It’s the End of California as We Know It(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
It’s the End of California as We Know It
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/opinion/california-fires.html
106 comments
Yeah, I'm concerned that what we're seeing around the country is institutional decay.
We've been increasingly replacing competence with people who tell us what we want to hear. Entertainment over substance. Short-term, feel good solutions over thoughtful long-term solutions.
Now the results of that are starting to manifest.
We've been increasingly replacing competence with people who tell us what we want to hear. Entertainment over substance. Short-term, feel good solutions over thoughtful long-term solutions.
Now the results of that are starting to manifest.
Always an appropriate time to remember that Rome didn't fall in a day. We seem to be experiencing the proverbial frog-boil IMHO.
Is there any place that isn’t like this?
[deleted]
What fundamental problems? Compared to the majority of human civilisations and most of human history the US is a utopia. It isn't perfect, but the people claiming they are 'trying to to fix fundamental problems' are potentially more of a threat than the problems themselves.
But predicting the end of times is fun and I'll throw in a take. The US as a nation is fabulously wealthy. That obscures the importance of wealth creation and people are distracted from it as a goal. The US political and social narrative is clearly shifting to focus more on wealth/power distribution than wealth creation. There are good reasons for that but it is a lot less fun that the 60s/70s/80s/90s where ultra-rapid wealth creation was the order of the day.
If big policies are adopted or persisted in that destroy wealth, and I cite things like the endless wars & associated loss of liberties or the response to to '08 financial crisis, then the situation will deteriorate.
But predicting the end of times is fun and I'll throw in a take. The US as a nation is fabulously wealthy. That obscures the importance of wealth creation and people are distracted from it as a goal. The US political and social narrative is clearly shifting to focus more on wealth/power distribution than wealth creation. There are good reasons for that but it is a lot less fun that the 60s/70s/80s/90s where ultra-rapid wealth creation was the order of the day.
If big policies are adopted or persisted in that destroy wealth, and I cite things like the endless wars & associated loss of liberties or the response to to '08 financial crisis, then the situation will deteriorate.
Would you not call the health care situation a fundamental problem? A large portion of society is at constant risk of financial ruin if they have a serious illness, a lot of of people stay in their jobs mainly to keep their insurance which reduces entrepreneurial activity and a lot of people can’t afford any health care. I would call that a problem that other countries already have solved.
I don’t like it when people are told how good they have it compared to other countries or people in the past. It sounds very condescending. This line is also never used to tell wealthy executives or shareholders how good they have it and they should maybe stop trying to concentrate wealth on themselves. Only the little guy gets to hear this.
I don’t like it when people are told how good they have it compared to other countries or people in the past. It sounds very condescending. This line is also never used to tell wealthy executives or shareholders how good they have it and they should maybe stop trying to concentrate wealth on themselves. Only the little guy gets to hear this.
A large portion of society is at constant risk of death if they have a serious illness. The range of things people can recover from in 2019 is astounding.
There are always going to be good uses for resources poured into healthcare. It is, without exaggeration, a bottomless pit of ways to spend money. The US does a terrible job of managing healthcare but that is not a fundamental problem; it is horrible but superficial. They could probably get double the quality for the money spent, or halve spending for the same outcome or something. However, there will always be something else needed in healthcare. The goalpost will shift as it has many times before.
> I don’t like it when people are told how good they have it compared to other countries or people in the past. It sounds very condescending. This line is also never used to tell wealthy executives or shareholders ...
In my post that you responded to I am advocating leaving executives and shareholders penniless, ruined and subject to lawsuits. That is what I wanted to happen after '08. Maybe I was too subtle in my allusion.
There are always going to be good uses for resources poured into healthcare. It is, without exaggeration, a bottomless pit of ways to spend money. The US does a terrible job of managing healthcare but that is not a fundamental problem; it is horrible but superficial. They could probably get double the quality for the money spent, or halve spending for the same outcome or something. However, there will always be something else needed in healthcare. The goalpost will shift as it has many times before.
> I don’t like it when people are told how good they have it compared to other countries or people in the past. It sounds very condescending. This line is also never used to tell wealthy executives or shareholders ...
In my post that you responded to I am advocating leaving executives and shareholders penniless, ruined and subject to lawsuits. That is what I wanted to happen after '08. Maybe I was too subtle in my allusion.
The fact that basic medicine (insulin) is just left to be provided by the not-really-free market is very telling.
And this is strictly a problem of lack of imagination, political will and compromise.
But that's just the symptoms of a deeper festering problem, namely that of increasing political polarization.
And this is strictly a problem of lack of imagination, political will and compromise.
But that's just the symptoms of a deeper festering problem, namely that of increasing political polarization.
Nowhere is perfect, but I definitely think California is uniquely bad for the US.
My pet theory is that small units govern themselves nest, and I'd support splitting California into as many smaller states as possible.
Of course, a state where building a 4 story housing building takes on average math.inf will not get it together to dissolve itself in anyone's lifetime.
So I guess things will just continue on this track.
My pet theory is that small units govern themselves nest, and I'd support splitting California into as many smaller states as possible.
Of course, a state where building a 4 story housing building takes on average math.inf will not get it together to dissolve itself in anyone's lifetime.
So I guess things will just continue on this track.
Illinois is the poster child for taking this too far.
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/too-much-government-i...
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/too-much-government-i...
I'd support splitting California into as many smaller states as possible
Among other things, that would just replicate CA's legacy of inept representation in the Senate many times over.
I don't think "cancer" is the right metaphor.
I think of government as something very complicated. So the metaphor to me is "you solve a complicated problem by dividing it into smaller simpler problems".
I think of government as something very complicated. So the metaphor to me is "you solve a complicated problem by dividing it into smaller simpler problems".
it's funny because what you describe sounds accurate of the megametrapolis of the global south. Terrible public infrastructure the rich avoid, and the poor suffer through. Sad the U.S. seems to be moving that way having lived on the investment of the 30-70s.
Yes, it's important to remember that the Gini coefficients of Florida (leans red) and California (blue) are 46th and 47th most unequal in the country respectively (0.485 and 0.490). Texas (red) isn't much better, at 39th with a Gini of 0.480. Inequality isn't a liberal/conservative, blue/red, or California-specific issue: it's a U.S. issue.
Looking at states is probably a bad approach (too broad). Do you have the same calculation on a per-metro basis? SFO, Austin, LA, Dallas, Orlando, Miami, Houston, San Antonio?
People in US are allergic to putting money into common pools (be it taxes, healthcare, licenses, insurance, infrastructure), even if the aim is better quality of living for everyone. Its EVIL as long as someone else has potential of gaining anything from said payment.
F you I got mine, mah freedoms, communism, handouts, those are the recurring 'arguments'. Take this YT dude learning that in order to run business you need to ... actually get permits, license and pay taxes, and all the comments under the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR5n3v9Sih8 Its a never ending stream of "move to another state", "bad government", "stealing from small guy" while dude hacks Salvage title wrecks on his curb (or illegal condemned structure) and flips them to unsuspecting victims. No license, no registered business, no insurance, no liability. 6 months later he is still at it, whining about receiving permanent injunction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XNHVKSjzOY and contemplating car raffles (apparently being taken down for running illegal gambling sounds better than paying taxes) and tax dodging schemes (charities, non profits).
F you I got mine, mah freedoms, communism, handouts, those are the recurring 'arguments'. Take this YT dude learning that in order to run business you need to ... actually get permits, license and pay taxes, and all the comments under the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR5n3v9Sih8 Its a never ending stream of "move to another state", "bad government", "stealing from small guy" while dude hacks Salvage title wrecks on his curb (or illegal condemned structure) and flips them to unsuspecting victims. No license, no registered business, no insurance, no liability. 6 months later he is still at it, whining about receiving permanent injunction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XNHVKSjzOY and contemplating car raffles (apparently being taken down for running illegal gambling sounds better than paying taxes) and tax dodging schemes (charities, non profits).
I just mentioned in another thread that The most fundamental issue US needs to solve for inequality in the US is....whether US can continue to allow corporations to reap the benefits of a strong democracy coupled with the most vibrant economy, while at the same time, bankrupt the communities by continuing to ship jobs overseas and avoid paying any sort of taxes back to the communities where they make a profit.
There are only two parties in the US right now. And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions.
There are only two parties in the US right now. And one is for globalization. And the other is for stronger US labor unions.
I don’t think there are actually two parties but more like two factions of the same party. One is a little more right leaning maybe but neither is willing or has the courage to address inequality.
It's funny because having lived outside of the US, it has always blown my mind how extraordinarily well California/the US handles natural disasters like wildfires. The worst wildfire season ever in a state of 40M people, 18,000 buildings destroyed and fewer than 100 people died?!?
Similarly the infrastructure/public services are quite incredible in the US. I grew up with daily 6 hour blackouts and water brought in by truck because there the city didn't have a working water supply network.
We shouldn't be content with how things are and the article makes some valid points that I'm not trying to diminish, but it doesn't hurt to have a little appreciation for what incredibly high standards we have here before calling California a 'dystopian apocalypse'.
Similarly the infrastructure/public services are quite incredible in the US. I grew up with daily 6 hour blackouts and water brought in by truck because there the city didn't have a working water supply network.
We shouldn't be content with how things are and the article makes some valid points that I'm not trying to diminish, but it doesn't hurt to have a little appreciation for what incredibly high standards we have here before calling California a 'dystopian apocalypse'.
Previous years, the response has been a bit off, but the 2019 season the Powers That Be have been ready!
Perhaps because these fires are closer to the big city power centers, but I'm sure also "practice makes perfect"!
Perhaps because these fires are closer to the big city power centers, but I'm sure also "practice makes perfect"!
Shareholders profiting from a corporations externalizing their costs is not a natural disaster.
To paraphrase James Carville, "It's the people, stupid". It seems like there's a lot of Californians who talk about sustainability, but then turn right around and vote in people who continue to promote suburban sprawl, single family houses, zoning that doesn't promote density, and lack of investment in public transportation.
No offense, but your thinking here is actually a bigger part of the problem.
There is nothing fundamentally unsustainable about suburbs, single family homes, low density, or cars. 50% of the USA is totally uninhabited, and it is possible today to build a totally off-grid and sustainable single family home / suburb in the majority of it.
You can even capture carbon in concrete. Don't prescribe solutions just because you prefer them, set incentives and goals to favor the right outcomes and let people decide and optimize how to do it.
Your urban utopia is my hellscape, and my suburban utopia is yours. The good news is, this is America, and we can both live here. Good fences make good neighbors.
P.S. most of the $2 trillion real estate market in the Bay Area where I have lived for 12 years exists precisely because our politicians DON'T promote further development, sustainable or otherwise. Most of what's here is decaying, old, unsustainable, whether it is high or low density, and nobody can afford to improve it because all the tradespeople got priced out and left years ago.
There is nothing fundamentally unsustainable about suburbs, single family homes, low density, or cars. 50% of the USA is totally uninhabited, and it is possible today to build a totally off-grid and sustainable single family home / suburb in the majority of it.
You can even capture carbon in concrete. Don't prescribe solutions just because you prefer them, set incentives and goals to favor the right outcomes and let people decide and optimize how to do it.
Your urban utopia is my hellscape, and my suburban utopia is yours. The good news is, this is America, and we can both live here. Good fences make good neighbors.
P.S. most of the $2 trillion real estate market in the Bay Area where I have lived for 12 years exists precisely because our politicians DON'T promote further development, sustainable or otherwise. Most of what's here is decaying, old, unsustainable, whether it is high or low density, and nobody can afford to improve it because all the tradespeople got priced out and left years ago.
Paving our best farmland is not sustainable, nor is deluding yourself that we can capture carbon at anywhere near the rate needed to prevent severe change in our weather patterns.
US suburbs are heavily subsidized with federal dollars[1], this is a huge reason why PGE can't effectively maintain the infrastructure in California. The ratepayers & tax base cannot afford to repipe a suburban neighborhood when the water service lines hit end of design life, let alone repaving, maintaining gas, electrical service, telecom & cable[2]. This is also why Fiber buildouts are so uncommon in suburbs (for-profit companies won't make their money back within a decade).
We have designed an extremely expensive mousetrap of suburbia where you get degrading public services (as maintenance & replacement bills accrue and go unmet), nearly mandatory car ownership, and higher rates of health problems caused by the poor design of these neighborhoods[3].
1 - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-...
2 - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-...
3 - https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20040927/suburbs-may-be-haz...
US suburbs are heavily subsidized with federal dollars[1], this is a huge reason why PGE can't effectively maintain the infrastructure in California. The ratepayers & tax base cannot afford to repipe a suburban neighborhood when the water service lines hit end of design life, let alone repaving, maintaining gas, electrical service, telecom & cable[2]. This is also why Fiber buildouts are so uncommon in suburbs (for-profit companies won't make their money back within a decade).
We have designed an extremely expensive mousetrap of suburbia where you get degrading public services (as maintenance & replacement bills accrue and go unmet), nearly mandatory car ownership, and higher rates of health problems caused by the poor design of these neighborhoods[3].
1 - https://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/we-have-always-...
2 - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/9/27/a-texas-sized-...
3 - https://www.webmd.com/women/news/20040927/suburbs-may-be-haz...
I'm not counting paving farmland, friend. Also, go look up aeroponics and 3D farming.
We don't need PG&E. The sun gives us free energy, and batteries + thermal energy storage can cover the cloudiest of days.
Well-designed suburbs don't need to be subsidized. And they can also be healthier and happier for you and your family (quiet, safe, better air quality, elbow-room, &etc). Just decentralize large cities by building smaller mixed-use "downtowns" surrounded by layers of variable density housing. Single family homes with yards are a part of that.
I'm moving and will be putting this into practice, instead of sitting back and seeing what happens. My cost of living will go down even though I am self-providing all of my family's utilities.
I might even use the savings to build more than just my own needs... creating opportunities for those with less capital to make the same choice to enjoy a better life at an affordable cost.
P.S. I have done the carbon calculations, and burying it in concrete is a good part of a total solution. "Deluding." Hah. A head not in the sand can more easily look in the mirror!
We don't need PG&E. The sun gives us free energy, and batteries + thermal energy storage can cover the cloudiest of days.
Well-designed suburbs don't need to be subsidized. And they can also be healthier and happier for you and your family (quiet, safe, better air quality, elbow-room, &etc). Just decentralize large cities by building smaller mixed-use "downtowns" surrounded by layers of variable density housing. Single family homes with yards are a part of that.
I'm moving and will be putting this into practice, instead of sitting back and seeing what happens. My cost of living will go down even though I am self-providing all of my family's utilities.
I might even use the savings to build more than just my own needs... creating opportunities for those with less capital to make the same choice to enjoy a better life at an affordable cost.
P.S. I have done the carbon calculations, and burying it in concrete is a good part of a total solution. "Deluding." Hah. A head not in the sand can more easily look in the mirror!
> P.S. most of the $2 trillion real estate market in the Bay Area where I have lived for 12 years exists precisely because our politicians DON'T promote further development, sustainable or otherwise. Most of what's here is decaying, old, unsustainable, whether it is high or low density, and nobody can afford to improve it because all the tradespeople got priced out and left years ago.
While I think the rest of your response is orthogonal (albeit valid), I think this is the heart of the matter relevant to the article. Californian infrastructure is aging and politicians have only made it more difficult over time to build new anything, whether that's power, water, internet, transport, or housing infrastructure. I just wish I knew what the solution was.
While I think the rest of your response is orthogonal (albeit valid), I think this is the heart of the matter relevant to the article. Californian infrastructure is aging and politicians have only made it more difficult over time to build new anything, whether that's power, water, internet, transport, or housing infrastructure. I just wish I knew what the solution was.
The first part of the response is to the parent comment, not the article.
That said, intelligent legislation to encourage all types of housing and development (with externalities like carbon priced in as taxes, not government prescribed solutions to mitigate them) would go a long way to bringing back affordability.
The solution in the interim is to vote with your dollars and feet, if you can. And really think about it if your answer is "I can't". Most of the time, that's not really true.
I'm leaving next month. Bye California and your awful policies that literally burn us to death at worst, and make us poorer and stingier zero-sum competitors at best. And for those of you who say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" ... check in with me in 10 years and let's compare stories! <3
That said, intelligent legislation to encourage all types of housing and development (with externalities like carbon priced in as taxes, not government prescribed solutions to mitigate them) would go a long way to bringing back affordability.
The solution in the interim is to vote with your dollars and feet, if you can. And really think about it if your answer is "I can't". Most of the time, that's not really true.
I'm leaving next month. Bye California and your awful policies that literally burn us to death at worst, and make us poorer and stingier zero-sum competitors at best. And for those of you who say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" ... check in with me in 10 years and let's compare stories! <3
The incentive is already set, city limits are already set, eventually they will fill up and then people will be motivated to build up a bit.
Sure, fundamentally nothing is sustainable because eventually the useful energy gradients where life can thrive will run out as the universe expands into a cold dark empty vacuum.
But before that let's try to spend the already fixed tax income a bit more efficiently. Compact cities can be more efficient than the endless sea of cul-de-sacs and occasional golf/sports fields.
That said, I have no real horse in this race. If the people of those particular cities want to live like that, let them live like that. Self-determination is important. If they feel that they don't want better mass transit and less sitting-in-traffic, no worries.
Sure, fundamentally nothing is sustainable because eventually the useful energy gradients where life can thrive will run out as the universe expands into a cold dark empty vacuum.
But before that let's try to spend the already fixed tax income a bit more efficiently. Compact cities can be more efficient than the endless sea of cul-de-sacs and occasional golf/sports fields.
That said, I have no real horse in this race. If the people of those particular cities want to live like that, let them live like that. Self-determination is important. If they feel that they don't want better mass transit and less sitting-in-traffic, no worries.
No the incentives are not there, not when you can vote yourself richer by freezing property taxes and preventing building up or out.
Citation needed on cities being fundamentally more efficient. A suburban home can be powered by pure solar, rainwater/groundwater can be captured and recycled locally, an electric car can carpool, and mass transit (sure, let's build more of that too) can easily reach out to the suburbs. You can even telecommute, and that sipping straw of electrons makes the public transit users look like energy-guzzling planet-killers in comparison (Ooh! We all love some tasty moral superiority!)
Even if that weren't the case, there is such a concept as efficient enough. At some level, sanity factors in, and trying to raise a family while dodging needles and poop in San Francisco is enough to make some people say "enough is enough."
I'm all for spending smarter and more compassionately. San Francisco spends $240 million per year on homeless programs, or $30k/yr per individual. And it doesn't even make a dent; the local living costs are so high that $30k evaporates in the blink of an eye.
We need policies/infrastructure that encourage building up AND out to relieve this pressure and better care for the less fortunate people ... while still allowing for sustainable urban and suburban lifestyles.
Citation needed on cities being fundamentally more efficient. A suburban home can be powered by pure solar, rainwater/groundwater can be captured and recycled locally, an electric car can carpool, and mass transit (sure, let's build more of that too) can easily reach out to the suburbs. You can even telecommute, and that sipping straw of electrons makes the public transit users look like energy-guzzling planet-killers in comparison (Ooh! We all love some tasty moral superiority!)
Even if that weren't the case, there is such a concept as efficient enough. At some level, sanity factors in, and trying to raise a family while dodging needles and poop in San Francisco is enough to make some people say "enough is enough."
I'm all for spending smarter and more compassionately. San Francisco spends $240 million per year on homeless programs, or $30k/yr per individual. And it doesn't even make a dent; the local living costs are so high that $30k evaporates in the blink of an eye.
We need policies/infrastructure that encourage building up AND out to relieve this pressure and better care for the less fortunate people ... while still allowing for sustainable urban and suburban lifestyles.
Infrastructure maintenance costs are higher the bigger area you want to cover.
Making small things are rarely efficient (transformers, inverters, heating, cooling, insulation).
Moving people one-by-one more distance will always require more energy, EVs also have to carry themselves, and thus the more people you can move per trip the better. (Hurray for electric buses.)
I already telecommute (our company already works full remote).
I mean if you have problems with needles and poop, but we don't, and most cities also don't, then it's probably not because SF is a city.
Anyway. I have no problem is people want more personal/private space, better sound insulation, a garden, a pool and whatever. But those luxuries should be priced in, so it encourages building up and compact, so more people can enjoy living in nice places. (Like next to a forest, lake, on a hill, in a valley, whatever).
Making small things are rarely efficient (transformers, inverters, heating, cooling, insulation).
Moving people one-by-one more distance will always require more energy, EVs also have to carry themselves, and thus the more people you can move per trip the better. (Hurray for electric buses.)
I already telecommute (our company already works full remote).
I mean if you have problems with needles and poop, but we don't, and most cities also don't, then it's probably not because SF is a city.
Anyway. I have no problem is people want more personal/private space, better sound insulation, a garden, a pool and whatever. But those luxuries should be priced in, so it encourages building up and compact, so more people can enjoy living in nice places. (Like next to a forest, lake, on a hill, in a valley, whatever).
If you are advocating for capitalism with externalities priced in using fair (by democratic vote) and absolute/equal valuation methods, that is what I am arguing for as well.
SF doesn’t have that by a long shot. That’s the actual point.
Also, I didn’t say I had a problem with cities, far from it – I have liked living in the city in the past, and I can understand why someone would want to live in a good city. But [citation needed] on cities being fundamentally and meaningfully cheaper under the externality-adjusted capitalism model.
Urbanization can increase total living costs compared to lower-density living, for example through disease spread, crime, power density and transmission requirements, high-speed waste processing requirements vs composting opportunities, food production locality, and etc.
Whether the efficiency scales balance out in favor of a particular density or not is a mystery to me. I am just not as sure as you seem to be.
Let’s find some data that shows a TCO per capita for a well-planned/well-run suburb vs a similar city. Or, do what I’m doing and get out there and mold your local environment into what you need while letting others do the same – there’s enough space and energy for all of us here and probably >10x if we fill the Earth and Mars.
P.S. While I don’t know for sure, I suspect that the answer to efficiency vs density is: it is either a wash or a small enough difference that it doesn’t matter compared to living the life you want as sustainably as possible.
SF doesn’t have that by a long shot. That’s the actual point.
Also, I didn’t say I had a problem with cities, far from it – I have liked living in the city in the past, and I can understand why someone would want to live in a good city. But [citation needed] on cities being fundamentally and meaningfully cheaper under the externality-adjusted capitalism model.
Urbanization can increase total living costs compared to lower-density living, for example through disease spread, crime, power density and transmission requirements, high-speed waste processing requirements vs composting opportunities, food production locality, and etc.
Whether the efficiency scales balance out in favor of a particular density or not is a mystery to me. I am just not as sure as you seem to be.
Let’s find some data that shows a TCO per capita for a well-planned/well-run suburb vs a similar city. Or, do what I’m doing and get out there and mold your local environment into what you need while letting others do the same – there’s enough space and energy for all of us here and probably >10x if we fill the Earth and Mars.
P.S. While I don’t know for sure, I suspect that the answer to efficiency vs density is: it is either a wash or a small enough difference that it doesn’t matter compared to living the life you want as sustainably as possible.
I'm also not sure, and values are always population dependent, but simply the fact that land (and nature on it) is one of the most scarce resource nowadays, it seems straightforward to say that if we price in land use compact wins over sprawl.
I agree that there's enough energy and stuff in theory to be green and live anywhere, but currently in practice there isn't. (For example just now with the PG&E blackouts the very real cost of living spread out shows itself.) At the same time you are correct that if some pandemic strikes it might be better in a log cabin, but ... for how long? Are you ready to hunt? Grow your own wheat, and so on? And HongKong seems to be doing fine, after SARS they are doing a lot of proactive stuff.
I agree that there's enough energy and stuff in theory to be green and live anywhere, but currently in practice there isn't. (For example just now with the PG&E blackouts the very real cost of living spread out shows itself.) At the same time you are correct that if some pandemic strikes it might be better in a log cabin, but ... for how long? Are you ready to hunt? Grow your own wheat, and so on? And HongKong seems to be doing fine, after SARS they are doing a lot of proactive stuff.
Land is not scarce. I know this because I've both surveyed a large part of the world from the air myself, and from data. Please cite data.
PG&E's failure is because of poor capital investment, bad infrastructure decisions, and lack of federal antitrust intervention into a mismanaged California-ordained private energy monopoly.
You don't have to live in a log cabin, I am not talking only of pandemics but also the mental well-being of people who want to spread their elbows a bit using the copious land available on Earth, and you don't have to hunt or grow your own wheat to live in a suburban or semi-rural place and buy food and products locally (although there is nothing wrong or crazy about hunting and growing some of your own food, if you want to... we just also have this thing called "money" that you can trade for goods and services that you don't want to provide yourself).
I'm only responding now in an attempt to get you to reconsider the frankly baseless assumptions that you are asserting as facts – the truth is, and the point is: there are ways for people to live efficiently enough in urban, suburban, and rural settings, and we should stop judging that very personal preference and instead focus our time and investments on improving efficiencies across the spectrum (and fighting always to enforce legislation that engenders more competition in every marketplace).
PG&E's failure is because of poor capital investment, bad infrastructure decisions, and lack of federal antitrust intervention into a mismanaged California-ordained private energy monopoly.
You don't have to live in a log cabin, I am not talking only of pandemics but also the mental well-being of people who want to spread their elbows a bit using the copious land available on Earth, and you don't have to hunt or grow your own wheat to live in a suburban or semi-rural place and buy food and products locally (although there is nothing wrong or crazy about hunting and growing some of your own food, if you want to... we just also have this thing called "money" that you can trade for goods and services that you don't want to provide yourself).
I'm only responding now in an attempt to get you to reconsider the frankly baseless assumptions that you are asserting as facts – the truth is, and the point is: there are ways for people to live efficiently enough in urban, suburban, and rural settings, and we should stop judging that very personal preference and instead focus our time and investments on improving efficiencies across the spectrum (and fighting always to enforce legislation that engenders more competition in every marketplace).
I think part of this is national politics pushing out state politics. Every statewide California race recently has felt like a foregone conclusion. Either the Democrat beats the Republican by a huge margin, or one Democrat beats another Democrat while the two agree on all policies. California just doesn’t have the one-party-against-another politics that make democracy work.
"the one-party-against-another politics that make democracy work"
Where have you seen this happening in practice?
A political science professor first showed me 25 years ago something I still see in US national politics: a "winner-take-all" voting system that creates a polarizing dynamic, typically resulting in a roughly 51:49 split -- with the potential for radically different outcomes hinging on tiny pockets of voters.
Also, both parties are institutionally corrupted by the dominance of money (cf Lessig on "Fix Congress First", highlighting campaign finance as a fundamental threat to democracy).
But only one of the parties is exhibiting blatant, explicit, direct opposition to the principles of democracy (eg voter suppression, rule of law, etc) from the highest level on down.
The degree to which state politics are tied to the characteristics of the national party makes it difficult for powerful governors or even mayors to deviate from party lines.
Don't get me wrong; the idea of a free marketplace of ideas and the positive value of principled opposition are things I'm sure we'd agree on. But that's not what we have. Wish I knew how to fix it.
Where have you seen this happening in practice?
A political science professor first showed me 25 years ago something I still see in US national politics: a "winner-take-all" voting system that creates a polarizing dynamic, typically resulting in a roughly 51:49 split -- with the potential for radically different outcomes hinging on tiny pockets of voters.
Also, both parties are institutionally corrupted by the dominance of money (cf Lessig on "Fix Congress First", highlighting campaign finance as a fundamental threat to democracy).
But only one of the parties is exhibiting blatant, explicit, direct opposition to the principles of democracy (eg voter suppression, rule of law, etc) from the highest level on down.
The degree to which state politics are tied to the characteristics of the national party makes it difficult for powerful governors or even mayors to deviate from party lines.
Don't get me wrong; the idea of a free marketplace of ideas and the positive value of principled opposition are things I'm sure we'd agree on. But that's not what we have. Wish I knew how to fix it.
The weird part is how the California's Republicans have yet to tack to the left. Per Durverger's Law, it has to eventually happen, right? I'd love to know why it's taking so long.
Even if it’s always a Democrat they must still be competing with each other just as fiercely to get selected to be the Democratic candidate?
There's still cooperation in the party, and while the Democratic Party is a husk of its former principled self, the GOP has exploded into flames.
California's government isn't so hot either.
Is this a symptom of one party governance? It's certainly not because of a lack of money or progressiveness. If anything, I would expect that the California state government would be leading in all of these issues.
It's almost as though progressivism and throwing money at problems doesn't really work that well.
I forgot the shinning examples of conservative rule that is Alabama and Mississippi. For all the faults that California has political, it's still an economic powerhouse.
What does Kentucky have?
What does Kentucky have?
Nah, it works, it just takes a loooot more money than people imagine.
Especially because if you want to tackle local problems that require local service providers (education, healthcare, craftsmen) you'll have to pay local (very high) prices.
Especially because if you want to tackle local problems that require local service providers (education, healthcare, craftsmen) you'll have to pay local (very high) prices.
None of those things have anything to do with sustainability and mismanagement of California's resources.
As much as I want to say that Farhad is wrong, I can't. He is right. We can't continue to live the way we have. We are seeing the results of kicking the can, also known as the fix, down the road. We hope that things will get fixed eventually but not now. We feel that somehow it will be easier to fix by the next generation. Unfortunately, it only gets harder. We'll just have to suffer more when the fix is finally made.
Do we even agree what the fix is?
A lot of tree trimming and removal. Lots of heavy equipment. Firebreaks a mile wide. More full-time Cal Fire people and equipment. Recycled 747s as water tankers (there's already one.) More underground power lines. Not really that hard.
No, the solution is returning to the natural regular burns that are part of the ecosystem in California. Zero tolerance fire-fighting is the main issue at hand, as it builds up kindling to infernos.
And controlled burns. The land WILL burn - why would we NOT let it burn at a time of our choosing, such as the middle of the rainy season when we have the best control over it?
Those burns release a lot of pollution and CO2. I've always wondered if it was possible to collect the brush and dry plants and burn them more usefully for energy.
Maybe drone fire surveillance and rapid response.
Underground power lines
Fixes which have winners and losers become lost in electoral arithmetic. An example of this struck me some years ago when a friend who lived in Louden County (W. Virginia) said they were subject to frequent power outages which caused catastrophic loss of the goods in the freezer, but the local authority kept losing the vote for increased local taxes which would pay for fixes to the electricity distribution issues: People don't want to socialise the costs, at personal loss of disposable income.
I predict that no measure of substance which demands people pay more to socialize fixes will get up without a fight. I also predict that rational simple fixes applied in other economies (I am thinking of europe mainly) simply won't be considered, because "socialism"
I predict that no measure of substance which demands people pay more to socialize fixes will get up without a fight. I also predict that rational simple fixes applied in other economies (I am thinking of europe mainly) simply won't be considered, because "socialism"
True, we seem to want everything but aren't willing to pay for it.
This situation is similar to the country going to war. Where the political leaders are the ones that must convince the population that we must act or lose the war and our way of life. It really does come down to leadership.
This situation is similar to the country going to war. Where the political leaders are the ones that must convince the population that we must act or lose the war and our way of life. It really does come down to leadership.
There is no county Louden in West Virginia. There is a Loudoun County Virginia. It was largely rural until recently. It is now a suburb of Washington DC. Part of Dulles Airport was built in Loudoun County.
Thanks for the correction. I'm an Australian infrequent visitor to D.C.
Part of the issue is definitely that California is the biggest, most influential, and one of the wealthiest states. The federal government is less incentivized to help us out in some ways, because theoretically, we can afford it.
But in aggregate, this is really what the people of California wanted. Suburbanization is popular at the voting booth, as are low property taxes. Californians wanted to freeze time in the 80s and that's what they got.
But in aggregate, this is really what the people of California wanted. Suburbanization is popular at the voting booth, as are low property taxes. Californians wanted to freeze time in the 80s and that's what they got.
[deleted]
There's a certain smell of absurdity in the air in California.
Ban on plastic straws - garbage on highway shoulders on 280 and 101 in San Francisco county
Strictest car emission laws in the Union - fires poison the air to the extent that people die, equivalent to multiple involuntary cigarettes per day
This list can go on and on. Those working for large companies like Google and Apple are protected for now: like in the fortresses. If you are trying to strike here on your own- probably too late- no affordable garages anymore.
Maybe it's a consequence of one party system? I came here in 1999 to go to Stanford. Perhaps it's time to pack up.
Ban on plastic straws - garbage on highway shoulders on 280 and 101 in San Francisco county
Strictest car emission laws in the Union - fires poison the air to the extent that people die, equivalent to multiple involuntary cigarettes per day
This list can go on and on. Those working for large companies like Google and Apple are protected for now: like in the fortresses. If you are trying to strike here on your own- probably too late- no affordable garages anymore.
Maybe it's a consequence of one party system? I came here in 1999 to go to Stanford. Perhaps it's time to pack up.
[deleted]
It's interesting to observe the length of time it has taken for a power utility to crumble. I believe the disintegration we're seeing now began with the governmental deregulation of utilities during the Regan administration. The current state was predicted by losers in that round of voting. We are now seeing the tipping point of those regulatory changes.
I think in other industries we might have seen these problems arise much sooner. But the utilities are slow, colossal beasts that take decades for changes to really take affect.
I think in other industries we might have seen these problems arise much sooner. But the utilities are slow, colossal beasts that take decades for changes to really take affect.
There was no deregulation of CA utilities under Reagan, either as Governor or as President.
I'm a freelance web developer from rural Indiana and want to move somewhere in the US I can at least possibly stay for a decade or more. Does anyone recommend a city/state that will survive the climate apocalypse, that is well managed, and/or that is doing everything the author of this article is saying California isn't doing?
I've had a hard time figuring out where to live since I don't have to be anywhere in particular for my job.
I've had a hard time figuring out where to live since I don't have to be anywhere in particular for my job.
How about ... rural Indiana? Or any one of the local Midwest cities should be fine as long as you have a tornado cellar.
Sure, Detroit! Michigan is relatively insulated from climate change, is on the up economically speaking, reasonable property values, and a decent tech scene. Access to concerts and a thriving art scene. Plus you'd be close to home. The worst thing we have is the winters.
Storrs, CT, according to Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/09/where-to-hide-fr...
Lol. Lived there during middle/high school when my dad worked at UCONN. A good place to grow up for sure. Winter was cold though!
Fun article, but I would be curious if that has changed after 15 years from the date of the article.
Are you just bored with rural Indiana? Can’t imagine the climate apocalypse will do as much damage to the midwest.
We may not end up underwater, but ecosystem collapse leading to famine, and increased pressure on all sorts of support systems due to the need to direct aid to people from coastal areas, are both going to affect people everywhere.
Famine? Switching to freelance farming in rural Indiana could be your meal ticket!
Do you honestly believe that famine is going to affect the middle of the United States in, say, the next 100 years?
In a 2C world its very unlikely, in a 4C world its highly likely. So the question is, and always has been, where will we stop? The BAU trendline is ~4.5C by 2100. At which point everything from philidelphia to oakland will be desert.
Even if that happened, I'm not connecting the dots on how it leads to a famine. Do we not have the ability to move food any longer, or something?
empirically speaking no, we (mankind) have never moved half or more of our agriculture hundreds of miles in a generation or two without large number of people not making the transition.
maybe we pull it off this time? seems like a flat out evil experiment to run.
imagine your company running its failover plan to its DR site on short notice. what are the odds of it being flawless?
ok now imagine moving half the farming that feeds everyone you know and love from the midwest to manitoba and ontario. if your reaction to that isn't stark terror at the risk to human life, well then you've played waaaaaaaaaay too many civilization games and your brain has broken into believing this is just a question of right-clicking on the better squares.
maybe we pull it off this time? seems like a flat out evil experiment to run.
imagine your company running its failover plan to its DR site on short notice. what are the odds of it being flawless?
ok now imagine moving half the farming that feeds everyone you know and love from the midwest to manitoba and ontario. if your reaction to that isn't stark terror at the risk to human life, well then you've played waaaaaaaaaay too many civilization games and your brain has broken into believing this is just a question of right-clicking on the better squares.
You may not be appreciating how adaptable the economy is.
sure, I may not be. its still an extremely ideological and flat out psycho bet to assume it will be though. it is functionally no different from saying "jesus take the wheel"
I think you should learn more about economic systems, because your thinking is a bit off-kilter from reality in my opinion.
it is really disturbing how relentlessly hacker news reactionaries will downvote anyone who dares phrase the ipcc reports in plain english.
what does it mean to our concepts of reason and engineering if one of the most "technical" self-selected audiences on the internet cannot read basic graphs and charts?
what possible hope is there to get policymakers to base their understanding and decisions in the science if self-professed engineers can't or won't?
what does it mean to our concepts of reason and engineering if one of the most "technical" self-selected audiences on the internet cannot read basic graphs and charts?
what possible hope is there to get policymakers to base their understanding and decisions in the science if self-professed engineers can't or won't?
Californian originally from Lincoln, NE. Moving home is looking more and more enticing with each passing year...
Atlanta, rent for the first couple years until you are established, start working remote and then move to the country. Also Raleigh, NC. Both have excellent tech pay/cost of living ratios and robust contracting opportunities.
Western idaho is projected to become a perfect oceanic climate over the next 20 years. Its near large growing regions which will get longer seasons.
NC is affordable.
Sometimes i wonder... Washington doesnt have the income tax, but it feels much better there.
Am i imagining this?
Am i imagining this?
Well the population is about 20% of CA's and it's much greener and cooler.
California lacks a planning structure. Until recently it was pretty much a land of misfits from the east coast. They should have consolidated local governments long ago and drawn urban growth boundaries. Instead the path they took has resulted in an utter mess.
California lacks a planning structure. Until recently it was pretty much a land of misfits from the east coast. They should have consolidated local governments long ago and drawn urban growth boundaries. Instead the path they took has resulted in an utter mess.
To me california has a bunch of problems that seem to be growing over time. Makes you wonder where that tax money is going. I am all for paying more taxes for the common benefit, on things that makes sense, but homeless problem, fire problem, infrastructure all seem utter mess...
It's definitely better here in WA in many ways. We left CA last summer after 15 years, and I would never go back.
That said, I've heard that the biggest issue in this state is old infrastructure and buildings that would basically disintegrate in the next big earthquake. Seismic retrofitting wasn't a thing here until pretty recently.
I've been reading a book about the Cascadia fault that is fascinating and terrifying:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Rip-9-0-Earthquake-Pacific-North...
That said, I've heard that the biggest issue in this state is old infrastructure and buildings that would basically disintegrate in the next big earthquake. Seismic retrofitting wasn't a thing here until pretty recently.
I've been reading a book about the Cascadia fault that is fascinating and terrifying:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Rip-9-0-Earthquake-Pacific-North...
“Just don’t think about it” is actually a rational approach to the earthquake in WA issue, because if the subduction zone goes, the tsunami will wash everything away.
Some would say the problem is Californians fleeing the state, settling elsewhere...then creating the same problems that created California.
It's not enough to physically move, there needs to be a change in mindset that goes along with it. Generally speaking, if you've moved somewhere because it's better, then whatever they're doing there is working. Could it be better? Sure, but it could also be a whole lot worse.
It's not enough to physically move, there needs to be a change in mindset that goes along with it. Generally speaking, if you've moved somewhere because it's better, then whatever they're doing there is working. Could it be better? Sure, but it could also be a whole lot worse.
I was thinking along the same lines. I live in a state with less government (and less proportional revenue), we don't have the kinds of problems California does.
At least on the fire front, Washington doesn't have the desert-forest interface or lack of rain that CA does. On most other fronts we have the same problems as other states, writ large. Hard to compare given how diverse (demographically, geographically, etc.) we are.
I live in Missouri we don't get paid as much as people in California but we don't have their problems here. I live near Ferguson where the riots took place. Peacefull now. Most good IT jobs are in Ballwin.
Sometimes it feels like the whole country is just turning into a weird reality show.