Why do conservatives keep saying California has "collapsed"?

[pikachu]

California is expensive for a reason and that's because so many people want to live there.

California has it's problems, especially with the homeless. However, California can and should improve.

Conservatives solution to California's problems will not solve it. Cutting taxes and regulations will NOT lessen poverty. If that was the cases then states like Mississippi and West Virginia would have the lowest poverty rates in the country (they don't, they are the poorest states).

Better solutions need to be made. No California is not being "turned into Venezuela" as many conservatives suggest but it's not the 100% problem free utopia that many liberals envision. More work needs to be done.

"Conservative" solutions didn't seem to harm California while it was becoming the California "everyone wants to move to."

Tbf, a lot of California's problems have their roots in Republican policies like Prop 13, NIMBYism from both conservatives and liberals, and unwillingness to to raise the gas tax to maintain roads. Not to deny the state has major problems – low housing stock being first and foremost – but I think a lot of the developments of past couple years have been encouraging. All of the candidates for governor were pretty adamant in the need to build millions of new units. Admittedly the proposals have been underwhelming, but I do think Scott Weiner's proposals show that the Overton window is shifting wrt significantly downsizing zoning and local control laws in housing. There have also been a lot of encouraging referendums in LA on homelessness and public transit referendums and you're starting to see signs progress on the former. The state also managed to pass a gas tax increase to fund road maintenance and hopefully that survives a referendum in November.

So, yeah, the state has a lot of major problems and there should be some more self-reflection among liberals for why it became the way it did, but imo there are reasons to be optimistic about the state's future at least in comparison to other states with similar issues.

That's because of Hollywood. Hollywood is the main thing people moved to California for. If Hollywood didn't exist then I'm not so sure about that statement.

A small subset of people moved to LA because of Hollywood, but it was primarily because of good weather, cheap and plentiful land (lol), and other larger, stronger industries (manufacturing, aerospace, oil). The state's problems are rooted in the fact that the people who moved here effectively tried to close the door behind them. And considering the state has an outflow in domestic migration, I guess they were successful in a way?

[Hydera]

California is expensive for a reason and that's because so many people want to live there.

California has it's problems, especially with the homeless. However, California can and should improve.

Conservatives solution to California's problems will not solve it. Cutting taxes and regulations will NOT lessen poverty. If that was the cases then states like Mississippi and West Virginia would have the lowest poverty rates in the country (they don't, they are the poorest states).

Better solutions need to be made. No California is not being "turned into Venezuela" as many conservatives suggest but it's not the 100% problem free utopia that many liberals envision. More work needs to be done.

"Conservative" solutions didn't seem to harm California while it was becoming the California "everyone wants to move to."

Tbf, a lot of California's problems have their roots in Republican policies like Prop 13, NIMBYism from both conservatives and liberals, and unwillingness to to raise the gas tax to maintain roads. Not to deny the state has major problems – low housing stock being first and foremost – but I think a lot of the developments of past couple years have been encouraging. All of the candidates for governor were pretty adamant in the need to build millions of new units. Admittedly the proposals have been underwhelming, but I do think Scott Weiner's proposals show that the Overton window is shifting wrt significantly downsizing zoning and local control laws in housing. There have also been a lot of encouraging referendums in LA on homelessness and public transit referendums and you're starting to see signs progress on the former. The state also managed to pass a gas tax increase to fund road maintenance and hopefully that survives a referendum in November.

So, yeah, the state has a lot of major problems and there should be some more self-reflection among liberals for why it became the way it did, but imo there are reasons to be optimistic about the state's future at least in comparison to other states with similar issues.

That's because of Hollywood. Hollywood is the main thing people moved to California for. If Hollywood didn't exist then I'm not so sure about that statement.

A small subset of people moved to LA because of Hollywood, but it was primarily because of good weather, cheap and plentiful land (lol), and other larger, stronger industries (manufacturing, aerospace, oil). The state's problems are rooted in the fact that the people who moved here effectively tried to close the door behind them. And considering the state has an outflow in domestic migration, I guess they were successful in a way?

Also consider that California gives $60 billion more to the federal government than what they get in return. All that money could easily pay its pension and debt costs.

[I’m not Stu]

California wasn't a liberal state until recently. California inherited many problems from conservative policies. Didn't Prop 13 defund public education? From 1920-1988, only 3 Democratic Presidential nominees won California. California was won by FDR (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944), Truman (1948), and LBJ (1964); all in Democratic victories.

[Mr. Smith]

Not to mention that Newsom would be only the second Democrat not named Brown to represent the state since  oh, WWII.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not to mention that Newsom would be only the second Democrat not named Brown to represent the state since  oh, WWII.

You mean “govern”, surely.

[I’m not Stu]

Since WWII, Newsom will be the first Democratic governor not named Brown to be elected without being recalled.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They can't comprehend reasonable taxes that actually can do stuff [CA and NY like most of Europe understand this concept] and high immigration doing anyone any favors, both are happening, with 9 specific counties having a larger economy than Saudi Arabia. It's just too much.

There is nothing reasonable about Prop. 13.

[I’m not Stu]

Feinstein's seat was held by the GOP from 1977-1992. From WWII to 1992, John Tunney was the only Class 1 Democratic Senator to serve a full term.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's interesting to read the attempts to assign California's problems to either left-wing or right-wing political thinking.

My take is that something like NIMBY issues fails to map well on to either the traditional left-right spectrum or the libertarian-favored political matrix. You can argue about whose interests are driving California's problems, but IMO it's a great example of how impoverished and useless these conceptual frameworks have become.

As a native of California I firmly believe that this is a good post.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Saw someone make the case recently that in the Bay Area one class of worker are developing technologies that aim to engineer the other classes of workers out of their jobs and that this does not help things in terms of building a sense of shared community.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Saw someone make the case recently that in the Bay Area one class of worker are developing technologies that aim to engineer the other classes of workers out of their jobs and that this does not help things in terms of building a sense of shared community.

This is correct.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Well, isn't San Francisco supposed to collapse into the sea at some point in the distant future?

[Mike Thick]

It's interesting to read the attempts to assign California's problems to either left-wing or right-wing political thinking.

My take is that something like NIMBY issues fails to map well on to either the traditional left-right spectrum or the libertarian-favored political matrix. You can argue about whose interests are driving California's problems, but IMO it's a great example of how impoverished and useless these conceptual frameworks have become.

This is 100% correct. In a sane world, the divide would be class-based, but the socioeconomic groups who are adversely affected by NIMBYism don’t turn out to vote.

In the beach town I live in, a little north of LA, a proposal to rezone some areas on our hillsides for affordable housing development was voted down in a referendum last year. Now, as our once-vibrant downtown becomes increasingly seedy (recently, a young father was stabbed to death by a homeless man in an upscale restaurant as he held his young daughter in his lap), the people who opposed the rezoning are pushing to crack down on the homeless by arresting them or by bussing them out of the city. All because they oppose actual structural reform, since it would bring the value of their house down to $900,000 from $1,000,000  or whatever.

Eventually, they’ll realize that changes are necessary, because even the nice areas of our cities will become impassable in a way that cosmetic fixes can’t solve. The question is when. The longer it takes, the closer to “collapse” California will get.

[Mr. Illini]

It's usually because they don't understand that statistics should be on a per capita basis.

Middle of the pack in debt (http://www.mygovcost.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/State-Debt-Per-Capita-large.png)

Middle of the pack in poverty (https://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2011/10/states_poverty_income.png)

Low end on property taxes (https://d2dv7hze646xr.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/01_PropertyTaxes_JobsGrowth.png)

Middle of the pack on sales taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/LOST2016-01_1.png)

Middle of the pack on unemployment (https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm)

[Mr. Smith]

Well, isn't San Francisco supposed to collapse into the sea at some point in the distant future?

Just the parts built on landfill.

[DC Al Fine]

The median home costs more than half a million dollars. What more do you need to know?

That's the inverse of collapse. It's an indication of extreme growth, in which housing supply has not kept up with demand.

California is not growing any faster than the rest of the country in terms of GDP, population, or wages per worker, and it's growing much more slowly compared to other Sun Belt states. States like Texas that have actually experienced "extreme growth" over the past couple of decades have built large numbers of new homes. About the only kind of growth in which California now leads is in its homeless population.

Anyway, "collapse" as applied to California refers to dysfunction and quality of life, not population size. It ranks 49th in the country in housing supply and is building tens of thousands of units per year when market analysts are calling for hundreds of thousands. Home ownership is completely unaffordable for the median family. Renting consumes an enormous portion of working people's incomes. Group housing arrangements and extreme commutes have become common. It may not be the Crisis of the Third Century, but it's a f*cking disaster nonetheless.

Completely agree.

Collapse is too strong a term, but unsustainable dystopia definitely isn't.

On a side note, if the Republicans ever decide to seriously try to win non-white votes, "build baby build" wouldn't be the worst way to do it.

[Kamala's side hoe]

Yes, the future envisioned for us by the northern CA tech bros is deeply dystopian for anyone who isn't a tech bro. But that future cannot be called negative from a conservative standpoint.

Saw someone make the case recently that in the Bay Area one class of worker are developing technologies that aim to engineer the other classes of workers out of their jobs and that this does not help things in terms of building a sense of shared community.

Am member of said class of workers, can confirm. UBI isn’t necessarily bad or something we can’t adjust to as a society but the path to get there will not be pretty. Even the hordes of climate refugees crashing on our future doorsteps sounds less ominous than the automation wave brought on by tech bros and polymath CEOs.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The median home costs more than half a million dollars. What more do you need to know?

In a sense, the trolls talking about "collapse" are right: If California is the best future that Democrats can muster with their policies, then it's a future in which many of us literally have no place.

We can say plenty of terrible things about how Republicans have governed states like Texas or Georgia, but at least most of us could afford to live and work there. If California were the inevitable result of left-of-center policies, I'd pull a Beet and register as a Republican tomorrow.

I mean.. it's gonna happen anyway... might as well be tomorrow.

[tallguy23]

California is expensive for a reason and that's because so many people want to live there.

California has it's problems, especially with the homeless. However, California can and should improve.

Conservatives solution to California's problems will not solve it. Cutting taxes and regulations will NOT lessen poverty. If that was the cases then states like Mississippi and West Virginia would have the lowest poverty rates in the country (they don't, they are the poorest states).

Better solutions need to be made. No California is not being "turned into Venezuela" as many conservatives suggest but it's not the 100% problem free utopia that many liberals envision. More work needs to be done.

This. Native Californian who loves my state. Is it perfect? Hell no. Do we have a lot of problems? Yup.

Do we have a ton of strengths? Hell yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The median home costs more than half a million dollars. What more do you need to know?

I don't think half a million can even get you a studio condo in much of coastal California. It's no wonder that there have been huge increases in Obama/Trump villes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The median home costs more than half a million dollars. What more do you need to know?

That's the inverse of collapse. It's an indication of extreme growth, in which housing supply has not kept up with demand.

California is not growing any faster than the rest of the country in terms of GDP, population, or wages per worker, and it's growing much more slowly compared to other Sun Belt states. States like Texas that have actually experienced "extreme growth" over the past couple of decades have built large numbers of new homes. About the only kind of growth in which California now leads is in its homeless population.

Anyway, "collapse" as applied to California refers to dysfunction and quality of life, not population size. It ranks 49th in the country in housing supply and is building tens of thousands of units per year when market analysts are calling for hundreds of thousands. Home ownership is completely unaffordable for the median family. Renting consumes an enormous portion of working people's incomes. Group housing arrangements and extreme commutes have become common. It may not be the Crisis of the Third Century, but it's a f*cking disaster nonetheless.

     Indeed, the housing situation in the Bay Area is completely out of control. I am buying a house now, and I just got in under the wire in terms of being able to afford it. Prices in the City of Richmond (where I am buying) are increasing at a rate of $50k/yr. It is closer to $100k/yr in SF. I am saving $1,200/mo by going from renting to owning, simply because of the difference that exists between the stratospheric prices of SF and the merely exorbitant prices of western Contra Costa County. And as I say that, I fully recognize that being able to purchase marks me as "one of the Fortunate Ones" in the grand scheme of things. The Bay Area is rapidly becoming unfavorable to anyone who isn't a tech bro, while, as shua pointed out, the tech bros are trying to eliminate everyone else's job.

     To put not too fine a point on it, I agree with others in this thread that it is incorrrect to say that California is not collapsing, but the state is facing deep systemic problems that are hard to identify among traditional indicators of economic performance, but are obvious if you live in the Bay Area (can't comment on SoCal). If these problems are not addressed, it is possible that we could see some fashion of a collapse in the medium-term future, when critical sectors of the economy that happen to not be tech get squeezed out as nobody can afford to live on the pay that they offer.

[Torie]

What is the median housing price in Richmond these days (a city that used to be something of a slum)? Prices are out of control in parts of SoCal too, particularly in neighborhoods that are reasonably desirable in the closer in hoods of Los Angeles (if farther out, welcome to unmitigated traffic hell). Even in still pretty rough neighborhoods, a 1500 square foot house can cost 500K. I own a house I planned to retire to in Silverlake (about 5 miles from downtown LA) that I paid 825K for about 9 years ago. It is worth close to two million now. What was once merely a quite expensive housing market, has now become catastrophically expensive. Public policy on this issue has been an epic fail, with self serving nimby zoning being perhaps the primary culprit. Can one build a frigging thing these days in Marin County, which must be left pristine to save the planet and a bucolic setting or something?

[Sestak]

As a Silicon Valley resident, I think that people who are pointing to tech NIMBYism are correct about this.

Even I’m not above it; I oppose high speed rail because i don’t want a noisy train within a few blocks of my house.

[Frodo]

I'm not entirely sure what they are referring to either.  If they are talking about the California Republican Party and/or the conservative movement in the state, then it starts making more sense. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is the median housing price in Richmond these days (a city that used to be something of a slum)?

     This page is very informative. The median home value is $503,200, with the median selling price at some $20k higher. Looking at the graph on that page, there was a time earlier this decade when a house in Richmond was worth one-third of as much.

     Now Richmond is a big place and some parts are still quite slummy. I have no concrete statistics to back this up, but my perception of the situation having spent the past couple of years looking at housing prices is that the bad parts have remained pretty stable in prices, while the desirable areas are exploding in value. I used to see many houses in the neighborhoods I wanted to buy in close at sub-$500k, but today almost none do and many that are listing in the high-500s are now closing at over $700k!