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

Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 718 posts

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#641

Post by JamesBarney »

jayd16 wrote: post #558
refurb wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spoken like someone who is out of touch. Yes, for a family making $85K, having an extra $3-4K in your pocket every year is a big deal .

How much does it cost to move your family from California to Texas? How many days are you not getting payed? How many weeks is your SO unemployed? How long are you paying for two rents or mortgages? It just doesn't seem like $3k is a net gain to me.

I don't think people are quitting their jobs to save 3k in taxes. But when they are considering taking a job in California for 100k or in Texas for 85k it moves the needle in addition to cost of living.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#642

Post by anjbe »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #616
Stupulous wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there are a lot of issues where the republican/democrat divide is very directly influenced by rural/urban environments. (please do not assume any of the following takes a stance on these issues. Also don't imagine I know what I'm talking about) On gun control, rural areas can have more than one gun per person with virtually no impact on an already negligible violent crime rate, while urban areas have fewer gu…

Except no one talks about guns that are used for hunting when talking about gun control policy (maybe the idiots who use massive powered automatic rifles for shooting deer may be slightly affected). 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 hunte…

> Except no one talks about guns that are used for hunting when talking about gun control

Not only is that untrue, it’s so untrue that a common trope among gun types is to display two pictures of the same gun, one with a wooden stock, and observe the disparity in reactions. Most people can’t define what a “hunting rifle” is, and certainly can’t define legislation that would ban one kind of gun without impacting the other. One of the biggest complaints about California‐ or 1994 AWB‐style gun laws is that they target cosmetic but “scary” features like barrel shrouds or pistol grips far out of proportion with their actual impact on safety (in contrast with the real elephant in the room, handguns).

> maybe the idiots who use massive powered automatic rifles for shooting deer may be slightly affected

The poster child for moral panic when it comes to guns is the AR-15, which is significantly less powerful than a typical deer hunting rifle, so much so that some states ban it specifically against large game; it’s more appropriate for smaller game like coyotes and hogs.

If you’re trying to get rid of black rifles, then at least say openly that you want to ban semi‐automatic rifles and magazines. Talking about an AR‐15’s “massive power” is nonsensical, especially if you’re claiming your gun control proposals won’t affect deer hunting rifles.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#643

Post by RangerScience »

axaxs wrote: post #602
RangerScience wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. I feel the same way in the opposite direction. People move from their home states and rural areas to nice areas with civic services and permissive cultures, and then continue voting and advocating for the same policies and ideologies that led to their home being unwanted in the first place. I live in liberal areas that see a steady influx of people all the time, and distressingly large amount of them seem to com…

I would absolutely sympathize with you, if this were a true story. Believe it or not, I'm not a registered Republican, after all. To be fair, I've never heard of conservative folks overtaking a liberal city, only vice versa. If you have a true story to share, I'd love to hear it. Instead, it feels like you're just reversing everything I said for argument's sake.

Reasonable. It's anecdotal, and no, none have been "taken over". What I'm predominantly responding to is this weird way people seem to look at these liberal cities and go "oh, they've succeeded in spite of their liberalness" instead of those being part of why they became desirable places to live in the first place.

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.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#644

Post by RomanBob »

silisili wrote: post #412
bronco21016 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I first heard of this phenomenon the other day from a coworker that lives south of Atlanta, near the major movie/tv production area. People, from what are typically blue areas, are moving in and radically changing the political landscape according to him. He wasn’t necessarily against liberal ideas but his complaint was that they seem to vote for taxes just for the hell of it because every tax proposed is still signi…

This is a real problem, and a real concern IMO. People move from their home cities and states to nice areas with low tax, then continue voting for the same policies and ideologies that led to their home becoming awful in the first place. I live in a rather conservative area that sees an influx of New Yorkers every single year. They all seem to complain about two things: the high taxes they left, and Republicans. I'd…

People's political belief is tied to their ideological world view and is not liable to be changed.

It's the same effect with muslims coming to live in a western liberal democracy.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#645

Post by seanmcdirmid »

axaxs wrote: post #604
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miami has never been conservative, at most they had some conservative Cubans, who hardly ever had a plurality in the area. Dallas has never been co see stove either, that is what Ft. Worth and it’s suburbs were for. Texas really wants a tech industry, which is why it is importing lots of liberals. By that I mean these people don’t move to Texas to be in Texas, rather they were lured their by great job opportunities.

Can you cite a single source of Texas "importing" workers, vs people fleeing to Texas and pretending they did so for Texas's own good? Texas was a tech hub before most of us were born.

Uhm sure? All the people that I know who’ve moved to Austin have done so for the career opportunities...no one just picked Texas and said they were going to find a job later. They were pretty mercenary about where they were going. Some were even forced their (eg when IBM closed Boca and moved everyone who didn’t want to quit to Austin).

> Texas was a tech hub before most of us were born.

Sure, they’ve also been importing liberals since before most of us were born. I mean my dad lived near San Antonio sometime in the 60s for that reason, again it wasn’t his choice (even being in the Army wasn’t).

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#646

Post by syshum »

qqqwerty wrote: post #499
syshum wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Tongue-in-cheek 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 wil…

Prop 13, one of the major factors in the CA housing crisis, was a Republican led initiative passed in 1978. This may come as a surprise to you, but CA was Republican leaning until fairly recently (remember Arnold Schwarzenegger?). A lot of the factors that are contributing to the current housing crisis were established long before CA turned solidly blue.

In what possible way does having a Cap on property taxes, and requiring 2/3 majority to increase taxes cause a Housing Crisis?

>>but CA was Republican leaning until fairly recently (remember Arnold Schwarzenegger?).

Arnold Schwarzenegger was a RINO, Around here we would call him a Democrat, California Democrats are the extreme of the extreme Left. So anyone Right of Stalin is a Republican in California.

Further since 1978 (as far back as I could find data) the CA legislature has been Democrat Controlled, so sure they may have had a couple of "republican" Governors, that does not make them a Republican state or mean any free market policies where passed, the Democrats have had a tight grip on the state for as long as most people have been alive

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#647

Post by jefftk »

m_ke wrote: post #150
jefftk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything in your link about NYC putting up housing at an insane rate, and my understanding had been that NYC housing growth was at historically low levels?

Here's a link with some more data https://streeteasy.com/blog/nycs-unsold-condos/ . 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, h…

Your article talks about 16k condos over 6y, which is ~3k/y. That's not zero, but that's really not very much housing compared to the ~8M population of NYC. I know this isn't the total of New York housing construction, but it's so little you wouldn't expect it to help much.

For example, during the 1920s NYC was building housing at about 7%/y! Housing was much cheaper then, and through the period of low demand, but when demand picked up again we didn't let people resume building at anywhere near historical rates.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#648

Post by mrep »

thawaway1837 wrote: post #619
mrep wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust any property crime "stat" in any moderately sized city. Every single person I know whose had property crime happen to them which is in multiple cities and states doesn't even bother reporting it because the cops won't do anything so it's just a waste of time.

Sounds like you’re the property criminal, because the odds of every single person you know having property crime committed against them is ridiculously low, unless you’re the one committing it.

"whose had property crime happen to them" refers only to the people I know who have had property crime happen to them, not everyone I know.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#649

Post by Redoubts »

micmil wrote: post #523
barry-cotter wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the free market won't really address the needs of people below 30% of the median income. 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 200…

Anyone using Japan as an example of housing prices does not understand Japanese housing. 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 f…

So why can’t we use Japan as an example? That seems like a laundry list of good ideas.

Re: Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois – Hello where?

#650

Post by achenatx »

jedberg wrote: post #260
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to create a upper middle class transient population that is mostly tech workers? 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?

Being priced out of one's home is a red herring that the low tax zealots want you to believe to keep prop 13 in place. Somehow in the 49 other states that don't have Prop 13, people aren't priced out of their homes from taxes. There are other options. There are home equity lines, reverse mortgages, or even freezing tax payments and adding them as liens on the property at time of transfer. But even if you're worried a…

in austin people are getting priced out because of taxes. Mainly poor minorities. It is called gentrification.

Houses that were 50K 10 years ago are now 400K with a 2.5% property tax rate. If they are renters, then their rent went up to cover the taxes.

In my area houses are up to 1m+ which results in property taxes of 25K/year so even middle class families and retirees are getting taxed out.

The city is trying to approve density city wide and the NIMBYS are trying to block it. Ill laugh when they all get taxed out 10 years from now.

Post reply on HN