California defies doom with No1 U.S. Economy

[twinpeaks]

With population decline, pandemic and negative stories about California, I expected the outcome of the California economy to be different. It looks to be resilient and even better.

"When misfortunes multiplied during the coronavirus pandemic, observers seized on a four-letter word signaling end of days for the largest state with one-eighth the U.S. population and 14% of its gross domestic product. "California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms," the Associated Press concluded a year ago in May. "California Is Doomed," declared Business Insider two months earlier. "Is California doomed to keep burning?" queried the New Republic in October. California is "Doomed" because of rising sea levels, according to an April EcoNews Report. Bulletins of people leaving the world's fifth-biggest economy for lower-cost states because of high taxes and too much regulation stifling business continue unabated.

No one anticipated the latest data readout showing the Golden State has no peers among developed economies for expanding GDP, creating jobs, raising household income, manufacturing growth, investment in innovation, producing clean energy and unprecedented wealth through its stocks and bonds. All of which underlines Gov. Gavin Newsom's announcement last month of the biggest state tax rebate in American history."

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-1-u-s-economy

[202_Cyclist]

California in decline is a constant Republican trope that never seems to go away. Yes, California has its challenges (drought and high housing costs) but it has the best public universities in America (both the UC and Cal State system), a huge number of innovative companies headquartered in the state, and its cities are making important infrastructure investments.

[Crawford]

I thought CA was doomed. Everyone was leaving because of high home prices, high taxes, illegals, homeless and too much regulation?

CA is supposed to be a job-killing leftist-controlled nightmare. Are you telling me this is an alt-right lie?

[The North One]

Uhh it's pretty misleading to present raw numbers like this and compare them to other states, states that are like half the size in population. There are also things to consider, like cost of living. How is "investment in innovation" even measured?? Like universities? what? Lots of arbitrary comparisons and numbers in here clearly cherry picked for a puff piece. I also wish people would stop acting like GDP is some objective economic measure that can be directly compared to other countries, it is highly flawed. It's also obviously NOT a measure of human well being.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Crawford

CA is supposed to be a job-killing leftist-controlled nightmare. Are you telling me this is an alt-right lie?

The wishful thinking that California is a hellish place and that wherever they are is so much better is a much more widespread fallacy than just the "alt-right". All sorts of people in all sorts of places want to take comfort in knowing that their urge to move to California was the devil speaking to them and that they are really so much better off where they are. Schadenfreude for Californians is comforting.

Right North One?

[Crawford]

To be fair, CA does have challenges. I'd be leery of living anywhere in CA during fire season, given my wife has health issues from growing up in peak-80's/90's Mexico City pollution. I don't think the K-12 schools are quite as good as in the Northeast. And the home prices in coastal CA are obviously pretty crazy. And most of inland CA sucks. Bakersfield and Fresno are basically Oklahoma.

But despite all that, CA is the innovation capital of the planet, has the best public university system on earth, is (mostly) gorgeous, and the coast is arguably peerless.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Bakersfield and Fresno are basically Oklahoma.

I've never been to Oklahoma; I'm sure it's a lovely place. But unlike Fresno, Oklahoma doesn't have Yosemite in its backyard.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

To be fair, CA does have challenges. I'd be leery of living anywhere in CA during fire season, given my wife has health issues from growing up in peak-80's/90's Mexico City pollution.

Absolutely. My aunt and uncle moved from their retirement home in the gold country in the Sierra foothills to coastal Orange County partly out of concern about wildfires. I have another aunt who lives next to national forest at the base of the Verdugo mountains in Glendale. It is a beautiful area in the winter but, again, wildfires are a very significant concern.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Absolutely. My aunt and uncle moved from their retirement home in the gold country in the Sierra foothills to coastal Orange County partly out of concern about wildfires. I have another aunt who lives next to national forest at the base of the Verdugo mountains in Glendale. It is a beautiful area in the winter but, again, wildfires are a very significant concern.

I live in a city and as long as I've lived in CA I always have. So I don't really know that much about living in the forest. But several thoughts keep occurring to me:

- If you were really motivated, why isn't it possible to "fire-proof" a home in the country in CA, e.g by using fire-proof external materials (like roofing), clearing a "defensible space" around the structures on a property, building an uninterruptible water source for fighting fires (a pool, pond, cistern etc) and so on?

- People live in the forest all over North America (and the world). Why is this such an issue HERE? I remember a few years back when Fliorida had massive forest fires. Is it just the drought we are having (and perhaps our incompetent electric companies who have strung decrepit power lines up and down the state and failed to maintain them for 100 years)?

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I live in a city and as long as I've lived in CA I always have. So I don't really know that much about living in the forest. But several thoughts keep occurring to me:

- If you were really motivated, why isn't it possible to "fire-proof" a home in the country in CA, e.g by using fire-proof external materials (like roofing), clearing a "defensible space" around the structures on a property, building an uninterruptible water source for fighting fires (a pool, pond, cistern etc) and so on?

- People live in the forest all over North America (and the world). Why is this such an issue HERE? I remember a few years back when Fliorida had massive forest fires. Is it just the drought we are having (and perhaps our incompetent electric companies who have strung decrepit power lines up and down the state and failed to maintain them for 100 years)?

I think it is a combination of the high number of people who live in habitat susceptible to wildfires, the extreme drought that California and other western states are dealing with, and the dry Santa Ana winds, which can have gusts of up to 70 mph.

[edale]

It's not just the drought, though no doubt that makes things worse. But even in normal or 'wet' years, it doesn't rain in most of California for 6 months at a time. That type of environment is just always going to be ripe for fire opportunities in a way that the midwest and east will never be. It rains a fair amount in the winter, so we have grass and trees (unlike places like Arizona and Nevada), but then it dries up for the other half of the year and one down power line or lightning strike or whatever can spark a huge fire with a ton of dry brush to burn. It's how California has always operated, but it's becoming a greater issue with droughts and increased development into the hills and forests.

[Crawford]

I wouldn't be worried about fire damage, as the risk of fire loss is minimal outside of a few zones. My concern is air quality.

My wife has issues from growing up in the toxic Mexico City air, and my 4 yo son is already visiting an allergist. So I'd be leery of any environment that has high odds of seasonal air quality issues. I'd probably buy every air purifier in existence. Those CA air quality readings from last summer were pretty scary.

[tablemtn]

To whom much is given, much is expected...

California's wealth makes its homelessness significantly more shameful, though. The state HAS the resources/power/money to deal with third-world conditions on Venice Beach, Skid Row, etc., but simply refuses to do so as a matter of pure preferential choice. And that's a far greater disgrace than doing nothing out of simple incapacity.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

- People live in the forest all over North America (and the world). Why is this such an issue HERE? I remember a few years back when Fliorida had massive forest fires. Is it just the drought we are having (and perhaps our incompetent electric companies who have strung decrepit power lines up and down the state and failed to maintain them for 100 years)?

I forget the term for it but there are essentially wild fire "alley ways" in California that are well known and a part of the natural ebb and flow of California's ecosystem. Long story short, you shouldn't be allowed to build in them yet development goes unabated. Fire probably always happened (maybe not to the extent that they happen today) but no one noticed because very few people lived in their path.

Today different story because people are continuing to move into those danger zones.

Re-insurance companies should just refuse to write policies for the insurers and then it will come to an end. We're all subsidizing these haphazard decisions. If towns or counties don't want to stop it because rich citizens will complain they can't prop their house on a hillside, then insurers can just refuse to renew policies when a complete rebuild is required and the residents can be on their own.

This is finally starting to happen in some coastal areas. Essentially, after one rebuild you're on your own. At a minimum, payouts most often come with strings, and the string is to elevate your house above the flood plain.

[suburbanite]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

To whom much is given, much is expected...

California's wealth makes its homelessness significantly more shameful, though. The state HAS the resources/power/money to deal with third-world conditions on Venice Beach, Skid Row, etc., but simply refuses to do so as a matter of pure preferential choice. And that's a far greater disgrace than doing nothing out of simple incapacity.

Resources and money? Yes, and it puts a lot of those towards trying to fix it. Power? Probably not so much as legal activism has made forcing people who don't want help to get it very difficult.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

To whom much is given, much is expected...

California's wealth makes its homelessness significantly more shameful, though. The state HAS the resources/power/money to deal with third-world conditions on Venice Beach, Skid Row, etc., but simply refuses to do so as a matter of pure preferential choice. And that's a far greater disgrace than doing nothing out of simple incapacity.

You mean $12 billion isn't enough?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ate-s-n1267037

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

To whom much is given, much is expected...

California's wealth makes its homelessness significantly more shameful, though. The state HAS the resources/power/money to deal with third-world conditions on Venice Beach, Skid Row, etc., but simply refuses to do so as a matter of pure preferential choice. And that's a far greater disgrace than doing nothing out of simple incapacity.

San Francisco in particular has a huge budget to help solve homeless problem. The city’s budget for the Department of Homeless and Supportive Housing alone is over $500 million. That's more than most other cities entire budget. The homeless continue to come from all over the US. This is a national problem and should also be addressed at a federal level.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The wishful thinking that California is a hellish place and that wherever they are is so much better is a much more widespread fallacy than just the "alt-right". All sorts of people in all sorts of places want to take comfort in knowing that their urge to move to California was the devil speaking to them and that they are really so much better off where they are. Schadenfreude for Californians is comforting.

Right North One?

The United States is a pretty hellish place in general, I'm not sure what comfort there is to take in it. We compare our GDP to countries that have far better services, benefits and standards of living then we do, it's laughable.

This whole idea that economic figures that pretty much only benefit the very wealthy (like revenue per employee or company shares) defies "doom" is neoliberal bullshit, these are the very things causing the issues. GDP could be through the roof but it doesn't really change the reality on the ground of how most people are actually living. Which is half of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, no savings, no assets, massive lifetime debts and with little to no safety nets. Does that give you a better idea of what I'm thinking?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I forget the term for it but there are essentially wild fire "alley ways" in California that are well known and a part of the natural ebb and flow of California's ecosystem. Long story short, you shouldn't be allowed to build in them yet development goes unabated. Fire probably always happened (maybe not to the extent that they happen today) but no one noticed because very few people lived in their path.

Today different story because people are continuing to move into those danger zones.

Re-insurance companies should just refuse to write policies for the insurers and then it will come to an end. We're all subsidizing these haphazard decisions. If towns or counties don't want to stop it because rich citizens will complain they can't prop their house on a hillside, then insurers can just refuse to renew policies when a complete rebuild is required and the residents can be on their own.

This is finally starting to happen in some coastal areas. Essentially, after one rebuild you're on your own. At a minimum, payouts most often come with strings, and the string is to elevate your house above the flood plain.

I know all that but you're saying this isn't true elsewhere? Fire should be a natural part of forest ecosystems everywhere. You didn't mention that certain conifers even need fire to open their seed pods.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

To whom much is given, much is expected...

California's wealth makes its homelessness significantly more shameful, though. The state HAS the resources/power/money to deal with third-world conditions on Venice Beach, Skid Row, etc., but simply refuses to do so as a matter of pure preferential choice. And that's a far greater disgrace than doing nothing out of simple incapacity.

Wrong. California devotes plenty of resources to homelessness. What it does NOT do is apply any form of stick, partly because of decisions by federal courts that make doing so almost impossible.

The people who fill our streets simply wouldn't be allowed to do so in many other places. They would be institutionalized for their mental illness and drug addiction or simply given the alternative of accepting a bed in a shelter (where they wouldn't be allowed to indulge their addictions) or jail (most places, vagrancy and loitering laws still are enforced).

California's error is an excess of misplaced "compassion" (that's a word we love).