patrick.net

Dan, WSJ is not a reliable source on California. Rupert Murdoch wants to bash California any way he can. One obvious problem with the "statistics" in this video, which is clearly labeled an Opinion piece, is that they don't compare their income distributions to the statewide distribution, and they don't mention how many of these people are retiring on pensions and leaving job centers to live near family in the midwest. Another problem is they claim housing prices are high statewide, but even their own numbers show cheap prices in Fresno for example. There are legitimate points to be made for and against California, but WSJ Opinions on California are a complete waste of time, really negative both in the sense that they're only trying to say bad things and in the sense that by the time you're finished listening you end up knowing less than you did before, i.e. you've been misled.

curious2 says

Dan, WSJ is not a reliable source on California. Rupert Murdoch wants to bash California any way he can.

Fair enough, but wouldn't Murdoch want to portray the rich as the ones leaving?

This state (CA) sucks, the jobs are decent but dont pay a living wage for $1M moldy asbestosy Popsicle stick shacks with crap school districts and terrible stupid zoning and increasing traffic and Marissa Mayer saying we all have to be physically at work like good little soldiers. Anyone coming here is insane. Id rather be poor and spend more time with family than keep doing this black hole suburb of Shanghai Rat Race.

Central Valley stinks, Los Angeles is hell on earth, and San Diego only has jobs in defense and healthcare, otherwise its a very tight market.

The state is a bad proposition, and SFBA is a low standard of living. Very low. Good weather, decent jobs, but bad living.

Dan8267 says

lower and middle class that's leaving

Is this a bad thing for CA?

Doesn't the state spend most of it's budget on the lower & middle classes
(health, welfare etc)?

Could the state actually balance the budget in future, if this continues?

Jimbo in SF says

Is this a bad thing for CA?

Who's going to mow your lawn?

Dan8267 says

Who's going to mow your lawn?

hahaha ... I actually do that myself.

But I see your point, maybe the service sector will pay more to the remaining limited workers in future?

Someone in California that mows his own lawn? I don't believe it.

Dan8267 says

wouldn't Murdoch want to portray the rich as the ones leaving?

WSJ wants to say everyone's leaving, and that everything about California is bad. William Randolph Hearst railed against the income tax on the rich, and lost. Rupert Murdoch learned from that lesson, and so the WSJ says California is bad for the middle class. The problem is, in their zeal, they become hasty and sloppy; there are legitimate criticisms of California, but some of those would anger WSJ constituents (e.g. landlords) so WSJ marionettes make up stuff to mislead the rubes without offending TPTB.

Dan8267 says

Someone in California that mows his own lawn? I don't believe it.

CA's RE bubble happened only within the last generation or two. A lifelong SF resident recently wrote a letter to a local paper about how his neighborhood had changed so much in his lifetime that he would never be able to afford it now, and when he cleans up his own front steps the new neighbors assume he's a hired servant.

Jimbo in SF says

remaining limited workers

Adding to this: if even a smallish % of the lower / middle class leave, doesn't this mean there will be full employment for those who remain and want a job.

So wouldn't this be a win-win:
- less $$ spent on welfare / health
- full employment for those that remain
- Increased wages for the service sector as there are 'more jobs than people'

If you live in California and you think it "sucks" then you obviously don't know how to live.

I thought WA state had no state income taxes? But I think they have speeding cameras all over the state to drum up revenue?