I have a theory that people's political beliefs are largely manifestations of the behaviors that make sense within their economic system. So Blue America cares a lot about women's rights and abortion access because women are an integral part of the knowledge-worker economy, without which it couldn't function. They care about identity politics and political correctness because the information economy requires close creative work in teams, and you can't do that kind of work unless everybody has a certain psychological sense of safety. They care about redistributive policies because cities are big enough, dense enough, and diverse enough that you can't rely on social pressure to make sure everyone contributes. They care about diversity and immigration because you can't run highly-specialized knowledge-based businesses without bringing in talent from elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Red America cares about gun rights because you basically need them to live in a rural area where wild animals may surprise you at any time. They care about taxation because the businesses are usually self-reliant, independent firms (often in commodity markets) rather than deeply-networked, interconnected systems which often depend upon government R&D. They care about cultural homogeneity and upholding sacred traditions because that's a large part of the social fabric in smaller towns & cities where everybody knows everybody else. They care about liberty because they don't want Blue Staters lording their foreign values over them.
The California Conveyor is basically a manifestation of one socio-economic system growing and eating the other. As the world's population gets bigger and more interconnected, the relative size of the information economy gets bigger compared to the manufacturing, resource-extraction, and agricultural economies. That sucks up young people who are looking for jobs in industries that are growing, and deposits them in big cities. When they've made their fortunes and want to settle down, they move elsewhere, where land values are lower. But they're still embedded in the economic system (many keep the same professions, but work remotely or for different employers) and they keep the values that make sense with that economic system.
To me, some California norms seem a bit like margin trading: loved for their high rewards when times are good, but eschewed by many with a broader historical view due to the potential for ruin.
Also people in rural area's generally don't carry around guns to protect themselves from wild animals with a few exceptions like the deep wilderness of Alaska.
1. http://www.bgu.ac.il/BIDR/research/staff/meron/papers/epa.pd...
My definition of "economic system" is a constellation of related businesses that are all adapted to a particular level of technology. Certain technologies - particularly ones related to communication, transportation, energy, and finance - dictate an optimum arrangement of firms within the economy, because they directly affect transaction costs, and transaction costs are the reason we have firms instead of independent producers. When a major new technology - like the Internet - becomes widely adopted, that optimum changes, and many firms just no longer make economic sense anymore: even if the firm remains economically competitive within its market, its market no longer exists anymore, because the boundaries of how it makes sense to divide the economy into firms have shifted, as have what the economy actually produces. But it takes a long time - generations - for this to actually filter through all of the economy, because existing business relationships don't die until the companies involved run out of cash, which doesn't happen until a critical mass of their own customers run out of cash, and so on. So for a period of 30ish years, the two economies exist side-by-side, but often with a lot of friction between the two of them, along with a growing wealth disparity. People can feel that there's a new, alien way of life that threatens to destroy everything about what they know of the world, but because few people have visibility into the whole economy, they often can't place exactly why they're mad and end up seizing on surface manifestations of the problem.
If you move, try and understand your neighbors, certainly, but that doesn't mean voting for the candidate that best represents them instead of best representing you.
Let me try to steel man the parent comment and maybe you can respond:
These people are fleeing the very predictable consequences of progressive governance, they should make an attempt to understand what made their origin so bad they wanted to leave and what made their destination so good that they decided to move there. If they vote for the policies that led them to flee, they might start the cycle over again.
The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.
This undoubtedly causes a ripple effect through the economy as all costs proceed to rise over time if not in check. Never mind how many preferred policies like rent control and micromanaged environmental laws that accumulate like technical debt and paralyze development have wrecked the housing market and soak the tech industry like a huge transfer tax that benefits those who got in the right place at the right time in the 80s/90s and shut everything down.
"Affordable housing" is another misnomered policy that is shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of just having market pricing and allowing the city to grow as demanded you let a few poor people stay because they win a lottery and still drive the bulk of people far out.
The syringe, shit laden road to hell is paved with good intentions still holds true today, and why I call myself a liberal but not a progressive in the political sense. There's a definite distinction, and certainly not unreasonable to hope that voters driven out by those policies take a moment to think of how things got there.
I think people would be more inclined to stay if the money went further, I’m yet to understand why the taxes are so high without free hospitals, university, super clean streets etc.
legitimate Q: where does it all disappear in San Francisco that doesn’t occur in progressive Europe / Aus / NZ?
I don’t think people are fleeing given the net emigration from the US, and the high cost of living in Sydney is actually my point exactly -
It’s not Sydney’s “progressiveness” that makes it expensive, you could live in Melbourne or Hobart where the tax is the same and it’s much less expensive, both more progressive. Three identical sets of benefits and taxes, wildly different cost of living.
My point was that it’s not progressiveness that makes places too expensive, it’s other factors.
Prop 13 was championed by two Republicans and passed under Reagan.
Yes, California has a 13.3% income tax and a 10% sales tax. That really has little to do with party lines. It has everything to do with Prop 13. If you can't tax old money in real estate, you have to tax something else...
Additionally my mother-in-law bought her home in the 70s for 1/20 of its current value. There are exemptions that allow to move within her county, but to downsize would likely 5x her taxes or more.
my taxes would double
Prop 13 has everything to do with lack of supply; localities not being able to pay operational costs of additional infrastructure without negotiating new state aid plays a big role in localities not being inclined to support growth in any way that they are able to resist unless it's tied to something that directly produces ongoing local revenue.
localities not being able to pay operational costs of additional infrastructure without negotiating new state aid
Prop 13 was championed by two Republicans and passed under Reagan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1...
Perhaps the universe is simpler than you imagine. Having put aside a pile of money they want to invest it where it will buy more.
Alternatively perhaps they disagree with some aspects of life in CA but would be happy to import other aspects.
Perhaps they intelligently believe in increased taxation because they believe what their tax money will buy is worth the sacrifice.
In flatland this is a contradiction but if Florida with x% more taxes is still substantially cheaper than the bay area now it might well not be. Give your neighbors more credit.
Personally, I think US+California taxes are too low, especially for high incomes. But I'm undoubtably biased from having grown up in that well-known-haven of high tax rates called Switzerland.
It's still the heavily liberal big cities that are the most unaffordable. By far. It's not a subtle effect.