> We are hearing a ton of these anecdotal stories very recently about Californians moving to other states, especially wealthy, higher income individuals.
We know matches a political narrative (anti-liberal, anti-tax) and that the right, such as on Fox News, has long pushed it about CA. That would explain why you hear it so much.
EDIT: I'm trying to avoid discussing the politics of it on HN, but ignoring the narrative is like (as I said elsewhere) ignoring the Sun as we talk about Earth's orbit. It's impossible to discuss it seriously or honestly.
Yes, this article is written, it seems, with a bit of a vengeance. I'm not sure where "Go ahead, California, make my day." comes from...
There are some relevant points, but they're all contentious. California is in some dire straights, it's unfortunate. We'll get things sorted one way or another though, certainly.
"There is no housing boom (or bubble) about to inflate, as it did in 2004" - I don't know much about Mr. Malanga's finances, but I would presume he's a multi-millionaire, if his ability to see booms and bubbles is at all accurate.
He's a member of the Manhattan Institute, a heavily market-oriented "conservative" think-tank, and I can't help but wonder if a bit of ingrained bias played a part in this article.
> The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks).
The wild housing market is 90% of the inequality. The other 90% can be summed up by this 1994 article in the New York Times [1].
> of having an extremely mainstream Californian outlook
One can have the outlook without the residency.
And what is that outlook? Certainly not what CS imagines it to be, e.g. "uncritical technological boosterism and the desire to get rich quick." If one wants the real California ideology, one only need look at Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party supermajorities of a past decade-plus. Or at the policies enacted by San Fran, LA, and other major California cities in recent years.
Scottish national policy as of late hasn't been too far off this mark. ;-)
I am from out of state and live in the bay area. While I am pretty liberal I do think that the author has a point with respect to the cost of living, and abundance of inherited wealth. The only people I know who are buying homes are inherited millionaires or friends that got lucky picking the right startup. That said, I also feel like I understand local governments and Californians position on the issue of maintaining this artificial market. Lets face it This is a beautiful state, and the local population is trying very hard to maintains the 1960's charm of the area. At times I feel like I'm choking to death in overpopulation and an artificial market, but I do appreciate the open spaces and parks. I don't want to look at high rises, I like the California coast.
Maybe its a good thing people are leaving, I want this state all to myself.
California has a lot of problems, sure, but this article seems to blow many of them out of proportion. Some of the statistics sound shocking, but the author fails to make comparisons to other states.
The statistic that 95% of the people live in 5% of the land sounds bad, but I bet it isn't that much different than other states. Also, California looks big on a map, but you must remember that 45% of the land in California is owned by the federal government. That means that the land is generally off limits to housing people. Some people like park rangers and military personal might live on federal land, but very few do.
http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-land...
I live in Santa Rosa and my biggest problems with California are prop 13 and the zoning laws that encourage sprawl. California planners don't seem to like multi-use zones, so strip malls and sprawling apartment complexes pop up all over. I want to live in an apartment in a livable, diverse community on the same street as stores and restaurants, but this is extremely rare outside of places like San Francisco.
"Nothing works in California; it is “failed state” tier. It is also a preview of the national dystopia to come if California isn’t sawed off and left to drift off to sea in a Calexit. It is either that, give it back to Mexico, or a war of extermination -nothing less will save us from the nightmarish California Dream. The Bay Area has nice weather, and some interesting people live there out of what I assume is inertia and provincialism, but there is no worse place to live in North America today. It’s a physical paradise made into dystopian hellscape by the people who live in it."
This is completely unhinged (and bigoted) fantasy. I have lived in multiple places around the US and liked many of them. California works pretty well, actually. It is not remotely like the USSR circa 1985.
It does overtax and underdeliver. But the federal government does that on a much grander scale.
The Bay Area and LA are overcrowded. There are other places to live in California! Some with much more natural beauty.
The US is a beautiful place. I would not be so bolt as to make such a categorical statement.
Economically, in terms of business climate, affordability and more, CA is a dumpster fire. To the point that people at the new $15 to $20 per hour minimum wage that was supposed to solve so many problems actually have lower spending power than when they were earning at a lower rate. That should not be surprising when we pay 3x to 5x for auto licenses, 3x to 10x for auto insurance, 3x to 10x for homeowners insurance, 2x or more for gasoline, more in taxes across the board, from sales to income taxes and a bunch of little taxes on everything that just kills your money. Etc.
The only way CA improves is if there's a major ideological shift that permeates the state. I cannot see that happening for decades. I think it has to sink to a very painful bottom before people actually understand. CA needs to get the "Argentina experience" before voters will understand just how dumb it is to continue to support the charlatans and crooks who have been running this state.
The CA high speed rail was supposed to cost us $10 billion. We are well --way-- past $100 billion and nowhere completion. It will probably take this project another 25 years (if we are lucky), it might cost $500 billion and, if it ever really comes online, the cost per rider will be such that we could have sent everyone to the moon for less. Stupid voters. Ideologically broken crooks for politicians. Not a good combination. Time will tell.
As for affordable housing. Good luck. The very idea in CA violates the laws of physics. Unless there's a serious regime change this particular issue will not improve at all. Not at scale.
Yeah, this is some serious political opinion masquerading as journalism:
Original Title: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?
With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.
> In case it makes you feel any better, while California stinks in terms of quality of life at least it didn’t rank dead last in the overall rankings. We came in at No. 32 overall, although that’s well behind New Jersey (at No. 19), Florida (at No. 15), and Nebraska (at No. 7). Ouch.
> The bottom line? The state performed well in terms of its economy, coming in at No. 4 (hello, high tech boom) but it fared terribly in categories such as citizen opportunity (No. 46) and fiscal stability (No. 43) in addition to the dreaded quality-of-life assessment (that scarring No. 50). Of course, as anyone who has tried to buy a house in the Bay Area knows, fiscal instability is basically our motto at this point.
> The article almost acknowledges this, but if taxes really are chasing away people, even more taxes gets you into a death spiral.
Maybe for a city like Detroit but California has something that most people, including most rich people, really want: great weather and lots of accessible nature. The other problems are solvable but geography is destiny.
This is the first article that has enough concrete data to make me worried but we've been through this before and the state is in a much better place than it was 20 years ago with Davis and Schwarzenegger.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.
> California hates the Central Valley, and hates the people in it.
I live in one of the cities mention in the article and yes, this disdain is apparent. When I go to cons in the bay, I hate mentioning where I'm from. The look on peoples' faces ranges from contempt to disgust.
California has always had a costal/valley divide. You can read newspaper articles from the early 20th century about how money shouldnt be spent on the then-new hwy 99 because those on the coast don't want to fund valley projects. The same sentiment exists in the HSR discussions today. That's one example, and for nearly every issue there is a similar costal/valley dynamic. We often hear of the NorCal/SoCal division, but for political issues, we really should be talking about coastal/valley differences.
I have neither an explaination, nor a call to action, but I know that I often feel like an outsider in both places. Not everyone here fits a type, just like how not everyone fits a type where ever one lives.
>The state performed well in terms of its economy, coming in at No. 4
This isn't surprising. The reality is California's good economy, relatively good school system, attractive West Coast appeal, and high influx of immigrants make California VERY competitive (i.e. overcrowded), which brings down the quality of life for all.
This is an end result of sorts of our global society. A California will always exist.
reply