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

451–460 of 543 posts

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

#451

Post by jshen »

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.

There are exceptions for sure, Detroit for example. But they are exceptions.

And yes, you need a ten year time horizon for the risk to be small. By 2014 the SF home prices were above the peak in 2007.

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

#452

Post by 0x000000E2 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #354
ballenf wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dense housing naturally causes businesses to move closer. I don't know of any cities where a dense urban core isn't also filled with businesses and very walkable. It will naturally happen if they allow dense housing

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

#453

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #446
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "the money was already taxed" line is so much BS. There's not some law handed from God that says "Thy shall only levy taxes on a single dollar once in its entire existence". There isn't even one that says "Thou shalt not levy a tax on this meagre dollar more than once as long as it is held by this particular individual". Taxes are a matter of choice - a (democratic, even vaguely) society makes a choice to spend…

Would you go to Mars to ask the people moving there to pay tax on the land they will own? Where is the boundary of what you think you can "democratically" force your taxation views on? I consider zero taxation as living people alone to live their lives, not as forcing them to do something that I think it's good for society.

The people on Mars will likely decide to levy their own taxes to cover the costs of the things that they decide to collectively fund. Just like Americans did after the declaration of independence from England.

I suspect you don't believe that there can be society-wide collective goals, and I just don't have any time for that nonsense. I spent too much of the 90s on Usenet arguing with people who thought that, and it just isn't worth my time anymore.

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

#454

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #443
zrobotics wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you are being downvoted is that you are proposing an extremely regressive tax. For example, splitting police costs among the residents evenly means that everyone, regardless of income, has the same tax burden. The reason property taxes are based on value is that it acts to tax wealthier people at a higher rate than poorer people. Plus, just because the money that purchased the land was taxed means nothing…

I don't mind people having different opinions, I am a bit sad to see some are not honest. 1. There are places in the civilized world without property taxes. 2. I am not proposing a regressive tax system, I am proposing a tax system based on actual consumption and frugal mindset. People are always equal until they are not - one man one vote is good, but one man one dollar tax is bad, 'cause some men cannot afford to p…

>I am not proposing a regressive tax system,

In a progressive tax system, the burden of taxes is related to the marginal utility of money. That is, an extra $1000 for a person who earns $15k a year has enormous utility, whereas an extra $1000 for a person who earns $150k a year is of much less utility (and this trends to zero utility as base-line income rises).

Consequently, when you collect $1000 in taxes from a person who earns $15k, you have a dramatic impact on their life. When you collect $1000 in taxes from a person who earns $500k a year, it has very littl eimpact on their life.

This notion of "progressivity" in taxes has been at the heart of most taxation in most western nations, including the USA, for centuries.

Your suggestion does not follow this, and is thus called "regressive" - people are taxed without attention to the marginal utility of money.

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

#455

Post by gumby »

I can’t help but believe that California will again be the bellwether for the USA.

In my time in the USA I have seen California signal major trends, from the neocon movement of Nixon/Reagan, tax protest, the rise of megachurches, growth of civil rights for some repressed groups (e.g. LGBTQ+), and so on. And this predates me — it’s a long term trend.

Birth rates are dropping and there is a demographic bulge with the boomers. Instead of laughing at California as the WSJ likes to do, people should consider if it’s what the future holds where they are. Some of the trends discussed (huge separation between mean and median income, overt ecological shifts) are already widespread, and increasing, in the rest of the country.

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

#456

Post by [deleted] »

0x000000E2 wrote: post #445
austincheney wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That is until an area is filled Thats the issue with your approach. Supply and demand will cause housing in an area to be knocked down and replaced with denser housing. Townhouses, apartments, skyscrapers eventually. In some places this natural replacement cycle is feircly resisted and local governments are bent to the will of incumbents. HN leans heavily liberal but this is one place where conservative "small gove…

[deleted]

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

#457

Post by renewiltord »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #439
renewiltord wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to your experience but my fancy London flat was dead quiet from neighbours. One time I met a lady at the lifts and she apologized for her kids making so much noise (they were adjacent to my flat) and to be honest, I hadn't heard a damn thing and I was just lying in bed in the room adjoining their flat the whole morning. Of course, personally I don't think we should "invest in remote work" or "build fla…

Time has shown that the market optima reached by deregulation aren’t optimal for everyone. It’s why we have a minimum wage, for example. There’s a place for letting the market decide, but it’s no panacea. It’s disingenuous to act like there are no externalities involved and what’s what regulation is needed for. Especially when government investment is needed for the essentials like utilities and transit.

I think we can allow for those things to follow people rather than prescribing it ahead of time.

The Command Economy style of "First build transit, then enable large buildings" just leads to nothing going anywhere and a lot of people complaining about prices while rent seekers eat all surplus.

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

#458

Post by AdrianB1 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #454
AdrianB1 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mind people having different opinions, I am a bit sad to see some are not honest. 1. There are places in the civilized world without property taxes. 2. I am not proposing a regressive tax system, I am proposing a tax system based on actual consumption and frugal mindset. People are always equal until they are not - one man one vote is good, but one man one dollar tax is bad, 'cause some men cannot afford to p…

>I am not proposing a regressive tax system, In a progressive tax system, the burden of taxes is related to the marginal utility of money. That is, an extra $1000 for a person who earns $15k a year has enormous utility, whereas an extra $1000 for a person who earns $150k a year is of much less utility (and this trends to zero utility as base-line income rises). Consequently, when you collect $1000 in taxes from a per…

No, I am not doing the philosophy of taxation, I am suggesting eliminating taxation as a concept; you pay per service consumed. Even buying a sandwich is regressive, but I haven't seen proposals to make the price of sandwiches progressive.

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

#459

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #458
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I am not proposing a regressive tax system, In a progressive tax system, the burden of taxes is related to the marginal utility of money. That is, an extra $1000 for a person who earns $15k a year has enormous utility, whereas an extra $1000 for a person who earns $150k a year is of much less utility (and this trends to zero utility as base-line income rises). Consequently, when you collect $1000 in taxes from a per…

No, I am not doing the philosophy of taxation, I am suggesting eliminating taxation as a concept; you pay per service consumed. Even buying a sandwich is regressive, but I haven't seen proposals to make the price of sandwiches progressive.

That's because taxation is connected to the notion of collective decision making. Buying a sandwich is not.

And BTW, there are some cafes/restaurants (not many, but a few) that do offer progressive pricing.

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

#460

Post by joejerryronnie »

0x000000E2 wrote: post #448
joejerryronnie wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

IMO it's not true. If it wasn't for rampant NIMBY in Cali developers would gladly replace low density housing with skyscrapers. There's less space but you can always build up. But none of the Cali cities allow this. That's why despite California's huge population you don't see any cities with skyscrapers and traffic is so bad. Building upwards also solves the transportation issues. Look at places like Tokyo and Singa…

You could be right about vertical construction lessening the transportation burden, but there’s still the water issue.

As an aside, I came across a Tokyo density map overlaid on a map of CA (Greater Tokyo Area, not just the city of Tokyo) and it would be like taking the entire population of CA and condensing it into the city of Los Angeles.

Post reply on HN