Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

lao.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 230 posts

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#111

Post by dnomad »

kenhwang wrote: post #24
logfromblammo wrote: post #8

A cursory read of the graphics indicates that people with graduate degrees and higher-paying jobs are forcing the people with less money and less education out, and they are moving to states with lower costs of living.

I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. What's wrong with having a higher educated, higher income populace?

Yeah the people who think this is a bad thing are pretty confused. The real story here is that everybody in California is becoming very highly educated [1]. California is experiencing a remarkable brain gain as the best and the brighest in the world relocate to the state. This may drive out lesser educated Americans but the idea that this is a disaster or a bad thing is mistaken. California's future is very bright (even if too much value gets captured by real estate speculators.)

[1] http://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain-gain/

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#112

Post by dragonwriter »

wetpaws wrote: post #87

Unfortunate reality of CA is that or every resident that's moving out there are two people going to take their place.

> Unfortunate reality of CA is that or every resident that's moving out there are two people going to take their place.

Actually, for every 6 moving out, 5 are going to take their place, per the article. But I suspect that a lot of the out migration isn't from the urban economic powerhouses and most of the in migration goes to them, so that for urban California, your statement may be closer to true, though exaggerated.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#113

Post by adrianratnapala »

whatshisface wrote: post #40
antimatter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my fear as well. As a Californian who's looking to move to Texas at some point in the future, I really hope the people leaving aren't taking "California values" to Texas with them.

One of the greatest strengths of the Texas legislature is that almost everything is written in to the constitution, thereby being almost impossible to change. So for this reason the (proven disastrous) legal and business theories that have messed up housing costs in California would have a very hard time taking root here.

Of course when the bad ideas bear their dark fruit, they will be hard to change too.

But more seriously can you expand more on this "almost everything is written into the constitution"? Is this a back-door way of getting Swiss-style direct democracy. Skimming wikipedia it seems that amedments are passed by a referendum approving a legislative proposal (and this processes has happened hundreds of times).

if this is the only practical way of creating legislation, then you basically have the people as a third house of the legislature.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#114

Post by walrus01 »

politician wrote: post #61
walrus01 wrote: post #38

Seattle is full and the weather is dreadful. It rains 364 days a year and the other day of the year is full of smoke from forest fires. Please consider Portland instead.

Seattle has plenty of room, and the weather is beautiful during the spring and summer. We had one smoky period last year due to a freak fire in BC. It's a great place to raise a family, and make a killing in tech. (I'm not currently selling real estate.)

Seattle is a hell on earth of rain, Amazon, heroin addicts and smoked salmon. Be quiet or the californians will hear you!

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#117

Post by thephyber »

lambda wrote: post #74
mehrdadn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression I think this might need a rewording to convey whatever idea you were trying to convey, because I have a hunch there weren't many millennials around during the Great Depression. :-)

I think it's fairly clear that they mean "the birth rate for people in the 20-35 age range, which happens to coincide with the millenials at the moment."

It's pretty clear what they meant, but humorously even your rewording isn't accurate.

A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time.

Also, named generations (like "Millennials", "Gen Y", "Gen X", "Baby Boomers", etc) don't have rigid definitions. Some media groups define it as starting as early as 1976 and others as late as 1984, which is 50% of your "20-35" range.

In the end, the boundaries of named generations are more or less arbitrary unless there is an extremely specific event which defines it (Baby Boomers started with an explosion of birth rates immediately after the end of WW2).

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#118

Post by tomkarlo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #79
commandlinefan wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now imagine if California reverses course and enacts conservative-friendly policies - and turns into a red state.

It wasn't a very long time ago that California was red. You don't have to imagine. It was only after Pete Wilson decided to crackdown on latinos that the state shifted into solid D.

It's been almost 20 years since Pete Wilson was governor. In the meantime, the GOP has moved quite a bit to the right, and CA as a whole has moved left on most issues. If anything, it looks like the remaining red districts in places like Central Valley could be at risk as first generation Latinos hit voting age and start to outnumber the conservatives.

Much of the potential 2018 shift in Congress may come from CA, for example: http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/369254-perfect-storm...

Eg for the Central Valley districts: "Walters’s district has grown by 33,000 residents, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures. Of those new residents, 30,000 are nonwhite. The white population actually declined in Royce’s district while the overall population grew by 10,000 residents. In Denham’s district, 17,000 of the 21,000 new residents are nonwhite."

(Not to mention the new tax plan was hugely unpopular in CA in general.)

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#119

Post by vasilipupkin »

It's also noteworthy that a lot of people from Illinois are moving to California even though California income taxes are higher. It seems to me that the California outmigration is mostly from economically depressed parts of California, not from LA or Bay Area.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#120

Post by adamrezich »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #80
gumby wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By and large califirnia is a red state: outside the major urban areas the state is mostly quote red; some urban areas (e.g. Orange county) are also quite red and those populations send conservatives to congress. But because the majority of the population do live in major urban areas you see the state legislature about 70/30 D/R and the statewide offices tend to go to the majority as well. But within recent memory the…

That is true of the entire US: rural areas are mostly red, urban areas are mostly blue.

That's the cliché but it seems a bit unfair, because in my mind, "rural" evokes small towns of 21 people and vast expanses of farm/ranch land. My hometown has a population of about ~70,000 spread out over 55 square miles (~1,300 people per square mile); is that "rural" or "urban?"

What I'm getting at is, it's more precise to say "most of the US--rural and urban--is red, while the densest population centers are overwhelmingly blue."

Post reply on HN