^If the middle class dies ( pretty much already has) then the state dies. There is no in between. If you factor in cost of living California has the highest poverty rate in the country. The hospitality there is non existent compared to the south.

What do you call a city/state without a middle class that attracts a large wave of illegals, homeless, and the very wealthy? A shithole!

Los Angeles will be the new Detroit in twenty years. Too many liberal loonys,low IQ illegals, and the movie business is bound to die out of California as technology is making it easier and easier for the average Joe with talent to make a great movie.

Part of the issue with Detroit though was that it was a one trick pony, ie the auto industry was THE industry in Detroit so when that left, Detroit was toast. Is the movie industry in LA that dominant that if it up and died, would LA go down the tubes like Detroit? True though that the middle class have gotten priced out of So Cal so as some people have said, LA is becoming like Rio with a bunch of very rich people, a bunch of very poor people, illegals and very little else in between.

It depends what you mean by dying. As I said, the vision of "California" that existed in the 60s and 70s is unfortunately going away (if it hasn't already). However, the state will continue to be crucial to the US, and will be one of the best places to live, at least part-time, for a man of means.

The fact is that you don't necessarily need a thriving middle class to have a successful state. As an example, look at small countries like Qatar, UAE, and even Singapore (to a lesser extent).
-- About a third of the population are those who have very high incomes (think $200k/yr+), and also own basically all of the important assets in the country, including property and stakes in companies. For those people, life is paradise, you have the most lavish things that life has to offer.
-- Meanwhile, the balance of the population (often those of a specific race, esp in Qatar/UAE) make a small income, basically just enough to survive, and live in shithole cirumstances, far away from the glamour. For them, staying there is still better than going home, and they always have just enough of a faint possibility to rise in the ranks that they continue to work. Notice a parallel with the illegals issue in CA?
-- These countries aren't ideal places to live, but they are FAR from dead. They are very important places to the world, and they hold a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth. For those who have money, it is as good of a life as it gets.

The other thing that plays into this is that in today's far more globalized world (recent anti-globalization nonwithstanding), it is way harder for those who have money to lose it all. There's so many opportunities for investment. All of those countries/people hedge against an economic downturn in one industry, for example UAE/Qatar are investing like crazy in alternative energies to hedge against oil going away.

No matter how much I would love to see the oil run out and see Dubai turn into something out of Resident Evil:Extinction in 40 years, it is almost surely not going to happen. Similarly, despite what many other people would love to see, Los Angeles is not going to look like Detroit.

Detroit was like a perfect storm. You had all the racial tension in the 60s causing white people to flee from Detroit which started the downfall of Detroit. Then you had the Japanese automakers in the 70s and 80s becoming very strong which created a ton of problems for American automakers. Remember, Chrysler in the early 80s almost went completely out of business. Then with free trade and other states become non-union right to work states, the auto companies took most of the manufacturing out of Eastern Michigan. On top of all of that was the all the corruption in Detroit city hall over the last 40-50 years and presto,you have a perfect storm.

California will survive due to the weather and allure of a once existent culture but it will be a very different California and a much harder place for sane, reasonable people to live. Lord knows I could never live there.

Quote: (09-01-2018 02:08 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

California will survive due to the weather and allure of a once existent culture but it will be a very different California and a much harder place for sane, reasonable people to live. Lord knows I could never live there.

No offense but I feel the same way about the idea of living in Chicago or Illinois.

But native Californians see a different California then guys looking in from the outside. And you can say the same about me talking about Chicago, or a native New Yorker in regards to New York. The locals will always have a different understanding and view of the dynamics of their home than someone who isn't from there.

And I think a lot of opinion about California on this forum is from guys who have only traveled or lived in LA or San Fran and therefore base their opinions on the entire state based on their experiences in those two cities.

Or they've never really been to California and only get the more sensational news stuff or hear the uber rich squeeky wheels like the odious Tom Steyer and Robb Reiner who think they know what's best for world as they live in luxury in their palatial homes.

But opinions saying that Cailfornia has no middle class, or is overrun by low IQ Mexicans is cherry picking on certain areas and certain factors.

It's the equivalent of me going to NYC and using the extreme income inequalities of Manhattan and Brooklyn to argue that there's no middle class in the City, or using Brownsville, East New York and most of Queens as examples to make an argument that the city is being taken over by low IQ brown and Asian peoples.

But those examples conveniently ignore Long Island, Connecticut and the good parts of Jersey like Bayonne, Wayne and Montclair, where you find the middle and upper working classes (and high IQ whites for the demographics crowd). They don't live in the city for reasons that are both obvious and not so obvious.

And it's the same for California and for LA. Guys think there's no middle class in LA and it's all third world because Downtown/Central LA, South LA and the Valley have poor, low IQ brown people and they're right on that.

But they're conveniently leaving out places like Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Valencia, Calabasas, Westlake, Chatsworth, Northridge, Santa Clarita-or places further south and east like Brea, Walnut, Diamond Bar, Eastvale, Chino Hills, Corona, Placentia, Tustin, Irvine, Anaheim Hills, Norco and Murrietta, Menifee, Temecula and Riverside, where you can find the missing Los Angeles middle class and where you can find the Southern California middle class life that guys argue disappeared.

And for guys who think California is some Mexican shithole, I urge you to spend a day hanging out in San Clemente and then driving down to Encinitas and Carlsbad and then come back and let us know if California is the third world shithole you think it is.

California does have a lot of problems at the local and state government levels, and I can spend a very long post talking about it.

Basically California has developed a really really bad "swamp" culture, and a lack of legal enforcement and consequences has turned California, and most of its cities, into a "pay for play" paradise.

So a culture of corruption, mixed with a one political party rule, has created a situation where ridiculous legislation like plastic straw bans and women on corporate boards gets passed, because there's no one to challenge it and Democrats are reluctant to call it out, because the California Democratic Party is run by a bunch of fucktards who will blackball their own members and refuse to help them get re-elected if they don't keep their heads down and shut up.

And of course the fucktards in charge are limosine liberals who truly believe that their voters actually care about plastic straw bans or women on corporate boards than they do taxes, education and safety.

Of course that's changing, and the California Democratic Party has been on the verge of implosion for a few years now and the only thing that's kept that from happening is the emergence of Trump, who has given them a figure to come together and rally against for the time being. But it's only a matter of time before they fall apart.

I’m someone biding his time to escape this shithole, been here a long, long time although i left for close to a decade work brought me back. The metro areas of California are done, visits only, if that. That said i particularly enjoy LA as cities go. There are parts of the state that might as well be Colorado or southern Idaho, with down to earth, salt of the earth people that are hanging on because that’s what they do. It’s home.

They’re buffeted by the same deep taxation and inane law making the rest of the state is. I’m here for a few more years till the kids get out of school, family first. Always.

One good thing CA does for us combat vets is pay free tuition at Cal and UoC for vet’s dependents, hence my anchor.

But I’m outta here, it’s not the NorCal i first fell in love with in the late 80’s.

Honestly Dodgy, one of the biggest problems I have with California is the trashy culture that it exports to the rest of America. A lot of the modern day leftism, SJWism has been promoted and spread by Hollywood and Big Tech. California really is a cultural wasteland in my opinion. I absolutely despise California women too, they are the embodiment of the modern day overly entitled, superficial, excessively plastic surgeried women that you see in America today. Those bitches creep me out to be honest and it has spread across the country from California. I'm not saying Chicago is all that, it has a ton of problems and Illinois has a lot of the problems of corruption and fiscal issues that California has but the people here are generally much nicer, and more down to earth than they are in coastal California. A lot of the social problems you see in Chicago are also there in LA but people here are far less entitled than they are in California. That California superficiality is something I just can't handle. I agree though that it's different when you live in a place as opposed to just hearing about it on the news or visiting and it's all what you're used to.

On this theme of Californians and the exporting of their trash liberal culture, a lot of Californians, by voting for stupid politicians and supporting stupid laws have created a huge mess in the state and are now leaving because they can't deal with the mess. The problem is thought that they then move to more conservative states like Texas, Idaho or Colorado and they bring their same stupid liberal Californian attitudes and vote for the same idiot liberal politicians and end up turning those places into the places that they fled a few years back. I'm not casting a blanket over every Californian, I have good friends from there and the guys here from Cali are cool but as a general rule, Californians really irk me.

Quote: (09-02-2018 03:06 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

Honestly Dodgy, one of the biggest problems I have with California is the trashy culture that it exports to the rest of America. A lot of the modern day leftism, SJWism has been promoted and spread by Hollywood and Big Tech. California really is a cultural wasteland in my opinion.

Ok. I agree.

But California has also given America Guy Fieri and In N Out. So you have to eat a little shit from time to time in order to get to Flavortown.

posting this from the toilet at an in n out:

guy fieri sucks

Quote: (09-02-2018 03:06 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

On this theme of Californians and the exporting of their trash liberal culture, a lot of Californians, by voting for stupid politicians and supporting stupid laws have created a huge mess in the state and are now leaving because they can't deal with the mess. The problem is thought that they then move to more conservative states like Texas, Idaho or Colorado and they bring their same stupid liberal Californian attitudes and vote for the same idiot liberal politicians and end up turning those places into the places that they fled a few years back. I'm not casting a blanket over every Californian, I have good friends from there and the guys here from Cali are cool but as a general rule, Californians really irk me.

They are like aliens from the movie 'Independence Day'. Infest one place and move on to another.

But where are they going to go when the whole country is infested with their stuff?

As a rather liberal person, I think I am going to vote solid red at the state and city level in California. Not only are we passing asinine laws like removing bail, but it looks like we are now getting softer on crime (To save you a click: We are softening sentences for people who are accomplishes to murder).

The fact of the matter is this: In the 1990s, we reduced crime. We reduced crime because we put the criminals in jail (archive link). Yeah, the progressive press is telling us this won't increase crime, but considering that they lied to me when they told me Alcoholics Anonymous has a 5% success rate (which is bullshit), I am not going to believe the progressives when they tell me putting violent criminals on the streets again isn't going to increase crime.

Quote: (09-02-2018 02:41 PM)ThrustMaster Wrote:  

One good thing CA does for us combat vets is pay free tuition at Cal and UoC for vet’s dependents, hence my anchor.

Wow, nice.

Quote: (09-02-2018 02:21 PM)Dodgy Wrote:  

Of course that's changing, and the California Democratic Party has been on the verge of implosion for a few years now and the only thing that's kept that from happening is the emergence of Trump, who has given them a figure to come together and rally against for the time being. But it's only a matter of time before they fall apart.

I hope you are right. The other thing that makes me optimistic (and there aren't many) is that the asshole hippies are finally dying off. Good fucking riddance. The children of the hippies fall into 2 categories: hate their parent's guts and often vote right wing, or, don't hate their parent's guts but are so mentally damaged by being their kids, that they vote with all the other mentally damaged people, as liberals.

But there is little hope. California in addition to the mentally damaged liberals, has been a haven for the hateful lesbians and tech soyboys, and they want to use the state as a launch pad to take over the rest of the country. I can't disagree with Texas and other regions that hate and fear California.

Quote:Quote:

But native Californians see a different California then guys looking in from the outside. And you can say the same about me talking about Chicago, or a native New Yorker in regards to New York. The locals will always have a different understanding and view of the dynamics of their home than someone who isn't from there.

And I think a lot of opinion about California on this forum is from guys who have only traveled or lived in LA or San Fran and therefore base their opinions on the entire state based on their experiences in those two cities.

Or they've never really been to California and only get the more sensational news stuff or hear the uber rich squeeky wheels like the odious Tom Steyer and Robb Reiner who think they know what's best for world as they live in luxury in their palatial homes.

But opinions saying that Cailfornia has no middle class, or is overrun by low IQ Mexicans is cherry picking on certain areas and certain factors.

It's the equivalent of me going to NYC and using the extreme income inequalities of Manhattan and Brooklyn to argue that there's no middle class in the City, or using Brownsville, East New York and most of Queens as examples to make an argument that the city is being taken over by low IQ brown and Asian peoples.

But those examples conveniently ignore Long Island, Connecticut and the good parts of Jersey like Bayonne, Wayne and Montclair, where you find the middle and upper working classes (and high IQ whites for the demographics crowd). They don't live in the city for reasons that are both obvious and not so obvious.

That's...kind of a valid point and kind of not.

Some areas are more tolerable. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that these areas are low trust cultures which means that these areas lack any real resiliency towards conditions or events that stress the conditions of "society". It's the difference between how Katrina coped with their Hurricane vs. how the Japanese coped with the Tsunami.

In any real SHTF situation you also need to keep in mind the logistics situation: people will start pouring out of the cities to find food. Being near major "diverse" urban areas is a huge liability because it means you won't be faring better than your urban peers for long. Ideally you should have major geographical features restricting travel between yourself and any of America's powderkeg cities.

Governor Brown signed off yesterday on the bill requiring companies headquartered in California to have a woman on their BODs:

Quote:Quote:

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards.

That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.

It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year.

It's the first such law on the books in the United States, though similar measures are common in European countries.

The measure was passed by California's state legislature last month. And it was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, along with a trove of other bills that look to "protect and support women, children and working families," the governor's office said in a release.

A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.

California state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson told The Wall Street Journal last month when the legislation passed that "one-fourth of California's publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive."

"With women comprising over half the population and making over 70% of purchasing decisions, their insight is critical to discussions and decisions that affect corporate culture, actions and profitability," she told the outlet.

Some see California's law as a crucial step toward establishing better parity in corporate leadership.

But setting quotas can be controversial, Vicki W. Kramer, lead author of the landmark 2006 study, "Critical Mass on Corporate Boards," told CNN last month. Opponents argue that pressure from quotas will lead to unqualified female members and potential discrimination against male candidates.

When quotas are not set, however, companies may fail to diversify their ranks. She points to more "aspirational" legislation in other states, like in Pennsylvania, where a 2017 resolution urged both public and private companies to have a minimum of 30% women on their boards by 2020. But without teeth in the law, Kramer said, better numbers won't follow.

Kramer said California's legislation is weak compared to the laws in Norway and other European countries, which require a certain percentage of women on boards. For larger Norwegian companies, the legislation requires that women make up as much as 40% of the board.

This is totally not a retarded social engineering experiment that absolutely won't blow up in anybody's face.

Quote: (10-01-2018 10:22 AM)Canopus Wrote:  

Governor Brown signed off yesterday on the bill requiring companies headquartered in California to have a woman on their BODs:

Quote:Quote:

Companies headquartered in California can no longer have all-male boards.

That's according to a new law, enacted Sunday, which requires publicly traded firms in the state to place at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019 — or face a penalty.

It also requires companies with five directors to add two women by the end of 2021, and companies with six or more directors to add at least three more women by the end of the same year.

It's the first such law on the books in the United States, though similar measures are common in European countries.

The measure was passed by California's state legislature last month. And it was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday, along with a trove of other bills that look to "protect and support women, children and working families," the governor's office said in a release.

A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only about a quarter have more than two, according to a study from PwC.

California state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson told The Wall Street Journal last month when the legislation passed that "one-fourth of California's publicly traded companies still do not have a single woman on their board, despite numerous independent studies that show companies with women on their board are more profitable and productive."

"With women comprising over half the population and making over 70% of purchasing decisions, their insight is critical to discussions and decisions that affect corporate culture, actions and profitability," she told the outlet.

Some see California's law as a crucial step toward establishing better parity in corporate leadership.

But setting quotas can be controversial, Vicki W. Kramer, lead author of the landmark 2006 study, "Critical Mass on Corporate Boards," told CNN last month. Opponents argue that pressure from quotas will lead to unqualified female members and potential discrimination against male candidates.

When quotas are not set, however, companies may fail to diversify their ranks. She points to more "aspirational" legislation in other states, like in Pennsylvania, where a 2017 resolution urged both public and private companies to have a minimum of 30% women on their boards by 2020. But without teeth in the law, Kramer said, better numbers won't follow.

Kramer said California's legislation is weak compared to the laws in Norway and other European countries, which require a certain percentage of women on boards. For larger Norwegian companies, the legislation requires that women make up as much as 40% of the board.

This is totally not a retarded social engineering experiment that absolutely won't blow up in anybody's face.

It is impossible for me to convey to you just how fucking ignorant these state legislators are. They are some of the stupidest people on the entire fucking planet. They never started a business of their own, never managed a team, never built so much as a shed in their backyard, never fixed a car, never even a lemonade stand when they were a kid. California legislators are the people who got a degree in politics and jumped straight into activism without having a real job of any kind, except maybe being a lawyer for some politician.

Directors for companies are the hardest job to fill on the planet. In many cased companies die, because they can't find the right board directors and CEOS. This bill will simply kill off even more and the economy will tank, or people like me will finally give in and move to another state even though we don't want to.

I was born, raised, and have spent my entire working life in the formerly-Golden State. Spent nearly two decades in various jobs, from entry-level service to small cap high-tech. The vast majority of women I've known who were reliable and reasonable were middle-aged and had older children families. Without exception, the ones who were corporate climbers (either without children, or clearly the 'pant-wearer' in their marriages) were manipulative, deceitful, and more interested in posturing than fostering organizational success and cohesiveness.

During one NPI assignment I had, one particular female project manager stood out in this regard and I always felt she was pitting R&D vs. Engineering vs. Sales vs. Production vs. Operations vs. Field Support, while always making herself look good to senior management. 'See, you'd be lost without me? Look how important I am with all these meetings and status reports and random drop-ins at people's desks.' Not encouraging and really addressing concerns, just 'checking in.' Each group became more fractious and suspicious of the other, which wasn't the case before she was made PM. I was very happy to leave that department and, ultimately that company. Which ended up failing and being bought out but not necessarily only because of her. But in an era when pushing female was only starting, that company was ahead of the curve and I feel the internal cost ended up driving many qualified men out.

Women don't really understand 'team building' as they are fully solipsistic. 'How does this impact me?' is their natural biological imperative. It's necessary and proper - in the context of having children and creating a stable household. When absent their natural mothering role, they don't actually 'mother' people at work - they coerce them, and in-fight, and backstab. Their solipsism gets amplified once they have the power of a title and corporate authority behind them: 'a license to bitch.' I've seen it in Mom-and-Pop companies to a lesser extent, but the women running or co-running those generally have been absolute ball-busters with beta-simp/provider husbands. True alpha husband with wives working with them only work when the man is the clear leader and the woman is an important but obvious distance second place in importance. The woman respects the man and is the help-mate, as the Bible and nature intend.

I noticed how the article specifies 'publicly traded' companies. This could certainly motivate companies to either remain private, or change their structure to move headquarters (and some staff) out of state. The explosion of #metoo especially related to Kavanaugh's appointment and confirmation will make any sane organization question why exactly they're in the formerly-Golden State now known as Kommiefornia. It's a golden gilded cage with toxic air and poisonous soil. All the bright trappings make it difficult to leave, but staying too long suffocates you - at first gradually, then suddenly (hat tip Hemingway).

So is that a biological requirement or a gender one? Since a man who identifies as a woman now can be legally recognized as a "she" then this law needs some clarification.

That's going to be fun to watch when the tranny director issue eventually comes up

Quote: (09-02-2018 02:21 PM)Dodgy Wrote:  

Quote: (09-01-2018 02:08 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

California will survive due to the weather and allure of a once existent culture but it will be a very different California and a much harder place for sane, reasonable people to live. Lord knows I could never live there.

Of course that's changing, and the California Democratic Party has been on the verge of implosion for a few years now and the only thing that's kept that from happening is the emergence of Trump, who has given them a figure to come together and rally against for the time being. But it's only a matter of time before they fall apart.

Are you pulling our legs?

What possible basis can there be for saying that the Democratic party in California is on the verge of implosion?

On what basis can that party be said to be about to fall apart? They have tens of millions of alienated white liberals and obedient non-whites who will vote for them unquestioningly. When is the last time a Republican got close to holding a significant state-level office?

Detroit = very cold and flat.
Florida = hot and flat
All other coasts in the US = flat, hot, or cold
Hawaii = great, but economy is blah, expensive as Cali, and you're extremely limited as far as where you can go without getting on an airplane. (actually I think Hawaii is the best spot in the US for retirement).

California = beautiful mountains, weather is generally great (near coast). Water is cold, but not down in San Diego/Mexico.

California/LA have a lot going climate wise, mountains, on the coast of the U.S., etc.. I am born and raised in the southeast, and have vacationed on a number of beaches in Florida, Georgia, etc. Let me tell you, there are NO hills or mountains in the southeast coastline (except some small cliffs in alabama). It's flat flat flat. If you want coast and some hilly scenery to go with it (aka nice views), you can only go to California. Unless your idea of nice weather is Maine, Oregon, etc (think rain or snow). I like the southeast because the water is really warm. But most people don't care that much about that, especially rich people (they're too busy soaking in their hot tubs). Even if you live in LA and love swimming, you can always put on a wet suit.

This factor alone will keep rich people moving there forever. The movie industry might take a hit from Atlanta (where I live). Movie studios are popping up all over here. Google Pullman Yard Atlanta.

As someone who grew up in the suburbs of NorCal, went to school in San Diego, and then lived in LA before expating to Eastern Europe, the simple fact of the matter is that while California has certainly become a cesspool - nobody is willing to DO anything about it.

Just like how many liberals conveniently forget the Midwest and think the coasts are all that matter (see how wrong they were about Trump), SF and LA absolute dominate California. And many people that are not in those two places are simply completely clueless as to what's going on in the political world, because they live in sheltered little suburbia bubbles that haven't become shitholes.

...yet.

Are people ever going to want to STOP living in California?

Unlikely, it's pure status bragging.

Going back to all those years ago when guys like GManifesto were discussing "California ID game", and it's still very much in play out here in Eastern Europe. I say I'm from California and everybody's eyes go wide. It wouldn't be the same if I was saying I was from Lincoln, Nebraska. As long as it's still thought of as a major symbol, people are still going to desire to go there.

I'll sure as shit never live there again.

My $0.02.

Quote: (02-22-2018 11:40 PM)speculator Wrote:  

Quote: (02-22-2018 06:18 PM)John Michael Kane Wrote:  

Speculator, are you pondering leaving, and if so (or no, why not?), to where?

I don't consider moving yet cause my parents, friends and the majority of relatives live here. Fresno is the only affordable and somewhat conservative city in California I would move to but it is too boring for me. For long term, I consider Florida, Georgia and Wyoming. Plus, I have been successful in converting my friends from normies into Trump supporters so there is still hope that we can win this place back.

I'm independent, truly. I was raised hippy, but I'm not a liberal or conservative. Atlanta is a failry good place to live. You can find a cheap house (100-400K) and still be within a 20-30 minute drive of great nightlife.

Georgia's decent. Atlanta is becoming a lot more like LA, but traffic is not as bad and it's definitely not as liberal (metro area average).

I find Atlanta to be pretty balanced overall (metro).

Georgia coast is still pretty cheap, although there's no major city here. Savannah is a pretty interesting, if dangerous, city.

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/...s-angeles/

Quote:Quote:

Health officials warn that an outbreak of flea-borne typhus is now taking place in downtown Los Angeles.

CBSLA reports that the Los Angles County Department of Public Health is investigating “several cases” of the typhus strain and warns that it is a “disease that infected fleas can spread to humans.” Fleas carrying the disease are found on rats, areas where there is an accumulation of trash, and cats, but pets do not get sick from typhus.

Fleas with typhus are a danger in “areas where there is an accumulation of trash,” as such an accumulation attracts wild cats, opossums, and other animals.

At this time, the county health department recommends pet owners “Use flea control products on pets.” They also recommend that people “wear pants tucked into socks or boots when outside” and “spray insect repellent with DEET on socks and pant cuffs.”

Quote: (10-06-2018 08:09 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/...s-angeles/

Quote:Quote:

Health officials warn that an outbreak of flea-borne typhus is now taking place in downtown Los Angeles.

CBSLA reports that the Los Angles County Department of Public Health is investigating “several cases” of the typhus strain and warns that it is a “disease that infected fleas can spread to humans.” Fleas carrying the disease are found on rats, areas where there is an accumulation of trash, and cats, but pets do not get sick from typhus.

Fleas with typhus are a danger in “areas where there is an accumulation of trash,” as such an accumulation attracts wild cats, opossums, and other animals.

At this time, the county health department recommends pet owners “Use flea control products on pets.” They also recommend that people “wear pants tucked into socks or boots when outside” and “spray insect repellent with DEET on socks and pant cuffs.”

And we can add Los Angeles to this fine list provided by the WHO:

"Geographical distribution
Typhus fever occurs in colder (i.e. mountainous) regions of central and eastern Africa, central and South America, and Asia. In recent years, most outbreaks have taken place in Burundi, Ethiopia and Rwanda. Typhus fever occurs in conditions of overcrowding and poor hygiene, such as in prisons and refugee camps."

Nobody really mentions the cause, but it's pretty clear to someone who have lived here most of their life:

Having Democrats in charge...