Something Is Happening in Southern California (San Diego: to rent, condo, roughest)

[Finper]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

No worries, we all goof sometime or another.

Just to clarify, for those who missed it, the U.S. Census Bureau (and most thinking folks) classify Hispanic/Latino as White.

According to the Census Bureau, 72% of the population in California is White, so Whites are still the majority.

The Census Bureau has recently started to also break the classification of "White" down into White --not Hispanic, and White--Hispanic.

But, either way, it's still incorrect to say that Hispanic/Latinos are the majority in California. White--Hispanics account for 38% of the population in California.

As I said, 38% of 100% is not a majority, unless something radical has changed since I took statistics in college.

The census is worthless. Look around white non Hispanic is not the majority. We haven't been for years

[majoun]

Originally Posted by GSR13

Thinking on the issue some more, it appears that is definitely some verbal obfuscation at play here.

Let's look at the obvious logical conflict - how can you have a category called "whites alone" and subcategorize that to include people of mixed race (hispanics are overwhelmingly of mixed native american and spanish blood). If you're going to be somewhat honest about it, then have the category called "total whites", and not "whites alone".

Any casual observer would infer that the percentage of European Americans in California is much higher than it is, without realizing that 90% of hispanics are calling themselves white as opposed to "mixed race" or "some other race". Ideally, there should be a separate option for "hispanic" are they form a distinct culture and largely have similar racial characteristics despite being mixed. In reality, people who are hispanic on dating sites and posting on internet comment boards always identify as hispanic and not white.

Seems like the folks at the Census Bureau may not be that intelligent after all - they're even including North Africans as "white". The remaining options are stupid or subversive, and I'd put my money on subversive. They only "look" stupid, which is how they want you to see them.

tl;dr: Census.gov doing some fishy verbal trickery to hide diminishing European-descended demographics.

Subverting what? Racial purity no longer exists, thanks to Columbus. And that's a reason why we should celebrate the man rather than take down his statues.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Finper

The census is worthless. Look around white non Hispanic is not the majority. We haven't been for years

Not all the population of CA is in SoCal or the Bay Area. The northern third of the state is still very white

[Mugsy]

I have been road trips from San Diego (near San Ysidro) to the Pomona area as well as all the way to San Jose in the past two months during family weekend trips. I have seen that the area between Del Mar and Oceanside is a parking lot on the 5 freeways North.
The San Jose Bay Area is so confusing to me but I guess I could say the same of parts of the 5 the 101 the 605 etc. ... construction widening freeways almost everywhere!


I learned that on my recent road trips around California

Pomona and the 15 are not yet like LA but I saw more and more cookie cutter homes being built, great for California Contractors!
I think that California's economy is ready for an up swing after that last dubbed "Great Recession"
We shall see what happens, interest rates go up, housing gets pricey... Does anyone else remember the Stated Income Loans? I remember the robo forming.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

I did too. It's called San Diego.

Ahh, but I lived in SD 30 years ago and it ain't the same. I still love the area, but ................... things always change. Even where I am now, a sleepy rural community, the traffic and population are worse than when we moved here. Time to leave for something new.

[cyberfx1024]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

I don't doubt that *some* older homes in Pasadena have been turned into multi-unit housing.
Still, according to the factual data I gave above, the population of Pasadena has only expanded by a few thousand people in the last five years.
So, companies must not be buying up "all" of the single family homes and putting in 3-4 units or Pasadena's population would have grown MUCH more than that since you moved there.
Hyperbole, folks, is a dangerous thing unless you have facts to back it up.
For those for whom vocabulary is not a strength, the definition of hyperbole: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Yeah good job in correcting me about the semantics and the wording I used. But quite frankly this is the case because these companies are pricing out everybody else, not to mention they are paying cash for a house. So that means regular wanna be homeowners like myself are SOL.

Edit. Not to mention from your posting history you live down in San Diego and not in the LA Metro area.

[ctr88]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

You're wrong: The majority of residents in California are NOT Hispanic/Latino.

Again, let's turn to actual data.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2016, 38.9% of California residents are Hispanic/Latino.

38.9% out of 100% is not a majority of the population.

It might also interest some to know that the U.S. Census Bureau and many other intelligent folks actually consider Hispanic/Latinos to be WHITE.

The Census Bureau breaks down the WHITE population into White, non Hispanic and White, Hispanic/Latino.

So, here are the full Census Bureau demographic statistics (again 2016 numbers) for California:

White alone: 72.7%
Black/African American alone 6.5%
Asian alone, 14.8%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, .5%
Two or more races: 3.8%

Of Whites:
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 37.7%
White, Hispanic or Latino: 38.9%

So, while it is correct to say that the largest ethnic population in California as of 2016 is WHITE-Hispanic/Latino, it is NOT correct to say that Hispanics are "the majority of residents."

Link to the Census Bureau 2016 California Demographics: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fa...645215#viewtop

It is correct to say the largest census group in California per the U.S. census is "Hispanic or Latino" at 38.9%. The next largest is non-hispanic whites at 37.7% (and falling rapidly). That is exactly how it is worded on the census web site.

When you pull up a city or state on the census.com site, I would completely disregard at the top where it gives you a percentage "white only". What you want to look at for the true non-hispanic white population is the "white alone, not hispanic or latino" category at the bottom. That gives you more of the true picture IMO. For example, if you look up El Paso TX, is says at the top that it is "white only" 80.8% , then you look further down where it breaks it out and it says "Hispanic or Latino" 80.7% and "non-hispanic white" 14.2%. Have you ever been to El Paso? Do you really think its 80.8% "white only"? Thus my point to generally disregard that, and go further down where it breaks it out by race and Hispanic origin.

There is no way CA is 72.7% white, that is a totally misleading and untrue statement. 37.7% is the much closer to the accurate figure. Anyone with a decent pair of eyes can tell you that.

[ctr88]

Originally Posted by RosieSD

Yes. I just was up in Oregon and Washington state and we talked to a lot of locals in both states who told us how great it used to be....

Let's face it: NO place in the world is like it used to be 40, 30, 20, or even 10 years ago.

The entire world is always changing.

You can either go with the flow and decide to be happy, or you can spend your life wishing for a time machine to zip you back to what used to be.

This is not exactly true, some places are still a lot like they were 10+ yrs ago, or if they changed it hasn't been by much.

There are certain places in the USA that have seen absolute HYPER growth the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Places like CA, Phoenix, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Florida, Denver and many more places. But places like Vermont, a lot of Maine, Michigan, Illinois and many other areas really aren't hugely different then they were 30 years ago. Some places like CO and CA for example, the quality of life has certainly eroded big time.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by ctr88

This is not exactly true, some places are still a lot like they were 10+ yrs ago, or if they changed it hasn't been by much.

There are certain places in the USA that have seen absolute HYPER growth the last 10, 20, 30, 40 years. Places like CA, Phoenix, Vegas, Portland, Seattle, Austin, Dallas, Florida, Denver and many more places. But places like Vermont, a lot of Maine, Michigan, Illinois and many other areas really aren't hugely different then they were 30 years ago. Some places like CO and CA for example, the quality of life has certainly eroded big time.

The price of economic growth.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by majoun

The price of economic growth.

some like it like the business owners who will have more market to sell to and the politicians who have voters to elect them.


some resent it but do they even realize that SS and Medicare was built on population growth? otherwise these programs are just Ponzi schemes