Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I would help, but it wouldn't change anything. Said a guy living in a fancy Californian neighbourhood with hundreds of thousands $ earnings. Let the average Joe handle the burden of my benevolence. 

You make me  laugh sometimes  

" Said a guy living in a fancy Californian neighbourhood with hundreds of thousands $ earnings" 

But to be fair to Hurlshot I dont consider him someone with huge resources or wealth or  is someone who makes comments due to " white guilt " or these other inaccurate and generalized comments around why white people say what we say. He means well and genuinely believes in certain social justice values that he believes will make society better. So he seems to believe that illegal immigration is okay  under certain circumstances...many of us disagree

But you are right that when you live in any country that has faced illegal or forced immigration and the citizens feel overwhelmed by the level of immigration, like Poland or SA, many people  are tired of being told " you must accept all  immigrants in the interests of diversity and human rights " at the expense of the actual country, legal immigrants and the future prosperity of citizens who also have concerns about overreach around culture which can be seen as as being eroded by uncontrolled immigration 

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, Achilles said:

1. I can see how this might be a valid argument somewhere other than the United States. We are a nation of immigrants and the country founded on principles that we claimed were universal.
2. Our legal process is a joke that makes it well-nigh impossible for the vast majority of people who want to come here, leaving desperate people to make desperate choices.
3. We don't even consistently honor the parts of the legal process that aren't a joke (i.e. should be straightforward)

I agree that legal immigration is ideal, for lots of reasons. We should do a lot more to make it easy.

 

You raise a good point and an interesting difference, ostensibly, between the USA and other immigrant destinations 

Is it a fair argument to say " the USA was founded by immigrants so this needs to be considered when dealing with legal\illegal immigration" 

I am not saying you wrong but what does that practically translate to on the ground around how you gain entrance legally to the USA ? What I mean is that their is a huge problem in the US around people arriving on its borders and entering the country illegally through holes in the walls and or using Coyotes where they get smuggled in. You also have the unique reality, we dont see this even in SA with our immigration problems, where unaccompanied children arrive on the border or try to get enter the USA illegally

How would you align the argument " the USA was founded by immigrants" to the actual legal process of granting entry. Would you say these immigrants must be given entry because then what is to ever stop any illegal immigrants from just arriving on the US border and automatically gaining entry and access to the limited resources all countries have ?

Edited September 16, 2020 by BruceVC

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

You raise a good point and an interesting difference, ostensibly, between the USA and other immigrant destinations 

Is it a fair argument to say " the USA was founded by immigrants so this needs to be considered when dealing with legal\illegal immigration" 

I am not saying you wrong but what does that practically translate to on the ground around how you gain entrance legally to the USA ? What I mean is that their is a huge problem in the US around people arriving on its borders and entering the country illegally through holes in the walls and or using Coyotes where they get smuggled in. You also have the unique reality, we dont see this even in SA with our immigration problems, where unaccompanied children arrive on the border or try to get enter the USA illegally

How would you align the argument " the USA was founded by immigrants" to the actual legal process of granting entry. Would you say these immigrants must be given entry because then what is to ever stop any illegal immigrants from just arriving on the US border and automatically gaining entry and access to the limited resources all countries have ?

Imagine a beach. Some people are there, enjoy the sun and the surf. A while later, more people show up and eventually run most of the first group off, then put up a sign that reads, "Beach Party! Everybody welcome!". People see the sign and join the party. Then more people. Then even more people. The area gains a reputation for being a welcoming place where people can go to do beach things.

Many years later, the people who happen to be on the beach at the time decide that the beach party is over. They don't take down the sign, but some of them start quietly passing the word around to their buddies that if they see more people showing up, they should make it plain that no more people are welcome. There's still plenty of room on the beach. The ocean is still there. The sun still hangs in the sky. But for whatever reason, some of the people currently occupying the beach have decided that they have domain over it.

So, what gives the people poo-pooing "Beach Party! Everybody welcome!" the right to do this?

They didn't find the beach. In fact, just like every other person there, they only know about it because their parents brought them to it as children.

They didn't put up the sign. In fact, they proclaim loudly to anyone with ears that this is the greatest beach mankind has ever known and that they are special people for spreading the principles of "Beach Party!" and "Everybody welcome!" all over the world. It's a point of pride that people from other beaches envy this one and want to come to it.

Are they right to want to keep criminals off the beach? Sure, I think it's reasonable to ask people to patrol the parking lot and make sure that ***holes can't get in. But that's really it. That's the extent to which any kind of restriction is justified.

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Achilles said:

Imagine a beach. Some people are there, enjoy the sun and the surf. A while later, more people show up and eventually run most of the first group off, then put up a sign that reads, "Beach Party! Everybody welcome!". People see the sign and join the party. Then more people. Then even more people. The area gains a reputation for being a welcoming place where people can go to do beach things.

Many years later, the people who happen to be on the beach at the time decide that the beach party is over. They don't take down the sign, but some of them start quietly passing the word around to their buddies that if they see more people showing up, they should make it plain that no more people are welcome. There's still plenty of room on the beach. The ocean is still there. The sun still hangs in the sky. But for whatever reason, some of the people currently occupying the beach have decided that they have domain over it.

So, what gives the people poo-pooing "Beach Party! Everybody welcome!" the right to do this?

They didn't find the beach. In fact, just like every other person there, they only know about it because their parents brought them to it as children.

They didn't put up the sign. In fact, they proclaim loudly to anyone with ears that this is the greatest beach mankind has ever known and that they are special people for spreading the principles of "Beach Party!" and "Everybody welcome!" all over the world. It's a point of pride that people from other beaches envy this one and want to come to it.

Are they right to want to keep criminals off the beach? Sure, I think it's reasonable to ask people to patrol the parking lot and make sure that ***holes can't get in. But that's really it. That's the extent to which any kind of restriction is justified.

You have certainly given me something to think about and I appreciate the fact you have put time and effort into making your point, we wont always agree but I always respect the principle of debate which is  an exchange of information which is how you are posting around this topic  

But one more consideration based on your thought provoking beach party  analogy, what happens if the party people allow anyone to the party and  there is the expected revelry, drinking and hot women in bikinis ( normal beach party vibe )and suddenly the alcohol runs out because there are too many people both invited and uninvited...now any party that runs out of alcohol is a crisis 

But the only reason the beach  party ran out of alcohol was because the original party planners didnt plan or allocate enough resources based on controlling the number of people who are allowed to the party 

So now think of the outcome......the entire party is ruined because there is no alcohol and the alcohol is a finite resource and  you must manage  your resources and also have control  of who legally can access them

But its not the actual beach and access to the beach that is the reason we limit access to the party, as you said the beach is large. Its the limited alcohol and party food we are concerned with 

 

[MedicineDan]

0130 post, so take it as it is.  I think Bruce, a few pages back, kind of poked fun at me for saying this is the most important election of our lifetimes.  I think that was it.  I don't mind the poke.  I'm not the bear some folks are around here.  I won't provide a mountain of foolish text to 'refute' you, Bruce.  However, if anyone truly believes that these times in which we live are anything like what we've seen in our lifetimes... well... I don't want to be rude and so I'll simply stand in stunned silence.

I know the erudite crowds, and here I'll cite Mal and Hurlshot (and I'm fond of both of them) for questioning the 'evidence' that these anarchists in our society are Biden supporters, will rush to dispute me, but does anyone truly believe that the problems with rampant lawlessness comes from Trump voters?  Seriously?  You can probably score points off me by claiming the parity game here in the Obsidz fun zone, but I think the increasing number of actual voters in the Unites States believe their lyin' eyes more than they believe the partisans.  To be clear and fair, I am a partisan.  I am absolutely a partisan and I wish to push my agenda, but I've also been willing to own my biases.  Too bad the hypocrites who run this particular asylum won't own to the same.

To get to the less banal and more interesting point, I think Biden still has the edge.  Not as much as the faithless and feckless left would have us believe (apart from the segment who is clearly panicking right now), but still a discernable edge.  This falls partly on Florida and partly on any of the three "blue wall" states that abandoned Hillary in the last election.  I think the pollsters have tightened their models for state by state ballots over the past two cycles.  I simply won't drink the "polls are off" Kool aide of the more staunch supporters.  Still, the polls *have* been off by a small but significant and decisive margin in the previous two or three cycles.  We manifestly don't have a Democrat governor and senatord inFlorida. Trump can lose 2 out of 3 of the blue wall states and keep all else and still win this election.

If you support our flawed POTUS, take heart. You don't need to draw attention.  You don't need to get the grief.  Until these anarchists take over, your vote is still anonymous.  Vote your conscience.   You are not alone.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

You have certainly given me something to think about and I appreciate the fact you have put time and effort into making your point, we wont always agree but I always respect the principle of debate which is  an exchange of information which is how you are posting around this topic  

Likewise

Quote

But one more consideration based on your thought provoking beach party  analogy, what happens if the party people allow anyone to the party and  there is the expected revelry, drinking and hot women in bikinis ( normal beach party vibe )and suddenly the alcohol runs out because there are too many people both invited and uninvited...now any party that runs out of alcohol is a crisis 

But the only reason the beach  party ran out of alcohol was because the original party planners didnt plan or allocate enough resources based on controlling the number of people who are allowed to the party 

So now think of the outcome......the entire party is ruined because there is no alcohol and the alcohol is a finite resource and  you must manage  your resources and also have control  of who legally can access them

But its not the actual beach and access to the beach that is the reason we limit access to the party, as you said the beach is large. Its the limited alcohol and party food we are concerned with 

Obviously anything could happen, but evidence shows that having more people at the party increases the amount of food and alcohol available, overall, not lessens it (see my earlier post about my Vietnamese barber who owns two small businesses)

The gist seems to be (and please correct me if I am wrong) that there might be economic concerns that should trump humanitarian ones.

An "economy" is load-bearing fiction that members of a society share. It functions when people exchange goods and services for something else (usually currency, which is the stored value of work). It fails to function when people don't participate in these exchanges. So, how do you increase economic output? You make it easier for people to participate. Adding a bunch of people to your population then making it difficult to participate in your economy is a problem. Adding people alone isn't.

[Darkpriest]

@Hurlshot in terms of resources, i can list two just from the top of my head, which should speak to your localization

 

Affordable housing, which will not make you cost and arm and a leg and possibly a kidney

Electric grid and electricity

 

As for the others and other points, I could write an essay. People evaluating with feels instead of hard numbers and cause and effect logic chains, usually make bad decisions. 

 

When it comes to immigrants covering for growth rate, ask yourself, what is the cause for the low natural growth rate in the first place. 

 

High costs of living and shrinking middle class, the hookup culture, late marriages and unstable marriages, first kid decision delayed on average by 6-10 years comparing to 70 urs ago

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, KaineParker said:

I've entertained the view and found it to be stupid. Between the attempts to excuse and deny genocide, the crying over whites being unfairly treated, and trying to redpill about the jews commies subverting this is stale **** I've seen a hundred times. You guys need to get new material instead of making inforgraphs and merchant edits.

the transparent after-the-fact rationalization where we are s'posed to pretend we has never read a previous oro post is kinda insulting given how little effort goes into the attempt to "clothe (his) naked villany."

...

as to the indigenous peoples and civil war alliances am gonna once again observe how the gross overgeneralizations is misleading. don't rely on wikipedia. very few indigenous peoples aligned with the south during the civil war when one compares to total number o' such cultures. more than did the north? depends on how you count such. 

that being said, is kinda red herring material. identify the flaws and even evils o' numerous native populations...

does not in any way change the fact the US government, in its numerous incarnations, has endeavoured to (and successful achieved on more than one occasion) the genocide o' native cultures. sure, am guessing there is a couple boardies who need little convincing that a particular indigenous people (or perhaps all o' them) deserved to be erased from existence. you folks know who you are and most o' the rest o' us know who you are too. 

*shrug*

personal, we has been able to take some comfort in the fact the law tends to ignore the morality question altogether. instead we may focus on treaty violations and the way in which the US violated its own due process standards and rules to bring 'bout the cold-blooded demise o' entire cultures.  

unfortunate, can't even get aunty's justice for most native peoples.

all too often, prove US broke a deal is the easy part. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

When it comes to immigrants covering for growth rate, ask yourself, what is the cause for the low natural growth rate in the first place. 

 

High costs of living and shrinking middle class, the hookup culture, late marriages and unstable marriages, first kid decision delayed on average by 6-10 years comparing to 70 urs ago

Marriage was considered the gateway to adulthood 70 years ago. They got married young and started families earlier because that's what was expected of them.

The fact that norms are different now isn't necessarily a signal of societal decline.

People put off marriage and babies now for the reasons that you listed, but also because some of them have things they want to do before they start a family. In some cases, like mine, people don't see marriage as a box that needs to be checked. In some cases, like my son's, bringing more people into the world doesn't feel like the responsible thing to do.

Edited September 16, 2020 by Achilles
typos

[redneckdevil]

13 hours ago, Amentep said:

I think often times people want to make things simple and in so doing give a false impression because rarely is anything simple.  Simplicity glosses over the years of racial tension around the country caused the ill treatment we have inflicted on ourselves based on race.  Sure there were lynchings and mob violence in the south, and it was more prevalent there.  Certainly the Jim Crow laws were unique (but exist, primarily, because the North kind of gave up on 'fixing' the south), but you can find examples of gerrymandering to disenfranchise or violence  in the north.  For a Rosewood in Florida, you get a Greenwood district in Tulsa. For a race riot in Atlanta (1909) you get one in Chicago (1919); for one in Watts (in 1965) you get one in Newark (1967).  Maybe history in public schools is better now but back in my day, a lot of this wasn't ever touched on (and no mention of the Asian immigration restrictions via quotas or what was really going on with native peoples for the most part, although perhaps some sort of ambivalence about Custer had begun to creep in). The Japanese internment camps were seen as bad, but were presented as I recall as a bit of an anomaly and not part of an interconnected picture about fears of Asians in the west.

That said, I seriously doubt the South would have honored any promises made to the native peoples anymore than the North/US generally did.  There was too much money being poured into the plantation system for them to give plantation lands back to native peoples, and too much money in mining in the mountains.  

Lincoln I think from what I've read mostly wanted to preserve the union.  I don't think he was a fan of slavery, IIRC, but he'd have kept it if he'd been able to keep the union together.  He didn't really have a lot of chance though, having spoken out against the spread of slavery he saw as inherent in the Kansas-Nebraska act while a Representative, South Carolina succeeded before he took office.

I agree and likewise agree with the education part. 

[Darkpriest]

1 hour ago, Achilles said:

Marriage was considered the gateway to adulthood 70 years ago. They got married young and started families earlier because that's what was expected of them.

The fact that norms are different now isn't necessarily a signal of societal decline.

People put off marriage and babies now for the reasons that you listed, but also because some of them have things they want to do before they start a family. In some cases, like mine, people don't see marriage as a box that needs to be checked. In some cases, like my son's, bringing more people into the world doesn't feel like the responsible thing to do.

Sure, I understand this, and I believe it is a natural process, which also is a part of self regulating population growth. The more concious you are about this decision  i.e. family etc. then it will slef regulate breeding rate. Last I heard, Earth as a whole is suffering from population boom. Is it then productive to import population from other areas and keep that boom going or should you leave it to self regulate per specific populations. 

There is a worry, that economic models are based on permanent growth, but such economics is not sustainable and the earlier you adapt to changing demographics instead of artificially keeping it as is, then the better for the general outlook it is. 

Right now natively we produce less children and at lower generations rate (ie in time of 3 generations from the past you produce 2 now) 

Importing population, which has different cultural norms and different life goals will only lead to the replacement of populations and changing who is in the majority of the population. 

 

You had that type of event playing out multiple times throughout the history. 

 

Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Goth tribes, Saxon Tribes, Arab people, Northmen and later Normans, Scythians and Slavs,  various North and South america tribes, Olmecs, Inca, Aztec, later Spanish people, French, Niderlanders, English people, various African tribes replacing others in Africa, Ottoman Turks in balkans and greece, making the population mix different, and so on and so forth. 

I guess that if native americans had something akin to a unified country on the East coast territory then the illegal immigrants from EU would be confined and the history of the continent would look much different

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Darkpriest

[Amentep]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

as to the indigenous peoples and civil war alliances am gonna once again observe how the gross overgeneralizations is misleading. don't rely on wikipedia. very few indigenous peoples aligned with the south during the civil war when one compares to total number o' such cultures. more than did the north? depends on how you count such. 

You make a good point; to clarify I was mostly trying to express that there were indigenous peoples of the US that took the side of the north, to counter a (perhaps misreading) or redneckdevil's initial post that the support was universally for the south.  I also wanted to try and point out that that these choices were dependent on their own unique relationships and needs, not to vilify any group.  As you correctly point out, I only mentioned about 16 groups that I can recall having read supporting the war efforts of either side, but that was out of around 600 or more culture groups.

[Guard Dog]

Remind me again how this is the "most important election in American history" 

Threat to Dollar as Reserve Currency

This is why debts & spending deficits matter. But hey, I'm well prepared for complete economic collapse. How are y'all doing?

[Gorth]

4 hours ago, Achilles said:

They didn't put up the sign. In fact, they proclaim loudly to anyone with ears that this is the greatest beach mankind has ever known and that they are special people for spreading the principles of "Beach Party!" and "Everybody welcome!" all over the world. It's a point of pride that people from other beaches envy this one and want to come to it.

Make the Beach great again!

 

Sorry... couldn't resist

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Make the Beach great again!

 

Sorry... couldn't resist

 Gorthfuscious .....how could you 

[Darkpriest]

53 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Remind me again how this is the "most important election in American history" 

Threat to Dollar as Reserve Currency

This is why debts & spending deficits matter. But hey, I'm well prepared for complete economic collapse. How are y'all doing?

You can thank the FED and the printing machine, which gave millions to banks and big corps to stay afloat and inflate stock bubble.

[Hurlshort]

4 hours ago, Darkpriest said:

@Hurlshot in terms of resources, i can list two just from the top of my head, which should speak to your localization

 

Affordable housing, which will not make you cost and arm and a leg and possibly a kidney

 

This has very little to do with immigration and everything to do with wealth inequality. A bunch of immigrant kids are not pricing me out of a single family home in my town. You could probably argue that overseas cash buyers are a problem, but our immigration policies make it pretty easy for those folks to come in.

I am living my best life according to Skarpie, so that's good.

[Darkpriest]

14 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

This has very little to do with immigration and everything to do with wealth inequality. A bunch of immigrant kids are not pricing me out of a single family home in my town. You could probably argue that overseas cash buyers are a problem, but our immigration policies make it pretty easy for those folks to come in.

I am living my best life according to Skarpie, so that's good.

The more people you have the greater the demand for housing and if the supply cannot follow, then the prices keep increasing. Join that with the fact, that most immigrants are minimum wage candidates, and you just exacerbate that affordable housing part. 

[Darkpriest]

@Guard Dog @Hurlshot

I wonder what your opinions would be on this topic

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/09/02/forget-pension-obligation-bonds-two-cities-areno-jokeleasing-their-streets-to-fund-pensions/

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Guard Dog @Hurlshot

I wonder what your opinions would be on this topic

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/09/02/forget-pension-obligation-bonds-two-cities-areno-jokeleasing-their-streets-to-fund-pensions/

Here's everything you need to know in one sentence:

Quote

Despite the fact that the streets are nominally being “leased,” the bondholders will not have any particular rights to lay claim to the streets; despite their status as “collateral,” the bondholders can’t take them over and charge tolls if either city defaults on their “rent”

Ordinarily I would not touch Bonds if they took dried dog poop for payment. They are long term and low yield and are no longer a "safe" place to park money. But at least the municipal bonds have tax advantages. In this case there are no advantages and the trust does not even "own" the asset they are leasing back. If the city defaults that's just tough s--t for you. But, that is the case of a regular debt bond as well. Hence the reason I never touch 'em.

[Guard Dog]

44 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

You can thank the FED and the printing machine, which gave millions to banks and big corps to stay afloat and inflate stock bubble.

Yep. Among other reasons going all the way back to the Vietnam war. Getting off the gold standard made it possible for rapid economic growth.  With the dollar untethered to a physical commodity there is literally no limit to the amount of dollars that can exist theoretically. But it also opened us up to gross mismanagement and made us a date with destiny in the somewhat near future. 

[redneckdevil]

11 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Yep. Among other reasons going all the way back to the Vietnam war. Getting off the gold standard made it possible for rapid economic growth.  With the dollar untethered to a physical commodity there is literally no limit to the amount of dollars that can exist theoretically. But it also opened us up to gross mismanagement and made us a date with destiny in the somewhat near future. 

I agree it has opened us up to gross mismanagement.  I do have a question though, do you think that if govt steps in and funds to keep a company afloat should go the way of the banks in “owning” that company?
 Take the airlines for example.  Govt gives them a huge bailout to keep them afloat so that we don’t rely on a foreign nation for our flights, which I can understand to an extent.  Since every company I know of that gotten bailed out in the last 20 years wasted the money on not “fixing” the company but instead to line the shareholder and boards pockets instead and still having the same problems.  Since the airlines are for national security and growth for transporting goods and people, IF they govt couldn’t start a reason to acquire the company (which is the only thing I can think of to not go with the idea) but gave the company tax payer money, do you think that with the history of what happened with the money, that it would be better to just “take over” said company? 
if the government doesn’t have the right to give money to keep a company afloat, since they do for national security reasons, then should the company be taken over instead?  Also do u think that would quickly end govt bailing out said companies if they are to dangerous to sink?

[Hurlshort]

38 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

@Guard Dog @Hurlshot

I wonder what your opinions would be on this topic

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/09/02/forget-pension-obligation-bonds-two-cities-areno-jokeleasing-their-streets-to-fund-pensions/

As someone who has no choice but to pay a good chunk of my salary into a state pension fund every month, it is troubling, to say the least. That being said, both of these cities are rather small fries in the grand scheme of California and their pension programs. If it blows up in their faces, it shouldn't take down the whole pension fund...hopefully. *fingers crossed*

Honestly that is basically the biggest thing I am banking on as an educator. My wife and I should be able to retire at a reasonable age with a reasonable pension and we should be able to take that anywhere in the country, where the cost of living is more reasonable. Again, *fingers crossed* 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Hurlshot

[Guard Dog]

42 minutes ago, redneckdevil said:

I agree it has opened us up to gross mismanagement.  I do have a question though, do you think that if govt steps in and funds to keep a company afloat should go the way of the banks in “owning” that company?
 Take the airlines for example.  Govt gives them a huge bailout to keep them afloat so that we don’t rely on a foreign nation for our flights, which I can understand to an extent.  Since every company I know of that gotten bailed out in the last 20 years wasted the money on not “fixing” the company but instead to line the shareholder and boards pockets instead and still having the same problems.  Since the airlines are for national security and growth for transporting goods and people, IF they govt couldn’t start a reason to acquire the company (which is the only thing I can think of to not go with the idea) but gave the company tax payer money, do you think that with the history of what happened with the money, that it would be better to just “take over” said company? 
if the government doesn’t have the right to give money to keep a company afloat, since they do for national security reasons, then should the company be taken over instead?  Also do u think that would quickly end govt bailing out said companies if they are to dangerous to sink?

Philosophically I am against the government actively participating in the economy beyond a regulatory role. And even that should be limited. If a company is going out of business because of mismanagement, bad business models, bad luck I have only one solution:

 

Darwin was right about natural selection. The next company worn't make the same mistakes. 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Guard Dog
spelling

[Guard Dog]

44 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

As someone who has no choice but to pay a good chunk of my salary into a state pension fund every month, it is troubling, to say the least. That being said, both of these cities are rather small fries in the grand scheme of California and their pension programs. If it blows up in their faces, it shouldn't take down the whole pension fund...hopefully. *fingers crossed*

Honestly that is basically the biggest thing I am banking on as an educator. My wife and I should be able to retire at a reasonable age with a reasonable pension and we should be able to take that anywhere in the country, where the cost of living is more reasonable. Again, *fingers crossed* 

Your children will be adults by then with lives of their own. If those lives are in CA you won't want to move far. Fortunately for you Arizona & Nevada are close by!

Edited September 16, 2020 by Guard Dog
Autocorrect screwed me!