5 ms·

As a resident of California, I would greatly prefer fewer people. Losing population isn’t necessarily something negative in my opinion.

fennecfoxen 5y ago
Your state’s unfunded pension obligations say otherwise. You’ll want help paying those.
- seibelj 5y ago
  Given the recent bailout of private multi employer pension funds inside of a “COVID Relied Bill” makes me think the democrats will just bail it out.
  - edoceo 5y ago
    should the "democrats" have just let them fail? what would a different party have done? why did the party even matter?
    - koolba 5y ago
      Yes they should. Because the alternative is subsidizing the same bad behavior across the the entire nation and bankrupting our grandchildren before they’re even born.
      - shkkmo 5y ago
        How does letting those pensions go bankrupt help anything? If the funds go bankrupt, it isn't the executives who used financial shenanigans to bleed the funds dry that face consequences. It is the employees who had no role in the management of the pension funds that end up punished. If you want to actually stop that bad behavior, we need to massively overhaul how we address whitecollar crime in this country so that bad actors face real consequences.
        CincinnatiMan 5y ago
        Do you have reading material on how the funds have gotten into dire straits?
        shkkmo 5y ago
        It depends on which type of pension fund and is generally more complicated than a single reason. One big general cause of failure was that companies were allowed to stop paying into the funds without paying enough into the fund to cover their employees who would receive. However, the particulars don't actually matter here. No matter the reason, it will have been the responsibility of the employer, fund manager or government regulators. The average Joe, who will lose his retirement if the pension is allowed to go bankrupt, didn't have enough control of the fund to be held responsible. As such, punishing him will do nothing to de-incentivize this from happening again.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        > As such, punishing him will do nothing to de-incentivize this from happening again. It can, if word spreads that defined benefit pensions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. My friends and I place zero value on DB pensions, as should anyone else unless they’re promised by the federal government (who can print dollars so they can never be unfunded). If I am evaluating two jobs offers and one gives me a DB pension (not from government) and one gives me a 401k, I’m going to value the DB pension at zero and go with the 401k.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The root cause is people are bad at projecting the future. Defined benefit pensions are projecting economic conditions decades into the future, and they’re simply not true (at least not until the government juiced the numbers to offset the anemic growth due to outsourcing and automation). But then that’s just inflating away one’s debts, and the recipient is still screwed. The second problem with defined benefit pensions is agency risk. Anytime you have a big pot of money, it invites corruption, and in the case of DB pensions it’s very easy for people in power today to tilt the scales towards themselves at the expense of those decades behind them. And so they do, by voting themselves lavish benefits, voting for politicians to enhance benefits, voting to hire the actuary that understated the costs, etc (that stuff is more so in taxpayer funded DB pension land). For multi employer defined benefit pensions, the simple matter is US economic growth in their businesses didn’t pan out. A lot of businesses contributing to the funds consolidated, got automated away, outsourced to cheaper countries, etc, and so a lot of the assumptions in there don’t hold true and so they come up short. But keep in mind, every time the government bails someone out, you pay little by little by your USD being worth less and less.
    - dantheman 5y ago
      Why should the federal government bailout private pensions?
      - edoceo 5y ago
        to help the citizens who, outside of their control, lost that retirement fund. D or R (or whatever) the Govt (via fellow taxpayers) should help other citizens.
        TbobbyZ 5y ago
        Bankrupt people cannot help people financially. Like, bankrupt governments cannot help people financially.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
epistasis 5y ago
Personally, I disagree, the people of California are probably one of the best parts of it, IMHO. If it's just the climate or the views, there are many other great places in the West coast that are cheaper and have the same natural amenities. But the people are irreplaceable, which is what make California so much more desirable than those other places that you aren't living. However if there was a system for limiting access, then I think it should be a time based thing, where you get like 30 years but then have to leave. It's the only fair way to deal with an in-demand resources and would quickly get rid of the people that don't really care for it much but are still here just because it's what they know.
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  > you get like 30 years but then have to leave Yikes. I wouldn't want to move to this state to begin with if it had a law like that. Also, who would that apply to? Farmers? Families? If someone has lived here for 40 years and is retired, would they have to leave?
  - CameronNemo 5y ago
    Yeah that would basically ensure people aren't putting down roots. (Economic, environmental, or social)
  - epistasis 5y ago
    It's an absolutely horrible, awful, no good system. We can act all shocked and horrified that somebody has to leave their home and their roots, but that's what we have already with the current system. It's just that it's people with less wealth that are being forced out, rather than the policy being applied to everyone equally. Doesn't matter if they lived here for 60 years, retired, then had a medical expense that cost them all their savings and their home. It happens to people that lives here their entire lives, retired into social security, then were priced out. If we are going to entertain some idea of "demand side management" it had better be applied fairly to everyone, because our entire system is built upon freedom of movement. If one state is going to opt out of that system, it needs to be applied fairly to its population rather than unfairly. And if we are going to maintain a system where people can be arbitrarily forced out of all their social connections, then we should just make that clear from the start. That would really lessen the demand. I think that people should have a right to stay where they are. But with that right comes a responsibility to either let more people live nearby.
agogdog 5y ago
California is BIG. You've got lots of room.
notsureaboutpg 5y ago
And vice versa more and more people would greatly prefer to live elsewhere than California. Your quality of life is declining, that's why people are leaving. Not cost.
JPKab 5y ago
I would encourage you to look for cities in the United States with declining populations or even states and ask yourself if you still feel the same way. Nobody complains about housing prices in Detroit. (Yes I'm aware there is a specific section of Detroit that is very trendy but I'm talking about the city as a whole)

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Your state’s unfunded pension obligations say otherwise. You’ll want help paying those.

seibelj 5y ago
Given the recent bailout of private multi employer pension funds inside of a “COVID Relied Bill” makes me think the democrats will just bail it out.
- edoceo 5y ago
  should the "democrats" have just let them fail? what would a different party have done? why did the party even matter?
  - koolba 5y ago
    Yes they should. Because the alternative is subsidizing the same bad behavior across the the entire nation and bankrupting our grandchildren before they’re even born.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      How does letting those pensions go bankrupt help anything? If the funds go bankrupt, it isn't the executives who used financial shenanigans to bleed the funds dry that face consequences. It is the employees who had no role in the management of the pension funds that end up punished. If you want to actually stop that bad behavior, we need to massively overhaul how we address whitecollar crime in this country so that bad actors face real consequences.
      - CincinnatiMan 5y ago
        Do you have reading material on how the funds have gotten into dire straits?
        shkkmo 5y ago
        It depends on which type of pension fund and is generally more complicated than a single reason. One big general cause of failure was that companies were allowed to stop paying into the funds without paying enough into the fund to cover their employees who would receive. However, the particulars don't actually matter here. No matter the reason, it will have been the responsibility of the employer, fund manager or government regulators. The average Joe, who will lose his retirement if the pension is allowed to go bankrupt, didn't have enough control of the fund to be held responsible. As such, punishing him will do nothing to de-incentivize this from happening again.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        > As such, punishing him will do nothing to de-incentivize this from happening again. It can, if word spreads that defined benefit pensions aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. My friends and I place zero value on DB pensions, as should anyone else unless they’re promised by the federal government (who can print dollars so they can never be unfunded). If I am evaluating two jobs offers and one gives me a DB pension (not from government) and one gives me a 401k, I’m going to value the DB pension at zero and go with the 401k.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The root cause is people are bad at projecting the future. Defined benefit pensions are projecting economic conditions decades into the future, and they’re simply not true (at least not until the government juiced the numbers to offset the anemic growth due to outsourcing and automation). But then that’s just inflating away one’s debts, and the recipient is still screwed. The second problem with defined benefit pensions is agency risk. Anytime you have a big pot of money, it invites corruption, and in the case of DB pensions it’s very easy for people in power today to tilt the scales towards themselves at the expense of those decades behind them. And so they do, by voting themselves lavish benefits, voting for politicians to enhance benefits, voting to hire the actuary that understated the costs, etc (that stuff is more so in taxpayer funded DB pension land). For multi employer defined benefit pensions, the simple matter is US economic growth in their businesses didn’t pan out. A lot of businesses contributing to the funds consolidated, got automated away, outsourced to cheaper countries, etc, and so a lot of the assumptions in there don’t hold true and so they come up short. But keep in mind, every time the government bails someone out, you pay little by little by your USD being worth less and less.
  - dantheman 5y ago
    Why should the federal government bailout private pensions?
    - edoceo 5y ago
      to help the citizens who, outside of their control, lost that retirement fund. D or R (or whatever) the Govt (via fellow taxpayers) should help other citizens.
      - TbobbyZ 5y ago
        Bankrupt people cannot help people financially. Like, bankrupt governments cannot help people financially.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

epistasis 5y ago

Personally, I disagree, the people of California are probably one of the best parts of it, IMHO. If it's just the climate or the views, there are many other great places in the West coast that are cheaper and have the same natural amenities. But the people are irreplaceable, which is what make California so much more desirable than those other places that you aren't living. However if there was a system for limiting access, then I think it should be a time based thing, where you get like 30 years but then have to leave. It's the only fair way to deal with an in-demand resources and would quickly get rid of the people that don't really care for it much but are still here just because it's what they know.

imoverclocked 5y ago
> you get like 30 years but then have to leave Yikes. I wouldn't want to move to this state to begin with if it had a law like that. Also, who would that apply to? Farmers? Families? If someone has lived here for 40 years and is retired, would they have to leave?
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  Yeah that would basically ensure people aren't putting down roots. (Economic, environmental, or social)
- epistasis 5y ago
  It's an absolutely horrible, awful, no good system. We can act all shocked and horrified that somebody has to leave their home and their roots, but that's what we have already with the current system. It's just that it's people with less wealth that are being forced out, rather than the policy being applied to everyone equally. Doesn't matter if they lived here for 60 years, retired, then had a medical expense that cost them all their savings and their home. It happens to people that lives here their entire lives, retired into social security, then were priced out. If we are going to entertain some idea of "demand side management" it had better be applied fairly to everyone, because our entire system is built upon freedom of movement. If one state is going to opt out of that system, it needs to be applied fairly to its population rather than unfairly. And if we are going to maintain a system where people can be arbitrarily forced out of all their social connections, then we should just make that clear from the start. That would really lessen the demand. I think that people should have a right to stay where they are. But with that right comes a responsibility to either let more people live nearby.

agogdog 5y ago

California is BIG. You've got lots of room.

notsureaboutpg 5y ago

And vice versa more and more people would greatly prefer to live elsewhere than California. Your quality of life is declining, that's why people are leaving. Not cost.

JPKab 5y ago

I would encourage you to look for cities in the United States with declining populations or even states and ask yourself if you still feel the same way. Nobody complains about housing prices in Detroit. (Yes I'm aware there is a specific section of Detroit that is very trendy but I'm talking about the city as a whole)