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

91–100 of 543 posts

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

#91

Post by thaumaturgy »

raldi wrote: post #73
thaumaturgy wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm usually a huge cheerleader for most things California, but I think this comment is missing some important considerations. Namely, people don't just need housing, they also need food, energy, water, transportation, waste management, employment, education, health care, and space for recreation. Every new home that goes up requires a lot of infrastructure to support a healthy population. And people don't want to be…

Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27082295

No argument from me that higher density population centers tend to be better for the global environment, but that wasn't my point.

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

#92

Post by shuckles »

collaborative wrote: post #84
gautamcgoel wrote: post #67

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. I'd love to stay in CA and become a prof at one of the world-renown universities in the state. The cost for a nice house is > $800K in all of the cities hosting these universities; on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. CA is basically telling me (and millions of other millennials) that we are not wanted here.

No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price control is an illusion and demand will outstrip supply for a long time But state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most (i.e. the homeless) and offer a surplus supply to perhaps not lower current prices…

In reality, the solution to the housing crisis isn’t either/or. The same construction productivity improvements and building reforms are necessary to allow for productive investment for housing at all income levels.

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

#93

Post by Black101 »

rhacker wrote: post #60
Black101 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that it was a good idea to sell my house and rent for a few years when it tripled in value.... we'll see in 1.5 years if that was a good choice.

Probably if you just sold like in the past few months, if it was a year ago or longer, probably not. And yes, I agree that will probably be seen as save in 1.5 years.

it was about 6 months ago and I bought it in 2009...

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

#94

Post by collaborative »

Here is a crazy idea: let's build big and ugly apartment blocks with tax money. The emphasis should be placed on the "ugly" bit. They should be a place where someone with taste would never want to live. They should still include all the basics (heating, plumbing etc)

This will make it really hard for these places to become investment vehicles. The State could even just straight up sell them, no priority list needed. The final price would necessarily be low, and the people buying would do so because they need to, not because they need a place to park their money

There could be a competition to "design the ugliest, fully functional tower". There are plenty of concepts readily available (brutalism, etc).

Now that I think of it, I've already seen this. This is Gypsyism 101: Trash your neighborhood, cherish your home. At last we can all see that they were on to something

*Please don't take offense at my Gypsy comment; I merely wish I was Gypsy myself, that's all

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

#95

Post by linguae »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #67

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. I'd love to stay in CA and become a prof at one of the world-renown universities in the state. The cost for a nice house is > $800K in all of the cities hosting these universities; on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. CA is basically telling me (and millions of other millennials) that we are not wanted here.

I'm a lifelong Californian whose lived in Santa Cruz County for nearly nine out of the past 11 years, and as someone who wants to become a CS professor at a teaching university one day, I feel the exact same way. I love California and I don't want to leave the state. However, the housing prices signal to me that if I want to buy a house, I need to have a very high income and maintain it during the length of a 30-year mortgage. Professors are paid well compared to the average Californian, but professors' salaries are generally not enough to afford to purchase a place in the Bay Area or much of Southern California without involving mega-commutes from exurbia (and, thanks to the WFH boom, these exurbs have gone up in price dramatically). There's still some parts of the Central Valley that are affordable for professors and that are too far for Bay Area/Los Angeles mega-commuters, but the nature of academic hiring means that there's no guarantee a position at a place like UC Merced or Fresno State would open when it's time for me to apply for assistant professor jobs.

If I can't find a place in the next few years that is affordable on an $80,000/year salary in California, then I have to move. I'd like to move to a place where a 3-bedroom house in a safe neighborhood costs no more than $400,000, and where there is a diverse population. Ideally I'd like to live in a place that doesn't get too cold in the winter; I'd rather deal with very hot summers (I grew up in Sacramento where it regularly gets above 100 in the summer) than to deal with cold winters.

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

#96

Post by arrty88 »

collaborative wrote: post #94

Here is a crazy idea: let's build big and ugly apartment blocks with tax money. The emphasis should be placed on the "ugly" bit. They should be a place where someone with taste would never want to live. They should still include all the basics (heating, plumbing etc) This will make it really hard for these places to become investment vehicles. The State could even just straight up sell them, no priority list needed.…

It’s been done. See any standard nyc project or stuytown.

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

#97

Post by seryoiupfurds »

collaborative wrote: post #84
gautamcgoel wrote: post #67

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. I'd love to stay in CA and become a prof at one of the world-renown universities in the state. The cost for a nice house is > $800K in all of the cities hosting these universities; on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. CA is basically telling me (and millions of other millennials) that we are not wanted here.

No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price control is an illusion and demand will outstrip supply for a long time But state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most (i.e. the homeless) and offer a surplus supply to perhaps not lower current prices…

The state can invest billions of dollars into affordable housing, and simultaneously allow private developers to invest billions of their own dollars to meet demand from people at the top. Impeding the latter does nothing to help the former.

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

#98

Post by ironmagma »

collaborative wrote: post #94

Here is a crazy idea: let's build big and ugly apartment blocks with tax money. The emphasis should be placed on the "ugly" bit. They should be a place where someone with taste would never want to live. They should still include all the basics (heating, plumbing etc) This will make it really hard for these places to become investment vehicles. The State could even just straight up sell them, no priority list needed.…

Sounds like a great way to build a neighborhood full of miserable people. What was the goal again?

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

#99

Post by CameronNemo »

imoverclocked wrote: post #90
epistasis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I disagree, the people of California are probably one of the best parts of it, IMHO. If it's just the climate or the views, there are many other great places in the West coast that are cheaper and have the same natural amenities. But the people are irreplaceable, which is what make California so much more desirable than those other places that you aren't living. However if there was a system for limiting…

> you get like 30 years but then have to leave Yikes. I wouldn't want to move to this state to begin with if it had a law like that. Also, who would that apply to? Farmers? Families? If someone has lived here for 40 years and is retired, would they have to leave?

Yeah that would basically ensure people aren't putting down roots. (Economic, environmental, or social)

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

#100

Post by CameronNemo »

ibains wrote: post #45

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…

Don't fabs require tons of water?
Post reply on HN