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

121–130 of 230 posts

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#121

Post by Karrot_Kream »

prostoalex wrote: post #106
krausejj wrote: post #15

this is related to an article i just submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 it costs too much to live here because of zoning. zoning is largely driven by local governments, dominated by homeowners who benefit when prices rise. but california might fix it with sb-827, which would prevent local governments from banning density near transit hubs. california builds https://standupcalifornia.com (this is…

> it costs too much to live here because of zoning I am somewhat skeptical of a large complex problem having an easy, magical, fix-all solution. LA construction (downtown area specifically, which is close to transit and zoned for pretty much anything) is booming https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-... but the dream of the dirt-cheap units remains a pie in the sky http://www.ladowntownnews.com/…

I'm mystified as to why big Californian cities still put parking on building codes. NYC and Chicago have accepted that parking isn't a right, and parking regulations here make it feel like more of the same NIMBY-ism that retards growth in the state.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#122

Post by Casseres »

staunch wrote: post #83
djschnei wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were talking about fiscal policy. I.e "don't leave California, then push for the same policies here". But of course, you already knew that.

No, it was not at all clear and still isn't, even after the comment has been edited. If Californians want to move to Texas and bring their fiscal ideas with them, tough luck! You get to decide where and how you live. I get to decide where and how I live. This is freedom.

> If Californians want to move to Texas and bring their fiscal ideas with them, tough luck!

> You get to decide where and how you live. I get to decide where and how I live. This is freedom.

And I also get to decide to ask you not to do something, just as you get to decide on whether or not to vote for it. Freedom works both ways, not just only for one group.

I hope I made my edit more clear, sorry about that.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#123

Post by krausejj »

prostoalex wrote: post #106
krausejj wrote: post #15

this is related to an article i just submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16478780 it costs too much to live here because of zoning. zoning is largely driven by local governments, dominated by homeowners who benefit when prices rise. but california might fix it with sb-827, which would prevent local governments from banning density near transit hubs. california builds https://standupcalifornia.com (this is…

> it costs too much to live here because of zoning I am somewhat skeptical of a large complex problem having an easy, magical, fix-all solution. LA construction (downtown area specifically, which is close to transit and zoned for pretty much anything) is booming https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-... but the dream of the dirt-cheap units remains a pie in the sky http://www.ladowntownnews.com/…

did you have a chance to check out the nber article i linked to at the top? it does a deep dive on construction costs and land economics. here is the direct link: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 (it is a super interesting read, even if you just read the intro)

i too am skeptical of magical fix-all solutions, but I actually believe this could be a silver bullet. many of the issues you describe are circular—construction costs are high because labor is expensive because housing is expensive... the root cause is that california has stifled supply.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#124

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #84
pascalxus wrote: post #13

The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations stifle the economic well being of it's inhabitants. It's sad to see people having to leave behind their friends and families, for all this. Not only are people leaving, but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression: http://www.lat…

> The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA It seems like the immigration is mostly the middle and upper middle class, as those terms are most often used [0]. The out-migration looks to be mostly below national median income. [0] which, sure, is the upper income end of the working class and not the petit bourgeoisie , for the most part, but aside from me , no one seems to use “middle class” to mean that i…

[deleted]

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#125

Post by VLM »

flukus wrote: post #69
kenhwang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Less people to do things involving less educated labor (flipping burgers, building houses, delivering packages, etc) will increase prices. That higher income will be meaningless.

Some actual numbers

IBEW local 82 journeyman electricians union rate in Ohio $29.05/hr

IBEW local 234 journeyman electricians union rate in California $71.36/hr

Of course I'm not sure the education level or IQ of the typical electrician is much different than than the typical software developer with respect to the lower education specification; however it does seem likely that labor costs in CA for similar work are currently about 147% higher than Ohio costs.

According to Zillow "The median home value in Salinas is $436,900" and "The median home value in Dayton is $57,300" for a journeyman electricians income, you'll be one of the poorest people in the highest crime neighborhood in CA, or live in one of the nicest neighborhoods in the city if you live in Ohio. Given the choice of top or bottom 10% of neighborhoods and amenities, I'd certainly rather live in Ohio. This probably cascades thru every career path.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#126

Post by davidw »

krausejj wrote: post #100
davidw wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd help fix it, but California's dug itself into such a deep hole that it'll take a while to fix it even with good measures like that one. The statistic that always amazes me is how Tokyo built more housing than the entire state of California in 2014. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... If you (as in the generic you, not the comment I'm responding to) live in CA, and care about this stuf…

absolutely. if you want to go beyond simply pressuring politicians on sb-827, and be part of continued movement to increase housing affordability in california, you should support the YIMBYs. also the "head yimby's" Q&A on the bill with Vox is a must-read: https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s...

Maybe they're doing it but keeping quiet about it, but I'm kind of surprised VC type people aren't funding the YIMBYs in a massive way. Think of how many millions of their investment dollars simply go towards paying exorbitant rents in SF and elsewhere in the bay area.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#127

Post by mywittyname »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #39
kenhwang wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So imagine being completely unable to live in the place you grew up in once an adult, and forced to emigrate not from choice but financial necessity. Its pretty much a bummer.

We like to forget that much of the early USA was populated for largely this reason. Our ancestors didn't move half-way across the damn world because they wanted to, they were forced out due to circumstances beyond their control, be it oppression, famine, or a general lack of opportunity (no land or jobs).

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#128

Post by dragonwriter »

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #85

California is also losing residents by discouraging migration via high taxes. For example, I had two job offers: one in California and one in Washington. Since this was a $200k+ job, that income tax in CA would have cost me $40 grand per year. Suffice it to say I now live in Washington.

> California is also losing residents by discouraging migration via high taxes.

California, despite high and progressive income taxation, has net in-migration at high income levels. If high taxes are keeping people out, it's things like gas taxes, road tolls, and sales taxes, that are regeressive relative to income.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#129

Post by chrisseaton »

walrus01 wrote: post #114
politician wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Some people quite like a rainy climate, and Amazon creates a whole tech scene of its own around it.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#130

Post by prostoalex »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #121
prostoalex wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it costs too much to live here because of zoning I am somewhat skeptical of a large complex problem having an easy, magical, fix-all solution. LA construction (downtown area specifically, which is close to transit and zoned for pretty much anything) is booming https://la.curbed.com/2017/1/23/14364926/cranes-los-angeles-... but the dream of the dirt-cheap units remains a pie in the sky http://www.ladowntownnews.com/…

I'm mystified as to why big Californian cities still put parking on building codes. NYC and Chicago have accepted that parking isn't a right, and parking regulations here make it feel like more of the same NIMBY-ism that retards growth in the state.

Otherwise developers will externalize the parking spot problems to nearby streets, which makes for unhappy residents. Even people who swear off cars might have friends, family or coworkers who might visit.

A proper way to go about it is to set up a permit-only parking zone, and then allow some high-density housing to be built with an explicit provision that they will never be eligible for parking permits. But that also kicks up enforcement costs.

Post reply on HN