California Must Be Doing Something Right Despite Trump hating it so much

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In the last ten years, CA has lost 1 million residents

GDP this, etc that, these fancy numbers don’t tell the whole story. As they say you can find any stat to prove a point.

If it is such a great state for the average American who the liberals profess to care about, why is CA losing population? The proof is in the pudding

I personally know people who have had enough of CA and finally took the exit

Contrary to the myth, it is liberal policies which result in Darwinism at its worst. The survival of the very fittest.

Then why has the population gone up?

https://www.google.com/search?q=population+of+california&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
It appears to be factual. Domestic migration.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/w...rices-the-california-exodus-surges-2018-05-03
Over a million more people moved out of California from 2006 to 2016 than moved in, according to a new report, due mainly to the state’s infamously high housing costs, which hit lower-income people hardest.
PS, Count my family as 3 among that number. Extended family has also been leaving CA.

While that is true, the reason is high housing prices, not "liberal policies" as Noah originally stated. And while there are numerous reasons for the high housing prices, one of the main policy reasons is proposition 13. That was a conservative policy put forth by republicans. While it has been a terrible policy for California in numerous ways, I have to say it was cleverly designed to lock itself in forever because its proponents knew that homeowners would never want get rid it for fear of the value of their home plummeting after having been propped up by the policy for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
Two things:

1. Count of people moving out versus moving in isn't necessarily relevant as there are many factors affecting both values. As long as outgoing migration trails natural population growth for the state then there is no mass outflow of residents.
2. Arguing that inflow versus outflow reflects poorly on liberal policies because California tends to be liberal overall is a fallacy. As an example, I know many people who have left California and moved to more rural areas. They tend to be liberal. They also tend to have lots of money that they made in California. That means they're not fleeing failed liberal policies, they are cashing out of successful liberal policies. In fact, without any evidence either way, I would guess that most of the people leaving California have profited from their time there. Why? Because your average Ceres resident who hates all the damn liberals probably can't afford to leave.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I live in NYC. There was 1 murder in my zip code in the last 10 years. That doesn't mean we don't have crappy parts like the Bronx in NYC either.

1 part of San Fran is not California.
I am from the Bronx, still have family there and visit NY frequently.

Every city has bad areas. But when homelessness, urine, feces and needles start to creep into tourist and business areas, its indicative of a broader problem.

I spend a lot of time in Manhattan. Sure, the area around Penn Station isn’t all that great, but tourists aren’t dodging poop at the Empire State Building or in Times Square.

I saw a guy drop his pants and take a dump adjacent to a high traffic park off Rinco Park.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
OK, you can start with the core contention in the OP's article: that California's clean energy policies have encouraged impressive growth in that sector. If you have reasons for disagreeing with that assertion, fine. But you're asking a question the answers to which are contained in the very article which is the subject of the thread.
I am not challenging that California is doing well economically. I am challenging assertions attributing that success to Sacramento.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,936
5,560
136
I am from the Bronx, still have family there and visit NY frequently.

Every city has bad areas. But when homelessness, urine, feces and needles start to creep into tourist and business areas, its indicative of a broader problem.

I spend a lot of time in Manhattan. Sure, the area around Penn Station isn’t all that great, but tourists aren’t dodging poop at the Empire State Building or in Times Square.

I saw a guy drop his pants and take a dump adjacent to a high traffic park off Rinco Park.

I just heard a discussion about this on the radio. The focus being the astonishing number of used needles being found. Turns out that SF hands out 4 million needles a month to drug users, and that those folks aren't all that concerned about proper disposal.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I just heard a discussion about this on the radio. The focus being the astonishing number of used needles being found. Turns out that SF hands out 4 million needles a month to drug users, and that those folks aren't all that concerned about proper disposal.
I'm not sure "astonishing" is the proper term. The alternative to needle programs is more blood borne disease so tell us which way you want it.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I'm not sure "astonishing" is the proper term. The alternative to needle programs is more blood borne disease so tell us which way you want it.
Getting heroin junkies off the streets and into rehab focused shelters instead of enabling them might be a good start, but it seems the affluent would rather step on sh!t and dodge needles than have a shelter go up in their neighborhood.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Getting heroine junkies off the streets and into rehab focused shelters instead of enabling them might be a good start, but it seems the affluent would rather step on sh!t and dodge needles than have a shelter go up in their neighborhood.

"Enabling" obviously isn't a correct term, either.

Tell you what- let's build a homeless shelter in your neighborhood. If you build it they will come, obviously.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
Two things:

1. Count of people moving out versus moving in isn't necessarily relevant as there are many factors affecting both values. As long as outgoing migration trails natural population growth for the state then there is no mass outflow of residents.
2. Arguing that inflow versus outflow reflects poorly on liberal policies because California tends to be liberal overall is a fallacy. As an example, I know many people who have left California and moved to more rural areas. They tend to be liberal. They also tend to have lots of money that they made in California. That means they're not fleeing failed liberal policies, they are cashing out of successful liberal policies. In fact, without any evidence either way, I would guess that most of the people leaving California have profited from their time there. Why? Because your average Ceres resident who hates all the damn liberals probably can't afford to leave.
I think the exodus from liberal areas is complex but much of it has to do with housing costs which directly reflect popularity and desirability of the area.
The exodus from rural areas has mostly do to with job availability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flapdrol1337

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I think the exodus from liberal areas is complex but much of it has to do with housing costs which directly reflect popularity and desirability of the area.
The exodus from rural areas has mostly do to with job availability.

The exodus of people from high cost areas has a lot to do with boomers retiring. They can cash out their home equity, have a bigger nest egg, move to a less expensive area & cut their overhead substantially. It's a necessary aspect of retirement for many.

The whole thing about how CA lost 1M people is bullshit because they still gained more people than they lost.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,574
7,671
136
The exodus of people from high cost areas has a lot to do with boomers retiring. They can cash out their home equity, have a bigger nest egg, move to a less expensive area & cut their overhead substantially. It's a necessary aspect of retirement for many.

The whole thing about how CA lost 1M people is bullshit because they still gained more people than they lost.

Exactly I live the DC $$ area and as much as a like it here as soon as I retire I am getting the hell out of dodge.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
:D

California is undoubtedly a great state. I am just waiting for someone to explain exactly how liberal policies made it great.

First, California of course benefits from geography and climate, which no one can attribute to politics.

Silicon Valley is a product of Navy investments during WW2 and later NASA investments after WW2.

Aerospace and the industries that emerged from it are a product of the white welfare military spending some of you complain so much about.

The UC system, once the crown jewel of California, received considerable investments in the 50s and 60s when California was a solid red state.

Silicon Valley is run by a bunch of white dudes.

Hollywood is run by a bunch of sexual predators.

Jerry Brown, who I admire and in another thread I said would make a great President, is a great governor because he embraced fiscal conservatism.

So honest question, what specific liberal policies can you point to that made California great?

But we do know how conservative policies made states like Kansas not so great
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
It always seems everyone outside of California seems to forget that CA is a HUGE state and there is a California outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It is the most important state in the nation. There is zero doubt about that. Nobody should want it to do bad or fall into the ocean. Where do you think most of your imports come through? Where do you think majority of your crops, meat, dairy comes from? All that is grown in Central California.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,424
136
It always seems everyone outside of California seems to forget that CA is a HUGE state and there is a California outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It is the most important state in the nation. There is zero doubt about that. Nobody should want it to do bad or fall into the ocean. Where do you think most of your imports come through? Where do you think majority of your crops, meat, dairy comes from? All that is grown in Central California.

Yeah but it's full of dirty liberals!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It always seems everyone outside of California seems to forget that CA is a HUGE state and there is a California outside of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

It is the most important state in the nation. There is zero doubt about that. Nobody should want it to do bad or fall into the ocean. Where do you think most of your imports come through? Where do you think majority of your crops, meat, dairy comes from? All that is grown in Central California.

"Majority" probably isn't the right word but CA agriculture is extremely important to America. They also contribute substantially more to the federal kitty than they get back.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
I’ll never understand the conservative hatred for California other than perhaps they feel threatened by its success. It was interesting to see them claim after the financial crisis that California’s struggles were due to the failure of liberalism. Now that California’s successful do they attribute that to liberalism? Of course not. They come up with excuses. Evidence is irrelevant, it’s all ideology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: woolfe9998

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
The secret of red states in a nation that has blue states is to make life so intolerable for economic losers they leave for states that have conditions that are easier for them. Since liberals are less inclined to see people who fail as pouishment by God for being worthless, they are more tolerant and helpful. The answer to this is rather easy. Tax states that have poor welfare systems at the federal level and send the money to those that do, but proportional to rigorous scientific evaluation of dollars spent to humane social benefit.