> 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. ;-)
> only 23% of California voters said they were seriously considering leaving the state
Is that supposed to be good news?
> Affluent Californians were actually more satisfied with the direction the state is going
Detached and delusional.
After making 5 mil on stock options in recent weeks, the Pelosis must be very satisfied with California. I guess it's justified in some cases.
> and very likely to believe it will be better when their children grow up
Seriously? Homelessness, looting and disorder are 3rd world style.
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.
>What I'm predominantly responding to is this weird way people seem to look at these liberal cities and go "oh, they've succeeded in spite of their liberalness" instead of those being part of why they became desirable places to live in the first place.
Why would you think so? For example California used to be if not a Red State then a heavily leaning Republican: since 1880 until 2000 it has not voted for a Democratic president who has not also won the national election (and the 1880 election was extremely close). In the same time period it voted for a Republican candidate who lost the election multiple times (e.g. it voted against JFK and Carter).
Do you really believe that California had not been desirable before it started voting exclusively D (in 1992 the earliest)? I had not been living in the US at the time but judging by the popular culture it does not seem to be the case.
>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.
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.
"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.
> 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.
Sure (though its a horrible name for the Greater Bay Area as a state.)
> West California (Santa Barabara, right?): Medium/Light Dem
West CA is the big state in the proposal [1] -- it includes LA. Its pretty solid D.
> Jefferson (Humbolt?): Strong Dem
If it was just Humboldt and Mendocino, sure. But the rest of Jefferson is strongly Republican. Overall, Jefferson seems pretty red.
> South California: Strong Dem
South California is strong alright -- strong Republican. The Democratic-leaning parts of Southern California are in West California in the proposal.
> Central California: Medium Dem (because of Sacto)
Sacramento County itself is only weakly Democratic (Going for Dems in Presidential elections every election since 1992, but for Republicans for Governor every election since 1982 except 1998 and 2010) -- and would probably become less Democratic if a lot of the current state government headquartered there was redistributed out to the other new states.
But, in any case, Sacramento County isn't in Central California in the proposal, its in North California.
The counties that are in Central California in the proposal would make it a solid red state.
> North California: Solid Dem (?)
North California's is probably the most competitive state of the six. Its got some strongly Democratic counties, some strongly Republican ones, and Sacramento, which we discussed earlier. Its the one I see as potentially swinging the balance between 4/2 in favor of Republicans to a 3/3 balance.
But, either way, its a win for Republicans in the Senate (+2 net margin for them if it goes from 1/0 in California to 3/3 in Six Californias) and potentially much bigger win in terms of Presidential electoral votes.
> 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.
> The insanity is primarily contained in Democrat controlled cities.
Murder rates are higher in Republican-led states. And we have a dual-sovereignty model (federal/state), cities aren’t sovereign entities, and state governments can and do interfere without limit in their government.
> Many people are leaving California due to this insanity.
People are leaving California largely because (1) they’ve made out well from the economic success of the state and can live luxuriously elsewhere on their savings, or (2) they haven’t participated in the economic success, and are squeezed out by the effect that success has on in-state prices.
(1) is a non-problem, (2) is a real problem, but one that the state is finally taking significant action on (targeting housing, particularly), having generally left it to local governments who have failed to act (before about the last decade, that wasn’t as much an active state policy choice as the fact that the combination of Constitutional supermajority requirements for the state budget plus minority party obstructionism had made the state effectively ungovernable for decades, once that was swept away there were a lot of issues to address.)
>Within the mix of retirees, digital nomads and young families fed up with issues including the costs of housing and healthcare, Trumpian politics and pandemic policies,
Given that Trump is not the president since a long time and California is the most progressive US state, I'd think that Californians are fleeing progressive politics, not Trumpian politics.
> Why do you think there are so many posts about people wanting to leave California? Do you think it's really all about taxes? It's not.
From your initial post, I just thought it was about over-development. I didn't expect to be about demographics and ethnicity, specifically maintaining your idea of CA's racial "purity". Consequently, I was very confused when you asked me to leave CA.
> The prevailing rhetoric of California being "bad" is mostly political and has racist anti-liberal roots. By shutting down counter views you're allowing those racist viewpoints to prosper
Let me get this straight, by calling you out on your racist viewpoints, I am allowing racist viewpoints to fester? That totally makes sense.
Who cares if other racist viewpoints have white, conservative roots? Racism is bad, period, regardless of its origins, the ideology of the people holding those ideas, and whether or not it's systemic. As shown by your own comments, conservatives do not have a monopoly on racism either.
> And by the way, none of your rhetoric counters what is historical fact.
That's great counter-argument with no details or facts, other than the slivers you've previously provided that I've quickly shut down. I guess your newest comment isn't rhetoric either?
> The plurality of California are not Hispanic by pure accident.
Yes, CA promotes diversity, yet you lament not having a more homogeneous population. The only difference between your views and "America First" proponents' view is the ethnicity being supported.
> Lastly, it should be possible to have a rational discussion about demographics on this site without people over reacting and name calling.
Forgive me for pointing out thinly veiled racist comments on HN. It's a natural conclusion to assume that racists comments are made by a racist. I am not over reacting. I initially assumed good faith and gave you the benefit of the doubt for too long. You're just downplaying your BS.
Let's revisit your BS before you delete it:
"_You_ go to Idaho and Wyoming.
California is our state."
So apparently according to your view point, California is only for "Californios", Hispanics who originated from Mexico?
"My qualms are more with the demographic changes these massive migrations brought.
Just very greedy overly ambitious and pretentious people.
To me they make terrible neighbors and have zero regard for the land, nature or the people here.
Some I assume are good people but I haven't met any."
I don't even have to comment on this one. It speaks for itself, especially the last line. Since you're really into semantics, let's define racist:
racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance
"How has California created great wealth, taxed its residents heavily, and managed to still have failing services?" is a much more interesting question than the post's response ("The Left").
I'd love to see the conversation in comments, but I'd definitely encourage skipping the article and using other sources.
> On a per capita basis, California's GDP is not remarkable, and is significantly worse than some other States.
It's #5 among states, a little over 7% behind #1 Massachusetts, and over 20% ahead of the US as a whole, and over double #50 Mississippi.
> Having a large economy is a function of having a large population, it doesn't imply an exceptionally productive economy.
California has both a large population and, on a per capita basis, an exceptionally productive economy among US states. It's true it's abstractly possible for the former to substitute for the latter in aggregate output measures, but that's not really the case for CA.
My original post wasn't all that clear. I'm kind of scatterbrained at the moment.
I actually think the "California ideology" is probably the most progressive thing standing, but that's not saying much. I do agree with the article that it sort of wins by default for being the only worldview to advance any kind of optimism at all.
> 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. ;-)
reply