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

191–200 of 543 posts

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

#191

Post by CamperBob2 »

raldi wrote: post #52
cauliflower2718 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The primary reason we have a fire season at all is that we don't let people build housing in California's existing cities and towns, and so instead they sprawl out into fire-prone areas requiring long-distance power lines. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/wui-interface-intermi...

A lot of places have long-distance power lines. They don't all burn up on a regular basis. So, no, that can't be it.

(That being said, yes, it would be better if power generation were decentralized, and California seems like the right place to do just that.)

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

#192

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

ohazi wrote: post #183
jshen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

i.e. the original sin that gave us this problem in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense to have the older, wealthier, luckier, "I got here early, therefore I'm set for life" generation pay $300/year, while the couple in their thirties who moved in two years ago, have a new baby, and can barely afford the mortgage and daycare despite both parents working in tech have to pay nearly $15,000/year. I know the ori…

I've never seen a good solution for this.

If the taxes get locked in, then you get the "2 neighbors with near identical houses paying totally different amounts in taxes" problem.

If the taxes are not locked in, then you get the retired lifelong home-owner (or renter) on a fixed income, unable to afford the increasing taxes (or rents).

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

#193

Post by Hypx_ »

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.

That's a bit of a stretch. You would to rethink how American society works for that to happen. Everything from water use and automotive dependency would have be reconsidered. And since this is earthquake country construction is relatively expensive. It doesn't take much math to realize that building enough housing for a 60M population increase would cost around $10T.

So while this is an theoretical exercise but in reality it is very very hard to see happening under any short-term circumstances.

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

#194

Post by StandardFuture »

JPKab wrote: post #105
CameronNemo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately countless coastal communities will happily watch their children flee so that they can keep their "beach bungalow vibe" or whatever other delusion they have. Meanwhile we will keep building huge roads and parking lots to accomodate their lifestyle.

My father doesn't live in California, but he's one of those baby boomers that drives me crazy with this kind of crap. There are no jobs or industry anywhere near where we grew up but people like him make sure that stays a reality and then he has the nerve to complain about how I live so far away. He's the ultimate NIMBY. He and others like him all truly believe that as soon as their house was completed no further cha…

> it's outright selfish.

Yes, but aren't we all to at least some degree? "Self-focused" is perhaps an easier adjective to digest?

The reality is that the boomers dominated politics (local and national) up until now. That starts to change inside this decade. So we are going to see dramatic shifts by 2030 and we will see if that is for the better or the worse.

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

#195

Post by Mountain_Skies »

It's been a couple of decades since I lived in California and my parents moved out to Nevada five years ago so my current knowledge of the state is pretty much from media and online sources. Despite that, I have to wonder if the state has simply become too unwieldly and if it's time to give the idea of splitting it into multiple states some serious consideration. While I didn't like the "Six Californias" plan, some of the earlier plans to split the state into two states or perhaps three states seem more reasonable. There'd probably be some opposition from other states since adding more senators to the Senate dilutes every other state's relative power plus it's likely any way you split California is going to result in all of the new senators being Democrats. Nevertheless, it seems worth exploring, seriously this time. The "smaller" states would still be huge states but hopefully more manageable.

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

#196

Post by jshen »

ohazi wrote: post #183
jshen wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

i.e. the original sin that gave us this problem in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense to have the older, wealthier, luckier, "I got here early, therefore I'm set for life" generation pay $300/year, while the couple in their thirties who moved in two years ago, have a new baby, and can barely afford the mortgage and daycare despite both parents working in tech have to pay nearly $15,000/year. I know the ori…

You can absolutely afford it on two tech salaries. I was exactly the person your describing 15+ years ago, but my wife wasn’t working so we only had one tech salary. Fast forward all that time, and the housing market you complain about will likely be a huge wealth generator for you, where as this cheap houses in the middle of no where won’t be.

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

#197

Post by Mountain_Skies »

namelessoracle wrote: post #189
linguae wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Echoing others Atlanta is pretty much exactly what you are asking for. I dont think that will stay true for much longer with google and microsofts announced investments there however.

Aren't Californians boycotting Georgia over voting laws?

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

listless wrote: post #181
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #159

Here in Florida, non-wealthy renters have become victims of a hostile takeover, by out of state home buyers. The vast bulk of us simply can't compete with California cash on FL wages. Rental properties are being sold to move-ins, causing rents here to triple or more. The number of available rentals has dropped to ~0. Leases aren't being renewed and these people have nowhere to go. This is unprecedented.

Same is happening in TN, but for home buyers. If you’re a first time buyer looking in the I have no idea what my kids are gonna do. They will never be able to afford a decent house at the current rate of growth.

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by nradov »

linguae wrote: post #95
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…

I wish you luck but even in CS there aren't many tenure track positions open. You might have to move to another state to pursue your career, regardless of housing costs.

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN