6 ms·

The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations stifle the e

The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations stifle the economic well being of it's inhabitants. It's sad to see people having to leave behind their friends and families, for all this. Not only are people leaving, but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-birth-rate-20161220-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-birth-rate-...

mehrdadn 9y ago
> but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression I think this might need a rewording to convey whatever idea you were trying to convey, because I have a hunch there weren't many millennials around during the Great Depression. :-)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  And the birth rate for Millennials has been zero for pretty much all of history, except for a short blip on the late 20th Century. And that's not an effect limited to CA.
  - corpMaverick 9y ago
    Don't forget the other blip on the late 10th Century.
    - kridsdale1 9y ago
      William the Conqueror’s father was a millennial.
      - mehrdadn 9y ago
        And Jesus was born just a little too late to be a millenial. :(
- lambda 9y ago
  I think it's fairly clear that they mean "the birth rate for people in the 20-35 age range, which happens to coincide with the millenials at the moment."
  - thephyber 9y ago
    It's pretty clear what they meant, but humorously even your rewording isn't accurate. A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time. Also, named generations (like "Millennials", "Gen Y", "Gen X", "Baby Boomers", etc) don't have rigid definitions. Some media groups define it as starting as early as 1976 and others as late as 1984, which is 50% of your "20-35" range. In the end, the boundaries of named generations are more or less arbitrary unless there is an extremely specific event which defines it (Baby Boomers started with an explosion of birth rates immediately after the end of WW2).
    - lambda 9y ago
      > A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time. Yes, that's why my phrasing used "at this moment." At this moment, millenials are around an age range of 20-35 years old, give or take a bit depending on the very fact that you point out, there aren't well defined boundaries and the exact age range could vary. I was very careful to include "at this moment" in my phrasing, for the reason that you point out. I didn't bother to hedge about the unclear boundaries of the millenial generation, since that wasn't the topic at hand, but yes, these terms are somewhat vague. The actual article cited simply discussed the nationwide birthrate at different points in time; it didn't talk about particular generations. Given that millenials are currently the generation that are of prime child-bearing age, it's pretty clear what the original poster meant "people of child bearing age right now, who happen to be millenials, are having less children than those of child bearing age at any point since the great depression." The original phrasing was humorously incorrect, I just thought that asking for clarification was a bit much, since it was pretty clear what they meant to say, it was just a funny mistaken phrasing.
kumarm 9y ago
[California has been experiencing a years-long downward trend that likely stems from the recession, a drop in teenage pregnancies and an increase in people attending college and taking longer to graduate, therefore putting off having children, said Walter Schwarm, a demographer at the Department of Finance. When people do complete their schooling, they're interested in taking some time to pursue their careers or other goals, he said.] Except recession everything else that is contributing to lower birth rate seems side effect of progress.
krausejj 9y ago
a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support. UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal municipalities to the state level. it could unlock 3m housing units in a state building <100k a year. that's 30 years of pent-up supply, and it could actually affect market prices.
- anthonyleecook 9y ago
  interesting!! will take a deeper look
- dcldcl 9y ago
  SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0] Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below. Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state. Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling? [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
  - krausejj 9y ago
    https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835) also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-89b9609e4650 https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...
    - dcldcl 9y ago
      If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit. Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development. Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services. Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.) But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there. Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.
ddlatham 9y ago
It seems like this is now the middle class experiencing the same pain that gentrification inflicts on the lower class as the cost of housing continues to climb.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA It seems like the immigration is mostly the middle and upper middle class, as those terms are most often used [0]. The out-migration looks to be mostly below national median income. [0] which, sure, is the upper income end of the working class and not the petit bourgeoisie, for the most part, but aside from me, no one seems to use “middle class” to mean that in the US.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JustAnotherPat 9y ago
> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations To me this doesn't make sense. Middle class can't survive in CA because too many people get paid middle class and up in CA. Is it 'anti-people' to pay teachers 70+k? Or is a state like WV more 'pro-people' where teachers are going on strike because they get no raises. There are a lot of wealthy businesses in CA. You have to be richer than in other places to actually feel rich. truth is, the problem is too much competition and there always has to be somebody at the bottom. Look at the inflow of people. People with high incomes and advanced degrees.
capkutay 9y ago
I'm surprised this isn't covered more, but this talk of boosting 'affordable', actually government subsidized housing as a solution doesn't seem like an actual solution to me either. how many middle class families are going to register with a government entity, stay under low yearly income limits to 'qualify' for affordable housing? number of kids you have in your family is factored in as well...becoming a metric that factors into your qualification for housing. seems sort of orwellian to me. we should be creating bills to expedite all housing. not just subsidized housing. http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20170123-senator-wiener-releases-details-sb-35-%E2%80%93-housing-accountability-and-affordability-act http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20170123-senator-wiener-relea...
- cobookman 9y ago
  For SF you don't need To stay under the limit. Technically you could apply as a college student, buy a BMR condo, then start your 6 figure job while keeping the place.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  Your right. I never said anything about subsidized housing. We just need vastly more supply of market rate housing to bring it down to a level where it's cost effective enough for everyone
jahewson 9y ago
> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA But that's not what most of the data shows. The bulk of the data shows lower-income, lower education Californians moving out. The strongest peak is for minimum wage incomes. While middle class incomes are still shown as leaving CA, it's far less than those at the lower end. For me the starkest and most concerning contrast is not wealthy vs. poor, but young vs. old.
- dahdum 9y ago
  They're moving in part because CA continues to push out businesses that require unskilled labor, through a combination of taxes, minimum wage hikes, regulations, and other roadblocks. Generally it's dressed up as a Good Thing, but I'm not so sure. CA has the highest poverty rates in the country, along with the highest taxes. SF is rich as all hell, but can't keep feces and needles from littering the sidewalks or car windows intact. Cupertino had virtue signaling signs up supporting undocumented immigrants and welcoming them to their city - but their housing policy shows only the rich of any race or creed are welcome. All the while places like Houston are booming, with development happening everywhere, affordable housing, diverse population, and jobs.
  - Govannon 9y ago
    >CA has the highest poverty rates in the country By what metric? looking at the census data, it appears the poverty rate of California, while not great, is certainly not the worst. https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/saipe.html?s_appName=saipe&map_yearSelector=2016&map_geoSelector=aa_c&menu=grid_proxy&s_inclStTot=y&s_USStOnly=y https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/saipe.html?s_ap...
    - dahdum 9y ago
      Census bureau, factoring in cost of living. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
yakz 9y ago
Coming from south-eastern US and visiting Mountain View / Palo Alto on business several times, the property valuations are amazing to me. Poorly maintained looking ranch homes with bad landscaping and giant Land Rovers, Porsches, Jags in the driveway or on the street. Downtown looks almost like my semi-rural hometown except there are full parking garages and you have to park under an over-pass. It's a weird place.
- jjtheblunt 9y ago
  There's a word for that: shitty.

mehrdadn 9y ago

> but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression I think this might need a rewording to convey whatever idea you were trying to convey, because I have a hunch there weren't many millennials around during the Great Depression. :-)

dragonwriter 9y ago
And the birth rate for Millennials has been zero for pretty much all of history, except for a short blip on the late 20th Century. And that's not an effect limited to CA.
- corpMaverick 9y ago
  Don't forget the other blip on the late 10th Century.
  - kridsdale1 9y ago
    William the Conqueror’s father was a millennial.
    - mehrdadn 9y ago
      And Jesus was born just a little too late to be a millenial. :(
lambda 9y ago
I think it's fairly clear that they mean "the birth rate for people in the 20-35 age range, which happens to coincide with the millenials at the moment."
- thephyber 9y ago
  It's pretty clear what they meant, but humorously even your rewording isn't accurate. A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time. Also, named generations (like "Millennials", "Gen Y", "Gen X", "Baby Boomers", etc) don't have rigid definitions. Some media groups define it as starting as early as 1976 and others as late as 1984, which is 50% of your "20-35" range. In the end, the boundaries of named generations are more or less arbitrary unless there is an extremely specific event which defines it (Baby Boomers started with an explosion of birth rates immediately after the end of WW2).
  - lambda 9y ago
    > A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time. Yes, that's why my phrasing used "at this moment." At this moment, millenials are around an age range of 20-35 years old, give or take a bit depending on the very fact that you point out, there aren't well defined boundaries and the exact age range could vary. I was very careful to include "at this moment" in my phrasing, for the reason that you point out. I didn't bother to hedge about the unclear boundaries of the millenial generation, since that wasn't the topic at hand, but yes, these terms are somewhat vague. The actual article cited simply discussed the nationwide birthrate at different points in time; it didn't talk about particular generations. Given that millenials are currently the generation that are of prime child-bearing age, it's pretty clear what the original poster meant "people of child bearing age right now, who happen to be millenials, are having less children than those of child bearing age at any point since the great depression." The original phrasing was humorously incorrect, I just thought that asking for clarification was a bit much, since it was pretty clear what they meant to say, it was just a funny mistaken phrasing.

kumarm 9y ago

[California has been experiencing a years-long downward trend that likely stems from the recession, a drop in teenage pregnancies and an increase in people attending college and taking longer to graduate, therefore putting off having children, said Walter Schwarm, a demographer at the Department of Finance. When people do complete their schooling, they're interested in taking some time to pursue their careers or other goals, he said.] Except recession everything else that is contributing to lower birth rate seems side effect of progress.

krausejj 9y ago

a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support. UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal municipalities to the state level. it could unlock 3m housing units in a state building <100k a year. that's 30 years of pent-up supply, and it could actually affect market prices.

anthonyleecook 9y ago
interesting!! will take a deeper look
dcldcl 9y ago
SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0] Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below. Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state. Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling? [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB827 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- krausejj 9y ago
  https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/sb827-california-housing-crisis https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece (http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835) also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-89b9609e4650 https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...
  - dcldcl 9y ago
    If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit. Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development. Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services. Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.) But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there. Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.

ddlatham 9y ago

It seems like this is now the middle class experiencing the same pain that gentrification inflicts on the lower class as the cost of housing continues to climb.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA It seems like the immigration is mostly the middle and upper middle class, as those terms are most often used [0]. The out-migration looks to be mostly below national median income. [0] which, sure, is the upper income end of the working class and not the petit bourgeoisie, for the most part, but aside from me, no one seems to use “middle class” to mean that in the US.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

JustAnotherPat 9y ago

> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations To me this doesn't make sense. Middle class can't survive in CA because too many people get paid middle class and up in CA. Is it 'anti-people' to pay teachers 70+k? Or is a state like WV more 'pro-people' where teachers are going on strike because they get no raises. There are a lot of wealthy businesses in CA. You have to be richer than in other places to actually feel rich. truth is, the problem is too much competition and there always has to be somebody at the bottom. Look at the inflow of people. People with high incomes and advanced degrees.

capkutay 9y ago

I'm surprised this isn't covered more, but this talk of boosting 'affordable', actually government subsidized housing as a solution doesn't seem like an actual solution to me either. how many middle class families are going to register with a government entity, stay under low yearly income limits to 'qualify' for affordable housing? number of kids you have in your family is factored in as well...becoming a metric that factors into your qualification for housing. seems sort of orwellian to me. we should be creating bills to expedite all housing. not just subsidized housing. http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20170123-senator-wiener-releases-details-sb-35-%E2%80%93-housing-accountability-and-affordability-act http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20170123-senator-wiener-relea...

cobookman 9y ago
For SF you don't need To stay under the limit. Technically you could apply as a college student, buy a BMR condo, then start your 6 figure job while keeping the place.
pascalxus 9y ago
Your right. I never said anything about subsidized housing. We just need vastly more supply of market rate housing to bring it down to a level where it's cost effective enough for everyone

jahewson 9y ago

> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA But that's not what most of the data shows. The bulk of the data shows lower-income, lower education Californians moving out. The strongest peak is for minimum wage incomes. While middle class incomes are still shown as leaving CA, it's far less than those at the lower end. For me the starkest and most concerning contrast is not wealthy vs. poor, but young vs. old.

dahdum 9y ago
They're moving in part because CA continues to push out businesses that require unskilled labor, through a combination of taxes, minimum wage hikes, regulations, and other roadblocks. Generally it's dressed up as a Good Thing, but I'm not so sure. CA has the highest poverty rates in the country, along with the highest taxes. SF is rich as all hell, but can't keep feces and needles from littering the sidewalks or car windows intact. Cupertino had virtue signaling signs up supporting undocumented immigrants and welcoming them to their city - but their housing policy shows only the rich of any race or creed are welcome. All the while places like Houston are booming, with development happening everywhere, affordable housing, diverse population, and jobs.
- Govannon 9y ago
  >CA has the highest poverty rates in the country By what metric? looking at the census data, it appears the poverty rate of California, while not great, is certainly not the worst. https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/saipe.html?s_appName=saipe&map_yearSelector=2016&map_geoSelector=aa_c&menu=grid_proxy&s_inclStTot=y&s_USStOnly=y https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/saipe.html?s_ap...
  - dahdum 9y ago
    Census bureau, factoring in cost of living. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...

yakz 9y ago

Coming from south-eastern US and visiting Mountain View / Palo Alto on business several times, the property valuations are amazing to me. Poorly maintained looking ranch homes with bad landscaping and giant Land Rovers, Porsches, Jags in the driveway or on the street. Downtown looks almost like my semi-rural hometown except there are full parking garages and you have to park under an over-pass. It's a weird place.

jjtheblunt 9y ago
There's a word for that: shitty.