Even the illegals are fleeing California -- and half the state's voters want out, too
California, whose new leftist governor, Gavin Newsom, has big ambitions to be the counter-president for now, and eventually replace President Trump, has this one little problem that always comes of socialist rule:
The locals are fleeing.
And now it turns out half the ones who haven't fled are thinking about it.
BLOG: BOTH HOUSES OF CA's STATE LEGISLATURE ARE CONTROLLED BY LA RAZA, NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus.
CA's ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA IS A LA RAZA MEMBER AND ALSO OF THE MEXICAN SEPARATIST MOVEMENT OF M.E.Ch.A.
BLOG: BOTH HOUSES OF CA's STATE LEGISLATURE ARE CONTROLLED BY LA RAZA, NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus.
CA's ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA IS A LA RAZA MEMBER AND ALSO OF THE MEXICAN SEPARATIST MOVEMENT OF M.E.Ch.A.
Just over half of California’s registered vote have considered leaving the state, with soaring housing costs cited as the most common reason for wanting to move, according to a new poll.Young voters were especially likely to cite unaffordable housing as a reason for leaving, according to the latest latest UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll conducted for the Los Angeles Times. But a different group, conservatives, also frequently suggested they wanted to leave — and for a very different reason: They feel alienated from the state’s political culture.
That just-over-half figure cited by the Los Angeles Times is actually 54%, broken down by 40% Republican and 14% Democrat voters. They want out and are dreaming of new lives in states where jobs are forming and housing isn't just for billionaires. Walk around any place in California and recognize that half the people you meet are people who want the hell out.
But it's not just registered voters. Despite that vast banquet of goodies California has offered to migrants with zero regard to immigration status -- sanctuary protection, drivers' licenses, automatic voter registration, ballot-harvesting privileges, free education well beyond K-12, a vast NGO/church network set up with state funds to 'serve' illegals, free housing, free health care for the pregnant, no need to learn English, and coming soon, free health care for illegals up to the age of 26, --even the migrants, both legal and illegal ... are fleeing.
New York, Illinois and California had the biggest drops in immigrant population, along with New Jersey, Maryland and Connecticut — losing a combined 206,000 immigrants as Florida and Texas together gained about 170,000. The numbers were released Thursday by the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
According to Pew:
Trade turmoil and spiraling home prices in blue states play a role. The shifts in immigrant population will have an impact on the 1 in 5 U.S. counties where immigration has softened population loss, those with agriculture or meatpacking industries that rely on immigrant labor, and states such as Texas and California where small population changes might cause shifts in political power after the 2020 census.
The Sacramento Bee has reported earlier that already five million people have fled the state.
This has been going on for about a decade, right when the state turned monolithically blue. The state's population nevertheless has continued to grow slightly based on live births making up for the people leaving. That free health care for pregnant illegals already in place in retrospect, had more than one purpose. You can see why the state's Democratic political machine has placed such a store in making it attractive to be an illegal alien - it's actually a plan keep the federal dollars flowing in as well as pad the congressional seats. They need these warm bodies, legal or not, and they know their socialist policies are a formula for driving people out.
But now even that trend is collapsing. The plan is now failing. The state is set to lose population anyway -- and congressional seats if the 2020 Census can pick up on it:
According to recently released data from the US Census, about 38,000 more people left California than entered it in 2018. This is the second straight year that migration to the state was negative, and it’s a trend that is speeding up. Every year since 2014, net migration has fallen.
So despite the goodies, even the migrants are getting the heck out. And you can bet these include the better class of illegal migrants, which are the people who are coming here to work, not the ones who want to sop up welfare checks and send remittances abroad. The legal immigrants are an even bigger loss, given that many groups from Asia and beyond have much higher incomes and education than the average native-born.
So the state is actually set to shrink as even migrants head for the hills past the Colorado River. Seems that all free health care is no match for the idea of having a house and a job, something the socialists in absolute power in California are quite opaque to.
One can only hope it hits them hard when Census time comes around and some of those ballot-harvested congressional seats get yanked from them.
Image credit: Photo illustration by Monica Showalter from public domain source
Report:
California’s Middle-Class Wages Rise by 1 Percent in 40 Years
Middle-class wages in
progressive California have risen by 1 percent in the last 40 years, says a
study by the establishment California Budget and Policy Center.
The wage and housing problems are made worse —
especially for families — by the loss of
employment benefits as companies and investors spike stock prices by cutting
costs. The report says:
NYT Admits Fewer Immigrants Means Higher Wages, More
Labor-Saving Machines
Warren's core insight
was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had
actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. BEN
SHAPIRO
BLOG…. SO,
WHAT DOES LA RAZA WARREN THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN SHE HANDS 40 MILLION LOOTING
MEXCIANS AMNESTY SO THEY CAN BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY???
How
the Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren
Munro:
Cornell Study Shows Stagnant Wages Hurting Marriage in U.S.
Getty Images
Fewer women get married when fewer men earn a decent salary in an
unstable economy, says a study from Cornell University.
Job-Hopping Young
Workers Getting Huge Wage Gains, Says Business Center | Breitbart
Report:
California’s Middle-Class Wages Rise by 1 Percent in 40 Years
Justin
Sullivan/Getty Images
3 Sep 2019172
6:24
Middle-class wages in
progressive California have risen by 1 percent in the last 40 years, says a
study by the establishment California Budget and Policy Center.
“Earnings for California’s
workers at the low end and middle of the wage scale have generally declined or
stagnated for decades,” says the report, titled “California’s Workers Are
Increasingly Locked Out of the State’s Prosperity.” The report continued:
In
2018, the median hourly earnings for workers ages 25 to 64 was $21.79, just 1%
higher than in 1979, after adjusting for inflation ($21.50, in 2018 dollars)
(Figure 1). Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings for low-wage workers, those at the
10th percentile, increased only slightly more, by 4%, from $10.71 in 1979
to $11.12 in 2018.
The report admits that the
state’s progressive economy is delivering more to investors and less to
wage-earners. “Since 2001, the share of state private-sector [annual new
income] that has gone to worker compensation has fallen by 5.6 percentage
points — from 52.9% to 47.3%.”
In 2016, California’s Gross
Domestic Product was $2.6 trillion, so the 5.6 percent drop shifted $146
billion away from wages. That is roughly $3,625 per person in 2016.
The report notes that wages
finally exceeded 1979 levels around 2017, and it splits the credit between the
Democrats’ minimum-wage boosts and President Donald Trump’s go-go economy.
The 40 years of flat wages are
partly hidden by a wave of new products and services. They include almost-free
entertainment and information on the Internet, cheap imported coffee in
supermarkets, and reliable, low-pollution autos in garages.
But the impact of California’s
flat wages is made worse by California’s rising housing costs, the report says,
even though it also ignores the rent-spiking impact of the establishment’s
pro-immigration policies:
In just the last decade
alone, the increase in the typical household’s rent far outpaced the rise in
the typical full-time worker’s annual earnings, suggesting that working
families and individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends
meet. In fact, the basic cost of living in many parts of the state is more
than many single individuals or families can expect to earn, even if all adults
are working full-time.
…
Specifically, inflation-adjusted
median household rent rose by 16% between 2006 and 2017, while
inflation-adjusted median annual earnings for individuals working at least 35
hours per week and 50 weeks per year rose by just 2%, according to a Budget
Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data.
Many workers are being paid
little more today than workers were in 1979 even as worker productivity has
risen. Fewer employees have access to retirement plans sponsored by their
employers, leaving individual workers on their own to stretch limited dollars
and resources to plan how they’ll spend their later years affording the high
cost of living and health care in California. And as union representation has
declined, most workers today cannot negotiate collectively for better working
conditions, higher pay, and benefits, such as retirement and health care, like
their parents and grandparents did. On top of all this, workers who take on
contingent and independent work (often referred to as “gig work”), which in
many cases appears to be motivated by the need to supplement their primary job
or fill gaps in their employment, are rarely granted the same rights and legal
protections as traditional employees.
The center’s report tries to
blame the four-decade stretch of flat wages on the declining clout of unions.
But unions’ decline was impacted by the bipartisan elites’ policy of
mass-migration and imposed diversity.
In
2018, Breitbart reported how Progressives for
Immigration Reform interviewed Blaine Taylor, a union carpenter, about the
economic impact of migration:
TAYLOR: If I hired a framer to do
a small addition [in 1988], his wage would have been $45 an hour. That was
the minimum for a framing contractor, a good carpenter. For a helper, it was
about $25 an hour, for a master who could run a complete job, it was about $45
an hour. That was the going wage for plumbers as well. His helpers typically
got $25 an hour.
…
Now, the average wage in Los
Angeles for construction workers is less than $11 an hour. They can’t go lower
than the minimum wage. And much of that, if they’re not being paid by the hour
at less than $11 an hour, they’re being paid per piece — per piece of plywood
that’s installed, per piece of drywall that’s installed. Now, the subcontractor
can circumvent paying them as an hourly wage and are now being paid by 1099,
which means that no taxes are being taken out. [Emphasis added]
Diversity
also damaged the unions by shredding California’s civic solidarity. In 2007,
the progressive Southern Poverty Law Center posted a report with the title
“Latino Gang Members in Southern California are Terrorizing and Killing
Blacks.” In the same year, an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times described another murder by Latino
gangs as “a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic
cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods.”
The center’s board members
include the executive director of the state’s SEIU union, a professor from the
Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and
the research director at the “Program for Environmental and Regional Equity” at
the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Outside
California, President Donald Trump’s low-immigration policies are pressuring
employers to raise Americans’ wages in a hot economy. The Wall Street Journal reportedAugust 29:
Overall, median weekly earnings
rose 5% from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the same quarter in 2018, according
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For workers between the ages of 25 and 34,
that increase was 7.6%.
The New York Times laments that reduced immigration does force wages
upwards and also does force companies to buy labor-saving, wage-boosting
machinery. Instead, NYT prioritizes "ideas about America’s identity and
culture.” http://bit.ly/2Zp2u2J
NYT Admits Fewer Immigrants Means Higher Wages, More
Labor-Saving Machines
.
THE INVITED INVADING HORDES: IT’S ALL
ABOUT KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED!
"In the decade following the
financial crisis of 2007-2008, the capitalist class has delivered powerful
blows to the social position of the working class. As a result, the working
class in the US, the world’s “richest country,” faces levels of economic
hardship not seen since the 1930s."
"Inequality has reached unprecedented
levels: the wealth of America’s three richest people now equals the net
worth of the poorest half of the US population."
Warren's core insight
was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor force had
actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages. BEN
SHAPIRO
BLOG…. SO,
WHAT DOES LA RAZA WARREN THINK WILL HAPPEN WHEN SHE HANDS 40 MILLION LOOTING
MEXCIANS AMNESTY SO THEY CAN BRING UP THE REST OF THEIR FAMILY???
How
the Quest For Power Corrupted Elizabeth Warren
I first
met Elizabeth Warren when she was a professor at Harvard Law School, in 2004.
She was fresh off the publication of her bestselling book, "The Two-Income
Trap." There's no doubt she was politically liberal -- our only
face-to-face meeting involved a recruitment visit at the W Hotel in Los
Angeles, where she immediately made some sort of disparaging remark about Rush
Limbaugh -- but at the time, Warren was making waves for her iconoclastic
views. She wasn't a doctrinaire leftist, spewing Big Government nostrums. She
was a creative thinker.
That
creative thinking is obvious in "The Two-Income Trap," which
discusses the rising number of bankruptcies among middle-class parents,
particularly women with children. The book posits that women entered the workforce
figuring that by doing so, they could have double household income. But so many
women entered the workforce that they actually inflated prices for basic goods
like housing, thus driving debt skyward and leading to bankruptcies for
two-income families. The book argued that families with one income might
actually be better off, since families with two incomes spent nearly the full
combined income and then fell behind if one spouse lost a job. Families with
one income, by contrast, spent to the limit for one income, and if a spouse was
fired, the unemployed spouse would then look for work to replace that single
income.
Warren's
core insight was fascinating: She argued that massive expansion of the labor
force had actually created more stressful living and driven down median wages.
But her policy recommendations were even more fascinating. She explicitly
argued against "more government regulation of the housing market,"
slamming "complex regulations," since they "might actually worsen
the situation by diminishing the incentive to build new houses or improve older
ones." Instead, she argued in favor of school choice, since pressure on
housing prices came largely from families seeking to escape badly run
government school districts: "A well-designed voucher program would fit
the bill neatly."
Her
heterodox policy proposals didn't stop there. She refused to "join the
chorus calling for taxpayer-funded day care" on its own, calling it a
"sacred cow." At the very least, she suggested that
"government-subsidized day care would add one more indirect pressure on
mothers to join the workforce." She instead sought a more comprehensive
educational solution that would include "tax credits for stay-at-home
parents."
She
ardently opposed additional taxpayer subsidization of college loans, too, or
more taxpayer spending on higher education directly. Instead, she called for a
tuition freeze from state schools. She recommended tax incentives for families
to save rather than spend. She opposed radical solutions wholesale: "We
haven't suggested a complete overhaul of the tax structure, and we haven't
demanded that businesses cease and desist from ever closing another plant or
firing another worker. Nor have we suggested that the United States should
build a quasi-socialist safety net to rival the European model."
So, what
happened to Warren?
Power.
The other
half of iconoclastic Warren was typical progressive, anti-financial industry
Warren. In "The Two-Income Trap," she proposes reinstating state
usury laws, cutting off access to payday lenders and heavily regulating the
banking industry -- all in the name of protecting Americans from themselves.
While her position castigating the credit industry for deliberate obfuscation
of clients was praiseworthy, her quest to "protect consumers" quickly
morphed into a quest to create the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau -- an
independent agency without any serious checks or balances. But despite her best
efforts, she never became head of the CFPB, failing to woo Republican senators.
The result: an emboldened Warren who saw her popularity as tied to her Big
Government agenda. No more reaching across the aisle; no more iconoclastic
policies. Instead, she would be Ralph Nader II, with a feminist narrative to
boot.
And so,
she's gaining ground in the 2020 presidential race as a Bernie Sanders
knockoff. Ironically, her great failing could be her lack of moderation -- the
moderation she abandoned in her quest for progressive power. If Elizabeth
Warren circa 2003 were running, she'd be the odds-on favorite for president.
But Warren circa 2019 would hate Warren circa 2003.
Ben Shapiro, 35, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of
"The Ben Shapiro Show" and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is
the author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller "The Right Side Of
History." He lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles.
Munro:
Cornell Study Shows Stagnant Wages Hurting Marriage in U.S.
6 Sep 2019334
4:14
Fewer women get married when fewer men earn a decent salary in an
unstable economy, says a study from Cornell University.
“Most
American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with
a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in
the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs,” said lead author Daniel
Lichter, a professor at Cornell University. He continued:
Marriage is
still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic
transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage
bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed
their male suitors.
The study
looked at wages and marriage rates from 2008 to 2017, and concluded that
“promoting good jobs may ultimately be the best marriage promotion policy,” says the study, which is
titled “Mismatches in the Marriage Market,” and was
published in the Journal of
Marriage and Family.
The study is
useful for the populist wing of the GOP, because it shows that rising wages for
men in President Donald Trump’s low-immigration economy is good for women’s
romantic aspirations and marriage rates. Other data shows that married people —
especially women — are far more likely to vote GOP than single people.
Correspondingly,
the bad news about wages and marriage is good news for the Democratic Party,
which will get extra votes from women if federal policies continue to suppress
wages for American men.
The study did
not try to show how marriage rates have been impacted by the various federal
policies which have flatlined men’s wages for 40
years.
For example,
the federal policy of flooding the labor market with immigrants has flatlined
wages nationwide for at least two decades. Also, President Barack Obama’s
failure to curb opioids — and his reluctance to favor American workers over
‘DACA’ illegals — helped to push millions of Americans out of the workforce and
many into their graves.
The Cornell
study validated conservatives’ view that women are different from men, and
prefer to marry men who earn a higher wage or salary. The press statement said:
The study’s
authors developed estimates of the sociodemographic characteristics of
unmarried women’s potential spouses who resemble the husbands of otherwise
comparable married women. These estimates were compared with the actual
distribution of unmarried men at the national, state, and local levels.
Women’s
potential husbands had an average income that was about 58% higher than the
actual unmarried men currently available to unmarried women. They also were 30%
more likely to be employed and 19% more likely to have a college degree.
Middle-class
women have the best chance of finding a man who earns more money, the study
says.
Low-income
women live among men with very little income, partly because they are in jail
or are suffering from drugs. And the many women who earn above $40,000 a year
face intense competition for the relatively fewer number of men who make more
than $65,000 a year.
This shortage
of prosperous men means that many high-income women must marry down, the study
said.
“Women may instead ‘settle’ for a marital match that falls short of their aspirations in a spouse
... This will be expressed in new patterns of marital hypogamy or downward marital mobility,”
the study said.
The problem
is worse for women who seek husbands later in life, for example, after spending
years in university education:
For example, older women on average were much less likely a suitable marital match ... This is especially true among women who were highly educated
... A 10% increase in age among women with a college degree was associated with a 24.48 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of a suitable match. In contrast, age mattered much less among the least-educated women—those with a high school degree or less who had only a 4.47 percentage point decrease in finding a match. One implication was that delaying marriage, for whatever reason but perhaps especially if pursuing college degrees, had the effect of reducing women’s local-area access to demographically suited marital partners.
Future
studies will examine divorce rates among marriages where women recognize that
they earn more than their husbands.
Young Americans got a pay raise of 7.6 percent from late
2017 to late 2018 -- bigger than other groups -- b/c they are more likely to
switch jobs in Trump's low-immigration economy. http://bit.ly/2lWHQUD
Job-Hopping Young
Workers Getting Huge Wage Gains, Says Business Center | Breitbart
Opinion: A call to philanthropy to help all Californians rise
State economy may be thriving, but not all Californians are sharing in that prosperity
California’s economy is thriving, but not all Californians are sharing in that prosperity. Inland California, which stretches from Sacramento to Stockton through Fresno, Bakersfield, and the Inland Empire, contributes 17 percent of California’s economic output – but faces more than its fair share of poverty, unemployment and opportunity gaps.
Philanthropic giving mirrors those trends. California’s Bay Area has 20% of the state’s population and receives 53% of its philanthropic dollars, while the San Joaquin Valley is home to 11% of the state’s population and receives just 3% of its nonprofit dollars. Similarly, the Inland Empire accounts for 11% of California’s population but receives just 1% of the state’s nonprofit dollars.
If you’re a philanthropist investing in housing for the 59,000 people on our Los Angeles streets or services for the homeless in San Francisco, you might be wondering what these problems have to do with you. The answer is, everything. The fates of our communities are intertwined. As people migrate inland in pursuit of more affordable living, philanthropy must recognize the opportunity to truly build a California for all.
Bay Area organizations like Hamilton Families, are rehousing homeless families as far away as Sacramento and Fresno to address the skyrocketing need. We must ensure that jobs, supportive services, and affordable housing follow. If we don’t, we are just busing people out and passing big problems down the road, instead of building communities of choice where people can thrive.
In this spirit, Gov. Gavin Newsom is leading a “Regions Rise Together” initiative to support economic development, land use, and transportation in communities that have been left behind. Some influential investors are already redefining the philanthropic landscape. Philanthropy California has guided grant-making organizations across the state toward funding opportunities in San Joaquin Valley and the Inland Empire. The James Irvine Foundation and The California Endowment are increasing nonprofit capacity throughout the Central Valley and Salinas.
Philanthropy is critical to catalyze government dollars. The city of Stockton leveraged The Spiegel Family Foundation’s $20 million donation to launch Stockton Scholars, double the number of counselors in Stockton Unified School District and align its graduation requirements with the CSU/UC system. This catalytic investment triggered a $2 million commitment in the state’s 2019 budget to produce a feasibility study for a Cal State University in Stockton, which would create more than 2,000 local jobs and generate more than $250 million to Stockton’s local economy.
Philanthropic investments also help test new ideas. With support from the Economic Security Project, Stockton launched SEED, the nation’s first mayor-led guaranteed income pilot. In February, SEED began giving 125 low-income residents $500 a month for 18 months. This partnership helped transform universal basic income from a fringe idea to a viable policy solution that could help lift people out of poverty throughout our state.
Environmentalists also need to look Inland. Forty percent of emissions in our state are from vehicles. With lack of affordable housing “super-commuters,” those travelling 90 minutes or more to work every day, are on the rise. We must marshal every available resource – from state climate resilience programs to directing social capital into new businesses, green infrastructure, and housing through Opportunity Zones — if we want to create local jobs and healthier outcomes.
Californians must start thinking beyond their own backyard. Philanthropy’s nimble capital, local government’s knowledge, and the nonprofit sector’s trust must be deployed together to empower those who have been left behind. If we continue to operate in silos, the gaps between us will continue to grow. If we work together, all Californians can rise.
Michael D. Tubbs is mayor of Stockton. Kathleen Kelly Janus is senior advisor to Gov. Gavin Newsom on social innovation.
No comments:
Post a Comment