sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
It's unlikely that Castro's kids would be in the database and it's unlikely that a match would become public knowledge, barring a data breach.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Who said anything about improvement?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
What is the connection between Enron and PG&e's current troubles?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
I can totally buy that the trains will not be improved. However, increased prices leading to less consumption is a reasonable prior I think.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
From the way you write, I'm getting the feeling you are an Indian immigrant, so I don't think I can get you to understand.
I gotta tell you, I've been called a lot of things but this is the first time I've been called an Indian immigrant.
I'm not really interested in debating something when I bring data (albeit imperfect) and you bring assertions and simply handwave that the data (which you haven't looked at) surely supports your position. You're not the only one with personal experience of the area, so that doesn't convince me either.
And for that reason, I'm out.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
We don't have to focus on Palo Alto. Both Livermore and Pleasanton grew slower than Dublin too. You can hardly fault me for looking at the towns you brought up!
So just so we are clear: yes or no? White people show zero preference in the Bay Area for living around other white people.
Let's be careful here, your claim was about moving. As I said, I don't think that white people moving to the bay area tend to move to whiter towns. Do they, in their heart of hearts, prefer to live in whiter towns? I don't know, is that where the goalposts are moving? I'll have to bow out in that case.
Otherwise I don’t feel the need to continue a conversation with someone who won’t state yes or no when asked a simple question.
I did answer the question. Here:
The whiteness of a town in the bay area is not correlated with how many white people move there... I wouldn't be surprised if whites don't want to move to predominantly black neighborhoods. I would be surprised if they didn't want to move to neighborhoods with a lot of east Asians.
There's no gish gallop. My claim is simple and has been, I think, clear from my first post. The whiteness of a town in the bay area is not correlated with how many white people move there. Tons of white people are moving to towns with small proportions of white people. Your claim, that when white people move to the bay area, they move to towns like Palo Alto, is false.
Are you saying white people have zero racial preferences when choosing a place to live?
I wouldn't be surprised if whites don't want to move to predominantly black neighborhoods. I would be surprised if they didn't want to move to neighborhoods with a lot of east Asians. And indeed plenty of whites do move to neighborhoods with a lot of east Asians, and fewer move to neighborhoods with lots of blacks.
Your claim:
On a county level, people move towards whiteness
This is a claim about where people move to. The cities growing fastest (i.e. the cities that have the most people moving into them) are rather nonwhite. How does this not, at least to a first approximation, disprove your claim? Perhaps you can argue that all the growth seen in e.g. Dublin and Emeryville is Asians, but you haven't shown that.
So again, do you have any evidence that white people tend to move to white towns? Or is your argument not actually supported by evidence of where people are moving?
You can look at maps of cities in the Bay Area and the percentage of white people and they clearly try to congregate and cluster in certain areas.
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/bayarea_whites_2017_0-0.png
Doesn't really look like that to me. Looks to me that white people avoid the very shittiest parts of the bay, which makes sense since white people have the resources to do this more often than Hispanics or blacks. White people also more frequently live in old money towns like Atherton, but that's clearly not due to whites overwhelmingly moving there, for the simple reason that nobody is overwhelmingly moving to Atherton. And finally white people are more likely to live in rural areas, but again, hardly anyone is moving there.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
they move to the whitest city possible, not that they move to a white majority city
They don't. That's what I'm telling you. Palo Alto, comparatively white, is practically not growing. Almost nobody is moving there. Dublin, comparatively nonwhite, is among the fastest growing cities in the state.
I honestly don’t even know what you are trying to say with your comment.
My argument is that your claim has no correspondence to reality and contradicts the data. Do you have any evidence for your claim?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
When was the last time you visited Dublin? There's been a lot of Asians in the tri valley area for some time, and the trends have continued.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
They move to the whitest POSSIBLE areas though like Pleasanton or Livermore or Palo Alto
Not really. Palo Alto gained almost no residents from 2010 to 2020 and is 48% non Hispanic white. Dublin is one of the fastest growing cities in the state and is 28 percent non Hispanic white.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
It's the most common in the sense that it's the single biggest, but it accounts for about a third of illegal immigrants. The lion's share are not Mexicans.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Who do you think those people were understood by everyone to be?
Central Americans? Asians? Mexicans are no longer the majority of illegal immigrants.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
So what evidence would convince you?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
California has many reservoirs, but it doesn't help you at all that cachuma lake has 170k AF of water when it's a hundred miles away. The problem is not that there's no water, the problem is supplying water to all the hydrants (at elevation!) when they're in use and domestic water lines are leaking after the houses burned down.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Sure, let's be skeptical. Let's look at the data. Flipping through some arbitrary affected commute routes (that start from outside the zone and go into it) on weekdays, there's a notable difference in commute times before and after congestion pricing.
Let's come at this the other way. What evidence would convince you that congestion pricing reduces commute times?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Congestion has already materially declined.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
In progressive states people almost never face consequences for this. In California you frequently see plates covered with opaque plastic, missing, or replaced with fake temporary tags.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Does it actually? I guess maybe if you're burying them across a fault, but probably that causes problems for overhead lines too.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Now this one is going to be particularly bad because California passed laws a few years ago restricting fire insurance premiums and most insurers left the state.
This is not actually true - some companies declined to renew some policies at one point, but this was mostly a saber rattling exercise to get the government to stop being so unreasonable. To my knowledge no insurers have actually stopped issuing policies altogether.
So a lot of these homes are uninsured.
I would be shocked if more than, say, 10% of these homes are uninsured. Even if no private company will issue you a policy, the state will, and the people in Pacific Palisades are not particularly price sensitive.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
The insanity has certainly slowed down but it remains to be seen if it's the start of a trend or merely a speedbump.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
11mo ago
Everyone there voted for this for at least a decade.
In fact, not all Californians are members of your outgroup.
Unstructured thoughts:
the insurance situation is fucked because the state government has to keep the prices artificially low to keep homeowners happy, or be voted out for someone who will. Insurance companies are not allowed to project future risks when pricing plans (they may only look at historic risks). Rate increases (for auto and home insurance) must be approved by the state. Huge correlated risks (like Pacific Palisades burning down) are, basically, uninsurable. The state cannot long protect people from higher premiums. I don't know if we'll see ""price gouging"" for people living near the wilds or some kind of scheme where people in SF cross subsidize people in Pacific Palisades.
There's a good chance that this fire is caused by PG&E fuckery. The standard redditor response is to demand nationalizing PG&E so that they would invest more in maintaining their power lines. Would that really work? I kind of doubt it. PG&E is already a quasi-state run enterprise - it has to run basically every decision by the California Public Utilities Commission, including approving company budgets and rates. The frequent counterarguments are that the governor/the cpuc are in the pockets of PG&e, and maybe that's true, but I don't see why this couldn't happen if PG&e were nationalized.
The ultimate question has to be, where is the money going? I can't really make heads or tails of their quarterly statements to figure out how much money is going to salaries vs operations but they earn 1.3B a quarter and they serve 16 million people, so they're making $30 of profit per month per person. It's not nothing, but the average customer pays $300 a month. A 10% discount would be nice, but we're not talking about major changes here. Meanwhile, burying power lines costs $2 million dollars a mile. There's 90 thousand miles of lines (I don't know how many are high voltage lines in fire prone areas). Who's going to pay for that? Well, pg&e has only one source of income, and that's the ratepayer - that's not going to change if it's nationalized.
The common theme here is that the math is simply not mathing. It seems that for a while California has been able to outrun reality by kicking the can down the road(defer maintenance to keep prices down, defer fire prevention to save costs and the environment, keep insurance prices low since fires are rare) and now the gods of the copybook headings are here for their tribute.
What?
More options
Context Copy link