SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Sunbelt battle for #2? (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240851)

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8747664)


Obadno, I will ask you again: why did you assert "Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future"?

Please explain how would we be better off, and be better able to solve growth-related problems like spiraling housing costs, if we kept adding more people faster and faster, while nobody moves out?

It didn't turn out great for Illinois, Louisiana West Virginia, Michigan, Upstate NY etc.

But hey maybe California will buck that track record because "reasons" ? I hope im wrong.

iheartthed Nov 14, 2019 3:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bossabreezes (Post 8748156)
The Tenderloin is literally all of this still, and more. Imagine this, needles everywhere, people OD'ing in cars, and feces. I'm pretty sure it's at it's lowest point ever. Just saying. Definitely saw a dead guy on Market towards Embarcardero with a needle jammed in his arm this May.

Not just on the streets either. I had to use the restroom in the Westfield Mall and found someone slumped over, face down towards the urinal, arm tied off and all. Had to get the security guard. It's really, really rough around there nowadays.

There is absolutely no way that San Francisco is anywhere near its lowest point. This is a ridiculous thing to assert.

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8747853)
This forum has always had an antinimby streak that totally predates Trump, no?

I love California, you certainly can't accuse me of being "anti" anything. But the homeless crisis is not fabricated. Surely we're on the same page...?

Nah man California was perfect until Jan 20 2017 and the greater Daemon Trump came down to smite the righteous for god hath forsaken them!!

Oh lord who will save us from this slightly different federal policy for 4-8 years! How will anyone Survive ?? :slob::slob::slob:

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 3:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8748370)
There is absolutely no way that San Francisco is anywhere near its lowest point. This is a ridiculous thing to assert.

Yeah Id probably say 1907 tops it

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 3:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748377)
Nah man California was perfect until Jan 20 2017 and the greater Daemon Trump came down to smite the righteous for god hath forsaken them!!

Oh lord who will save us from this slightly different federal policy for 4-8 years! How will anyone Survive ?? :slob::slob::slob:

Given Calfiornia's economy is doing extremely well, I'd say we're suriving just fine.
:haha:

Crawford Nov 14, 2019 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748369)
It didn't turn out great for Illinois, Louisiana West Virginia, Michigan, Upstate NY etc.

But hey maybe California will buck that track record because "reasons" ? I hope im wrong.

Those areas don't get tons of immigrants and domestic in-migration.

The issues affecting Michigan, Ohio, Upstate NY, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the issues affecting CA. If CA didn't have negative domestic out-migration, the traffic, pollution, inequality and home prices would be even worse than now.

iheartthed Nov 14, 2019 3:50 PM

This entire conversation is ridiculous. The numbers are pretty clear that San Francisco, by most measures, is enjoying one of the best moments in its entire history. Incomes are extremely high, crime is extremely low by historical standards, and land values are through the roof. San Francisco is one of the best economically performing cities in the entire fucking world. It has about the best problems any city could ever hope to have. Anyone denying that are just pushing a political agenda.

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 3:53 PM

Yup.

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8748397)
Those areas don't get tons of immigrants and domestic in-migration.

The issues affecting Michigan, Ohio, Upstate NY, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the issues affecting CA. If CA didn't have negative domestic out-migration, the traffic, pollution, inequality and home prices would be even worse than now.

But Neither does most of California outside of LA or San Francisco

I actually can see a very similar situation happening to California as NYC-Upstate NY

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8748394)
Given Calfiornia's economy is doing extremely well, I'd say we're suriving just fine.
:haha:

Hey I actually agree with this comment, I was making fun of Craig for blaming things that are not the fault of presidential politics on a president.

Crawford Nov 14, 2019 4:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748432)
But Neither does most of California outside of LA or San Francisco

Most of CA is LA and SF.

Those places are CA. 27 million in those two CSAs.

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8748447)
Most of CA is LA and SF.

Those places are CA. 27 million in those two CSAs.

Yeah screw 1/3 of people !!

Your statement says more than I ever could

bossabreezes Nov 14, 2019 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 8748370)
There is absolutely no way that San Francisco is anywhere near its lowest point. This is a ridiculous thing to assert.

I was referring specifically to the Tenderloin.

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748523)
Yeah screw 1/3 of people !!

Your statement says more than I ever could

It's actually more than that. San Diego is another 3 millon, and Sacramento is another 2.5 or so.

How is this any different than any other state, including Texas? How well off are the likes of Amarillo and Wichita Falls?

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8748593)
It's actually more than that. San Diego is another 3 millon, and Sacramento is another 2.5 or so.

How is this any different than any other state, including Texas? How well off are the likes of Amarillo and Wichita Falls?

Sacramento and San Diego are getting a big percentage of that international first city placement? :shrug: probably not

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 6:31 PM

I'm pretty sure Sacramento and SD get a fair share of immigration.
I doubt San Diego is hurting with domestic arrivals, but I could be wrong.

craigs Nov 14, 2019 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748433)
Hey I actually agree with this comment, I was making fun of Craig for blaming things that are not the fault of presidential politics on a president.

Prove it.

Quote me directly, or admit you're pulling this out of your ass.

jtown,man Nov 14, 2019 9:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IrishIllini (Post 8747520)
Welfare programs aren’t rife with abuse. Qualifying for programs entails completing paperwork and interviews with multiple bureaucracies. The identified cases of abuse, fraud, or waste are minimal.

You might need to be introduced to the disability system and more specifically the disability fraud from veterans. Zero hyperbole when I say the whole system is corrupt and needs to be reorganized NOW.

jtown,man Nov 14, 2019 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8747761)
I'm sure in their minds, these older people will move to Texas and Florida, and spark a massive boom in those economies. What kind of boom? Who the hell knows. Senior Citizen Housing?:shrug:

Seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Not a bad group to attract.

badrunner Nov 14, 2019 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8748348)
Crawford's anecdotal experience from 1979, [remember he was the one that said "40 years ago" then moved the goal posts to "a couple decades ago" -- was he even alive back then?] is painting a false picture of the homeless epidemic we are currently in.

It's an easy dismissal of facts, without providing any factual data at all.

It goes back at least that far. Homelessness is not a new phenomenon in California. It's gonna be there regardless of how the economy's doing or what party is in power.

"At the end of the 19th century, a number of residential hotels opened in the area as it became home to a transient population of seasonal laborers.[15] By the 1930s, Skid Row was home to as many as 10,000 homeless people, alcoholics, and others on the margins of society.[14] It supported saloons, residential hotels, and social services, which drew people from the populations they served to congregate in the area."

for reference:

"As of the 2019 census, the population of the district was 4,757.[3] Skid Row contains one of the largest stable populations (about 2,783) of homeless people in the United States[4] and has been known for its condensed homeless population since the 1930s"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles

craigs Nov 14, 2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748369)
It didn't turn out great for Illinois, Louisiana West Virginia, Michigan, Upstate NY etc.

But hey maybe California will buck that track record because "reasons" ? I hope im wrong.

Okay, so let's get this straight: we are supposed to accept the truth of your claim "Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future" because West Virginia.

Meanwhile, in reality, California would not be better off, or better able to solve our growth-related problems, if we were saddled with hundreds of thousands of additional residents right now, further crowding the roads, increasing pollution, housing costs and demand for services and resources. And we won't be better off with accelerating population growth via domestic in-migration next year or further into the future, either, until and unless we are able to better address our growth-related problems. Your claim is ridiculous.

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8748814)
Seniors are the wealthiest group of Americans. Not a bad group to attract.

That maybe so, but they're mostly retired and not looking to boost economies.
It's why Florida's major cities aren't powerhouses.

If you think it's cool, great. I don't think its a group California NEEDS to retain, really.

spoonman Nov 14, 2019 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8748593)
It's actually more than that. San Diego is another 3 millon, and Sacramento is another 2.5 or so.

How is this any different than any other state, including Texas? How well off are the likes of Amarillo and Wichita Falls?

3.5 million people in SD. Larger than Denver, close in size to Seattle. World’s busiest border crossing.

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8748909)
Okay, so let's get this straight: we are supposed to accept the truth of your claim "Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future" because West Virginia.

Meanwhile, in reality, California would not be better off, or better able to solve our growth-related problems, if we were saddled with hundreds of thousands of additional residents right now, further crowding the roads, increasing pollution, housing costs and demand for services and resources. And we won't be better off with accelerating population growth via domestic in-migration next year or further into the future, either, until and unless we are able to better address our growth-related problems. Your claim is ridiculous.

That didnt make any sense either. California has little in common with those places.

Those states had horrible economic downturns that made people leave. That's not happening in California.

As stated many times before, if California was as afffordable as Texas or other sunbelt states, there would be millions more people here. That's not a "brag" that's a very, very likely probability, wether California haters want to hear it or not. Is that a good thing? Maybe not. Who the hell knows.

edale Nov 14, 2019 10:35 PM

God, don't you people get tired of typing the same shit over and over? This thread has been painful to read.

Obadno Nov 14, 2019 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8748909)
Okay, so let's get this straight: we are supposed to accept the truth of your claim "Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future" because West Virginia.

Meanwhile, in reality, California would not be better off, or better able to solve our growth-related problems, if we were saddled with hundreds of thousands of additional residents right now, further crowding the roads, increasing pollution, housing costs and demand for services and resources. And we won't be better off with accelerating population growth via domestic in-migration next year or further into the future, either, until and unless we are able to better address our growth-related problems. Your claim is ridiculous.

Damn you guys do like to cherry pick

In any example I can think of ongoing precipitous domestic out migration is not a good thing. You can focus on west Virginia if you want to be an ostrich but I would think the NYC- Upstate NY example of the constantly hemorrhaging state of Illinois- Chicago are probably going to be a good indication of whats going to happen to California in coming decades.

The gorilla city (2 cities for Cali) will still bring in population or at least stay stable while the other parts of the state whither away like Upstate NY or like Chicago outside of the Suburbs/Loop and the state of Illinois in general.

Whats causing out migration is clearly not going to stop and based on the block-headed conversations I have with the people on this board, it'll probably get worse.

At some point international immigration wont offset the people leaving. Maybe then some corrective action will take place.

But hey some of you seem to think its fine that millions of people outside of the privileged cities of LA and San Francisco begin to fall apart. I cant understand such an opinion but there ya go.

After all to quote somebody above "California IS San Francisco and LA"

badrunner Nov 14, 2019 11:15 PM

https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/958
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

California is sending its poor to Arizona, Nevada and Texas while gaining wealthy residents from Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York.

Doesn't that graphic look like a right-winger's wet dream? :haha: Maybe that's the real reason they are so upset. They are on the outside looking in.

Shawn Nov 15, 2019 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8748988)
Doesn't that graphic look like a right-winger's wet dream? :haha: Maybe that's the real reason they are so upset. They are on the outside looking in.

Lol I was thinking the exact same thing. Get rid of tax-draining poor people (and get rid of some brownies in the process, amiright?) and replace them with high net worth contributors and job creators. :cheers:

Hey Texas, have fun figuring out how to pay for all those additional social services the Californians you’re so proud of taking will need. Cause I’m skeptical you’re getting the type Californians you imagine you’re getting.

LA21st Nov 15, 2019 12:33 AM

:haha:

Yea, I remember people saying LA's losing residents to Vegas. What people didn't say was a good amount of them were crimnals (gangs) because they got priced out of LA.
To be fair, that's true for San Bernardino as well, but good riddance.

craigs Nov 15, 2019 1:15 AM

You argue California's net negative domestic migration is "a bad sign for California's future," because it must necessarily lead to the same "precipitous" decline experienced over the last few decades in places like Upstate New York, West Virginia, Louisiana, Illinois, etc., but you can't prove that. It's just an idea you want to believe is true.

Look, it's not that California cannot possibly decline in population over the coming decades. I'm not pulling one of these "Prove me wrong or Dallas hits 20 million and overtakes Los Angeles!" homerisms. It's just not likely, because 1) Net domestic out-migration amounted to 0.48% of the state's total population in 2018, which is hardly 'precipitous'; 2) California is expected to continue to grow through natural increase alone, because of our demographics; and 2) California is too dissimilar from those other states in such critical ways that they cannot be analogous, and thus fail to accurately represent this state or reliably predict its future. Your argument just doesn't hold water.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748976)
Damn you guys do like to cherry pick

In any example I can think of ongoing precipitous domestic out migration is not a good thing. You can focus on west Virginia if you want to be an ostrich but I would think the NYC- Upstate NY example of the constantly hemorrhaging state of Illinois- Chicago are probably going to be a good indication of whats going to happen to California in coming decades.

The gorilla city (2 cities for Cali) will still bring in population or at least stay stable while the other parts of the state whither away like Upstate NY or like Chicago outside of the Suburbs/Loop and the state of Illinois in general.

Whats causing out migration is clearly not going to stop and based on the block-headed conversations I have with the people on this board, it'll probably get worse.

At some point international immigration wont offset the people leaving. Maybe then some corrective action will take place.

But hey some of you seem to think its fine that millions of people outside of the privileged cities of LA and San Francisco begin to fall apart. I cant understand such an opinion but there ya go.

After all to quote somebody above "California IS San Francisco and LA"


jtown,man Nov 15, 2019 1:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8748988)
https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/958
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

California is sending its poor to Arizona, Nevada and Texas while gaining wealthy residents from Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey and New York.

Doesn't that graphic look like a right-winger's wet dream? :haha: Maybe that's the real reason they are so upset. They are on the outside looking in.

Yeah. We are upset that our states provide a reasonable life for middle-class people. What a bunch of losers!

Shawn Nov 15, 2019 5:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8749104)
Yeah. We are upset that our states provide a reasonable life for middle-class people. What a bunch of losers!

$15-$30 grand a year is middle-class?

jtown,man Nov 15, 2019 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8749263)
$15-$30 grand a year is middle-class?

No. They would be completely reliant on welfare in LA and SF and survive but not be happy in places like Mississippi and Arkansas. However, that isn't the only demographic going to Texas and Nevada. There are also plenty of people making more than 15k but less than 75k.

I was simply making the point that Badrunner thinks that "right-wingers" are pissed or something because we are getting the poor and middle class while California is getting the rich(at least from domestic migration). But thats the thing. Only the rich can afford to make the move to California. Poor immigrants are also willing to do and live in ways long-time citizens aren't willing to do, so they move to California too. So yeah, I am not sad or annoyed that "my states" are taking in poor-middle class families who want to be able to live a decent life.

spoonman Nov 15, 2019 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8749042)
Lol I was thinking the exact same thing. Get rid of tax-draining poor people (and get rid of some brownies in the process, amiright?) and replace them with high net worth contributors and job creators. :cheers:

Hey Texas, have fun figuring out how to pay for all those additional social services the Californians you’re so proud of taking will need. Cause I’m skeptical you’re getting the type Californians you imagine you’re getting.

Did I just witness a liberal admit that poor people are a drain on the state?

Did I also see a liberal make a racist statement about "brownies"?

I guess it's cool since it was written by a liberal, nobody here has a problem with it.

badrunner Nov 15, 2019 5:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8749322)
I was simply making the point that Badrunner thinks that "right-wingers" are pissed or something because we are getting the poor and middle class while California is getting the rich(at least from domestic migration). But thats the thing. Only the rich can afford to make the move to California.

Yeah I don't think you understood my meaning. I'm not necessarily saying those migration numbers are great for California, but they would be pretty fantastic for an Ayn Randian republican utopia don't you think? It's usually right-wingers with the "grab all the cash, the poor can just fuck off and die" attitude as exemplified by our current first family.

LA21st Nov 15, 2019 5:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 8749435)
Did I just witness a liberal admit that poor people are a drain on the state?

Did I also see a liberal make a racist statement about "brownies"?

I guess it's cool since it was written by a liberal, nobody here has a problem with it.

I think it was written tongue in cheek.

badrunner Nov 15, 2019 5:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8749042)
Lol I was thinking the exact same thing. Get rid of tax-draining poor people (and get rid of some brownies in the process, amiright?) and replace them with high net worth contributors and job creators. :cheers:

Curious that a demographic analysis of domestic migration broke it down by income, age and education, but not by race. I think those numbers would be very interesting, and not at all what one might expect. It may cause a few heads to explode on this forum though.

LA21st Nov 15, 2019 5:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8749322)
No. They would be completely reliant on welfare in LA and SF and survive but not be happy in places like Mississippi and Arkansas. However, that isn't the only demographic going to Texas and Nevada. There are also plenty of people making more than 15k but less than 75k.

I was simply making the point that Badrunner thinks that "right-wingers" are pissed or something because we are getting the poor and middle class while California is getting the rich(at least from domestic migration). But thats the thing. Only the rich can afford to make the move to California. Poor immigrants are also willing to do and live in ways long-time citizens aren't willing to do, so they move to California too. So yeah, I am not sad or annoyed that "my states" are taking in poor-middle class families who want to be able to live a decent life.

Why do people make these general statements that "only the rich can afford to move to California?" It's stuff like this that's so misleading and annoying.
This is not true at all, as people from all classes move here all the time. Because of Hollywood and the like, you meet people from freakin' everywhere. I'm sure it's like this for Silicon Valley.

Has it ever occured to you people like Calfiornia so they deal with the cost of living, like NYers or how people deal with shitty weather?
Not everyone who can't afford it is dying to leave, so stop these false narratives. Are some? Sure. I overhead someone yesteday moving to Denver because it's cheaper.

But there's 40 million people here, so these general statements are just dumb. The perentage of people leaving is incredibly small anyway. Fox News tries to pretend it's much worse than it actually is, and that same stuff leaks into these forums.

LA21st Nov 15, 2019 6:57 PM

I read Tulsa is paying people $10,000 to move there. That all sounds great, but it costs a few thousand to move, and what if you have no job or youre laid off quickly? You're stuck? Then what? The rest of that money won't last more than a few months.

Honestly, who really does this? I can only imagine people who take this offer are struggling, hard.
How is any of this poaching sustainable?

SLO Nov 15, 2019 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8749042)
Lol I was thinking the exact same thing. Get rid of tax-draining poor people (and get rid of some brownies in the process, amiright?) and replace them with high net worth contributors and job creators. :cheers:

Hey Texas, have fun figuring out how to pay for all those additional social services the Californians you’re so proud of taking will need. Cause I’m skeptical you’re getting the type Californians you imagine you’re getting.

You mean the middle class? That’s who’s moving along with upper middle class conservatives who appreciate the business climate and move their companies.

LA21st Nov 15, 2019 8:52 PM

Again, Texas didn't even gain more than 1 percent job growth than California in 9 years. Reading some of these posts (and other social media) you would think there would be some stark difference because of the "business climate".

But there's not. So....:shrug:

Dariusb Nov 16, 2019 1:38 AM

This topic has gone way off course like a plane bound for Jamaica but ends up landing in Iceland, lmao!

JManc Nov 16, 2019 3:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8748976)
You can focus on west Virginia if you want to be an ostrich but I would think the NYC- Upstate NY example of the constantly hemorrhaging state of Illinois- Chicago are probably going to be a good indication of whats going to happen to California in coming decades.

That would be a no. New York state and Illinois have one dominant city that is healthy with the rest of the state stagnating or in decline where as California has numerous cities doing rather well. There's no comparison. Even cities like Bakersfield in the CV seem to be better off than Upstate NY and IL outside of Chicago.

Shawn Nov 16, 2019 4:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spoonman (Post 8749435)
Did I just witness a liberal admit that poor people are a drain on the state?

Did I also see a liberal make a racist statement about "brownies"?

I guess it's cool since it was written by a liberal, nobody here has a problem with it.

There is no face-palm emoji, unfortunately.

Sir, you have lost the plot.

JManc Nov 16, 2019 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8750206)
There is no face-palm emoji, unfortunately.

:facepalm:

Shawn Nov 16, 2019 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8750213)
:facepalm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8750206)
There is no face-palm emoji, unfortunately.

Sir, you have lost the plot.

:facepalm: to myself

Sun Belt Nov 16, 2019 1:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn (Post 8749042)
Lol I was thinking the exact same thing. Get rid of tax-draining poor people (and get rid of some brownies in the process, amiright?) and replace them with high net worth contributors and job creators. :cheers:

Hey Texas, have fun figuring out how to pay for all those additional social services the Californians you’re so proud of taking will need. Cause I’m skeptical you’re getting the type Californians you imagine you’re getting.

Wait.

You're saying that having a net domestic loss, along with a rapidly aging population is a good thing? That 15k-30k figure most likely is representing young people, just starting off - entering the workforce - they are leaving the state. Those young people were yesterday's creators/innovators and they're leaving. That's a good thing?

3 earners [roomies] making 30k/year - $14.42/hour [that's less than minimum wage in most parts of California these days and significantly lower than Bank of America's Minimum wage of $20/hour] is a household income of 90k.

Who exactly is going to pay for all those social services in California when there are 9 million people over the age of 66?

-----


Side note: I might be confusing you with another person that lives in Asia that was considering a move back to the states, but you, or whomever it was ruled out California because of the extreme high cost of living, despite their wife loving it so much.

Crawford Nov 16, 2019 3:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8750302)
Wait.

You're saying that having a net domestic loss, along with a rapidly aging population is a good thing?

Yes, absolutely. That means CA is getting richer, more innovative and has lower overall tax burden.

The biggest tax expense is public education, by far, and children don't work or pay taxes, so a state that is growing by importing professionals but losing school-age children is much better off economically than one that is growing through childbirth.

lio45 Nov 16, 2019 7:01 PM

Agree with Crawford there.

JAYNYC Nov 16, 2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8749801)
Again, Texas didn't even gain more than 1 percent job growth than California in 9 years. Reading some of these posts (and other social media) you would think there would be some stark difference because of the "business climate".

But there's not. So....:shrug:


Your overt malevolence towards Texas is so obviously linked to its massive gains on California across every meaningful category it's beyond laughable.

We get it - you despise any state stealing the Golden State's once glorified shine and appeal, but the reality is Texas is booming (and has been for some time now) for myriad reasons whether you choose to accept it or continue to live in denial.


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.