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

171–180 of 543 posts

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

#171

Post by Rebelgecko »

kstrauser wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how much I believe that. It seems likely that this census was incredibly compromised compared to past censuses, and the 0.4% decline is well within what I'd consider a plausible margin of error.

I hit the WSJ paywall so I don't know what they say about it, but according to the AP article on this topic the state's population estimates don't use census data

>The state's population estimate comes from a number of sources, including birth and death counts, the number of new driver's licenses and address changes, school enrollments and federal tax returns.

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

#172

Post by baby »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #115
seryoiupfurds wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where do the extra billions come from?

Can we pay more taxes please? I’m serious.

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

#173

Post by mixmastamyk »

J253 wrote: post #166
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 know that CA (LA, SF, SD) housing has always been expensive but it seems like in the past 20 years or so it’s become cumbersomely so. Unless you rode up on the wave of raising house prices through those years (presumably, mostly boomers, or you’re already ultra-wealthy) buying a decent single family home is out of the question. But with the boomer generation approaching EOL (sorry, a bit macabre) does anyone think…

That should help slow the rise, but since populations rise, I wouldn’t expect a big change. Only if nimbys were to kick off en masse and prop 13 were reformed.

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

#174

Post by Rebelgecko »

cozzyd wrote: post #113

This is presumably based on estimates from the ACS, which have severely undercounted population in many states. In August the official census estimates may say the opposite.

The state makes the estimate using its own records (birth certificates, death certificates, DL applications, etc)

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

#175

Post by baby »

aphextron wrote: post #120

California is just at saturation level. There's just too many people for the small strip of coastal land that is inhabitable. All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people. The traffic, the crowds everywhere at all times, it's all just too much at this point. It's still an amazing paradise playground if you're a millionaire. Bu…

Hong Kong is laughing at you

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

#176

Post by jshen »

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.

One thing to keep in mind about CA, once you buy that $800k house, your real estate taxes are more or less locked at that price and won’t rise as the value increases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

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

#177

Post by bcrosby95 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #161
ericbarrett wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1.1 gallons (~4 L) per almond.

Could be worse. Could be cows. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-04-13/cows-s...

Yeah, I've always loved how almonds get a bad deal on the news, but they rarely mention meat.

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

#178

Post by pbuzbee »

I feel like it's only going to get worse. California has a good number of problems: housing costs, traffic, wildfires, homelessness, ... and the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of enjoying them. But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these. We're still in the stage of "problems are getting worse", and any solutions will take a long time to materialize.

I grew up in California. It's still a great place to live if you're rich or if you bought property in a good location a long time ago, but if neither of those are true, you're going to have a huge uphill battle. Most people in my millennial friend groups, including me, have all talked about how we'd like to leave. We're mostly still here because our families are here and good jobs are easier to find. But each year, one by one I see people I know flee to other states.

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

#179

Post by baby »

hbfgjbbvcu wrote: post #108
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…

Yes the people were California’s greatest asset. Unfortunately many of them have been displaced by hordes of tech bros (and sis) who swooped in for those almighty dollars. Not that I am knocking the hustle, but in my experience they don’t really like living here, do not understand or respect the locals, and their contributions to the overall cultural atmosphere are subtraction by addition. I knew we were in trouble w…

I don’t think you’re wrong, I’m personally part of the problem. I just think you’re barking at the wrong tree. Focus on the incentives and what make people move here and leave so quickly. If prices and safety were better people would want to stay and improve what’s around them.

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

#180

Post by baby »

epistasis wrote: post #153
hbfgjbbvcu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the people were California’s greatest asset. Unfortunately many of them have been displaced by hordes of tech bros (and sis) who swooped in for those almighty dollars. Not that I am knocking the hustle, but in my experience they don’t really like living here, do not understand or respect the locals, and their contributions to the overall cultural atmosphere are subtraction by addition. I knew we were in trouble w…

I wish that we had a tenth of the contempt for the landlords and homeowners that causes this as we do for the tech bros who are the symptom of the artificial scarcity. The tech bros were not the ones displacing people, it was entirely the fault of landlords who raised rents, and the homeowners who are selling for record profits. It is this landed class that has turned what should have been a boon for everyone into a…

Law makers are the ones who should be blamed.
Post reply on HN