Key takeaway for me: more people want to become republicans.
It's not just high population to low population, because Florida as an example.
It's not just high population to low population, because Florida as an example.
but yeah, you can just draw down arrows from NY and PA to FL. They're so pervasive there's a joke about their license plates... blue and yella will kill a fella. A play on the snake idiom, because of their awful driving.
NJ - Drive like they're in NYC, no turn signals, will try to merge/squeeze into 3 inches of space.
NY - Must not have lane rules, they just sit in the left lane regardless of speed.
PA - Highly aggressive and dangerous. Will tailgate you, will brake check you, will drive 30 over and punish you if you happen to block their path.
FL - Wildcard. Everyone is from one of the above, so who knows which you'll be dealing with.
I've long thought that living in a blue city in a red state provides a pretty good balance.
People can't afford to live in expensive places the way they'd like to. What's cute most years in CA (I haven't seen Covid-data, which probably changes things) is that net migration among people making >100K is positive. So wealthy people are pushing others out. Yay free market?
Is there anything naturally "Republican" about having large amounts of land for (frequently still Democratic-leaning) cities to continue to sprawl into in red states, avoiding the crunch that hit the California cities that ran out of space earlier?
Another way of phrasing it: people want to move to lower population density.
Comparatively the continual problems w/resource management (water, power, wildfires) in California seem relatively horrific to this outsider.
Historically small and mega fires swept though all the California forests, often burning 4x the amount that’s burned in this historic fire year. Human intervention to stop those burns has created very unhealthy forests. Having houses in all these areas that burn is just a bad idea and a lot of hubris about the extent of our control over nature.
Regulation to stop building in those area and enhance fire resistance of buildings is the solution, not more “freedom”. Housing developers have almost zero incentive to reduce their profit margin in order to fire proof the house or not build and thus not earn money.
And water use isn’t a solved issue in other states. Either they happen to have a wetter climate or they aren’t any better.
Power is a legitimate issue, but then I’d say California is actually doing pretty well because the climate change is a larger issue. Move fast and break things is better than doing nothing.
You arguing for more/better regulation speaks to the lack of competence in CA considering the time scales these issues have been ongoing.
And as an outsider, Texas seems very incompetent dealing with hurricanes and the power outage, which was rather predictable. The official’s then trying to scape goat issues that were not the primary cause does not inspire confidence.
But maybe we’re both biased towards our home states. An outsider from France probably would think both of them could do a lot better.
If Texas and Florida housing is cheap, it's not necessarily because of Republicans. Texas has, comparatively, some pretty high property taxes for example. Sure, wages have been held down by business friendly conservative politics, but with remote work becoming more common, your wage isn't tied to the politics of where you live.
(my note: Texas, Florida, and North Carolina will eventually tilt more progressive from young folks born or who move there, and as older conservatives "age out" at a rate of about 1.8 million people/year [1])
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/american-m...
It also stops speculation because the property becomes an obligation that has to be taken care of.
alternate hypotheses:
remote work enabled more people to earn a high salary typically found in a large city or coastal area while moving to lower cost of living areas.
also, people who lost their work in industries heavily impacted by quarantine (hospitality, food, restaurant, retail) moved back home or in with family to save money.
That is, until those moving in vote those policies out.
Most people don't even vote. The most obvious thing I can see here is people are moving from high CoL areas to low CoL (which also tracks with the growth in remote work).
People might not want to admit to themselves that they want to be republicans, but they sure want to live wherever republican policy dominates.
When it comes to factors that affect CoL, both parties are pretty much bipartisan in their approach.
>but they sure want to live wherever republican policy dominates.
Because, historical, republican states have smaller cities, which mean less demand and lower CoL. Someone priced out of San Francisco isn’t going to find it cheaper to live in Phoenix than Chicago. As a result, prices are already shooting up and will probably do so until there is an equilibrium that follows a supply/demand curve.
Only a local partisan reality or influencing others can alter that, a Democrat migration can turn the entire country* Democrat if anyone coordinated, as only a few counties have to be swung just a little bit. I don't feel like this is a partisan observation, mathematically the opposite is not true like if you imagined a different nation that you didn't care with the same reality it is easy to notice that the opposition party does not have the numbers.
*Not all local representatives, just electoral college for Presidency, the entire Senate, most of the House of Representatives.
So it would require a SuperPAC to get people to move from Democratic areas to the select Republican and swing counties at once, or heavily helped by existing and pandemic net migration.
This is such a crazy disconnect, though. They might not want to move to a "red state", but they "just happen" to like the ultimate result of red state policy.
>In fact if we dig one level deeper I'm willing to bet most of these moves are happening to liberal enclaves in republican states.
Sure, because they put more stock in maintaining their political self-identity and label than they do in accepting the fact that they might actually prefer living in a place that's the result of red state politics. Even if that's liberal enclave.
It's a form of self-denial.
If the resource is tourist cash.
Eg, beach condos are getting 3-4x normal prices this summer and are still sold out.
It’s also hot as shit, and this is from someone who’s lived their entire life in the south.
No state income tax, warm weather, as much pro sports as CA or TX, and beaches on three sides
1) Weather
2) Cost of living: housing, property taxes
3) Quality of life: No commute, slower pace of life
In the process there is a cultural and political struggle underway, and it's the newcomers supplanting the old ways. I've had a few prospective buyers call and say that they are escaping the godless/liberal coast and headed back to conservative small-town America, but I have yet to have a single one of those actually convert to becoming a buyer, FWIW. Point being, I foresee it not being about people wanting to become Republicans, and more a demographic shift where many traditional red areas are going to turn purple, if not blue.
Do that many dems really believe that their policies don't significantly result in an increased cost of living?
I thought this was a compromise dems knowingly and willingly made, but it seems lots of people don't want to admit low cost of living has anything to do with being a red state.