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

521–530 of 543 posts

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

#521

Post by rayiner »

tptacek wrote: post #498
idlewords wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes the question of how much covid-era remote work will remain remote (particularly for the highest-paid employees) particularly urgent.

I'm probably wrong about everything. But to me: remote work explains why houses in, like, Idaho might get more expensive. But if you're going to live in Chicagoland or in DC metro, there are big advantages to living close to the center, even if you don't have to commute; all the good restaurants are there, all the shows are there, public transportation is better, and so on.

> all the good restaurants are there, all the shows are there, public transportation is better, and so on.

I know this is heresy and contrary to all I purport to stand for, but I've gotten pretty acclimated to suburban big box eating, lol. We've been to Glory Days Grill more than once.

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

#522

Post by seanmcdirmid »

refurb wrote: post #491
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Californian valuations are fixed in their increases by prop 13, so over time your property taxes will go down, restive to inflation at least.

Sure, if housing prices increase at the same rate as the last 30 years there is a huge benefit, but regardless if you buy today you’ll have a massive property tax bill.

Yes, and it really isn’t fair, but prop 13 wasn’t about fairness.

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

#523

Post by baby »

throw123123123 wrote: post #493
baby wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I’m an immigrant and I wish taxes were higher so we could get healthcare and more help for the homeless

As a cluster immigrants are very conservative. Also makes sense to not want to get taxed on benefits you dont get.

Depending in your visa you actually do skip some of the taxes.

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

#524

Post by baby »

refurb wrote: post #323
baby wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not interested as I don’t think voluntary contributions can change anything. This argument goes both ways: why not lowering taxes since people can just donate instead? The next thing you know you don’t have hospitals, roads, police, firemen, army, education, healthcare, oops

The relevant phrase is “put your money where your mouth is”.

Yes, which is in funding organizations and movements that aim at educating people (like you) about the benefits of social programs and taxes.

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

#525

Post by refurb »

jshen wrote: post #492
refurb wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10 years to recover from 2006 peak, not adjusting for inflation. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SFXRSA

Right, so if you pick the absolute worst moment to buy, you still make a profit in 10 years. Sounds like a good bet to me, especially considering you have to live somewhere and pay rent or a mortgage.

No, you’d break even after 10 years, actually less than even due to inflation. Then add on top maintenance, property taxes, opportunity cost of your down payment (market was up 107% over that period).

Again, not saying you can make good money but there is no reason why the opposite can’t happen.

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

#526

Post by jshen »

refurb wrote: post #525
jshen wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so if you pick the absolute worst moment to buy, you still make a profit in 10 years. Sounds like a good bet to me, especially considering you have to live somewhere and pay rent or a mortgage.

No, you’d break even after 10 years, actually less than even due to inflation. Then add on top maintenance, property taxes, opportunity cost of your down payment (market was up 107% over that period). Again, not saying you can make good money but there is no reason why the opposite can’t happen.

No one is saying it’s a sure thing, but the fact that you have to pick the absolute worst time, and it still is a positive return over ten years, really proves it’s a good bet.

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

#527

Post by KirillPanov »

mdhen wrote: post #480
KirillPanov wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people. There are places that are, today, what California was in the 60's/70's. It's springtime, get out there and look for them. I found one and I love it here. Just don't waste your time asking the urbanist hipsters for directions... back in the 1970s they would've been trying to convi…

and where is the one you've found?

the first rule of Fight Club is...

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

#528

Post by herbst »

raldi wrote: post #520
herbst wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are places in Spain just like that. Only that they are not overpopulated already. That's not exclusive to California, rather available several times on that line around the globe.

I agree that there are places like this in Europe, but generally in Europe, they allow four-to-six-story multifamily housing in their cities. What part of Spain looks like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_District,_San_Francisco...

That looks like a human mass production farm. I don't think any place in Europe looks like this. We have mixed areas to decrease traffic and inequality, these kind of housing farms are pretty much non existent

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

#529

Post by raldi »

herbst wrote: post #528
raldi wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are places like this in Europe, but generally in Europe, they allow four-to-six-story multifamily housing in their cities. What part of Spain looks like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_District,_San_Francisco...

That looks like a human mass production farm. I don't think any place in Europe looks like this. We have mixed areas to decrease traffic and inequality, these kind of housing farms are pretty much non existent

Exactly. You know that the places people want to live should have decent housing density. Here, existing homeowners addicted to free street parking and ever-rising property values have learned to exercise power to prevent it.

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

#530

Post by epistasis »

PaywallBuster wrote: post #316

Is bankruptcy gonna save Cali and the Valley? They can finally reorganize and cut all the fat

What bankruptcy? That's the most preposterous thing I've ever heard. California has a massive budget surplus, despite going through a pandemic.

There's such a massive surplus that it is overflowing the rainy day fund. And due to spending limits set back in 1979, a bunch is being refunded:

https://www.kqed.org/news/11872910/flush-with-cash-californi...

You should think back to whatever source told you such a silly thing and remember to never believe them.

Post reply on HN