3 ms·

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 po

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.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > 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] I certainly did not provide much evidence to back anything up, you are right. I'm mainly just sharing my anecdotes: namely that I have made major life decisions based on the relation between tax policy in particular and policy more broadly, and the effect that that has on quality of life. I do take a bit of issue with the implication that because no particular correlation exists between policies of the last eight years and emigration, that there is no measurable relationship between emigration and policy. I know in the most concrete sense that there are at least a handful of people who primarily justify their choice to avoid or leave California in terms of the direct or proximate impact of policy (and the cost of that undesirable policy in terms of taxes).
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    The problem with drawing conclusions between emigration & policy is that it ignores the other side of the coin: immigration. There are a number of people who come to California specifically because it embraces the policies you hate: high taxes (with high social services) and gun control. For any large & reasonably controversial issue, the sides balance out, and the net effect on migration is due to more fundamental issues like the availability of jobs & housing (and, of course, the ability to migrate in the first place).

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.

microcolonel 8y ago
> 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] I certainly did not provide much evidence to back anything up, you are right. I'm mainly just sharing my anecdotes: namely that I have made major life decisions based on the relation between tax policy in particular and policy more broadly, and the effect that that has on quality of life. I do take a bit of issue with the implication that because no particular correlation exists between policies of the last eight years and emigration, that there is no measurable relationship between emigration and policy. I know in the most concrete sense that there are at least a handful of people who primarily justify their choice to avoid or leave California in terms of the direct or proximate impact of policy (and the cost of that undesirable policy in terms of taxes).
- nostrademons 8y ago
  The problem with drawing conclusions between emigration & policy is that it ignores the other side of the coin: immigration. There are a number of people who come to California specifically because it embraces the policies you hate: high taxes (with high social services) and gun control. For any large & reasonably controversial issue, the sides balance out, and the net effect on migration is due to more fundamental issues like the availability of jobs & housing (and, of course, the ability to migrate in the first place).