Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

realclearinvestigations.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#111

Post by ceeplusplus »

ipaddr wrote: post #105
ceeplusplus wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easy solution is that your quality of life should not infringe on the rights of millions of people to housing that doesn't cost 90% of their monthly income to pay for. And the state is going to drag local cities kicking and screaming to where we need to go, like it or not. I make well into 6 figures a year and I can't buy a shack in Fremont because of people like you.

It's more afforable compared to an apartment in New York where a townhouse can set you back 15 million. Density isn't the issue demand is. You want to live in a place everyone else does. At 1.3 million on average you could buy 100a property on prime farmland or you could buy an apartment in New York or a house in Freemont. Wanting Freemont to be zoned like New York property would probably make it more popular with ne…

Funnily enough buying a house close enough to work in NYC is actually cheaper, because Jersey City is viable and NY/NJ don't have Prop 13 to inflate property values. I could buy a 5bdr luxury home in a nice area with great schools in NYC in one of the outer boroughs or a high end luxury new construction in Jersey City. That same cash gets you a shack in a shitty part of the East Bay.

> make it more popular with new hot properities and it will price you out further

It's a common NIMBY misconception that adding more supply increases prices. Basic economics says this is obviously wrong.

> The truth is there are a lot of people making more money who want housing in Freemont

I'm pretty sure my income puts me in the top 10% of income in the Bay and definitely top 1% nationally. You're saying that less than 10% of the population should be able to purchase a starter home (what I mean by a shack). Do you not listen to what you're saying?

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#112

Post by annoyingnoob »

notacoward wrote: post #101
cowmoo728 wrote: post #25

This seems more like a political diatribe than an informative look at cost of living and wages in California.

This reminds me of a quote from Dune. "My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit. What a fascinating revelation." The column contains dozens upon dozens of hard numbers, most with links to sites that can back them up. Maybe you don't like the political implications, but - as my daughter might say - that's a you problem. It doesn't mean the column is any less factual or more political than i…

It can be a political piece and have some factual information at the same time. I could not get through it, not because of any implications but because of the way its written.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#113

Post by vondur »

RangerScience wrote: post #41
FpUser wrote: post #35

Here is some cherry on top. This treatment of people looks like it belongs to China: https://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/01/25/anti-homeless-law... >"Kimberly Sandoval holds a ticket in her hand in disbelief. Her infraction: being in possession of spare bicycle parts." >"She has also been ticketed for being in possession of a tent, a lawn chair and a Bluetooth speaker—all items newly banned at the Civic Center under…

Notable: Santa Ana (and the rest of Orange County) is substantially more conservative than many people realize.

I don't believe that's the case for Santa Ana. The demographics aren't like the rest of Orange County.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#114

Post by confidantlake »

justinzollars wrote: post #81

I did the math for Mountain View: Average Home | Downpayment | Finance | Monthly payment (Loan + Insurance + Tax) | Necessary Annual income $2,140,000.00 | $428,000.00 | $1,712,000.00 | $11,517.00 | $414,612.00 Mix that with high taxes across every category, very high crime, homelessness and extremely poor indebted government providing poor service. The state needs to hit the reset button. Taxes are already high, and…

Do you mean default on their debt? If so that is a really bad idea. I don't really get it being uncompetitive. California has a higher gdp per capita then either Texas or Florida.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#115

Post by photochemsyn »

This is hardly how the problems with California's electricity and manufacturing sectors arose:

> "The state’s climate change policies, however well-intentioned, have had a particularly devastating impact on manufacturing. California’s “renewable energy” push has generated high energy prices and the nation’s least-reliable power grid, crippling an industry reliant on fossil fuels and a stable electric supply. The state fell to 44th in the country in manufacturing sector employment growth last year. . ."

In reality neoliberal trade policies facilitated the outsourcing of California's electronics and garment manufacturing industry over the past 40 years. This alone accounts for much of the loss of middle-class prosperity around the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin.

Furthermore, the disastrous deregulation of the investor-owned utility sector is what caused electricity bills to spike initially and the few publicly-owned electricity distributers had lower rates. Getting off fossil fuels doesn't 'destabilize the grid', either.

I don't know enough about the rest of the claims in the article to say anything about them, but the take on energy and manufacturing looks inaccurate at best.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#116

Post by jollybean »

skrbjc wrote: post #90
jollybean wrote: post #28

Among myriad of issues, one is that the tax rates for the very rich are not high enough. And the absolute parrallel there is - people probably wouldn't feel their money is being spent effectively. I really do feel that rich Californians would accept higher taxes if the money was really well spent. Impossible to talk about is the 'low end' - where you have (and bringing in) people in very, very low skilled and economi…

California politicians need to break away from the hold of the progressive left. All I see in the bay area are politicians arguing over who is more progressive rather than anyone actually suggesting how they will practically and concretely solve the problems that are so obviously in front of us. But even just acknowledging that there is a problem seems to be impossible for any politicians here. Without any actual cha…

Yes, that's becoming clear, but it's only one of many issues.

And FYI 'the right' has been equally compromised by a populist fringe that has no interest in legitimacy either.

I grew up in Mississauga, ON, Canada, somehow the city was able to integrate people from anywhere on the planet, give them a sound place to live, some kind of job, low crime, safety, healthcare etc.. It's not the most glorious place, and I have no reason to ever want to live there, but for 95% of the people who ever did live there, they came from utter dysfunction (i.e. cold war E. Europe and later E/S Asia) - and 'it works'.

It's the 'opposite' of California in that it's utterly a un-aspirational place, but people have jobs, homes, food, education, healthcare, dignity etc..

The city has the same mayor for like 30 years, ruthlessly pragmatic. Kind of everyone's gradma. Nobody would mess with her or bother trying to run against her.

California needs a Hazel McCallion [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazel_McCallion

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#117

Post by ProfessorLayton »

RestlessMind wrote: post #97
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People like to live in single family homes and live next to single family homes. Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way. >You won't get a beautiful city like those with any kind of zoning. It's too expensive. You'd get flimsy modern cookie-cutter buildings and maybe some brutalist concrete hulks. The current restrictions that have created subu…

> Then those people should buy a single family home and the single family homes around them and keep them that way. That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.

>That's what we did. Now people like you are saying me and my neighbors are NIBMYs and want us to change.

You bought a single family home and all surrounding single family homes around it? If that's the case, no one is asking you to change anything. They're literally your backyards and you can choose to not build any further. If your neighbors don't want to build more units, they should be free not to as well.

What needs to change is neighbors restricting housing units on property they do not own. No one is advocating for completely abolishing all zoning, but the current approach isn't working as housing prices skyrocket everywhere that housing production can't keep up — often because of zoning restrictions.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#118

Post by jollybean »

twblalock wrote: post #95
jollybean wrote: post #28

Among myriad of issues, one is that the tax rates for the very rich are not high enough. And the absolute parrallel there is - people probably wouldn't feel their money is being spent effectively. I really do feel that rich Californians would accept higher taxes if the money was really well spent. Impossible to talk about is the 'low end' - where you have (and bringing in) people in very, very low skilled and economi…

More tax dollars won't change anything. The state government already has more money than it needs. It just doesn't spend it well. If we give the government more money, it won't spend that money well either.

More money could facilitate universal healthcare of some kind.

And yes, fully agree, there are efficiency problems, which is kind of my point.

It bothers me a lot how so few YC startups are trying to solve economic asymmetrical issues in Healthcare.

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#119

Post by cscanlin »

Where does the information on California having the highest poverty rate in the US come from?

The source they listed only gave California's poverty rate at 16.4% [1].

But the Census source used by Wikipedia lists California's rate at 12.58% [2]

Neither rate actually puts California at the top of any other lists I find.

In what measure does California have the highest poverty rate?

EDIT: I see the first number is based on California Poverty Measure (CPM) which takes into account cost of living [3]. But is there a direct way to compare this to other states?

[1] https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

[3] https://inequality.stanford.edu/publications/research-report...

Re: California's Vanished Dream, by the Numbers

#120

Post by annoyingnoob »

FpUser wrote: post #35

Here is some cherry on top. This treatment of people looks like it belongs to China: https://www.calhealthreport.org/2018/01/25/anti-homeless-law... >"Kimberly Sandoval holds a ticket in her hand in disbelief. Her infraction: being in possession of spare bicycle parts." >"She has also been ticketed for being in possession of a tent, a lawn chair and a Bluetooth speaker—all items newly banned at the Civic Center under…

Orange County treats homeless people particularly poorly. They want to force the homeless out of their county by outlawing them.
Post reply on HN