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

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#161

Post by adamrezich »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #153
adamrezich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 overwh…

The threshold from red to blue corosses at 800ppl/sqm: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/11/what-republicans-are-... The definition of "urban" according to the USA census department have cores of 1000ppl/sqm and are surrounding by areas of 500ppl/sqm. So if you have a density of 1,300, then there is a higher chance the area went blue. Of course, there can be lots of exceptions, and 1,300 is rather close to the cros…

It would be interesting to see those 2012 calculations updated, especially with regards to the results of the 2016 Presidential election; judging by the resulting red-or-blue-by-county political map, things have changed since then.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#162

Post by yakz »

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…

Coming from south-eastern US and visiting Mountain View / Palo Alto on business several times, the property valuations are amazing to me. Poorly maintained looking ranch homes with bad landscaping and giant Land Rovers, Porsches, Jags in the driveway or on the street. Downtown looks almost like my semi-rural hometown except there are full parking garages and you have to park under an over-pass. It's a weird place.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#163

Post by adamrezich »

curuinor wrote: post #158
adamrezich wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 overwh…

In turn, I was born in a hospital next to a Seoul apartment complex that was part of a 3-apartment complex thing that had more people than your hometown. That's density.

Oh most definitely, a friend from my hometown spent a couple of years in Seoul and related just how different it was from our hometown but also any other US city he'd lived in, including the greater Seattle area. But I would never mean to imply that my red/blue density supposition would apply to a place as culturally and politically distinct from the US.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#164

Post by prostoalex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #101
hindsightbias wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex-native here. TX isn't anything like what it was before the Bible Belt migrated in and took over the suburbs/electorate. Too bad Texas is too progressive to have a Prop 13 - I can't go back anywhere in TX w/o people whinging about their property taxes or toll road fees.

Prop 13 is what ruined California. Not only did it institute rent control for property owners with all its associated problems, but it also tied the hands of legislators for funding government programs, directly leading to the initiative-based rigid monstrosity of a state budget California suffers from today.

Economic growth in California happens in places with a lot of new construction and a robust real estate market, where each real estate transaction resets the assessment price. In some areas of California the prices still haven't recovered to the pre-housing crash levels.

You'd only get significant advantage from Prop 13 if you bought during the 80s and held. While there are some places like that (Berkeley?) the state is hardly over-populated by elderly people clinging to their 40+ year old housing.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#165

Post by Diederich »

Hextinium wrote: post #43
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.

As someone from Dallas here, the people from California that move here never fully adapt but they do conform to Texas after a year or two. That being said there are places that are much more "California like" than Texan like popping up on occasion.

> the people from California that move here never fully adapt

I wonder if you can share what that looks like?

I've lived in California most of my life, but I lived in Georgia, Arkansas, Mississppi and Missouri for 16 years.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#166

Post by afuchs »

prostoalex wrote: post #130
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

Other countries require proof of parking for a car to be legally registered. No overnight parking space, no car.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#167

Post by prostoalex »

davidw wrote: post #154
prostoalex wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies a VC deploying capital in a place with cheap rents will harvest higher ROI. But the biggest exits so far (WhatsApp, Snap) don’t reflect that.

They could get more bang for their buck in the bay area (which they aren't likely to leave anytime soon) if housing prices weren't quite so crazy.

That can also be accomplished by using more productive frameworks and infrastructure services that allow a company to hire fewer people to begin with.

But I think what you’re describing happens with larger companies - setups where engineers are in the Bay Area and support is some place else like Nashville or Austin are becoming more commonplace.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#168

Post by lern_too_spel »

prostoalex wrote: post #164
lern_too_spel wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 13 is what ruined California. Not only did it institute rent control for property owners with all its associated problems, but it also tied the hands of legislators for funding government programs, directly leading to the initiative-based rigid monstrosity of a state budget California suffers from today.

Economic growth in California happens in places with a lot of new construction and a robust real estate market, where each real estate transaction resets the assessment price. In some areas of California the prices still haven't recovered to the pre-housing crash levels. You'd only get significant advantage from Prop 13 if you bought during the 80s and held. While there are some places like that (Berkeley?) the state…

You ignored the main detrimental effects of Prop 13 I described in my comment and addressed only the rent control aspect.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#169

Post by walrus01 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #129
walrus01 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing sarcasm doesn't translate well into text. Should have added more hyperbole.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#170

Post by gwright »

AFNobody wrote: post #155
whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Prop 13 is a constitutional amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13…

I think Alabama wins this contest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama

> At 310,296 words,[1] the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 44 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest[2] and most amended[3] constitution still operative anywhere in the world.

Post reply on HN