5 ms·

>Some people think we're getting too many transplants Those people would be wrong. California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 an

>Some people think we're getting too many transplants Those people would be wrong. California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 [1]. Chalk it up to over-regulation (like the issue we are discussing here), high state income taxes, overcrowded/underfunded public schools, expensive housing, etc., but anyone complaining about too many transplants arriving in CA simply doesn't know the statistics. [1] http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

throwahey 8y ago
I'm sure that California lost even more than 1 million to diaspora, but the loss was offset by new arrivals. I'm also sure the number of illegal aliens has increased significantly but there doesn't seem to be anyone keeping track of them.
- downandout 8y ago
  The net loss, including all offsets, has been 1 million.
  - ojbyrne 8y ago
    I don’t think that’s correct. California’s population has grown significantly over the period you’re discussing. http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-populatio...
    - downandout 8y ago
      The study I quoted was done by the State of California. It's most likely a reliable source.
      - Izkata 8y ago
        If nothing else, that one doesn't take into account births/deaths and immigration/emigration outside the US.
      - ojbyrne 8y ago
        The study specifically says “domestic” migration.
        downandout 8y ago
        This entire thread is about migration. I was refuting someone's statement about too many many transplants arriving, when in fact net transplants are negative. Births have nothing to do with that. Most international migration to California is illegal.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    That's net domestic migration. It doesn't count international migration, one way or the other.
gertlex 8y ago
> California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the quoted statement is wrong. The statistic appears to be that: From 2007 to 2016: the number of people moving into CA was 1 million fewer than then number of people moving into CA. However the net population increased by about 3 million [0]. Happy to be enlightened if I'm missing some nuances. Nonetheless, the immigration vs emigration is a really interesting statistic. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=california+population+history+2007+to+2016 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=california+population+h...
- downandout 8y ago
  I can only tell you what the study I quoted says. There may be factors, such as illegal immigration, that it doesn't take into account. In terms of legal residents, the state has lost 1M people or about 2.5% of its population.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    Parent is talking about births. 40 million US people will lead to about 500,000 births a year. Multiply by the 10 and you have 5 million people that appear in California without migrating (or I guess closer to 4.8 million, whatever).
- dpark 8y ago
  Parent didn’t say that population dropped. He said that the state is losing more residents to domestic immigration than it’s gaining. Thus the housing issues are not due to domestic immigrants creating too much demand. I’m pretty certain this doesn’t actually apply to the Bay Area in isolation, though. Population there is climbing much faster than the birth rate, I’d expect.
  - ericd 8y ago
    According to a similar thread I read recently, the disparity is because CA gained in foreign immigration more than it lost in domestic immigration outflows.
usaar333 8y ago
Your source is talking about domestic (within USA) migration, not total. The number of immigrants to CA during that time far exceeded 1 million net loss domestically.
- downandout 8y ago
  Illegal immigration is a separate issue. I am not sure that any reliable records can be produced for to account for that, given that they are by definition off the record.
  - usaar333 8y ago
    Huh? I'm taking about both legal and illegal immigration
dragonwriter 8y ago
> California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 [1]. The study doesn't say that, it says there was 1 million in net outbound domestic migration. It doesn't discuss population change due to international migration (inbound and outbound, legal or otherwise) or natural increase/decrease; in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-population-in-california/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-populati...
- downandout 8y ago
  You're correct that I should not have used the word residents in my quick interpretation of that study. However the study I linked to is directly relevant to the comment I replied that I replied to, which was about too many transplants arriving. Too many transplants are in fact not arriving, because as this study indicates, 1 million more people left than arrived from other states. in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016. Most of those gains were through births to existing residents, which says nothing about California being a destination for transplants, which was the point that I was refuting. Children born in California generally don't have a choice as to whether or not to live there. Adults do, and on a net basis, they are choosing to leave.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Too many transplants are in fact not arriving, because as this study indicates, 1 million more people left than arrived from other states. “From other states” alone, sure, OTOH, California has had net positive total (domestic and international) migration.
    - downandout 8y ago
      If you include illegal immigration, sure. I'm not sure that's a positive for existing residents though.
      - 8y ago

throwahey 8y ago

I'm sure that California lost even more than 1 million to diaspora, but the loss was offset by new arrivals. I'm also sure the number of illegal aliens has increased significantly but there doesn't seem to be anyone keeping track of them.

downandout 8y ago
The net loss, including all offsets, has been 1 million.
- ojbyrne 8y ago
  I don’t think that’s correct. California’s population has grown significantly over the period you’re discussing. http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-populatio...
  - downandout 8y ago
    The study I quoted was done by the State of California. It's most likely a reliable source.
    - Izkata 8y ago
      If nothing else, that one doesn't take into account births/deaths and immigration/emigration outside the US.
    - ojbyrne 8y ago
      The study specifically says “domestic” migration.
      - downandout 8y ago
        This entire thread is about migration. I was refuting someone's statement about too many many transplants arriving, when in fact net transplants are negative. Births have nothing to do with that. Most international migration to California is illegal.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  That's net domestic migration. It doesn't count international migration, one way or the other.

gertlex 8y ago

> California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the quoted statement is wrong. The statistic appears to be that: From 2007 to 2016: the number of people moving into CA was 1 million fewer than then number of people moving into CA. However the net population increased by about 3 million [0]. Happy to be enlightened if I'm missing some nuances. Nonetheless, the immigration vs emigration is a really interesting statistic. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=california+population+history+2007+to+2016 http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=california+population+h...

downandout 8y ago
I can only tell you what the study I quoted says. There may be factors, such as illegal immigration, that it doesn't take into account. In terms of legal residents, the state has lost 1M people or about 2.5% of its population.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  Parent is talking about births. 40 million US people will lead to about 500,000 births a year. Multiply by the 10 and you have 5 million people that appear in California without migrating (or I guess closer to 4.8 million, whatever).
dpark 8y ago
Parent didn’t say that population dropped. He said that the state is losing more residents to domestic immigration than it’s gaining. Thus the housing issues are not due to domestic immigrants creating too much demand. I’m pretty certain this doesn’t actually apply to the Bay Area in isolation, though. Population there is climbing much faster than the birth rate, I’d expect.
- ericd 8y ago
  According to a similar thread I read recently, the disparity is because CA gained in foreign immigration more than it lost in domestic immigration outflows.

usaar333 8y ago

Your source is talking about domestic (within USA) migration, not total. The number of immigrants to CA during that time far exceeded 1 million net loss domestically.

downandout 8y ago
Illegal immigration is a separate issue. I am not sure that any reliable records can be produced for to account for that, given that they are by definition off the record.
- usaar333 8y ago
  Huh? I'm taking about both legal and illegal immigration

dragonwriter 8y ago

> California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 [1]. The study doesn't say that, it says there was 1 million in net outbound domestic migration. It doesn't discuss population change due to international migration (inbound and outbound, legal or otherwise) or natural increase/decrease; in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-population-in-california/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-populati...

downandout 8y ago
You're correct that I should not have used the word residents in my quick interpretation of that study. However the study I linked to is directly relevant to the comment I replied that I replied to, which was about too many transplants arriving. Too many transplants are in fact not arriving, because as this study indicates, 1 million more people left than arrived from other states. in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016. Most of those gains were through births to existing residents, which says nothing about California being a destination for transplants, which was the point that I was refuting. Children born in California generally don't have a choice as to whether or not to live there. Adults do, and on a net basis, they are choosing to leave.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Too many transplants are in fact not arriving, because as this study indicates, 1 million more people left than arrived from other states. “From other states” alone, sure, OTOH, California has had net positive total (domestic and international) migration.
  - downandout 8y ago
    If you include illegal immigration, sure. I'm not sure that's a positive for existing residents though.
    - 8y ago