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

311–320 of 543 posts

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

#311

Post by prostoalex »

jiggliemon wrote: post #273
0x000000E2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

NIMBYism regarding more housing really only pertains to metropolitan/urban areas. How come the rest of the state can’t build housing consummate to the demand?

That was the major selling point of the CA high-speed rail when Governor Brown originally put it on the ballot - everyone would live in one of those ever-expanding residential suburbs and then take a quick train ride into a busy urban area.

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

#312

Post by bob1029 »

CameronNemo wrote: post #102
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 could try Houston!

Be prepared to offer 10% over listing price. Just bought a house in this market last week. Texas realtors are the real heroes of 2021. I can't imagine having to deliver bad news to 20+ people for every house that touches the market.

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

#313

Post by prostoalex »

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.

CA tax system is mainly set up for retirees - high tax rates for current income, low tax rates for long-term property ownership. Someone who no longer works for W-2 income, but lives off social security, pension or investment portfolio would flourish in CA.

It's interesting how AZ and FL get the reputation of being great places for retirement, even though their tax system highly encourages current income and penalizes home ownership through higher property taxes.

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

#314

Post by dubyah »

epistasis wrote: post #64
raldi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm ok with taller buildings if we ever finally allow more CLT construction in this state. Our building code is antiquated and silly, and the construction industry itself is probably the least innovative or capable industry in the entire US, which is probably to be expected with the way we've treated it to such awful boom and bust cycles.

https://softwoodlumberboard.org/california-building-standard...

"With this approval, California will adopt the entire series of the ICC approved change proposals for the design of tall wood buildings in California. California will become the fifth state to move forward with early adoption of the 2021 International Building Code"

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

#315

Post by rdevsrex »

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'…

Exactly. I grew up in LA, and my parents bought a house for 50K in the 70s, but that same house today is ~700K. Just getting the down payment for a house that price would take a long time.

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

#317

Post by 29athrowaway »

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'…

And earthquakes.

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

#318

Post by collaborative »

ironmagma wrote: post #98
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?

The goal was to put roofs over people's heads

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

#319

Post by throwawayboise »

rdevsrex wrote: post #315
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'…

Exactly. I grew up in LA, and my parents bought a house for 50K in the 70s, but that same house today is ~700K. Just getting the down payment for a house that price would take a long time.

But what was their income in the 70s?

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

#320

Post by throwawayboise »

andi999 wrote: post #298
strictnein wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

401ks are pretax money. In general, people put ~5% of their (pretax) money into 401ks because, on average, companies will match that ~5%, effectively doubling your retirement savings instantly. A common thing to utilize after that is a ROTH IRA, which is paid with after tax money, but the money grows tax free. The max ROTH IRA contribution per year is $6k, $12k if you're married.

Is the matching by the company also tax exempt?

Yes it is
Post reply on HN