Read the article by curiosity, but looking at the numbers, California lost a bit less than 0.00035% of its population, and that’s the excuse for this whole rhetoric about taxes and lawn mower regulations etc.
Perhaps the author has a point, but from a external point of view I’m not sure there is anything of value to take away from this rant. Is the population decline of any significance in the first place, and while I see people caring about housing prices and potentially wages stagnation, do people leaving really care about lawn mower laws ?
No. They don't. Florida and Texas are both cheaper and don't typically get remotely as cold as much of the mainland. There could be so many reasons for this, but it was basically just another excuse for a deluded, self-entitled US citizen to use CA as an example of "look how the Dems/progressives/libtards/whatever-the-latest-insult-to-their-fellow-citizens are screwing up everything."
It's just more brain vomit to try convincing others we need to roll back the clock to the "good ol' days" when women and minorities were second/third-class citizens, because the world was so much better... for a single demographic.
Remember, these people are buying cardboard cutouts of the face of a man who dodged military service, likely hasn't done a bit of exercise in the last 30+ years and would end up accidentally killing himself and/or his own children if given an M60 machine gun superimposed onto Sylvester Stallone's body. Nothing they say should be taken seriously.
It must be frustrating for you to be so sure of what your opponents think and feel, yet never able to understand what made them vote for the Orange Man.
You are the reason the Orange Man was foisted upon the US. We are going to get more of this, and not less, if you do not learn to communicate with your ideological opponents.
I think you're missing the author's point about the mower laws. It was specifically in the context of lost livelihood, not that people are offended at mower laws. The same applies for the vehicle manufacturing mandate 13 years away.
If you want to understand the author (and maybe you don't, what do I know?), you should ask yourself if you can conceive of ways that such policies would contribute to loss of livelihood (specifically of small business owners).
I'm not saying that this critique is factual. I wouldn't know.
> For instance, they’ve banned the use of gas-powered yard equipment, which limits our ability to do yard work (or forces us to buy pricey new mowers and blowers).
Aside from the author putting it as a “costs money” type if inconvenience, professional landscapers would also move to electric equipment.
Companies manufacturing those engines will be impacted, but also the writing was on the wall for years and if they had no plan B they’d have gone under sooner or later. They sure would wish it was “later”, but in the current climate helping gasoline engine makers keep producing engines is clearly not a societal goal however we turn it.
The author is pretty explicit on all his points, I’m not sure there was much subtlety lost on why he doesn’t like current CA policies.
Perhaps the author has a point, but from a external point of view I’m not sure there is anything of value to take away from this rant. Is the population decline of any significance in the first place, and while I see people caring about housing prices and potentially wages stagnation, do people leaving really care about lawn mower laws ?