California population declines for first time in more than a century • Hacker News Board

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

#411

Post by clairity » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

sagarm wrote: post #299

clairity wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politici…

Politics is the art of the possible, and a bill that made those changes is highly unlikely to pass. San Francisco's state senator Scott Weiner has been leading in he charge. A few good bills have gotten through, but opposition from LA has been a serious hurdle to upzoning.

weiner has gotten a lot of credit at the state level, but no obvious political success. that's why a ballot measure may be the way to go.

and LA isn't the principal opposition, that's broad among the state's landlords and homeowners. let's not let (geographical) divide-and-conquer obscure the goal here.

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

#412

Post by throw123123123 » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

rawtxapp wrote: post #13

kstrauser wrote: post #5

I'm not sure how much I believe that. It seems likely that this census was incredibly compromised compared to past censuses, and the 0.4% decline is well within what I'd consider a plausible margin of error.

In absolute numbers, California has a population of ~39.51M, so 182k isn't significant enough. Personally, I left for a multitude of reasons, but whoever takes these statistics and concludes that "California is dying" is delusional in my opinion, at least for the foreseable future.

Population decline is a really serious ailment. It makes for an eternally shrinking economy and a death-spiral, as the value and prosperity of the place decays YoY.

Less people means less demand, means less businesses, less jobs, less tax revenue, etc.

It is reversible, by changing expectations of the future, to prevent people from leaving and to attract new people, but a few years of shrinking population would make the spiral very hard to revert.

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

#413

Post by refurb » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

secabeen wrote: post #388

refurb wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yeah, it’s marginal, but $45k-58k is taxed at 8%, then $33k-$46k is taxed at 6%. Those aren’t low rates compared to other states, especially considering the COL.

They're not low, certainly, but they aren't extravagant, and they are offset by low property taxes (California 1%, Texas 1.80%, New Hampshire 2.18%), even more so once you've been in a place some years, and are benefiting from Prop 13.

Uh, no, 1% isn’t not a low tax rate when’s starter single family home in the Bay Area is $1M.

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

#414

Post by scottrogowski » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #234

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And farm where? The aquifer used by most of the midwest is over half drained and can't be replenished. South of there is dessert. North is cold. East is populous and mountainous.

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...

That's very interesting. Today I learned.

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

#415

Post by refurb » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:51 PM UTC

jshen wrote: post #392

refurb wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! Housing only goes up and what happened in the last 15 years is bound to repeat itself in the next 15 years.

I’m guessing this is sarcasm, and yes, it’s not a sure thing, but it’s pretty close. Also, you have to live somewhere so the investment is offset by the rent you’d otherwise be paying.

Owning is more expensive renting generally in the Bay Area. You’ll come out ahead owning if you own for 5-10 years and see appreciation.

But SF housing dropped 30% in 2008. No reason it can’t happen again.

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

#416

Post by throw123123123 » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:53 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #340

baby wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law makers are the ones who should be blamed.

Law makers pass the laws their constituents want. Blame the voters.

I often remark that SF and the valley are a flawed democratic institution: it has a very high immigrant population that would vote against the majority of things that get voted. Immigrants are generally tough on crime, Yimby, anti-tax, etc.

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

#417

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:58 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #415

jshen wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m guessing this is sarcasm, and yes, it’s not a sure thing, but it’s pretty close. Also, you have to live somewhere so the investment is offset by the rent you’d otherwise be paying.

Owning is more expensive renting generally in the Bay Area. You’ll come out ahead owning if you own for 5-10 years and see appreciation. But SF housing dropped 30% in 2008. No reason it can’t happen again.

If you look at SF market history, you see mostly rapid growth with short term declines from peaks which are quickly erased.

Is there risk? Sure, but its hard to find a 5-10 year period where you lose even if you hit the bottom of one of the drops, which are usually only a year or two from the peak.

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

#418

Post by scottrogowski » Sat, May 08, 2021, 2:59 PM UTC

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152

scottrogowski wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree so strongly with this sentiment. There is always such a defeatist attitude on these threads that assumes California is somehow full and unchangeable. Outside of the three metro areas, it's basically empty! Separately, in the metro areas, there's a lot of room for infill density. Three years back, I made the rational choice to leave because I could barely see a way to home ownership - not to mention having a f…

California needs to drastically ramp up water availability from new sources. Otherwise there isn't much point to the rest of this conversation.

Disagree that the statistics I cited have water availability as a prerequisite to improvement. California can simultaneously have water problems and graduate more seniors. They are not mutually exclusive.

Agree in the need to ramp up water availability. Though certainly simple solutions like reducing the number of water intensive crops would provide enough water for decades of population growth without new sources. The key is to allow people to imagine a slightly different California and not panic that there just aren't as many almond growers as there used to be.

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

#419

Post by prostoalex » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:05 PM UTC

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…

> there's no difference between a massive forest fire, periodic controlled burns,

I believe the way it's performed elsewhere is a controlled burn after the older trees had been felled. The burn is for the undergrowth.

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

#420

Post by epistasis » Sat, May 08, 2021, 3:07 PM UTC

_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 don't get it, so you think I don't want to live in a place like Barcelona? Seriously? Of course I do!!

I can understand people having different preferences. What I can not understand is refusing to believe that people don't love living in a place like Barcelona.

> who on earth wants to live in tiny terrarium that costs $4000 a month

Why not ask the people that live there rather than pretending they don't exist or that their desires don't deserve to be allowed? Seriously, this is a strange way to think of other humans, seeing that they are right in front of you but trying desperately to pretend that they are fundamentally fooled, or nonexistent, or don't deserve to exist, or something. People pay waaaaay more than $4000/month for a detached home, and far less than that, but only they exist as people with valid desires, somehow?

I don't think it's clear at all that Americans "culturally value" space more. We have done lots of top-down planning to prevent density, disallowing it in nearly all places. But it's hugely in demand, and far more people want it than we allow to live in it. This despite nearly a century of media, law, and political movements on both the left and right vilifying cities as places of disease, crime, and inherent poverty.

If people didn't want to live in these types of places, why is it necessary to ban them? We should definitely legalize missing middle, but also legalize far more dense walkable urban areas, at least enough of them so that they are cheap to live in rather than the most expensive form of housing.