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)

LA21st Nov 10, 2019 7:31 PM

This stuff always gets blown out to fit certain poster's narratives.
So out of 40 million people, 70,000 people moved to Texas? Whats 700,000 out of 40 million?
Whats the percentage of these things?

If you listen to certain "media" you would believe these numbers would be MUCH HIGHER than they actually are. As Diamondpark stats showed, Texas didn't even gain 1 more percent of job growth for this decade than California.

I believe Idaho was the first choice for Californians's, if you go by percentage.

JManc Nov 10, 2019 8:25 PM

Depends on what time frame those 700,000 left. If it's within a year, that's a lot even for California's population. If it's over a 5-10 period, not so much of a big deal.

RE: Idaho v. Texas, I would imagine Californians who pick one over the other do it for very different reasons. ID strikes me as a destination for more well-to-do Californians who reject CA's 'liberalism' or looking for slower pace of life where as Texas is just an affordable alternative regardless of politics.

LA21st Nov 10, 2019 8:31 PM

It was for one year, but 500,000 moved in from other states too.

Texas, New York and Florida also had 450,000 people move out last year. By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california.

Plasticman Nov 10, 2019 10:15 PM

I think the listed cities will grow but the real emphasis in the next decade will be on the 2nd tier of cities. Nashville, Charlotte, & Austin are already beginning to siphon off projects and construction that a couple of decades ago would never have considered them in the running. As an example Nashville scores huge with part of the Amazon expansion. Twenty years ago Atlanta or Dallas or Houston would have easily scored it. My point is instead of one of the historically larger cities continuing exponential growth many companies are looking to these second tier cities as having more potential.

goat314 Nov 10, 2019 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8744685)
It was for one year, but 500,000 moved in from other states too.

Texas, New York and Florida also had 450,000 people move out last year. By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california.

I've been living in Florida on and off the last 15 years. Livability has gone down dramatically in the state (specifically in the larger metros). The infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth and the cost of living is rising exponentially. I don't know what it's like to live in Texas, but I'd imagine population will start to head to less populated sunbelt states in the future. Florida will definitely no longer be a bargain in the next 10 years or so. All they are building is overpriced, overcrowded apartment complexes now and people under 40= are so broke that I'm sure another housing bubble is on the way.

dimondpark Nov 11, 2019 1:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8744618)
Agreed. It's like all those place calling themselves Hollywood of the South, North etc Or Silicon Praires, Alley, etc. It's never going to be the same.

And if you notice, the current tech streaming trend is still largely centered in California for the most part. That's where the creativity is.

JManc Nov 11, 2019 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goat314 (Post 8744731)
I've been living in Florida on and off the last 15 years. Livability has gone down dramatically in the state (specifically in the larger metros). The infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth and the cost of living is rising exponentially. I don't know what it's like to live in Texas, but I'd imagine population will start to head to less populated sunbelt states in the future. Florida will definitely no longer be a bargain in the next 10 years or so. All they are building is overpriced, overcrowded apartment complexes now and people under 40= are so broke that I'm sure another housing bubble is on the way.

Similar scenario to bigger metros here in Texas. New houses not in the exurban hinterlands are expensive as are multifamily development. You can still find a cheap house or apartment in the city but they are going to be older, in need of some repair and/or on the 'wrong side of the tracks'.

Sun Belt Nov 11, 2019 4:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8744685)
It was for one year, but 500,000 moved in from other states too.

Texas, New York and Florida also had 450,000 people move out last year. By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california.

Wait, what?

List of U.S. states annual net domestic migration.

1] Florida -- 132,602
2] Arizona -- 83,240
3] Texas -- 82,569
4] North Carolina -- 66,991
5] South Carolina -- 50,775
6] Nevada -- 47,596
7] Washington -- 46,549
8] Colorado -- 43,293
9] Georgia -- 41,914
10] Tennessee -- 39,952

-----

Here's the negative net domestic states:

24] Vermont −62
25] District of Columbia −936
26] Wisconsin −1,011
27] North Dakota −2,379
28] Rhode Island −2,639
29] Missouri −2,790
30] Iowa −2,886
31] Nebraska −3,314
32] Wyoming −3,686
33] Oklahoma −4,474
34] New Mexico −5,851
35] West Virginia −7,029
36] Virginia −9,831
37] Alaska −10,752
38] Mississippi −10,818
39] Ohio −12,146
40] Hawaii −12,430
41] Kansas −12,564
42] Michigan −16,766
43] Pennsylvania −20,463
44] Connecticut −21,509
45] Maryland −24,518
46] Massachusetts −25,755
47] Louisiana −27,914
48] New Jersey −50,591
49] Illinois −114,154
50] California −156,068
51] New York −180,306



And here's the top 3 states Net International Migration:

1] Florida 175,670
2] California 117,797
3] Texas 104,976

Sun Belt Nov 11, 2019 4:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goat314 (Post 8744731)
I've been living in Florida on and off the last 15 years. Livability has gone down dramatically in the state (specifically in the larger metros). The infrastructure hasn't kept up with growth and the cost of living is rising exponentially. I don't know what it's like to live in Texas, but I'd imagine population will start to head to less populated sunbelt states in the future. Florida will definitely no longer be a bargain in the next 10 years or so. All they are building is overpriced, overcrowded apartment complexes now and people under 40= are so broke that I'm sure another housing bubble is on the way.

As overpriced as Florida real estate has become, it's still about 1/3 - 1/5 the price of California depending on city v city location comparisons.

LA21st Nov 11, 2019 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8745178)
Wait, what?

List of U.S. states annual net domestic migration.

1] Florida -- 132,602
2] Arizona -- 83,240
3] Texas -- 82,569
4] North Carolina -- 66,991
5] South Carolina -- 50,775
6] Nevada -- 47,596
7] Washington -- 46,549
8] Colorado -- 43,293
9] Georgia -- 41,914
10] Tennessee -- 39,952

-----

Here's the negative net domestic states:

24] Vermont −62
25] District of Columbia −936
26] Wisconsin −1,011
27] North Dakota −2,379
28] Rhode Island −2,639
29] Missouri −2,790
30] Iowa −2,886
31] Nebraska −3,314
32] Wyoming −3,686
33] Oklahoma −4,474
34] New Mexico −5,851
35] West Virginia −7,029
36] Virginia −9,831
37] Alaska −10,752
38] Mississippi −10,818
39] Ohio −12,146
40] Hawaii −12,430
41] Kansas −12,564
42] Michigan −16,766
43] Pennsylvania −20,463
44] Connecticut −21,509
45] Maryland −24,518
46] Massachusetts −25,755
47] Louisiana −27,914
48] New Jersey −50,591
49] Illinois −114,154
50] California −156,068
51] New York −180,306



And here's the top 3 states Net International Migration:

1] Florida 175,670
2] California 117,797
3] Texas 104,976

Obviously, I didn't mention net migration. Not sure why these things are so hard to understand.

JManc Nov 11, 2019 6:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8745182)
As overpriced as Florida real estate has become, it's still about 1/3 - 1/5 the price of California depending on city v city location comparisons.

California is an outlier but South Florida is still pretty expensive. My wife and I were exploring getting a second home around Ft. Lauderdale but set our sights on New Orleans instead. Much cheaper there.

Sun Belt Nov 11, 2019 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8745242)
Obviously, I didn't mention net migration. Not sure why these things are so hard to understand.

Because you said this:
"By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california."

Which doesn't matter because Florida is the top destination in terms of net domestic migration and international migration.

In other words, grouping a state like Florida with New York isn't really telling an accurate story.

LA21st Nov 11, 2019 9:54 PM

Over 470,000 people left Florida last year. Florida just gained more people from other states to negate it. It doesn't change the fact that 470,000 people still left the state. Which would be more than California departures, by percentage, by a good amount too.

From an article-

The exodus from California also led among other states. Only the numbers for Texas, Florida, and New York came close.

Texas lost 462,000; New York lost 458,000; and Florida lost 470,000.


According to the Census data, most Californians found themselves heading to Texas, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, and Oregon.

Texas - 86,000
Arizona - 68,000
Washington - 55,000
Nevada - 50,000
Oregon - 43,000
Idaho was not far behind its Pacific Northwest neighbors, with an estimated 21,000.

While California led in people leaving the state in 2018, it came in third for the number of people who moved in.
The state was behind Florida, who had 587,000, and Texas, who saw 563,000 move in

Crawford Nov 11, 2019 10:47 PM

California metros often have lower housing burden than Florida metros, because salaries suck. SF is cheap compared to Miami.

craigs Nov 11, 2019 11:37 PM

According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2018, about 691,000 Californians moved to another state and 501,000 people moved into California from other states.

That net domestic loss is a grand total of 190,000 people. Considering the state was estimated at 39,557,045 in 2018, that "exodus" amounts to a mere 0.48% of the total population.

Yet that kind of small deficit is more than overcome through international immigration and natural increase: between 2010 and 2018, California's population increased by 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, and is still growing.

Will O' Wisp Nov 12, 2019 6:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8745594)
According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2018, about 691,000 Californians moved to another state and 501,000 people moved into California from other states.

That net domestic loss is a grand total of 190,000 people. Considering the state was estimated at 39,557,045 in 2018, that "exodus" amounts to a mere 0.48% of the total population.

Yet that kind of small deficit is more than overcome through international immigration and natural increase: between 2010 and 2018, California's population increased by 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, and is still growing.

I got 2.4 million gained going on US census estimates for population 2010-2018 (37.32 million to 39.56). Perhaps more salient to the current conversation, during the same time period Texas gained 3.5 million people and Florida 2.4 million.

Getting things more recent, in 2018 California gained about 150,000 new residents, Texas 400,000, and Florida 320,000. For comparison New York lost 50,000 people, bringing it nearly back to where it started at the beginning of the decade.

But then, it's hard to know just how much California's growth is being hampered by lack of affordable housing. The state government is really starting to crack down on localities that refuse to build. SoCal alone is essentially being forced to permit 1.5 million new homes by 2030, or enough for 4.5 million people just on its own.

Sun Belt Nov 12, 2019 2:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8745497)
Over 470,000 people left Florida last year. Florida just gained more people from other states to negate it. It doesn't change the fact that 470,000 people still left the state. Which would be more than California departures, by percentage, by a good amount too.

From an article-

The exodus from California also led among other states. Only the numbers for Texas, Florida, and New York came close.

Texas lost 462,000; New York lost 458,000; and Florida lost 470,000.


According to the Census data, most Californians found themselves heading to Texas, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, and Oregon.

Texas - 86,000
Arizona - 68,000
Washington - 55,000
Nevada - 50,000
Oregon - 43,000
Idaho was not far behind its Pacific Northwest neighbors, with an estimated 21,000.

While California led in people leaving the state in 2018, it came in third for the number of people who moved in.
The state was behind Florida, who had 587,000, and Texas, who saw 563,000 move in

The difference is California is net negative and Florida is net positive.

Florida is 1st and California at 49th. They could not be more different.

LA21st Nov 12, 2019 3:45 PM

Ugh. You keep glossing over a simple point. What you're talking about is something different, as I've already stated.

I know you don't want to accept that hundreds of thousands of people leave Texas and Florida a year, but they do. As with Calfiornia and New York, much of this is due to higher populations. Calfiornia has the most, by far, so it's not weird more people would leave than any other state.

How this is incomprehensible is hilarious.

LA21st Nov 12, 2019 3:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8745594)
According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2018, about 691,000 Californians moved to another state and 501,000 people moved into California from other states.

That net domestic loss is a grand total of 190,000 people. Considering the state was estimated at 39,557,045 in 2018, that "exodus" amounts to a mere 0.48% of the total population.

Yet that kind of small deficit is more than overcome through international immigration and natural increase: between 2010 and 2018, California's population increased by 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, and is still growing.

According to certain posters, the state is dying. :koko:
Oh, and the entire state is on fire, there's homeless on every block, and everyone struggles to get something to eat. We're all in danger of getting medieval dieeases as well, because Fox News said so.

Obadno Nov 12, 2019 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8746088)
According to certain posters, the state is dying. :koko:
Oh, and the entire state is on fire, there's homeless on every block, and everyone struggles to get something to eat. We're all in danger of getting medieval dieeases as well, because Fox News said so.

Dude all you do is straw-man for California like its your PR job. What gives?

Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future nobody has ever suggested that California is in imminent or prolonged collapse but for 7 years running people have been leaving the state.

The homeless issues, the failing infrastructure, the expense, the tax burden, the mismanagement of the cities. This isnt a "fox news" conspiracy its reported all over the press from the very far right to the very far left.

Stop taking it so personally its weird.

LA21st Nov 12, 2019 6:05 PM

Nah, I find the "demise of California: opinions to be exaggerated and comical.

JManc Nov 12, 2019 6:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8746011)
The difference is California is net negative and Florida is net positive.

Florida is 1st and California at 49th. They could not be more different.

California was #3 in numeric growth from 2017-2018 after Texas and Florida. It's getting about half the new population as TX/ FL and has 10 and 17 million on the next two most populous states so the percentage growth is a lot lower which isn't really a bad thing.

Centropolis Nov 12, 2019 6:34 PM

like i woke up with a stomach ache and nausea the other night but couldn't vomit. that's what this thread is like (and all the sunbelt/california threads)

craigs Nov 12, 2019 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8746179)
Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future

Disagreed--how is that true? Given the state's current problems, I'd say domestic out-migration is more likely a good thing than a bad thing right now.

California sent 691,000 people to other states in 2018 and received 501,000 people from other states in 2018, for a net domestic out-migration amounting to less than 0.5% of the state's total population. Yet California continues to grow via natural increase and international immigration, adding 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, to its total population between 2010 and 2018.

What if we didn't experience net domestic out-migration during that time frame? The population would have grown roughly a half a percent faster in 2018 alone, and cumulatively over this decade, we'd have hundreds of thousands more Californians than we do right now.

How would it be an improvement to add hundreds of thousands more Californians to the current population, clogging up the roads and increasing pollution, competing with the rest of us (and with all the kids growing up, and with foreign immigrants) for housing, employment, educational resources, mental health and homeless services, etc.? It wouldn't be.

No, that even more crowded and competitive scenario would be worse than the one we face today, not better. So why the hand-wringing and phony assertions to the contrary? Why the assertion that whatever is happening in California is necessarily bad and negative and destructive? Hmm....

Quote:

This isnt a "fox news" conspiracy its reported all over the press from the very far right to the very far left.
That's the correct answer!

The orchestrated campaign to deride, denounce, and derail California for its political sins by the Trump regime, its partisans and culture warriors, and their propaganda outlet Fox is the reason we're getting all this phony 'concern trolling' over Californians' well-being right now. Oh, they have not one iota of actual concern for us--but they've got the trolling down pat. And it is that Trumpian crusade against California that creates the larger context in which this forum's anti-California threads are understood by locals.

badrunner Nov 13, 2019 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8746086)
Ugh. You keep glossing over a simple point. What you're talking about is something different, as I've already stated.

I know you don't want to accept that hundreds of thousands of people leave Texas and Florida a year, but they do. As with Calfiornia and New York, much of this is due to higher populations. Calfiornia has the most, by far, so it's not weird more people would leave than any other state.

How this is incomprehensible is hilarious.

This isn't the first time. I've noticed Sun Belt gets easily confused by complex data sets. If it's on purpose it's clearly trolling, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt :)

jtown,man Nov 13, 2019 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8746597)
Disagreed--how is that true? Given the state's current problems, I'd say domestic out-migration is more likely a good thing than a bad thing right now.

California sent 691,000 people to other states in 2018 and received 501,000 people from other states in 2018, for a net domestic out-migration amounting to less than 0.5% of the state's total population. Yet California continues to grow via natural increase and international immigration, adding 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, to its total population between 2010 and 2018.

What if we didn't experience net domestic out-migration during that time frame? The population would have grown roughly a half a percent faster in 2018 alone, and cumulatively over this decade, we'd have hundreds of thousands more Californians than we do right now.

How would it be an improvement to add hundreds of thousands more Californians to the current population, clogging up the roads and increasing pollution, competing with the rest of us (and with all the kids growing up, and with foreign immigrants) for housing, employment, educational resources, mental health and homeless services, etc.? It wouldn't be.

No, that even more crowded and competitive scenario would be worse than the one we face today, not better. So why the hand-wringing and phony assertions to the contrary? Why the assertion that whatever is happening in California is necessarily bad and negative and destructive? Hmm....


That's the correct answer!

The orchestrated campaign to deride, denounce, and derail California for its political sins by the Trump regime, its partisans and culture warriors, and their propaganda outlet Fox is the reason we're getting all this phony 'concern trolling' over Californians' well-being right now. Oh, they have not one iota of actual concern for us--but they've got the trolling down pat. And it is that Trumpian crusade against California that creates the larger context in which this forum's anti-California threads are understood by locals.

No. California has been known for its extreme prices and homeless people for the last 20 years. Stop blaming EVERYTHING on Trump. Also, the articles I've seen posted on here and other places are all from rather liberal online outlets.

badrunner Nov 13, 2019 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8746597)
Disagreed--how is that true? Given the state's current problems, I'd say domestic out-migration is more likely a good thing than a bad thing right now.

California sent 691,000 people to other states in 2018 and received 501,000 people from other states in 2018, for a net domestic out-migration amounting to less than 0.5% of the state's total population. Yet California continues to grow via natural increase and international immigration, adding 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, to its total population between 2010 and 2018.

California would be close to 50 million in population right now if it had continued net positive domestic migration. Housing would be more expensive, there would be worse traffic and pollution, lower quality of life.

The free market is not obligated to provide affordable housing in desirable areas for everyone who wants it.

toddguy Nov 13, 2019 1:11 PM

Dallas/Fort Worth. already over 7 million, can sprawl in every direction, high enough to not have to worry about rising sea levels, too far inland to get the worst effects of hurricanes.
Dallas seems to have everything going for it.

Crawford Nov 13, 2019 1:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8746730)
No. California has been known for its extreme prices and homeless people for the last 20 years. Stop blaming EVERYTHING on Trump.

Except no one blamed high housing values and homeless on Trump. And CA has had high housing prices and homeless for the last 40 years, at least. CA has probably always had more "street people" given the climate.

People are correctly pointing out that Dotard frequently cites California as a "disaster" when it's plausibly the most successful geography on the planet. At the very least, it's unquestionably the most innovative place on the planet.

Sun Belt Nov 13, 2019 2:17 PM

These realities are not a good thing in the long term:

1] Net negative domestic growth
2] Slowing international growth
3] Natural increase in decline
4] An aging population

This is the reality in California. There are currently 6 million seniors in the state. By 2030 there will be 9 million. Over 20% of the population will be over 66 years of age -- more than Florida -- yet not nearly as affordable as low cost, low tax Florida.

Sun Belt Nov 13, 2019 2:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8747075)
Except no one blamed high housing values and homeless on Trump. And CA has had high housing prices and homeless for the last 40 years, at least. CA has probably always had more "street people" given the climate.

You're being disingenuous. The homeless epidemic has not been around for 40 years.

Yes, there have always been bums in society, but let's get real here.

Crawford Nov 13, 2019 2:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8747101)
You're being disingenuous. The homeless epidemic has not been around for 40 years.

Of course it has. I remember Market Street/Tenderloin decades ago. It was 100x worse than now, with homeless encampments everywhere, dudes bathing in the fountains. Market Street was a toilet. As a small child, my eyes were bugging out at the sordid scene.

But back then we didn't have maniacs in the WH lying about everything to their Jonestown cult.

Obadno Nov 13, 2019 3:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8746597)
Disagreed--how is that true?

The issues in California have nothing to do with Trump, you seriously think the SALT deduction changes that went into effect a year ago are causing the issue?

California has had domestic out migration for 7 years running. Presidents are not nearly as important as you seem to think. Whatever issues you think California may or may not have they have absolutely nothing to do with current policy changes which have had almost no time to even go into effect, and they have almost nothing to do with National political policy in general.

Almost all of the real impact on your life is from local politicians and politics, not federal unless its war. I cant imagine how much of a blessing it is for incompetent state governments to know the average dreg blames their failures on DC. What a godsend for them.

Additionally: why should you be allowed to offset expensive state tax on federal taxes? That just allows high tax states to hide the true burden of their cost in the federal budget. It should be removed as a deduction entirely.

Thats another argument however :cheers:

Whataboutism argument: RED STATES GET MORE FEDERAL AID

***Despite that being disingenuous because rural western states have more federally owned property in than costal states via BLM and massive subsidies due to the outdated and horrible Farm Subsidy system as well as Native American Communities, not to mention that southern states have lots of poor so they get more federal aid due to welfare support (You dont hate the poor do you????)***

Id agree that most federal support should be ended and in these areas, Id also like to see the millions of square miles of land the federal government arbitrarily holds in the west turned back over to the states and citizens of the west. and I would like to see a total reformation of the welfare system that is rife with abuse.

IrishIllini Nov 13, 2019 7:37 PM

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.

Obadno Nov 13, 2019 7:57 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.

Abuse and fraud does not mean just on behalf of recipients my dude.

badrunner Nov 13, 2019 9:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8747097)
This is the reality in California. There are currently 6 million seniors in the state. By 2030 there will be 9 million. Over 20% of the population will be over 66 years of age -- more than Florida -- yet not nearly as affordable as low cost, low tax Florida.

Isn't it great news then, that a lot of those old people will be leaving California for cheaper retirement destinations? :shrug:

craigs Nov 13, 2019 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8747097)
These realities are not a good thing in the long term:

1] Net negative domestic growth
2] Slowing international growth
3] Natural increase in decline

Please explain how these are 'not good things.'

As they work slow California's population growth while we struggle to solve problems exacerbated by population growth, like spiraling housing costs, I think these are good things. I think adding more people faster would make our problems worse.

But let's see your argument for why California would be better off with hundreds of thousands of additional residents than we already have right now, or why we would be better off in the future if we grew even faster than we would without net domestic out-migration.

Quote:

4] An aging population
That isn't a problem caused by state policy. It's a demographic issue playing out across the entire Western world, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. But I'm sure you've got a GOP partisan talking point on hand for this, right? So knock yourself out--please feel free to use this thread to decisively solve the problems of aging.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8747193)
The issues in California have nothing to do with Trump, you seriously think the SALT deduction changes that went into effect a year ago are causing the issue?

California has had domestic out migration for 7 years running. Presidents are not nearly as important as you seem to think. Whatever issues you think California may or may not have they have absolutely nothing to do with current policy changes which have had almost no time to even go into effect, and they have almost nothing to do with National political policy in general.

Almost all of the real impact on your life is from local politicians and politics, not federal unless its war. I cant imagine how much of a blessing it is for incompetent state governments to know the average dreg blames their failures on DC. What a godsend for them.

Additionally: why should you be allowed to offset expensive state tax on federal taxes? That just allows high tax states to hide the true burden of their cost in the federal budget. It should be removed as a deduction entirely.

Thats another argument however :cheers:

Whataboutism argument: RED STATES GET MORE FEDERAL AID

***Despite that being disingenuous because rural western states have more federally owned property in than costal states via BLM and massive subsidies due to the outdated and horrible Farm Subsidy system as well as Native American Communities, not to mention that southern states have lots of poor so they get more federal aid due to welfare support (You dont hate the poor do you????)***

Id agree that most federal support should be ended and in these areas, Id also like to see the millions of square miles of land the federal government arbitrarily holds in the west turned back over to the states and citizens of the west. and I would like to see a total reformation of the welfare system that is rife with abuse.

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?

LA21st Nov 13, 2019 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8747639)
Isn't it great news then, that a lot of those old people will be leaving California for cheaper retirement destinations? :shrug:


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:

LA21st Nov 13, 2019 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8747664)
Please explain how these are 'not good things.'

As they work slow California's population growth while we struggle to solve problems exacerbated by population growth, like spiraling housing costs, I think these are good things. I think adding more people faster would make our problems worse.

But let's see your argument for why California would be better off with hundreds of thousands of additional residents than we already have right now, or why we would be better off in the future if we grew even faster than we would without net domestic out-migration.


That isn't a problem caused by state policy. It's a demographic issue playing out across the entire Western world, and I'm not sure what can be done about it. But I'm sure you've got a GOP partisan talking point on hand for this, right? So knock yourself out--please feel free to use this thread to decisively solve the problems of aging.


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?

What's even more hilarous is THEY THINK people in Dallas and Houston won't care about adding millions of people and love the traffic (who knows why) because THEY DESPERATELY WANT TO BELIEVE IT. Get out of here with that nonsense. One or two hardly used light rail lines won't change this.

We'll see what really happens though. My money is on they will get fed up like anywhere else as their commutes become even more hellish.

There was some DC poster on another site who threw out the idea of Baltimore-DC growing to 20 million people. If you asked people in real life if they would want that,
you'd be laughed at there. The traffic is already miserable.

JManc Nov 13, 2019 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddguy (Post 8747054)
Dallas/Fort Worth. already over 7 million, can sprawl in every direction, high enough to not have to worry about rising sea levels, too far inland to get the worst effects of hurricanes.
Dallas seems to have everything going for it.

Except for the Cowboys...

lio45 Nov 13, 2019 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8746597)
Disagreed--how is that true? Given the state's current problems, I'd say domestic out-migration is more likely a good thing than a bad thing right now.

California sent 691,000 people to other states in 2018 and received 501,000 people from other states in 2018, for a net domestic out-migration amounting to less than 0.5% of the state's total population. Yet California continues to grow via natural increase and international immigration, adding 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, to its total population between 2010 and 2018.

What if we didn't experience net domestic out-migration during that time frame? The population would have grown roughly a half a percent faster in 2018 alone, and cumulatively over this decade, we'd have hundreds of thousands more Californians than we do right now.

How would it be an improvement to add hundreds of thousands more Californians to the current population, clogging up the roads and increasing pollution, competing with the rest of us (and with all the kids growing up, and with foreign immigrants) for housing, employment, educational resources, mental health and homeless services, etc.? It wouldn't be.

No, that even more crowded and competitive scenario would be worse than the one we face today, not better. So why the hand-wringing and phony assertions to the contrary? Why the assertion that whatever is happening in California is necessarily bad and negative and destructive? Hmm....


That's the correct answer!

The orchestrated campaign to deride, denounce, and derail California for its political sins by the Trump regime, its partisans and culture warriors, and their propaganda outlet Fox is the reason we're getting all this phony 'concern trolling' over Californians' well-being right now. Oh, they have not one iota of actual concern for us--but they've got the trolling down pat. And it is that Trumpian crusade against California that creates the larger context in which this forum's anti-California threads are understood by locals.

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...?

lio45 Nov 13, 2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8747075)
People are correctly pointing out that Dotard frequently cites California as a "disaster" when it's plausibly the most successful geography on the planet. At the very least, it's unquestionably the most innovative place on the planet.

In all fairness, I distinctly recall your "Dotard" being quoted (on CBC) saying California's Silicon Valley is America's top crown jewel. (As part of an explanation on why he won't let the Chinese steal U.S. technology and undercut us, etc.) This was probably some 1-2 years ago, IIRC.

(If you want to challenge me on this, I bet I can find the exact quote for you, then you'll have to admit it.)

badrunner Nov 13, 2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st (Post 8747763)
What's even more hilarous is THEY THINK people in Dallas and Houston won't care about adding millions of people and love the traffic (who knows why) because THEY DESPERATELY WANT TO BELIEVE IT. Get out of here with that nonsense. One or two hardly used light rail lines won't change this.

We'll see what really happens though. My money is on they will get fed up like anywhere else as their commutes become even more hellish.

Texas Cities and Counties Scramble to Increase Property Taxes Before New Law Takes Effect

It's already starting to happen. A lot of Texas homeowners got sticker shock on their property taxes this year, especially in the Dallas area which is already relatively high cost for the state. At least they passed a law similar to prop 13 which should help homeowners down the line, but maybe it'll create some of the same problems and market imbalances that prop 13 did in California?

We'll see if Texas manages growth better than California did. Maybe in 30 years Texas will have 50 million people and Fox News will be running apocalyptic news stories about how too many people and liberal policies have ruined Texas :haha:

LA21st Nov 13, 2019 11:15 PM

That's honestly my guess. I don't see any evidence why Texas would be different. I just see emotional Texas pride.

Manages their growth better? Their sprawl is totally out of control and their more auto dependent than California is. They have a giant suburb with no bus routes ffs. Can you imagine Long Beach or Santa Ana with no transit options?

JManc Nov 13, 2019 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8747859)
Texas Cities and Counties Scramble to Increase Property Taxes Before New Law Takes Effect

It's already starting to happen. A lot of Texas homeowners got sticker shock on their property taxes this year, especially in the Dallas area which is already relatively high cost for the state. At least they passed a law similar to prop 13 which should help homeowners down the line, but maybe it'll create some of the same problems and market imbalances that prop 13 did in California?

We'll see if Texas manages growth better than California did. Maybe in 30 years Texas will have 50 million people and Fox News will be running apocalyptic news stories about how too many people and liberal policies have ruined Texas :haha:


Not just Dallas but Houston and especially Austin. Our property taxes are atrocious. They've been trickling in the mail this past week and they'll be higher this year. I also own land in CA, not a lot but dig the low tax rate.

DCReid Nov 13, 2019 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8747783)
Except for the Cowboys...

Also DFW is in a major tornado zone, and those will get worse with climate change as well. And as someone said, property taxes in Texas are quite high.
That said, it will probably keep growing fast and sprawling into Oklahoma.

Weren't California's property taxes were capped years ago (Prop 21?) and has there been any study as to whether the cap has contributed to California problems with high housing costs and his general taxes?

LosAngelesSportsFan Nov 14, 2019 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JManc (Post 8747878)
Not just Dallas but Houston and especially Austin. Our property taxes are atrocious. They've been trickling in the mail this past week and they'll be higher this year. I also own land in CA, not a lot but dig the low tax rate.

But i thought Texas was a low tax state??? lol i always laugh at people that say this because they look at one tax and extrapolate. Money needs to come from somewhere for basic services. Not gonna argue that California doesn't have a lot of fat that it can trim, but its never an apples to apples comparison

LA21st Nov 14, 2019 12:34 AM

I've never understood that either. How did people think their services were getting funded?

bossabreezes Nov 14, 2019 4:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8747147)
Of course it has. I remember Market Street/Tenderloin decades ago. It was 100x worse than now, with homeless encampments everywhere, dudes bathing in the fountains. Market Street was a toilet. As a small child, my eyes were bugging out at the sordid scene.

But back then we didn't have maniacs in the WH lying about everything to their Jonestown cult.

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.

Sun Belt Nov 14, 2019 3:00 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.

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:31 PM.

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