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

191–200 of 230 posts

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#191

Post by pcwalton »

DoubleCribble wrote: post #171
pcwalton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The data's pretty mixed on that. For outflow states: Texas (#1): Solid R Arizona (#2): R Nevada (#3): Lean D Oregon, Washington (#4, #5): Solid D Colorado (#6): D Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma (#7, #8, #9): Solid R Georgia (#10): R That's 6 R, 4 D.

Oregon is interesting in that it's D because of Portland. The state is mostly conservative small cities or rural and yet the population of the Portland metro area leans so far left and has such a large population relative to the other parts of the state that it changes the entire state. Remove Portland voters from the polls and Oregon would be R.[0] [0] http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/212726-70134-how-liberal-i...

You could say the same thing about lots of blue states.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#192

Post by scruple »

davidw wrote: post #82
IronWolve wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the east side of Washington in Spokane, the houses are going up due to the influx of Californians. Average price was around 120k, now you can see houses in the 300k for entry level with basic kitchens. Also, lots of modern brew pubs are popping up that easily charge Seattle prices for food and beer. (Way too expensive for locals) Had a co-worker who's family moved up from California and bought a 600k house on 10 a…

Bend, Oregon has been that way for a while. Who wants to do a startup that finds and invests in the 'next places'? Some days I'm hopeful we can fix things, and others I think maybe we should just try and sell people on the 'new hotness' and make a buck from it.

I joked about doing this back in 2013. I was watching Portland, OR and Bend, OR real estate on it's steady climb back when homes in both of those cities were what I'd consider/call affordable. I know of a few "next places" but I try to hold them close to the chest just in case I convince my wife to finally leave California. My point is that it's quite disheartening seeing the so-called value of land and homes rise at such high rates in basically _every_ city and town west of the Rockies.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#193

Post by randyrand »

khawkins wrote: post #57
randyrand wrote: post #9

Democratic states moving into California and Californians mostly leaving for conservative states. Interesting. There are multiple ways to interpret though.

It's lower income, lower education people who are out-migrating, and those groups tend to be more right leaning on average. So if anything, the states are becoming even more uniform politically.

Education, yes. But surprisingly, "An individual’s likelihood of being a Democrat decreases with every additional dollar he or she earns."

https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/economic-demogra...

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#194

Post by prostoalex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #181
prostoalex wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did it tie the hands of the legislators?

Any new taxes, even revenue neutral ones, or increases in existing taxes require a 2/3 majority vote in both houses, which was essentially impossible until very recently. A consequence is that loss of revenue from one source could not be made up by taxing other sources. Conservatives even tried to argue that Cap and Trade was a new tax and was not allowed by Prop 13: http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal…

It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names.

It is still circumvented (Mello-Roos, special assessments, bond measures which shift the bond payments to a special tax that acts as a property taxes, but is not called one, versus servicing payments through property taxes revenue) but through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms.

The broader goal was to limit the maintenance costs.

Areas with no new residential construction and no changes in ownership would experience predictable rise in maintenance expenses. Areas with high growth will have modern-day assessments and be able to operate at higher budgets necessary for higher growth.

It's the case with any other industry that has cost-of-living adjustments. Why shouldn't it be the case with public finance?

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#195

Post by jjtheblunt »

yakz wrote: post #162
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.

There's a word for that: shitty.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#196

Post by kenhwang »

adamrezich wrote: post #136
dnomad wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (e…

A bad thing for whom? California or its (former) citizens?

Either? Former citizens presumably get an increase in quality of life in a lower cost of living area, and California has a richer (newly imported) middle class.

The ones that have it hard are the ones who can't afford to stay and can't/won't leave.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#197

Post by wetpaws »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #104
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.

This comment cracked me up, given that California is losing population, according to this article

As a lot of people mentioned above, the article is mostly misleading/and/or/incorrect

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#198

Post by LyndsySimon »

randyrand wrote: post #9

Democratic states moving into California and Californians mostly leaving for conservative states. Interesting. There are multiple ways to interpret though.

I was hoping someone else would make this connection in the comments.

What I see happening is a slow but steady demographic shift based on politics. I know my own recent move from Virginia to Arkansas was largely because of this, and statistics from the past few elections have been showing a decrease in the number of "swing" counties.

Communities are becoming more politically homogenous. I wonder if this happened prior to the US Civil War, and if there were even enough data collected to accurately measure it.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#199

Post by lern_too_spel »

prostoalex wrote: post #194
lern_too_spel wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any new taxes, even revenue neutral ones, or increases in existing taxes require a 2/3 majority vote in both houses, which was essentially impossible until very recently. A consequence is that loss of revenue from one source could not be made up by taxing other sources. Conservatives even tried to argue that Cap and Trade was a new tax and was not allowed by Prop 13: http://legal-planet.org/2017/04/06/court-of-appeal…

It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names. It is still circumvented (Mello-Roos, special assessments, bond measures which shift the bond payments to a special tax that acts as a property taxes, but is not called one, versus servicing payments through property taxes revenue) but through well-defined legislative rout…

> It closed a loophole where Prop 13 (and other tax-restricting props) could be circumvented by introducing new taxes with slightly different names.

No, property taxes are local. Prop 13 tied the hands of the state government. Prop 218 then applied the same shackles to local governments, which ensured that California would see the wave of municipal bankruptcies during the great recession and which prevented local governments from switching to progressive water usage rates during the drought.

> through well-defined legislative routes versus political backrooms.

The only feasible route that is allowed is ballot initiative, which is why we're in this mess. Every other state and local government in the country has a representative democracy that allows its representatives to manage state taxes and budget.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#200

Post by kridsdale1 »

corpMaverick wrote: post #147
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the birth rate for Millennials has been zero for pretty much all of history, except for a short blip on the late 20th Century. And that's not an effect limited to CA.

Don't forget the other blip on the late 10th Century.

William the Conqueror’s father was a millennial.
Post reply on HN