Why shouldn't housing prices be looked at when determining how poor a population is? Obviously it's a significant component of cost of living, which directly impacts how much purchasing power individuals and families have.
Author acknowledge the high housing cost but states that the metric that was used only account for a few things and it ignore other metrics which can skew it towards a certain argument.
Author also stated that the other person lied about how large state employment for California is. Author actually normalize/standardize it per capital instead of a having stating this is a large number.
You and the article can argue whatever yall want but it's just an opinion until yall do factor analysis or some sort of algorithm to figure out what's the right combination of metric is.
I bet if the state were controlled by different parties, Mother Jones and LA Times would have a different takes. This is politics at work.
More succinctly I disagree with the authors' assertion that CA is doing fine "if you take out housing prices"
And if we're talking about solutions, the top point should be disabusing people of the thought that the world owes them the right to keep their standard of living while staying in the same place despite economic climate changes. All of my ancestors moved to America and around America rich and poor, were driven largely with economic motivations. I would think that most people that ended up in America (and especially California) ended up there in search of opportunity. Many of CA's economic problems can be largely solved by a population from the top to the bottom more willing to take advantage of the competition for talent, labor, and cost of living from around the country. The artificial imbalance of people and companies that just don't want to leave is causing the absurdly high prices of things near the coast.
Not supporting those already results in the exactly the kind of gentrification that people are complaining about. CA is desirable land, the people that most support it (aka homegrown Californians still in place) should be the ones living there. Let the incoming masses pay a toll to provide for the people of the state they wish to live in.
Are you guests, or conquerors?
Who at this point lives on a piece of land that wasn't taken from someone else at some point?
Zoom out a few generations and the constant around the world is people moving. Why should this imagined right start now?
People deserve the right of self determination but not the right to being unaffected by change. Using "gentrification" as a dirty word and assuming that means it's bad doesn't make it true. People complain about change, that's that. This country is nearly entirely composed of people who moved because of change. Change isn't going to stop, trying to enforce constancy tends to make the change worse. (i.e. social programs and housing cost management can make inequality worse rather than better because it fucks with supply and demand of labor)
>everyone should have special rights to their birthplace
Inherited entitlements–and the authority enforcing them–are a huge source of inequality both at the top and at the bottom.
The people on Pitcairn Island. Parts of Cape Verde, I think. And Bermuda.
Iceland got their country back.
These small examples don't weaken your argument in any way.
And while there has always been a certain amount of migration it has never affected so many in the world at once, and within such short timespans, as to consider it a constant. (Unless you're looking back millenia). Most-to-all of the major cities of the past 2000 years have stayed in the same place: Rome, London, Beijing...
Unless by homogeneity you mean against poor people specifically. But in general we want homogeneity in high living standards as the target, as in no people who are poor not by exclusion, but by lack thereof.
We need then to define "poor" properly, not by what you can afford or other relative wealth measure, but by some threshold where living standards and opportunities are available and good enough.
Any relative measure will be a lie sooner or later.
Suppose we have a "poor" person who does not earn much, but has many important ends met by state, e.g. good education and job opportunities, reasonable housing and health care, nourishment etc. Such a person should not be considered truly poor.
Obviously this is not really compatible with market economy which will increase price for required (income inelastic demand - housing has about 0.2 for renters, health services probably slightly negative, food in general is about 0.5 in US but curve is bathtub for some categories) goods and services until the costs are barely bearable or just beyond bearable.
We are doing fine if you take out housing prices, and we are doing not great if you include them. Which is why everyone throughout the state is talking about the housing crisis. Unless you have some brilliant ideas like draining the SF Bay, housing is hard to do while simultaneously worrying about the environment.
That was a bit gratuitous.
> ... and we're doing great.
> Most of the people I knew from high school have had to leave because they can't afford it here now.
So most of the people you went to high school with have been forced to leave (for "opioid country"?) - why? Because they'd be poor otherwise? Maybe even homeless? That's a bit odd for a place that's "doing great".
> But these are signs of a good economy...
These are signs of an economy with high cost of living, lots of high-paying jobs, and not much place in it for those who can't get one of those high-paying jobs.
> ... and low poverty.
"Most of the poor people leaving" is not normally what I think of when I hear "low poverty".
I mean, yes, if California weren't creating all these high-paying jobs, there wouldn't be the demand, and so housing would be affordable. That's all true. And yet, I think on your own evidence you're painting a happier face on the situation than it deserves.
I understand the impulse to say everything is terrible, because it frequently is. But that doesn't mean it's not improving. The new challenges created are not larger than our successes in California.