9 ms·

- The article says that "millionaire flight" out of California is a myth. This is mostly true and a good point. - However, the article/research looks at outflo

- The article says that "millionaire flight" out of California is a myth. This is mostly true and a good point. - However, the article/research looks at outflow and doesn't find a trend but this is bad methodology. It looks like they are not factoring in the fact that less people are moving into California then had been previously even if the rate moving out isn't too different. It almost feels intentional given how clean and well-covered the data is on that. This opening paragraph is good >Every year from 2000 through 2015, more people left California than moved in from other states. This migration was not spread evenly across all income groups, a Sacramento Bee review of U.S. Census Bureau data found. The people leaving tend to be relatively poor, and many lack college degrees. Move higher up the income spectrum, and slightly more people are coming than going. Source: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article136478098.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article136478098.html

xadhominemx 5y ago
The myth (repeated endlessly here and elsewhere) is that high taxes and excessive commercial regulation are driving wealthy founders and other knowledge workers out of California. The truth is that high housing prices are driving low and middle income households out of the state.
- Retric 5y ago
  California has much lower housing costs outside of major cities. It’s exodus is seen as unusual simply because it’s a a populous state, but rate wise it’s hardly unusual. IMO, people leaving California in large numbers is also a function of how many people move into the state because people who moved long distances once are more likely to move again. As 2020 was a serious outlier I am sticking with U.S. states by net domestic migration (From July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019): Net domestic migration rate per 1,000 inhabitants: Alaska −12.96, Hawaii −9.76, New York −9.29, Illinois −8.28, Connecticut −6.19, Louisiana −5.60, New Jersey −5.51, California −5.15, skipping several places Delaware 7.15, South Carolina 10.30, Arizona 12.50, Nevada 14.03, Idaho 15.31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... It’s the territories that are seeing the fastest changes. American Samoa –26.1, Guam –11.0, Northern Mariana Islands –15.4, Puerto Rico –14.1, U.S. Virgin Islands –7.5
  - xadhominemx 5y ago
    Suburban and housing costs in California are very high by national standards. Is your argument that the people who are moving out of California overwhelmingly non-native Californians?
    - Retric 5y ago
      I clarified, I am saying the net migration from California is hardly unusual as a percentage of the population. However, the magnitude of exodus is a function of both the size of the state and the number of people who recently moved to California. It’s not that an overwhelming percentage of people leaving recently moved in, but they do represent a larger percentage of people moving out which is normal.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      Once you are out of the main coastal communities housing prices drop dramatically. I have friends in Eureka renting a gigantic house for like $1200/mo, and I saw studio apartments in the city center in the order of $750/mo. The SoCal equivalents would be $3500/mo-plus and $1500/mo-plus, respectively.
      - quesera 5y ago
        Right but this is just by virtue of CA being a big, long, state where the northern reaches are far away from the economically active parts. Eureka is charming enough, but it has no specific attractive force over any other (very) small coastal city where the next-larger city is many hours' drive away. Compare to Crescent City, or southern coastal Oregon. So yes, you're still in California up there, and housing is less expensive. But there are no jobs (WFH tide floats all boats), and it isn't the California that most people are looking for. See also: Bakersfield.
        CameronNemo 5y ago
        Bakersfield at least has agriculture and oil extraction industries. But the heat and the air quality make it an unattractive place to live.
- handmodel 5y ago
  I guess this is probably the story that gets repeated in places like HN which I agree is common. However, if you ever talk to uber drivers or your waiters they will complain about how expensive California is. Or even people at parties who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up. I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one.
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    If anything it's easier for tech people to ignore the high costs of living.
  - almost_usual 5y ago
    > who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up I hear the opposite, people cannot afford where they grew up. Most people from the Bay Area aren’t working high paying tech jobs. > I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one. Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized and the “die techie scum” thing mostly went away after 2015.
    - solveit 5y ago
      Depends where you're looking. If you look online, anti-tech sentiment has never been stronger. These are of course, very different groups of people we're talking about.
    - thebradbain 5y ago
      > Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized and the “die techie scum” thing mostly went away after 2015. While we're comparing anecdotal evidence, I live in Los Angeles and count among my peers many who work in the Hollywood/Media industry. I can assure you the general sentiment among them toward Big Tech is overwhelmingly negative. I work in tech (albeit not a large company) and even I tend to agree.
- hpoe 5y ago
  Just my little data point but I moved into a sleepy little ID town that has a lot of people that have moved here from SoCal, and of the 5 people I asked "what brought all the way up to Idaho from California?" 4 of them commented on how expensive California was and the high cost of living. 3 of them also stated that they didn't like how things were happening in Cali. Again small anecdotal data point but take it for what it is worth.
  - fumar 5y ago
    > How things were happening What does that mean?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - ktsmith 5y ago
    I've been in northern Nevada for the last 30 years and it's always been that way. When there's a boom in California it gets a little worse or the impact is felt a little more with things like housing, but it's not new. The best part is you get people that move here for the lower taxes complaining about the lack of services or the quality of the schools without the realization that those things are typically paid for with taxes. On the other side you have locals complaining about the "Californians" moving here and changing things to be more like California. I hear the same things from friends in Idaho that moved a decade ago to get away from the increasing housing costs here.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    If people move out of a place because of high housing costs it necessarily means that others were highly desirous of that place.
    - astrange 5y ago
      Those people could just be their own parents, still living in CA and blocking new housing for their children to live in.
- tomc1985 5y ago
  Years ago (2007ish) I worked for a startup owned by a guy that relocated to Reno and had a huge property in some mountaintop country club on the edge of the city line. As we stood in the snow, looking out over Reno (where they had none) he was telling me all about how the money he saved on taxes in California 100% financed the property we were standing on. It was a very nice house... guessing about 4000 or 5000 sqft. Many many years later I was sitting at the bar at the top of the Stratosphere in Las Vegas eavesdropping on a conversation by a guy who started some kind of sanitation or janitorial business. He was trying to impress a woman that he was talking with, and I distinctly remember him saying he'd be eaten alive if he started the company in California, and that he was thankful for the tax situation in Nevada. So I don't think this is entirely a myth.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It's not a myth because you heard two people talk about it? It's not entirely a myth, I think we can all agree - of the tens of millions of people in CA, some think that way. But CA has long invested large amounts in its people (one reason there is U Cal Berkley, which is one reason for the Bay Area's success), which of course requires taxes, and it long has protected its citizens, including the wealthy ones - something the citizens like and vote for.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      My point is that it is happening, if my anecdata is to be believed, and that sampling theory suggests it might be (or have been) a trend. As a CA native I love my state, but it is also important to understand other perspectives.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > sampling theory suggests it might be (or have been) a trend How does sampling theory support that your two experiences might be a trend? I got two flat tires in the last ten years. Does sampling theory say it's a trend? Statewide? Worldwide? > it is also important to understand other perspectives Absolutely, but let's remember that much of the narrative has been pushed by a political faction for years.
- partiallypro 5y ago
  True but I do wonder if there has been a shift in primary residency among the wealthy. You have to have a residence in California if you're rich, it's just part of it.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  As a big "two things can be true" guy, I'll point out that there is no conflict between these two stories.
- thayne 5y ago
  I think part of the source of that myth is that middle-class Californians look wealthy to the middle class citizens of the more affordable regions they are moving to. Because while the cost of living is lower, salaries and wages generally are as well.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The truth is that high housing prices are driving low and middle income households out of the state. Also, high housing prices are allowing home-owning retirees to cash out and live the part of their life where they don't need to worry about a job quite well elsewhere.
- temp8964 5y ago
  Even if the rich are leaving with higher rate than the poor, you will still have more poor among the people who are leaving.
whimsicalism 5y ago
It's not an exodus if fewer people are moving somewhere.

xadhominemx 5y ago

The myth (repeated endlessly here and elsewhere) is that high taxes and excessive commercial regulation are driving wealthy founders and other knowledge workers out of California. The truth is that high housing prices are driving low and middle income households out of the state.

Retric 5y ago
California has much lower housing costs outside of major cities. It’s exodus is seen as unusual simply because it’s a a populous state, but rate wise it’s hardly unusual. IMO, people leaving California in large numbers is also a function of how many people move into the state because people who moved long distances once are more likely to move again. As 2020 was a serious outlier I am sticking with U.S. states by net domestic migration (From July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019): Net domestic migration rate per 1,000 inhabitants: Alaska −12.96, Hawaii −9.76, New York −9.29, Illinois −8.28, Connecticut −6.19, Louisiana −5.60, New Jersey −5.51, California −5.15, skipping several places Delaware 7.15, South Carolina 10.30, Arizona 12.50, Nevada 14.03, Idaho 15.31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... It’s the territories that are seeing the fastest changes. American Samoa –26.1, Guam –11.0, Northern Mariana Islands –15.4, Puerto Rico –14.1, U.S. Virgin Islands –7.5
- xadhominemx 5y ago
  Suburban and housing costs in California are very high by national standards. Is your argument that the people who are moving out of California overwhelmingly non-native Californians?
  - Retric 5y ago
    I clarified, I am saying the net migration from California is hardly unusual as a percentage of the population. However, the magnitude of exodus is a function of both the size of the state and the number of people who recently moved to California. It’s not that an overwhelming percentage of people leaving recently moved in, but they do represent a larger percentage of people moving out which is normal.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Once you are out of the main coastal communities housing prices drop dramatically. I have friends in Eureka renting a gigantic house for like $1200/mo, and I saw studio apartments in the city center in the order of $750/mo. The SoCal equivalents would be $3500/mo-plus and $1500/mo-plus, respectively.
    - quesera 5y ago
      Right but this is just by virtue of CA being a big, long, state where the northern reaches are far away from the economically active parts. Eureka is charming enough, but it has no specific attractive force over any other (very) small coastal city where the next-larger city is many hours' drive away. Compare to Crescent City, or southern coastal Oregon. So yes, you're still in California up there, and housing is less expensive. But there are no jobs (WFH tide floats all boats), and it isn't the California that most people are looking for. See also: Bakersfield.
      - CameronNemo 5y ago
        Bakersfield at least has agriculture and oil extraction industries. But the heat and the air quality make it an unattractive place to live.
handmodel 5y ago
I guess this is probably the story that gets repeated in places like HN which I agree is common. However, if you ever talk to uber drivers or your waiters they will complain about how expensive California is. Or even people at parties who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up. I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  If anything it's easier for tech people to ignore the high costs of living.
- almost_usual 5y ago
  > who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up I hear the opposite, people cannot afford where they grew up. Most people from the Bay Area aren’t working high paying tech jobs. > I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one. Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized and the “die techie scum” thing mostly went away after 2015.
  - solveit 5y ago
    Depends where you're looking. If you look online, anti-tech sentiment has never been stronger. These are of course, very different groups of people we're talking about.
  - thebradbain 5y ago
    > Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized and the “die techie scum” thing mostly went away after 2015. While we're comparing anecdotal evidence, I live in Los Angeles and count among my peers many who work in the Hollywood/Media industry. I can assure you the general sentiment among them toward Big Tech is overwhelmingly negative. I work in tech (albeit not a large company) and even I tend to agree.
hpoe 5y ago
Just my little data point but I moved into a sleepy little ID town that has a lot of people that have moved here from SoCal, and of the 5 people I asked "what brought all the way up to Idaho from California?" 4 of them commented on how expensive California was and the high cost of living. 3 of them also stated that they didn't like how things were happening in Cali. Again small anecdotal data point but take it for what it is worth.
- fumar 5y ago
  > How things were happening What does that mean?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ktsmith 5y ago
  I've been in northern Nevada for the last 30 years and it's always been that way. When there's a boom in California it gets a little worse or the impact is felt a little more with things like housing, but it's not new. The best part is you get people that move here for the lower taxes complaining about the lack of services or the quality of the schools without the realization that those things are typically paid for with taxes. On the other side you have locals complaining about the "Californians" moving here and changing things to be more like California. I hear the same things from friends in Idaho that moved a decade ago to get away from the increasing housing costs here.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  If people move out of a place because of high housing costs it necessarily means that others were highly desirous of that place.
  - astrange 5y ago
    Those people could just be their own parents, still living in CA and blocking new housing for their children to live in.
tomc1985 5y ago
Years ago (2007ish) I worked for a startup owned by a guy that relocated to Reno and had a huge property in some mountaintop country club on the edge of the city line. As we stood in the snow, looking out over Reno (where they had none) he was telling me all about how the money he saved on taxes in California 100% financed the property we were standing on. It was a very nice house... guessing about 4000 or 5000 sqft. Many many years later I was sitting at the bar at the top of the Stratosphere in Las Vegas eavesdropping on a conversation by a guy who started some kind of sanitation or janitorial business. He was trying to impress a woman that he was talking with, and I distinctly remember him saying he'd be eaten alive if he started the company in California, and that he was thankful for the tax situation in Nevada. So I don't think this is entirely a myth.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's not a myth because you heard two people talk about it? It's not entirely a myth, I think we can all agree - of the tens of millions of people in CA, some think that way. But CA has long invested large amounts in its people (one reason there is U Cal Berkley, which is one reason for the Bay Area's success), which of course requires taxes, and it long has protected its citizens, including the wealthy ones - something the citizens like and vote for.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    My point is that it is happening, if my anecdata is to be believed, and that sampling theory suggests it might be (or have been) a trend. As a CA native I love my state, but it is also important to understand other perspectives.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > sampling theory suggests it might be (or have been) a trend How does sampling theory support that your two experiences might be a trend? I got two flat tires in the last ten years. Does sampling theory say it's a trend? Statewide? Worldwide? > it is also important to understand other perspectives Absolutely, but let's remember that much of the narrative has been pushed by a political faction for years.
partiallypro 5y ago
True but I do wonder if there has been a shift in primary residency among the wealthy. You have to have a residence in California if you're rich, it's just part of it.
BurningFrog 5y ago
As a big "two things can be true" guy, I'll point out that there is no conflict between these two stories.
thayne 5y ago
I think part of the source of that myth is that middle-class Californians look wealthy to the middle class citizens of the more affordable regions they are moving to. Because while the cost of living is lower, salaries and wages generally are as well.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The truth is that high housing prices are driving low and middle income households out of the state. Also, high housing prices are allowing home-owning retirees to cash out and live the part of their life where they don't need to worry about a job quite well elsewhere.
temp8964 5y ago
Even if the rich are leaving with higher rate than the poor, you will still have more poor among the people who are leaving.

whimsicalism 5y ago

It's not an exodus if fewer people are moving somewhere.