5 ms·
The article talks about two points of resentment. The more serious is people moving to red states not understanding why they are moving and voting for the same
by protomyth 8y ago
The article talks about two points of resentment. The more serious is people moving to red states not understanding why they are moving and voting for the same type of politicians that they fled from. If you move, at least try to understand your neighbors.
- tofof 8y agoPeople should vote for whomever they feel best represents their concerns and interests, or whom they think will govern best for their society at large. If you move, try and understand your neighbors, certainly, but that doesn't mean voting for the candidate that best represents them instead of best representing you.
- ip26 8y agoSpeaking as a transplant, it's not wrong to ask that transplants at least take a moment to consider why they left home and moved here, when making voting decisions. If you left because of high taxes, voting for tax increases in your new home at least appears misguided.
- alexanderwept 8y agoFair point. Let me try to steel man the parent comment and maybe you can respond: These people are fleeing the very predictable consequences of progressive governance, they should make an attempt to understand what made their origin so bad they wanted to leave and what made their destination so good that they decided to move there. If they vote for the policies that led them to flee, they might start the cycle over again.
- untog 8y agoI'd question using terms like "progressive" there. For instance, the reason SF is so expensive is that it's impossible to build more housing. That's not in any way a progressive policy.
- paleotrope 8y agoIt's really not "impossible".
- dkhenry 8y agoI don't want to say its _only_ because of "progressive" policies, but specifically affordability is hurt by lack of construction, and construction is hurt by things like low income housing units, high fee's for new construction, and rent control. Those are all marketed as progressive and they are choking supply. The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.
- alexanderwept 8y agoBut it is progressive to hamstring development because the permitting process is a shake down for 'affordable housing'. It is progressive to hold environmental concerns as a valid reason to halt development.
- jeffbax 8y ago"Progressive" generally goes along with the mentality there's no problem that is not solvable by government, which is usually the least efficient and cost effective mechanism for most problems. This undoubtedly causes a ripple effect through the economy as all costs proceed to rise over time if not in check. Never mind how many preferred policies like rent control and micromanaged environmental laws that accumulate like technical debt and paralyze development have wrecked the housing market and soak the tech industry like a huge transfer tax that benefits those who got in the right place at the right time in the 80s/90s and shut everything down. "Affordable housing" is another misnomered policy that is shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of just having market pricing and allowing the city to grow as demanded you let a few poor people stay because they win a lottery and still drive the bulk of people far out. The syringe, shit laden road to hell is paved with good intentions still holds true today, and why I call myself a liberal but not a progressive in the political sense. There's a definite distinction, and certainly not unreasonable to hope that voters driven out by those policies take a moment to think of how things got there.
- smadge 8y agoCan you document the link you claim between liberal policies and high cost of living?
- protomyth 8y agoI guess I would read the article that points out the high taxes to support liberal policies is one reason people are moving.
- smadge 8y agoI gathered from the article that the main reason people were moving was because of the high cost of living. Higher taxes certainly are a part of the high cost of living. However, clearly the high cost of housing is the largest contributor to the high cost of living, not taxes.
- davidgay 8y agoOne could easily think that taxes in California are too high, but that in the place one moved to they are too low (assuming they are substantially lower than California of course). So I'm not convinced there's an inconsistency. Personally, I think US+California taxes are too low, especially for high incomes. But I'm undoubtably biased from having grown up in that well-known-haven of high tax rates called Switzerland.
- BurningFrog 8y agoMy impression, if you excuse the broad strokes, is that it's mostly that liberals live in big cities where they have banned housing construction, with resulting exploding housing costs.
- smadge 8y agoI think “NIMBY”ism is bipartisan among affluent homeowners, whose have both an economic and social incentive to prevent new low cost housing in their neighborhoods.
- 8y ago
- onlyrealcuzzo 8y agoCalifornia isn't that expensive if you own a home outright. It's mostly expensive because of Prop 13. Prop 13 was championed by two Republicans and passed under Reagan. Yes, California has a 13.3% income tax and a 10% sales tax. That really has little to do with party lines. It has everything to do with Prop 13. If you can't tax old money in real estate, you have to tax something else...
- tomcam 8y agoOr you can try living within your means like the rest of us
- anonuser123456 8y agoProp 13 has nothing to do with lack of supply. More supply == lower prices.
- gpapilion 8y agoProp 13 restricts supply. For example I have a modest home I bought for what’s now half the market value. I won’t sell to move to a slightly better home because my taxes would double. Additionally my mother-in-law bought her home in the 70s for 1/20 of its current value. There are exemptions that allow to move within her county, but to downsize would likely 5x her taxes or more.
- michaelmrose 8y agoIsn't it great how the poor to middle class can fund the wealth of the more monied class.
- masonic 8y agomy taxes would double Not if Proposition 5 passes.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Prop 13 has nothing to do with lack of supply. Prop 13 has everything to do with lack of supply; localities not being able to pay operational costs of additional infrastructure without negotiating new state aid plays a big role in localities not being inclined to support growth in any way that they are able to resist unless it's tied to something that directly produces ongoing local revenue.
- nostrademons 8y agoEh, the California Conveyor Belt has been operating for decades. It's already turned Portland, Boulder, and RTP blue. Next up seem to be Asheville, Reno, Boise, Austin, and possibly even Arizona and Houston. I have a theory that people's political beliefs are largely manifestations of the behaviors that make sense within their economic system. So Blue America cares a lot about women's rights and abortion access because women are an integral part of the knowledge-worker economy, without which it couldn't function. They care about identity politics and political correctness because the information economy requires close creative work in teams, and you can't do that kind of work unless everybody has a certain psychological sense of safety. They care about redistributive policies because cities are big enough, dense enough, and diverse enough that you can't rely on social pressure to make sure everyone contributes. They care about diversity and immigration because you can't run highly-specialized knowledge-based businesses without bringing in talent from elsewhere. Meanwhile, Red America cares about gun rights because you basically need them to live in a rural area where wild animals may surprise you at any time. They care about taxation because the businesses are usually self-reliant, independent firms (often in commodity markets) rather than deeply-networked, interconnected systems which often depend upon government R&D. They care about cultural homogeneity and upholding sacred traditions because that's a large part of the social fabric in smaller towns & cities where everybody knows everybody else. They care about liberty because they don't want Blue Staters lording their foreign values over them. The California Conveyor is basically a manifestation of one socio-economic system growing and eating the other. As the world's population gets bigger and more interconnected, the relative size of the information economy gets bigger compared to the manufacturing, resource-extraction, and agricultural economies. That sucks up young people who are looking for jobs in industries that are growing, and deposits them in big cities. When they've made their fortunes and want to settle down, they move elsewhere, where land values are lower. But they're still embedded in the economic system (many keep the same professions, but work remotely or for different employers) and they keep the values that make sense with that economic system.
- crwalker 8y agoThat’s a great description of the challenge. To me, some California norms seem a bit like margin trading: loved for their high rewards when times are good, but eschewed by many with a broader historical view due to the potential for ruin.
- michaelmrose 8y agoMaybe you should take your own advice about being attentive to your neighbors. Perhaps the universe is simpler than you imagine. Having put aside a pile of money they want to invest it where it will buy more. Alternatively perhaps they disagree with some aspects of life in CA but would be happy to import other aspects. Perhaps they intelligently believe in increased taxation because they believe what their tax money will buy is worth the sacrifice. In flatland this is a contradiction but if Florida with x% more taxes is still substantially cheaper than the bay area now it might well not be. Give your neighbors more credit.