…just not California.
And that “class” being…?
…just not California.
And that “class” being…?
You shouldn’t try to read Patrick’s mind nor speak for him any more than I should, but what you can’t do is take his touring anywhere as proof, absent a statement from him directly to that effect, that “California”, as it were, drove him to it.
I made absolutely no claim to knowing his motivation for leaving. But he has left. In his own words:
Patrick: “Well my former, your current senator…”
Leo: “Wait. Have you departed our fair, golden state? Are you one of the many who have just said good-bye to a 14% tax rate…”
Leo: “…and an 8% sales tax…”
Patrick: “Yes…I sold my house. We are out. We are exploring a new location.”
I pointed out that you couldn’t, not accused you of having done so.
If you didn’t think I was attempting to read his mind why say “you shouldn’t read his mind?”
Still wondering what “class” you are putting Patrick in.
Because this is a public forum and I’m replying beyond the scope of speaking merely to you directly.
Are you? Can you not observe, as I did, that not everyone can indulge in such sorties, some reasons for which are structural?
Now, now. Let’s not be nasty. I promised to try to be nice. Please return the favor. I was wondering what YOU thought. I’m trying to be open to other’s points of view. Yours in particular in this instance.
Where in this thread? I see no such thing. The reason I ignored your question is because it should answer itself; I don’t need to elaborate, and that’s not some trespass against your good will for me to decline to do. Your characterization of my question as “nasty” is at least as bad-faith as what you accuse me of, and my calling it that is not hypocritical because I disagree with your statement and its characterization, as only you can know its motive. I would have hoped that basics of decorum like this wouldn’t have been the level to which discourse on TWiT.Community find itself reduced.
Your posts indicate to me that you seek to contribute nothing of substance, instead turning this into a game of rhetorical gotcha, however much you couch it in the ostensible moral high-ground of seeking to learn of others’ thinking, so you won’t be hearing further from me in this thread (which I say to disabuse you of suspicion that I’ve betrayed your confidence in finding you to merit none).
Have a wonderful day.
I think PJ must have edited his post before I could reply. I took the time to re-read this entire thread before I made this post to say that I agree with him… But, then he changed his comments.
Philodygmn, he was correct. I may be misremembering what he said before it was changed, so I will say that your comments in this thread are rather condescending and dismissive of others. Consistently. And, they are getting progressively worse.
Everyone else who posted comments who disagreed with yours did so in a much, much nicer way than you have. Time after time.
I stayed out of this thread on purpose, because I did not want to get sucked in. But after I saw what PJ wrote, I had to agree.
This is the only post I am going to say on the matter. But, I think many others are staying out of this thread for those reasons.
You apparently don’t find particularly disturbing their retraction (however little stock I would ever put in it), yet decide to call my comments “dismissive”?
Promising yourself to be nice to others as opposed to what you consider dismissive, cruel, or toxic doesn’t mean you succeed in that in anyone else’s eyes; accusations against me are as baseless as my being condemned for finding them so and treating them accordingly. Niceness cannot tarnish your treatment by others for such failure, nor counts it for meritorious contribution on the topic. What you interpret to be condescension and dismissiveness I interpret to be attempt to discuss the topic despite progressively less well-crafted and/or relevant questions, to say nothing of their venal, hair-splitting aspersions cast upon my meaning that they then attempt to parlay into elaborate offense when I point out the fact that they are mistaken. I specifically note that only the poster can know its meaning; I ask for the same standard. The fact that I decline to elaborate puts no onus upon me, as the discussion is elective and, if my opinion actually matters the way you seem to insist yours should, then perhaps you should know that my comfort level has suffered thanks to others’ (yours included) ill-conceived, hypocritical, and bad-faith accusations, which have proven repeated and are getting progressively worse. Of course you’ll mirror this back to me, which only repeats your bad-faith cycle shrug I’m ready to wash my hands of TWiT.Community, and I’m sure I won’t be missed.
You claim to have read the entire thread. Perhaps you missed the wholesale replacement of an earlier post by a member other than @P_J . For someone claiming bad faith and vouching for others’ assessment of me as “nasty”, you’ve picked a curious target.
If you dislike my communication style so much, feel free to block me. What you can’t do, at all reasonably anyway, is sustain disparaging characterizations of me, my intentions, and my conduct. Simply paying lip-service to politeness doesn’t automatically make you polite, and it doesn’t trump anyone else’s style in a discussion. But if TWiT.Community is a place whose participants cannot or do not converse on the merits, and who assume they are owed an explanation as long as they are “nice” about it and treat that as license to label someone as uncivil unless they supplicate misconceptions and conform their character to solve misperceptions perfectly, then, as I said, I’m happy to absolve myself of its members’ company. Were this to be treated as denouncement of niceness and license to ignore what is actually posited, it would be icing on the cake, here.
As to the class question: were just anyone able to afford a trek of the sort, there would be no “class” as regards my statement. This is why @P_J’s question answers itself.
Furthermore, repeated posting over someone’s failure to address what their behavior would tell you they regard to be a misconception is bad faith. Insisting it be addressed effectively seeks to halt/pollute/detract from discussion and their participation until and unless you are satisfied. That is more pernicious a deterrent to discussion than someone’s style you dislike. Furthermore, being dragged down by such harranguing could be every bit as deterrent as what you deem me to have constituted. But this is why I focus on the merits of the argument, because if every participant were self-absorbed, no ideas could transpire to be exchanged. Having the maturity and humility to accept that there are ideas beyond your own conception of them, and accepting that talking about them necessarily is not the same as your conception of them, is requisite for such exchange.
Unmentioned by its assailants in this thread: California’s population did, in fact, grow in 2019. Many contributing factors to slowing population growth such as upward mobility of females delaying reproduction ergo falling birth rate, overwheening per capita costs for housing and its availability regardless of taxes (though the federal government’s recent cap on deductibility of state property tax has dramatically altered that calculus for many middle and upper-middle income residents, that is no doing of the state itself)(renters, who comprise a greater proportion of California’s market than almost anywhere else in the country, are particularly hard-hit and many are forced to leave the entire region to find affordable prices), a mostly static aging population (though they are the greatest share of newly homeless), unnatural and preventable disasters caused by corporate negligence displacing people (PG&E’s fires even just this year, coupled with their absurdly overbroad subsequent black-outs’ heavy hit to communities’ most vulnerable), aggressive prospecting forcing available stock to sit vacant (Moms for Housing’s recent occupation story out of Oakland), corporate buy-out of housing stock (Google, for example, buying entire new developments in LA, effectively taking that stock off the open market, regardless of its utilization (or lack thereof); approaching 1/3rd of housing in the US, closer to that in major cities particularly in the SF Bay Area and LA, now is owned by corporate landlords and shell companies, unprecedented in US history and in California the pressure is at its greatest, often paid by cash which undercuts actual resident candidates who must go through an arduous approval and clearing process if they need a loan (not everyone’s prepared to avail themselves of Rocket Mortgage ), locking would-be residents out of equity and housing security, then they jack rents over time while offloading more and more of the maintenance costs onto renters; there’s an emerging money-laundering problem using real estate as its vehicle), 2nd and 3rd homes for the top eschelon making the 1st home harder for everyone else to get…the list goes on, but none of it indicts its business climate (job creation is strong at the moment), public universities as AppleFan called for (their solution paradoxically being abolition in favor of for-profit private ones rather than returning to a subsidized/costless model), and other cultural and regulatory conditions business finds displeasurable and Kool-Aid-drunk “American dream”-ers convinced boot straps and gumption are all anyone ever needs find offensive. In fact, the affordability crisis’ most acute and severe dynamics are driven by ventures whose advocates defend their enterprises’ interests through the same rhetoric as found in this thread despite squeezing many who profess it in decrying those dynamics! “Keep it affordable for me but make sure to coddle big business, inflationary ventures, and opportunistic prospectors! And don’t you dare touch the market to do anything yourselves to directly mitigate its privations, 'cause government is illegitimate and inefficient!” I’m not convinced more housing and population is a better solution than population and its density decreasing commensurate to the ecology, but that can make arguments against its policies or culture neither apt nor accurate, nor does a falling population necessarily indicate a failed or ignominous state.
So this is a good thing for California.
But California is drawing more people than it is losing from one distinct demographic group — those with an advanced college degree. About 9,000 more adults 25 and older with graduate degrees came to California from other states than left for them last year, census estimates show.
A naked statistic was used to tank California in starting this thread; vindicating it by same is no less absurd. And no, declaiming that it’s valid to do so or even attempt to do so isn’t equivocable to saying that it is, unless you disregard everything except the statistic, which pointing out the absurdity of such ignorance as a vehicle for an agenda obviously formed fully before encountering said statistic has been my whole point.
Wondering now, those who leave other states such as Illinois, and move to California, how long do they stay? If they do leave California, do they return to the state they moved from or migrate to other popular states such as Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon?
FFS kill this thread. Please.
I mean, if I hadn’t made my point sufficiently before, you certainly have for me, now.
If you have no interest why read?
I dunno, why did you feel the need to comment?