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

Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#61

Post by jandrewrogers »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58
jandrewrogers wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has a substantial wildfire and flooding risk, in addition to its large seismic risk.

Most of the wildfire risk is outside of the cities, so it’s not like it is going to influence most homeowner policies. Likewise with flooding.

Wildfire risk is absolutely in the cities, at least in SoCal. Firestorms move through the canyons in residential areas. Quite a few neighborhoods in San Diego, for example, have been razed to the ground since I lived there, including one I used to live in. These weren’t on the edge of town.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#62

Post by mistrial9 »

instagib wrote: post #37
bugglebeetle wrote: post #2

> “The reason why Texas and Florida are doing well and California isn’t, it’s the cost of housing and high taxes,” said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. “We have lost a lot of small businesses.” This former is the crux of the problem: California entered into a suicide pact with real estate speculators in the 70s, from which it seems entirely unwilling to extricate itself. It’…

Housing non-eviction laws and policies also are rough. I tried to look for a home there once. I watched a homeowner break in with a ladder after being evicted then the realtor showed for the viewing then stole his ladder and left. Another said their house was for sale but the garage was occupied by people who broke in and they could not be evicted until summer was over and before it became winter. The home owner was…

laws affecting this and other situations vary from county to county by a lot. It is a factually mistaken to say this is occurring in every place in California.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#63

Post by qpingo »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #61
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the wildfire risk is outside of the cities, so it’s not like it is going to influence most homeowner policies. Likewise with flooding.

Wildfire risk is absolutely in the cities, at least in SoCal. Firestorms move through the canyons in residential areas. Quite a few neighborhoods in San Diego, for example, have been razed to the ground since I lived there, including one I used to live in. These weren’t on the edge of town.

[dead]

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#64

Post by text0404 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58
jandrewrogers wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has a substantial wildfire and flooding risk, in addition to its large seismic risk.

Most of the wildfire risk is outside of the cities, so it’s not like it is going to influence most homeowner policies. Likewise with flooding.

it absolutely does: https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/carr...

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#65

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #61
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the wildfire risk is outside of the cities, so it’s not like it is going to influence most homeowner policies. Likewise with flooding.

Wildfire risk is absolutely in the cities, at least in SoCal. Firestorms move through the canyons in residential areas. Quite a few neighborhoods in San Diego, for example, have been razed to the ground since I lived there, including one I used to live in. These weren’t on the edge of town.

There are homes in LA that are at risk to wildfires, in canyons as you say. But that still doesn’t account for most homeowners in the area.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#66

Post by shuckles »

readyman wrote: post #52
shuckles wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's primary R&D and manufacturing operations are in the San Francisco Bay Area. How does that impact land values in Southern California?

That's irrelevant. EVs are necessary to preserve land values in Socal, which is why Cali real estate funded Cali politicians to use all of their weight to win fed funding for the Tesla project in the first place. Everybody knows (whether they admit it or not) that EVs don't help with global warming. They merely displace polution from places like the San Bernadino Valley and Los Angeles, which is all they were meant t…

So your theory is that China is investing unprecedented amounts into EV production to improve air quality in coastal California thereby propping up land values? Wouldn't it be cheaper to pass permit reform so that LA and SF metro areas could just build mass transit?

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#67

Post by readyman »

shuckles wrote: post #66
readyman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irrelevant. EVs are necessary to preserve land values in Socal, which is why Cali real estate funded Cali politicians to use all of their weight to win fed funding for the Tesla project in the first place. Everybody knows (whether they admit it or not) that EVs don't help with global warming. They merely displace polution from places like the San Bernadino Valley and Los Angeles, which is all they were meant t…

So your theory is that China is investing unprecedented amounts into EV production to improve air quality in coastal California thereby propping up land values? Wouldn't it be cheaper to pass permit reform so that LA and SF metro areas could just build mass transit?

>So your theory is that China is investing unprecedented amounts into EV production to improve air quality in coastal California thereby propping up land values?

China has the necessary political organization and willpower to meaningfully invest in nuclear energy, making EVs an environmental benefit. That does not apply to the US.

>Wouldn't it be cheaper to pass permit reform so that LA and SF metro areas could just build mass transit?

No. Better public transit could work in SF but SF isn't the problem. LA is the problem because it's surrounded by mountains on most sides that trap the pollution, and LA city planning makes public transit a nightmare no matter how you build it. You can't plan a city around interstates then bolt on public transit later.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#68

Post by readyman »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #59
readyman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's irrelevant. EVs are necessary to preserve land values in Socal, which is why Cali real estate funded Cali politicians to use all of their weight to win fed funding for the Tesla project in the first place. Everybody knows (whether they admit it or not) that EVs don't help with global warming. They merely displace polution from places like the San Bernadino Valley and Los Angeles, which is all they were meant t…

> Everybody knows (whether they admit it or not) that EVs don't help with global warming. That isn’t true: this is very a popular crank theory right now, but it’s not a popular opinion in mainstream science or among the public at large.

It's absolutely true. The detriment of manifesting the necessary new and very nasty manufacturing processes make it a done deal, especially compared to simply building trains, which is admittedly not simple in the US due to the cruel and unusual political economic situations. Nevertheless, all of this is true.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#69

Post by api »

shostack wrote: post #45
api wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realized after a while of living there that California is run as a real estate cartel. Land owners who bought when the state was cheap own it, and everyone who bought later is beholden and locked in with golden handcuffs to the high price environment they created. I call it a cartel because the scarcity is 100% a policy choice. Density is not high, public transit is awful, and there is a ton of land left to develop…

If you consider Texas more liberal than California purely on the basis of home affordability it is clear you're not interested in making a serious point.

My point is that I see deep hypocrisy in a society that prices housing out of reach of anyone below upper middle class while pretending to be liberal and progressive.

I don’t consider Texas liberal but at least you can have a home without earning $200k or above or having a liquidity event.

My personal opinion is that any good done by liberal policies in California is negated by housing.

Re: Job growth is booming across the U.S. but not in California. Here's why

#70

Post by mistrial9 »

whatshisface wrote: post #39
kmeisthax wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they mean minimum wage laws in general. Another comment mentioned that restaurants were reclassifying their workers as contractors to pay them less. Describing this as restaurants being "forced" to reclassify their drivers is mildly disingenuous. There's some coercion in minimum wage laws, yes, but it does not specifically prescribe a particular solution to balancing your books. The restaurants could alternat…

Low margin businesses like restaurants aren't at liberty to provide services in a more expensive way than their competitors. There's almost no "extra" money in the food service industry. I'm not actually criticising minimum wage laws with this argument. If it applies to every possible way to hire someone, all of your competitors will have to do it too and the costs will be passed on to the consumer. I am however shar…

you are not wrong but there is more to it.. companies that incorporate have some tax advantages that other small business do not have; corporations with access to public markets also have many more advantages financially than closely held corporations; real estate ownership and financial leverage also make advantages that non-owners do not have.. there are doubtless other examples that I do not know about.. go the other way for a minute .. those that pay legal wages to employees have higher costs than those that hire "illegal" workers.. those that steal wages from "illegal" workers have lower costs than that.. undocumented or non-English speaking staff have been the rule not the exception for twenty+ years in California.. more examples that I do not know..
Post reply on HN