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

California’s population shrinks for third straight year

sacbee.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#51

Post by ryan93 »

ryanSrich wrote: post #40
jeffbee wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California sits right at the national average for state and local revenue per capita. The real high-tax states are places like NY, NJ, CT, and MA.

I’m not talking about tax burden, I’m talking about tax ROI. Essentially what you get in return for your taxes. You could argue that Texas is objectively a worse state to live in tax-wise because you essentially get nothing in return for your taxes. Not even a fully functioning power grid (that you still have to pay usage rates for). So tax rates are low, but return on what you do pay is even lower. But I’m talking a…

In Texas I’ve been without power for a total of three days in last 15 years and that was a once in a century event

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#52

Post by natechols »

22289d wrote: post #45
spacemadness wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get anger and vitriol because your views are part of the problem. NIMBY’s pull up the ladder and try to turn a nice semi-affordable car into a Porsche then tell everyone “sorry, it’s just expensive to be here. Not my fault!”

It's not a problem to me, that's the point. By saying I am a part of the problem, what you really mean is that my views are an obstacle to you getting what you want.

[flagged]

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#53

Post by ryanSrich »

ryan93 wrote: post #51
ryanSrich wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not talking about tax burden, I’m talking about tax ROI. Essentially what you get in return for your taxes. You could argue that Texas is objectively a worse state to live in tax-wise because you essentially get nothing in return for your taxes. Not even a fully functioning power grid (that you still have to pay usage rates for). So tax rates are low, but return on what you do pay is even lower. But I’m talking a…

In Texas I’ve been without power for a total of three days in last 15 years and that was a once in a century event

Serendipitously, this tweet popped up almost right before I read your comment - https://twitter.com/ybarrap/status/1606319917229228032?s=46&...

I don’t think it’s outrageous to say Texas has one of the worst power grids in the nation. Regardless of your personal experience.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#54

Post by 22289d »

kneebonian wrote: post #31
22289d wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right. Living in California is expensive, in more ways than just housing. Not everyone can afford it. Just like not everyone can afford a new BMW. In my corner of the state, people who increasingly cannot afford to live here are noisy. I mostly don't engage because I'm aware that I…

So if people keep leaving then the property values go down. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Imagine property values start plunging, people can't leave, they just start abandoning houses, soon you get vast swathes of abandoned houses which lead to increased crime and urban decay. Decades from now people will shake their heads and talk about the golden days of California and t…

You're missing why people want to live here in the first place. It's one of the most beautiful places in the world, with one of the best year-round climates in the world. If prices start going down, people will move here. For those reasons.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#55

Post by TheBlight »

hellisothers wrote: post #42

This is “gross” decline, the backing data has a “net” migration of -113k. NY actually had a much higher net decline at -180k which translates to a 3x higher decline as a percentage (0.9% vs 0.3%). This isn’t necessarily a CA thing as people keep positioning it, it’s a high taxes among other things (like housing, and high mobility)

cough covid response cough

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#56

Post by dionidium »

22289d wrote: post #20
TulliusCicero wrote: post #5

California is a great state in many ways, but it'd be a stretch to say it's even half assed a solution to its housing problem: they've quarter assed it at most. And it does someone no good for a state to be great in many ways if they can't afford to live there. The situation has been dire for some time, but all they do are small incremental steps towards building more housing, it's nowhere close to what's necessary.…

It's not a problem to everyone. For example, it's not a problem to many homeowners that the value of their homes keep going up and to the right. Living in California is expensive, in more ways than just housing. Not everyone can afford it. Just like not everyone can afford a new BMW. In my corner of the state, people who increasingly cannot afford to live here are noisy. I mostly don't engage because I'm aware that I…

Yes, if we made it illegal to manufacture new lawnmowers or sofas or iPhones, then the value of the existing lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones would skyrocket, which would be (at least in the naive accounting [0]) very good for the current owners of lawnmowers, sofas, and iPhones -- but hopefully you can see how ridiculous that is as policy.

[0] I say "naive accounting," because it's not so great if you ever need to buy a new lawnmower, sofa, or iPhone or if you hope your kids will someday be able to. And it's not so great for your city in the long run if making ordinary products illegal results in drastically lower levels of productivity, etc, etc.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#57

Post by BlargMcLarg »

gtowey wrote: post #46
kindatrue wrote: post #7

Not surprising when you look at California's home prices. The median home sold from Marin County to Santa Clara County is $1M+. That's the same land mass as from Times Square to the Maryland border. https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1440035534693232640 California is NIMBYism at its worst: the far left opposes more housing, the far right opposes more housing, and the center is sick of traffic from more housing.

> California is NIMBYism at its worst: the far left opposes more housing, the far right opposes more housing, and the center is sick of traffic from more housing. It's the banality of evil. It's not that homeowners are conspiring to create unaffordable housing, it's just that they all just care about the benefit to themselves of rising home prices and maintaining the comfortable exclusivity of their neighborhoods. Ev…

It's also shortsighted.

Who are the people moving out? Primarily those without money or assets to stay. People who tend to skew younger.

So you drive out the younger, start a feedback loop where more young people leave, inverting the population pyramid. This is accelerated by the lower birthrate.

Congrats, you now live in a place where young people are overwhelmed by grey pressure and the only realistic alternatives are decreasing quality of services, or siphoning wealth to push for more services. The latter solution nullifies most benefits stubborn NIMBYs amassed for themselves a few decades before they got old.

Aka "congratulations, you played yourself".

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#58

Post by BeetleB »

friedman23 wrote: post #35

People are doing the math. If you make enough money in California you pay 10% of your income in taxes. First of all, what do you get from that 10% you pay that don't get in other states with lower or no income taxes? For the people paying the taxes the answer is not much. People also fail to account for the fact that the 10% they are paying is 10% of their GROSS income, not net after federal taxes. So if you are alre…

People inflate the amount of state income tax they have to pay in California. Yes the rates are high but so are the deductions.

Some years ago I had to deal with California income tax for various reasons. I think at that time you had to earn over 50K to hit 9% marginal. In my state you hit that at about 16K. And this is after deductions where California had a ton more. I believe one needed an income of over 100K before the amount they paid in taxes exceeded that of my state.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#59

Post by shapefrog »

baeaz wrote: post #44
brutusborn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I’m confused when I hear about calls to “address” the issue. People leaving isn’t a problem, the real problems are the reasons people move away.

They don't mean someone should put a fence to stop people from leaving obviously.

"Relax," said the night man "We are programmed to receive, you can check out any time you like but you can never leave"

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#60

Post by 22289d »

natechols wrote: post #52
22289d wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a problem to me, that's the point. By saying I am a part of the problem, what you really mean is that my views are an obstacle to you getting what you want.

[flagged]

Once again, you don't get to decide for me what 'the problem is'. You're just framing what you want as objectively what should be. But you're incorrect to frame it that way. You want what you want. I want what i want.
Post reply on HN