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

371–380 of 543 posts

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

#371

Post by notsureaboutpg »

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

Because living in the "countryside" in TN means I avoid a nearly 10% state income tax. And as a remote worker that's worth whatever marginal difference exists between CA countryside and TN countryside

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

#372

Post by failwhaleshark »

austincheney wrote: post #358
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…

There is only one party, the Property party, with two wings: Democrat and Republican. - Gore Vidal

California doesn't care about anyone who isn't rich. (I'm politically ambivalent and non-participatory.) It's the neoliberals (the Clinton lowercase democrats who emulated Republican laissez-faire social darwinism) who let CA become an unequal society and helped along by Reagan Republicans. (The progressives are the group who later became the "true liberals" after the neoliberals stole and bent the uppercase Liberal moniker.)

PS: Heya ATX from I-35 and 5th. I moved to ATX from CIC/SJC/MTV in late 2020 because my mom couldn't financially live in Paradise anymore, or take the smoke and PSPS power outages. Unfortunately, all of the worst of Californians who made it terrible are moving here too. I prefer the original ATX hippie/bike mechanic/entrepreneur/tatted/skater/cool friendly people, not these kidult, a/anti-social, rude, fake, yuppie, ignorant, selfish ahole office jobber transplants who are clueless about what makes ATX culture or the plight of the tent city homeless under I-35. The yuppies I mentioned comprise most of my apt complex, and like stockbrokers, they take more meth and coke than the homeless do.. they bust out the hard drugs, and I leave. I tried being friendly with the neighbors, but they're not people I would be friends with or even want to be acquainted with... they're uncool like posers.

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

#373

Post by vmception »

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'…

You say that but I absolutely love gentrifying (aka signing literally any lease at someone else’s price when I move literally any where) and there are still tons of people who took a bus escaping Mormonstan or Missouri to shack up with

From my perspective nothing has changed

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

#374

Post by notsureaboutpg »

akudha wrote: post #352
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?

I moved to TN, anecdotally.

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

#375

Post by failwhaleshark »

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.

My grandparents bought their house on the SJC - Los Gatos border for $30k in 1968. It sold in 2019 for $1.4M.

That's what piggyback second mortgages are for. There are also subsidized loans for first-time buyers in the US called FHA loans that allow 3.5% to 10% down payments.

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

#376

Post by sokoloff »

raldi wrote: post #142
john_moscow wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in a high population density area with 3 generation sharing the same apartment because that was the way to go. It is far from being a bright future one would want. Constant conflicts in the family because the grandparents want to watch TV, parents need to rest after work, and the child wants to study. Constantly hearing your neighbors when they want to have a party, or do some renovation. Trashed up common…

It sounds like you’re mixing up density and crowding: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EwBYGX7VcAIwYXL.jpg

Several of the issues they mention are density issues, particularly any that relate to side effects of sharing walls (noise) and common areas.

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

#377

Post by kewrkewm53 »

blagie wrote: post #361
prostoalex wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wildfires and earthquakes are the only problems not self inflicted Massive wildfires (vs small distributed fires) are the result of the policy framework that (a) prohibits preventative controlled burns (b) requires immediate containment of any new fire. The old (more flammable) undergrowth never has a chance to burn off and free up the space for (less flammable) new generation. As a result CA is one of the most pol…

Erm, no. There's a carbon cycle. Trees trap carbon. When they die, trees release carbon. Unless you bury dead trees underground (e.g. as paper, furniture, etc., in deep landfills), in terms net amount of carbon capture, there's no difference between a massive forest fire, periodic controlled burns, decay, etc. They differ in time cycles. Even a sequoia will eventually die and release its carbon back into the atmosphe…

This. The most climate-friendly way to handle forests is to actually cut parts of them down regularly (in a sustainable pace, leaving enough unaffected areas for wildlife), and use the wood for building houses and other elements which stay intact long-term.

More buildings should be constructed from wood, less from concrete, which itself causes major co2 emissions.

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

#378

Post by kewrkewm53 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #283
jiggliemon wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People want to live near jobs, services and amenities, and diversity of those can only be achieved at scale. You could build a million homes in the middle of nowhere and you’d wind up with a million empty houses.

Many people also want to live in large houses or apartments, which is extremely expensive anywhere with high population density.

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

#379

Post by poloopolo »

kubb wrote: post #357
mattmanser wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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?

Of course, what has gone down is the real purchasing power of a dollar. Good thing we now have crypto but the transition will be a wild west

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

#380

Post by kewrkewm53 »

lazyjones wrote: post #350
AdrianB1 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's only assuming that being able to buy cheap stuff actually makes people happier. I don't think it does.
Post reply on HN