California ranks last in quality of life, according to study

[JA]

These measurements are absurd. If they'd even factored in weather, the whole thing would be flipped upside down, not to mention universities, jobs, cultural amenities, population growth, etc.

Weather is far too much of a subjective criteria to be included in any respectable quality of life measurement (aside from perhaps severe weather like tornadoes, hail, hurricanes, etc...). But, yeah, California's coastal areas certainly have all of the other things you listed and they should certainly be taken into considering as QOL indicators.

[Doimper]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

Honestly, it's true. I've heard liberal progressives defend California by pointing this out.

It's true of the US as a whole as well. If we had, say, gone full-nativist after WWII and banned almost all immigration and actually prevented illegal immigration, we would have a much higher quality of life even if we would then have the same demographic problem as Russia and some European nations. Overall, even if it slightly lowered our potential average quality of life, I'm glad we did what we did, and I'm glad California does what it does, which is be a safe haven for refugees and people looking for opportunity. Better to be low-income in the US than poor in most many other countries, and it ultimately makes us stronger too.

You've acknowledged how it quite concretely has made us poorer. How exactly has it made us stronger?

We are a nation of immigrants. You're right that being on US soil doesn't make someone automatically wealthier. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Look at the descendants of Irish and Germany immigrants from the 1800's. Or Polish, Italian, Portuguese immigrants from the 20th century. The overall trend is clear. Also, diversity is strength. Also, it helps our demographic situation, which helps our Social Security and general tax-base situation. They may say Social Security is you saving for your own retirement, but everyone knows it's really you paying for currently retired people, and the hope that when you're retired there's enough working young adults to pay for your retirement.  

All of those European immigrants from the 19th century, they and their children as a group only became wealthier after we closed to the borders in 1924. When we opened the borders back up in 1965, social mobility became stagnant again. The period of closed borders between 1924 and 1965 saw the greatest social mobility and the greatest income equality. But you must already know this since you already conceded immigration makes us poorer.

Also "diversity is strength". That's not an answer to my question. That's s slogan. HOW is diversity strength? That's what I was asking.

With regards to immigrants supporting our welfare state, that is just a lie. Immigration, in the form it currently exists in the United States, causes the ratio of net tax payers to net tax users to increase in favor of net tax uses, because of the welfare dependent children that immigrants have, who would not be the US government's responsibility if the US had not allowed their parents to immigrate in the first place.

More immigration = a greater percentage of the population using more in welfare than they pay in taxes

You realize that filing taxes is not the same as paying taxes right? Most poor people (and immigrants are disproportionately poor) file their taxes and actually get money back from the government in the form of tax credits. So even though they "pay taxes" in the sense that they file their taxes, they aren't contributing money to the general fund, they are actually taking money out of the general fund. That's in addition to whatever welfare their families qualify for.

Maybe immigrants would help the Social Security system if all the immigrants we got were 18 year old adults who immediately went to work at high paying jobs, never had families, and then died before they themselves retired but that's not the way it works in the real world. In the real world, half of all immigrants to the US are "family reunification", often old people and children who require government services to meet our basic standard of living.

I honestly don't know how to fix Social Security long term but I know what won't fix it, immigration. Immigration puts MORE stress on Social Security.

lol, this post has it all. These job-stealing immigrants are also leeching from the social safety net, somehow, and also America only became wealthy because it imposed racist immigration quotas. There's no proof for any of this, of course, because you're as intellectually lazy as you are bigoted.

[junior chįmp]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

Honestly, it's true. I've heard liberal progressives defend California by pointing this out.

It's true of the US as a whole as well. If we had, say, gone full-nativist after WWII and banned almost all immigration and actually prevented illegal immigration, we would have a much higher quality of life even if we would then have the same demographic problem as Russia and some European nations. Overall, even if it slightly lowered our potential average quality of life, I'm glad we did what we did, and I'm glad California does what it does, which is be a safe haven for refugees and people looking for opportunity. Better to be low-income in the US than poor in most many other countries, and it ultimately makes us stronger too.

You've acknowledged how it quite concretely has made us poorer. How exactly has it made us stronger?

We are a nation of immigrants. You're right that being on US soil doesn't make someone automatically wealthier. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Look at the descendants of Irish and Germany immigrants from the 1800's. Or Polish, Italian, Portuguese immigrants from the 20th century. The overall trend is clear. Also, diversity is strength. Also, it helps our demographic situation, which helps our Social Security and general tax-base situation. They may say Social Security is you saving for your own retirement, but everyone knows it's really you paying for currently retired people, and the hope that when you're retired there's enough working young adults to pay for your retirement.  

All of those European immigrants from the 19th century, they and their children as a group only became wealthier after we closed to the borders in 1924. When we opened the borders back up in 1965, social mobility became stagnant again. The period of closed borders between 1924 and 1965 saw the greatest social mobility and the greatest income equality. But you must already know this since you already conceded immigration makes us poorer.

Also "diversity is strength". That's not an answer to my question. That's s slogan. HOW is diversity strength? That's what I was asking.

With regards to immigrants supporting our welfare state, that is just a lie. Immigration, in the form it currently exists in the United States, causes the ratio of net tax payers to net tax users to increase in favor of net tax uses, because of the welfare dependent children that immigrants have, who would not be the US government's responsibility if the US had not allowed their parents to immigrate in the first place.

More immigration = a greater percentage of the population using more in welfare than they pay in taxes

You realize that filing taxes is not the same as paying taxes right? Most poor people (and immigrants are disproportionately poor) file their taxes and actually get money back from the government in the form of tax credits. So even though they "pay taxes" in the sense that they file their taxes, they aren't contributing money to the general fund, they are actually taking money out of the general fund. That's in addition to whatever welfare their families qualify for.

Maybe immigrants would help the Social Security system if all the immigrants we got were 18 year old adults who immediately went to work at high paying jobs, never had families, and then died before they themselves retired but that's not the way it works in the real world. In the real world, half of all immigrants to the US are "family reunification", often old people and children who require government services to meet our basic standard of living.

I honestly don't know how to fix Social Security long term but I know what won't fix it, immigration. Immigration puts MORE stress on Social Security.

There's actually a very good book on this called The Diversity Bonus by Scott Page of your interested. Based on numerous studies, diverse teams from varying backgrounds produce the best results. A team made up of homogeneous stiffs from the same class produce the worst (see: Democratic Party leadership)

https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/pages-diversity-bonus-makes-business-case-diverse-teams

[pbrower2a]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

This is actually a very smart comment. Because what I'm saying is obviously correct. There is no way to refute it. If you tried to, the argument would look so painfully convoluted, it would make you look stupid. So saying "shut up" is the most logical retort (if you insist on not agreeing with me). You're still obviously wrong though.

No California ranking on this is low because of high living costs (due to having terrible zoning laws )

Do they have these bad zoning laws in Mexico too? Is that why Mexicans in Mexico are poor?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

But many Californians of Third World origin are doing very well.  California has statistically crappy K-12 education but excellent state and private universities.  Origin matters little if  one has the right attitudes toward learning, including working to learn. But whatever one's ethnicity one cannot get away from the crowding of coastal cities without ending up in parts of California whose living standards are more characteristic of Oklahoma than of the San  Francisco Bay Area, the Monterrey Bay Area, the small cities along the Santa Barbara Channel, Greater Los Angeles (but not the Inland Empire), and Greater San Diego are extremely crowded. Part of the problem is that much of these areas have a legacy of small suburban houses whose homeowners are unwilling to sell out for more rational giant apartments as are common in Seoul or Tokyo.

So why don't they go into the Central Valley? Because the Central Valley is miserable. One might as well move to the I-35 corridor in Texas whose cities (except Waco) have some culture.  Or Utah or Colorado, which at least have some attractions. Except perhaps for Sacramento, the Central Valley is poor -- and  one pays California taxes to accommodate the high cost of government services in the coastal cities.

[Sir Mohamed]

The problem is that CA has too many of its citizens living in poverty. But I wouldn't say the quality of life is bad here. I don't want to live in another state.

[All Along The Watchtower]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

This is actually a very smart comment. Because what I'm saying is obviously correct. There is no way to refute it. If you tried to, the argument would look so painfully convoluted, it would make you look stupid. So saying "shut up" is the most logical retort (if you insist on not agreeing with me). You're still obviously wrong though.

How is it "obviously correct?" It's obviously disgustingly racist (but that's par for the course for you), but other than that...

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

This is actually a very smart comment. Because what I'm saying is obviously correct. There is no way to refute it. If you tried to, the argument would look so painfully convoluted, it would make you look stupid. So saying "shut up" is the most logical retort (if you insist on not agreeing with me). You're still obviously wrong though.

How is it "obviously correct?" It's obviously disgustingly racist (but that's par for the course for you), but other than that...

I think he was wearing a fedora when he wrote that.

[dead0man]

I can't believe how much push back that comment is still getting.  Of all the things to beat into the ground, you're going with that one?



Also, I'm shocked....shocked I says that people are taking issue with a published list of things.  That never happens.

[pbrower2a]

California has a low standard of living because it has a lot of people from the third world living there and they do not magically become middle class by living on US soil.

Shut up.

This is actually a very smart comment. Because what I'm saying is obviously correct. There is no way to refute it. If you tried to, the argument would look so painfully convoluted, it would make you look stupid. So saying "shut up" is the most logical retort (if you insist on not agreeing with me). You're still obviously wrong though.

No, this comment ignores that people from all over the world have come to California to make better lives for themselves and have  often succeeded. This includes people from very  poor countries at the time, including Russia (most  of them Jews -- enough said), Italy, Japan, Portugal,  and subjugated Poland about 120 years ago; Chinese, Koreans, and Mexicans at various times; and Vietnam after the Commie takeover. Any complaints? OK, Mexican-Americans are capable of assimilating Anglos once they learn English.

Oh, and let's not forget "Ku Kluxistan", a/k/a the Jim Crow South. Blacks did better in California than in the industrial Midwest.

The problem with the quality of life in California is not who (by origin) lives there. The  problem is that so many people are shoe-horned  into narrow strips of land along the coastline. Because California built out instead  of building out, land use includes great expanses of single-family houses built after WWII that have created an urban sprawl that mandates long commutes.