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

351–360 of 543 posts

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

#351

Post by KirillPanov »

aphextron wrote: post #120

California is just at saturation level. There's just too many people for the small strip of coastal land that is inhabitable. All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people. The traffic, the crowds everywhere at all times, it's all just too much at this point. It's still an amazing paradise playground if you're a millionaire. Bu…

> All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people.

There are places that are, today, what California was in the 60's/70's. It's springtime, get out there and look for them. I found one and I love it here.

Just don't waste your time asking the urbanist hipsters for directions... back in the 1970s they would've been trying to convince you anything outside of NYC was "provincial" -- including San Francisco.

Perspective.

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

#352

Post by akudha »

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'…

What states are your acquaintances fleeing to? If you leave CA, where do you plan to move to?

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

#353

Post by akudha »

raverbashing wrote: post #275
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.…

But the funny thing is, the California "countryside" is languishing because of a lack of people/jobs But instead of going there people prefer the big established cities elsewhere

Any particular countryside town you’d recommend for someone working from home?

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

#354

Post by mschuster91 »

ballenf wrote: post #346
codefreakxff wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dense housing is only dense housing, if people still need to commute half an hour or more to their workplaces dense housing is only creating traffic issues.

Transport infrastructure (roads, buses, railroads, trams), housing, everyday service infrastructure (supermarkets, medical services, restaurants, haircutters) and employment infrastructure needs to be planned holistically or you're just shifting between problems - in the case of only going for denser housing, you'll lower homelessness a bit but get traffic issues in return.

And on top of that, city planning needs to take entrenched interests into account. Often enough NIMBYist complaints are founded in real fears of exploding traffic or a loss in property value - but these can be counteracted and compensated, if one is willing to.

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

#355

Post by mschuster91 »

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?

Employment. Rural areas don't have much to offer in terms of jobs other than backbreaking farm labor, and Internet access is usually way too underbuilt to support full remote work.

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

#356

Post by bobthepanda »

raverbashing wrote: post #275
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.…

But the funny thing is, the California "countryside" is languishing because of a lack of people/jobs But instead of going there people prefer the big established cities elsewhere

A lack of jobs is usually not considered a positive thing when looking for a place to move to

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

#357

Post by kubb »

mattmanser wrote: post #343
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.

$50,000 in 1970 is worth $350,000 in 2021 dollars. So in reality the house has doubled in price.

And I guess what we think are great salaries in the tech industry today, were salaries of a postman or a factory worker back then?

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

#358

Post by austincheney »

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'…

> But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these.

Based upon comments I have seen on HN California deliberately does not want to solve many of those problems. Expensive social polices cost more money which means higher taxes, which may or may not provide the intended result irrespective of increased price.

As a better more precise example of that phenomenon look at the city of Austin which has many policies, funding concerns, and results comparable to large California cities despite being the capital of a large deep red state. Compare the Austin experience, in numbers, to other major metros in the same state.

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

#359

Post by austincheney »

0x000000E2 wrote: post #241
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.…

Everybody says that but I have never seen a study indicating increased housing availability reduces housing price. Where I live, growth rate 22% decade over decade for the last three decades, housing prices increase directly proportional to the increase of housing quantity. That is until an area is filled at which point housing values will either skyrocket or flatten based upon desirability.

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

#360

Post by throwaway316943 »

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,…

The problem isn’t total population, its population density. Too much is bad and too little is bad. You could change the total all you want but if everyone decides to live in the same place then you’re stuck with the same problems.
Post reply on HN