4 ms·

Well, I think it is a matter of scale. It's not that tax policy isn't important, it's that the things people tend to change most easily are not as important as

Well, I think it is a matter of scale. It's not that tax policy isn't important, it's that the things people tend to change most easily are not as important as the things which are more difficult. When people say hyperbolic things about changes which are small in the grand scheme of things, it gives you the impression that nothing could matter as much as they're saying it does. As for California in particular, I can tell you that their tax policy (along with all of their other policies, including firearms policy which is somehow more asinine than here in Canada, and their policy on corporate boards which is profoundly unjust) is a major turn-off for myself, and if you look at migration between states in the U.S, you'll find that a lot of other people feel the same way. People aren't leaving California because of the weather, you know.

jdlshore 8y ago
Your claim about California migration sounded biased to me, so I looked up the US census data [1]. 2010: -130,416 (net migration out of California) 2011: -94,122 2012: -73,864 2013: -96,915 2014: -79,892 2015: -129,409 2016: -142,932 2017: -137,895 Compared to population [2], we get: 2010: -0.35% 2011: -0.25% 2012: -0.19% 2013: -0.25% 2014: -0.21% 2015: -0.33% 2016: -0.36% 2017: -0.35% Conclusion: migration out did spike up starting in 2015. Now, what is it correlated with? You said it was due to taxes, firearms policy, and board policy. Tax changes in 2014/2015: I didn't see any major tax changes [3]. Firearms policy changes in 2014: Long gun serial numbers required to be recorded on new sales. Police can confiscate guns from high-risk individuals for three weeks (signed in 2014, took effect in 2016). [4] Firearms policy changes in 2015: Firearm Safety Certificate required for all guns (previously only required for handguns). [4] Board policy change: Passed in 2018. [5] My take: Migration out of California has increased, but it's not clear why. My personal guess would be cost of living. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph... [2] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&... [3] http://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/FinalVersion_kjh_10192016ONLINE_Accessible.pdf http://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/FinalVersi... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California [5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1535571904 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-fem...
- nostrademons 8y ago
  It correlates well with housing prices: https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/ 2012 was the nadir of housing prices, and they've been rising rapidly since 2014.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  My point is that, taken together, the effects of many of California's policy decisions (which includes tax [which exacerbates people's displeasure with other policies, when they don't go well], which has been bad for a lot longer than just the decade you show) are compounding. Cost of living is a huge one, but a large part of urban California's cost of living has to do with consumer and [metropolitan] housing policy. It is exceedingly difficult to get anything built in major Californian cities, and once you do have it, the conditions for keeping it are onerous. The various committees and authorities in the state seem to regularly produce unjust outcomes (even from reasonable policies) and don't seem to care when they do. I think people are broadly willing to pay higher state and local taxes *as long as the services they receive function well, and the outcomes are reasonable.
  - jdlshore 8y ago
    > My point is that, taken together, the effects of many of California's policy decisions (which includes tax [which exacerbates people's displeasure with other policies, when they don't go well], which has been bad for a lot longer than just the decade you show) are compounding. I understand your point, I just don't think you've provided the evidence to back it up. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you started with the conclusion ("I don't like CA policy") and then rationalized it from some personal experiences ("people like me are moving out of state"). [1] California's population is increasing at the same rate as the US as a whole—about 1% per year—even after people leaving is taken into account. To put it another way, CA's population increases about 1.35% per year total, and about 0.35% move to other states. There's nothing particularly interesting going on with the migration numbers that I can see. [1] Not implying that's what you said or actually think, just that it's what your thought process looks like to me.
dmode 8y ago
California’s population actually increased by 2 million in the last decade contrary to popular myths

jdlshore 8y ago

Your claim about California migration sounded biased to me, so I looked up the US census data [1]. 2010: -130,416 (net migration out of California) 2011: -94,122 2012: -73,864 2013: -96,915 2014: -79,892 2015: -129,409 2016: -142,932 2017: -137,895 Compared to population [2], we get: 2010: -0.35% 2011: -0.25% 2012: -0.19% 2013: -0.25% 2014: -0.21% 2015: -0.33% 2016: -0.36% 2017: -0.35% Conclusion: migration out did spike up starting in 2015. Now, what is it correlated with? You said it was due to taxes, firearms policy, and board policy. Tax changes in 2014/2015: I didn't see any major tax changes [3]. Firearms policy changes in 2014: Long gun serial numbers required to be recorded on new sales. Police can confiscate guns from high-risk individuals for three weeks (signed in 2014, took effect in 2016). [4] Firearms policy changes in 2015: Firearm Safety Certificate required for all guns (previously only required for handguns). [4] Board policy change: Passed in 2018. [5] My take: Migration out of California has increased, but it's not clear why. My personal guess would be cost of living. [1] https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph... [2] https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&hl=en&dl=en https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&... [3] http://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/FinalVersion_kjh_10192016ONLINE_Accessible.pdf http://www.library.ca.gov/Content/pdf/crb/reports/FinalVersi... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California [5] https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-female-board-directors-1535571904 https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-moves-to-mandate-fem...

nostrademons 8y ago
It correlates well with housing prices: https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/ https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/ 2012 was the nadir of housing prices, and they've been rising rapidly since 2014.
microcolonel 8y ago
My point is that, taken together, the effects of many of California's policy decisions (which includes tax [which exacerbates people's displeasure with other policies, when they don't go well], which has been bad for a lot longer than just the decade you show) are compounding. Cost of living is a huge one, but a large part of urban California's cost of living has to do with consumer and [metropolitan] housing policy. It is exceedingly difficult to get anything built in major Californian cities, and once you do have it, the conditions for keeping it are onerous. The various committees and authorities in the state seem to regularly produce unjust outcomes (even from reasonable policies) and don't seem to care when they do. I think people are broadly willing to pay higher state and local taxes *as long as the services they receive function well, and the outcomes are reasonable.
- jdlshore 8y ago
  > My point is that, taken together, the effects of many of California's policy decisions (which includes tax [which exacerbates people's displeasure with other policies, when they don't go well], which has been bad for a lot longer than just the decade you show) are compounding. I understand your point, I just don't think you've provided the evidence to back it up. From where I'm sitting, it looks like you started with the conclusion ("I don't like CA policy") and then rationalized it from some personal experiences ("people like me are moving out of state"). [1] California's population is increasing at the same rate as the US as a whole—about 1% per year—even after people leaving is taken into account. To put it another way, CA's population increases about 1.35% per year total, and about 0.35% move to other states. There's nothing particularly interesting going on with the migration numbers that I can see. [1] Not implying that's what you said or actually think, just that it's what your thought process looks like to me.

dmode 8y ago

California’s population actually increased by 2 million in the last decade contrary to popular myths