[/quote]
People who are voting for Trump have exactly the same argument as above.
Except they believe(rightly or wrongly) Taxes and property rights should be numero uno in their priorities.
[/quote]
I frankly don’t believe this is why Trump won. He took a stand on immigration, and in doing so won over a cadre of working class whites who had historically voted for democrats because they felt that democratic politicians were ignoring them in favor of minorities and illegal immigrants.
I’ve always wondered why non-californians (many of whom have never visited) love to hate on California. Some of it is clearly related to Californians moving into their cities/towns (e.g. Austin, Boulder, Jackson) with serious $$$, driving up cost of living and imposing their values. Another component seems to be plain old jealousy – we’ve got the best weather, skiing and surfing within four hours, a stellar economy, rising home values, prop 13, and…a lot of traffic. Seriously though, so much of the smack talk comes from people who have never been here.
I agree that the democratic party has moved left and a lot of the progressive stuff is out of control. Would give anything for an honest, moderate, fiscally responsible administration that could begin to heal the wounds that the last 12 years, and especially the last 4 have created.
Coming back to thread topic.
You realize California’s poverty rate is higher than Pakistan, right?
California 17.8%
Pakistan 17.2%
The other joyous things:
Rolling blackouts
Releasing criminals from prison early
$100B unfunded pension liabilities
4th worst Gini coefficient of any state
High property tax, income tax, and sales tax
Prioritizing illegals over citizens
Reduction of property rights
Americans in other states fear Californians will give the whole country all of that wonderful stuff.
I have this colleague at work, older, has immigrated here from England, my guess is he will be in his late 50s or early 60s. He blabbers at work all the time “Trump is bad, his supporters are stupid yada yada.”.
I think in my mind "Dude take your political Trump hate to your home. ". The belief in “his truth” is more than the the flat earthers or people who believe in moon landing hoax. He has no clue there are people around who might not like what he says, and he is so arrogant he doesn’t care. Surprisingly these behaviors are not difficult to see everywhere, especially for people trapped in their echo chambers.
Not sure where you’re getting your numbers but Wikipedia, citing the census, says we’re middle of the pack, which intuitively makes sense given the size of the state and mix of urban and agriculture:
At the bottom are a bunch of outlying territories and red states…West Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama, etc.
Wow, you guys must really hate living on the West Coast. Maybe you should move. I hear Arkansas is nice!
I hear the mobile trailer parks in Bay Area are not so nice especially in hot weather like this. Maybe you need to turn the AC up a little more.
I went surfing today. The waves were small but it was nice to be out on the ocean. Saw a few humpback whales and the weather was beautiful!
Most of the cities such as Minneapolis, Chicago, Baltimore and others where looting and riots are going on in the name of BLM are under Democratic leadership for a long time. Chicago has Democratic Mayors close to a 100 years now.
In fact, according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental poverty measure, one in five Californians live in poverty, 20.4 percent to be exact, compared to a national average of 14.7 percent, the highest rate of poverty in the nation.
By extension, California also has the distinction of having the highest child poverty rate in the nation, with an average of 22.8 percent of California’s children living in poverty in 2013-15, including 5.1 percent living in “deep poverty.”
On top of it all, California is also the home of a quarter of the country’s homeless.
You need to account for cost of living.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article234920662.html
Apparently this is called as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or TDS.
Here’s one example of a symptom. Apparently this is their ilks mating.call.
Ah, so now we’re talking COLA poverty rate, not poverty rate. I see what game we’re playing…the one where the rules keep changing!
Are you arguing cost of living has zero impact? I think we all know $50k/yr in the Bay Area is a world of difference from $50k/yr in Kansas. Actually, I’m probably being a bit too generous. It seems most here have zero idea what America is like outside the bay are bubble. The Bay Area is less than 3% of the US population.
I also noticed you didn’t counter anything else.
No, just that it’s easy to make a point with selective use of statistics. Sure $50k/yr is peanuts in SF but California is an enormous state and it’s a decent income in the vast majority of it by land mass. Applying a single COLA to CA is like applying one across the US…i.e. not really meaningful.
Better things to do with my Sunday than dissect a list of specious one line arguments on the internet! 
@cost of living
The percentage, number, and distribution of families that are considered poor under federal poverty guidelines would change dramatically in many central cities
if regional differences in the cost of living were recognized. In high-cost areas on the East and West coasts, the poor population would increase substantially both in real and proportional terms. Cities like New York, NY and Los Angeles, CA rank among those with the greatest increases in both the number and proportion of poor families under COL- adjusted standards. However, cities in lower-cost areas of the South and West, such as El Paso, TX and Shreveport, LA, have among the largest declines in the number and share of poor families once living costs are taken into account.
Adjusting federal poverty guidelines for regional differences in the cost of living has a considerable impact on the number of families eligible for public programs. Overall, the share of families eligible for Early Head Start and Head Start as well as the National School Lunch Program would increase 29 percent in large cities across the country. San Francisco, CA, San Jose, CA, and Bridgeport, CT experience the largest increases in eligibility for these programs, while San Antonio, TX, Corpus Christi, TX, and El Paso, TX see the largest declines in the eligible population under COL-adjusted guidelines.
In my calculation, @70% of CA population live in San Fran Bay Area, Los Angeles metro,San diego Metro, and Sacramento metro.
Anecdotally, I haven’t ever seen so many people line up for gas for a meager 10-20C/gallon savings like in Bay Area, which is so unlike lower cost urban areas . The savings ironically, won’t even pay for one monthly burger meal at a fast food joint for most usual bay area commutes.
There is a reason Bay Area people are ridiculed across the US. Many ppl here are running rat race and live one dimensional life.
That Costco line at the gas station to save 2$ at a fillup 
. I’ll admit I did that when I moved here years ago but very quickly wondered if it was worth waiting 20 minutes in line just to get Costco gas. My current in-store Costco visits are probably two times in the whole year. Rest of the time I just order online.
There is no need to ridicule the masses. You think most people in the rest of the US do not run rat races and do not live one dimensional life? People in the bay area at least make more in the process, and have a way better chance of making it big. People outside of the bay area can ridicule all they want, but are they better off?
SF’s famous homeless problem is surely a sign of universal prosperity and lack of poverty. Nothing screams success like used drug needles and human poop on sidewalks. The rest of America can’t wait to become successful like that. That must be why they’re so jealous.
That exists despite all the state and city spending on programs that are supposed to increase equality. It seems the money is being flushed down the toilet where the poop is supposed to go. I know it’s hard to believe, but some tax payers don’t enjoy their money being spent on ineffective programs that don’t produce positive results.