Civil mismanagement has consequences
- Thread starter GBRforLife1
- Start date
BEFORE this announcement, there was a 10:1 out migration from Seattle according to statistics derived from U-Haul rentals and real estate listings and sales. People are leaving in droves from Seattle and New York City.
I'd prefer they stay and wallow in the mess they voted for, but if they are going to move, for Gawd's sake stop voting for blue people....every one of those movies end the same.
777X is going to be Big for Boeing... Moving 787 to Charleston has been in the works for a long time and that's a really nice facility. By moving 787 and shutting down the 747 this opens up the Everett building to basically double 777X production as well as increase 767 platforms for the military. Also, Everett is quite a ways North of Seattle proper, I'm not saying they don't have the issues you see in the news but it's less than you might think...
Boeing has been trying to move to South Carolina for several years now. South Carolina has been successful in wooing major manufacturing operations to its state. On one hand, states like Washington are complacent in valuing major employers. But on the other hand, big corporations like Amazon and Google ask for the world in terms of tax breaks as a bribe to move a facility to a city or state and the payoff just does not make economic sense. Years ago, Woodman's wanted to move out of Omaha. They wanted an incredible sweetheart deal. The city did not blink and Woodman's did not move. It was simply a greedy ask.
While Civil unrest is definitely one of the reasons some are moving from the cities, there are other reasons too. an article from the Hill mentions that 2 million people have moved back into their parent's home due to losing a job or economic uncertainty.
Hill article
Hill article
The transplants bring their lib ideals with them. Only to flee what they voted into office and infect conservative states.
Here's something that is pure evil.
The Dems bankrupt their own states, then shake down the American taxpayer for a crash they engineered with their plandemic lockdowns.
I'm glad DJT backed out of the most recent crimulus package. NOT ONE MORE DIME FOR THE EXTORTIONISTS WHO REFUSE TO OPEN UP THEIR ECONOMY!!
So big they’ve dropped the forecast to 2 777’s a month next year, nobody wants 400+ passenger metal, the amount of A380’s being retired as 15 year old or newer planes is staggering. They only have 309 orders and Emirates is looking to swap 777X orders for 787’s.
The factory was an awesome tour, but it looks pretty ugly for Boeing overall.
Sarah Iannarone has a skirt with the image of Chairman Mao on it. Anyone who knows even a little about history knows that Chairman Mao was responsible for about 50 million deaths. You can't make this stuff up
It's hard to take living here in Northwest and watch the destruction of Seattle and Portland. They use to be two of the greatest cities in the US. The last time I was in downtown Portland it had the stench of human excrement. I avoid crossing over the Cascades at all costs. So many companies are pulling out of Seattle. I recently watched on the local TV news where a large Seattle glass company that has been owned and operated by three generations of the same family is giving up on their hometown and reluctantly moving to Phoenix. You can't replace companies like that. Amazon is moving more and more employees across Lake Washington to Bellevue, Washington where the local government is more receptive to big business. Antifa and BLM protesters have damaged, burned and looted small businesses that are owned by supporters of their causes. These groups don't care. I've skied for years with a guy who retired 2-3 years ago from working in IT at Boeing for 35 years. We try to get him to move over here but his wife won't leave their two grown daughters who live close to them. So he drives the 2 1/2 hours and two mountain passes a couple of times a week to ski with us. He's been telling us for a very long time that he can see a day when there is no Boeing in the Seattle area. Looks like he is going to be right.
(I just watched a video on YouTube of Venice, California. Venice was always a little crazy and more than a little out there, but it was fun. Now it looks like just another camp for the homeless).
It’s exactly what those idiots are doing. They move from New York to Florida and vote for the same idiots they voted for in New York. Now Florida is a toss-up state. Idiots in California are moving to Texas and they vote for the liberal ******** in Texas. They are messing up the good states.
Haven't been to the Pacific Northwest in years, is it still against the law to pump your own gas out there?
to be fair, with the exception of tx and N, most of the states that contribute more to federal govt than take, year to year, are blue states. yes, the likes of ca, ny, nj, ma, mn, & il, are among the ones that get hosed the worst. not always, but usually (most everybody was on the tit from like ‘08-‘10). in general, the southeast US is killing us. they, like sc, can afford corporate giveaways, they dont pay for it.
fwiw, N pays a ridiculous amount more than they pay, on average. in a sense, you paid for it.
this is based on all fed rev from states compared to all fed spend to states.
I do get a kick out of reading that side talk about corruption. Or pretending they have a grasp on reality. Its remarkable, like a zoo exhibit. Carry on, silent majority.
Last time I drove through Oregon it was. Washington lets you pump your own gas. But that state is equally as liberal. Although it's not so much the entire state. The rural areas seem OK...it's the Seattle's and Portland's that are down the tubes.
What I find I interesting about all of this is that many major companies align themselves with politicians and movements hellbent on destruction, a sort of lawlessness with no real direction other than some vague 'redistribution'.
Maybe it's because they are trying to pander to younger demographics hoping they will gain longterm marketshare with them.
If I am them, I would refuse to declare war on a large chunk of consumers. I would funnel energy and resources into fighting hunger, developing better housing and job training.
Maybe it's because they are trying to pander to younger demographics hoping they will gain longterm marketshare with them.
If I am them, I would refuse to declare war on a large chunk of consumers. I would funnel energy and resources into fighting hunger, developing better housing and job training.
As usual you're missing the forest for the trees. You're linking everything to protests and riots. What about covid? Has it occurred to you that both NYC and Seattle are expensive in the extreme, and that working from home during covid, especially for those who don't necessarily have to be in an office, has been an eye-opening experience for some? People who were stuck in their tiny homes and apartments realized "why in the hell am I paying this much to live in a crowded, dirty city?" Housing prices in those places is obscene. In fact, housing prices in many popular destination cities is off the charts ridiculous. But who knows what the larger trend is here? More than likely this is going to make the communities those former city dwellers move to become more expensive.
No. The out migration started before the riots and protests. Riots and protests only accelerated it to some degree. Some people are fed up with the drugs, crime and homeless camps. They're fed up with the incompetence of their local governments. Keep promoting the utopia comrade.
They fear the boycotts and public shaming. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition was famous for shaking down corporations. It amounted to nothing more than extortion. Al Sharpton and now the progressives continue the process. It's just a cost of doing business. It's kind of like a small town business getting hit up by every charitable cause under the sun. You just write a check to make them go away and not hurt anybody's feelings.
I'm not promoting utopia in the least. Allow me to explain my perspective. There has been a shift in the last couple of decades which has accelerated the concentration of wealth in several US cities, including Seattle, Austin, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco and the list goes on. It's obscene. Ironically, those cities espouse values of equality, while ignoring the poverty and urban decay on the street outside their million dollar apartments. I'm not blind to the hypocrisy, because it's glaring. But the trend is also complicated. Is it all just the lack of affordable housing? Is it greed? What are the exact policies contributing to this? I understand a little, but I don't think the answers or solutions are simple.
I read a piece a few years ago about the concentration of major businesses and corporations in these cities as being significantly to blame. To be sure, there has always been a concentration of wealth in urban areas, but that has dramatically accelerated over the last couple of decades. Unless you're making a six figure salary how can you possibly afford to live in one of those cities; sometimes not even that is enough? A family of four can earn $100,000 in San Francisco and still fall below the poverty line. That's freaking insane. What kind of bizzaro world is this place? It's hugely problematic when some techie creating an app to save humanity steps over a homeless person on his way out the door to work and barely notices.
I get it, I just don't think it's as simple as saying "it's all because of the riots," though I concede that is surely a contributing factor.
Last edited:
This is certainly true, how the real percentages break out in terms of reasons for leaving is anyone's guess. I live in a "destination city" that people from these areas and CA are flocking to to excape their hell of their states/large cities. Home prices here have risen 22% this year, often paying cash, sight-unseen. Local salaries can't support this for the natives and locals.
I was recently living in a destination city. We did a bit of shopping around for homes, and the competition was infreakingsane. You'd get 10 to 15 people paying way over the asking price, agreeing to waive inspections and cut corners, paying in cash all to land the house. It's a mess. And to your last point, about salaries, I always ask the same. There just can't be enough people with salaries high enough to justify these prices.
I wanted to get in this last thought on the matter. I found a property in a part of the city that was rapidly being transformed, but still needed some work. Lot's of homeless. A fair measure of crime, but lots of bars and restaurants, aka the cool factor. The owner was asking for $700,000. Clearly it was a teardown, which means you'd have to add the cost of building a home. I could buy an acreage with a nice home in a less "cool" area for a fraction of the price. I just don't get it, and nobody can explain it to me in a way that makes sense.
That's actually happening quite a bit in Omaha, mostly in homes under $300,000. I've seen upwards of 15 to 20 offers on homes in Millard under 1500 square feet several times in the last 6 months. With the cost of new construction, a starter home thst used to be $100,000 to $125,000 now is over 180 and that's nothing special. Very basic and bland.
The problem with San Francisco is that all of the available land has been built out. You're locked in by the bay and mountains. So as long as demand outstrips supply, prices will continue to go up. Crazy low interest rates are gasoline on this fire