Cue all the complaints about the entrenched residents in their Prop 13 homes or rent-controlled units, building permits and red tape nightmares. Yes, there is a problem. You not making it and having to move away (after moving there 2 or 3 years ago) is not the problem. Look at it this way, the system is working for 80-90% of the long-term residents, and they're aware of the hardships for the disadvantaged among them. Why should they go out of their way to accomodate conservatives who want to undermine their tax-and-spend heaven?

As for the Democrats who leave CA and vote Democrat elsewhere, why not? They didn't get in early enough on this wealth train (OK, jokes about CAHSR will be tolerated), so they're going somewhere else, and trying to get it started there. CA is defined by excess of liberal values, elswhere by lack, so they're just trying to bring some moderation. They won't be very successful, and I will tell them not to go whining about the conservative values in their new home, so there.

California just is. It's the world's 4th largest economy by itself. For good or ill, it's home to so many internet companies (and other industries) that have made so much money in the internet revolution that it has skewed its cost-of-living and real-estate markets off the charts. It has made many of its residents fabulously weathly, both in relative and absolute terms, and they want to stay and enjoy it mostly the way it is. In SF/SV, it has redefined middle-class at around 300K combined income, and that money (at least what's not dedicated to housing) drives a lot of other sectors (public transit, restaurants, and other quality-of-life businesses). Yeah, I know, all those have issues and/or are overpriced, no need to comment to say that. It also leans very liberal in the coastal cities, meaning tolerance, compassion, social justice, sanctuary, etc. It seems like they still have a democracy, and since they're still the majority, they get to keep experimenting. It's not going anywhere, and it's not going to change much, and certainly not because of the whining. Deal with it.

The Catalonians wanting to separate is also nationalism, despite the proposed country not existing.

Florida's Downsides: Homeless are more aggressive than in SF. Florida Man. Frequently 10% sales tax in most places due to lack of income tax. Higher property taxes if you're in a really progressive area. You're swapping out earthquakes for hurricanes. A lot of "Keeping up with the Jones'" mentality here. Not a great place for tech.

I and my wife have 2 years of run away. Wait for my kid to finish the pre-school cycle, after which we are out of here.

We have already begun to look into alternatives and evaluating pro/cons and yes Texas comes as one of the top choices along with Colorado.

Reports I've seen is that the state should see an increase in population in the 2020 census. Last time that happened would have been perhaps in the early nineties.

It shouldn't be too surprising: California and New York are in top 5 by population size.

ps - their use of "hemorrhaging" to describe movement of people feels inappropriate.

I know after the 2020 census Ohio is predicted to lose at least 1 house seat and lose some of the federal funds. Looks like Ohio is attracting more immigrants from other countries, than people from other states.

Really think it's a shame tech is so centralized in a handful of cities, but I do see things like warm weather and walkability attracting people. I'd love to live somewhere where I wouldn't be far from my office, places to eat and shop without needing a car. I figured maybe around where the domain in Austin would be a cool place to live maybe. Seems like it's cheap to live in Ohio but not much to do other than drinking, playing video games, bowling or doing drugs (Dayton was ranked top city for heroin overdoses) and not that many jobs in tech, and then even huge loss in manufacturing too.

I know people say Austin is the next Silicon Valley, but I feel like the cost of living for housing keeps going up, so sounds like going to have similar problems as in California. I'm surprised tech companies don't invest big in the midwest, Google could probably buy an entire city if they wanted to but not sure if they'd attract a lot of workers. But it's interesting to watch migration patterns, I guess tech is the new gold rush. Seems like sometimes you have to vote with your feet.

I was thinking Utah would be a nice place to live since the mountains are pretty, and was surprised to learn they have only a flat 5% tax rate, and no city income taxes either as I thought every state also had cities taxing people. While Ohio you have state, city, school district(some are done based on income as a %, while other districts use property taxes), and then if you own a business or self employed making enough (maybe you're a lawyer who decided to work independently grossing enough to qualify for paying it) there's a business activity tax. So I think a simpler tax structure would be nice. I kinda feel there should just be one tax only to simplify things, and let the cities or states argue over who gets what. Then some tax software won't even help with city taxes, I think Michigan that's the case since cities haven't standardized on things, I know there was a proposal in Ohio for the state to collect city taxes on the city behalf and redistribute them to the cities while charging the cities a service fee but the cities didn't like that idea. I know some cities go as high as 2.5% percent, I think it's a little insane some cities with less population and square miles of Utah needs to collect half of what the entire state of Utah collects, makes me feel like there's a lot of waste or people are paid too highly working for the city.

A major reason for SV being where it is, is the climate. A number of studies have been done on this. The best place for high-quality entrepreneurship and general civilization-building is a Mediterranean climate. The Bay is not the only place with this property. Most of coastal California has the same climate. So why don't some VCs move to other places? How about Monterey? Orange County?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate

The tech industry has metastasized, overthrown the culture, and drained the soul out of the place. The ethos and pathos of the tech industry have undergone a transformation from creation to extraction. We shot for the moon and got surveillance capitalism and the "gig economy" instead.

Now everybody here is "the right type of people". You can be whoever you want, so long as it's sustainable and organic.

No?

Here’s one from Entrepreneur: https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/284063

New York Times article saying companies are hemorrhaging money: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/25/health/antibiotics-new-re...

CBS Sports talking about how a football team is hemorrhaging players: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/cowboys-vs-eagles-injurie...

Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-investors-dont-care-that-sn...

LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bus-ridership-f...

Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-laments-hemorrhaging-of-p...

The Motley Fool: https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/07/24/without-nest-alpha...

Miami aquifer sea water intrusion is a different issue, but I’m not in Miami. Due to Florida’s population, federal funds are likely to be requested and paid out to mitigate the worst effects. Plenty of water to desal with cheap wind and solar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-servic...

Some of them might do well in such a setting.

But more than a few of them would be disruptive and ruin the land and ruin it for everyone else.

There are plenty of articles and videos about what ends up happening to these encampments- they turn into dumps with piles of used needles and lots of human waste. The last thing you'd want is something catching fire and spreading.

Generally, most habitable 'live off the land' type of places are spoken for already, no nearby property owners are going to approve of such a 'zone'.

That link looks good - cheers.

Here are the downsides of NYC that I don't miss (relative to Austin):

- High income tax

- Far from anything west coast (skiing, mountains, outdoors, SF/LA, etc)

- Cold winters. Much easier to get to the caribean in the winter.

- Hard to get "out" of the city during the summer that doesn't have stupid logistics (e.g. hamptons). You can get to one of the lakes 15~60 min depending on where you live in Austin.

- Everyone talks about work (austin, people don't care what you do for a living)

Downsides of Austin:

- It's a small town. If you're social, you'll know everyone in about a year.

- Opportunity is limited.

- Satellite airport (gotta connect via HOU and DFW)

- Summers get HOT.

Even if it's just for a few years, the amount of money you can save up by living in these high COL cities is insane (for tech workers at least)

Honestly, part of it is I don't know how long that's going to be true. If we have a sudden tech bust, I'd rather be sitting on a large amount of savings and trying to find work anywhere it pops up than on a smaller amount that won't sustain me if I have to move to a high CoL area

We're finding it tough to live in a city with two kids, and we'd prefer to live somewhere with a lower cost of living.

If you choose to live close enough to a train station, almost everything of interest is within 20-40 mins by train. Subway is not exactly great, but it's safe and works around the clock in most places. (To say nothing of the fact that in most places the daily necessities are within walking distance, even in not-so-dense Brooklyn.)

It makes places in Brooklyn, Queens, New Jersey, and Long Island accessible with a reasonable commute.

Even in Manhattan, though, the rents are similar to SF but we've found you get slightly more for it.

I only made this comment because it seems to be feeding into exterminationist sentiments among the wealthy and homeowners. As I pointed out, this led to an attack on an encampment in my old neighborhood.

"Suppose the house price drops" is a very non-specific hypothetical. Why would the house price drop, and what impact could that have on homelessness?

A drop in housing prices doesn't immediately fix any of those things, but it unlocks some options. Looking at Zillow, rent of a 1 bedroom unit is around $2000/mo (put another way, that's 100% of the income of a person working at minimum wage), that's just an impossible situation.

If housing prices come down, rents come down, the most functional 1/3 of the homeless population gets off the street, resources can be applied to the more difficult cases, etc.

Not an economist. But many of us perceive that in the US today the middle class is contracting. A few people from that class may migrate to the upper class-- good for them-- but probably the overwhelming majority of folks migrate downwards.

So if OP means that in a context where there is a lot of quite expensive real estate you would expect also to find a good number of people who are so marginalized that they are living in their cars or on the streets, then yes, they are linked.

For those already homeless, special assistance will be required to get them back into "moneyed" society. However, a lower entry point to homeownership would make this assistance less costly.

However, I presume that you will not be choosing to move to a rural county. Houston has the worlds largest medical center and the neighborhood where I live has some of the best public schools in the country.

The web sites and newspapers that rank cities do so by using some sort of strange linear combination of factors, like so many points for having four distinct seasons and so many points for having professional sports teams and so many negative points for having more police per capita, etc.

I think that the best way to judge location attractiveness is to look at how people vote with their feet. The states that have a net gain in population have been judged to be better places to live.

If you're living and working in California, there's not a whole lot of difference in taxation between a part-year resident and a non-resident who happens to be working in the state often; it's more of a problem when California considers you a full year resident and you're actually working somewhere else. For residents, during the period of residency, all income is treated as California source income, but for non-residents, California only taxes income that is actually from a California source (basically earned income from working in California, or gains on property in California).

Even if you're considered a resident during YC, you wouldn't be taxed on non-California source income before you moved in, or after you moved out. It's usually not a problem when you legitimately move; it's more of a problem when you keep a house in California, and visit frequently, and still get your hair cut in California, still vote in California, etc... Or in the case that you move overseas --- there's a presumption for US citizens that an overseas move is not a permanent move, and that when you come back, you'll return to the last state that you resided in, and many states with all-source taxation for residents will make a strong suggestion that you're still a resident, until you establish residency in another state.

Upstate New Yorkers also works fine as an alternative.

Michigan has it easy with their conveniently hand-shaped state. NYS but not NYC is a pain to describe.

Or more simply, “money laundering”.

The rezoning and redevelopment of the queens and brooklyn waterfronts brought a ton of new high rise condos with it. I live in northern brooklyn and there's a new condo building being built on almost every block. At the same time there's more vacant storefronts than I've ever seen and the only businesses getting by are coffee shops, hair salons and trendy modern american restaurants that charge $18 for burgers and fries.

Commercial real estate has gone up a lot as well and has led to a ton of vacant retail space. My father had a carpentry shop in bushwick and just had his land lord triple their rent.

A couple weeks ago one of my cars was vandalized (hood was etched). The last time I talked to a body shop about getting a hood repainted I was told to expect to pay at least $600-$800. I'd expect by now the total cost will be over a grand. For all of the whining about Prop 47 (not from you specifically), do you really think the vandal was cognizant of the threshold for felony vandalism? Do you really think that they were trying to create just under $950 worth of damage? I sure don't. Hell, I don't even think that person deserves to spend in excess of a year in jail over this.

Prop 47 only encourages crime because we've moved into "police won't enforce the laws on the books" territory.

I lived in Los Angeles in the early 90s for two years, and visited frequently through the rest of the decade. Experienced petty crime on at least 3 occasions, had a few close calls with violent crime, saw the Rodney King riots unfold, and heard some pretty crazy stories.

I've spent the last 8 years in LA... I've experienced zero instances of petty crime. I know it's not gone from some conversations I've had and everyone here has their take on LA's various problems, but across demographics nearly everyone I know agrees that this city is definitely a safer, more chill, higher quality of life place than it was 20-30 years ago. Except in one regard: housing is less affordable -- how much less depends on which boom/bust cycle you're looking at and who you're looking at, but definitely less affordable. So, not coincidentally, homelessness has become a much more serious issue.

The weirdest thing is that this is apparently happening with a net outflow from the state. Rents up over 60% with a stable/decreasing demand pool for housing is an odd dynamic and likely means this is no ordinary supply problem.

I can't speak to the Bay Area or the rest of California, but that's what things look like in LA.

I did see this pattern in SF though, minor crimes go largely ignored.

If [x] has a low crime rate, that's just because people aren't reporting crimes.

Yes, for a family making $85K, having an extra $3-4K in your pocket every year is a big deal.

While many congressional districts in the city proper are dominated by Democrats, the suburbs usually go to the Republicans.

Austins problems (super high housing costs, homelessness) are often trotted out as an example of Democratic policies being the source of California’s problems.

Groceries were very expensive for me, and I tried to shop smart with Trader Joe's and Luckys (cheaper than Safeway/Sprouts/Whole foods). I would go to others for small things, but majority shopping there.

Here I live near a Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Safeway, and a local chain call Metropolitan Market, which is like Whole foods 1000x better, but also very expensie.

My grocery budget is the same, but i spend less. For a $150 in groceries in California, I am paying about $110ish for the same things.

So maybe its a Bay Area thing, but I am just paying less somehow.

If you moved states to escape a problem and the problem followed you you'd be pissed too.

I hated the way SoCal was always sunny, always the same weather, mostly the same temperature, and no interesting weather events. I hated how whenever it rained it made the evening news. I found that days blended into each other, weeks, blended into each other... the monotonousness made me bizarrely depressed.

No one is saying that developers should just be able to build whatever they want, whenever they want, with no oversight. No one is saying that the community should completely shut up and have no input into the process.

But the actual objections brought up at actual planning meetings that happen in SF are universally bonkers. It literally actually is people opposing change just for the sake of opposing change. If there is anyone at these meetings making reasonable objections, they're completely drowned out by the other 20 people shouting that the sky is falling.

It's protectionism, and the "I got mine, so fuck you" mentality, plain and simple.

Basically, there is a supply of homes that are available to you at three points: 70%, 90% and 110% of the median income. How these three points are chosen I don't know. Very few are at 110% of median income. Most are available to those that make 70% or 90% of the median income.

The reason this is bullshit is because it's estimated that you need to earn about 400% of the median income to be able to afford a market-rate home in SF. This pretty much leaves everyone between 110% and 400% of the median income without any real options.

Worse yet, by making a policy that covers the just above the center of the income distribution to the bottom, you basically disincentivize those voters from becoming active and involved in supporting solutions that help the entire distribution. Basically those between 110% and 400% end up a permanent minority unable to achieve support for policies that will help their cohort.

Needless to say, I don't live in California anymore, despite earning almost 3x what she earns because I can't really afford to buy into the market. California is fundamentally broken.

It will if it’s not illegal to build. SROs are illegal. Boarding houses are illegal. Houses below a certain minimum are are illegal.

https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/01/16/what-is-...

> From 2013 to 2017, Tokyo built many houses as the whole of England.

> House prices in Tokyo are now 9% lower than they were in 2000, while in London they are 144% higher, adjusted for inflation.

Why? Do you think a poor person's vote is worth more to the government than their wallet would be to a house builder?

Is it impossible to make an acceptable house at 30% the cost of a median earner's house?

Your reasoning is valid for people whose productivity approaches zero, in which case welfare can indeed be needed. But the current housing problem is systematic and touches a far bigger percent of the population, and thus shouldn't be solved with charity.

The non-landowners are either not abundant enough, or only plan to live here for a short enough period of time that they don't bother to get involved in local politics.

Same situation with NJ and CT and KY.

If I was investing the next 5+ years of my life somewhere, I would check the reports below:

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/financial-stat...

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/news/detail/2019-financial...

Reminds me of the saying, something like "if it smells like sh*t everywhere you go, maybe it's time to check your own shoes."

Really you want both sides to be strong and for there to be a healthy push and pull. So the best ideas from each rise to the top and then do battle via good faith debate. With the ability and willingness to steelman each other's arguments.

Instead what we tend to see is an eagerness to interpret everything in the worst way possible, attacking strawmen and talking past each other. Which accomplishes little aside from increasing polarization.

Look how long it took to legalize gay marriage and weed!

Zoning in Japan is done at a national level, not local. Once an area is designated for housing, housing goes there. Because of this there is a constant flow of new housing, which drives the price of old houses down.

This is not possible anywhere zoning is done at a local level. Anytime one person has the ability to stop another from building you immediately create NIMBYdom and where the NIMBY exists, more housing does not because the NIMBY cares about nothing but their own property value. But that also feeds into the insane American idea of housing as an investment rather than a place to keep birds from crapping on you.

Until the NIMBY is eliminated, and housing is no longer sold as an investment, housing costs will not go down.

If someone is doing you legitimate harm, like dumping toxic waste into your drinking water, then you have the public government than can dictate the rights in regard to private use on the toxic waste dumper on behalf of the public. Increasing housing supply in an area with high demand is not doing legitimate harm, it keeps housing affordable and is good for the environment vs. infinite sprawl.

Majority/runoff with no primary would mean if a candidate gets an absolute majority on the first ballot, they win. You can't win at the primary in the jungle primary.

This does seem to be the case.

If you look at the voting statistics for cities where Californians are fleeing -- Boise, Las Vegas, Reno, Salt Lake City, etc -- those cities are rapidly turning blue.

But I don't know if they continue voting Democrat "to bring back" their old laws and lifestyle so much as they're just used to voting a particular way and continue to do so.

There don't seem to be a lot of people who put effort into making informed voting choices on a candidate-by-candidate basis and just go for whatever party they voted for last time.

It's all been positive with anecdotes like inviting "the new neighbors" to real TX bbq's and things like that but it's definitely real.

it is not Tongue-in-cheek , democrats fail to make the connection to the policies they support and the effects of those policies.

See the polices are suppose to "fix" those problems and when they inevitably fail because socialism is not workable, they do not blame socialism they blame the execution, it just was not done "correctly", so if the just vote in the correct democrat this time socialism will work

The SF POA, for instance, threw a ton of money around to defend capital punishment in California while the residents of San Francisco elected a DA (Kamala Harris) who campaigned on a platform of staunch opposition to capital punishment. It was a lot of the same crap with the three strikes law. Non-partisan analysis pointed out that the California statute was excessively punitive and expensive but police and prosecutors across the state came out swinging against proposed reform.

Same thing with the new DA (Boudin). One of his planks was focusing on gangs (a.k.a. organized crime) that are breaking into cars versus and focusing on getting addicts and homeless people into diversion/treatment programs. Of course there was plenty of outrage about how property crime was going to get even worse under Boudin's reign of apathy. Whatddya know, someone posted a video the other day of a break-in at an Embarcadero parking lot. Was it a junkie looking to score? No, it was a group of people in a car, wearing masks going about their task very methodically.

https://digital.modernluxury.com/publication/?i=360208&artic...

This is precisely what it is. They're teachers, for crying out loud.

The US hasn't really done 'giant tower block' public housing for decades. That's just scare tactics.

That said, the violence problems in Democrat-run cities is not because of the guns, nor is it due to gun regulation. There were a slew of poor governmental decisions that have led to massive inequality, poor social conditions, and fostered an us-vs-them culture through the militarizing of police and criminalizing of the poor.

It turns out that if people feel cornered with no way to improve their lives or escape their poor situation, they resort to organized crime or other desperate measures.

TLDR - Crime is primarily driven by social circumstances. Criminal culture is cultivated generationally by those circumstances.

The few examples that come the most to mind are what "Keep Venice Weird" is reacting to, and the lamenting of SF at the impact "tech bros" (vague, loaded term I know, but I don't have another) has had on the local culture. Which definitely don't fit cleanly onto the usual political spectrum, but AFAIK do roughly approximate it. And yeah, I wouldn't say these places are being taken over, and I would still say there's an influx of people complaining about things that went into making these places desirable in the first place.

I did deliberately match my phrasing to yours, and part of it is for argument's sake. There are both statistics and vibes, but there's not a great way to poke at anecdotes and vibes outside of reversals.

If the statistical reality is that liberalism takes over, but the emotional interpretation of that is... I don't know, that it shouldn't; that's weird to me. If one thing is taking over, it's generally because it's out competing the others. It's almost like when people believe in working together to make places better for everyone... they get better for everyone.

As an aside, sounds like you should be a registered republican. They need people with good heads and something like that set of views, and those sounds like what you have. In case it's in any way unclear, I do mean that as a compliment.

No we fucking said the quiet part out loud quite proudly in San Francisco. Take a look at the covenants in the Forest Hill neighborhood. It's still fairly bad as those folks recently successfully fought an attempt at building a low income retirement home.

And we certainly weren't that offended by the Chinese Exclusion Act.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90242388/the-bad-design-that-cre...

Because if prop 13 is repealed..after 15-20 years of work, the retired tech employees can’t afford annual increase in taxes either.

Or is this just to get seniors to leave Bay Area by making it unaffordable for them?

I added a link below that goes into some of the other issues that it created [1]. And in case you think I am trying to blame Republicans for the housing crisis, I am not. Local politics rarely align cleanly with national partisan fault lines. In California, the NIMBYs tend to be more conservative and have aligned themselves with liberal anti-gentrification and anti-development environmentalists. And the liberal leaning millennials (who are heavily impacted by the housing crisis) are aligned with right leaning pro-development groups.

Regarding your RINO comment. I think this link is relevant [2]. The current Republican party would be considered extremely right wing in any other time or in any other first world country. Universal Healthcare receives bipartisan support in every advanced economy in the world other than the US. ObamaCare, the 'radical socialist left wing policy', was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation[3]. And Universal Basic Income was originally proposed by none other than Milton Friedman, the champion of free market economics[4]. So these 'socialists' that you deride aren't socialist at all, but rather centrist democrats pushing center-right policies.

[1] https://www.kqed.org/news/11700683/too-few-homes-is-proposit... [2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-republican-party-ha... [3] https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr... [4] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-02-19/univer...

Medium density and spreading out is the right solution. The example that comes to mind is the snail shell structure/concentric circle design of Paris, France.

The fanatic vote is political cocaine: temporary high, then you need more and more, then your non coke head friends drift away, then you are strung out.

Aside from a few state/city couplings(Omaha, NE comes to mind) a US "State" is a poor indicator of differentiated policy or ideology. People in Atlanta or Miami or LA or Seattle have a lot more in common with each other than some might think.

Moreover, it seems like you're attempting to paint the picture that a typically Democratic State is somehow worse off than a conservative one. I'm positive that a person born in Washington or California almost always has a better statistical and economic outcome than someone born in the Deep South, for example. So, it seems if I were correct(and I'm almost certain I am), the spade is doing something right.

This observation may actually indicate the opposite, it is conservative policies that are failing. To see this, consider two potential reasons why people move away from urbanized progressive areas into more conservative areas:

1. Progressive policy failures (as you suggest)

2. The conservative areas are under-developed, and therefore have a greater potential for growth, which creates incentives to move there.

Under the first hypothesis, liberal policies ruin things. But under the second hypothesis, conservative policies ruin things. There is a pretty simple way to test out which is true: if the first is true, and progressive policies are at fault, then a conservative area would become more conservative as it becomes more popular and more people move there. If the second is true, then conservative areas would become more liberal as it becomes more developed.

Pretty much every originally conservative area that becomes developed later becomes more liberal (hello Texas). It's pretty clear that your hypothesis is false.

People who have worked in California until retirement taking advantage of it's strong economy to secure retirement income and then moving elsewhere to further maximize retirement dollars are a big part of the trend; to the extent that's about policy outcomes, it's policy success.

For California, it's mostly having a very successful economy combined with terribly stupid housing policy.

Conservative areas are 'better' on the latter on some level because they permit more sprawl, which does provide for more supply, which means lower housing prices. Car-dominant sprawl is a disaster in other ways, though: environment, pollution, health, noise, danger, cost to government, cost to user, etc.

And conservative areas are usually even worse at allowing density, despite being ostensibly free market. I have a lot of conservative FB friends, and it's always amazing how quickly they're suddenly in favor of strict government regulation when it's for keeping housing density low; when it's their favored lifestyle at risk, free market principles are apparently no longer an issue.

I am somewhat of a Friedman expect so pretty sure I am not

>>> They are basically the same thing

Not in economics they are not. Negative Income Tax is a poverty prevention plan, designed to ensure people are not living in poverty

UBI Provides a basic income FOR ALL PEOPLE, does not matter if you make 1 billion dollars, or $1 of other income everyone gets the same basic income

>>>Maybe try using google before making ridiculous claims.

I have studied economics, and most people in the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics for more than 20 years, I do not really need google to understand the difference between UBI and Negative income taxation

>>> We tried to fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy, and you all threw a hissy-fit and decided to do everything in your power to make it fail.

Well first off lets get one thing perfectly clear, I am not Republican. I am Libertarian. Republicans want far more government than I do, and I believe all income based taxation is theft. I want people to be able to protect their marijuana gardens with fully automatic machine guns. So my positions do not align with either Republicans or Democrats as both parties are generally Authoritarian in nature simply arguing over what area's of my life they want to control never arguing if they have the ethical or moral right to that control

As to "fix healthcare with a bipartisan policy" which of those exactly where suppose to fix Healthcare? Certainly not ACA.

>>> Please show me credible non-partisan research to support your claim that the 'democrat party is pulled WIDELY to the left'.

[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-c...

[2] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-democrats-have-...

>>> If you think the rise of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren some how proves your point, consider this: Bernie Sanders has been in politics since the 1980s

yes socialists have always been a part of the Democrat party, a minor one. Even Bernie Sanders from 2016 and Bern Sanders in 2020 is WIDELY different having shifted FAR to the left on many issues including immigration (in 2016 is was very much against open boarders, in 2020 he is now not only for Open Boarders but giving everyone in the world Free Medical Care paid for by stealing money from US Workers if that is not extreme left well...)

In the last 4 years alone we have seen the Democrat party take a Hard Left turn and stomp on the Gas....

>>> The only thing that has changed in the past 25 years in American politics is the complete take over of the Republican party by overzealous ultra right-wing anti-government partisans

Yea,,, no. I do not see any of that, If anything in the last 25 years the Ultra Right (generally viewed as the Extreme Religious Right that wants to do things like ban Video Games and porn) have LOST large amounts of power. Of course as with any debate I guess we need to define our terms because what you "Ultra Right" to you may not be what I view as "ultra Right"

Many states smaller (and less populated) than the expanse of sprawl in the LA basin. The only parts of CA that has much limit to sprawl are places with hard natural geographic barriers, like SF and the Peninsula.

Politicians use gun control policy to create divisions in people, but the actual gun control policies being considered themselves almost always poll very well amongst all Americans including those in rural areas and hunters.

It’s like Obamacare, where the actual policies within are supported by overwhelming majorities, but obamacare barely breaks even.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_district

It’s a tax to try and equalize resources for all schools, and is very progressive in sense. Other states let poor areas have poor funding for schools, whereas NJ requires richer areas to send funding to poorer areas to try to give the poor children a chance. I actually think this is an admirable goal of NJ.

NJ also has one of the worst unfunded defined benefit pension problems, which is obviously not so admirable, and will continue to contribute to rising taxes of all kinds and decrease in government services in NJ for the next 30 years.

What is the sense in extending their lines of credit to PAY TAXES?

Are you suggesting that they should go into debt to pay taxes? It is equivalent of highway robbery. Akin to saying.. mortgage your home again to give us the money?

Real estate markets are not liquid. Liquidity is exchange of monetary and financial instruments for an asset. A home is an immovable fixed asset. As long as it’s owner occupied, it’s domicile and not an asset. When it’s rented out, it accrues rental income which is taxed.

Right to property is a fundamental right. This is not a feudal economy and it’s not the Middle Ages. Stock options are speculative financial instruments and relying on them is akin to gambling.

Your understanding of finances ..if representative of the wider California working population..sheds light on why the current generation has no financial management skills. I am beginning to suspect it’s by design starting at public schools where children are taught to suckle at the govt teat and think taxes are nourishing food.

What community? Most members of someone's community in SF that didn't buy early enough have been priced out of the city.

The native San Franciscan is a rarity precisely because of bad policy like Prop 13.

Crime has not exploded in California. California’s violent crime rate rose in 2017—but it remains historically low. The statewide property crime rate decreased in 2017. Crime rates vary dramatically by region and category. Violent crime increased in a majority of counties but property crime decreased in most counties. [0]

[0]https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

That is different from "damping the extremes".

Why is it so difficult for those on the "conservative" side to believe that the election outcomes reflect the will of the populace when they actively reject "conservatism"?

> I hope you understand that it’s “progressive” policy which has caused crime to explode

This is a dog whistle way of saying "homelessness" as most crime has not exploded.

However, I have yet to see a conservative solution to homelessness short of "round them up and ship them somewhere else". aka part of the reason for California's homelessness is other, generally conservative, states shipping them in.

> housing prices to rise

A fair argument. And this is also a contributor to homelessness. Prop 13 is going to have to fall before anything really helps with this.

> and people to leave the state.

I'm still waiting for all these Republicans in Southern California to head to Texas. Any time now ...

What the article points out is that most people leaving California are, unfortunately, on the lower end of the income range. Conservatives like you should welcome this as they are generally Democratic Party folks.

That’s the biggest thing these states have going for them. Lots of space and associated cheap housing.

They are literally pitting us against each other instead of fixing infrastructure, public transport, homelessness, community services and tax reform so its less taxes, not more.

Imagine you are a household and you want to maintain a standard of living. As family size grows, it makes sense to cut down the budget, eat out less and making the money and resources stretch more over more heads.

What the govt is doing is essentially vying for free money by taxing people more and creating more cash rich people. And pocketing the cash for the care and feeding of big Gov. they are making out like bandits. This is what Kings and feudal lords did...just tax working class more.

Just follow the money. I did it with just one thing. Prop 47. They don’t even charge people anymore for crimes that involve goods valued less than $950.

Why? Because it costs money to maintain prisons, police force and courts etc. waste of time and resources to petty crime.

This has resulted in more petty crime. Car break ins, property theft, chain snatching, lap top snatching, shopping mall robberies etc. the police won’t even take a report so there is a record of it. Who knows what that number is..

So you’d think they’d save oodles of money, right? Where is it going? It goes back to unfunded pension liabilities. It costs $70k per prisoner. Prison guard unions are the most influential unions. It’s going back to fill the hole that is unfundwd pension liabilities. It’s the same with teachers union, police officers unions, Fire Dept unions. These departments keep shrinking as density increases but they become more and more expensive and have larger budgets. Where is the money going? Pensions negotiated by unions.

Look at homelessness reforms. Where is all the millions going? Half the budget is for salaries and employees. It’s all coming from our taxes. Take every expense and scratch the surface. Beneath all the goop and gunk obscuring transparency, there is the govt playing with our money. With no accountability. We don’t ask questions because we are fighting amongst ourselves. Turning tech workers against seniors. Homeless against working class. Teachers against parents. And indoctrination begins at public schools where kids walk out to ‘support teachers unions’.

This has to end. Let’s not be suckers. This is the oldest game in the book. This is how the British colonized my people for 250 years. They called it Divide and Conquer.

There are problems with increasing property taxes on elderly folks on fixed incomes, the solution isn't to say "you never own any tax on the appreciated value" the solution is to say "you can pay the tax on the appreciated value when you sell your home" which is an insane liberal tax and spend policy practiced in the hippie haven of the... state of Texas.

Additionally, the lions gain of the benefits of prop 13 don't accumulate to the working class elderly living in appreciated homes, it goes to giant corporations like Walt Disney (yes, Disney Land is protected by prop 13), golf courses, extremely wealthy property investors, and the heirs of people who have owned nice homes and then died who then bequeath both their house AND their insane tax rate on to their children.

No, property taxes are paid on the assessed value, and assessments don't just happen at sale time. Only CA has this weird freeze-taxes-at-time-of-sale thing.

> It is not a punitive tax to fund new entrants.

No one is claiming it is. Hell, it isn't great even for homeowners who are "protected" by Prop 13, because if they want to move (say a widow/widower whose kids have moved out, living alone in a 3000 sq ft house who wants to downsize), they often can't, because their new property -- even if it's smaller! -- will destroy them with higher property taxes.

All this protects are people who never want to move, and, worse, it protects wealthy families who can pass their property down to their descendants without a market-rate tax.

It’s time for those kids who were educated with public funds and tax money to pay back. Not ask for more money from retired seniors.

So fix the university system. Don’t ask retired people to shoulder the burden of grown ass employed and able bodied younger generation and their children.

Maybe they don’t want to profit out of capital gains. Maybe some people love their home of 30 years and would like to spend the reminder of their lives debt free after planning their retirement.

Seniors and retirees are such low impact on society. They have savings. They pay for services they don’t use. Their pensions and ssi is based on pre inflation valuations. They don’t use schools. Probably drive less and consume less and have a smaller carbon footprint. Most importantly they have already paid for themselves and probably paid their dues to society and several batches of public school kids.

To be envious of them and trying predatory taxation techniques on them is a breach and violation of social contract.

Why should vacation homes be taxed? It’s is an asset. Imagine.. You buy a diamond ring..would you be asked to pay a use tax every time you wear it?

Prop 13 also pushes undue costs onto new property development. Lower development costs equals fewer luxury condos. Were California to both build more and repeal Prop 13 fully it's unlikely that retired tech bros would be priced out of their houses.

Even so one of the primary roles of a county assessor is to determine where tax breaks are suitable. Allowing the (typically elected) assessor more discretion via a Prop 13 repeal almost certainly guarantees you won't be putting grannies (or retired tech bros) out on the street.