5 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIf you include illegal immigration, sure. I'm not sure that's a positive for existing residents though.
- dragonwriter 8y agoWasn't the concern upthread thst you were trying to argue against that the level of inbound migration was too high?
- downandout 8y agoThe full original sentence I replied to was this: “Some people think we're getting too many transplants and that regulating the development of new housing will somewhat curb that” The “transplants” he is concerned with are those with both the means and legal standing to purchase and drive up demand for new homes. How many illegal immigrants to California fall into that category? So most of the “transplants” that are relevant to this discussion are coming from other US states.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoPeople can immigrate legally from other countries. Most of the people I know in the San Francisco bay area who own a home are Chinese immigrants.
- downandout 8y agoAre you honestly arguing that the majority of international immigration to California consists of wealthy Chinese?
- dragonwriter 8y agoWell, when it comes to demand for property owenrship, you don't actually have to be resident; wealthy Chinese do a lot of that without ever living in the place where they are driving up prices. But certainly a sizable share of the foreigners migrating into California have substantial means (either pre-migration assets and/or post-pubescent income) and China isn't exactly underrepresented among the sources of such migration.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- downandout 8y agoSo now you’re actually arguing that the vast majority of international immigration to California is not poor people from Mexico, but rather wealthy Chinese buying up homes? Any data to back up this claim or are you just arguing to argue at this point? There are many news outlets that would love to see your data on this, because it is a startling revelation indeed. Edit: to those downvoting this, please provide data corroborating his claim above. Otherwise there is nothing to downvote, as I am simply calling into question his claim that wealthy, legal Chinese immigrants outnumber poor illegal immigrants from Mexico in California.
- apta 8y ago