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

241–250 of 543 posts

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

#241

Post by 0x000000E2 »

pbuzbee wrote: post #178

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'…

Most of California's problems go back to lack of housing and opposition to building more. Everyone wants to live in Cali for nice weather and jobs. If you stop people from building more housing your property value just keeps rising.

Property costs are high because NIMBY blocking denser housing. Traffic is bad because housing density is too low for the population. Homelessness is bad because houses are too expensive.

Wildfires and earthquakes are the only problems not self inflicted

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

#242

Post by jshen »

ohazi wrote: post #222
jshen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Fast forward all that time, and the housing market you complain about will likely be a huge wealth generator for you But this perpetuates the problem, and makes it much worse for the next generation! You do realize that this can't continue indefinitely, right? I mean, maybe this doesn't bother you, which I suppose is fine. Does it bother you? Look, you're technically right. I also own a house in California, and am…

Not buying a house doesn’t do anything to fix the problem.

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

#243

Post by TeeMassive »

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...

90% of cattle water consumption comes directly from feed and feed is often made of leftover vegetable matter that would have been wasted otherwise or land that can't be harvested anyway: https://youtu.be/sGG-A80Tl5g?list=FLdQM1Kvo9co3TogR2c-WAPw&t...

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

#244

Post by lotsofpulp »

ohazi wrote: post #222
jshen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Fast forward all that time, and the housing market you complain about will likely be a huge wealth generator for you But this perpetuates the problem, and makes it much worse for the next generation! You do realize that this can't continue indefinitely, right? I mean, maybe this doesn't bother you, which I suppose is fine. Does it bother you? Look, you're technically right. I also own a house in California, and am…

> I'd much rather fix the problem in the general case than adopt this "I've got mine, therefore everything is fine" sense of entitlement.

The root of the problem is California is a very desirable place to live, and adding sufficient supply would decrease what makes California so desirable (per the local voting populaces).

The solution is non existent, as you’re not going to be able to come up with more Californias, but people are accepting some pieces of it by moving to various other cities in the West.

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

#245

Post by TbobbyZ »

edoceo wrote: post #148
dantheman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the federal government bailout private pensions?

to help the citizens who, outside of their control, lost that retirement fund. D or R (or whatever) the Govt (via fellow taxpayers) should help other citizens.

Bankrupt people cannot help people financially. Like, bankrupt governments cannot help people financially.

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

#246

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dglass wrote: post #239
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…

You don’t need to maintain a sky high salary during the length of a 30 year mortgage though. You can refinance every 3-5 years to reduce your monthly payment as you pay down the principal. Your mortgage payment can go down quite significantly over 30 years while paying rent will go up quite significantly over 30 years.

You don’t need to refinance to reduce your payment. You would only refinance to get a better rate or to cash in some home equity. If you prepaid a lot of principle and simply want re-amatorize into a lower payment, you just need to recast your loan, which is pretty cheap (~$300 for my mortgage company).

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

#248

Post by birdyrooster »

ohazi wrote: post #222
jshen wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Fast forward all that time, and the housing market you complain about will likely be a huge wealth generator for you But this perpetuates the problem, and makes it much worse for the next generation! You do realize that this can't continue indefinitely, right? I mean, maybe this doesn't bother you, which I suppose is fine. Does it bother you? Look, you're technically right. I also own a house in California, and am…

I don’t know if not buying a house makes any difference because you are still taking up apartments that non tech people are priced out of. To quote Skyrim NPCs “Should’ve never come here.”

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

#249

Post by spfzero »

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…

There will always be demand for CA real estate. Wealthy people from all over the world will happily pay top dollar for the homes of EOL’d boomers. Don’t expect prices to drop any time soon, at least in the desirable ares.

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

#250

Post by [deleted] »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #224
rawtxapp wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In absolute numbers, California has a population of ~39.51M, so 182k isn't significant enough. Personally, I left for a multitude of reasons, but whoever takes these statistics and concludes that "California is dying" is delusional in my opinion, at least for the foreseable future.

It strikes me as the quote “nobody goes there, it’s too crowded.”

[deleted]
Post reply on HN