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

211–220 of 543 posts

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

#211

Post by jayd16 »

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.

Look at Davis CA or 20 minutes away from half the UCs really. North of San Diego is cheap is peaceful. Most places do not have the endless urban sprawl of the bay or LA.

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

#213

Post by summerlight »

raldi wrote: post #31
eganist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Paradise on Earth and home to the nation’s fastest-growing 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 here from much less eco-friendly places. Are you in agreement with changing zoning laws to accommodate many more high rises e.g…

No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.

Yeah. Plus, reducing parking minimum to the sane level will give us back a significant portion of land wasted for 90% of time.

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

#214

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

epistasis wrote: post #167
john_moscow wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in a high population density area with 3 generation sharing the same apartment because that was the way to go. It is far from being a bright future one would want. Constant conflicts in the family because the grandparents want to watch TV, parents need to rest after work, and the child wants to study. Constantly hearing your neighbors when they want to have a party, or do some renovation. Trashed up common…

The overcrowding you describe is endemic in California. Likely, nearly all you food is produced by people living in overcrowded housing, worse than you describe. What you describe is common for the people who serve you food in restaurants, and restock the shelves, and do pretty much all the stuff that makes society run these days in California. And we got to that point without concrete boxes at all. Avoiding density…

> Let's imagine that we build so that we don't have to hear our neighbors' partying.

I’ve heard (and been kept awake by) my neighbors in every single place I’ve lived that’s not a detached home. Even the fancy condo with super thick walls/floors/ceilings only made it rarer. If nothing else, this is why I want a single family home and hate the idea that this is the desirable future. Invest in remote work and let people have space.

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

#215

Post by Gibbon1 »

seryoiupfurds wrote: post #206
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

In other jurisdictions the solution is to allow the retired homeowner to defer property taxes, to be paid out of the eventual proceeds of a sale.

I've also heard people mention places where they freeze property taxes for retired people.

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

#216

Post by manigandham »

CameronNemo wrote: post #100
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?

CA is next to the ocean with plenty of solar power potential. Fab water can also be recycled with some effort.

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

#217

Post by shuckles »

Thorrez wrote: post #204
epistasis wrote: post #76

There are several comments on this page from people who say they are in California and think this news is a good thing, and also seem to perversely think that it's not a terrible terrible sign for any native Californian who isn't already tremendously wealthy. This is probably my biggest complaint about California: there is this incredibly wrong strain of thought that keeping people out will somehow make everyone's li…

Doesn't people leaving reduce housing prices?

No, because rich households are still migrating in. It's low and middle income households that are leaving.

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

#218

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

> on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%.

I think you are either too optimistic in what a professor can earn in California, or you are missing that taxes are marginal. I know a CS professor at UCLA who just makes around $120k, so single filer California taxes would pay just be around 6.5%. If you throw in a spouse with an additional $80k of income, you’ll hit 6%.

To pay an effective 10% rate in California, a single filer would have to make $700k/year and a married couple would need to make more than a million.

A school like UCLA deals with their faculty not making enough to buy a house in LA (or especially Westwood) by giving them access to special kinds of loans.

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

#219

Post by miguelmota »

Most people I know that grew up in Southern California want to live long-term in California.

Most people I know that grew up in a different state and tried living in Southern California, end up hating it and leaving.

If you’re used to Southern California you’re probably more likely to put up with it’s many problems because it’s home, there’s great food, plenty of things to do, and of course the amazing weather. If you’re an outsider, I can see why living in California seems absurd if you’re not used to the heavy traffic and high prices.

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

#220

Post by nullc »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #218
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.

> on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. I think you are either too optimistic in what a professor can earn in California, or you are missing that taxes are marginal. I know a CS professor at UCLA who just makes around $120k, so single filer California taxes would pay just be around 6.5%. If you throw in a spouse with an additional $80k of income, you’ll hit 6%. To pay an effective 10% rate…

Clearly the state just wants to make sure that any prospective college professors can distinguish marginal tax rate from effective tax rate. :P
Post reply on HN