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

351–360 of 362 posts

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

#351

Post by michaelmrose »

tomc1985 wrote: post #349
gkop wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t have a horse in this race, but must point out that Eureka sits directly on the Pacific Coast of the mainland United States, which adds significant desirability to a town that is admittedly best known for having a lot of tweakers. (In fact Eureka is fairly centrally located on the coast, which is kind of cool, too. I’d want to live in Arcata instead because less tweakers. But Arcata isn’t directly on the coast…

This is really pedantic, but Eureka isn't really directly on the coast either, it sits on the far side of Humboldt Bay and is shielded by an isthmus that is mostly empty land. That said the coast is a 10 minute drive (and maybe 25-30 minute drive for Arcata) As for the populace... they don't call it Eutweaka for nothin

The more we narrow our focus the less meaningful the discussion. Whether Eureka is overpriced is a digression. The parent post to this whole offshoot is implying that comparing a carefully chosen podunk town in California with one of the only two big cities in the entire state of NC shows why people are leaving CA.

Eureka can be overpriced while the overall thesis remains carefully constructed malarkey. NC has grown by 300% in the last century while CA has grown by 900% in the same period. More recently NC has grown at about 1% per year over the last decade. California grew similarly over the same period until 2016 when it started to slow down. Its barely a blip in the graph and needs no complicated explanation.

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

#352

Post by methodiosmel »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #350
whoooooo123 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> get fixes on a national level, but with the current Republicans in place Er, what? You realise the federal government is currently controlled by Democrats, right?

It doesn't matter. Divided government and electoral pressure means that we are fixed right of center for the foreseeable future; there is a reason we elected a conservative Democrat as president. The Democrats also can't just go off and propose nationwide solutions to homelessness, they can barely get an infrastructure bill going.

If you think Biden is a Conservative Democrat, you have no idea what Conservatism is.

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

#353

Post by tonymet »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #344
tonymet wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. We’re encouraged to trust stats over personal observations, but stats have noise , error and bad narratives . Generally stats are picked and chosen to tell a story . Among my friends and coworkers I’ve known dozens who left CA in the past 12 months . Even just this morning as friend surprised me that he will be gone in a week, and I know many more who are actively looking to leave , particularly before fire…

Just remember, your friends/coworkers are not a random sample.

Random samples also mean there's more noise in the data. When someone tells you a fact , like "average crime is low", or "very few people get struck by lightning", that average is skewed by useless noise. If there's high crime in your neighborhood, who cares about the low crime neighborhoods? If you work in a corn field all day, your risk of getting struck by lightning is quite high.

That's the great myth with statistics. They are deliberately chosen to tell a story. By segmenting the data, you will get signal that matters to you.

If my friends and coworkers are all leaving, that is more meaningful to me and the decisions I'll make over the next year than if the majority of the entire population is staying.

It also has an impact economically on the State if specific segments of the work population are leaving.

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

#354

Post by fridif »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #304
fridif wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me the number and types of software engineers who have left, and I will measure the loss

That seems like moving the goalposts.

Whether it is or isnt, it's worth a discussion no?

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

#355

Post by Talanes »

sidlls wrote: post #302
Talanes wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really trying to gatekeep "back of the napkin?"

How is it gatekeeping? We don't call estimates sourced with references "back of the napkin" calculations because they aren't.

It was a small handful of quickly searchable numbers, not an in-depth review of sources and data.

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

#356

Post by hollandheese »

tomc1985 wrote: post #62
xadhominemx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suburban and housing costs in California are very high by national standards. Is your argument that the people who are moving out of California overwhelmingly non-native Californians?

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.

> I have friends in Eureka renting a gigantic house for like $1200/mo

They must have started renting that house at least 10 years ago and had a landlord who never rose the price. Because rental prices for large houses are $2000+ (Eureka/Arcata) or $1800+ (McKinnleyville) now.

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

#357

Post by antiterra »

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.

Nothing about my response has anything to do with 'being offended.'

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

#358

Post by robomartin »

jjeaff wrote: post #293
robomartin wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The business property tax is for property over $100k. I don't think many offices have that much furniture. Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county. Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.

> The business property tax is for property over $100k. I don't think many offices have that much furniture.

No. It isn't. It applies above and below $100K. The rules are a little different on either side of that threshold.

> Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county.

Well, then you know more than the tax assessor who visited me every year at my business and told me, almost verbatim, that if you do business in Los Angeles county or travel through the county to do business elsewhere, it doesn't matter where your home base might be, you have to pay this tax.

> Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.

The way I learned of this tax, a couple of decades ago, is from a guy who knocked on my front door asking about a business next door. When I told him they were out at a conference, he asked me what my business was (we had no signage outside our industrial unit). When I told him, he said "Oh, yeah, I have you right here" as he opened a thick binder.

This guy was canvasing every single industrial center at the periphery of LA County to both assess and inform businesses they owed this tax. He was well trained. After identifying himself as working for LA county (showing ID, etc.) he asked stuff like "So, do you do business in LA County or are you just local out here". If you said "yes" to any number of his well-prepared questions out came an assessment form. He even tried to come into our facility to do an inventory. Non only was I not going to allow some random unannounced guy to come into our facility, we were doing a bunch of aerospace work that fell under ITAR regulations, NDA's, etc. You can't just walk random folks into your office when you do that kind of work. So, in what I am going to call a "third world style", he proposed an assessment value right there and then, in my lobby. I agreed and wrote the county a check.

F-ing thieves.

Think about it: Businesses in LA County have to perpetually pay taxes on their desks, chairs, tools, computers, tenant improvement (yes, that too!), SUPPLIES, etc. A perpetual tax on the damn chair you are sitting on. That's what it has come to. I don't understand why voters pass this crap and expect job creation, growth and the ability to compete with the likes of China.

A perpetual tax on my coffee machine. Brilliant.

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

#359

Post by robomartin »

ryathal wrote: post #340
jjeaff wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The business property tax is for property over $100k. I don't think many offices have that much furniture. Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county. Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.

100k is pretty easy to hit with 75-100 employees. 100 desks, chairs, and computers is going to be at least that much. hopefully you don't have meeting rooms, printers/copiers, a waiting area, a break room with fridge/microwave/coffee/table/chairs...

He is wrong. The tax applies above and below $100K. The process is a bit different on each side of that threshold.

https://assessor.lacounty.gov/personal-property-assessments-...

From the page:

"businesses with personal property and fixtures that cost less than $100,000 are not required to file a Business Property Statement annually. Instead, a value is established based on an initial Business Property Statement filing or by an on-site appraisal. That value may be adjusted by subsequent annual on-site appraisals."

You pay this amount annually so long as you didn't buy anything new. They can show-up and do an on-site appraisal and get you if you under reported.

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

#360

Post by robomartin »

strbean wrote: post #328
robomartin wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are confusing marketing materials with reality.

The planned speed is what they used to sell it to voters. Actual speed is ridiculous due to the issues the train would run into (if it is every finished) in every town or region it crosses. There are parts where it probably won't be allowed to go much faster than 50 mph. So, yeah, nice selling point, but, no, fake news.

Same with the San Jose to Burbank story. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. I think they don't even have ten miles built and it has been years. And those ten miles are not even functional.

If it is ever finished, this is going to be a trillion dollar project (or more). It did not make any sense even below that price point. The entire thing is preposterous. Nobody is going to ride it (translate: not enough people to justify building it) and the cost per passenger will be so high it will be the boondoggle of the century.

This is what happens when politicians sell stuff to a public that can barely calculate the tip at a restaurant.

Post reply on HN