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

331–340 of 543 posts

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

#331

Post by pharmakom »

codefreakxff wrote: post #329
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.…

I’m not sure I understand your statement that traffic is bad because housing density is too low for the population. Certainly just increasing density with no other controls just increases traffic congestion. The best approach would be increasing density while decreasing reliance on personal transportation. https://www.transformca.org/transform-blog-post/our-take-gre...

Increasing density will naturally decrease reliance on personal motor-vehicles because more journeys become walkable.

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

#332

Post by pharmakom »

throwawayboise wrote: post #319
rdevsrex wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

More than 700/50x less

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

#333

Post by AdrianB1 »

prostoalex wrote: post #313
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 penalize…

Actually these states maximize the taxes they can extract, some from active people and some from retirees. Taxes are no longer just a way to sustain the society, but a war game between the states and the citizens.

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

#334

Post by herbst »

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.

How is it paradise? Really just wondering as I totally can't see that from afar. I see expensive housing, a lot of poor and homeless, drug issues totally out of control,... Even the tech thing is argueable. Sure most unlucrative unicorns are there, but there are cool and serious startups all around the world.

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

#335

Post by AdrianB1 »

baby wrote: post #172
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do the extra billions come from?

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

It will be very difficult when total tax rate reaches 100%. It is already over 60-70% in some places, so people's lives are managed more by the government than by themselves, but when you reach 100% and the disposable income gets to be 0 it is hard to extract more tax.

Also: if you are willing to pay more taxes don't even consider forcing others to do the same, that is rude.

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

#336

Post by herbst »

epistasis wrote: post #48
throwitaway1235 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California was a paradise in 1970. Today it's much closer to hell. In my opinion.

California is paradise, still, except for the exclusion which leads to high prices, and the car-dependent city design which leads to traffic and misery. There's one trick to solve both these at once, while simultaneously helping the environment: more mixed-use walkable housing close to job centers.

How is it paradise then? When I think paradise I don't see homeless and traffic issues normally.

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

#337

Post by smithmayowa »

OldHand2018 wrote: post #140
johncozen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Username doesn’t check out

He’s sailing away from California in the largest boat he can afford, thanks to the high cost of living: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimist_(dinghy)

This is so funny, Never heard of an optimist dinghy boat before until now.

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

#338

Post by AdrianB1 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #192
ohazi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That is easy, eliminate property taxes. That property was bought with money that was already taxed. If you provide services, ask them to pay for the actual services provided, not for a generic tax. Common services like police can be split to the number of residents.

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

#339

Post by AdrianB1 »

collaborative wrote: post #318
ironmagma wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And put them into coffins in the process because a huge raise in criminality. Build a ghetto, collect.

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

#340

Post by amanaplanacanal »

baby wrote: post #180
epistasis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Law makers pass the laws their constituents want. Blame the voters.
Post reply on HN