More than 50 percent of America's wealthiest cities are in California.

[murray t turtle]

In the distant past I lived in the Pasadena area, Monterey, Carmel, and Carmel Valley, all in California and well renowned. Quite affluent areas all as well.

You could not pay me to live there again. The quality of life has gone downhill, the state tax rate is utterly atrocious, Newsom wants to create a reparations plan, I could go on and on.

What is wealth? On Independence Day and yesterday I was able to climb high mountains, navigate roaring streams gathering extraordinary mushrooms filled with Power--which will soon be an integral part of this Warrior Body, and did not encounter one Homo sapiens. With no moon the Stars looked like they were at arm's reach at that altitude. In all reality I felt like the Wealthiest Man on Earth.

View attachment 343499

%%
GOOD, but that's also good for CA moving Companies
Personaly, I love the outdoors, but like my mushrooms in CPB soup LOL.
CA Host Larry Elder noted college loan debt forgivesness= ''reparations for rich white kids''LOL
Funny + also funny when the SCOTUS smacked that down !!

 

[VicBee]

Life is never perfect. We, who stay, have to take the good with the bad and try to make some changes for the better.

I am OK with state tax rate because some of us make so much more than the regular workers. But am not happy with how CA spends it.

Not that long ago, CA was a Republican state.

Republican state? If the Republican Party was represented by Schwartzenegger, I'd be a Republican! Hell, even Reagan would be assaulted as a RINO today.

 

[newwurldmn]

Republican state? If the Republican Party was represented by Schwartzenegger, I'd be a Republican! Hell, even Reagan would be assaulted as a RINO today.

mitt Romney
John McCain
Bloomberg

all RINO’s and guys I voted for.

 

[ironchef]

Republican state? If the Republican Party was represented by Schwartzenegger, I'd be a Republican! Hell, even Reagan would be assaulted as a RINO today.

You are too young.

From 1911 to 1939, all Governors of CA were Republicans. And you forgot Warren, Knight & Deukmejian.

You forgot, Warren went on to become the chief justice of the SCOTUS.

 

[VicBee]

You are too young.

From 1911 to 1939, all Governors of CA were Republicans. And you forgot Warren, Knight & Deukmejian.

You forgot, Warren went on to become the chief justice of the SCOTUS.

My point is, California Republicans are considered RINO by MAGA standards. Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican, he is white christian nationalist.

 

[ironchef]

mitt Romney
John McCain
Bloomberg

all RINO’s and guys I voted for.

My point is, California Republicans are considered RINO by MAGA standards. Trump is neither Democrat nor Republican, he is white christian nationalist.

They are wrong we are Elephant not R(h)INO.

 

[Amun Ra]

39.29% of cities in the USA with over 100,000 people are in california too, so all things being equal 39.29% of the wealthiest cities should be in California by default.

 

[VicBee]

39.29% of cities in the USA with over 100,000 people are in california too, so all things being equal 39.29% of the wealthiest cities should be in California by default.

Something isn't correct in the article, which speaks of cities with 40,000 households. The census defines household as 2.51 people, so about cities of 100,000 people.
There are 336 cities with 100,000 people or more in the US, 74 (22%) are in CA. The article says more than 50% of the wealthiest cities are in CA, which would be at least 168 cities.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis...336,cities with populations exceeding 100,000.

 

[VicBee]

What I find more interesting is that the US, with a population of 333 million has 336 cities of more than 100k people (5 states have no cities of 100k+).

By comparison, Europe with a population of 746 million has 1000 cities of more than 100k people.

Canada, with 39 million people has almost 60 cities of 100k+ population.

To understand MAGA popularity, you need to understand demographics. The US is more rural than other western nations (21%), thus more conservative and more segregated (76% white) despite the country's overall diversity. 27% of the population lives in urban settings and 80% are now majority non white.

The big differentiator (and probably explains the discrepancy in the article) is suburbia (neither urban nor rural), which represents 52% of the US population. Suburbia is white dominant (62%) although dropping every year as the nation's population grows.

https://ruralinnovation.us/blog/who...ic data is,as relatively homogenous and white.

 

[newwurldmn]

Something isn't correct in the article, which speaks of cities with 40,000 households. The census defines household as 2.51 people, so about cities of 100,000 people.
There are 336 cities with 100,000 people or more in the US, 74 (22%) are in CA. The article says more than 50% of the wealthiest cities are in CA, which would be at least 168 cities.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population#:~:text=This table lists the 336,cities with populations exceeding 100,000.

the wealthiest cities is a subset of of the 336. So the wealthiest cities could only number 50 of which 25 are in California.

Venn diagrams dude.