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

421–430 of 543 posts

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

#421

Post by joejerryronnie »

austincheney wrote: post #359
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.…

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.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here. The desirable parts of CA are located typically along the coast with geographies which don’t allow unlimited expansion (lots of hills/mountains and water). No matter how many houses we build, the desire to live here for the weather/amenities/economy will continue to outstrip supply. Plus, it’s not just housing which would need to expand, it’s transportation, water, etc. There are no easy answers but the solution is not simply “build more housing”.

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

#422

Post by bicepjai »

mikevm wrote: post #404

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 pushin…

Objective arguments:

1. Texas has 29m people in 261k sq.m and cal has 39m people in 163 sq.m => land is obviously cheaper 2. CA is worlds 5th largest economy because of silicon valley, great schools, agriculture and hollywood. 3. Liberal policies are the reason for the economy. If CA can infect Texas, I see that as a progress. 4. It is natural people will move for better cost of living; one cannot see the end (is there an end?) when in middle of a self correcting process;

No comments on Florida :)

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

#423

Post by svnt »

lazyjones wrote: post #397
kewrkewm53 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nobody is talking about happiness and nobody could agree with everybody on what that means. The word here was "better" and cheap labor in poor countries objectively makes our lives better, because we can afford more goods (both needed and unneeded) with our incomes and expectations regarding working conditions.

Whether we are talking about happiness or better-ness you are still projecting a value system and claiming it to be objective.

I personally don’t derive any sense of betterness from being able to afford more goods. I only see the ocean of plastic.

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

#424

Post by ryandrake »

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

Someone else said it, but their comment is dead: California is bordered by a state with no sales tax to the north, and no income tax to the east. I would love to move to a more "rural" area if my company ever adopts remote work, but there is no financial advantage to rural CA over, say, rural any-other-state. If I'm going to move to the countryside, far away from my job, to remote work, I'm going to keep driving the moving van to at least cross a border, to avoid all that extra expense.

I've never lived there, but I bet the east and west sides of lake Tahoe have similar quality of life, similar amenities, similar schools, but living just a few km across a border could mean you keep thousands more per year of your compensation.

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

#425

Post by svnt »

tootahe45 wrote: post #348
ruined wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The birth rate is dropping the world over. As overpopulation with its resultant trauma and poverty decreases we will no longer have the immigrate-at-all-costs demographic to prop up the system.

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

#426

Post by svnt »

jshen wrote: post #242
ohazi wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fast forward all that time, and the housing market you complain about will likely be a huge wealth generator for you But this perpetuates the problem, and makes it much worse for the next generation! You do realize that this can't continue indefinitely, right? I mean, maybe this doesn't bother you, which I suppose is fine. Does it bother you? Look, you're technically right. I also own a house in California, and am…

Not buying a house doesn’t do anything to fix the problem.

This is identical to saying that cutting your carbon footprint does nothing to help the problem.

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

#427

Post by svnt »

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.

Right? Libertarian property development has no problems that have been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history! Why didn’t the people who study and work in housing policy just realize that? And you can throw some savior complex in on top — nothing but California housing to save the world from China’s emissions. And sure those less eco-friendly places would cease reproducing to replace their lost members? Utopia is a philosophical concept, like paradise, like perfect.

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

#428

Post by svnt »

medium_burrito wrote: post #210
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Stop growing rice and fucknuts in the fucking desert. That solves the water problem.

Also can we talk about lawns for a second? Your pastoral evolutionary roots called: you haven’t owned any livestock for a minute. Your lawn won’t help you eat anymore.

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

#429

Post by temp8964 »

chii wrote: post #405
failwhaleshark wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

But you can't live inside stocks. House is not just investment.

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

#430

Post by ryandrake »

john_moscow wrote: post #134
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.

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…

I consider myself pretty flexible, and don't have many never-evers, but I will never, ever, ever again live in a home with any kind of shared wall or shared space. No apartments. No condos. No townhomes. No single family homes close enough that I can reach over and touch the neighbor's wall. Never. Ever. I would quit my job and move if that's what it came to. It's the one thing non-negotiable.

I don't want to see my neighbors. I don't want to hear them. I don't want to smell their cooking. I don't want to have to deal with their problems that they drag home every day. I don't want to have to deal with their friends who bang on the wrong door at 2AM. I don't want to have the police always around because of whatever they are deciding to do that night. I don't want to have to park next to them so they dent every car I buy. I don't want to have to hear them complaining about whatever annoying thing I'm doing, because I'm probably an annoying neighbor just like them.

Politically, I'm totally fine if that's your thing. Go wild and build concrete honeycombs (as someone else here put it) all over the city, and live in them if that's what you like. We need the housing. But it's just not for me.

Post reply on HN