3 ms·

> 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 statis

> 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.
- gertlex 8y ago
  No, parent said exactly what I quoted. Based on another comment of theirs, I think they interpreted their citation as a population drop. I replied initially because on a first read, I read it as a population drop, found it remarkable and then my gut told me that didn't seem right. I hoped to provide clarification to others of the too general statement (the part I quoted) about the cited study. Good reminder on the Bay Area not being reflective of the state as a whole (aka the broad numbers discussed above). I think it will be worth my time to poke around later and understand the population change components at a finer grain that state-wide.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Maybe you’re right and he was indeed assuming negative domestic migration meant an actual population drop.

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.
gertlex 8y ago
No, parent said exactly what I quoted. Based on another comment of theirs, I think they interpreted their citation as a population drop. I replied initially because on a first read, I read it as a population drop, found it remarkable and then my gut told me that didn't seem right. I hoped to provide clarification to others of the too general statement (the part I quoted) about the cited study. Good reminder on the Bay Area not being reflective of the state as a whole (aka the broad numbers discussed above). I think it will be worth my time to poke around later and understand the population change components at a finer grain that state-wide.
- dpark 8y ago
  Maybe you’re right and he was indeed assuming negative domestic migration meant an actual population drop.