So you think the problem with California and the real estate / homeless crisis is that it is not taxing people enough? By the way, most of us are wealthy by any reasonable standard, including you. The fact that you can afford to spend so much of your time on these boards means you have more time and money than you need. So, you can afford to do with a lot less, and you don't actually need to live in the suburbs away from the common folks. You can donate more and live more humbly.dajo9 said:calbear93 said:I agree with almost everything you wrote. The wonderful weather and the nature beauty of our state are beyond question, and not everyone is entitled to live here. Not everyone is entitled to live in a safe neighborhood or join a nice country club. Not everyone is entitled to attend a great college. It is a bit callous to those who are disenfranchised, but our economy has always been about rewarding those who add value with the spoils of success and acknowledging that not everyone is entitled to equal benefits, including living in a state that is desirable.OaktownBear said:I'm a progressive but also a capitalist. The point is not to drive out the poor. It is to increase the prosperity of the state. If the number of high paying jobs increase allowing for people that live and work here to have more wealth that is a good thing. If that prices out unskilled labor jobs, than people have a "choice". They can get skilled so they can take advantage of the prosperity or they can follow the unskilled labor market and maybe have a better quality of life living where costs are lower. I'd argue that we don't give enough opportunities for people to better themselves, but that is a different question. People are not moving out because the state is less desirable. They are moving out because people with wealth are willing to pay for desirable things.calbear93 said:Let me get this straight. You view adopting policies or allowing economic conditions that cause poor or middle class families to move out because they cannot afford to live in California as a positive? You are in favor of making this state only for rich people. Why not adopt policies to force homeless people to leave the neighborhood so that you have more space to lecture people on progressive policies and how compassionate you are. Some progressive you are.dajo9 said:Your anecdote is yours. However, data exists. Incomes based on most likelihood to move in / out of CaliforniaTomBear said:
I'll take issue with you SoCal........the people I know who have left and/or plan to leave are, if not wealthy, not poor. This was once a great state......
Move out:
$15k - $30k
$45k - $55k
Move in:
$200k+
California is a great state. How do I know? Because of the demand to live there as shown by real estate prices.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-losing-low-income-people-gaining-wealthy-people-per-report-20180221-htmlstory.html
It is like if fewer people attempt to buy Warriors tickets because they are so expensive, it doesn't mean the Warriors are worse than before.
I would however question whether, for those who are not as fortunate as we are, an economic situation in a state that prevents them from having a reasonable place to live and eat at the same time doesn't make the state less desirable. It may make it more desirable for those like you if the unskilled labor are forced out, but those who are forced out may not share your opinion.
Ultimately, I think it is worthy of an eye roll for someone like dajo9 who argues how the rich are selfish to then make an argument that pricing out the less fortunate from a beautiful state is somehow a good thing.
I have never argued the rich are selfish. I have argued rich Republicans are selfish.
Don't get me wrong about housing. I would greatly increase taxes on the wealthy and use it to pay for healthcare and education for the poor. This would lower desirable real estate prices and free up money for rent for the poor. So go ahead and roll your eyes. Have fun.