RE: Norway Says "No Thanks."
January 17, 2018 at 1:16 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2018 at 1:21 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(January 17, 2018 at 12:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Edit: actually when you geographically adjust and factor in housing costs etc. California IS the worst. Who knew? Sorry, Chad. I was wrong on that. But still, even when you make such adjustments, the good ol' South is in a state of disrepair. Says little about "liberal policies")
I used to do something called Plan and Cost reviews for proposed housing developments. Basically, I was hired by banks to confirm that developers had accounted for and properly calculated construction costs and project phasing to maintain cash flow. These included properties in areas surrounding San Diego, La Jolla, and LA. California regulatory requirements included analysis of potential eagle nesting sites, archaeological impact, and oak tree preservation. Typical regulatory requirements like impact studies, phase I reports (for soil contaminants) and seismic analysis were significantly more expensive and difficult to navigate than other states. All these kinds of requirements greatly added to the cost of new construction and reduce the housing stock when compliance becomes nearly impossible, like in ring limits. You are right that housing costs are a factor; however, liberal policies are most certainly a factor in making housing costs more burdensome for people in the lower income brackets.
(January 17, 2018 at 12:21 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: If you want to find the real states with the highest poverty rates just start naming podunk, backwater red states like Arkansas (18.7%), Alabama (19.2%), and Mississippi (21.9%).
...perhaps because Democratic party imposed Jim Crow laws left a lasting impact.