3 ms·

Well perhaps it helps to think of it in terms of raw numbers. California is bleeding about 60,000 people per year just to Texas. My city in Texas is averaging a

Well perhaps it helps to think of it in terms of raw numbers. California is bleeding about 60,000 people per year just to Texas. My city in Texas is averaging a growth rate of about 22% decade over decade having doubled since 1990 to surpass San Francisco in population and will likely surpass San Jose in about 15 years. On pace with the population growth is growth in diversity and average household income. That means that as the population increases the wealth distribution and access to purchasing and property increases for more people than naught. It’s not all peaches and cream in this fast growing city though. The tremendous growth results in colossal strain on traffic and infrastructure, but ownership of a large house with a yard is available to most people. That’s not such a big deal when you’re single, but it’s huge when you have kids. The demand for increased economic security likewise dramatically increases when you have kids. California is growing in population though, but very slowly and without equivalent growth in wealth per capita. That is largely a result in personal wealth primarily tied to home ownership and home ownership declining generationally in California. I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends. If you are a well funded founder perhaps California remains the place to be, but the numbers indicate it’s no longer the epicenter of economic growth that it certainly was in prior decades.

no_wizard 6y ago
If there is anything I would say is going to hurt California Even more (frankly it already is), it’s available affordable housing and the ability to build it. I understand that Prop 13 (I believe it to be 13) was passed for reasons that felt very real at the time, but it’s created a system that devalues heavily the otherwise natural churn of home ownership. I don’t personally think it’s taxes, or any particular brand of politics (per se, as I know this is a political issue, I just mean relative to this), but that, in essence, that is destroying California slowly from the inside. Both Oregon and Washington are similar politically and Oregon is very close in taxes but they aren’t seeing any population outflows like this. I firmly believe it’s due to the issue of housing before any other factor. I’m trying to gather more data to back my assertion but all personal experiences of people I know and others I’ve met who have moved have cited this as one of the major or the single biggest reason for having moved
- shoxty 6y ago
  I believe you are correct. You may find the work "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George of interest and what has come to be known as the Land Value Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax Prop 13 is killing California, repealing it and replacing it with a Land Value Tax, in my opinion, would fix it.
0xcde4c3db 6y ago
> I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends. In this context, I care about trends that happen over the course of decades and labels that become popular in recognition of those trends. I don't know why you're bringing up "vanity".
- austincheney 6y ago
  I bring up vanity because when it comes to things like growth or value people are either talking about actual numbers or decoration.
e12e 6y ago
> My city in Texas is averaging a growth rate of about 22% decade over decade Not to detract from your overall comment, but that's only just under 2% year on year growth - that's pretty low for a city? (Not trying to imply that faster growth is good, just that you've framed it as rapid growth - a big exodus - and it's.. Not ?)
- austincheney 6y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities... There are only 37 cities in the US greater than half a million people and only a tiny fraction of those grew by more than 20% over the last decade. The largest two of those are both in Texas and none are in California. If a city is able to consistently grow at 2% per year it will only take 20 years and a few months to be 50% larger due to compound interest and only 35 years to double in size.
Voloskaya 6y ago
> I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends Yes, exactly. I collect vanity labels and make little stickers out of them for my fridge. What a completely useless thing to say. You have no idea what my thoughts are based on one sentence and a half so keep your ad hominems to yourself please. All you are saying is that California is way too expensive thus people are leaving. Yes, we all know that. Now, why are people unable to live in California? And how should it be fixed? Those are the real questions. And there are reasonable arguments to make for many different theories, which was my point above.
- austincheney 6y ago
  If a solution is actually important I would suggest looking harder at the raw numbers and less hard at being offended. The problem isn’t that California is too expensive. That is a problem at present but the real concern is slowing growth and declining projections, which is a future problem. Colorado, which is seeing high growth, is also very expensive, which suggests costs of living are not solely to blame.
biztos 6y ago
> California is bleeding about 60,000 people per year just to Texas. And yet: > California is growing in population So, N people move to California each year, and M move away for M < N, and of those T move to Texas for T < M, and this is "bleeding?" I'm not a demographer but this makes no sense. Could you please explain what you mean here?
- austincheney 6y ago
  It makes no sense because your logic makes an assumption that is never stated and never occurs.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  It doesn't make any sense because the "bleeding" that is such a big meme for the nation's conservatives considers only domestic out-migration. The reason there is so much of it is because a lot of Americans can't compete economically with international elites who have been flooding into California. Net domestic migration has been negative in California since 1991, with the exception of the year 2000. Net foreign migration, and net overall migration, has never been negative in recorded history.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > because a lot of Americans can't compete economically That’s an assumption not directly based on numbers. Yes, the net in migration to California is largely from non-domestic people. That could be due to exactly the reason you provided, or it could also be the result of less movement freedom tied to visa sponsorship, or a variety of other factors. Many of my tech coworkers in Texas are non-citizens under visa sponsorship who, given the choice, have stated they prefer the Midwest due to a variety of economic conditions (not just cost of living).
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      True, my statement incorporates facts not in evidence. Net domestic migration to California is positive for high educational attainment (bachelors and higher) and positive for high incomes (50k/year+). It's negative for low educational and lower incomes. Basically the state attracts high earners and refuses to build housing, so someone has to leave. That's the competition. Speaking of unsupported anecdotes, it makes sense that the people you meet in the middle of the country express a preference for being there. That's pure selection bias. In terms of revealed preference, the states that are getting more than their per-capita share of California out-migrants are Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.

no_wizard 6y ago

If there is anything I would say is going to hurt California Even more (frankly it already is), it’s available affordable housing and the ability to build it. I understand that Prop 13 (I believe it to be 13) was passed for reasons that felt very real at the time, but it’s created a system that devalues heavily the otherwise natural churn of home ownership. I don’t personally think it’s taxes, or any particular brand of politics (per se, as I know this is a political issue, I just mean relative to this), but that, in essence, that is destroying California slowly from the inside. Both Oregon and Washington are similar politically and Oregon is very close in taxes but they aren’t seeing any population outflows like this. I firmly believe it’s due to the issue of housing before any other factor. I’m trying to gather more data to back my assertion but all personal experiences of people I know and others I’ve met who have moved have cited this as one of the major or the single biggest reason for having moved

shoxty 6y ago
I believe you are correct. You may find the work "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George of interest and what has come to be known as the Land Value Tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax Prop 13 is killing California, repealing it and replacing it with a Land Value Tax, in my opinion, would fix it.

0xcde4c3db 6y ago

> I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends. In this context, I care about trends that happen over the course of decades and labels that become popular in recognition of those trends. I don't know why you're bringing up "vanity".

austincheney 6y ago
I bring up vanity because when it comes to things like growth or value people are either talking about actual numbers or decoration.

e12e 6y ago

> My city in Texas is averaging a growth rate of about 22% decade over decade Not to detract from your overall comment, but that's only just under 2% year on year growth - that's pretty low for a city? (Not trying to imply that faster growth is good, just that you've framed it as rapid growth - a big exodus - and it's.. Not ?)

austincheney 6y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities... There are only 37 cities in the US greater than half a million people and only a tiny fraction of those grew by more than 20% over the last decade. The largest two of those are both in Texas and none are in California. If a city is able to consistently grow at 2% per year it will only take 20 years and a few months to be 50% larger due to compound interest and only 35 years to double in size.

Voloskaya 6y ago

> I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends Yes, exactly. I collect vanity labels and make little stickers out of them for my fridge. What a completely useless thing to say. You have no idea what my thoughts are based on one sentence and a half so keep your ad hominems to yourself please. All you are saying is that California is way too expensive thus people are leaving. Yes, we all know that. Now, why are people unable to live in California? And how should it be fixed? Those are the real questions. And there are reasonable arguments to make for many different theories, which was my point above.

austincheney 6y ago
If a solution is actually important I would suggest looking harder at the raw numbers and less hard at being offended. The problem isn’t that California is too expensive. That is a problem at present but the real concern is slowing growth and declining projections, which is a future problem. Colorado, which is seeing high growth, is also very expensive, which suggests costs of living are not solely to blame.

biztos 6y ago

> California is bleeding about 60,000 people per year just to Texas. And yet: > California is growing in population So, N people move to California each year, and M move away for M < N, and of those T move to Texas for T < M, and this is "bleeding?" I'm not a demographer but this makes no sense. Could you please explain what you mean here?

austincheney 6y ago
It makes no sense because your logic makes an assumption that is never stated and never occurs.
jeffbee 6y ago
It doesn't make any sense because the "bleeding" that is such a big meme for the nation's conservatives considers only domestic out-migration. The reason there is so much of it is because a lot of Americans can't compete economically with international elites who have been flooding into California. Net domestic migration has been negative in California since 1991, with the exception of the year 2000. Net foreign migration, and net overall migration, has never been negative in recorded history.
- austincheney 6y ago
  > because a lot of Americans can't compete economically That’s an assumption not directly based on numbers. Yes, the net in migration to California is largely from non-domestic people. That could be due to exactly the reason you provided, or it could also be the result of less movement freedom tied to visa sponsorship, or a variety of other factors. Many of my tech coworkers in Texas are non-citizens under visa sponsorship who, given the choice, have stated they prefer the Midwest due to a variety of economic conditions (not just cost of living).
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    True, my statement incorporates facts not in evidence. Net domestic migration to California is positive for high educational attainment (bachelors and higher) and positive for high incomes (50k/year+). It's negative for low educational and lower incomes. Basically the state attracts high earners and refuses to build housing, so someone has to leave. That's the competition. Speaking of unsupported anecdotes, it makes sense that the people you meet in the middle of the country express a preference for being there. That's pure selection bias. In terms of revealed preference, the states that are getting more than their per-capita share of California out-migrants are Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.