Article

2005-01-07 Home Front: Culture Wars

What's wrong with the only state to lose residents in new census data? It has amenities ...

The first settlers to the Massachusetts Bay Colony were fleeing religious persecution. Another great wave of immigration came after the potato famine of the 19th century prompted tens of thousands to immigrate from Ireland. After that, through the 1950s, it was jobs - manufacturing everything from shoes to machinery - that lured laborers here from all over the world. Now, it seems, the Bay State has lost some of its old allure. According to the latest census estimates, Massachusetts was the only state in the country to lose population from July 2003 to July 2004.
Kerry, Kennedy, Left-wing Liberal Politics and High Taxes

Posted by John Q. Citizen 2005-01-07 6:37:09 PM|| || Front Page|| [11140 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 the only state in the country to lose population from July 2003 to July 2004.

Maybe Ted drove em home?

Posted by Frank G 2005-01-07 12:17:06 AM|| 2005-01-07 12:17:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't think that I can take seeing that "salute" one more time. If he had been in the Army when I was, and saluted like that, he'd still be doing push-ups.

Posted by Jeremp Ebbereting6222 2005-01-07 12:34:18 AM|| 2005-01-07 12:34:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Now I understand where Arnold got that muscles: he saluted you in the wrong way.

Posted by JFM 2005-01-07 1:32:03 AM|| 2005-01-07 1:32:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Most of 'em moved across the border, to New Hampshire.

Posted by Pappy 2005-01-07 1:53:27 AM|| 2005-01-07 1:53:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 A friend from New Hampshire put it this way, "They shit their own nest, now they've crossed the border to do the same to mine".

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2005-01-07 2:55:12 AM|| 2005-01-07 2:55:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 CS: A friend from New Hampshire put it this way, "They shit their own nest, now they've crossed the border to do the same to mine".

I think folks from Massachusetts want contradictory things - high social spending combined with low taxes. Having failed to achieve this in their home state, they have now moved to New Hampshire to repeat their experiment. What we have here is a fundamental inability to connect the dots - they probably think the government, not taxpayers, actually pays for social spending.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 9:53:15 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 9:53:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 I had a conversation with a colleague from California who spent some time in Texas before coming to NYC. He decried the lack of public amenities in Texas - well-stocked libraries, et al. I pointed out that this lack of amenities was in exchange for low taxes. He replied that he would have been willing to pay higher taxes for those amenities. In a later conversation, he revealed that he was a non-resident of NYC for tax purposes, even though he lived in NYC, because he thought NYC taxes - at 4% of all income - were unconscionable. Can you spell hypocrisy?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 10:00:04 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 10:00:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 ZF: In a later conversation, he revealed that he was a non-resident of NYC for tax purposes, even though he lived in NYC, because he thought NYC taxes - at 4% of all income - were unconscionable.

I should note that these city taxes are on top of the 6% state tax, meaning that city residents pay 10% of their income from all sources to NY City and State.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-01-07 10:01:40 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-01-07 10:01:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 But just look at what you get for all those taxes! What a value! What a deal! Why, it boggles! And, as a bonus, you can sleep well knowing that people who can't tie their own shoes had good, solid, well-paying, secure (almost tenured) employment... including the relatives of those who instituted the body of regulations that required these paltry donations to soothe your savage breast... A few visual examples to help you sleep tonight:
Pay Attention
Radar Tester
Dept of Redundant Legislation Dept
Sharp Edges (my favorite)
And a compilation

Posted by .com 2005-01-07 10:33:16 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:33:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 My cousin moved from Boston to NH because of the taxes and cost of housing.

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2005-01-07 10:53:58 AM|| 2005-01-07 10:53:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Massachussets liberals are just Puritans in a modern form.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-07 12:20:19 PM|| 2005-01-07 12:20:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 I think folks from Massachusetts want contradictory things - high social spending combined with low taxes.

Same problem shows up with Californians who move to Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, and Nevada. And tack in the old "there ought to be a law for/against that" attitude as well.

Posted by Pappy 2005-01-07 1:06:27 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:06:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Most of 'em moved across the border, to New Hampshire.

I'm moving back to NH in a few months; FUCK MASS!

Posted by Raj 2005-01-07 1:11:22 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:11:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Having lived in Manhattan, the Bay Area and now, Dallas, what's obvious about the coastal cities is that for anyone who's not a millionaire and not childless, those cities are completely out of reach. It doesn't matter how wonderful the libraries are or how great the museums-- and SF's libraries, museums and other cultural institutions are second-rate-- if only the rich and the rent-control scam artists can live there.

A further observation: it's no wonder that Kerry's support is highest among the very poor, the very rich, and childless yuppies. These are precisely the groups that most fervently support heavy government intervention in the form of housing subsidies (for the poor and the rent-control scammers) and environmental restrictions that reduce supply and boost property values in the top-tier residential real estate markets.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 1:27:59 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:27:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Unless and until the Dems figure out that the urban coastal areas are in permanent demographic decline-- not least because of structural barriers that favor existing property owners and make it difficult for normal, moderate-income families to live there-- they'll be a purely local party that cannot win presidential elections.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 1:31:14 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:31:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Hey! I resent that. If childless yuppies fall into that group, then it has more to do with them being young and stupid (haven't had kids yet) or, by virtue of being childless, being able to afford living comfortably in the blue states where they become brainwashed by the prevailing wisdom.

The reason that real estate rates are high in places like California and New York is because of supply and demand. More people means you can get a higher rent.

I do agree with you though, that Dem's get their support among the very poor and very rich. But I believe it is because the very rich see the problems in the world and think "someone" else should do something. They feel bad as they walk over the bums sleeping in the doorways outside their favorite restaraunts and thus wash their guilt away by voting for those who claim to care about the poor. This allows them to delude themselves that they care without actually having to do anything, like work for a soup kitchen or spend their own money. It allows for the mental cop-out that it would all be ok if ...only John Kerry was elected. I'm not to blame, because I voted for John Kerry and he claims to care, so I care too. Never mind that John Kerry couldn't fix it either. If only....then...

The poor vote Democrate because they, like the Indians, are thrown useless trinkets in exchange for their cooperation - and they don't grasp that they are being taken for a very cheap ride.

Posted by childless yuppie 2005-01-07 1:48:35 PM|| 2005-01-07 1:48:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Lose a few more electorical votes, perhaps?

Posted by Captain America 2005-01-07 3:05:38 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:05:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Yup - no offense, but real estate in the Bay Area at least is artificially high because of all the restrictions upon supply. Whether this is primarily due to the environmentalists or the homeowners I don't know, but if you drive from Los Altos to San Francisco on Hwy 280 you'll notice that most of the land-- which is gorgeous, rolling hills resembling Tuscany-- is off-limits to development. And if you drive along the coast, you see the same thing, along with, where land is developed for residential purposes, nothing but simgle-family housing along with a few townhouses. Any normal market would have piled dozens of high-rise apratments along the beach and dozens more tract houses along 280.

But this is California, remember, and the ethos here is less one of protecting the land than of pulling up the ladder and protecting the real estate appreciation rate. Scratch an environmentalist and you'll see a greedy coastal property owner.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 3:11:25 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:11:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Scratch an environmentalist and you'll see a greedy coastal property owner.

You also have a pissed off, but bleeding green. ;o)

Posted by badanov 2005-01-07 3:13:53 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2005-01-07 3:13:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 lex, your point is correct, but 280 is not the best example. 280, at least in the stretches you're thinking about is built practically on the San Andreas fault. It is also watershed and reservoir for the Hetch Hetchy water system. Now, Stanford is a different kettle of fish altogether. And the East Bay...

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-07 3:17:46 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:17:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Red, Green, what's the difference?

East Bay has the Hayward Fault. That hasn't stopped development on the deep sediment along the bay, though. Those hills do have landslide problems, but at least they don't liquify in an earthquake.

Posted by Dishman 2005-01-07 3:22:55 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:22:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Foster City, Redwood Shores etc were IIUC built exactly where the 1989 earthquake rolled through.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 3:35:03 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:35:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Correct. I worked in a building in Redwood Shores and on Mondays the smell of sewer gas from having the a/c off for the weekend was unmistakable.

The Hayward fault is already heavily built upon. One of the great iropnies is that since it was fault land, it was not used for commercial or residential development It is mostly roads, the Warren Freeway, schools and hospitals. Good planning for the big one.

So all the land to the east of the east of Skyline Drive is safe parkland, though little patches are developed into high end residences for those who want a permanent undeveloped back yard.

Bay Area real estate. Got to love it.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-07 3:49:44 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:49:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Show me a distorted real estate market and I'll show you a Democratic bastion.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 3:54:39 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:54:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Sounds like a pretty good economic law Lex.

Posted by Shipman 2005-01-07 3:56:55 PM|| 2005-01-07 3:56:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Manhattan - check. Boston - check. Bay Area - check. DC - check....

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 4:06:24 PM|| 2005-01-07 4:06:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Hey..there's a flaw in your theory called supply and demand. As demand increases in a place like CA, and growth sprials out of control, the people who live there begin to DEMAND that a once beautiful area isn't simply turned into a parking lot without an inch of open space left.

This results in efforts to limit growth (developers never are the driving force behind this) and thus causes prices to skyrocket. But this desire to preserve open space is not as much a function of enviromentalists (who, yes, capitalize on this as well) but the collective action of the ordinary citizens protecting open space on which they can ALL work and play.

The higher prices drives people who do not yet have homes, to move to less expensive areas with lots of open space and lower costs. Then as their growth sprials out of control, they too try to get a grip on preventing their town from becoming little more than a parking lot...with homeowners...ordinary citizens...banding together to hang onto the quality of life in their communities.

It's not a big conspriacy of anti-captialists or environmentalists, but capitalism and democracy at play.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-07 4:20:03 PM|| 2005-01-07 4:20:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 If you're looking for Kalifornia Kraziness, look no further than the placement of the Riverside Reservoir. Smack dab on top of the San Andreas.

Good call, guys...

Posted by mojo 2005-01-07 5:34:02 PM|| 2005-01-07 5:34:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Now you all can understand why I hate Carpetbaggers so much.

Carpetbagger#1,452,678: "You people are so backward. Back in Cleveland, we used to [insert socialist/nanny state legislation here].

PH: "Yes. And that's why Cleveland is the sh*thole it is today and why you moved here. If you get to missing Cleveland, Delta's ready when you are. Please try to not soil my little slice of the country before you go."

Posted by Psycho Hillbilly 2005-01-07 6:03:44 PM|| 2005-01-07 6:03:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 2B, my point is that normal market forces are not operating in the uber-blue districts. Specifically, supply of new housing is artificially constrained, either because rent control diminishes the returns on new construction or because of anti-growth and/or environmental restrictions. Either way, restricted supply causes hosuing prices to be far, far higher than they normally would be. Which means those districts are attractive only to the super-rich, who tilted toward Kerry, or young rootless urban renters, nearly all of them single and/or childless, who also tend to be pro-Democrat.

Nothing against such folks-- we've all been childless at some point, and everyone has to go through his or her Grand Urban Funk Adventure phase-- but these folks and the investment banker/trial lawyer/lobbyist gazillionaires are not, shall we say, the backbone of this country. Kerry and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary's people, sure, but not a good foundation for a national party-- especially not one that claims to represent ordinary working and middle class families.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 8:08:51 PM|| 2005-01-07 8:08:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Funny how the bizarre escalation in urban coastal real estate prices parallels, very neatly, the transformation of the Dem Party from a ward-heeler working-man's party led by self-made men like Tip O'Neill and Daniel Pat Moynihan to a gazillionaire's party led by socialites and investment bankers.

Posted by lex 2005-01-07 8:15:59 PM|| 2005-01-07 8:15:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Lex..I agree that there is a reality disconnect in the high rent districts. I think it's a combination of living in a bubble and being so totally clueless that they just can't grasp that for many folks, paying next months electric bill is cause for concern.

The mental image of a beauty queen contestant saying, "and I just want eveyone in the world to be happy, and I want world peace, and I want to find a cure for cancer" to a roaring round of applause, smiles and tears from the audience....comes to my mind as an example of the mindset.

Posted by 2b 2005-01-07 10:50:49 PM|| 2005-01-07 10:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

15:35 Skidmark
15:32 Skidmark
15:23 Procopius2k
15:20 trailing wife
15:16 trailing wife
15:13 Skidmark
15:11 badanov
15:08 Skidmark
15:05 trailing wife
15:02 trailing wife
15:00 ed in texas
15:00 Skidmark
14:59 Ebbuger Whuque4103
14:56 Skidmark
14:56 Rex Mundi
14:48 Skidmark
14:24 badanov
14:19 badanov
14:19 NoMoreBS
14:17 NoMoreBS
13:42 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
13:41 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
13:39 Jairong+Scourge+of+the+Gepids2435
13:37 swksvolFF