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

401–410 of 543 posts

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

#401

Post by rhexs »

randompwd wrote: post #383
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's imagine that we build so that we don't have to hear our neighbors' partying. I’ve heard (and been kept awake by) my neighbors in every single place I’ve lived that’s not a detached home. Even the fancy condo with super thick walls/floors/ceilings only made it rarer. If nothing else, this is why I want a single family home and hate the idea that this is the desirable future. Invest in remote work and let peopl…

As has everyone. The parents comment is the residential version of champagne socialism. Somebody advocating for something they've never experienced but demand that it be the future despite most people who have experienced it saying it can be soul destroying. Grow your smaller cities and stop pumping everything in mega cities. Parents comment reminds me of the people drooling at the mouth for Tokyo style housing despi…

Do you have any links on what Tokyo style housing is actually like? I’ve heard that you can relatively easily afford single family housing there if you’re willing to put up with a long commute to work.

Is that not correct?

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

#402

Post by raldi »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #400
raldi wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we made no change other than to stop growing the almonds that we export overseas, that alone would free up enough water to accommodate about 20 new San Franciscos: https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/LA-vs-Exports...

While farming that uses even more water gets a pass? http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/11/cows-not-almonds-...

I mentioned almonds because California grows so many of them that the total water use of all the state's production outweighs the total for beef, but your point is valid that beef (in terms of water-per-pound-eaten) use even more water. This is another area we could free up the supply for residential use: Let other parts of the country develop stronger cattle industries. Or just let the price of meat go up.

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

#403

Post by raldi »

samatman wrote: post #324
sagarm wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is _rice_ really grown in California?

Yes. California has a rich delta, the San Joaquin River Delta, which is a natural rice growing region. People who are ignorant of geography, and think water is much more fungible than it is, would prefer that some small amount more of this water be expelled into the San Francisco Bay, as the great majority of it is already. Contrast with alfalfa, which is grown mostly from aquifer water in the Central Valley, constit…

Also people who are aware of the invention of aqueducts would prefer that agricultural use of water be priced the same as residential use, if water is to be the main argument in opposition to allowing the state's population to grow.

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

#404

Post by mikevm »

It's funny how people in this thread are complaining about housing costs, homelessness, high tax rates, etc... and no one actually wants to blame it on the liberal policies that have caused all these problems. People are leaving California to states likes Texas and Florida, in part due to better costs of living and lower taxes. Unfortunately, said people will try to turn those states into another California by pushing for the same policies that ended up making California unlivable.

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

#405

Post by chii »

failwhaleshark wrote: post #375
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.

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.

> $30k in 1968. It sold in 2019 for $1.4M.

and the same $30k invested in the S&P 500 in 1968 would have earned you 186x - or $5,580,000 (using http://www.moneychimp.com/features/market_cagr.htm as a guide to calculate returns).

And yet, nobody bats an eye that this amazing returns of stocks, and continues to complain that housing prices are too high today, when it was "cheap" in the past. But was it really cheap in the past?

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

#406

Post by raldi »

_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…

I think your desired living situation should be allowed, but it shouldn't be subsidized by prohibiting more urban ones. There would still be houses with garages and driveways for carwashing in San Francisco, but there would also be car-free four-story, four-unit apartment buildings in every neighborhood.

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

#407

Post by epistasis »

randompwd wrote: post #383
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's imagine that we build so that we don't have to hear our neighbors' partying. I’ve heard (and been kept awake by) my neighbors in every single place I’ve lived that’s not a detached home. Even the fancy condo with super thick walls/floors/ceilings only made it rarer. If nothing else, this is why I want a single family home and hate the idea that this is the desirable future. Invest in remote work and let peopl…

As has everyone. The parents comment is the residential version of champagne socialism. Somebody advocating for something they've never experienced but demand that it be the future despite most people who have experienced it saying it can be soul destroying. Grow your smaller cities and stop pumping everything in mega cities. Parents comment reminds me of the people drooling at the mouth for Tokyo style housing despi…

> Grow your smaller cities and stop pumping everything in mega cities.

This is precisely what has resulted in lots of our overcrowding. We allow greenfield sprawl pretty much all over in the smaller cities, but modestly sized apartment buildings are banned nearly everywhere in the "mega cities." Yet, still, people still want to live in the mega cities.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that some people, even a huge number of people, want to live differently than you, in a bustling city, without cars, but surrounded by lots of people and experiences and culture. That's fine, you don't need to understand it! But what's not fine is saying that other people aren't allowed to want what they want, or to build what they want.

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

#408

Post by raldi »

herbst wrote: post #334
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.

https://redd.it/an79j2

Never gets too hot, never gets too cold, doesn't rain at all for half the year, you can grow just about anything in your garden, there's natural beauty all around and you get get out there quickly and easily to enjoy it — beaches, snowy mountains, hiking, rolling hills...

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

#409

Post by throw123123123 »

newsclues wrote: post #367
lsiebert wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these" Yeah, the thing is there are political and regulatory efforts to deal with these, but most people don't hear/read about them, unless they are super wonky. So the people who tend to get involved are the wealthy people who benefit financially from the outcome, and the occasional non profit. The latter is where you can actually make an impact fo…

If you rely on nonprofits to solve homelessness, you are essentially allowing a nonprofit homelessness industry to exist and funding it with tax dollars.

Or charity

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

#410

Post by throw123123123 »

sgustard wrote: post #269
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'…

All those problems get better as the population declines.

I dont think wild-fires and homelessness gets better with less people. The latter gets a lot worse even, by increasing general pop/homelessness.
Post reply on HN