HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2022, 7:48 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,856
They made good $$ but left L.A. because $$ didn’t go far. Are they gone for good?

From the Los Angeles Times:

They made good money but left L.A. because it didn’t go far enough. Are they gone for good?

BY SUMMER LIN | STAFF WRITER
OCT. 26, 2022 UPDATED 12:36 PM PT

Bethany Jansen and her husband, Andrew, decided to pack up their 500-square-foot Venice apartment and move to Bethany’s hometown near St. Louis and start a new life and business.

Jansen, who was working in downtown Los Angeles before the COVID-19 pandemic, commuted two hours a day. Jansen, 32, and her 34-year-old husband were making about $150,000 combined a year, but they felt it was not enough to afford a house in neighborhoods where they wanted to live.

Now in St. Louis, the couple make less money but said it goes much further — and without the intense commute.

“We’re getting more out of our paycheck, and the quality of life is better because we’re not sitting in a car all day in traffic,” she said. “Working from home let me set my own schedule, and my mental health is a lot better. We’re not making six figures like we were, but it doesn’t matter as much because we can pay for rent and do the things we need to do.”

The Jansens represent one part of the exodus from Los Angeles and other major cities that took place during the pandemic, which opened many opportunities for remote work, as well as sparked deep conversations about what they wanted out of life.

For people of fairly high incomes who left L.A., a big factor was housing prices, which continued to explode during the pandemic and left them wondering whether they would ever be able to buy a home here.

“It was a factor knowing we were never going to be able to afford a house,” she said. “People are buying a shack in L.A. for $700,000, renovating it and selling it for $1.5 million. No matter how hard we work, we’ll never be able to afford that.”

The couple now pay $1,300 a month to live in a three-bedroom house that she said felt like a “mansion” compared to their one-bedroom L.A. apartment, which costs about $1,800 a month to rent.

“You don’t get the scenery and the culture as much here, being able to drive to the beach — those are the things we miss about L.A.,” Jansen said. “But those are the kind of things we’re OK with giving up to have this life out here.”

Much has been said about the shifts in population outside California coastal hubs, such as Los Angeles and the Bay Area, and the new lives some people have found in other parts of the state and nation. For those with financial means, the trade-offs involved giving up the dream of living in the Golden State with the cheaper housing and other financial benefits of less expensive cities.

But demographics experts are doubtful that these shifts in urban populations are permanent.

People will eventually move back, they say, new residents will be attracted to all that California offers, and immigration will help offset the outflow.

Of the country’s 56 major metropolitan areas, Los Angeles had the second-greatest numeric population loss between July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution using U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The net domestic migration — the number of people moving out compared with those moving in — was 204,776 in L.A. That’s nearly double the population loss the city experienced between 2019 and 2020, when it lost 128,803 residents.

Like other major metro areas, L.A. has seen a rise in domestic out-migration since 2010, as more residents moved to other parts of the country and the economy improved. Between 2019 and 2020, out-migration didn’t change significantly in the L.A. metro area compared with previous years, but it rose sharply between 2020 and 2021.

William Frey, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution and the demographer who wrote the analysis, said California has been losing out on middle-class residents and gaining young professionals and college graduates since about 2000, and because immigration dipped significantly across the U.S. during the pandemic, the flow of immigrants hasn’t been enough to counter the domestic out-migration.

“California being a fairly liberal state, they have all of these programs to help student loans and affordable housing, but there’s a niche of people that are not doing that poorly to qualify but they could do a lot better by moving somewhere else,” he said.

International migration slowed during the pandemic, reaching the lowest levels in the U.S. in decades, according to Census Bureau data. The U.S. gained 244,000 immigrants between 2020 and 2021 — a significant decline from the 1 million who came to the U.S. between 2015 and 2016 and the 477,000 who immigrated between 2019 and 2020.In the L.A. metro area, 5,237 international residents moved in from 2020 to 2021 — the lowest number in more than two decades, according to Frey’s analysis of census estimates. In comparison, about 11,676 international migrants moved to the city between 2018 and 2019.

Frey expects immigration to pick back up and help repopulate the state’s labor force.

“I don’t think we should see California as being a long-term population loser,” he said. “Immigration will come back, and there’ll be some breathing room in terms of affordability and other opportunities.”

Frey also said that the last two years won’t be a good predictor of the long-term migration trends in Los Angeles, and that he fully expects some residents to move back after the pandemic.

“Everybody says it has to do with work from home changing people’s work habits, but sooner or later, they’re going to want to cluster again to some degree,” he said. “There’s so much in coastal California with its diverse economy. People who have educations who are creative are going to want to live there. It’s too soon to say it’s the end of it.”

USC economics professor Matthew Kahn, who wrote the book “Going Remote” about the work-from-home shift during the pandemic, said that despite high taxes, California has historically been able to retain residents because of high-quality services and amenities, including the weather and its picturesque beaches. The trouble comes when people no longer believe those services are living up to their expectations, he said.

“The super-rich can always have the best of everything. But if you felt like housing was expensive, you were worried about the quality of schools and what you wanted from life isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, COVID was a wake-up call to try something new and experiment,” he said.

The COVID-19 crisis opened new possibilities for more residents to live farther away from their jobs, and many Californians took advantage of that, Kahn said.

“Americans have tended to live 30 minutes from where they work, but going forward, that could be a bigger radius if you’re only going a couple days a month,” he said.

Kahn believes that one way for California leaders to address the recent exodus is to focus on improving its services.

“Cities like L.A. would have to do a better job competing to keep these individuals if they’re more footloose,” he said. “I’m a big believer in competition, and so if California is exporting wealth and losing the upper middle class, cities are going to have to do a better job of addressing crime, improving quality of life, reducing pollution — all the things we care about in day-to-day quality of life.”

Taylor Avakian, a broker in Los Angeles and a senior associate for Matthews Real Estate Investment Services, said he’s seen Californians move to Florida, Texas and other warm-weather states because of lower taxes.

“People would prefer to pay less taxes, and a big catalyst was the pandemic,” he said. “We pay taxes for the fantastic things we get here in California, like the Mediterranean climate, and we didn’t have access to it because everything was closed. People were asking, ‘Why am I paying for these amenities when I can’t use them?’”

In November 2020, Tulasi Lovell moved from Culver City to a large house in Ramona in San Diego County.

Lovell, 34, wanted to be a homeowner but couldn’t afford to buy in Los Angeles. After many of her friends left L.A. during the pandemic and she no longer had to work in an office, Lovell decided to move after about a year in Ramona to Brooklyn, N.Y., with plans to purchase a house in a nearby suburb.

Lovell, who earns a combined $200,000 annually with her husband, said it wouldn’t be feasible for them to buy a desirable home in Los Angeles.

“There’s the joke that if you see a million-dollar property in L.A., it’s condemned,” she said. “I feel like it’s unsuitable right now, unless you already bought your house years ago. Becoming a new homeowner is near impossible.”

Sarah Dobbyn, 41, gave birth to her second child in April 2020, just as local businesses and parks were shutting down, leaving her and her husband, Joe, with nowhere to take their kids.

The couple decided to move to Lake Oswego, Ore., where Dobbyn’s parents had a four-bedroom house they offered in exchange for paying for repairs and maintenance on the home.

“We have two kids here, and we needed to give up the dream of living the L.A. life and being able to go to the beach and getting by in a small apartment,” she said. “We make a good salary, but our money didn’t go super far in L.A.”

Dobbyn, who makes a little over $100,000 annually, said she and her husband wouldn’t have been able to afford a house in Los Angeles, and if they did, they would’ve had to move farther out.

“It was the quality of life for us, our son and the new baby,” she said. “If Joe and I had not had children, we would’ve stuck it out in L.A.”

Lovell said she could see even more people leaving L.A. if companies continue to let employees work from home.

“If more jobs become decentralized with remote work, the middle class just has so many better options,” she said.

Link: https://www.latimes.com/california/s...ing-back-later
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2022, 10:52 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,739
They're really shocked that Missouri has cheaper housing than Coastal CA?

Next you'll tell me that Alabama has cheaper housing than Monaco. Say it ain't so.

I understand people have been doing this since forever, but don't understand the reasoning. Pretty sure everyone knows that apples-apples you're gonna have better job opportunities in LA, and correspondingly pay more for housing. So why are they always seemingly surprised?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2022, 11:38 PM
FromSD FromSD is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 123
The LA Times used to be big a civic booster, but the paper’s mission the last couple of years has been instead to chronicle the experiences of people leaving LA for greener pastures. There was a story earlier this year about a couple from San Bernardino. She had a clerical job at Cal State San Bernardino and her husband was no longer working. They moved to rural Idaho and were happy living in a house for which they had paid $130k, which seems pretty cheap even by Idaho standards. She had found another clerical job at the local university and her husband was still not working. Yet the reporter took at face value her reason for leaving California: its “oppressive” anti-gun culture. My thought instead was that they just wanted somewhere cheaper to live. More power to them.

Given the drumbeat of expat Californian stories in the LA Times, I’m surprised that the freeways are still congested. With all the out-migration, surely by now you should be able to fire a gun down Wilshire Blvd. and not hit a thing.

Ever since California real estate started recovering from its post Great Recession nadir, there has been a drum beat of stories about how high real estate prices are evidence that California is a failed state. Now that San Francisco has only the third highest rents in the country and home prices haven fallen slightly in major coastal California markets, I’m counting the days before I start reading stories that lower real estate prices portend a coming California apocalypse. California real estate doom porn is a burgeoning industry here. Almost as big as more traditional porn in the San Fernando Valley.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2022, 11:57 PM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
The LA Times used to be big a civic booster, but the paper’s mission the last couple of years has been instead to chronicle the experiences of people leaving LA for greener pastures. There was a story earlier this year about a couple from San Bernardino. She had a clerical job at Cal State San Bernardino and her husband was no longer working. They moved to rural Idaho and were happy living in a house for which they had paid $130k, which seems pretty cheap even by Idaho standards. She had found another clerical job at the local university and her husband was still not working. Yet the reporter took at face value her reason for leaving California: its “oppressive” anti-gun culture. My thought instead was that they just wanted somewhere cheaper to live. More power to them.

Given the drumbeat of expat Californian stories in the LA Times, I’m surprised that the freeways are still congested. With all the out-migration, surely by now you should be able to fire a gun down Wilshire Blvd. and not hit a thing.

Ever since California real estate started recovering from its post Great Recession nadir, there has been a drum beat of stories about how high real estate prices are evidence that California is a failed state. Now that San Francisco has only the third highest rents in the country and home prices haven fallen slightly in major coastal California markets, I’m counting the days before I start reading stories that lower real estate prices portend a coming California apocalypse. California real estate doom porn is a burgeoning industry here. Almost as big as more traditional porn in the San Fernando Valley.
Meh, I read the LA Times every day and articles like this one are merely a part of the mix--and appropriately so. As the recently departed public historian Mike Davis correctly noted over the last four decades, the Los Angeles dialectic is one of boosterism versus a darker realism about the fundamental forces that shape this place. For example, for many longstanding reasons, there aren't enough homes for everyone who wants to live here, so prices are inflated--which prices lots of people out. We cannot begin to fix that problem if we ignore it because it isn't boosterish enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 12:21 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,210
Nobody goes there anymore it’s too crowded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 12:49 AM
Reverberation's Avatar
Reverberation Reverberation is offline
disorient yourself?
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Diaspora
Posts: 4,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Meh, I read the LA Times every day and articles like this one are merely a part of the mix--and appropriately so. As the recently departed public historian Mike Davis correctly noted over the last four decades, the Los Angeles dialectic is one of boosterism versus a darker realism about the fundamental forces that shape this place. For example, for many longstanding reasons, there aren't enough homes for everyone who wants to live here, so prices are inflated--which prices lots of people out. We cannot begin to fix that problem if we ignore it because it isn't boosterish enough.
You’re over the target. The phrase “drive until you qualify” doesn’t really apply to LA anymore because the shortage of new SFH units has pushed the high prices beyond commuting distance for the job centers in West LA, Downtown, and much of Orange County. New England, NYC, and big east coast metros don’t have this. Even the rent has caught up now. And Crawford confuses the cause and effect here. Salaries are marginally higher (though not by much) in LA because the cost of housing is higher, not the other was around. At some point you may ask yourself as you commute in from Simi Valley or Norco (where it is hot) as to why you do it. At that point the beach is a 90 minute drive away. There are lots of places that you can have a much more comfortable life with much more space and be a 90 minute drive from the beach.
__________________
RT60
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 3:46 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
From the Los Angeles Times:

They made good money but left L.A. because it didn’t go far enough. Are they gone for good?

BY SUMMER LIN | STAFF WRITER
OCT. 26, 2022 UPDATED 12:36 PM PT
"Good money" is only good if it pays for living costs. What may be a "good" wage in Omaha will not pay the bills in Los angeles. The "real wage" is nominal wage/price level. In high cost cities the price level is higher than other cities, so the same nominal wage yields a lower real wage. They will not be back unless real wages in L.A. rise to cover costs.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 28, 2022 at 2:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 2:29 PM
EastSideHBG's Avatar
EastSideHBG EastSideHBG is offline
Me?!?
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Philadelphia Metro
Posts: 11,221
There were always expensive places and areas that "normal people" couldn't afford but why I think we are seeing more of these articles is because in many major metros there is now hardly anywhere affordable and nothing one can realistically aim for. In looking around my own area what I would consider to be starter homes are now pushing $700K and some of these are just regular old 60s-70s built single family homes with 3BR and 1.5 bathrooms that need some work that won't be cheap to complete. Five years ago this same house would have been half that and within reach for an important demographic.

Interesting times for sure.
__________________
Right before your eyes you're victimized, guys, that's the world of today and it ain't civilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 8:04 PM
DCReid DCReid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
They're really shocked that Missouri has cheaper housing than Coastal CA?

Next you'll tell me that Alabama has cheaper housing than Monaco. Say it ain't so.

I understand people have been doing this since forever, but don't understand the reasoning. Pretty sure everyone knows that apples-apples you're gonna have better job opportunities in LA, and correspondingly pay more for housing. So why are they always seemingly surprised?
People have been leaving the LA area for years, even in the 80s, for places like Phoenix and Las Vegas, and Texas. I remember in my brief stint living in Phoenix in 1984 that at least one coworker had moved from LA. But I think the LA area was building more single family homes, particularly in the Inland Empire (Riverside), and manufacturing jobs in defense and aircraft were plentiful. From what I remember reading the LA paper, the SFH prices were high, but not ridiculous, and there were a lot of job opportunities with defense and aircraft companies. I don't think the job market is as great in LA anymore especially compared with cities like Phoenix and Dallas, and housing costs are ridiculously high now, along with other problematic issues like homelessness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 28, 2022, 8:06 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,599
You will continue to see this movement for the rest of our lives. The fact is there are still huge swaths of undeveloped and underdeveloped land in the USA and as some areas get expensive people will move into these untapped spots.

Mountain west, upper Midwest, Texas, Alaska even eventually (the habitable parts). Most of the continent was still virtually wild until 150 years ago and we still have tons and tons of space.

This is the natural flow as people fill out the new world which isn't even close to done. Hell most US agricultural land isn't even efficiently utilized simply because we haven't needed too. This all leads into why people who think the USA is done, or over, or declining or going anywhere anytime soon are out of their minds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 12:48 AM
jd3189 jd3189 is online now
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 5,592
^^^ I’m not sure that’s smart urban planning. Yeah, theoretically, we can build urban sprawl throughout North America. But that would be cutting into many protected lands, either public or private.

And despite popular opinion or even economic reality in the minds of many, but it makes no fucking sense to me to be okay with a city becoming more unaffordable for everyone except upper middle class and up. Los Angeles, regardless of the glitz and glamour Hollywood portrays and the weather and natural beauty, is still a city that has to function as a city. I can understand having areas like Beverly Hills continue to be ultra wealthy communities with million dollar homes, but traditional middle/working class neighborhoods and cities like Boyle Heights and the South Central area.

In LA, you still need janitors, landscapers, fast food workers, fine dining restaurant workers, CNAs, retail workers, teachers, police officers, etc. These occupations are valued enough to have basic minimum wages or slightly higher. If that’s the case, then I think that it’s fair to provide housing that is within comfortable reach for these folks. It’s not only ethical but also financially makes sense. It keeps the local economy stable and allows people to live wherever they decide, based not only on desire, but also job security, closeness to family and social support, etc.

Housing and where people live is not just about making money on real estate. It’s a basic necessity. Now, I know this article is featuring a couple that couldn’t afford a SFH in LA. Maybe that’s understandable. But if they can’t even afford a house in the LA area, even into the IE, then that’s being priced out of a region that’s not even mostly filled with young professionals to the same degree as the Bay Area.
__________________
Working towards making American cities walkable again!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 2:14 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromSD View Post
The LA Times used to be big a civic booster, but the paper’s mission the last couple of years has been instead to chronicle the experiences of people leaving LA for greener pastures. There was a story earlier this year about a couple from San Bernardino. She had a clerical job at Cal State San Bernardino and her husband was no longer working. They moved to rural Idaho and were happy living in a house for which they had paid $130k, which seems pretty cheap even by Idaho standards. She had found another clerical job at the local university and her husband was still not working. Yet the reporter took at face value her reason for leaving California: its “oppressive” anti-gun culture. My thought instead was that they just wanted somewhere cheaper to live. More power to them.

Given the drumbeat of expat Californian stories in the LA Times, I’m surprised that the freeways are still congested. With all the out-migration, surely by now you should be able to fire a gun down Wilshire Blvd. and not hit a thing.

Ever since California real estate started recovering from its post Great Recession nadir, there has been a drum beat of stories about how high real estate prices are evidence that California is a failed state. Now that San Francisco has only the third highest rents in the country and home prices haven fallen slightly in major coastal California markets, I’m counting the days before I start reading stories that lower real estate prices portend a coming California apocalypse. California real estate doom porn is a burgeoning industry here. Almost as big as more traditional porn in the San Fernando Valley.
Traffic in LA is insane now. Where are these all people leaving exactly?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 2:56 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,799
I wish one of the smaller municipalities in the metropolis would go ahead and up-zone its residential areas to allow for construction of thousands of new housing units--Culver City, San Fernando, Inglewood, or wherever--and beef up transit, pedestrian & bicycling infra, etc. to serve as a model and convince Angelenos that new construction isn't the end of the world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 2:06 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
^^^ I’m not sure that’s smart urban planning. Yeah, theoretically, we can build urban sprawl throughout North America. But that would be cutting into many protected lands, either public or private.
The united states is very very far from running into that problem although I forgive you for thinking so. We could easily double or even quadrupole our population on our existing urban footprint alone let alone future expansion.

The USA today is STILL one of the least densely populated countries on earth only beat out by Canada and Australia (also who could have vastly larger populations) or totally undeveloped thrid world countries. We are very far from "runnng out of space" or "overpopulation" Malthusian nonsense with no basis in reality. Especially since Aisa and Europe are going to likely shrink over the next 8 decades unless a lot of people start making a lot of babies tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 3:35 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,846
We have no need for more people, especially in the US, considering how Americans are horrible for the planet in regards to resource usage. Enough is enough
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 4:02 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
We can't even house our own existing population (and the 3 million illegal migrants that poured in over the past year.) Housing costs are insane almost everywhere, and the homeless issue is not just a small problem isolated to specific cities anymore- it's everywhere.

We need to fix our own domestic issues before stealing human capital from other countries. Mass immigration to the USA is Neo-colonialism, it extracts other countries of their human resource and prevents other places from ever developing properly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 4:09 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
We can't even house our own existing population (and the 3 million illegal migrants that poured in over the past year.) Housing costs are insane almost everywhere, and the homeless issue is not just a small problem isolated to specific cities anymore- it's everywhere.

We need to fix our own domestic issues before stealing human capital from other countries. Mass immigration to the USA is Neo-colonialism, it extracts other countries of their human resource and prevents other places from ever developing properly.
I thought you were an immigrant?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 4:11 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
I am. I came here before the housing crisis and before borders were completely open for people to come illegally and disrespect the process and the law.

Crazy how to some think just because you're an immigrant means you support illegal and/or mass immigration. That's why democrats are losing huge swaths of the hispanic/latino vote. It's actually offensive, they think that because you're an immigrant, you support lawlessness and disorganization. You can ask the Venezuelans, Cubans, and most South Americans (like me) about it.

Also, note- I am calling out mass immigration and illegal immigration. Not immigration as a whole. I know that this is hard for some to understand as different concepts, but they are.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 4:18 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
I am. I came here before the housing crisis and before borders were completely open for people to come illegally and disrespect the process and the law.
"Illegal" immigration actually peaked in the Bush era.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
Crazy how to some think just because you're an immigrant means you support illegal and/or mass immigration. That's why democrats are losing huge swaths of the hispanic/latino vote. It's actually offensive, they think that because you're an immigrant, you support lawlessness and disorganization.
Ok lol. If you don't like "mass immigration" then I guess you should consider going back to your home country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 29, 2022, 5:31 PM
MAC123 MAC123 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 1,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
We can't even house our own existing population (and the 3 million illegal migrants that poured in over the past year.) Housing costs are insane almost everywhere, and the homeless issue is not just a small problem isolated to specific cities anymore- it's everywhere.

We need to fix our own domestic issues before stealing human capital from other countries. Mass immigration to the USA is Neo-colonialism, it extracts other countries of their human resource and prevents other places from ever developing properly.
What a brain dead take
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.