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

341–350 of 543 posts

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

#341

Post by pharmakom »

_vertigo wrote: post #303
epistasis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High rises don't necessarily help much with adding additional population, the real key is consistently higher density being allowed. Barcelona is an absolutely beautiful city with amazing transit and amenities, all without any high rises at all. Really the key is to ban single unit detached homes, get rid of setbacks, get rid of parking minimums, establish parking maximums, even. Basically, the entire planning profes…

Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still wo…

What you want is fundamentally incompatible with city living. The best way to scale up the kind of housing you describe is in the suburbs with high speed rail links to the city center.

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

#342

Post by [deleted] »

janeroe wrote: post #284
gautamcgoel wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in Atlanta and highly recommend it.

Aren't you concerned that Californians will turn Atlanta into Little California by supporting the policies that caused the problems they are fleeing in the first place?

[deleted]

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

#343

Post by mattmanser »

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.

$50,000 in 1970 is worth $350,000 in 2021 dollars.

So in reality the house has doubled in price.

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

#345

Post by Lammy »

avidiax wrote: post #288
Lammy wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it feels like that’s why it’s expensive. Either that or it just very coincidentally started getting extremely expensive at the same time housing segregation and home-loan discrimination were banned federally (1968 and 1974 respectively. People ask “WTF happened in 1971?” ( https://wtfhappenedin1971.com ) like they never took a high school “american history” class.

Is the answer that the US left the gold standard and switched to completely fiat currency? Or the US ended the trade embargo with China? Or Walt Disney World opened in Florida?

We outlawed segregation so all those people who wanted it immediately realized they were wrong, racism disappeared, and we all lived Happily Ever After. Or that’s the way the Disney version goes anyway.

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

#346

Post by ballenf »

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...

Think miles per person per day. More dense means everything is closer.

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

#347

Post by shsbdbdbx »

baby wrote: post #179
hbfgjbbvcu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes the people were California’s greatest asset. Unfortunately many of them have been displaced by hordes of tech bros (and sis) who swooped in for those almighty dollars. Not that I am knocking the hustle, but in my experience they don’t really like living here, do not understand or respect the locals, and their contributions to the overall cultural atmosphere are subtraction by addition. I knew we were in trouble w…

I don’t think you’re wrong, I’m personally part of the problem. I just think you’re barking at the wrong tree. Focus on the incentives and what make people move here and leave so quickly. If prices and safety were better people would want to stay and improve what’s around them.

I get what you are saying about incentives. You can’t really lay the blame for mass movements of people at the feet of individuals.

I think that the biggest contributing factor was (1) Google’s successful execution of an ad based revenue model for the internet and (2) the launch of smart phones, and (3) MBA-ization of the valley - a shift in culture and mindset from R&D to operations.

We all saw something similar in the 90s. It self corrected during the recession. While the recession wasn’t great, the early part of the recovery circa 2004 was amazing. I hate to root for anyone to lose their jobs. I would rather companies relocate people.

The next boom will most likely come in crypto / blockchain after the price of Bitcoin crashes and the hucksters and hype die out. Biotech after that.

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

#348

Post by tootahe45 »

ruined wrote: post #182
mixmastamyk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should help slow the rise, but since populations rise, I wouldn’t expect a big change. Only if nimbys were to kick off en masse and prop 13 were reformed.

populations don't always rise, and the boomers have implemented policy and stuck around long enough to kneecap the next generations and prevent younger people from starting families. america has dropped below replacement birth rate in the past few years, despite younger parents actually wanting to have more children

As long as living standards are lower elsewhere, you can just get replacements from other countries. You spend less this way as well and don't have to raise and educate people. You can also call people racists if they don't like it.

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

#349

Post by aspaceman »

CameronNemo wrote: post #127
markdown wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barely any compared to an orchard.

That sounds like a deflection. Besides, orchards can't grow in just any soil. What about fabs? Why is California an ideal location?

Why does California have to be ideal to build a fab? A fab in California seems like one of the most worthwhile public works projects I’ve heard of in awhile.

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

#350

Post by lazyjones »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #330
jiggliemon wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the biggest asshole response to real problems that I see Californians say all the time. Maybe I just know too many assholes – but there has to be a better answer to “people are fleeing California for legitimate reasons” than “good riddance.”

Have you considered that it is not "good riddance", but an observation that as the population declines the housing problem is decreasing until it will go away? Population growth is a real problem, we are living in an finite system called planet Earth. With 1/4 of the world population everyone would live better - less pollution, 4 times more resources per capita, etc. Imagine California with 10-15 million inhabitants,…

> Population growth is a real problem, we are living in an finite system called planet Earth. With 1/4 of the world population everyone would live better

First half is true, second half ignorant. Your life is better because somewhere out there are half a dozen poor people mining resources and building goods for you, for a tiny fraction of your income.

Post reply on HN