Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 362 posts

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#191

Post by chipotle_coyote »

dragonwriter wrote: post #148
handmodel wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify I am saying that some people on here are saying that California is anti-business/anti-tech and that is why people are moving out. I am saying the vast majority of people moving out of CA are just doing so because general cost of living isn't a great deal. And almost by definition, if you move to California from somewhere else then "home" would be lower cost of living. Only exceptions are if you grew up in…

> And almost by definition, if you move to California from somewhere else then "home" would be lower cost of living. Only exceptions are if you grew up in NYC, Boston, DC or a few other cities. Lots of California is cheaper than a lot more than just the few most expensive cities. California is not just the central cities of the Bag Area. Also, on a state level, HI has a higher cost of living than CA.

Anecdotally as someone who's been doing some casual house-pricing over the last year around California, it is surprising how expensive a lot of the state -- including areas that were pretty cheap, in relative terms, just a few years ago -- has gotten for new home buyers. It's true that people kind of forget that there are cities outside the Bay Area and the LA Basin, but it's still dismaying how much a 1500 square foot, 3BR/2BA home that isn't of the manufactured variety is likely to set you back even in pretty remote towns in California.

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#192

Post by pchristensen »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #6

"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it." - Jeff Bezos This is a tricky article because I can tell it's using the term 'exodus' and 'myth' differently than I would. It's abundantly clear there is a lot of migration out of California. Just ask Texans, Coloradans, and Idahoans.

Californians moving to Texas seems new. But for the rest of the West, California had more people than Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. Combined. A tiny % of Californians coming to town with coastal equity can upset the balance in these much smaller states. It’s a joke not joke that people sell their 60 year old bungalow in LA and buy a 20 acre horse ranch for cash in Boise.

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#193

Post by Ar-Curunir »

malshe wrote: post #173
handmodel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this is probably the story that gets repeated in places like HN which I agree is common. However, if you ever talk to uber drivers or your waiters they will complain about how expensive California is. Or even people at parties who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up. I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specifi…

I live in Texas and I whenever I go to California, I find it super expensive too! I am a unifier site professor and my salary is not very different from the professors in CA (State university salaries are public). I don’t know what is keeping those professors there.

Better weather, better universities, slightly better politics, and more

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#194

Post by dv_dt »

rayiner wrote: post #126
deep-root wrote: post #44

A "back of the napkin" calculation seems to indicate there is no mass exodus. On mobile, but here is the typical annual CA pop change stats for the past decade, give or take: --Incoming-- - 400K domestic immigrants[1] - 180-200K international immigrants[2] - 450K births[4] Subtotal: ~1.1M --Outgoing-- - 600K domestic emigrants[1] - 250K deaths[4] - ?? intl emigrants (anyone know?) Subtotal: ~850K Typical annual net c…

I’m skeptical about counting international immigrants here. International immigration is a function of a very specific thing, in California’s case a measure of H1-B sponsor companies. If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion. I’m an immigrant fr…

H1b approvals were severely curtailed by the Trump administration.

https://insights.dice.com/2020/10/27/h-1b-policy-how-trump-a...

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#195

Post by seanmcdirmid »

rayiner wrote: post #126
deep-root wrote: post #44

A "back of the napkin" calculation seems to indicate there is no mass exodus. On mobile, but here is the typical annual CA pop change stats for the past decade, give or take: --Incoming-- - 400K domestic immigrants[1] - 180-200K international immigrants[2] - 450K births[4] Subtotal: ~1.1M --Outgoing-- - 600K domestic emigrants[1] - 250K deaths[4] - ?? intl emigrants (anyone know?) Subtotal: ~850K Typical annual net c…

I’m skeptical about counting international immigrants here. International immigration is a function of a very specific thing, in California’s case a measure of H1-B sponsor companies. If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion. I’m an immigrant fr…

It’s not really weird that immigrants start in California and then wind up elsewhere. That’s normal, and they are quickly replaced with new immigrants anyways. California (and originally New York) as waypoints in immigration before dispersal elsewhere is a very old concept.

> That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.

If you Google “California population”, you get a graph where Texas and California start at the same population in 1940, then you just see California absolutely booming vs the other, with a meteoritic rise in population. Finally, at the end, you see the boom taper off. If one were to just look at that graph, you’d think something like “no one goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#196

Post by seanmcdirmid »

handmodel wrote: post #145
almost_usual wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up I hear the opposite, people cannot afford where they grew up. Most people from the Bay Area aren’t working high paying tech jobs. > I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one. Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized an…

To clarify I am saying that some people on here are saying that California is anti-business/anti-tech and that is why people are moving out. I am saying the vast majority of people moving out of CA are just doing so because general cost of living isn't a great deal. And almost by definition, if you move to California from somewhere else then "home" would be lower cost of living. Only exceptions are if you grew up in…

> Only exceptions are if you grew up in NYC, Boston, DC or a few other cities.

And pretty much all Hawaiian transplants.

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#197

Post by AbrahamParangi »

gameswithgo wrote: post #16
BitwiseFool wrote: post #6

"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it." - Jeff Bezos This is a tricky article because I can tell it's using the term 'exodus' and 'myth' differently than I would. It's abundantly clear there is a lot of migration out of California. Just ask Texans, Coloradans, and Idahoans.

what a dumb quote by bezos

Here's a translation that may be useful: Just because you can't measure your epistemic error (error in your knowledge, worldview, assumptions, or anything else) doesn't mean it's not there.

In my experience it's the #1 source of errors that smart people make.

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#198

Post by deep-root »

random314 wrote: post #158
rayiner wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m skeptical about counting international immigrants here. International immigration is a function of a very specific thing, in California’s case a measure of H1-B sponsor companies. If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion. I’m an immigrant fr…

This unfairly discounts the immigrants that California attracts , while counting folks who leave. To be consistent we must look at population growth as a whole, possibly split by age group. California will typically attract younger folks looking for work.

Well said. CA immigrants paid ~$50bn in taxes in 2018, ~50% naturalize, a million are business owners.[1] Almost 40% of Silicon Valley is immigrants. Half of all immigrants that come to the US land in California. Most from Asia and Europe.

On paper this is an exceedingly productive population, and represents 25% of California.

[1] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigran...

Re: California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds

#200

Post by seanmcdirmid »

quesera wrote: post #75
tomc1985 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you are out of the main coastal communities housing prices drop dramatically. I have friends in Eureka renting a gigantic house for like $1200/mo, and I saw studio apartments in the city center in the order of $750/mo. The SoCal equivalents would be $3500/mo-plus and $1500/mo-plus, respectively.

Right but this is just by virtue of CA being a big, long, state where the northern reaches are far away from the economically active parts. Eureka is charming enough, but it has no specific attractive force over any other (very) small coastal city where the next-larger city is many hours' drive away. Compare to Crescent City, or southern coastal Oregon. So yes, you're still in California up there, and housing is less…

Susanville is a small town with a thriving industry in corrections, so lots of jobs if you don’t mind being a prison guard. It’s also an hour or so out of Reno, and has cheap housing. It’s also nice nature wise, and if you head north you are warned there are no gas stations for a hundred miles or so.
Post reply on HN