

But for fun reference, check out Ashgabat, Turkmenistan ... many lists include this place as one of the world’s top 10, some say as high as 2nd, most expensive places to live in the world, along with such perennials such as Zurich, London, Victoria B.C., New York, blah blah blah ... But Ashgabat, Turkmenistan? Doesn’t even have bearable weather. Wtf?

You tell me what’s fair. Anywhere. Values of this country? What? That everyone should be able to live in coastal Southern California? Phbbbbt ...

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Everything is relative, of course, Veritas. And I don’t set any measure points on the scales.

But for fun reference, check out Ashgabat, Turkmenistan ... many lists include this place as one of the world’s top 10, some say as high as 2nd, most expensive places to live in the world, along with such perennials such as Zurich, London, Victoria B.C., New York, blah blah blah ... But Ashgabat, Turkmenistan? Doesn’t even have bearable weather. Wtf?

You tell me what’s fair. Anywhere. Values of this country? What? That everyone should be able to live in coastal Southern California? Phbbbbt ...

Not everyone can live in the best spots, sure, but we're talking about the best, the good and the okay spots here in two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. It would be dishonest to say we're talking about a mansion in Pacific Palisades here. What does 750k buy you in L.A.? A small house in El Segundo next to one of the world's busiest airports? Hardly what we call traditionally exclusive terrain. Those were middle-class, blue-collar residential areas for aerospace workers until not too long ago. How can average housing be beyond the reach of above average earners?



I think it's fairly obvious that housing cost in those areas is totally decoupled from actual incomes due to investor buying (much of it not based in the U.S.) and the wealth amassed by those who got on the property ladder 30-40 years ago. In other words, boomers who could buy homes in the 70s and 80s at still 'regular' prices back then and whose equity has ballooned since then due to escalating real estate prices (while still paying those fixed property taxes from 40 years ago).



So that basically leaves the younger generation in a pickle as they're just trying to build equity. If they're lucky they might get to inherit dad's house, but if dad lives to be in his 80s/90s they'll be waiting for a while. So you're driving out the middle-income 25-40 year old emerging young families. Is that healthy for a state? Those are some of the people who will rise to become leaders over the next 10-20 years of their lives and in some ways the backbone of a healthy society one may say.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Not everyone can live in the best spots, sure, but we're talking about the best, the good and the okay spots here in two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country. It would be dishonest to say we're talking about a mansion in Pacific Palisades here. What does 750k buy you in L.A.? A small house in El Segundo next to one of the world's busiest airports? Hardly what we call traditionally exclusive terrain. Those were middle-class, blue-collar residential areas for aerospace workers until not too long ago. How can average housing be beyond the reach of above average earners?



I think it's fairly obvious that housing cost in those areas is totally decoupled from actual incomes due to investor buying (much of it not based in the U.S.) and the wealth amassed by those who got on the property ladder 30-40 years ago. In other words, boomers who could buy homes in the 70s and 80s at still 'regular' prices back then and whose equity has ballooned since then due to escalating real estate prices (while still paying those fixed property taxes from 40 years ago).



So that basically leaves the younger generation in a pickle as they're just trying to build equity. If they're lucky they might get to inherit dad's house, but if dad lives to be in his 80s/90s they'll be waiting for a while. So you're driving out the middle-income 25-40 year old emerging young families. Is that healthy for a state? Those are some of the people who will rise to become leaders over the next 10-20 years of their lives and in some ways the backbone of a healthy society one may say.

“Not healthy” you say? 4th ranked world economy disagrees with you:

Most Germans don’t buy their homes, they rent. Here’s why
It’s just a fact. Many Germans can’t be bothered to buy a house.

The country’s homeownership rate ranks among the lowest in the developed world, and nearly dead last in Europe, though the Swiss rent even more.
https://qz.com/167887/germany-has-on...nership-rates/

All said, you may think I am arguing in favor of high housing costs / COL in general. I’m not. Just observing the range of relativism. Personally, I’ve got no use for the economics of technocracy. Technocracy and overpopulation are the roots of all evils.

[NORTY FLATZ]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

In other words, boomers who could buy homes in the 70s and 80s at still 'regular' prices back then and whose equity has ballooned since then due to escalating real estate prices (while still paying those fixed property taxes from 40 years ago)

Oh, I wish this were so....

unless you call "fixed" going from $961 per year to $16,064 per year..


same house too...

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Oh, I wish this were so....

unless you call "fixed" going from $961 per year to $16,064 per year..


same house too...

You're right. They're not 'fixed' fixed, but the increases are capped well below market rates.