Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

The United States Census Bureau released its annual state-by-state population estimates for 2018 in late December. It highlights migration trends across the states and sketches a picture of looming political changes that will take place after the complete Census of 2020.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's simplistic to assume they are moving.

It's simplistic to assume they are better off in low tax states.

It's simplistic to believe that many individuals can/will move for tax purposes.

Interesting set of facts though. Thanks for posting them.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 08:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just used the op-ed's headline. I'm interested to see how the correlation plays out, but I'd be more interested to see it overlaid on the adjusted poverty metric which takes into account housing costs. Maybe if I get some free time.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 08:23 AM | Reply

I wonder about birthrates too.

#3 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 09:00 AM | Reply

It's not just taxes, it's cost-of-living. Housing prices in California are insane.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-13 09:49 AM | Reply

Alabama will lose one, from seven to six

Bama has the lowest property taxes in the country. State taxes are not as low as some, but our population is still suffering from all the wingnutty racists, which are dying off now.

#5 | Posted by kudzu at 2019-02-13 10:53 AM | Reply

I didn't move to Texas for the tax break. I moved because the company opened a branch office that needed a veteran.

And I don't find Texas any cheaper in taxes or cost of living than Minnesota. Tollways, property taxes, cost of living, all make up for the income tax savings and then some.

#6 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-02-13 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

-And I don't find Texas any cheaper in taxes or cost of living than Minnesota. Tollways, property taxes, cost of living, all make up for the income tax savings and then some.

what about your employer? How do they see it for themselves?

Ultimately, it's employers who will drive growth. If Texas is a more business friendly state....then expect employers to keep/retain employment there and grow their organizations in more business friendly states.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 11:54 AM | Reply

It's not just taxes, it's cost-of-living. Housing prices in California are insane.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian

Supply and demand. If california was the hellhole that fox viewers cry about, it would be much cheaper to live here.

The worst part of california is everyone want to be here. So only the cream of the crop can achieve a nice lifestyle out here.

#8 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 11:55 AM | Reply

If Texas is a more business friendly state....then expect employers to keep/retain employment there and grow their organizations in more business friendly states.

#7 | Posted by eberly

Business friendly = allowing businesses to trash the environment and abuse workers.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"only the cream of the crop"

Is that how you want to refer to folks who live well?

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 11:57 AM | Reply

And I don't find Texas any cheaper in taxes or cost of living than Minnesota. Tollways, property taxes, cost of living, all make up for the income tax savings and then some.

#6 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2019-02-13 11:47 AM | FLAG:

Dallas is 7.5% cheaper than Minneapolis on average for all expenses.

Far more likely you are doing what the vast majority of people do, expanding your expenditures to match the income freed up from moving.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 12:02 PM | Reply

-Business friendly = allowing businesses to trash the environment and abuse workers.

okay. if you want to look at it that way.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 12:10 PM | Reply

Bama has the lowest property taxes in the country.

#5 | POSTED BY KUDZU

And in exchange for not having to build any infrastructure, parts of Alabama probably permit defecation through a hole in the bottom of your trailer house.

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-02-13 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

To be honest, there is no free ride. They may have a low income tax, but high property tax, or old infrastructure, or low services, etc....

#14 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:14 PM | Reply

Your company may have gotten a break and brought you there.

#15 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:14 PM | Reply

The low resources for birth control and family planning may lead to bursts in baby making.

#16 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:14 PM | Reply

People who are better off tend to have fewer kids too.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:15 PM | Reply

And our debt and deficit just continues to grow. The same people complaining about that are the same ones trying to make sure the government gets as little money as possible from them.

#18 | Posted by humtake at 2019-02-13 12:16 PM | Reply

Dallas is 7.5% cheaper than Minneapolis on average for all expenses.

#11 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

7.5% could probably be explained just by difference in the cost of living someplace cold with snow vs. someplace warm. Though, I can't personally imagine living in either place. When I look at the horizon, I prefer to see something besides a flat line.

#19 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-02-13 12:16 PM | Reply

-7.5% could probably be explained just by difference in the cost of living someplace cold with snow vs. someplace warm.

Well, let's be honest. If you don't like what the data tells you, then just make up anything you want to explain it.

You know....like the way you just did.

#20 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 12:18 PM | Reply

...parts of Alabama probably permit defecation through a hole in the bottom of your trailer house.
#13 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

In San Fransisco people are defecating in the streets.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 12:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

21

In addition, don't we have people in SF who have gainful employment living in their cars because it's unaffordable to live in a real apartment/house?

Anybody in Alabama with a full time job living in a car? Haven't seen that on the news.....

#22 | Posted by eberly at 2019-02-13 12:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#20

Damn! You caught me! lol

Of course, I feel the same way about Kansas...

#23 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-02-13 12:25 PM | Reply

--living in their cars because it's unaffordable to live in a real apartment/house?

Silicon valley, the Google parking lot, Hollywood, all over Cali.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-13 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's simplistic to assume they are moving.

It's simplistic to assume they are better off in low tax states.

It's simplistic to believe that many individuals can/will move for tax purposes.

This is exactly what everyone says who believes in better living through more taxes. Occam's razor bro.

#25 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2019-02-13 12:27 PM | Reply

I'm as dull as usual today. What's the occam's razor here?

#26 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:34 PM | Reply

In San Fransisco people are defecating in the streets.

#21 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That goes on in a lot of big cities. But some people just like to single out San Francisco rather than addressing the actual problems. ..Like the causes of homelessness.

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-02-13 12:34 PM | Reply

And our debt and deficit just continues to grow. The same people complaining about that are the same ones trying to make sure the government gets as little money as possible from them.

#18 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Seems reasonable, its a spending problem. But I don't complain any more about the debt or deficit ....

I just want to make sure the government gets as little as possible, its going to collapse under infinite spending and interest, why should I fund it more than I have too?

It's simplistic to assume they are moving.

No its not ..
South Florida Luxury Condos Being Scooped Up By Relocating New Yorkers Looking To Save On Taxes
miami.cbslocal.com

It's simplistic to assume they are better off in low tax states.

No its not, its why my father moved to Florida, to avoid California taxes..... The left continues to preach people will work for more taxes, its insane when there is a cheaper alternatives and better lifestyles than sleeping in your car.

It's simplistic to believe that many individuals can/will move for tax purposes.

The retired are leaving California and moving to low tax states, but don't sell their homes, they rent them out at outrageous prices....

#28 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-13 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I can't personally imagine living in either place. When I look at the horizon, I prefer to see something besides a flat line.

Many parts of Minneapolis/St. Paul are beautiful. If you need a mountain in your face to see the beauty in a region you might want to expand your tastes.

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-13 12:36 PM | Reply

That goes on in a lot of big cities. But some people just like to single out San Francisco rather than addressing the actual problems. ..Like the causes of homelessness.
#27 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Not to the extent that SFO has .... OR are you claiming all LiberalBigCities are ---------?

#30 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-13 12:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--In San Fransisco people are defecating in the streets.

They could bring in outhouses, but what "concerned" middle-class progressive wants that, or homeless shelters, anywhere near their property?

#31 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-13 12:38 PM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-02-13 12:35 PM | FLAG:

I appreciate your effort here, but it's not convincing.

#32 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-13 12:42 PM | Reply

7.5% could probably be explained just by difference in the cost of living someplace cold with snow vs. someplace warm.

#19 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2019-02-13 12:16 PM | FLAG:

No. The difference in average utilities over a year between the two places is 0.03 cents per month.

The biggest differential is property/home costs. Texas has a rapidly expanding housing supply. Minneapolis has a housing crisis. There are many issues that contribute to this, from anti-growth regs to simple stuff like building foundation requirements due to soil composition.

#33 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 12:51 PM | Reply

They could bring in outhouses

In San Francisco, an outhouse counts as a 1BR apartment and rents for $2500/month.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-13 12:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--anti-growth regs

California is so dumb it doesn't want to build high-density housing on transit corridors.

Bill to add density near transit stations dies in California senate ...
la.curbed.com

Apr 17, 2018 - A "bold" state bill that that would have brought denser housing to areas ... Proposal to add density near transit stations quickly rejected in California

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-13 01:00 PM | Reply

I understand that corporations are people to conservatives, but just because corporations force their employees to move to some economic malaise region doesn't mean "Americans are marching to low-tax states" by anything close to choice.

#36 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-13 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And lets not forget that Texas has some of the most lax building codes in the nation. All you have to do is look at what happened during Hurricane Harvey when thousands of homes, which had been built on flood plains and in what was historically seen as bayou country, were flooded and rendered permanently uninhabitable.

And if you need another example, just look at what happened in West, TX...

en.wikipedia.org

...where they allowed a school, an apartment complex and a nursing home to be built next door to a chemical plant that manufactured nitrogen-based fertilizer, the same material used by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 that killed 168 people. But in this case, when the plant exploded in 2013, only 15 people were killed and over 160 were injured and an additional 150 buildings were destroyed or damaged.

OCU

#37 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-02-13 01:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

In San Fransisco people are defecating in the streets.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ

But not in any cities in red states. Nope. They don't have homeless people.
Just san fran.

Woof woof! Bark at whatever your master instructs you to bark at. San Fran, Pelosi, social justice, taxes, government, and now Ocasio-cortez.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaks,

Most large cities have a homeless population. It's a matter of degree. Right now San Fran has a bigger homeless (and public defecating) problem than other cities.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 01:14 PM | Reply

Apr 17, 2018 - A "bold" state bill that that would have brought denser housing to areas ... Proposal to add density near transit stations quickly rejected in California

#35 | Posted by nullifidian

So which is it? Is california too crowded or does it need to be more densely packed?

You've now graduated to arguing against your own arguments.

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 01:14 PM | Reply

Speaks,

Most large cities have a homeless population. It's a matter of degree. Right now San Fran has a bigger homeless (and public defecating) problem than other cities.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ

Funny, by your post one would assume that homeless pooping is specific to san fran.

Tell me, how is the year round weather in san fran vs most other cities?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 01:15 PM | Reply

Tell me, how is the year round weather in san fran vs most other cities?

#41 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

It gets pretty cold in winter but nothing like Detroit or Chicago.

Having walked the streets of Detroit a few times passing out food and wares from what I witnessed homelessness is mostly a product of mental illness or drug addiction.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 01:20 PM | Reply

Speaks,

I cited San Fran (kind of tongue in cheek as I thought Whatsleft's post was kind of funny) defecation because it's been in the news quite a bit recently.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 01:21 PM | Reply

Speaks,

I cited San Fran (kind of tongue in cheek as I thought Whatsleft's post was kind of funny) defecation because it's been in the news quite a bit recently.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah because right wing news has an aggressive agenda of constantly demonizing liberalism. So they need to make morons think that liberal places are worse than republican places. So they point to the homeless in san fran instead of the mind blowing economic growth that came out of san fran. And you fall for it. Wah wah.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 01:24 PM | Reply

But not in any cities in red states. Nope. They don't have homeless people
#38 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

That's because the cold, or the diseased mosquitoes kill them.

#45 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-13 01:25 PM | Reply

Part of the reason San Fran is full of literal ---- is because they want to out hipster Portland.

#46 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-13 01:26 PM | Reply

Yeah because right wing news has an aggressive agenda of constantly demonizing liberalism

The reporting has been coming from mainstream sources.

Take a look at this Google search:

Guardian
Time
NPR
NBC
Etc.

www.google.com

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 02:10 PM | Reply

That's because the cold, or the diseased mosquitoes kill them.

#45 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

In Detroit it's both.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-13 02:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#47 | Posted by JeffJ

Homeless poop is proportional to the amount of homeless people. Not an effect of having liberal politicians or being in san francisco..

The amount of homeless people is a result of the nice climate, combined with the high cost of living created by an unprecedented economic boom that isn't being shared by the whole society.

San Fran's problem is actually that it's not liberal ENOUGH and is allowing the tech billionaires to suck up all the wealth and property without giving back to their society.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 02:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

And lets not forget that Texas has some of the most lax building codes in the nation.

#37 | POSTED BY OCUSER AT 2019-02-13 01:11 PM | FLAG:

They're not that lax. About 9% of houston flooded, homes built before modernized county flood regs. 68 dead from the storm.

On the other hand, Cali, with it's extensive regs.. focused all of its new housing development into fire plains...

#50 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

San Fran's problem is actually that it's not liberal ENOUGH

#49 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-02-13 02:33 PM

There's actually a salient point here. The Democrats in Mission District in San Fran fancy themselves very liberal. I'm sure they are on some issues. When it comes to housing, they are highly regressive, using anti-growth regs masquerading as "historical preservation" specifically to prevent the construction of low income homes.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 03:04 PM | Reply

There's actually a salient point here. The Democrats in Mission District in San Fran fancy themselves very liberal. I'm sure they are on some issues. When it comes to housing, they are highly regressive, using anti-growth regs masquerading as "historical preservation" specifically to prevent the construction of low income homes.

#51 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Exactly. San fran is just a glimpse into the future for the rest of our cities if we allow wealth inequality to continue it's current trajectory.

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 03:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Or just increase the housing supply. Is such a simple answer not intersectional enough?

#53 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 03:35 PM | Reply

Sadly, it's not.

Housing supply is abundant. Vacant units outnumber the homeless about 10:1 in San Diego.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-13 03:43 PM | Reply

When it comes to housing, they are highly regressive, using anti-growth regs masquerading as "historical preservation" specifically to prevent the construction of low income homes.

Don't you think it's possible they actually care about preserving the history of their neighborhoods and that it isn't necessarily a ruse to keep the poors out?

As an example, I live in a historic neighborhood myself (not in SF). It is all well-kept bungalows and cottages from the late 1800s/early 1900s. There are frequently proposals to knock down chunks of them, along with historic commercial buildings, to put up 6-8 story apartment and condo buildings that look like dentists offices and have no relation to the rest of the neighborhood. I fight these, not because i want to stop low income housing - the rent in these buildings would be more than my modest mortgage payment - but out of legitimate concern for what brought people to the neighborhood in the first place.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-13 03:48 PM | Reply

We've been growing rapidly where I live in the Mid South. Taxes haven't been a top 5 reason.

Proximity to 75% of the U.S. population, cost of living, weather, and quality of life are the top reasons given by the many corporations who've relocated their headquarters here in the past 10-15 years. Tech is rapidly expanding here also with the same high paying jobs. Most recently, Amazon's tech operations center is under construction, with 5000 jobs @ $150,000 a year.

Most of the transplants from the north and northeast I've talked to mostly mention how they're glad they don't have to shovel snow anymore, the more laid back attitude. Californians mostly mention how affordable their house was in comparison. But prices here have more than doubled in the past 5 years, and they're climbing by the month.

There isn't a state income tax here, but sales tax is close to 10%.

#56 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-13 03:49 PM | Reply

"When it comes to housing, they are highly regressive, using anti-growth regs masquerading as "historical preservation" specifically to prevent the construction of low income homes."

That's BS.

If an old bungalow gets re-developed, it won't be converted to a low-income building. It will be single-lot four story apartment buildings that go for top dollar, with highly valuable parking spaces that poor people don't even need below.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-13 03:57 PM | Reply

The migration seems to be entirely to places with more moderate winters.

For instance, Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma are low cost states and they aren't mentioned.

#58 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-02-13 03:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's BS.
If an old bungalow gets re-developed, it won't be converted to a low-income building. It will be single-lot four story apartment buildings that go for top dollar, with highly valuable parking spaces that poor people don't even need below.

#57 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-02-13 03:57 PM | REPLY

Nope. I used Mission District specifically because the ongoing case of converting a laundry mat into an apartment complex with a section of it set aside for low cost housing. The owner of the property is 4 or 5 years into the battle so far. The locals aren't having it.

#59 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-13 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You guys have been post threads like this for as long as I've been on the DR.

California should be a desolate state by now.

I really wouldn't mind. Cost of living would go down. As well as home values.

#60 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-02-13 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"with a section of it set aside for low cost housing."

100% of the complaints come from the non-low-cost population.

NIMBY crosses political boundaries easier than a ------- crosses the border.

--------, funny how we don't hear about them anymore.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-13 05:22 PM | Reply

DemoKKrats and liberals ruin everything they touch. Venezuela, Cuba, Detroit, San Franciso, etc.

#62 | Posted by sawdust at 2019-02-13 06:04 PM | Reply

DemoKKrats and liberals ruin everything they touch. Venezuela, Cuba, Detroit, San Franciso, etc.

#62 | Posted by sawdust

Cool so you wont be collecting your social securty or medicare then?

#63 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-13 06:12 PM | Reply

The migration seems to be entirely to places with more moderate winters.
For instance, Kansas and Nebraska and Oklahoma are low cost states and they aren't mentioned.

#58 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Bingo.

#64 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-14 02:54 AM | Reply

DemoKKrats and liberals ruin everything they touch. Venezuela, Cuba, Detroit, San Franciso, etc.

#62 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

As opposed to "Conservatives"?

They've been the dominant economy wrecker in the US the past 30 years.

They wrecked Kansas.

They're currently wrecking the US with Orange S---stain in office.

They've willfully wrecked their own financial future and that of their children.

They've wrecked the value of faith, the high ground of traditional morality, the admiration and respect of the United States abroad, the middle class...

Should I keep going, -------?

#65 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-14 02:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The migration seems to be entirely to places with more moderate winters.

#58 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

I know you have some ties to Michigan so this is something you are likely aware of.

Michigan has a retirement community called "Snow Birds". They all have small places in Florida where they spend their winters. It's similar to flocks of birds migrating south for winter.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 09:58 AM | Reply

Do you get out much Jeff? That isn't just a Michigan thing, it's an "any cold state" thing.

#67 | Posted by JOE at 2019-02-14 10:07 AM | Reply

I didn't say it was limited to Michigan, Joe.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:09 AM | Reply

www.breitbart.com

Need I say more???

#69 | Posted by Pegasus at 2019-02-14 12:25 PM | Reply

#69 | Posted by Pegasus

--A new poll reveals that 53% of California residents are considering leaving the Golden State because of the high cost of living.

Not surprising.

#70 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-14 12:49 PM | Reply

--A new poll reveals that 53% of California residents are considering leaving the Golden State because of the high cost of living.

Not surprising.

#70 | Posted by nullifidian

A new poll reveals a lot of morons cant get into harvard so they go to worse schools. News at 11.

#71 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 01:09 PM | Reply

www.breitbart.com

Need I say more???

#69 | Posted by Pegasus

Hahahahah pegasus gets his news from breitbart!

#72 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 01:10 PM | Reply

Hahahahah pegasus gets his news from breitbart!

#72 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I assumed he got his news from Perseus.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 01:16 PM | Reply

5th largest economy in the world

and good, looking at property in northern cali myself.

eyeballing a nice 10 acre plot in placerville

#74 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 01:34 PM | Reply

Michigan has a retirement community called "Snow Birds". They all have small places in Florida where they spend their winters. It's similar to flocks of birds migrating south for winter.

#66 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-02-14 09:58 AM | FLAG: When I lived aboard in Boot Key Harbor [Middle Keys] the boating snowbirds showed up every November and would head back north come Mar/Apr timeframe.

#75 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-14 01:49 PM | Reply

"Americans Continue Their March to Low-tax States"

then why are talented youths leaving Americas heartland for places like Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boston and suburban Washington D.C.?

in other words. no one moves to Oklahoma voluntarily. ever

#76 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Just enough time to establish residency in the lower tax state.

#77 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-14 02:43 PM | Reply

The onle people obsessed over taxes are people with ------ incomes

That's no states fault

#78 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 02:53 PM | Reply

--then why are talented youths leaving Americas heartland

To become baristas with bachelor's degrees who can't afford a studio apartment? Who knows?

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-02-14 02:57 PM | Reply

You must have real limited prospects

#80 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 02:58 PM | Reply

To become baristas with bachelor's degrees who can't afford a studio apartment? Who knows?

#79 | Posted by nullifidian

They're willing to pay any price to not live near people like you. You can't put a price on escaping trump's cult.

#81 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-02-14 03:19 PM | Reply

Human beings have selfish tendencies. Certain parties know this and like to capitalize on those tendencies. Others have more empathy and may try to share the wealth. Even they can have their own self-interest in mind, though -- it's just that they see taxes as a long term improvement in their lives along with the lives of others.

Neither side is 100% correct; there has to be a balance of interests. I don't like giving my money away. But I love what taxes can do to improve the quality of life...infrastructure, safety, health and wellbeing, education and much more. I see taxes as the price of living in society.

#82 | Posted by cbob at 2019-02-14 04:31 PM | Reply

Barista you say?

a quick monster search produces 4,026 job openings for ETL engineers/techs in California

pays $49.00 an hour and up

----' loser

#83 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 04:40 PM | Reply

People who are better off tend to have fewer kids too.

#17 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I think you may have that inverted, Bruce.

People who have fewer kids tend to be better off.

#84 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-02-14 06:17 PM | Reply

Both statements are true.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-14 06:19 PM | Reply

People who are better off tend to have fewer kids too.

#17 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

I completely agree.
It's anecdotal but I can't think of too many well off families with more than two kids, and my kids all go to catholic schools.

Why do you think that is the case?
I know the most common answer is they're "smarter" but that's lazy.

#86 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2019-02-14 07:52 PM | Reply

Chair,

The answer is simple:

1. Kids are fricking expensive.

2. Most people prioritize child-rearing over career advancement and thus pass on financial opportunities that those without kids would jump on.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 08:12 PM | Reply

It's anecdotal but I can't think of too many well off families with more than two kids, and my kids all go to catholic schools.

It's funny but it is just the opposite here in the Westside of LA (and I hear in places like Darien CT), all these finance types have 3+ kids as some kind of status symbol, to show that they can afford to send them to 30K/year private schools, tutors, ski vacations in Aspen or Zermot, etc.

#88 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-02-14 08:35 PM | Reply

It's a curve. The poor and rich have the most children, the middle class have the least.

#89 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-15 08:27 AM | Reply

Shortly after we had our second I got myself snipped.

#90 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-15 10:04 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort