4 ms·

If California were its own country, would it try to build more housing or would it put up a border wall and halt immigration? It's clear to me that Californians

If California were its own country, would it try to build more housing or would it put up a border wall and halt immigration? It's clear to me that Californians would choose the latter, and I don't really blame them. Deep down, everyone hates change, especially the type of transformative change that is taking place in these California suburbs. What does Lafayette owe the people of San Francisco?--or more accurately, the people that are not from California that chose to move to San Francisco? The revolving door that defines California immigration today, where wealthy young software developers go in and middle/lower class native Californians go out, is what is hollowing out the population, shifting the culture, and causing the homelessness problem, and building more housing isn't going to fix that.

timerol 7y ago
Building more housing would result in that revolving door just being an entrance. CA would still get the influx of "wealthy young software developers", but would also be able to keep all of the "middle/lower class native Californians," since there would be room for all of the newcomers to live. CA could stop playing this horrendous game of musical chairs, where every techie that moves in displaces a local, and instead have enough room for everyone to live.
- Invictus0 7y ago
  It's not just building housing, it's building more of everything including transit and infrastructure, as other commenters have noted. Not to mention, housing cannot be built fast enough. See this earlier discussion [0]. And for what? Why should people happily established in a place have to cater to the whims of people that are not in that place? It's like allowing people in India to vote in American elections so that they can lobby for their own immigration rights. It's patently ridiculous on the scale of a nation and it's still ridiculous on the scale of a state. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120479
komali2 7y ago
If they wanted to halt immigration, why would they build a border wall? That would be a highly expensive and ineffective way to halt immigration, for fairly obvious reasons.
- Invictus0 7y ago
  Merely a figure of speech.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  One could halt immigration--or at least the kind of immigration that most anti-immigration people complain about--in a naive and oversimplified fashion by raising the minimum hourly wage of noncitizen permanent residents to the median annual household income divided by 2000 (~$32/h), raising the minimum hourly wage for temporary residents with a work-permitting visa to 125% of that (~$40/h), and raising the minimum wage of persons without any official immigration status to 150% (~$48/h) of that. In order to get a job that pays less, a person would have to show their visa, residency card, or proof of citizenship. For jobs that pay more, who cares, as long as they support local business and pay taxes? Don't deport anybody. Don't build a wall. Just make any businesses that hire at lower wages, without first verifying citizenship or immigration status, pay the workers all their back wages. The economics shape and are shaped by human behavior.
  - komali2 7y ago
    Wait I don't get it, why wouldn't everyone just pretend they're undocumented immigrants to get the highest pay?
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Because they would lose the job to someone who can legally work for less.

timerol 7y ago

Building more housing would result in that revolving door just being an entrance. CA would still get the influx of "wealthy young software developers", but would also be able to keep all of the "middle/lower class native Californians," since there would be room for all of the newcomers to live. CA could stop playing this horrendous game of musical chairs, where every techie that moves in displaces a local, and instead have enough room for everyone to live.

Invictus0 7y ago
It's not just building housing, it's building more of everything including transit and infrastructure, as other commenters have noted. Not to mention, housing cannot be built fast enough. See this earlier discussion [0]. And for what? Why should people happily established in a place have to cater to the whims of people that are not in that place? It's like allowing people in India to vote in American elections so that they can lobby for their own immigration rights. It's patently ridiculous on the scale of a nation and it's still ridiculous on the scale of a state. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18120479

komali2 7y ago

If they wanted to halt immigration, why would they build a border wall? That would be a highly expensive and ineffective way to halt immigration, for fairly obvious reasons.

Invictus0 7y ago
Merely a figure of speech.
logfromblammo 7y ago
One could halt immigration--or at least the kind of immigration that most anti-immigration people complain about--in a naive and oversimplified fashion by raising the minimum hourly wage of noncitizen permanent residents to the median annual household income divided by 2000 (~$32/h), raising the minimum hourly wage for temporary residents with a work-permitting visa to 125% of that (~$40/h), and raising the minimum wage of persons without any official immigration status to 150% (~$48/h) of that. In order to get a job that pays less, a person would have to show their visa, residency card, or proof of citizenship. For jobs that pay more, who cares, as long as they support local business and pay taxes? Don't deport anybody. Don't build a wall. Just make any businesses that hire at lower wages, without first verifying citizenship or immigration status, pay the workers all their back wages. The economics shape and are shaped by human behavior.
- komali2 7y ago
  Wait I don't get it, why wouldn't everyone just pretend they're undocumented immigrants to get the highest pay?
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Because they would lose the job to someone who can legally work for less.