6 ms·

The great California Exodus

45 points by flavio87 14y ago

zdgman 14y ago
Along with this study it would be enlightening to see if someone could correlate it to a decline in California's jobless rate: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-california-sheds-3800-jobs-in-november-jobless-rate-falls-to-98-20121221,0,6802816.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-california-sheds-38... Of course, you have to take the jobless rate with a grain of salt as it does not take into to account people who have just given up looking all together. I still wonder if population decline in California could contribute to lower unemployment (more jobs open for the people that stay in the state).
mejarc 14y ago
So that's why my rent here in the SF Bay Area is decreasing! (Not). I admit it was kind of nice after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the dot-com bust in 2001 to have some breathing room. Alarms about hordes leaving California have the opposite effect on me, as I look forward to uncrowded hiking trails and affordable real estate.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  Yeah, that's the joke. It's a place where nobody wants to live, where all the houses cost a fortune and there's a waiting list for every apartment. The funny thing is there's a big generational shift underway right now. People born around 1980 and later are much more likely to express a desire for a real urban environment, like that found in San Francisco, New York, and throughout Europe, instead of the suburban environment favored by their parents. Now, far be it from me to judge anyone, but it seems to me that anyone leaving California for Nevada is clearly expressing their preference for the suburban or even rural lifestyle. That lifestyle, being extremely energy intensive, is the definition of non-sustainable. If other states are attracting residents because they have lots of that unsustainable development, I think they can pretty much have as many of those people as they want. I far prefer to see California investing in real cities, attracting the kinds of people who prefer to live in those real cities, and building a future that actually has a future. It won't be very long (certainly within fifty years) before non-places like Las Vegas and Phoenix are viewed as bizarre, obvious mistakes of our past.
rdl 14y ago
Seriously considering Seattle or Las Vegas, or farther afield, Hawaii or New Zealand, in 2013+.
- seiji 14y ago
  If I had to put places in order, I'd go with: NYC, Barcelona (May-July), Seattle (August), Austin (not summer).
  - kungfooey 14y ago
    Sure, I'm biased because I moved here from NYC, but also check out Nashville. You can live like a Columbian drug lord on NYC (or California) freelance rates.
    - rdl 14y ago
      I was kind of turned-off of TN due to Memphis, but maybe Nashville is enough better to be worth considering.
      - kungfooey 14y ago
        I know a lot of Memphis residents who have relocated to Nashville. One guy described it as "life-changing." The cities are completely different. The problem with Nashville is the same as the problem with Austin - it's surrounded by rural hicks. On the other hand, I moved here because housing is cheap and it allows me to do the things I want to do (like travel) while keeping my overhead low.
        rdl 14y ago
        I'm pretty pro-TN (my relatives are from KY and OH), and surprisingly compatible with hicks, but I wonder how it would be for e.g. my Japanese-ancestry girlfriend. She seems afraid of Texas for the same reason.
- jinushaun 14y ago
scrrr 14y ago
After just roughly scanning the graphs I'd speculate that the ageing society plays a role. Which could explain why less liberal states are experiencing a rise of population, while the more liberal states are experiencing a decline. Which is just my hunch (without any source or proof) that people get more conservative with age. And another one, that they prefer to live in places with like-minded folks. Just wild guessing though. I am not even from America.
- antidoh 14y ago
  “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Winston S. Churchill http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95528-show-me-a-young-conservative-and-i-ll-show-you-someone http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95528-show-me-a-young-conser...
  - stevejohnson 14y ago
    This quote doesn't add to the discussion and is also incorrectly attributed to Churchill. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/qu...
- mlapida 14y ago
  There are also numbers that suggest the more conservative states, such as Texas, are becoming more liberal over time. I would almost wager that Texas, at it's current growth rate, could be a swing state by the 2020 Presidential Election.
  - cpleppert 14y ago
    What do you mean by becoming more liberal? If anything the white population of texas has become more conservative and solidly republican over time. Until the hispanic population reaches a tipping point texas will be as conservative as any deep southern state. Just based on population data that really won't happen until 2028 at the earliest.
seiji 14y ago
At the high end of moving out (rich people), California is unappealing because it's budgetfucked. Education, transportation, public services, and everything else will suffer for a long time. This leads to their crazy high state income tax and crazy high sales taxes and municipalities doing insane additional taxes for businesses on top of everything else. The Bay Area may be the best place to create Show Me Your Food 13.0, but I think you can build things elsewhere with nicer conditions.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  "In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed." http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Va... By the way, the reason the state is "budgetfucked" as you eloquently put it is because of low taxes, not high taxes. You may be interested in reading about Proposition 13, a scheme under which people who are sitting on massively valuable assets are taxed at lower rates than those who actively acquire and dispose of much less valuable assets, and where assets held by corporations are taxed static amounts (in terms of absolute magnitude, not rates) in perpetuity.
  - seiji 14y ago
    Quite true. Prop 13 is an abomination. Instead of only homeowners paying reasonable real estate tax, they've essentially made everybody in california subsidize low-tax-locked real estate owners. Now you get to have the fun of paying virtual real estate tax without owning property. It turns out, we have the ability to not live there! It's not quite sane to take a multimillion dollar exit in California when Seattle has zero additional overhead. Though, it is an absolute dickhead move to build your company in California then "establish residency" in a zero-income/capital gains tax state solely to avoid California tax harassment.
    - bcoates 14y ago
      It's California's stupid fault for picking that tax system. It's not like residence-based income taxes were decreed by God as the only way to fund a government.
mjg59 14y ago
The Manhattan Institute is an explicitly conservative political organisation. That doesn't inherently invalidate any of the conclusions they draw, but readers should be aware that they have been made with a pro-free market, anti-big government mindset. Others may draw quite different conclusions from the same facts.
- 001sky 14y ago
  I don't think this is relevant. The reason that people for the most are leaving is not politics or taxes, but high cost of living. The biggest expense for most people is housing. From 1930-2000, almost everyone who moved to CA made money on exploding real-estate values, eithe directy or indirectly. This extended massively peoples wealth, so they lived in houses and with a lifestyle they could never afford based on their "day jobs". Now that the elevator of home-equity is no longer subsidizing cost of living, most people realize that there are a lot more $1MM houses in CA than $300K/yr jobs. And where there are those kind of jobs, a $1M house doesn;t get you much beyond the basics (like in SF/palo alto etc).
  - talmand 14y ago
    Well, I would think some people roll in taxes as part of cost of living. Especially with California with its taxes disguised as "fees". But cost of housing is a huge factor as you say.
  - thrownaway2424 14y ago
    I think it obviously does matter. The conclusion of the paper was clearly written before the rest of it. Gems totally unsupported by the preceding evidence include "California has cut taxes in the past, most dramatically with 1978’s Proposition 13, and when it has done so, prosperity has followed. Ballot propositions this November aim to do the reverse, raising taxes on business owners while the state is still struggling to hold its own against more aggressive, confident rivals. The results will send a strong signal, whichever way they go: the state’s voters will be deciding to continue on the path of high taxes and high costs—or to make a break with the recent trend of decline" and other whoppers. Even the title is ridiculous unless you are willing to define "exodus" as "growing at the same pace as the nation as a whole".
thrownaway2424 14y ago
Would rather have more parks and forests than more people. Carry on.
majormajor 14y ago
It seems like there are several additional ways one could spin the data in this report. From a selfish standpoint, should I, as a Californian in a booming industry that looks like it will remain a central part of the economy for the forseeable future, be too broken up about a lot of people moving elsewhere for jobs? Should I want the metro area I live in to be seeing double-digit-percentages population growth over decades (I don't think that would make it any cheaper, or would make traffic any better)? And even then, the overall populations for the parts of California I'd want to live in are still rising, and jobs and new companies are still being created, and I'm meeting a ton of smart people who've moved here from all over the country. I certainly have no intention to move back east any time soon. I've found a lot more interesting stuff being done out here, and the weather is worlds better, and the high population density allows a ton of things I like.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  There's lots of ways this data could be interpreted. If you look at the data by national origin, a contributor to the outflow of "domestic migration" is first-generation children of foreign immigrants to California. This net flow is a just a fact of life for any state that receives large influx of foreign immigration. The immigrants move here and their children, having no particular long-standing roots in the state, move around. California has more than twice as many foreign-born residents as any other state, and more than three times as many as Texas. These foreign-born women in turn have more children than natural citizens of the state (about 90 per 1000 women per year).
- prostoalex 14y ago
  It's perfectly fine to live in California as a salaried employee, you're likely not to get screwed. For an entrepreneur, where you might subside 7 years on Ramen noodles to (maybe) have a large windfall during the 8th year, California places an unreasonable penalty on that once-in-a-lifetime event. Therefore from selfish standpoint, if you start a business, grow it fast somewhere else, and then, when growth plateaus, bring it to California (let's face it, it's still a large consumer market). http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for-californias-entrepreneurs/ http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for...
CleanStar 14y ago
The way the charts are set up, say charts 4 and 5, it looks like people are fleeing places like California and New York, and heading to places like Nevada and South Carolina. Except the charts are subtracting out-migration from in-migration. California is the most populous state, about 38 million people. New York is the second most populous state, about 19 million people. Nevada went from having 1.2 million to having 2.7 million. South Carolina went from having 3.4 million to having 4.6 million. Nevada never really had a population base that could have been subtracted in those charts. South Carolina also had a small population base. What I've seen happen in New York City is large blue-collar families leaving ethnic neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods being replaced by young professionals. Williamsburg is an example - it was a working class ethnic neighborhood, now it is yuppies, hipsters, startups, art galleries, and the like. You can think what you want of it, but it is certainly not a sign of a lack of prosperity. That's another assumption implicit in the article - that the Duggar family leaving a state, and two yuppie kids moving in is bad economically, because the population decreased. If small populations meant a bad economy then Norway, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and Uruguay are bad, and Nigeria and Bangladesh are good. Prosperity does not equal population size.
kqr2 14y ago
There was a recent KQED forum podcast on the rise and fall of California: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212271000 http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212271000
johnohara 14y ago
This exodus is occurring in Illinois as well (shown). Both states share similar budget problems along with predictable leadership responses -- higher taxes and reduced services. What Illinois needs is genuine growth and that doesn't happen overnight. In the meantime, people get fed up and leave -- unless they have to sell their home or business.
- ubernostrum 14y ago
  I would disagree with your assertion that "growth" is what's needed. The problems we're seeing, in many places, are the result of pursuing "growth" -- some seemingly-smart people show up and say that if only the local government will provide, up-front, a bunch of infrastructure and tax breaks right now, it'll all be made up in "growth" from businesses and people moving in and creating jobs and wealth. Of course, what actually happens is the businesses and people move in, take advantage of everything provided, and then scream bloody murder about "expropriation" and move away when finally presented with the bill for all the services and breaks that enabled that "growth". What is needed is a responsible expression of some kind of actual social contract, with obligations and benefits for both sides. But good luck rallying support for that on HN, where short-term lottery-syndrome has everyone blinded.
  - johnohara 14y ago
    Illinois is 13B+ in debt with 80B+ in long term obligations that take the form of pensions and entitlements. The social contract is there -- and constitutionally protected. The scales are out of balance, the corn crop has failed, Caterpillar wants to move, gas is the highest in the nation, gang violence is increasing, the schools are struggling, and everyone feels the weight. We need to grow, we need to export, and we need to sustain it for a prolonged period of time.
sxcurry 14y ago
tl;dnr It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore (after Yogi Berra)
josephscott 14y ago
Seems odd to try and focus only on domestic migrations. In 1990 the population of California was 29.9M, in July 2011 it was 37.6M. The total population has continued to climb - https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california%20population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:06000&ifdim=country&tstart=333612000000&tend=1311832800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&... The net draw to California still seems to be in place. I moved from California to Utah in 2007. The reason? My wife wanted to be closer to her family there and my job didn't care where I lived.
saosebastiao 14y ago
Their conclusion about density is bullshit, supported by bullshit assertions. Population-Weighted Density is what people experience, not geographic density. Nobody moves out of their 10 acre farmhouse in San Bernadino county because Long Beach is too crowded. Even the Census acknowledges as much. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/10/americas-tr... Furthermore, there are plenty of dense cities that are growing more densely as well as in absolute. In fact, the city that is densest (by a factor of 2x), is doing exactly that.
- tsotha 14y ago
  While it's true nobody moves out of a 10 acre farmhouse in San Bernadino because Long Beach is too crowded, the low density parts of the state don't have any jobs and aren't particularly nice places to live to start with. So density in the nice, employment rich places matters. San Francisco is an outlier. It attracts people who want to live in a dense urban environment and has a reasonable public transportation system. In most places higher density directly translates into less free time as a result of longer commutes.
  - saosebastiao 14y ago
    High density doesn't directly translate into longer commutes. It directly translates into better jobs. Since people are willing to travel longer distances for better jobs, longer commutes are an indirect result.
    - tsotha 14y ago
      In the long run that's true, but if you're already living somewhere and the density increases you're going to have a longer commute, most likely.
natnat 14y ago
I think this has a lot less to do with taxes than it does with the prices of real estate. Buying a house in California is prohibitively expensive for most people, which eats up a huge amount of everyone's disposable income. In Texas, you make less money, but houses and rent are a factor of 2-4 times cheaper for what you get. I think there are two main reasons for this: proposition 13 and CEQA. Prop 13 keeps property taxes really low, which makes buying and holding onto single-family homes really cheap. This is a giant subsidy for people who have lived in California for a while, but jacks up the prices for everyone else who gets in after them, since low ownership costs translate to high upfront prices. The California Environmental Quality Act has a different effect that also raises housing prices: empowering NIMBYs. Because any new development can be pretty easily be slowed down/made more expensive/stopped altogether by a bogus CEQA request, new housing isn't getting built in nearly as much as one would expect given the demand. This makes existing housing more valuable, which increases prices even more. In addition, some municipalities, notably San Francisco, have an insanely regulated rental market that makes renting incredibly difficult for a landlord, which makes it more attractive for people to buy housing instead of rent. This means there's less rental housing to go around, which makes the rent in SF absolutely insane.

45 points by flavio87 14y ago

Along with this study it would be enlightening to see if someone could correlate it to a decline in California's jobless rate: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-california-sheds-3800-jobs-in-november-jobless-rate-falls-to-98-20121221,0,6802816.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-california-sheds-38... Of course, you have to take the jobless rate with a grain of salt as it does not take into to account people who have just given up looking all together. I still wonder if population decline in California could contribute to lower unemployment (more jobs open for the people that stay in the state).

mejarc 14y ago

So that's why my rent here in the SF Bay Area is decreasing! (Not). I admit it was kind of nice after the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the dot-com bust in 2001 to have some breathing room. Alarms about hordes leaving California have the opposite effect on me, as I look forward to uncrowded hiking trails and affordable real estate.

thrownaway2424 14y ago
Yeah, that's the joke. It's a place where nobody wants to live, where all the houses cost a fortune and there's a waiting list for every apartment. The funny thing is there's a big generational shift underway right now. People born around 1980 and later are much more likely to express a desire for a real urban environment, like that found in San Francisco, New York, and throughout Europe, instead of the suburban environment favored by their parents. Now, far be it from me to judge anyone, but it seems to me that anyone leaving California for Nevada is clearly expressing their preference for the suburban or even rural lifestyle. That lifestyle, being extremely energy intensive, is the definition of non-sustainable. If other states are attracting residents because they have lots of that unsustainable development, I think they can pretty much have as many of those people as they want. I far prefer to see California investing in real cities, attracting the kinds of people who prefer to live in those real cities, and building a future that actually has a future. It won't be very long (certainly within fifty years) before non-places like Las Vegas and Phoenix are viewed as bizarre, obvious mistakes of our past.

rdl 14y ago

Seriously considering Seattle or Las Vegas, or farther afield, Hawaii or New Zealand, in 2013+.

seiji 14y ago
If I had to put places in order, I'd go with: NYC, Barcelona (May-July), Seattle (August), Austin (not summer).
- kungfooey 14y ago
  Sure, I'm biased because I moved here from NYC, but also check out Nashville. You can live like a Columbian drug lord on NYC (or California) freelance rates.
  - rdl 14y ago
    I was kind of turned-off of TN due to Memphis, but maybe Nashville is enough better to be worth considering.
    - kungfooey 14y ago
      I know a lot of Memphis residents who have relocated to Nashville. One guy described it as "life-changing." The cities are completely different. The problem with Nashville is the same as the problem with Austin - it's surrounded by rural hicks. On the other hand, I moved here because housing is cheap and it allows me to do the things I want to do (like travel) while keeping my overhead low.
      - rdl 14y ago
        I'm pretty pro-TN (my relatives are from KY and OH), and surprisingly compatible with hicks, but I wonder how it would be for e.g. my Japanese-ancestry girlfriend. She seems afraid of Texas for the same reason.
jinushaun 14y ago

scrrr 14y ago

After just roughly scanning the graphs I'd speculate that the ageing society plays a role. Which could explain why less liberal states are experiencing a rise of population, while the more liberal states are experiencing a decline. Which is just my hunch (without any source or proof) that people get more conservative with age. And another one, that they prefer to live in places with like-minded folks. Just wild guessing though. I am not even from America.

antidoh 14y ago
“Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” ― Winston S. Churchill http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95528-show-me-a-young-conservative-and-i-ll-show-you-someone http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/95528-show-me-a-young-conser...
- stevejohnson 14y ago
  This quote doesn't add to the discussion and is also incorrectly attributed to Churchill. http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/quotes-falsely-attributed http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/quotations/qu...
mlapida 14y ago
There are also numbers that suggest the more conservative states, such as Texas, are becoming more liberal over time. I would almost wager that Texas, at it's current growth rate, could be a swing state by the 2020 Presidential Election.
- cpleppert 14y ago
  What do you mean by becoming more liberal? If anything the white population of texas has become more conservative and solidly republican over time. Until the hispanic population reaches a tipping point texas will be as conservative as any deep southern state. Just based on population data that really won't happen until 2028 at the earliest.

seiji 14y ago

At the high end of moving out (rich people), California is unappealing because it's budgetfucked. Education, transportation, public services, and everything else will suffer for a long time. This leads to their crazy high state income tax and crazy high sales taxes and municipalities doing insane additional taxes for businesses on top of everything else. The Bay Area may be the best place to create Show Me Your Food 13.0, but I think you can build things elsewhere with nicer conditions.

thrownaway2424 14y ago
"In other words, the highest-income Californians were less likely to leave the state after the millionaire tax was passed." http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Varner-Young_Millionaire_Migration_in_CA.pdf http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/working_papers/Va... By the way, the reason the state is "budgetfucked" as you eloquently put it is because of low taxes, not high taxes. You may be interested in reading about Proposition 13, a scheme under which people who are sitting on massively valuable assets are taxed at lower rates than those who actively acquire and dispose of much less valuable assets, and where assets held by corporations are taxed static amounts (in terms of absolute magnitude, not rates) in perpetuity.
- seiji 14y ago
  Quite true. Prop 13 is an abomination. Instead of only homeowners paying reasonable real estate tax, they've essentially made everybody in california subsidize low-tax-locked real estate owners. Now you get to have the fun of paying virtual real estate tax without owning property. It turns out, we have the ability to not live there! It's not quite sane to take a multimillion dollar exit in California when Seattle has zero additional overhead. Though, it is an absolute dickhead move to build your company in California then "establish residency" in a zero-income/capital gains tax state solely to avoid California tax harassment.
  - bcoates 14y ago
    It's California's stupid fault for picking that tax system. It's not like residence-based income taxes were decreed by God as the only way to fund a government.

mjg59 14y ago

The Manhattan Institute is an explicitly conservative political organisation. That doesn't inherently invalidate any of the conclusions they draw, but readers should be aware that they have been made with a pro-free market, anti-big government mindset. Others may draw quite different conclusions from the same facts.

001sky 14y ago
I don't think this is relevant. The reason that people for the most are leaving is not politics or taxes, but high cost of living. The biggest expense for most people is housing. From 1930-2000, almost everyone who moved to CA made money on exploding real-estate values, eithe directy or indirectly. This extended massively peoples wealth, so they lived in houses and with a lifestyle they could never afford based on their "day jobs". Now that the elevator of home-equity is no longer subsidizing cost of living, most people realize that there are a lot more $1MM houses in CA than $300K/yr jobs. And where there are those kind of jobs, a $1M house doesn;t get you much beyond the basics (like in SF/palo alto etc).
- talmand 14y ago
  Well, I would think some people roll in taxes as part of cost of living. Especially with California with its taxes disguised as "fees". But cost of housing is a huge factor as you say.
- thrownaway2424 14y ago
  I think it obviously does matter. The conclusion of the paper was clearly written before the rest of it. Gems totally unsupported by the preceding evidence include "California has cut taxes in the past, most dramatically with 1978’s Proposition 13, and when it has done so, prosperity has followed. Ballot propositions this November aim to do the reverse, raising taxes on business owners while the state is still struggling to hold its own against more aggressive, confident rivals. The results will send a strong signal, whichever way they go: the state’s voters will be deciding to continue on the path of high taxes and high costs—or to make a break with the recent trend of decline" and other whoppers. Even the title is ridiculous unless you are willing to define "exodus" as "growing at the same pace as the nation as a whole".

thrownaway2424 14y ago

Would rather have more parks and forests than more people. Carry on.

majormajor 14y ago

It seems like there are several additional ways one could spin the data in this report. From a selfish standpoint, should I, as a Californian in a booming industry that looks like it will remain a central part of the economy for the forseeable future, be too broken up about a lot of people moving elsewhere for jobs? Should I want the metro area I live in to be seeing double-digit-percentages population growth over decades (I don't think that would make it any cheaper, or would make traffic any better)? And even then, the overall populations for the parts of California I'd want to live in are still rising, and jobs and new companies are still being created, and I'm meeting a ton of smart people who've moved here from all over the country. I certainly have no intention to move back east any time soon. I've found a lot more interesting stuff being done out here, and the weather is worlds better, and the high population density allows a ton of things I like.

thrownaway2424 14y ago
There's lots of ways this data could be interpreted. If you look at the data by national origin, a contributor to the outflow of "domestic migration" is first-generation children of foreign immigrants to California. This net flow is a just a fact of life for any state that receives large influx of foreign immigration. The immigrants move here and their children, having no particular long-standing roots in the state, move around. California has more than twice as many foreign-born residents as any other state, and more than three times as many as Texas. These foreign-born women in turn have more children than natural citizens of the state (about 90 per 1000 women per year).
prostoalex 14y ago
It's perfectly fine to live in California as a salaried employee, you're likely not to get screwed. For an entrepreneur, where you might subside 7 years on Ramen noodles to (maybe) have a large windfall during the 8th year, California places an unreasonable penalty on that once-in-a-lifetime event. Therefore from selfish standpoint, if you start a business, grow it fast somewhere else, and then, when growth plateaus, bring it to California (let's face it, it's still a large consumer market). http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for-californias-entrepreneurs/ http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for...

CleanStar 14y ago

The way the charts are set up, say charts 4 and 5, it looks like people are fleeing places like California and New York, and heading to places like Nevada and South Carolina. Except the charts are subtracting out-migration from in-migration. California is the most populous state, about 38 million people. New York is the second most populous state, about 19 million people. Nevada went from having 1.2 million to having 2.7 million. South Carolina went from having 3.4 million to having 4.6 million. Nevada never really had a population base that could have been subtracted in those charts. South Carolina also had a small population base. What I've seen happen in New York City is large blue-collar families leaving ethnic neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods being replaced by young professionals. Williamsburg is an example - it was a working class ethnic neighborhood, now it is yuppies, hipsters, startups, art galleries, and the like. You can think what you want of it, but it is certainly not a sign of a lack of prosperity. That's another assumption implicit in the article - that the Duggar family leaving a state, and two yuppie kids moving in is bad economically, because the population decreased. If small populations meant a bad economy then Norway, Denmark, Finland, Singapore, and Uruguay are bad, and Nigeria and Bangladesh are good. Prosperity does not equal population size.

kqr2 14y ago

There was a recent KQED forum podcast on the rise and fall of California: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212271000 http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201212271000

johnohara 14y ago

This exodus is occurring in Illinois as well (shown). Both states share similar budget problems along with predictable leadership responses -- higher taxes and reduced services. What Illinois needs is genuine growth and that doesn't happen overnight. In the meantime, people get fed up and leave -- unless they have to sell their home or business.

ubernostrum 14y ago
I would disagree with your assertion that "growth" is what's needed. The problems we're seeing, in many places, are the result of pursuing "growth" -- some seemingly-smart people show up and say that if only the local government will provide, up-front, a bunch of infrastructure and tax breaks right now, it'll all be made up in "growth" from businesses and people moving in and creating jobs and wealth. Of course, what actually happens is the businesses and people move in, take advantage of everything provided, and then scream bloody murder about "expropriation" and move away when finally presented with the bill for all the services and breaks that enabled that "growth". What is needed is a responsible expression of some kind of actual social contract, with obligations and benefits for both sides. But good luck rallying support for that on HN, where short-term lottery-syndrome has everyone blinded.
- johnohara 14y ago
  Illinois is 13B+ in debt with 80B+ in long term obligations that take the form of pensions and entitlements. The social contract is there -- and constitutionally protected. The scales are out of balance, the corn crop has failed, Caterpillar wants to move, gas is the highest in the nation, gang violence is increasing, the schools are struggling, and everyone feels the weight. We need to grow, we need to export, and we need to sustain it for a prolonged period of time.

sxcurry 14y ago

tl;dnr It's so crowded, nobody goes there anymore (after Yogi Berra)

josephscott 14y ago

Seems odd to try and focus only on domestic migrations. In 1990 the population of California was 29.9M, in July 2011 it was 37.6M. The total population has continued to climb - https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california%20population#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=population&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=state:06000&ifdim=country&tstart=333612000000&tend=1311832800000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&... The net draw to California still seems to be in place. I moved from California to Utah in 2007. The reason? My wife wanted to be closer to her family there and my job didn't care where I lived.

saosebastiao 14y ago

Their conclusion about density is bullshit, supported by bullshit assertions. Population-Weighted Density is what people experience, not geographic density. Nobody moves out of their 10 acre farmhouse in San Bernadino county because Long Beach is too crowded. Even the Census acknowledges as much. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/10/americas-truly-densest-metros/3450/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2012/10/americas-tr... Furthermore, there are plenty of dense cities that are growing more densely as well as in absolute. In fact, the city that is densest (by a factor of 2x), is doing exactly that.

tsotha 14y ago
While it's true nobody moves out of a 10 acre farmhouse in San Bernadino because Long Beach is too crowded, the low density parts of the state don't have any jobs and aren't particularly nice places to live to start with. So density in the nice, employment rich places matters. San Francisco is an outlier. It attracts people who want to live in a dense urban environment and has a reasonable public transportation system. In most places higher density directly translates into less free time as a result of longer commutes.
- saosebastiao 14y ago
  High density doesn't directly translate into longer commutes. It directly translates into better jobs. Since people are willing to travel longer distances for better jobs, longer commutes are an indirect result.
  - tsotha 14y ago
    In the long run that's true, but if you're already living somewhere and the density increases you're going to have a longer commute, most likely.

natnat 14y ago

I think this has a lot less to do with taxes than it does with the prices of real estate. Buying a house in California is prohibitively expensive for most people, which eats up a huge amount of everyone's disposable income. In Texas, you make less money, but houses and rent are a factor of 2-4 times cheaper for what you get. I think there are two main reasons for this: proposition 13 and CEQA. Prop 13 keeps property taxes really low, which makes buying and holding onto single-family homes really cheap. This is a giant subsidy for people who have lived in California for a while, but jacks up the prices for everyone else who gets in after them, since low ownership costs translate to high upfront prices. The California Environmental Quality Act has a different effect that also raises housing prices: empowering NIMBYs. Because any new development can be pretty easily be slowed down/made more expensive/stopped altogether by a bogus CEQA request, new housing isn't getting built in nearly as much as one would expect given the demand. This makes existing housing more valuable, which increases prices even more. In addition, some municipalities, notably San Francisco, have an insanely regulated rental market that makes renting incredibly difficult for a landlord, which makes it more attractive for people to buy housing instead of rent. This means there's less rental housing to go around, which makes the rent in SF absolutely insane.