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

321–330 of 362 posts

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

#321

Post by vel0city »

jjeaff wrote: post #300
vel0city wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting income taxes and then add CoL on top of that. Sure you're making gross more but that $214k turns to ~$140k after taxes while that Texas $169k turns into ~$126k. So closer to a difference of about $14k. Then think that housing is way cheaper, gas is almost half the price, electricity can easily be had for 7c/kWh in DFW, etc. I just filled up this afternoon for $2.49/gal, what does gas cost out there…

Many CA universities have housing programs for professors to offset the higher cost of living that i don't think show up in those salary averages.

Interesting, I see that here:

https://www.ucop.edu/loan-programs/loan-programs/frap/index....

It doesn't really say what percentage of professors get this assistance or how much that assistance is typical in the end.

Faculty housing rates at UCLA:

https://portal.housing.ucla.edu/faculty-housing/faculty-hous...

So pretty much >$2k and up to $5,427/mo for housing costs. And that's supposed to be somehow more affordable than the surrounding area? For a 2bdr apartment its >$500/mo more than my mortgage + insurance on a four bedroom home with a pool purchased recently. For the condos, that's a few grand a month more. Compared to $1,400/mo average rent immediately surrounding UTD. Rent can be found for That would have to be a pretty good-sized stipend to offset that cost. Also it speaks volumes that a professor making >$40k gross more needs to then also have a housing stipend to make the actual take home close to the person making >$40k less.

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #320
travisjungroth wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are small parts of California where that is absolutely true. A block of the Tenderloin is more likely to have shit and needles than not. Crime in SF is out of control. There’s also about 160 million other square miles where things aren’t so bad.

This is true, but the bad places tend to also be the big population centers. This naturally means the same people that are content to allow these problems to fester are also politically dominant at the state level.

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by vel0city »

malshe wrote: post #319
vel0city wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting income taxes and then add CoL on top of that. Sure you're making gross more but that $214k turns to ~$140k after taxes while that Texas $169k turns into ~$126k. So closer to a difference of about $14k. Then think that housing is way cheaper, gas is almost half the price, electricity can easily be had for 7c/kWh in DFW, etc. I just filled up this afternoon for $2.49/gal, what does gas cost out there…

Texas A&M professors might be keeping more than even a UCLA prof! College Station is a tiny town.

Yeah, right? The Texas A&M prof can probably afford a good-sized house, own and operate multiple cars, and still save more cash at the end of the month than a prof at UCLA living in a studio and not owning a car despite making ~$100k less gross income.

I remember taking a hard look at some job offers around SF, relocating from DFW. Crunching the numbers I would have needed well more than twice my current salary to have my savings rate be the same and I'd still be downsizing my housing a good bit.

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

#324

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #258
dragonwriter wrote: post #215

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. Most years, California has had more net inbound (not gross) international migration than the national H-1B cap. You are greatly exaggerating the role of the H-1B in California stats. > If Indians come to California so they can get an…

Immigrants face unique constraints in their choice of where to live. Places that have lots of immigrants will attract more because of family-based migration and people’s desire to be closer to support networks. But that still indirectly comes down to the availability of jobs that will sponsor immigrants. My dad sponsored other members of our family to immigrate. They settled in New York City, because it’s a great pla…

> But that still indirectly comes down to the availability of jobs that will sponsor immigrants.

“Jobs that will sponsor immigrants” and “Jobs that will sponsor one particular class of dual-intent non-immigrant visa” are two very different things, so you are moving the goalposts, but still wrong.

> I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing.

Everyone non-white person I’ve known, immigrant or not, who has traveled from California to...almost any other part of the continental US that isn’t another Pacific Coast or California-bordering state, or NYC or a couple other non-Southern East Coast metropolises—and especially to the Midwest or South—has said that about the other places compared to California, not California.

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

#325

Post by dragonwriter »

rcpt wrote: post #241
chipotle_coyote wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Prop 13 is a huge incentive to park as much cash as possible in real estate and then never sell. Hugs market distortion. It's statewide.

> Prop 13 is a huge incentive to park as much cash as possible in real estate and then never sell.

Or cash out for a retirement where you aren’t living someplace subject to Prop 13 effect on the market, which is what a lot retirees leaving CA do.

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

#326

Post by drak0n1c »

doitLP wrote: post #144

Well as someone moving out of California I’m having a hard time finding a moving truck, even 3 months out. uHaul and Ryder are having a hard time fulfilling demand because so many trucks are leaving California and so few are coming back.

You may find luck with Estes Sure Move. They provide a commercial truck trailer that they truck for you and you save money the less space you use in it (they fill the rest with commercial shipping). I used them to leave the Seattle and they were significantly cheaper than the competition.

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

#327

Post by dragonwriter »

unishark wrote: post #232
dragonwriter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hawaii is not much of a defense as it has logistical reasons for its high cost, and anyway has a smaller total population than most major metro areas. I'm not necessarily in the camp that thinks California isn't worth the cost. Though some undesirable location in the desert may indeed not be worth the taxes.

> Hawaii is not much of a defense

Since it is a place that people can come to California from, it is a very effective defense against the claim almost by definition, if you move to California from somewhere else then "home" would be lower cost of living.

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

#328

Post by strbean »

robomartin wrote: post #248
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 don't know about these numbers. What I can tell you is that the business exodus from CA is very real. This means less jobs, or, what could be worse, lower paying jobs. I know of entire companies who picked-up and left for places like Arizona and Texas. I personally cannot wait to be able to do the same. I want nothing whatsoever to do with California in terms of business. After decades of living here I am just sick…

> And then there's the hundred billion dollar high speed train to nowhere that isn't even a high speed train and (if I remember correctly) might not even have ten miles of track built.

The planned max speed for CAHSR is 220 mph, which is faster than TGV or Shinkansen, and well beyond the threshold for "high speed".

Also, nowhere? The initial route is from SJ to Burbank. How is that nowhere? This is absurd.

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

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #314
random314 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Immigrants face unique constraints in their choice of where to live. What you are saying is that California and New York are where the jobs are - hence the immigration. An H1B is equally valid in California and Tennessee. You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or comp…

> You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or competitive in states with higher productivity. That formulation still makes California sound shitty! > This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constrain…

> That’s exactly the conservative critique of California. It’s laws make housing expensive.

The specific law that does that is championed and defended by conservatives, who keep successfully scaremongering every attempt to even tweak it.

So, that critique is pretty hollow.

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

#330

Post by strbean »

DevKoala wrote: post #281
antiterra wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They passed a tax added to your property taxes that is a function of any surface area on your property that does not allow rain to come into contact with dirt So they charge you for the externalities incurred by impervious surface cover? How is that anything but rational? Seriously, why do you deserve to add to pollution and drought without incurring any penalty for the cost you inflict on others? Impervious ground…

You should have finished reading before getting offended. Some of his examples were very valid.

Reviewing them all, it seems the only remotely valid points where "LA permit approval is slow" and "California agriculture uses a lot of water"...
Post reply on HN