Could be worse, we could live in California

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: In what sense, and why, do you think the education system is struggling?

As you might expect, being that school funding is often tied to property taxes, CA is very much a study in contrasts in this regard.  We have some excellent public schools (I believe we're talking about public schools here, correct?) and some very poor ones.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state

It's definitely a case of the haves and have nots.  I can tell you that the vast majority of LAUSD schools are not ones you'd want your kids attending.  LACOE run school are even worse.  

[CJD]

(06-05-2023, 10:17 PM)Dill Wrote: In what sense, and why, do you think the education system is struggling?

Just googling their ranking, some studies have them in the 40s like this one
https://www.kusi.com/new-study-finds-california-schools-ranking-44-in-america/#:~:text=Researchers%20for%20the%202022%20Student,and%20ranked%20California%20as%20%2344.


This ranking has them at #20 overall, but has their K-12 system ranked as #38
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california
Their college rating was #3.

Which seems to fit well into the idea that if you're wealthy, you're probably well educated in CA, but the vast majority of people are not wealthy.

Apparently the adult literacy rate in California is worst in the country?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/best-states-for-education

I tied it in to the poverty rates in California because so much of education is linked to income and the economic disparity in California is one of the worst in the country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-by-state

If it isn't as bad as it seems from my brief review of state statistics, that's great. I guess it depends on which metrics you're looking at.

[NATI BENGALS]

Wonder if that fault is finally about to crack making cali fall off and big insurance knows about it.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-05-2023, 01:58 PM)pally Wrote: I noticed that both you and the opinion writer chose to ignore the arguably more serious issue in Florida concerning the lack of available home owner insurance.  The difference is that Newsome will work to fix the problem while DeSantis ignored it in favor of the culture war he hopes to further his personal political ambitions

Yeah, 'cause he's been doing such a great job of making it attractive for companies to do business in California so far..

https://buildremote.co/companies/companies-leaving-california/

TLDR? It's been 352 companies that have left California for better places to do business in the past 3 years.

[Belsnickel]

(06-05-2023, 06:28 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The entire state of California, in my opinion, kind of embodies what I dislike about Liberals. In so many ways, they're all talk, no walk. They preach inclusion, diversity, acceptance etc etc, but their poverty and homelessness rates are out of control, their education system is struggling, they are heavily influenced by Hollywood which, as we know, are a group of ultra wealthy, out of touch, virtue signaling liberals who love black boxes on Facebook and pride flags in their Twitter bios, but hate the idea of paying more taxes to actually improve the lives of other people.

The entire state just screams the old adage "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" that so many "liberals" hide behind whenever the rubber meets the road and systems that need funding to improve the lives of the people they claim to care about are created.

But this is my view of California from the left. You probably view it as the opposite in some regards :)

Yeah, I am right there with you. I was actually listening to a podcast talking about the housing crises in California and New York. People blame liberal policies for the problems, but the issue really comes from the desire of the wealthy in power not wanting to increase the housing supply because that decreases the value of their assets. It's antithetical to progressive ideals and it just goes to highlight how the struggle in this country isn't one of ideology. It really isn't one of location, race, or any of that shit. It is a matter of those with wealth and power doing everything they can to hold onto it and prevent those of us without it from ever getting it. It's not a progressive or liberal position, and it certainly ain't democratic.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-06-2023, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I am right there with you. I was actually listening to a podcast talking about the housing crises in California and New York. People blame liberal policies for the problems, but the issue really comes from the desire of the wealthy in power not wanting to increase the housing supply because that decreases the value of their assets. It's antithetical to progressive ideals and it just goes to highlight how the struggle in this country isn't one of ideology. It really isn't one of location, race, or any of that shit. It is a matter of those with wealth and power doing everything they can to hold onto it and prevent those of us without it from ever getting it. It's not a progressive or liberal position, and it certainly ain't democratic.

I do agree that the "housing shortage" is another artificially created "crisis" that was made in order to lower the availability, thus driving up the cost of housing both selling prices and rental rates.  The end result is just as you say, to keep the average consumer in a tough situation.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/02/business/family-homes-wall-street/index.html#:~:text=Pension%20funds%2C%20investment%20firms%20and%20Wall%20Street%20banks,pandemic%20will%20keep%20demand%20for%20suburban%20houses%20elevated.

[CJD]

(06-06-2023, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I am right there with you. I was actually listening to a podcast talking about the housing crises in California and New York. People blame liberal policies for the problems, but the issue really comes from the desire of the wealthy in power not wanting to increase the housing supply because that decreases the value of their assets. It's antithetical to progressive ideals and it just goes to highlight how the struggle in this country isn't one of ideology. It really isn't one of location, race, or any of that shit. It is a matter of those with wealth and power doing everything they can to hold onto it and prevent those of us without it from ever getting it. It's not a progressive or liberal position, and it certainly ain't democratic.

Careful with that Marxism, comrade. We don't want to radicalize people too quickly! 

No, but you and I are in complete agreement. Identity politics have a place in the class discussion for obvious reasons (black people, for hundreds of years, were unable to own anything, so of course that is going to cause an issue with their ability to accumulate wealth today), but this country is split by class in a much more rigid way than it is split in any other way (although many "conservatives" do their best to refocus the conversation on culture war issues like trans people to distract from the class issues, and their words do have the potential to cause harm to people in disempowered groups, so we can't just completely throw out the identity politics altogether, unfortunately.)

[Luvnit2]

(06-06-2023, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I am right there with you. I was actually listening to a podcast talking about the housing crises in California and New York. People blame liberal policies for the problems, but the issue really comes from the desire of the wealthy in power not wanting to increase the housing supply because that decreases the value of their assets. It's antithetical to progressive ideals and it just goes to highlight how the struggle in this country isn't one of ideology. It really isn't one of location, race, or any of that shit. It is a matter of those with wealth and power doing everything they can to hold onto it and prevent those of us without it from ever getting it. It's not a progressive or liberal position, and it certainly ain't democratic.

I strongly disagree. Housing is supply and demand. States like California and NY have extremely high taxes. It caused people and businesses to leave to other states. So, if the net of people who now need a house is negative, then the demand for new housing decreases.

On the other hand, I live in Florida where new residents are flocking daily. I live in Estero, Fl. which is close to Fort Myers. The road I live off on I-75 has 8 new subdivision within 3.5 miles of the Interstate.. It is crazy, but the demand is high. I moved into a new home in October, 2022. i have had 2 people send me post cards asking to buy my house. 

High cost of living driven by high taxes is the culprit of the mass exodus of liberal run cities and states. Low demand for housing is a result of the ass exodus.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-york/

Read the article from Forbes above. Keep in mind this does not include property taxes or federal income tax.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 08:31 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Yeah, 'cause he's been doing such a great job of making it attractive for companies to do business in California so far..

https://buildremote.co/companies/companies-leaving-california/

TLDR?  It's been 352 companies that have left California for better places to do business in the past 3 years.

Not to mention that California lost population in the last census for the first time in its history.

Also, to the housing point raised by Bel.  It's only in certain areas that housing is less available and thus more expensive.  You can find a place in Riverside or San Bernardino for a reasonable sum.  I'm sure the same is true for counties such as Kern.  But yes, if you want to live in the very desirable areas then you're going to pay a premium.  I paid 492k for my home in June of 2020, which by the way was a great deal as it was listed for 535k originally (it needed a lot of work).  It's not worth as much as it did a year ago, when the house next door to me, which is smaller, sold for 805k.  But the real estate estimate for my home, and I have not listed the over 60k of improvements I made to the place (new roof, new HVAC system, new kitchen, honestly pretty much new everything), is still 725k.

But I would add a point about this not being due to government policy.  Newsome has mandated that a certain percentage of any new housing projects be designated for low income buyers.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/california-gov-newsom-signs-laws-to-boost-housing-production

This overrides local control over zoning and is proving monstrously unpopular.  In fact the state is actually suing Huntington Beach because of their refusal to play ball on this issue.

https://voiceofoc.org/2023/04/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-failing-to-adopt-a-housing-plan/

So, yes far left Dem policies are affecting housing and influencing the exodus of record numbers of Californians to nearby states.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2023, 11:10 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I strongly disagree. Housing is supply and demand. States like California and NY have extremely high taxes. It caused people and businesses to leave to other states. So, if the net of people who now need a house is negative, then the demand for new housing decreases.

On the other hand, I live in Florida where new residents are flocking daily. I live in Estero, Fl. which is close to Fort Myers. The road I live off on I-75 has 8 new subdivision within 3.5 miles of the Interstate.. It is crazy, but the demand is high. I moved into a new home in October, 2022. i have had 2 people send me post cards asking to buy my house. 

High cost of living driven by high taxes is the culprit of the mass exodus of liberal run cities and states. Low demand for housing is a result of the ass exodus.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/new-york/

Read the article from Forbes above. Keep in mind this does not include property taxes or federal income tax.

What I was talking about was simple supply and demand. They refuse to build more, thus reducing the supply available to meet the demand. This keeps the value of their assets high and has caused people to move to other areas where they are increasing the housing capacity. The reason the Phoenix area is the fastest growing metropolitan area is because they are building more. Of course, that comes with its own issues because that place wasn't intended to be inhabited like that and it is taxing the ecosystem too much.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 11:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I was talking about was simple supply and demand. They refuse to build more, thus reducing the supply available to meet the demand. This keeps the value of their assets high and has caused people to move to other areas where they are increasing the housing capacity. The reason the Phoenix area is the fastest growing metropolitan area is because they are building more. Of course, that comes with its own issues because that place wasn't intended to be inhabited like that and it is taxing the ecosystem too much.

I have a feeling Phoenix is going to end up as Vegas part two.

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2023, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a feeling Phoenix is going to end up as Vegas part two.

Absolutely. My brother-in-law lives out there and every time he complains about this stuff I just remind him that he is living in a hell hole that the earth did not design for human habitation to this degree. It is a manufactured landscape for human development, much like Vegas, and as such the resources are extremely limited.

The whole recent debacle with the Colorado River is just a recent prime example of the shit show out west. We're in this thread about insurance companies leaving California and while it is happening in part because of dumbass government policies in the state there is a large component of it being that it is just becoming too expensive to insure homes in areas where drought and wildfire are decimating landscapes that have been overpopulated. We've been trying to control these areas far too much but as people have learned when they plant a building in the middle of an elephant migration path, nature will find a way to take back what is hers.

[Dill]

(06-05-2023, 11:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As you might expect, being that school funding is often tied to property taxes, CA is very much a study in contrasts in this regard.  We have some excellent public schools (I believe we're talking about public schools here, correct?) and some very poor ones.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state
It's definitely a case of the haves and have nots.  I can tell you that the vast majority of LAUSD schools are not ones you'd want your kids attending.  LACOE run school are even worse.  

(06-06-2023, 01:14 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Just googling their ranking, some studies have them in the 40s like this one
https://www.kusi.com/new-study-finds-california-schools-ranking-44-in-america/#:~:text=Researchers%20for%20the%202022%20Student,and%20ranked%20California%20as%20%2344.
This ranking has them at #20 overall, but has their K-12 system ranked as #38
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california
Their college rating was #3.
Which seems to fit well into the idea that if you're wealthy, you're probably well educated in CA, but the vast majority of people are not wealthy.
Apparently the adult literacy rate in California is worst in the country?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/best-states-for-education
I tied it in to the poverty rates in California because so much of education is linked to income and the economic disparity in California is one of the worst in the country. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-by-state
If it isn't as bad as it seems from my brief review of state statistics, that's great. I guess it depends on which metrics you're looking at.

Thanks for the responses and links guys. I was thinking of higher education as well, as CA still has some of the best universities in the world, though facing difficulties of funding and access, as is higher ed everywhere, especially since 2008. 

I don't question the rankings; I am just interested in whether and how  poor results might be linked to policy choices--and whose. I am skeptical that "progressives" are a big part of the problem since, if we are talking about K-12, it is actual leftists who have for decades been arguing against unequal funding for districts and developing analyses and pushing schemes to equalize school spending. School funding is tied to property taxes because these are more reliable for funding; that probably can't change. But every state has mechanisms for evening out school funding with state and federal dollars. The "district" is the key unit here. A district with lots of poor families can often become progressively funded. But a big district with some very poor schools might also have many very rich schools, so the district as a whole does NOT draw the funding a mostly poor district would.* So those poor schools stay underfunded. (At least that's how I understand school funding in the US.)  I have no idea what the policies are for CA. But I do know that the wealthiest state by far is also one of the most economically segregated, and that the vast majority of CA's wealth falls into a mere 30 of its 1,650 zip codes.  https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/4093/ca-geography-wealth-090519.pdf

I can imagine rich "liberals" protecting their property values, etc. And some of these might be very visible, like celebrities, but how many of the very wealthy in CA or any state really are liberals?  Or Progressives? I'm thinking, proportionally, not many. Dems are still the party of the poor and middle class pretty much.
SSF's links above to Newsome's attempts to zone affordable housing into being sound like well-intentioned efforts to help people who are not wealthy, though they generate anger by going against "community preferences." Following Bels, it looks like many of these CA debates are registering a class conflict which Americans have not learned to recognize as such.

A final note--CA has also a large proportion of non-native speakers, homeless and other problems not faced by other states not on the Mexican border. That has to affect measurement of educational results too. 

PS C-Dawg, if you are wealthy anywhere you are more likely to be well-educated.  

* This study by the Urban Institute explains this point with a wonderful comparison of Florida, with large, economically heterogenous districts, and New York, where districts tend to be more economically homogenous. https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/

[Dill]

(06-06-2023, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a feeling Phoenix is going to end up as Vegas part two.

(06-06-2023, 12:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. My brother-in-law lives out there and every time he complains about this stuff I just remind him that he is living in a hell hole that the earth did not design for human habitation to this degree. It is a manufactured landscape for human development, much like Vegas, and as such the resources are extremely limited.

The whole recent debacle with the Colorado River is just a recent prime example of the shit show out west. We're in this thread about insurance companies leaving California and while it is happening in part because of dumbass government policies in the state there is a large component of it being that it is just becoming too expensive to insure homes in areas where drought and wildfire are decimating landscapes that have been overpopulated. We've been trying to control these areas far too much but as people have learned when they plant a building in the middle of an elephant migration path, nature will find a way to take back what is hers.

Where is B-zona? He knows Phoenix corporate real estate from top down, and I'm guessing a ton about zoning and insurance, and might have some more insights into what's driving such changes, at least in one Western state.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 12:45 PM)Dill Wrote: SSF's links above to Newsome's attempts to zone affordable housing into being sound like well-intentioned efforts to help people who are not wealthy, though they generate anger by going against "community preferences." Following Bels, it looks like many of these CA debates are registering a class conflict which Americans have not learned to recognize as such.

You know what they say about the road to hell.

Quote:A final note--CA has also a large proportion of non-native speakers, homeless and other problems not faced by other states not on the Mexican border. That has to affect measurement of educational results too. 

That's certainly an issue as well, as the need for ESL teachers often exceeds the supply.  It's not just Spanish either, we have very large immigrant communities from numerous nations.  Also, there are kids who come from areas of Central America (and South to a far lesser extent) that speak a native infused version of Spanish.  When I worked in a detention facility there was always a group of guys who the other Spanish speakers could barely, if at all, understand.

[CJD]

(06-06-2023, 12:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for the responses and links guys. I was thinking of higher education as well, as CA still has some of the best universities in the world, though facing difficulties of funding and access, as is higher ed everywhere, especially since 2008. 

I don't question the rankings; I am just interested in whether and how  poor results might be linked to policy choices--and whose. I am skeptical that "progressives" are a big part of the problem since, if we are talking about K-12, it is actual leftists who have for decades been arguing against unequal funding for districts and developing analyses and pushing schemes to equalize school spending. School funding is tied to property taxes because these are more reliable for funding; that probably can't change. But every state has mechanisms for evening out school funding with state and federal dollars. The "district" is the key unit here. A district with lots of poor families can often become progressively funded. But a big district with some very poor schools might also have many very rich schools, so the district as a whole does NOT draw the funding a mostly poor district would.* So those poor schools stay underfunded. (At least that's how I understand school funding in the US.)  I have no idea what the policies are for CA. But I do know that the wealthiest state by far is also one of the most economically segregated, and that the vast majority of CA's wealth falls into a mere 30 of its 1,650 zip codes.  https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2019/4093/ca-geography-wealth-090519.pdf

I can imagine rich "liberals" protecting their property values, etc. And some of these might be very visible, like celebrities, but how many of the very wealthy in CA or any state really are liberals?  Or Progressives? I'm thinking, proportionally, not many. Dems are still the party of the poor and middle class pretty much.
SSF's links above to Newsome's attempts to zone affordable housing into being sound like well-intentioned efforts to help people who are not wealthy, though they generate anger by going against "community preferences." Following Bels, it looks like many of these CA debates are registering a class conflict which Americans have not learned to recognize as such.

A final note--CA has also a large proportion of non-native speakers, homeless and other problems not faced by other states not on the Mexican border. That has to affect measurement of educational results too. 

PS C-Dawg, if you are wealthy anywhere you are more likely to be well-educated.  

* This study by the Urban Institute explains this point with a wonderful comparison of Florida, with large, economically heterogenous districts, and New York, where districts tend to be more economically homogenous. https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/

You may be right regarding who is wealthy vs who is actually progressive. My only insight into that is Hollywood, where the majority of them are unquestionably wealthy, as celebrities often are, but are also progressive or liberal. At least outwardly facing liberal. But I only ever see them stand up for social things but I don't see many of them campaigning to raise taxes to help support X program or Y system. I may be wrong and they are doing it, I'm just talking about perception here.
Cringe comes in copious supply from wealthy liberals . (like that Imagine sing along compilation during the pandemic *shudder*)

PS that was meant to call out California for income inequality :)

[Belsnickel]

(06-06-2023, 01:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's certainly an issue as well, as the need for ESL teachers often exceeds the supply.  It's not just Spanish either, we have very large immigrant communities from numerous nations.  Also, there are kids who come from areas of Central America (and South to a far lesser extent) that speak a native infused version of Spanish.  When I worked in a detention facility there was always a group of guys who the other Spanish speakers could barely, if at all, understand.

Yeah, a lot of Americans tend to think of everything south of us, other than Brazil, just being Spanish speaking. However, there are a ton of indigenous languages throughout the western hemisphere that are still the primary languages for a large number of people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 01:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, a lot of Americans tend to think of everything south of us, other than Brazil, just being Spanish speaking. However, there are a ton of indigenous languages throughout the western hemisphere that are still the primary languages for a large number of people.

Also, Belize's official language is English.  A lot of fugitives from the Southern California area end up there.  But, yeah, they will frequently combine Spanish with an indigenous language and create something very few others can comprehend well.  They can communicate about as well as I can in Spanish.  Also, Mexican Spanish is very different from Colombian Spanish for example.  And both are light years different from Spanish as spoke in Spain.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 01:55 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: You may be right regarding who is wealthy vs who is actually progressive. My only insight into that is Hollywood, where the majority of them are unquestionably wealthy, as celebrities often are, but are also progressive or liberal. At least outwardly facing liberal. But I only ever see them stand up for social things but I don't see many of them campaigning to raise taxes to help support X program or Y system. I may be wrong and they are doing it, I'm just talking about perception here.
Cringe comes in copious supply from wealthy liberals . (like that Imagine sing along compilation during the pandemic *shudder*)

PS that was meant to call out California for income inequality :)

Oh, they fought tooth and nail against the new "mansion tax."

https://abc7.com/los-angeles-mansion-tax-measure-ula-affordable-housing-homelessness/13059677/

Not surprisingly there was a glut of sales right before the law went into effect and only two, at least last I heard, since it went into effect on April 1st.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-05-05/l-a-s-luxury-market-freezes-putting-measure-ula-funds-in-limbo

The far left tends to think they can tax themselves out of any issue.  The problem is that the wealthy can move their money rather easily  There's a sweet spot where it's more trouble for the wealthy than it's worth, and we've gone way past that.