dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

1. Fox lies and shapes their opinions WAY more than CNN. If you disagree, then we'll simply agree to disagree.
2. I wasn't calling for state owned TV. I propose some sort of standards surrounding how 99% of Americans get their data. There must be truth in journalism, in print or on air.
3. Architects, electricians, doctors, lawyers.... they all must obtain licenses to practice and must adhere to standards. Not the case for tv anchors or politicians.

The nation's future depends on us cleaning up our swamps - lest an even bolder swamp beast rise up again. Media (mis)informs and feeds the swamp. I mean, come on, we've now got Q followers in Congress. That's just whack!

---

The solution is already there. The problem is that many people have a quaint notion of free speech that predates the internet. You don't need government intervention. The solution is you sue the shyte out of anyone that defames you. The framers never intended free speech to cover accusing people and organizations of running sex trafficking cabals.

Look at what is going on with right wing networks that have Dominion on their tails. They are falling all over themselves issuing detailed retractions hoping to avoid a lawsuit. They know Dominion has them by the balls. They flat out lost track of keeping themselves legally protected.

The Qanon bullshyte should have been dealt with and hopefully the Democratic party has learned its lesson. They should sue every damned person they can track down that posted that they are drinking children's blood. I don't care if it is some guy with a laptop living in his van. Take his van away and throw him on the street. If you don't know how, ask Disney.

Both parties should be fielding legal teams and monitoring the internet and news networks for defamatory lies against them or their members. You want to call someone a socialist or a fascist, fine. That is opinion. You want to say they drink children's blood, Thank you for donating your house to the political party. Networks should be getting cease and desist letters daily until they relearn the difference between opinion and slander.

The first amendment does not give you the right to defame or defraud people. I'm not one who normally thinks the solution is more lawyers, but in this case, the solution is more lawyers.

---

This is a dangerous path in which the wealthy are protected and the common person is not. Trump would be fine with this strategy. It's why he wants to get rid of section 230. He and his rich buddies can sue everybody into submission. Common folks - not so much. Like how Peter Thiel took down Gawker. I'm sure lawyers and the rich would love it, but it's not a solution for our misinformation problem.

---

Okay, well then throw some other spaghetti on the wall if you don't like that one. I'm all ears.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

The point in this thread I created is not whether CA is dying or thriving, worth living in or not.
It was a complaint about the Rightist channels who bash CA for attempted political gain. It's an attempt to smear the Blue state. It's an attempt to drive non-Californians away from the allure of the greatest state.

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

I hear you.
My observation is, generally speaking, FoxNews and the GOP are haters, and they hate on anyone that is a threat.
Witness the hate at the Capitol if you want Exhibit A.
It was Trump/Pence 2016 and 2020. But then one little thing and all of a sudden they are yelling to Hang Mike Pence. It's the party of irrational hatred.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

What needs to happen is mass public campaigns against the advertisers who pay to be on fox.
Boycott those companies.
Cancel.
Vote with dollars.

---

You see CT, you are falling into the trap. CNN and the left are campaigning to have Fox--their competitor--pulled off the air and they've pulled you into the fold. I think CNN is garbage and I think they are complicit in the summer BLM riots but I would never, ever, advocate for them to come off the air, no matter what.

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left can't seem to stop at the point where their politics cross from advocacy to oppression.

---

BARF.
You think you get to speak for me, huh?
CNN secretly planted that idea in my head, eh, right?
And, jesus, I guess the "right" is the holy pure sanctuary, right?
VOMIT
PUKE.

No, I came up with that idea myself, because you can't pull the network off the air, but you CAN let them know that you don't like their stuff. That's completely fair - but I guess you have a problem with it?
Further, I DO think there should be some sort of regulation of all news providers to separate NEWS from OPINION. Both CNN and FOX have moved more into Opinion. Guests make derogatory statements about candidates on the other side, and this subconsciously biases viewers. I'd like there to be an overhaul of how it's done so that if a viewer is watching NEWS, it must only contain facts. Opinion views and vocabulary words must be curtailed. You want to switch to Opinion - fine - just don't call yourself News.

By the way, if you so turned off by CNN, then you can do your own boycott of their advertisers just the same.

---

Regulating a news station of any kind is oppression and un-American. Be careful what you wish for. That's what state-owned TV is for. That's what they've got in China and Russia.

Without knowing it, you cited the problem with CNN. They have gone from the go-to news source to just another biased outlet in search of eyeballs. Remember their coverage of 9/11 and the war against Al Qaida? Top notch. The standard. But they departed that model and made a deal with the devil. They'll never be what they used to be. Anderson Cooper needs to make appearances on 60 Minutes to do real investigative journalism that he used to be able to do on CNN. Comically, CNN touts Cuomo and Lemon as "anchors" and "journalists." Talk about not being able to separate news from opinion! CNN is clearly having trouble coming to terms with what they have become.

---

1. Fox lies and shapes their opinions WAY more than CNN. If you disagree, then we'll simply agree to disagree.
2. I wasn't calling for state owned TV. I propose some sort of standards surrounding how 99% of Americans get their data. There must be truth in journalism, in print or on air.
3. Architects, electricians, doctors, lawyers.... they all must obtain licenses to practice and must adhere to standards. Not the case for tv anchors or politicians.

The nation's future depends on us cleaning up our swamps - lest an even bolder swamp beast rise up again. Media (mis)informs and feeds the swamp. I mean, come on, we've now got Q followers in Congress. That's just whack!

---

The solution is already there. The problem is that many people have a quaint notion of free speech that predates the internet. You don't need government intervention. The solution is you sue the shyte out of anyone that defames you. The framers never intended free speech to cover accusing people and organizations of running sex trafficking cabals.

Look at what is going on with right wing networks that have Dominion on their tails. They are falling all over themselves issuing detailed retractions hoping to avoid a lawsuit. They know Dominion has them by the balls. They flat out lost track of keeping themselves legally protected.

The Qanon bullshyte should have been dealt with and hopefully the Democratic party has learned its lesson. They should sue every damned person they can track down that posted that they are drinking children's blood. I don't care if it is some guy with a laptop living in his van. Take his van away and throw him on the street. If you don't know how, ask Disney.

Both parties should be fielding legal teams and monitoring the internet and news networks for defamatory lies against them or their members. You want to call someone a socialist or a fascist, fine. That is opinion. You want to say they drink children's blood, Thank you for donating your house to the political party. Networks should be getting cease and desist letters daily until they relearn the difference between opinion and slander.

The first amendment does not give you the right to defame or defraud people. I'm not one who normally thinks the solution is more lawyers, but in this case, the solution is more lawyers.

---

This is a dangerous path in which the wealthy are protected and the common person is not. Trump would be fine with this strategy. It's why he wants to get rid of section 230. He and his rich buddies can sue everybody into submission. Common folks - not so much. Like how Peter Thiel took down Gawker. I'm sure lawyers and the rich would love it, but it's not a solution for our misinformation problem.

---

1. Don't be surprised if Dominion takes down Trump.

2. Trump can do it if he wants now

3. The main ones that would get nailed would be networks and their hosts that can't stop lying. The lawsuits would stop quickly because one or two big ones would have the corporate legal departments at every network all over the asses of the hosts to stop spreading conspiracy theories. Again, look at what Dominion did to Fox and Newsmax with just a cease and desist letter. Dominion is my hero. They are the first ones to have the guts to stand up for themselves.

4. You don't go after mildly kooky nut jobs on the internet. You go after people saying you drink children's blood

5. Trump doesn't have a clue what 230 does. Repealing it would hurt social media companies and he is mad at them.

6. The government cannot and will not regulate speech. Private entities have the right to protect themselves against conspiracies. It is hard to get judgments in these cases, so frankly people have avoided this Avenue. But out and out lies like you are running a sex trafficking ring is well outside the standard of protected speech

Like it or not, a couple high profile judgments is the only thing that will stop the straight up lying.

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

The point in this thread I created is not whether CA is dying or thriving, worth living in or not.
It was a complaint about the Rightist channels who bash CA for attempted political gain. It's an attempt to smear the Blue state. It's an attempt to drive non-Californians away from the allure of the greatest state.

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

---

This is true. My wife and I cringe every time we think about home price appreciation in California since we bought our house in New Jersey, which is basically flat.

We stand to inherit some property in California someday, but all the same we just bought a California property (shared with a family member). Part of the motivation is to have a stake in the game out there so when it comes time to retire in CA we are already in the market (there are other factors, but that is one of them).

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

it's also fashionable to blame California's taxes and policies for its recent exodus, since the numbers suggest business are leaving and taking jobs with them or that COVID restrictions have forced business failures and people to leave.

Another likely factor is the pandemic and the migration patterns of the state's large community of international immigrants (see, you can blame Trump too).

The data shows more people are dying and fewer people are having children in the State relative to all other stares. That's partly because California's population is getting older, leaving fewer people who are more likely to have kids.

But with all this whining, did more people leave California in 2020 than say 2019?

In recessions, I have seen California's population and job growth slow down, but usually those trends rebound. Something to think about the next time you here another dire report on the fate of California.

---

The point in this thread I created is not whether CA is dying or thriving, worth living in or not.
It was a complaint about the Rightist channels who bash CA for attempted political gain. It's an attempt to smear the Blue state. It's an attempt to drive non-Californians away from the allure of the greatest state.

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

First, I hope you are right.

Second, I want to thank those wild eyed conservative extremists at UC Berkley, who jumped on the bandwagon as the Institute of Governmental Studies found that 52% of the State's residents had given "serious" or "some" consideration to leaving - with most citing housing costs, taxes and political culture. 52% of the state is going to move or even thinking about it enough to act? Really? Glad I didn't waste money donating to the Institute of Governmental Studies.


Third, I just think this is a BS issue, that gets news (and academic) play in cycles. A lot of out migrationhas to do with economics, rather than subjective criteria like qualify of life or being with your political tribe, but everyone in the media and academics seems to have to insert their agenda these days. And the media is always late to the game. Out migration actually went down in 2020 versus 2019. Moreover, the State's population still grows albeit at a much smaller rate, which for the math majors makes a lot of sense, when you are talking about percentage change on a very big population base. Finally, the situation in Los Angeles is not the same as in San Francisco and certainly not the same as in somewhere like San Diego or Bakersfield. Oh, the media loves stories about whiny, cool techies, just such an easy target. But out migration for most folks simply is about job opportunity, the number 1 reason for out-migration according to the LA Times (not a Fox affiliate) citing an Anderson B-School Study. It also the number 1 reason people come to the State.

It also may be the number reason the California exodus articles again will die out (hopefully that it already is occurring) because it is an issue that lacks substance. Yes, maybe we still get articles on some entitled tech guy running away for some absurd reason. But if California's economy comes out of post-COVID booming, then more people will come, and if it stays in the doldrums, the exodus will grow. But the story will be about the California economy, which in the past has been the primary driver of State population trends.

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

---

Depends on what you are looking for, doesn't it? From a cash flow perspective, buying investment property in CA is difficult since the rent is not proportionately high as the purchase price. We bought a few residential properties during the financial crisis and bought a few condos in Silicon Beach about ten years ago. Great investments from an asset appreciation standpoint but I could probably collect more rent by buying cheaper property in other states but without the same asset appreciation. The only places that are better investments are Greenwich and Austin. As much as I loved living there earlier in my life, no one can pay me to live in NYC now.

All that being said, I will never move out of California. I may hate the liberal policies but I love the weather and the natural beauty. The only thing CA would need to worry about is movement of tech companies (whether out right or through expansion) and ignoring universities. New companies will follow where the talent is. If Austin and Seattle or even parts of NC start offering the same level competitive talent because of expansion of Google, Facebook, or because of Amazon or Microsoft etc, then culture and quality of life (other than weather) and property value will follow.

But I am not worried about people moving out. Unless they are massive departure from large tech companies, billionaires and million dollar wage earners who are funding a big part of the revenues (but those are the people who can pay more to enjoy the weather and culture), I am not worried.

sycasey said:

---

SFBear92 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Stuff like this certainly doesn't help: https://www.foxnews.com/us/san-francisco-school-board-votes-to-rename-schools-honoring-washington-lincoln-feinstein-others

They must have plenty of money since it will cost at least 400k to do this. Of course they wouldn't think of spending an equivalent amount of time to figure out how to get kids back into the classroom. They do what they think their constituents want them to do.

---

This doesn't seem like it will be very popular with constituents. Bad decision IMO.

---

I remain optimistic that when the public is fully engaged on the issue these morons will have their asses handed to them.

---

I can see an argument for it if the new names are going to be more reflective of the community the school is in, rather than honoring someone for being a hero. I agree with the guy who said schools shouldn't be named after people.

In accordance with that philosophy, I propose that Stanford University be named to Palo Alto University to avoid offending anyone who maybe thinks that Leland Stanford wasn't a hero. I also think Hoover Tower should be renamed as well.

---

If the argument is to have no schools named after people at all, I can see it. The approach taken by SFUSD seems considerably more willy-nilly than that. It's more like: find anything bad any of these people have done and recommend the name comes down. That's not a workable standard for naming things after historical figures.

---

Man, this story just gets worse. The board didn't consult a SINGLE historian.

Lowell High School is the most prestigious public high school in the city. It can count among its alumni one of the current Supreme Court Justices (no, not one of the Trump picks). The board voted to have it renamed. Why? Because according to one of the committee members he was against blacks having the right to vote. Except, he actually wasn't. It's documented that he supported freed slaves being able to vote. So the city's top high school is going to be renamed based on a falsehood. This is what happens when you don't do your homework. How ironic for a school board.

https://missionlocal.org/2021/01/the-san-francisco-school-districts-renaming-debacle-has-been-a-historic-travesty/

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Can't disagree with any of this. They deserve all the criticism they're going to get.

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

---

Good story.
Some might call that a bubble about to pop.
But they don't get that fresh pacific air, do they?

dajo9 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

---

This is true. My wife and I cringe every time we think about home price appreciation in California since we bought our house in New Jersey, which is basically flat.

We stand to inherit some property in California someday, but all the same we just bought a California property (shared with a family member). Part of the motivation is to have a stake in the game out there so when it comes time to retire in CA we are already in the market (there are other factors, but that is one of them).

---

Good luck with that.
(No sarcasm.)

BlueAnon said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Can't disagree with any of this. They deserve all the criticism they're going to get.

---

That's mighty white of you

---

Here's an idea for a school name: "the F- You, mother f-ers, we hate racist slavery bigots high school."

What should their mascot be?

concordtom said:

---

BlueAnon said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Can't disagree with any of this. They deserve all the criticism they're going to get.

---

That's mighty white of you

---

Here's an idea for a school name: "the F- You, mother f-ers, we hate racist slavery bigots high school."

What should their mascot be?

---

21st century Americans

ABC news Bay Area has a segment on California dreaming. About the trend of leaving. Each night this week or available about for full download or stream right now.

BlueAnon said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Can't disagree with any of this. They deserve all the criticism they're going to get.

---

That's mighty white of you

---

Remind me, Yogi, do you think Democrats are too woke or not woke enough? It seems like your position has shifted a lot here.

Anarchistbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BlueAnon said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

---

Can't disagree with any of this. They deserve all the criticism they're going to get.

---

That's mighty white of you

---

Here's an idea for a school name: "the F- You, mother f-ers, we hate racist slavery bigots high school."

What should their mascot be?

---

Ken and Karen two professionals in a white suburb

---

The irony is that this board is almost all Ken's (I would add Asian to White lf my suburb is representative)

calbear93 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Tom, all media sources are jumping on the band wagon. It's the hot topic. It may be kindler and gentler when coming from Bay Area newspapers or the LA Times, NPR, or whoever, but it is fashionable and they all care about ratings. You are seeing conspiracies, where none exist. A year from now no one will remember.

---

Actually, we might be coming to the end to this cycle. I've already seen a couple "they moved from California and they regret it because X place is a pile of shyte" articles. That is usually the last phase to the annual "everyone is leaving California " storyline.

---

I bought a house in Alabama from a relative in distress. It was a 3000 square foot Craftsman in a Historic District. Lots of the neighbors were dentists and lawyers, so it wasn't a bad area although People of Means generally built new custom homes by the golf course instead of buying an old Craftsman or Victorian.

At the time my relative bought it it was worth about $130K. When I bought it the market value was about $100K. I sold it for about $110K after a few years. It has been about 10 years now and the market value is now about $150K.

So, yeah, the real estate is cheap in some places out-of-state. Meanwhile, I am sure you know what has happened to real estate prices in California...

I can completely understand why people renting in California might want to leave to buy a home in another state, but I think anyone who owns a home here (even with a mortgage on it) is a fool to sell it and leave.

---

Depends on what you are looking for, doesn't it? From a cash flow perspective, buying investment property in CA is difficult since the rent is not proportionately high as the purchase price. We bought a few residential properties during the financial crisis and bought a few condos in Silicon Beach about ten years ago. Great investments from an asset appreciation standpoint but I could probably collect more rent by buying cheaper property in other states but without the same asset appreciation. The only places that are better investments are Greenwich and Austin. As much as I loved living there earlier in my life, no one can pay me to live in NYC now.

All that being said, I will never move out of California. I may hate the liberal policies but I love the weather and the natural beauty. The only thing CA would need to worry about is movement of tech companies (whether out right or through expansion) and ignoring universities. New companies will follow where the talent is. If Austin and Seattle or even parts of NC start offering the same level competitive talent because of expansion of Google, Facebook, or because of Amazon or Microsoft etc, then culture and quality of life (other than weather) and property value will follow.

But I am not worried about people moving out. Unless they are massive departure from large tech companies, billionaires and million dollar wage earners who are funding a big part of the revenues (but those are the people who can pay more to enjoy the weather and culture), I am not worried.

---

I'm only responding to the real estate investment side. With one exception, there are way too many real estate segments and localities to even come close to a generalization. In SoCal most retail and office, to the extent marketable, has seen a significant increase in cap rates that in normal times is competitive (if not even better) than investing in urban markets in Utah and Arizona, to pick some neighboring states with strong economies. Then again if you have the old fashioned properties with a grocery store, pharmacy or home Improvement type majors which arguably were on the wane before COVID, your cap rates, whether in or outside California have gone down. Medical and certain office has had cap rates have gone down. Industrial is all over the place depending on actual local real estate factors (and generally it is a good market segment to be in). The one thing that generally has disappeared over the years. is the premium for CA commercial properties, except in discrete luxury areas such as say West LA (the Bay Area is similar except it has greater number of luxury areas).

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS single family residence (SFR) investors are facing with the lowest cap rates in the nation, and is doesn't even vary that much by city or location. In the major metro areas, the SFR cap rate varies from 2.7 San Jose to 3.2 in San Diego, which is very little considering how different the markets in these area vary AND EXCEEDING LOW. SFR cap rates are so low here, partly due to the expectation that home values will increase quickly enough for investors to make a big profit. Investors have gotten recklessly complacent about accepting lower cap rates with annual yield is barely enough to make up for even minor property improvements since they are looking forward to the profit on the sale. Multi-family rates are artificially high reign now due to COVID moratoriums on evictions, but sill are low relative to the rest of the nation. Everyone in real estate see's a correction coming in residential housing in California. And everyone has been saying that for what, about 7 to 10 years now? This is why I giggle every time I hear about the great California exodus. Capital is voting on even more people needing housing here while the idiots in the media are taking about everyone leaving. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

wifeisafurd said:

---

(the Bay Area is similar except it has greater number of luxury areas).

---

Thank you for settling the NorCal vs SoCal debate.
I will henceforth quote you when it next comes up:

"NorCal > SoCal."
-wife

wifeisafurd said:

---

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS single family residence (SFR) investors are facing with the lowest cap rates in the nation, and is doesn't even vary that much by city or location. In the major metro areas, the SFR cap rate varies from 2.7 San Jose to 3.2 in San Diego, which is very little considering how different the markets in these area vary AND EXCEEDING LOW. SFR cap rates are so low here, partly due to the expectation that home values will increase quickly enough for investors to make a big profit. Investors have gotten recklessly complacent about accepting lower cap rates with annual yield is barely enough to make up for even minor property improvements since they are looking forward to the profit on the sale. Multi-family rates are artificially high reign now due to COVID moratoriums on evictions, but sill are low relative to the rest of the nation. Everyone in real estate see's a correction coming in residential housing in California. And everyone has been saying that for what, about 7 to 10 years now? This is why I giggle every time I hear about the great California exodus. Capital is voting on even more people needing housing here while the idiots in the media are taking about everyone leaving. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

---

Or, maybe there is simply an excess of Capital in California. "Irrational exuberance" bidding up properties beyond the national mean.
Maybe that California capital doesn't want to invest in Boise so much as down the street. Could be laziness or home region arrogance just the same.
Or, maybe you are saying that an RE investment is like investing in a dividend paying stock: the rent you collect is your dividend. The upward price appreciation of the RE is the price of the stock going up. Expectations are that CA RE will see both increased dividends (rents) and increased buy-in pricing as well.

Hmmmm.

By the way, thanks: https://www.coachcarson.com/cap-rate/#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20Cap%20Rate,Income%20(NOI)%20%C3%B7%20Purchase%20Price

I'm at a buy/sell decision point for my old SFR in Concord.

BTW: What was your opinion of Prop 19?

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS single family residence (SFR) investors are facing with the lowest cap rates in the nation, and is doesn't even vary that much by city or location. In the major metro areas, the SFR cap rate varies from 2.7 San Jose to 3.2 in San Diego, which is very little considering how different the markets in these area vary AND EXCEEDING LOW. SFR cap rates are so low here, partly due to the expectation that home values will increase quickly enough for investors to make a big profit. Investors have gotten recklessly complacent about accepting lower cap rates with annual yield is barely enough to make up for even minor property improvements since they are looking forward to the profit on the sale. Multi-family rates are artificially high reign now due to COVID moratoriums on evictions, but sill are low relative to the rest of the nation. Everyone in real estate see's a correction coming in residential housing in California. And everyone has been saying that for what, about 7 to 10 years now? This is why I giggle every time I hear about the great California exodus. Capital is voting on even more people needing housing here while the idiots in the media are taking about everyone leaving. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

---

Or, maybe there is simply an excess of Capital in California. "Irrational exuberance" bidding up properties beyond the national mean.
Maybe that California capital doesn't want to invest in Boise so much as down the street. Could be laziness or home region arrogance just the same.
Or, maybe you are saying that an RE investment is like investing in a dividend paying stock: the rent you collect is your dividend. The upward price appreciation of the RE is the price of the stock going up. Expectations are that CA RE will see both increased dividends (rents) and increased buy-in pricing as well.

Hmmmm.

By the way, thanks: https://www.coachcarson.com/cap-rate/#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20Cap%20Rate,Income%20(NOI)%20%C3%B7%20Purchase%20Price

I'm at a buy/sell decision point for my old SFR in Concord.

---

I think you are saying different things about residential real estate capital that are not consistent. Capital is exuberant to California, no like a dividend paying stock, no wait a minute maybe good for appreciation (it's a growth stock?).

I would stay away from anyone who thinks investing in real estate is even remotely comparable to stocks. Real estate and stocks have different risks and opportunities. Real estate is not even close to as liquid as stocks and tends to require more money and time. Real estate can be leveraged, but that also ups the risk. For the same amount of money you can become much more diversified in stocks. It is an apples-to-oranges comparisonthe factors that affect prices, values, risk and returns are very different.


Capital is leaving California precipitously in real estate, other than in the residential sector, where it coming in from elsewhere, or at least so I am told. Increases in cap rates on commercial California real estate relative to its neighbors and nationally on commercial and decreases in residential reflect that. And the comment about investing down the street makes no sense to me in the real estate investment context. Almost all the largest domestic commercial and residential investors are not based in California. This is not VC world. That said, there is plenty of money in California, and some of it probably on the sidelines, but some clearly is leaving in the commercial segment to neighboring states: California Commercial Real Estate News 2020 | Radius ...www.radiusgroup.com california-commercial-real-est...This seems at odds with regionalism - at least in the commercial context.

Conversely, I think you will find that most experts are now predicting a 5 to 10% increase (Zillow predicted 11%) in California home prices in 2021 led by suburban housing. Many companies will likely have a higher percentage of remote workers than in-office and the State is basically stagnant in housing starts, meaning more upward pressure on home prices. SFR cap rates are expected to continue to decrease overall as well - don't expect people to sell in mass. If California were a country, it would have the fifth highest GDP in the world. People are not leaving in mass despite all the complaining. Again, it real easy to see what is hot and what is not in real estate by people who are in the business of investing in residential real estate- look at the cap rates. Here is one well known group's analysis.
California Housing Market Forecast 2021 | Real Estate ...managecasa.com articles california-housing-market-...

Now there are no guaranties. Residential real estate is impacted by a ton of things beyond the investors' control: macroeconomic factors and micro things like what is happening with the specific house and neighborhood. But right now buying that old house of yours in the burbs probably gets a green light in the short term - all things being equal - due to expected appreciation and locking in low interest rates if you are financing. Just don't look at it like a stock investment you can go in and out of. My two cents (and it may be worth less than that in a week).

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(the Bay Area is similar except it has greater number of luxury areas).

---

Thank you for settling the NorCal vs SoCal debate.
I will henceforth quote you when it next comes up:

"NorCal > SoCal."
-wife

---

Residential housing costs way more in the Bay Area. Is that in even in debate? There must be thousands of studies....

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

(the Bay Area is similar except it has greater number of luxury areas).

---

Thank you for settling the NorCal vs SoCal debate.
I will henceforth quote you when it next comes up:

"NorCal > SoCal."
-wife

---

Residential housing costs way more in the Bay Area. Is that in even in debate? There must be thousands of studies....

---

Nothing here - I was just making a joke. In San Diego, my LA friends would tease me that NorCal was "no" Cal, while SoCal was "SOOO" Cal.

And while I don't know Dana Point, I have driven PCH down by Laguna Nigel and decided that could be a place I could live happily. And there's nothing like that in NorCal, so.... Just having fun...

concordtom said:

---

BTW: What was your opinion of Prop 19?

---

here is a good primer on what Prop 19 did since you are in the market for a new house.
California Proposition 19: What Does This Mean for Property ...www.jdsupra.com legalnews california-proposition-...

There are winners and losers. I typically don't like ballot propositions because I think they typically are bad policy, That said, Prop 15 id now law so it doesn't matter what I think.

Democrats Suck said:

---

---

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/S-F-high-school-students-get-a-lesson-in-subtle-15909700.php

University of California ties

Considering population and migration patterns, whether intra-state, between nations, or between the sheets, this talk by the authors of the book Empty Planet was really interesting.

Summary:
Myth is that Earth's population growth is like a runaway train - exponential hockey stick explosion.
Truth is that people worldwide are urbanizing, and in doing so choose to have fewer children as a lifestyle choice. Replacement rate is 2.1 kids per woman. Taiwan is 1.1, Portugal is 1.28 - these countries are shrinking. Europe is 1.6, North America is 1.85. Latin America is just 2.14, while all of Asia is just 2.2!
Only Africa is rapidly growing, at 4.7 kids per woman.

BTW: if you are thinking - "USA can't be below replacement rate because I know the population is increasing", that's because of:
1. people living longer.
2. people immigrating into the US.

These birthrate #'s underlie HUGE economic repercussions, because:
#1 factor in GDP growth is consumption, and the
#1 factor in Consumption is Population.
THEREFORE, if you have shrinking population, all else equal you have a shrinking GDP.
And so, if you want to grow your economy, you'll want to grow your population.

Many today have become xenophobic and anti-immigration (aka racist), but the correct view per economics interests is to invite and attract immigrants so they can be the engine for future economic expansion via consumption (demand) and production (supply).

Fortunately, the USA stands to be a winner in the global competition for immigrants. Lots of people want to move here not just for our current positive economic state but because we are a multicultural society (for the most part and increasingly so).

TRANSLATION: If you are Pro-Wall and anti-immigration, you are ANTI-American, Anti-US Economics.

Have fun sorting the various columns here and seeing how birthrates have changed over the last 70 years globally. Good stuff!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_fertility_rate#List_of_regions

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS single family residence (SFR) investors are facing with the lowest cap rates in the nation, and is doesn't even vary that much by city or location. In the major metro areas, the SFR cap rate varies from 2.7 San Jose to 3.2 in San Diego, which is very little considering how different the markets in these area vary AND EXCEEDING LOW. SFR cap rates are so low here, partly due to the expectation that home values will increase quickly enough for investors to make a big profit. Investors have gotten recklessly complacent about accepting lower cap rates with annual yield is barely enough to make up for even minor property improvements since they are looking forward to the profit on the sale. Multi-family rates are artificially high reign now due to COVID moratoriums on evictions, but sill are low relative to the rest of the nation. Everyone in real estate see's a correction coming in residential housing in California. And everyone has been saying that for what, about 7 to 10 years now? This is why I giggle every time I hear about the great California exodus. Capital is voting on even more people needing housing here while the idiots in the media are taking about everyone leaving. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

---

Or, maybe there is simply an excess of Capital in California. "Irrational exuberance" bidding up properties beyond the national mean.
Maybe that California capital doesn't want to invest in Boise so much as down the street. Could be laziness or home region arrogance just the same.
Or, maybe you are saying that an RE investment is like investing in a dividend paying stock: the rent you collect is your dividend. The upward price appreciation of the RE is the price of the stock going up. Expectations are that CA RE will see both increased dividends (rents) and increased buy-in pricing as well.

Hmmmm.

By the way, thanks: https://www.coachcarson.com/cap-rate/#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20Cap%20Rate,Income%20(NOI)%20%C3%B7%20Purchase%20Price

I'm at a buy/sell decision point for my old SFR in Concord.

---

I think you are saying different things about residential real estate capital that are not consistent. Capital is exuberant to California, no like a dividend paying stock, no wait a minute maybe good for appreciation (it's a growth stock?).

I would stay away from anyone who thinks investing in real estate is even remotely comparable to stocks. Real estate and stocks have different risks and opportunities. Real estate is not even close to as liquid as stocks and tends to require more money and time. Real estate can be leveraged, but that also ups the risk. For the same amount of money you can become much more diversified in stocks. It is an apples-to-oranges comparisonthe factors that affect prices, values, risk and returns are very different.


Capital is leaving California precipitously in real estate, other than in the residential sector, where it coming in from elsewhere, or at least so I am told. Increases in cap rates on commercial California real estate relative to its neighbors and nationally on commercial and decreases in residential reflect that. And the comment about investing down the street makes no sense to me in the real estate investment context. Almost all the largest domestic commercial and residential investors are not based in California. This is not VC world. That said, there is plenty of money in California, and some of it probably on the sidelines, but some clearly is leaving in the commercial segment to neighboring states: California Commercial Real Estate News 2020 | Radius ...www.radiusgroup.com california-commercial-real-est...This seems at odds with regionalism - at least in the commercial context.

Conversely, I think you will find that most experts are now predicting a 5 to 10% increase (Zillow predicted 11%) in California home prices in 2021 led by suburban housing. Many companies will likely have a higher percentage of remote workers than in-office and the State is basically stagnant in housing starts, meaning more upward pressure on home prices. SFR cap rates are expected to continue to decrease overall as well - don't expect people to sell in mass. If California were a country, it would have the fifth highest GDP in the world. People are not leaving in mass despite all the complaining. Again, it real easy to see what is hot and what is not in real estate by people who are in the business of investing in residential real estate- look at the cap rates. Here is one well known group's analysis.
California Housing Market Forecast 2021 | Real Estate ...managecasa.com articles california-housing-market-...

Now there are no guaranties. Residential real estate is impacted by a ton of things beyond the investors' control: macroeconomic factors and micro things like what is happening with the specific house and neighborhood. But right now buying that old house of yours in the burbs probably gets a green light in the short term - all things being equal - due to expected appreciation and locking in low interest rates if you are financing. Just don't look at it like a stock investment you can go in and out of. My two cents (and it may be worth less than that in a week).

---

Thanks for the link. It says Bay Area homes are up 50% in one year? What the hell? L.A. is up a paltry 30%? These numbers are wild. Also seems to be skewed by high sales in luxury homes relatively, but still. What the hell.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

concordtom said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS IS single family residence (SFR) investors are facing with the lowest cap rates in the nation, and is doesn't even vary that much by city or location. In the major metro areas, the SFR cap rate varies from 2.7 San Jose to 3.2 in San Diego, which is very little considering how different the markets in these area vary AND EXCEEDING LOW. SFR cap rates are so low here, partly due to the expectation that home values will increase quickly enough for investors to make a big profit. Investors have gotten recklessly complacent about accepting lower cap rates with annual yield is barely enough to make up for even minor property improvements since they are looking forward to the profit on the sale. Multi-family rates are artificially high reign now due to COVID moratoriums on evictions, but sill are low relative to the rest of the nation. Everyone in real estate see's a correction coming in residential housing in California. And everyone has been saying that for what, about 7 to 10 years now? This is why I giggle every time I hear about the great California exodus. Capital is voting on even more people needing housing here while the idiots in the media are taking about everyone leaving. Who would you think is more likely to be right?

---

Or, maybe there is simply an excess of Capital in California. "Irrational exuberance" bidding up properties beyond the national mean.
Maybe that California capital doesn't want to invest in Boise so much as down the street. Could be laziness or home region arrogance just the same.
Or, maybe you are saying that an RE investment is like investing in a dividend paying stock: the rent you collect is your dividend. The upward price appreciation of the RE is the price of the stock going up. Expectations are that CA RE will see both increased dividends (rents) and increased buy-in pricing as well.

Hmmmm.

By the way, thanks: https://www.coachcarson.com/cap-rate/#:~:text=What%20Is%20a%20Cap%20Rate,Income%20(NOI)%20%C3%B7%20Purchase%20Price

I'm at a buy/sell decision point for my old SFR in Concord.

---

I think you are saying different things about residential real estate capital that are not consistent. Capital is exuberant to California, no like a dividend paying stock, no wait a minute maybe good for appreciation (it's a growth stock?).

I would stay away from anyone who thinks investing in real estate is even remotely comparable to stocks. Real estate and stocks have different risks and opportunities. Real estate is not even close to as liquid as stocks and tends to require more money and time. Real estate can be leveraged, but that also ups the risk. For the same amount of money you can become much more diversified in stocks. It is an apples-to-oranges comparisonthe factors that affect prices, values, risk and returns are very different.


Capital is leaving California precipitously in real estate, other than in the residential sector, where it coming in from elsewhere, or at least so I am told. Increases in cap rates on commercial California real estate relative to its neighbors and nationally on commercial and decreases in residential reflect that. And the comment about investing down the street makes no sense to me in the real estate investment context. Almost all the largest domestic commercial and residential investors are not based in California. This is not VC world. That said, there is plenty of money in California, and some of it probably on the sidelines, but some clearly is leaving in the commercial segment to neighboring states: California Commercial Real Estate News 2020 | Radius ...www.radiusgroup.com california-commercial-real-est...This seems at odds with regionalism - at least in the commercial context.

Conversely, I think you will find that most experts are now predicting a 5 to 10% increase (Zillow predicted 11%) in California home prices in 2021 led by suburban housing. Many companies will likely have a higher percentage of remote workers than in-office and the State is basically stagnant in housing starts, meaning more upward pressure on home prices. SFR cap rates are expected to continue to decrease overall as well - don't expect people to sell in mass. If California were a country, it would have the fifth highest GDP in the world. People are not leaving in mass despite all the complaining. Again, it real easy to see what is hot and what is not in real estate by people who are in the business of investing in residential real estate- look at the cap rates. Here is one well known group's analysis.
California Housing Market Forecast 2021 | Real Estate ...managecasa.com articles california-housing-market-...

Now there are no guaranties. Residential real estate is impacted by a ton of things beyond the investors' control: macroeconomic factors and micro things like what is happening with the specific house and neighborhood. But right now buying that old house of yours in the burbs probably gets a green light in the short term - all things being equal - due to expected appreciation and locking in low interest rates if you are financing. Just don't look at it like a stock investment you can go in and out of. My two cents (and it may be worth less than that in a week).

---

Thanks for the link. It says Bay Area homes are up 50% in one year? What the hell? L.A. is up a paltry 30%? These numbers are wild. Also seems to be skewed by high sales in luxury homes relatively, but still. What the hell.

---

Must be all the people leaving and accepting fire sale prices to get out ASAP!

More follow-up from the SF School Board about their renaming decision. Here's an interview with the head of the board:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-san-francisco-renamed-its-schools

It's . . . pure gobbledygook. She mounted zero defense of her position and retreated into buzzwords and jargon whenever possible. If I still lived in SF I'd be ready to vote out every member of that board.