7 ms·
The Great California Exodus
- mburshteyn 15y agoLost me at progressive apparatchiks and their cadres cramming the proletariat.
- mburshteyn 15y agoThis thread has the highest downvoted:upvoted comment ratio I've seen on HackerNews.
- WiseWeasel 15y agoThat's what happens when you bring politics and/or religion into the discussion. It's only a short matter of time before this thread is godwinned.
- jrobbins 15y agoThis article is 1000% true! California is a terrible, horrible, no good state and it is getting worse with the passing of every perfect day. Everybody run for Texas (of all God forsaken places) and nobody new come in please. It's waaaay too expensive here, it would melt your wallets to even think about it. Traffic! Earthquakes! Smog! Ooooh, and the liberals with their ideas and whatnot, tisk, tisk, tisk. (Meanwhile, I'll keep enjoying my wonderful life here in CA.)
- mtraven 15y agoOr, "nobody lives there anymore, it's too crowded"
- redwood 15y agoIt is interesting how California north vs south, SF vs LA, SV vs Hollywood, tech innovation vs media desperation, freedom vs net censorship. All of this in one state :)
- rabidsnail 15y agoIf this is true, then why does my rent keep going up?
- StuffMaster 15y agoDevelopment restrictions leading to high rent is mentioned in the article. I don't know about the rest of the state, but I constantly hear this mentioned for San Francisco.
- rabidsnail 15y agoDevelopment restrictions don't cause existing housing to disappear. If population were declining, there would be no need for new development.
- Hyena 15y agoHousing doesn't need to disappear. If we tried to move everyone in California closer to the center of its major cities, we'd see prices increase dramatically.
- hristov 15y agoBecause it is not true.
- akavi 15y agoInternational immigration (the article is only talking about state to state moves) and birth rates have kept the population growing.
- mukaiji 15y agoMy Palo Alto rent is too high, so 4 million people in 20 years isn't enough.
- hristov 15y agoAs often happens after the News Corp purchase, the Wall street journal is full of shit. Lets look at the California population shall we: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california+population http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&#... Quite an exodus we have got here. In fact not only is California the most populous state by far, its population is rising steadily and showing absolutely no sign of slowing down. The rest of the WSJ article is just the usual half-witted raving against regulation and environmental initiatives.
- bhauer 15y agoInteresting, except for the fact that the article is about migration and not population. Very quickly skimming for a relevant data point yields this piece from the Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf Net migration data from 1995 to 2000 for California: Inmigration: 1,448,964. Outmigration: 2,202,500. Net migration: -755,536.
- hristov 15y agoI am sure that they worded their statements in a way that is supported by selected statistics, but nevertheless, the article is highly misleading. Note that it is titled "The Great California Exodus". Sorry but you cannot say that a state that is steadily gaining in population is suffering a great exodus. Then they imply that this great exodus is evidence of some kind of dysfunction. Sorry but it is utterly normal for a state that is getting more populous and more crowded every year to have out migration. So perhaps if taken in a very limited interpretation the statistics they made in the article are correct, but if you use that same limited interpretation those statistics do not support any of the later conclusions or, more accurately, ravings of the article. Thus, the article is still misleading, or basically lying with statistics.
- bhauer 15y agoWait, are data important here or are they not? I thought you were saying the data were important a moment ago. Just out of curiosity, would you say that a fictional state whose economy grows by $10B with exports of $5B and imports of $1B has a trade imbalance in favor of exports? Sure you would, because in judging trade balance the relevant factors are imports and exports. You don't really care how much the economy grew in the same period. Similarly, this article is discussing the migration status of California and attempting to explain the net outmigration with some conjecture. Countering by pointing out that the state's population has grown seems like an effort to shut down the argument by actively avoiding the data. It's not surprising that population growth by ever-increasing lifespans, birth, illegal immigration (NTTIAWWT), and other factors exceeds the shortfall caused by outmigration. The way I see it, the article is attempting to explain the net outmigration with what are at least plausible conclusions, whether or not you agree with them. I'm interested in hearing your alternate explanation.
- otterley 15y agoClassic red herring piece. The author argues that the middle class struggle to live well in the most temperate parts of the state because property values are too expensive, then goes off on a tangent about wasteful Government spending that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem -- other than perhaps adding to the income tax burden, even though state income tax rates are 1/3rd of our Federal tax rates. Property values aren't set by the Government; they're driven by -- surprise -- supply and demand. There's only so much land in the nicest parts of the state, and since the residents of those areas control zoning ordinances through their local governments, they have every incentive to restrict supply as much as they can to protect their own property values -- typically under the guise of "protecting neighborhoods" from those who would build more dense housing. Proposition 13 (1978) was also a big win for incumbent homeowners. It forces property tax assessments to be based on the initial purchase price, regardless of the current actual value. This incents longtime residents to hold on to their homes, even if a smaller home (or a home otherwise more convenient to them) would better suit them in the present, because moving could result in significantly higher property taxes. This starves the housing market of liquidity and also restricts supply. TL;DR: Property owners' selfishness, codified into State and local law, is the real cause of middle class misery in California.
- jseliger 15y agoProperty values aren't set by the Government; they're driven by -- surprise -- supply and demand. This isn't really true in the case of California real estate, because the government restricts supply through height limitations. See Edward Glaeser's The Triumph of the City and Matt Yglesias's The Rent is Too Damn High for deeper discussions of the issue.
- nickpinkston 15y agoWho lobbied for those limitation and similar ones though? I'm guessing that's where he's going - the businesses that stand to lose is such high-density, supply increasing designs were built.
- 15y ago
- zinssmeister 15y agohaving recently moved from Texas to Silicon Valley, and originally being from Europe, I must say that California is a beautiful place to live. But if I had kids I would strongly consider going back to Texas or some place else where I'd get proper housing for a fair price. So I agree with at least part of this article. California is a suboptimal place for a young middle-class family.
- waterlesscloud 15y agoLeaving out all politics, over the 10 years I've lived here about half of my friends who have had kids left the state. Specifically because they could not afford owning a comfortable home here. It's a very real phenomenon.
- zinssmeister 15y agoyup. The quality, size and price of housing here is so far the biggest shock to me. Basically Texas would give you a free 2000sqf house if you are a dual income household (just by saving the income tax and rent difference)
- richcollins 15y agoI'd rather have my kids grow up in a place where they learn that anything is possible than a place where I can "get more house".
- zinssmeister 15y agowhat makes you think places outside of California are teaching kids the opposite?
- sounds 15y agoFirst of all, California's economy is not going to be eclipsed by another state's any time soon. I know, the article doesn't explicitly talk GDP but hear me out... 2010 California GDP per capita $51,914 2010 Texas GDP per capita $45,940 2010 California GDP $1,936,400,000,000 (#1 in the nation, 13.34% of total US GDP) 2010 Texas GDP $1,207,432,000,000 (#2 in the nation, 7.95% of total US GDP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP Although the exodus does signal a change, it's not going to affect California's economy as much as, say, Gov. Brown's policies. Perhaps the wsj author knows this? He might be attempting to bias Gov. Brown's policies with this posturing... Secondly, I don't believe an exodus of the middle class means anything! Take either the cynical view that they couldn't influence politics anyway. Or take the generous view that they were happy with politics but couldn't afford to stay. If the middle class gets up in arms about politics, you _hear_ about it. Admittedly, as a rule the middle class is pretty content. Choosing to move out-of-state is more about employment opportunities, life events, or even random whims before politics enters the equation (for the middle class; I wish I had a solid source to provide actual poll data on that). Finally, rent prices in the Bay Area might be an important discussion to have. So, how about some concrete historical data, a google maps mashup, or even plain old advertising (i.e. come live in Atherton, our rent went down last year! Note: I don't actually live in Atherton, that's a joke.) If your job is in Manhattan Beach, the same data for that area is probably available, but the LA and Bay Area housing economies are pretty much independent.