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

California population declines for first time in more than a century

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 543 posts

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#41

Post by raldi »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #33
raldi wrote: post #18

Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.

California was a paradise in 1970. Today it's much closer to hell. In my opinion.

It's not for everyone, but I stand by my assertion that 100,000,000 feel otherwise and would choose to live here if we allowed the housing supply to meet demand.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#42

Post by fennecfoxen »

mmmBacon wrote: post #36

As a resident of California, I would greatly prefer fewer people. Losing population isn’t necessarily something negative in my opinion.

Your state’s unfunded pension obligations say otherwise. You’ll want help paying those.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#43

Post by cauliflower2718 »

raldi wrote: post #18

Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.

Fire season is more like hell on earth than paradise, unfortunately.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#45

Post by ibains »

We should be building Fabs in California, Cars in California, getting the smartest people in the world here, in solid numbers. Perhaps we’re in a global competition and we’ll not be the largest economy soon, perhaps we’re too busy with pronouns to notice.

People pattern-matched that the house prices always went up, assumed it was an axiom, and that drove us into a recession. Gavin Newsom will observe that California always grows and people have been talking of leaving the state for years, they never do - axiom. Basically, physics (cause-effect) stops mattering if you pattern match history.

Biggest threat to California is being taken over by the employee-bureaucracy class - that never has built anything. It is in their nature to pattern match so de effects of actions and treat them as axioms, and they miss the big picture, and they’re consistent as hell in it. And they vote very left.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#46

Post by [deleted] »

rhacker wrote: post #30
raldi wrote: post #18

Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.

What about water? Garbage? Electricity? Fuel? Also what about the people that would inevitably arrive from your invitation that want to build plastic plants like in MO? Point is I think you're hand-waving all the bad because of what it is today.

[deleted]

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#47

Post by david38 »

raldi wrote: post #34
rhacker wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about water? Garbage? Electricity? Fuel? Also what about the people that would inevitably arrive from your invitation that want to build plastic plants like in MO? Point is I think you're hand-waving all the bad because of what it is today.

You're acting like when you prevent people from coming here, they vanish into thin air, rather than go live somewhere else that's worse for the planet. For instance, city families use far less water per capita than rural and suburban families, and they produce fewer "capitas". https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-residents-praised... And compare "water used in California to produce almonds exported to other cou…

The majority of water problems come not from a few entities consuming massive amounts of water. Why we allow growing almond trees in an arid climate is beyond me.

After that, you have smaller but water intensive businesses.

Being suburban doesn’t mean you waste water. I live in the suburbs and our water use is minimal. I use water saving shower heads, I turn off the water during most of the shower. In fact, the water never runs for more than two minutes. I wash my car extremely rarely. I don’t water a lawn. I only water a couple of small potted plants. I have water saving toilets.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#48

Post by epistasis »

throwitaway1235 wrote: post #33
raldi wrote: post #18

Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.

California was a paradise in 1970. Today it's much closer to hell. In my opinion.

California is paradise, still, except for the exclusion which leads to high prices, and the car-dependent city design which leads to traffic and misery.

There's one trick to solve both these at once, while simultaneously helping the environment: more mixed-use walkable housing close to job centers.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#49

Post by immichaelwang »

1cvmask wrote: post #25

I can only comment on the Bay area which has plenty of land and lots of entrenched vested interests. Take a town like Atherton which is full of billionaires like Marc Andreesen who talk about how they want builders etc... But they are allergic when it is in their tony neighborhood of the zillionaires. The hypocrisy of the NIMBYs at full display: https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ https://en.wikipedia.org/…

What is the evidence that Marc Andreessen is a NIMBY other than he lives close to his office?

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#50

Post by CheezeIt »

1cvmask wrote: post #25

I can only comment on the Bay area which has plenty of land and lots of entrenched vested interests. Take a town like Atherton which is full of billionaires like Marc Andreesen who talk about how they want builders etc... But they are allergic when it is in their tony neighborhood of the zillionaires. The hypocrisy of the NIMBYs at full display: https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ https://en.wikipedia.org/…

A16Z’s interests are aligned against nimbyism, not with it, so it’s completely fallacious to treat Marc Andreesen and Atherton as synonymous entities.
Post reply on HN