California is gripped by economic problems, with no easy fix(economist.com)
economist.com
California is gripped by economic problems, with no easy fix
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/03/31/california-is-gripped-by-interlocking-economic-problems-with-no-easy-solution
130 comments
California has net migration outflows with a number of states such as Arizona, Texas, and Florida. Regardless of what you see this data is all readily available from the Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph...
But there is still a housing shortage in California due to inadequate construction and foreign immigration.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph...
But there is still a housing shortage in California due to inadequate construction and foreign immigration.
My feeling about the outflows to other warm southern states is that old retirees on fixed incomes tend to move to places where they can get value for the equity in their Californian homes.
Often they buy multi family homes in these new states and can house their (now adult) kids who move with them.
I don’t see it as a source of economic malaise more a way for them to cash out of the property market in California.
Your feeling would be incorrect. The outflow is 65% composed of Gen Z and Millennials. Retirees are a much smaller portion.
https://www.businessinsider.com/moving-from-california-pros-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/moving-from-california-pros-...
Interesting breakdown. 1/3 are retired or students, I wonder how many people moving in to California are not working? This article also seems to say that the majority of people leaving the state earn below average income and don't have a college degree, so it seems like California has become too expensive for them perhaps? Again I'm not 100% sure it's a sign of economic malaise, people leave when it gets too expensive.
There has been a dip in California population since covid (https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/population-ex...) which makes sense with what I've experience anecdotally with people I know who've ditched SF for NY (and elsewhere). Definitely SF seems to be on the decline. The people I know didn't leave because of some kind of "failed state" vibe though, they left cause SF was going too right wing for them.
>they left cause SF was going too right wing for them.
No one has ever said this. No normal rational adult could possibly think SF was right wing.... this is some Overton window type of bias or something. I can't even think of anywhere the country more left wing than SF. NYC is certainly not more left wing than SF... People would be crying and protesting putting the National Guard in BART. NYC welcomed it.
>The people I know didn't leave because of some kind of "failed state" vibe though
Everyone I know moved out because SF got shitty. More crime, more open drug use like this https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLka6qqp/ and less cops, less personal safety, less riders on BART so you don't even feel safety amongst the crowd. I tried moving to Burlingame for a year, but that was boring and outrageously expensive so I just moved out of the Bay Area altogether.
No one has ever said this. No normal rational adult could possibly think SF was right wing.... this is some Overton window type of bias or something. I can't even think of anywhere the country more left wing than SF. NYC is certainly not more left wing than SF... People would be crying and protesting putting the National Guard in BART. NYC welcomed it.
>The people I know didn't leave because of some kind of "failed state" vibe though
Everyone I know moved out because SF got shitty. More crime, more open drug use like this https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLka6qqp/ and less cops, less personal safety, less riders on BART so you don't even feel safety amongst the crowd. I tried moving to Burlingame for a year, but that was boring and outrageously expensive so I just moved out of the Bay Area altogether.
Whenever I see hit pieces written about my home state CA, that further confirms to me that it's prospering. Otherwise they wouldn't be talking about us.
Prospering for who though? Landlords? Certainly not the average Californian making $50-$60k who can barely afford rent and groceries. Cost of living and quality of life are moving in opposite directions. Yep, big tech, Hollywood, beaches/Tahoe, and a lot of other things are great--but why can't people admit that the state has been getting shittier for the last 30 years? It obviously has. Housing prices going up isn't exactly 'prospering' for most... what other signs can you point to? Our failing schools? Or lack of any consequences for any crime? I would struggle to point to how the state is doing well--other than income potential.
The complaint about home values is like saying "nobody drives cause there's too much traffic." There's far more housing than before, and many cities that used to be cheap new developments have become sought-after. Irvine and Glendale were cheap places that attracted immigrants and built themselves up. Every person with a home and family can afford it, otherwise they wouldn't be here. That's how I gauge it, combined with the constant complaints from people who've never set foot in CA.
If you want a real failure story, it's San Francisco. Plenty of well-to-do people are leaving it, and at best it serves as a temporary workplace for people who don't care about its future.
If you want a real failure story, it's San Francisco. Plenty of well-to-do people are leaving it, and at best it serves as a temporary workplace for people who don't care about its future.
Far more housing than before? No… housing is being built at lower numbers than ever… that’s precisely why property values have increased—when you restrict supply and increase demand (via immigration) then the price equilibrium pushes prices up. It’s borderline market manipulation. And there are so many different areas of California… Bay Area and Southern California surely are not representative of Central California or anything north of Marin county. Yes, if you’re rich and insulated in a nice neighborhood where houses cost $2m you’re probably pretty happy. If you’re living in Antioch or some area where sideshows happen and you see homeless people more often than you see cops… I’d bet you feel different.
There are more houses in California than before, and the sum of their value has probably far outpaced any other state. There's no shortage of usable land here. And well, don't live in the bad part of Antioch.
>I'm ignoring that because it doesn't matter. Are you saying that our population is simply growing without places for people to stay?
This conversation is pointless since you don’t understand economics 101 or the law of supply and demand. That’s why you think it “doesn’t matter”… you’re missing the forest through the trees. The prices are going up because there’s a chokehold on supply… when you restrict supply and demand remains the same or increase—prices go up. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Just Google the rates of homebuilding in California. It peaked in the 70s and dropped every decade since.
Sure, here’s an article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2432071/california-h...
Yes, it’s great to work for a big tech company in California. But I guarantee it’s better to be a teacher or any other normal job in Denmark. Not everyone works for Google or Apple so maybe we should stop pretending like that’s all that matters…
This conversation is pointless since you don’t understand economics 101 or the law of supply and demand. That’s why you think it “doesn’t matter”… you’re missing the forest through the trees. The prices are going up because there’s a chokehold on supply… when you restrict supply and demand remains the same or increase—prices go up. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Just Google the rates of homebuilding in California. It peaked in the 70s and dropped every decade since.
Sure, here’s an article: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2432071/california-h...
Yes, it’s great to work for a big tech company in California. But I guarantee it’s better to be a teacher or any other normal job in Denmark. Not everyone works for Google or Apple so maybe we should stop pretending like that’s all that matters…
I get it. You keep talking about the demand going up like it's a given. There are plenty of states where demand is stagnant and so are prices, and that's because people don't want to live there as much. If you think the market is wrong, by all means you can show us and grab tomorrow's hot real estate in another state (or Denmark).
And homebuilding peaked pretty much everywhere in America in the 1970s, as did population growth, so this isn't surprising.
And homebuilding peaked pretty much everywhere in America in the 1970s, as did population growth, so this isn't surprising.
>There are plenty of states where demand is stagnant and so are prices
You mean like the Rustbelt where all their good jobs got outsourced? Yep… you might be onto something here.
The difference is California is artificially restricting supply (i.e., market manipulation) by making it more difficult through zoning laws and permitting. It’s intentional. This is good for homeowners who want to pull up the ladder on the next generation (including their kids) who will be priced out. This is why jobs continue to move to Austin, TX or Raleigh, NC. Money goes where it’s treated best. California thinks it’ll never kill its golden geese, but it looks like they will. There’s a reason there was an exodus from places like the Bay Area during the pandemic and remote work—-people only live there for the income potential and once they didn’t have to, they moved as fast as they could to other places.
You mean like the Rustbelt where all their good jobs got outsourced? Yep… you might be onto something here.
The difference is California is artificially restricting supply (i.e., market manipulation) by making it more difficult through zoning laws and permitting. It’s intentional. This is good for homeowners who want to pull up the ladder on the next generation (including their kids) who will be priced out. This is why jobs continue to move to Austin, TX or Raleigh, NC. Money goes where it’s treated best. California thinks it’ll never kill its golden geese, but it looks like they will. There’s a reason there was an exodus from places like the Bay Area during the pandemic and remote work—-people only live there for the income potential and once they didn’t have to, they moved as fast as they could to other places.
Pretty much every state has zoning laws because among other things, people in suburbs don't want huge apartment complexes popping up next to them. But not everyone has to live in the same city, and there's always more land to build on. California cities have all expanded, and I'm sure Austin has too because that place is also doing well.
Because of tech HQs, Bay Area had an excessively high concentration of tech workers. You could say that it was easier to find a Java programmer than a java barista there, which was a problem because the programmer's labor was all exported. So everything tangible was expensive and/or cruddy there for no good reason, then finally remote work took off somewhat. But plenty (most? idk) of those who left the area still stayed elsewhere in CA.
Because of tech HQs, Bay Area had an excessively high concentration of tech workers. You could say that it was easier to find a Java programmer than a java barista there, which was a problem because the programmer's labor was all exported. So everything tangible was expensive and/or cruddy there for no good reason, then finally remote work took off somewhat. But plenty (most? idk) of those who left the area still stayed elsewhere in CA.
>Pretty much every state has zoning laws because among other things, people in suburbs don't want huge apartment complexes popping up next to them.
Do you not get that it's all relative? If California was building enough homes for its population growth and now it isn't--that certainly impacts prices. This is why Japan has cheap homes--even though they have tough zoning laws. It's all a game of manipulation.
Yes, other states have zoning laws, but they don't cripple new housing development. California has absurd laws that allow neighbors to challenge homes being built on empty lots or about the design choices of someone else's home. You claim to be for freedom in another comment then defend this? Which is it? Do you want an open market or not? Or are you just for what benefits you? That's fine, but be honest about it.
> not everyone has to live in the same city, and there's always more land to build on
This is the stupid and selfish talking again. This is why the Bay Area has workers living in Gilroy and Livermore commuting to SF and San Jose. This isn't good for anyone. San Francisco doesn't have to stay 2 stories tall... that's all a charade to prevent housing supply increasing.
>But plenty (most? idk) of those who left the area still stayed elsewhere in CA.
I actually don't disagree with this, but curious if you can cite anything because I had workers move to Florida, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, NYC, Utah... and none of them ever returned. I do think a lot stayed in California--I for one moved from SF to Burlingame and then to Sacramento then to San Diego. I do think there would be some interesting migration patterns to track.
Do you not get that it's all relative? If California was building enough homes for its population growth and now it isn't--that certainly impacts prices. This is why Japan has cheap homes--even though they have tough zoning laws. It's all a game of manipulation.
Yes, other states have zoning laws, but they don't cripple new housing development. California has absurd laws that allow neighbors to challenge homes being built on empty lots or about the design choices of someone else's home. You claim to be for freedom in another comment then defend this? Which is it? Do you want an open market or not? Or are you just for what benefits you? That's fine, but be honest about it.
> not everyone has to live in the same city, and there's always more land to build on
This is the stupid and selfish talking again. This is why the Bay Area has workers living in Gilroy and Livermore commuting to SF and San Jose. This isn't good for anyone. San Francisco doesn't have to stay 2 stories tall... that's all a charade to prevent housing supply increasing.
>But plenty (most? idk) of those who left the area still stayed elsewhere in CA.
I actually don't disagree with this, but curious if you can cite anything because I had workers move to Florida, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, NYC, Utah... and none of them ever returned. I do think a lot stayed in California--I for one moved from SF to Burlingame and then to Sacramento then to San Diego. I do think there would be some interesting migration patterns to track.
SF is the 2nd densest place in the US, and is several times denser than Tokyo and London. The population is small but the land is even smaller. If you want to go anywhere in your car you might spend 10-15 minutes parking. The classic SF look is one of homes glued side by side with no room for trees. If SF wants to expand then they are due for a massive infrastructure overhaul.
Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose?
Meanwhile, what is wrong with building in San Jose?
You’re talking about absolutely values and ignoring that the rate of homes being built has stagnated to record lows (and definitely not keeping up with population growth and immigration). You’re either ignorant or dishonest or both.
>And well, don't live in the bad part of Antioch.
Might as well tell people not to be poor. Super useful advice, bub.
>And well, don't live in the bad part of Antioch.
Might as well tell people not to be poor. Super useful advice, bub.
I'm ignoring that because it doesn't matter. Are you saying that our population is simply growing without places for people to stay? Half our population is homeless or something? If the state were doing so poorly, there wouldn't be demand to live here.
And if you want to call me ignorant, give me the source on those "record lows" because all I can find is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU06000002023610001SA like are you comparing to the 2006 bubble?
> Might as well tell people not to be poor. Super useful advice, bub.
The suggestion is that if you cannot afford to live in an ok part of a city, you can instead be in a rural area, or better yet not live in California if you dislike it this much. I don't know if you'd find life better in the comparable part of Dallas or Detroit; weather alone might change your mind.
And if you want to call me ignorant, give me the source on those "record lows" because all I can find is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SMU06000002023610001SA like are you comparing to the 2006 bubble?
> Might as well tell people not to be poor. Super useful advice, bub.
The suggestion is that if you cannot afford to live in an ok part of a city, you can instead be in a rural area, or better yet not live in California if you dislike it this much. I don't know if you'd find life better in the comparable part of Dallas or Detroit; weather alone might change your mind.
Parts of California are easily worse than Detroit: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLka6qqp/
This is downtown SF after the sun goes down. This is 10x worse than it was 5 years ago. Meanwhile a fentanyl genocide is going on while liberal scumbag voters and politicians pat themselves on the back for giving out needles to them. It’s sick.
This is downtown SF after the sun goes down. This is 10x worse than it was 5 years ago. Meanwhile a fentanyl genocide is going on while liberal scumbag voters and politicians pat themselves on the back for giving out needles to them. It’s sick.
Mean vs median, mean Californian is prosperous because of a big concentration of wealth at the top, median Californian is desperate. California is in a lot of ways a trendsetter and a microcosm so something to look forward to on a national level in the future.
Supposedly there are 40,000-70,000+ homeless in LA, depending on city or county level. Are you sure that none of them should be counted as unemployed?
In large part because other states will give homeless people a free bus ticket to California and they take it so they don’t freeze to death in the winter
That’s actually a really common misconception. A lot of unhoused people in LA have one or more jobs. One survey I saw put that number over 65%.
Yep a survey put out by a group that gets funding for homelessness no doubt… if Coca Cola put out a study on the benefits of sugar, I’d be similarly skeptical.
And the jobs are probably stealing catalytic converters, stripping copper from light poles, etc.
The homeless in California are on drugs and mentally ill. If they’re not, there are plenty of programs to support them, but if you’re on drugs then yeah you’re never gonna afford rent here… you can’t afford to be a junkie and afford rent on an apartment.
And the jobs are probably stealing catalytic converters, stripping copper from light poles, etc.
The homeless in California are on drugs and mentally ill. If they’re not, there are plenty of programs to support them, but if you’re on drugs then yeah you’re never gonna afford rent here… you can’t afford to be a junkie and afford rent on an apartment.
romafirst3(2)
Repealing Prop 13 and removing local control of zoning decisions can be done via votes in the legislature, no new technologies required, so I beg to differ with the "no easy fix" tag.
Prop 13 is a constitutional amendment, so requires a two thirds threshold in both chambers of the legislature and then also an additional majority ballot vote. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution
Or we could amend the way we amend the constitution.
The idea that Prop 13 is set in stone is just not the case anymore. I was changed in 2020 and nearly removed completely for corporations.
The idea that Prop 13 is set in stone is just not the case anymore. I was changed in 2020 and nearly removed completely for corporations.
Amending the way you amend the constitution, unsurprisingly would also require a constitutional amendment.
The legislature cannot, currently, legally override the constitution.
The legislature cannot, currently, legally override the constitution.
My point is that the electorate that passed our ridiculous amendment process is no longer the current electorate. I suspect that our generation would be extremely open to changing the scope of our constitution to not include trivial things like tax legislation.
Deleting zoning would be be an incredible boost for the economy, but I don't think it's politically possible. Prop 13 is a constitutional amendment that the legislature can't repeal.
Folks are addicted to spending money, and the results don't really matter. It took national outrage to get us to value-engineer a $1.6M toilet down to $1.0M.
Folks are addicted to spending money, and the results don't really matter. It took national outrage to get us to value-engineer a $1.6M toilet down to $1.0M.
a secret about Prop 13 is that .. the media spin at the time was "saving aging homeowners from terrible tax increases" mainly by the Howard Jarvis Tax group; however, Corporate entities that own land in California also benefited from this measure, and continue to do so. I have never seen this in the media at any time -- only known by talking to a retired attorney recently
There was actually an initiative to repeal Prop 13 for commercial land which failed. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Co...
This is the real answer in my opinion. Prop 13 does make some sense (especially in its current form now that the other measure passed that limits prop 13 for homeowners over 1 million in value).
But for commercial real estate ? That seems totally ridiculous. There is so much tax that could be collected there!
But for commercial real estate ? That seems totally ridiculous. There is so much tax that could be collected there!
I suspect that given it was rejected in 2020, which was not that long ago, in an election where Prop 19 (the other one you're referring to) passed, the powers that be have divined that revisiting the question now is a little early.
California already collects record revenue via State taxes, and has for a long time. Those who run Sacramento dole it out in large quantities. Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades. Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again.
> Only Jerry Brown has had the strength and skill to balance a budget in decades.
California has, like most states, Constitutionally-mandated balanced operating budget (it does have a bit of reserve fund which can be used to avoid immediate cuts when revenue projected in the balanced budget falls short, so it can end up with some deficit from bad projection, but that is pretty limited); it cannot monetize spending since it doesn't issue its own currency, and borrowing (which it can do for capital projects) takes voter approval.
Jerry Brown didn't do anything that unusual in balancing budgets, but what he did do is risk political capital to take ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget to the voters, succeed, and thereby end the annual (good times or bad) minority blockade budget crisis that made California effectively ungovernable.
(Unfortunately, the supermajority rule for tax increases—which applies to any tax pokicy shift that is includes any increase in any situation—remains, preventing most tax policy shifts in practice.)
> Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again.
Its not really a mystery—the sources of volatility are well known, the swing (though not the precise magnitude) was predicted, and why the Governor argued for changes that would allow greater transfers to reserves in years of predicted surplus, rather than returning as much projected surplus revenue directly as is currently required.
California has, like most states, Constitutionally-mandated balanced operating budget (it does have a bit of reserve fund which can be used to avoid immediate cuts when revenue projected in the balanced budget falls short, so it can end up with some deficit from bad projection, but that is pretty limited); it cannot monetize spending since it doesn't issue its own currency, and borrowing (which it can do for capital projects) takes voter approval.
Jerry Brown didn't do anything that unusual in balancing budgets, but what he did do is risk political capital to take ending the supermajority requirement to pass a budget to the voters, succeed, and thereby end the annual (good times or bad) minority blockade budget crisis that made California effectively ungovernable.
(Unfortunately, the supermajority rule for tax increases—which applies to any tax pokicy shift that is includes any increase in any situation—remains, preventing most tax policy shifts in practice.)
> Notably, the current Gov started tenure with a substantial surplus, and mysteriously now has record deficits again.
Its not really a mystery—the sources of volatility are well known, the swing (though not the precise magnitude) was predicted, and why the Governor argued for changes that would allow greater transfers to reserves in years of predicted surplus, rather than returning as much projected surplus revenue directly as is currently required.
Then why do you think the tax-happy Democrats who control the legislature haven't repealed Prop 13 yet? After all, it is a relic of an era when anti-tax Republicans still had influence in California politics.
My theory is that if it were repealed, and people had to pay property tax on something approaching the actual current market value of their homes, home values would tank. Homeowners would then "lose" a significant fraction of their net worth, get pissed off, and immediately vote out anyone who had voted for the repeal.
My theory is that if it were repealed, and people had to pay property tax on something approaching the actual current market value of their homes, home values would tank. Homeowners would then "lose" a significant fraction of their net worth, get pissed off, and immediately vote out anyone who had voted for the repeal.
Every rational repeal proposal is a phase out with a few exceptions for seniors.
And the reason it hans't been phased out is that the state has significant issues with legislative process as well as economic management. i.e. passing constitutional amendments by popular vote instead of just regular laws which makes them borderline irreversible.
And the reason it hans't been phased out is that the state has significant issues with legislative process as well as economic management. i.e. passing constitutional amendments by popular vote instead of just regular laws which makes them borderline irreversible.
Propositions can’t be repealed, it would have to be put on the ballot, but doubt it will happen.
Few years ago there was a prop to strip prop 13 from commercial properties and fund schools. It was sponsored by the zuck foundation. Even that didn’t pass
Parent comment said "Repealing Prop 13 and removing local control of zoning decisions can be done via votes in the legislature". I don't know if that is true or not, I'm responding to that premise. Either one of you could help the discussion by providing a source backing up your conflicting claims.
Prop 13 is factually a CA Constitutional amendment, the reversal of which would require following the process to amend the state constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/Resources/SAM/TOC/6000/6920#:~:text=A....
Zoning control changes could (as far as I can tell) be done via legislative action alone (and probably fading some resulting lawsuits).
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/Resources/SAM/TOC/6000/6920#:~:text=A....
Zoning control changes could (as far as I can tell) be done via legislative action alone (and probably fading some resulting lawsuits).
Local zoning decisions could probably be done given that they are not expressly enumerated in the California constitution today. Cities' current authority to do so is defined by Article XI Section 7, which just says "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.[1] ". Theoretically the state could just pass a general law that now conflicts with this and then localities have restrictions on zoning.
Prop 13 was passed in 1978 as a constitutional amendment, so the only way to repeal or reform that would be another amendment. The process for doing so via the legislature requires a two thirds supermajority in both houses, and then it goes to the ballot anyways. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution#Amending_the...
Prop 13 was passed in 1978 as a constitutional amendment, so the only way to repeal or reform that would be another amendment. The process for doing so via the legislature requires a two thirds supermajority in both houses, and then it goes to the ballot anyways. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Constitution#Amending_the...
They definitely cannot just repeal it outright, but they could give the housing marking a "soft landing" by just changing the max increase %. Let's say that we want to deal with the case of properties' real values being 5x the assessed tax value, assuming 0 future appreciation here's how long it would take for property taxes to catch up at 2%:
log(5)/log(1.02) = 81 years
log(5)/log(1.08) = 21 yearsHomeowner ownership rate in California is 43.5%. Change is possible.
Home owners vote at higher rates than renters.
they should split the state into regions (groups of counties) and put the repeal on a ballot at region granularity to see if the "fuck-you-I-got-mine" set would sink each other
There is no Constitutional provision for splitting the state based on counties for ballot propositions.
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/Resources/SAM/TOC/6000/6920
https://www.dgs.ca.gov/Resources/SAM/TOC/6000/6920
But the renters can still use their vote for change, no?
The problem is California isn't taxing people enough?
The problem is that it creates a distortionary tax. Appreciation has given people multi-million dollar homes that they pay a pittance in tax on. So they hold that property as long as possible to enjoy the low tax rates - if they move their tax bill soars since that event triggers an assessment on their new home. This takes homes off the market and drives prices even higher.
The proposition was intended to prevent appreciation from pricing people out of their homes - in other words, to decrease the volume of transactions on the real estate market. This is government interference in the market - on top of the government interfering in the construction of new homes in the first place...
If they regularly re-assessed property values while lowering the applied rate, they could collect the same amount of money overall without distorting the market.
The proposition was intended to prevent appreciation from pricing people out of their homes - in other words, to decrease the volume of transactions on the real estate market. This is government interference in the market - on top of the government interfering in the construction of new homes in the first place...
If they regularly re-assessed property values while lowering the applied rate, they could collect the same amount of money overall without distorting the market.
The problem is the kind of taxation, not the amount. Beyond the fact that property tax is less of a burden on economic activity than income tax, it's also the case that property tax is less likely to bankrupt the state because of reduced revenue during economic downturns.
The problem is that its tax scheme sucks
How would ruining the financial plans for millions of homeowners solve the problem? It's so easy to say "just increase taxes" but the reality is our spending is insane.
Even a sane prop 13 could be neutral on property taxes, just not give such a bonus for never moving. There is a lot of value society loses when people have an incentive to never upgrade/downgrade their property because the transaction costs, essentially, would be astronomical.
California does have high overall taxes, but not the highest. Part of the reason income taxes are so high is because property taxes have a very low effective rate.
California does have high overall taxes, but not the highest. Part of the reason income taxes are so high is because property taxes have a very low effective rate.
You're comparing income tax to a sorta wealth tax. CA properties tend to be worth more than in other states, so even if the % property tax is lower, it can be a higher $ or % income amount.
California is ranked 15th in dollars collected per house by property tax.
In terms of "property tax as a percentage of personal income" it is only 24th.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/us-property-taxes-by-sta...
In terms of "property tax as a percentage of personal income" it is only 24th.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/us-property-taxes-by-sta...
But 24th makes it in the middle.
California has the lowest rates of home ownership in the country at 18%. More people are subsidizing the current system than are benefiting from it.
You're way off. The California home ownership rate is 55%. But some other states are significantly higher.
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/rates.html
Apparently the stat I gave was the ratio of homeowners to Californians which is something like 18% and the lowest in the nation, but if we use the % of households which own their home we get something like 55% which is still very close to the lowest in the nation.
I feel like homeowners in California are giving more than they are taking overall.
Agree that spending needs to be cut. But my understanding is that before Prop 13, California's tax revenue was more balanced between property, sales, and income taxes, and thus less subject to the boom and bust cycles that we see now (https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-budget-whiplash...).
As long as people continue to think in dichotomous terms, nothing will happen.
Por que no los dos? Put fiscally conservatives on the task of cutting, and put a progressive in charge of reform.
Por que no los dos? Put fiscally conservatives on the task of cutting, and put a progressive in charge of reform.
Something only the rich could love.
Repealing prop 13 would cause the single biggest increase in homelessness in the states history.
A huge percentage of California homeowners would be evicted as a consequence of their next 10x higher property tax bill...
Repealing prop 13 would cause the single biggest increase in homelessness in the states history.
A huge percentage of California homeowners would be evicted as a consequence of their next 10x higher property tax bill...
And then theyd move somewhere cheaper with their newfound wealth. For me kicking people out of their home is frankly the point. If you cant afford you taxes you cant afford your home. Let someone who can afford it live there
California should mandate no new taxes till corruption and wastage of tax funds are measured and a goal is set for reducing that?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/embattled-nonpro...
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-city...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/embattled-nonpro...
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-city...
Maybe all states should do that. California is not the most corrupt state.
This analysis puts it at 24/50 in fact.
https://bestlifeonline.com/most-corrupt-state-america/
This analysis puts it at 24/50 in fact.
https://bestlifeonline.com/most-corrupt-state-america/
Needs a more Bayesian understanding of the corruption stats they are using.
Could it be repealed via a legal case? I suspect any law that effectively says "established residents have next to no property tax while new residents have the tax recalculated" would definitely affect some protected groups negatively compared to others. In which case this law cannot exist right? You can't make a law that has a negative effect on a protected group specifically, even if unintentionally.
We had a proposition in Palo Alto that only local residents could use some of the parks. That was challenged and now doesn't exist as you can guess how police identified non-locals. Can we do the same for prop 13?
We had a proposition in Palo Alto that only local residents could use some of the parks. That was challenged and now doesn't exist as you can guess how police identified non-locals. Can we do the same for prop 13?
This headline is ridiculous, California has a GDP comparable to India, fabulous wealth and a history as one of the most innovative and pleasant places to live globally. They also have the lion's share of influence in the most powerful body on the planet, the US Congress. This is the most capable self-determining polity on the planet.
Any economic problems they are having are (1) self inflicted, (2) policy driven and (2) could be fixed very quickly if the locals would admit that it is a problem worth fixing. Presumably the locals aren't worried.
Any economic problems they are having are (1) self inflicted, (2) policy driven and (2) could be fixed very quickly if the locals would admit that it is a problem worth fixing. Presumably the locals aren't worried.
> California has a GDP comparable to India...
California's a big economy. But it's not (at least superficially) outsized relative to other parts of the United States that contain similar populations.
Data: https://github.com/RhysU/states
California's a big economy. But it's not (at least superficially) outsized relative to other parts of the United States that contain similar populations.
Data: https://github.com/RhysU/states
In 2023, California ranked 5th in GDP per capita, just ahead of North Dakota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
... but behind the District of Columbia, New York State, Massachusetts, and Washington State.
I don't understand the intent of the comment. People commonly compare California's GDP to various countries, not its per capita GDP.
I don't understand the intent of the comment. People commonly compare California's GDP to various countries, not its per capita GDP.
Would you rather be an average Californian or an average Danish person? Who has better quality of life? Who has longer life expectancy? Who gets to retire earlier? Who gets more time off per year or parental leave? Who is happier/less stressed? California is great for the ruling elite and people working in big tech, but not that great for everyone else. The only way California is best is if the only thing you care about is income potential.
Strictly my personal opinion - if you own a home in California, your life is probably better than the average Danish person due to access to better weather and better economy. Homeownership rate for CA is 55.8% - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAHOWN
Also add people on rent controlled housing, who are in a similar boat, and that number would be even higher.
Ultimately, you just have to look at the immigration numbers of "the best and the brightest", who can go anywhere in the world including CA and Denmark. I was one of them and decided to come to CA over any European country. So were many of my friends and many of my European colleagues from countries with all the benefits you mentioned.
Also add people on rent controlled housing, who are in a similar boat, and that number would be even higher.
Ultimately, you just have to look at the immigration numbers of "the best and the brightest", who can go anywhere in the world including CA and Denmark. I was one of them and decided to come to CA over any European country. So were many of my friends and many of my European colleagues from countries with all the benefits you mentioned.
Sure, if you work in tech. It happens there are many innovative tech companies in California. Suppose now you have a "regular" job, you'll be probably be happier in Denmark.
I actually work for a Californian big tech company, remotely in Europe. I could move to the bay area but my life quality is better here, on many levels.
I actually work for a Californian big tech company, remotely in Europe. I could move to the bay area but my life quality is better here, on many levels.
You think people in Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding or Lancaster are better off than someone in Denmark? Is your only measurement the net worth of the person and not actually anything else like time off or life expectancy? The only people in California doing better are in Bay Area or coastal cities in Southern California or Tahoe. The rest of the state is worse off than the Midwest or rural Texas.
"You think people in Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding or Lancaster are better off than someone in Denmark?"
Yes. And I'm glad my family migrated to Fresno instead of Denmark.
Yes. And I'm glad my family migrated to Fresno instead of Denmark.
The average person/teacher/railroad worker in Denmark is almost definitely doing better than the average resident of Fresno by every metric. You’re in denial.
Yeah, I hear that from every European who spends time complaining about America on the internet. This place sucks supposedly, yet they talk about it so much. Good thing they don't have to live here!
>Yeah, I hear that from every European who spends time complaining about America on the internet. This place sucks supposedly, yet they talk about it so much. Good thing they don't have to live here!
Both can be true! And maybe you’re just overly sensitive of criticism of California and could admit it’s not perfect and not everyone makes $400k a year in big tech? Or do you not get outside your bubble ever?
Both can be true! And maybe you’re just overly sensitive of criticism of California and could admit it’s not perfect and not everyone makes $400k a year in big tech? Or do you not get outside your bubble ever?
For my one response, there were probably 200 Californians who didn't even care to say anything. Other states complain about us, other countries complain about the US, but it's like shouting at a brick wall.
So you could call me a little more sensitive than them for even responding, but still pretty callous. Nowhere is perfect, go experience another state if you don't believe me, or if you've never lived in CA then don't complain about living here.
So you could call me a little more sensitive than them for even responding, but still pretty callous. Nowhere is perfect, go experience another state if you don't believe me, or if you've never lived in CA then don't complain about living here.
That’s called whataboutism… Is there no legitimate criticism in your mind? Nothing worth changing or improving? That seems shockingly arrogant. Other states have their issues but I don’t live there so I don’t care as much—I want California to get its shit together because I live here and raise my kids here. It’s clear as day to my eyes that California quality of life has fallen since the 1990s… who cares if home prices annd incomes are up but everything else is so getting worse by the day? Rule of law is barely holding on for its life…
There are legitimate criticisms and things to change, but it mostly applies to other states too. "Gripped by economic problems" is not one of them, and the state isn't in decline either. As I said elsewhere though, SF is one exception that I'd say is truly terrible because they shot themselves in the foot with a weird combination of far-left policies and corporate lobbying.
What I do is consistently vote for harsher criminal justice and political candidates who at least acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem here. This usually means moderate Republicans.
What I do is consistently vote for harsher criminal justice and political candidates who at least acknowledge that illegal immigration is a problem here. This usually means moderate Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
You're just deflecting. SF is a shithole now: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLka6qqp/ This is 10-20x bigger of a drug scene than 5 years ago. SFPD doesn't even bother doing anything now. It looks like something out or Robocop. The problem is LA is like that now, Oakland is worse, East bay cities are bad too. Central Valley has homeless all over too. The only cities that seem to be free of it are Palo Alto, Saratoga, Marin, Montecito, Palos Verdes, etc.--essentially the super rich enclaves that can afford to pay the homeless to go somewhere else or have the police harass them into moving somewhere less amenable.
You're just deflecting. SF is a shithole now: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLka6qqp/ This is 10-20x bigger of a drug scene than 5 years ago. SFPD doesn't even bother doing anything now. It looks like something out or Robocop. The problem is LA is like that now, Oakland is worse, East bay cities are bad too. Central Valley has homeless all over too. The only cities that seem to be free of it are Palo Alto, Saratoga, Marin, Montecito, Palos Verdes, etc.--essentially the super rich enclaves that can afford to pay the homeless to go somewhere else or have the police harass them into moving somewhere less amenable.
Whataboutism means point to some particular other place that's worse. I'm talking about the entire country. For a US state to meet your standards, we'd need a 51st state. And California in the 1990s wasn't that either.
Again one exception, SF was nicer just 8 years ago, and probably better in the 90s before tech companies ruined it. That city is exactly how you describe it now. The rest of CA is not.
Again one exception, SF was nicer just 8 years ago, and probably better in the 90s before tech companies ruined it. That city is exactly how you describe it now. The rest of CA is not.
Have you actually lived in both California and Denmark?
Denmark is a great place… if you’re Danish. A terrible place if you are immigrating from outside of Europe.
Compared to California, Danish is more xenophobic, live in smaller homes, have worse restaurants, have fewer prestigious institutes, lower income, and have worse weather.
Denmark is a great place… if you’re Danish. A terrible place if you are immigrating from outside of Europe.
Compared to California, Danish is more xenophobic, live in smaller homes, have worse restaurants, have fewer prestigious institutes, lower income, and have worse weather.
> have worse restaurants
I regularly fly to Copenhagen specifically to dine at Michelin star restaurants, some of the best in the world. Everything else is true about Denmark though
I regularly fly to Copenhagen specifically to dine at Michelin star restaurants, some of the best in the world. Everything else is true about Denmark though
I’m not talking about where is a better place to immigrate.
>live in smaller homes, have worse restaurants, have fewer prestigious institutes, lower income, and have worse weather.
Yeah but those are only superficial things in the grand scheme of things. The things that actually matter like, home affordability, quality of public schools, quality of life, vacation time, hours worked per week, life expectancy, parental leave, etc.
And yeah Danish food is kinda boring but they like it so who are we to complain. I used it as an example because their society actually benefits the average person like a teacher or railroad worker whereas in America/California if you aren’t working for a big tech company and in the top 15% of income you’re kinda not doing all that well compared to other developed countries. Most jobs in California don’t even offer paid parental leave… we’ve pathetically behind Europe but yeah.. we earn more if you don’t account for longer hours and all those pesky benefits like vacation or sick leave or parental leave.
>live in smaller homes, have worse restaurants, have fewer prestigious institutes, lower income, and have worse weather.
Yeah but those are only superficial things in the grand scheme of things. The things that actually matter like, home affordability, quality of public schools, quality of life, vacation time, hours worked per week, life expectancy, parental leave, etc.
And yeah Danish food is kinda boring but they like it so who are we to complain. I used it as an example because their society actually benefits the average person like a teacher or railroad worker whereas in America/California if you aren’t working for a big tech company and in the top 15% of income you’re kinda not doing all that well compared to other developed countries. Most jobs in California don’t even offer paid parental leave… we’ve pathetically behind Europe but yeah.. we earn more if you don’t account for longer hours and all those pesky benefits like vacation or sick leave or parental leave.
Education, opportunity, and freedom are not superficial. Denmark is an ok place where people can live ok lives, provided they tread carefully and keep everyone else out.
And good weather shouldn't be taken for granted. It can affect your entire mood.
And good weather shouldn't be taken for granted. It can affect your entire mood.
So I guess vacation, hours worked per week, parental leave, life expectancy, and quality of life are all trivial to you… got it. Income is basically all you’re focusing on. People in Denmark are as free, if not more free. You’re just defining freedom as money. They get more time off, have free universities, and practically everyone makes a good/living wage and can take vacation and parental leave. Only Americans in the top 20% would have anything comparable to what their average McDonald’s worker has. Americans are much less free at our jobs than the Danish or average European—yay freedom/capitalism and right to work laws.
Freedom is not being stuck at one place in life and eating from the government's hand, with restricted speech to boot. Denmark is ok if you were born there or got in somehow, and it helps that they have natural resources. Kinda like Qatar* except with opposite extreme weather, it works at least.
And I don't really care about time off to be honest, but if I did, I'd work as a contractor.
* Btw, check out their non-tourist malls, all American chains. IHOP, Papa John's, censored Victoria's Secret. Corvettes and Suburbans parked outside... well they also have those cool Land Cruisers you can't get in the US anymore.
And I don't really care about time off to be honest, but if I did, I'd work as a contractor.
* Btw, check out their non-tourist malls, all American chains. IHOP, Papa John's, censored Victoria's Secret. Corvettes and Suburbans parked outside... well they also have those cool Land Cruisers you can't get in the US anymore.
If you’re not talking about where is best place to immigrate then I agree with you. But people often confuse the “Danes are happiest people on earth” study as “immigrating there will make me happy”.
Of course when people talk about where is best place to live, most people think it in terms of immigrating.
Of course when people talk about where is best place to live, most people think it in terms of immigrating.
... California? I'm in tech, migrating to California is always a literal and practical consideration for me. I might actually put my money where my mouth is on that one. No way I'm moving to Denmark. Californians have a higher median wage than the Denmark average, which is a big deal [0]. Reputation for being more accepting of foreigners. The weather is better from what I've heard, and there is a land war involving nuclear powers happening in Europe. And in California, statistically I;'d be fairly average. Not after getting a tech job on US wages though, maybe.
If you want to move to Denmark that is cool with me, but if I'm moving anywhere it is probably California.
[0] In hindsight I might have been wrong about this - I was comparing household income in California - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... - to average income in Denmark - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w... . Median household vs. average per capita isn't a reasonable comparison. Regardless, I wouldn't move to Denmark.
If you want to move to Denmark that is cool with me, but if I'm moving anywhere it is probably California.
[0] In hindsight I might have been wrong about this - I was comparing household income in California - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... - to average income in Denmark - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w... . Median household vs. average per capita isn't a reasonable comparison. Regardless, I wouldn't move to Denmark.
>In hindsight I might have been wrong about this - I was comparing household income in California - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... - to average income in Denmark - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_w... . Median household vs. average per capita isn't a reasonable comparison. Regardless, I wouldn't move to Denmark.
lol proved my point. Being a Californian looks remarkably different if you’re not in the Bay Area or coastal Southern California. Most of California is super rural and poor and doesn’t have access to high paying jobs. Sure, if you win the lottery and work for Apple or Google you’re gonna be okay but go look at Mountain View, Cupertino, and surrounding areas and it’s super unimpressive what you get for your money. There’s a reason people in Denmark are happier, wealthier, have a higher quality of life, live longer, etc. Yes, the income total at the high end is capped but overall people are better off. That’s why you can’t just say oh well people in Palo Alto and Montecito are doing well… therefore California is amazing!
lol proved my point. Being a Californian looks remarkably different if you’re not in the Bay Area or coastal Southern California. Most of California is super rural and poor and doesn’t have access to high paying jobs. Sure, if you win the lottery and work for Apple or Google you’re gonna be okay but go look at Mountain View, Cupertino, and surrounding areas and it’s super unimpressive what you get for your money. There’s a reason people in Denmark are happier, wealthier, have a higher quality of life, live longer, etc. Yes, the income total at the high end is capped but overall people are better off. That’s why you can’t just say oh well people in Palo Alto and Montecito are doing well… therefore California is amazing!
94% of the population of California lives in urban areas.
The Bay Area and LA alone make up 50% of the population.
The Bay Area and LA alone make up 50% of the population.
I agree! But somehow they have 90% of the mindshare when the rest of California is more like Fresno... The depiction of California focuses on cities along the 101, not the 5/99.
You said that most of California is super rural and super poor both of which are objectively false both in relative and absolute measures.
[deleted]
Wayback Machine archive:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240401233215/https://www.econo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20240401233215/https://www.econo...
In the lede "Rising Unemployment". But in fact broader federal numbers show unemployment near historic lows, surely CA can't be that far off, right? Let's google for some data:
https://ycharts.com/indicators/california_unemployment_rate#....
Yeah, article is making signal out of noise. Unemployment was ~4.1% before the pandemic, spiked, recovered, and indeed has inched up to near 5% since. The graph shape indeed looks basically identical to federal data at FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
So... are we supposed to trust the rest of the article? Not sure I'd bet on it. People love articles that confirm priors, and those are the most dangerous kind.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/california_unemployment_rate#....
Yeah, article is making signal out of noise. Unemployment was ~4.1% before the pandemic, spiked, recovered, and indeed has inched up to near 5% since. The graph shape indeed looks basically identical to federal data at FRED: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
So... are we supposed to trust the rest of the article? Not sure I'd bet on it. People love articles that confirm priors, and those are the most dangerous kind.
Of course the spike during the pandemic and the decrease afterwards are similar, as they would be anywhere. But the pattern during the last year is different.
The 1 year federal unemployment rate looks like noise: a mix of up and down. Down, down, up, down, down, up, flat, flat, down, flat, flat, up. And the total change over the last year was only 0.3%.
There are no months in the last year when the UE rate fell in California. That would be very unusual for noise over a flat trend. Also, it's now 1.4% higher than the federal rate, and the total increase over the past year was 0.8%.
The 1 year federal unemployment rate looks like noise: a mix of up and down. Down, down, up, down, down, up, flat, flat, down, flat, flat, up. And the total change over the last year was only 0.3%.
There are no months in the last year when the UE rate fell in California. That would be very unusual for noise over a flat trend. Also, it's now 1.4% higher than the federal rate, and the total increase over the past year was 0.8%.
Yeah, but it's not "rising" in the sense of a worrisome trend. It's low, and bouncing around its low value. Sure, the last years trend is mildly upwards where the federal trend is flat, but... so what? There are 50 states. Pull numbers form all of them and realistically half of them will show whatever nonsense trend you want to see. It's just a silly argument. Employment in California is simply not a problem. There are plenty of jobs, both historically and in comparison with the rest of the country.
Are there plenty of jobs? The article says no:
> In California there are roughly 0.8 job openings per unemployed person—the lowest in the country—whereas in America’s other 49 states the overall ratio is 1.6.
And that checks out. It's the inverse of (1 divided by) this:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/state-job-openings-and-labor-turn...
> In California there are roughly 0.8 job openings per unemployed person—the lowest in the country—whereas in America’s other 49 states the overall ratio is 1.6.
And that checks out. It's the inverse of (1 divided by) this:
https://www.bls.gov/charts/state-job-openings-and-labor-turn...
Yeah, but, just look at that chart! California isn't shaped any differently than anyone else. It's always been somewhat higher on this metric, it was before the pandemic and it is now. But you'd absolutely not look at that chart with fresh eyes and flag it as an outlier. At all. It's doing what the rest of the labor market is doing. Really no state is particularly weird, which is about what you'd expect for a very fluid intra-national labor force.
California is great if you are apart of its landed gentry or a business owner.
If you're anything else, then it's not worth it.
If you're anything else, then it's not worth it.
They're mostly self-inflicted. Prop 47 caused a great amount of problems for the state by decriminalizing all drugs and theft up to $1000/per incident. We are just attracting junkies/criminals from other states where they actually enforce the law... Most of the homeless are not even from California when you talk to them. They come here for the lack of drug laws and ability to steal to fund their habit--and many cities even give debit cards to them. We're actively subsidizing the worst of the worst people and encouraging them to move here. Now we have organized shoplifting rings and junkies on fentanyl and meth living under every bridge and overpass. The state is in an epic free fall of quality of life since 2014 when prop 47 passed. There's no common sense anymore and our politicians are all crooks trying to personally enrich themselves or friends/family at the expense of everyone else. The only reason the bottom hasn't fallen out is big tech, Hollywood, agriculture/wine, beaches/Tahoe/tourism, and all the taxes they pay. I don't understand how people aren't more sick of putting up with this. I know I'm sick of seeing open drug use, prostitution, filthy streets, and not feeling like any public spaces are actually safe anymore.
Beyond that... it's nearly impossible to build an affordable market rate house, starting a small business is more difficult than anywhere else due to regulation, our public schools are terrible.... but yeah there are some really well run tech companies that pay absurd amounts of money so a lot of people are still willing to put up with it all. I think there will be a breaking point though...
Every time some liberal/progressive voter has to clean up feces/needles off their front stoop, is robbed in their driveway, takes their kids to a public park but a homeless person is there doing drugs in the bathroom (or much much worse), or the cops tell them they can't remove the homeless camp on their block, I suspect they become ever-so-slightly more conservative. Eventually this will turn even the bluest state red. Democrats are digging their own grave by pandering to nonsense and ignoring the reality of what it's actually like living here.
When I grew up here in the 90s, the homeless were more like 1-5 per 100,000--not it feels like it's 50x to 200x that. They also weren't allowed to just camp in public spaces and leave ecological disasters everywhere they went... Whatever policies we've enacted need to urgently be repealed. Ideology now trumps objective reality.
Beyond that... it's nearly impossible to build an affordable market rate house, starting a small business is more difficult than anywhere else due to regulation, our public schools are terrible.... but yeah there are some really well run tech companies that pay absurd amounts of money so a lot of people are still willing to put up with it all. I think there will be a breaking point though...
Every time some liberal/progressive voter has to clean up feces/needles off their front stoop, is robbed in their driveway, takes their kids to a public park but a homeless person is there doing drugs in the bathroom (or much much worse), or the cops tell them they can't remove the homeless camp on their block, I suspect they become ever-so-slightly more conservative. Eventually this will turn even the bluest state red. Democrats are digging their own grave by pandering to nonsense and ignoring the reality of what it's actually like living here.
When I grew up here in the 90s, the homeless were more like 1-5 per 100,000--not it feels like it's 50x to 200x that. They also weren't allowed to just camp in public spaces and leave ecological disasters everywhere they went... Whatever policies we've enacted need to urgently be repealed. Ideology now trumps objective reality.
Worth noting that most of the homeless population in California is from California: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/california... (https://archive.is/gm1wq)
It seems our problems with homelessness stem mostly from high housing costs and our dysfunctional homeless industrial complex.
It seems our problems with homelessness stem mostly from high housing costs and our dysfunctional homeless industrial complex.
I don't believe that study at all--it's published by people with an agenda who want to slant reality so they keep getting funding. When I see homeless people and talk to them, they openly admin they're from out of state and came here for the drugs and weather. There are people like this guy I've met who are very open about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGaWD2GMh8Y
Isn’t that set of videos from a well known right wing grifter and a bunch of stuff was written about him not that long ago?
Not to my knowledge. Everything in those videos is consistent with what I saw while living in San Francisco. I had a homeless tweaker that kept breaking into our building to do drugs in the garage. I know their name and where they’re from because I had to get a restraining order. They were not a local. They were getting social security/disability AND the city gave them cash/debit card monthly. I know because I cleaned up their trash and saw the receipts and that’s how I got their name to serve them.
Like I said above, I was a progressive voter my entire life and never questioned it. But there are only so many times you’re gonna clean up human feces or needles before it changes your ideological perspective on deregulating drugs and theft…
Like I said above, I was a progressive voter my entire life and never questioned it. But there are only so many times you’re gonna clean up human feces or needles before it changes your ideological perspective on deregulating drugs and theft…
I find it hard to believe that people who could no longer afford a home in CA became homeless instead of moving to a cheaper state. Or at the city level, I really doubt the homeless people in SF are from SF.
Take this with a grain of salt, but back when I was last in SF in 2018, it was easily one of the most disgusting cities I have ever been in. I live and grew up in the Midwest and have been to most of the Midwestern cities (sorry St. Louis, some day I'll visit you) and a handful of other cities. Garbage lined the highways like I've never seen anywhere else, it was truly surprising and something that sticks with me years later. I spent most of my time downtown, but did venture to other parts. The nice parts of SF were really nice, but you'd go one block away and there would literally be people shooting up drugs on the sidewalk. I've spent a lot of time in Seattle as well, I really love Seattle, but it's quickly becoming very similar in parts. It makes me sad, both because of the suffering but also because it makes me not want to be in either of those cities. I don't think y'all really understand how abnormal that stuff is, and it's blatantly the fault a greedy and incompetent political body hiding behind the masquerade of performative politics.
Is this just conservative propaganda? Source?
I'm just reporting what I've seen living here. And I've voted democrat my entire life, but I won't this next election. After having kids and seeing how cops respond to 911 calls, I can't keep giving my vote to pathetic democrats.
Shoplifting incident yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/video/watch-group-of-th...
Stuff like this happens constantly, most isn't even reported. I used to work by the Salesforce tower and saw this happen a few times in 2018-2019.
If you make enough money and have a $2M house, you can insulate yourself from a lot of this. I unfortunately am not as insulated from it as I'd like to be. I live in a 'nice' neighborhood, but even I've had homeless people camp in front of my house, a hit and run on my car that 911 wouldn't respond to, etc etc. Like I said, people only have to have a few of these eye opening incidents before they start questioning the direction this state is heading in and who is steering the ship.
Shoplifting incident yesterday: https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/video/watch-group-of-th...
Stuff like this happens constantly, most isn't even reported. I used to work by the Salesforce tower and saw this happen a few times in 2018-2019.
If you make enough money and have a $2M house, you can insulate yourself from a lot of this. I unfortunately am not as insulated from it as I'd like to be. I live in a 'nice' neighborhood, but even I've had homeless people camp in front of my house, a hit and run on my car that 911 wouldn't respond to, etc etc. Like I said, people only have to have a few of these eye opening incidents before they start questioning the direction this state is heading in and who is steering the ship.
Many would say the same about SF in particular, but it's also an extreme example. I worked there for 4 years, then once I wanted to start a family, I left and didn't look back. It's not even like SF gets tons of hate because it's doing well; the place's relevance is truly fading.
True though - a bunch of places that would kill to have any California problem and nobody wants to move to try to put a “diss track” out on California.
It’s pretty funny.
It’s pretty funny.
The solution is easy. Repeal all the tax increases, regulations, spending programs, and policies enacted over the last 10 years.
I run a business and let me tell you there is no unemployment here, it's hard to retain employees.
There is no outflow of migration as far as I can see, housing is extremely scarce.
In fact one of the only reasons I would leave is because housing is cheaper elsewhere.
California is doing so well, that me and many other people are paying a huge premium to live here.
Also SF isn't California, it's a small part of the state.