Yes, they vote very liberal but the Silicon Valley ones at least can leave if they want to. I can’t imagine that they really want to pay a 50% state income tax rate.pugchief wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 7:40 amSince the wealthiest people in CA are Hollywood elites and Silicon Valley millionaires, all of whom vote very Liberal, the collapse may drag on a lot longer than you think. There will be no middle class left, and a further increase in homelessness, but that's another topic.
Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio
Moderator: Global Moderator
Vinny, I'm a bit envious as you have all the fun of reading all those old threads!vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:10 pmRegarding your last paragraph...…..7+ years later how would you describe how it has been to live in California, i.e, what changes have you seen in the intervening years?foglifter wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:51 pmTalking about California: there were a few props to raise all kinds of taxes on various levels (state, county, city). Everybody I know voted against the tax raises. But all the tax measures were approved. I guess the message is "YES, I vote for raising taxes on someone else, but not me". On the other hand unions successfully blocked the Proposition 32 to prohibit the use of payroll-deducted union dues to fund political campaigns.MachineGhost wrote: Despite the doomsday scenarios outlined by people like Munisteri, the Texas G.O.P. is far ahead of the national Party in dealing with the future. Two strategies are being tested. One is the kind of Republican identity politics exemplified by Cruz: the Party can continue its ideological shift to the right, especially on immigration, and appeal to Hispanics with candidates who share their ethnicity and perhaps speak their language. The more difficult path would see the G.O.P. retreat from its current position on immigration and take the direction advocated by Martinez de Vara and the Bush family.
If neither of these strategies succeeds, the consequences are clear. California was once a competitive state, the place that launched Ronald Reagan, but the G.O.P. there has now been reduced to a rump party, ideologically extreme and preponderately white. Republicans hold no statewide offices. After Tuesday, the Democrats also have a super-majority in the legislature, making it easier to raise taxes and overcome parliamentary obstacles like filibusters. In most accounts, the beginning of the Republican decline in California is traced to former Governor Pete Wilson’s attacks on benefits for unauthorized immigrants, which sounded to many voters like attacks on Hispanics. Farther east, in 2000 and 2004, New Mexico was one of the closest states in Presidential politics. In 2008, Obama won it by fifteen points. By 2012, it was no longer contested. Similarly, Nevada, which was fought over by both candidates this year, and which Obama won by six points, seems to have gone the way of California and New Mexico and will likely be safe for Democrats in 2016. The states aren’t identical: for example, California is more culturally liberal than Texas. But they all have growing nonwhite populations that overwhelmingly reject Republicans.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all
There are several of us here from the Golden State, we'll see what it will be like to live in California now that the Dems and unions got unrestricted powers to do whatever they want.
As to the changes here in CA: I live in Bay Area so my experience is very location-specific. As most jobs are in hi-tech and the tech industry is doing well the traffic is becoming worse, housing market is tight, homelessness is on the rise. However great outdoors and excellent climate seem to outweigh the cons.
The migration patterns are interesting here in Bay Area: many techies and tech-related folks move to Texas and Washington as Austin and Seattle are growing as tech hubs and still are less expensive to live. Moving in are mostly foreigners - tech workers and students. So the outflows are domestic, while inflows are international. The problem is for any family to be able to buy even a modest home or condo here you have to rely on two professional incomes so it's very hard for people outside of tech to live here. Local authorities push for reforms in zoning laws to allow building multi-unit housing near the transport hubs, which many residents oppose.
I'm glad I don't live in San Francisco. When several major conferences move to other cities because of dirty streets this is telling... But that would be a topic for a separate thread.
"Let every man divide his money into three parts, and invest a third in land, a third in business, and a third let him keep in reserve."
Which just brings more of those problems to Seattle (and I presume Austin). Granted, we already had issues, and yes, tech continues to grow here.
Austin has some of the worst traffic in the country.drumminj wrote: ↑Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:31 pmWhich just brings more of those problems to Seattle (and I presume Austin). Granted, we already had issues, and yes, tech continues to grow here.
And of course they now have a bad and rapidly worsening homeless problem because they are "homeless-welcoming".
I'm so glad we never moved there. Our current plan is to move about 40 miles north of there, so we should be clear of the worst problems.