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

121–130 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#121

Post by random314 »

xnx wrote: post #111
reaperducer wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Actually, it's how many of the leases I've had worked, and I've lived in dozens of states. Probably cost 4K, not 40K. It cost my friend $11,000 to move his one bedroom apartment from Southern California to Texas last year using Mayflower. And he was just one person, not a family. Moving an entire…

Wow. I haven't researched moving costs at all, but I'd probably buy all new stuff and still save money at those prices.

Except that the expenses are all made up. I have moved my family for about 4K

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#122

Post by AlbertCory »

rsj_hn wrote: post #115
AlbertCory wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite your condescending tone: my comment was what WOULD happen. Yours is what you'd like.

I mean, how do you communicate with someone that has no ability to make quantitative estimates? Yes, getting rid of prop 13 would require the administrative complexity of one specific job of one department to increase. No, this does not contradict the goal of reducing administrative waste. Fire a million bureaucrats (15% of the population of California works for state and local government), shut down 20 departments,…

> someone that has no ability to make quantitative estimates

wow, thanks! Way to patronize.

We don't need "quantitative estimates" -- we just need a qualitative estimate of the propensities of politicians. Especially in California.

Edit: I'll match my quantitative skills against yours anytime. It's just that they don't need to be deployed on this one.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

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)

California has had a net decline to domestic (intra-US) migration for quite some time; pre-COVID, it was more than compensated by international immigration.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#124

Post by random314 »

reaperducer wrote: post #106
random314 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Probably cost 4K, not 40K.

Typically, you can break your lease with one month payment. And you don't lose your deposit. That's not how deposits work. Actually, it's how many of the leases I've had worked, and I've lived in dozens of states. Probably cost 4K, not 40K. It cost my friend $11,000 to move his one bedroom apartment from Southern California to Texas last year using Mayflower. And he was just one person, not a family. Moving an entire…

Funnily enough, lots of folks have moved states. I moved my family from Washington to California.

Lease - 2K. 3rd party Furniture transport - 2K. 10 day hotel stay 1.5K. 5.5K total cost.

You have already admitted that the 40K was double what it would have supposedly cost your friend. Time for you to divide it by a further 50%. Also, the statement that you would have to pay out your entire lease cost is, frankly speaking, ridiculous.

Congratulations on having signed leases in dozens of states. How many dozen states would that be? 2 dozen? 3 dozen?

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#125

Post by dragonwriter »

dionidium wrote: post #100
wonderwonder wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that's the beauty of democracy though. Everyone gets an equal say. Seems like not enough of the voting population agrees with you and as such no new houses are built. America is a huge country though, plenty of very affordable housing elsewhere. Everyone doesn't get to just have what they want where they want it though, that's capitalism for you.

> Sure, that's the beauty of democracy though. In the United States we have a Constitution that enumerates a set of Rights about which nobody gets to vote. It doesn't matter if you (or even 99% of all people) think it should be illegal for me to express this opinion, for example; you don't get to vote on that. Private property rights in my view quite clearly fall under this rubric and it's only because of a few laugh…

> In the United States we have a Constitution that enumerates a set of Rights about which nobody gets to vote

No, it doesn't, since people actually do campaign on changing the Constitution. I mean, unless you specifically and exclusively mean “the right to equal representation of your State in the Senate”, and even that is debatable, since you could vote for someone who proposes removing that limitation on amendments from the Constitution.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#126

Post by mikem170 »

22289d wrote: post #60
natechols wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

It's more than just framing. It's one set of people telling another set of people what they can and cannot do with the land they own. That seems to be a bit of a tie breaker. The parent you replied to wasn't telling other people what to do with land they owned, he was objecting to people telling him what he could do on land he owned (within reason, like a duplex/triplex, or an accessory dwelling unit).

There's no principal like safety behind how restrictive many of these rules are, unless you count fear of people in different economic demographics to be a reasonable justification. It's a difference of opinion.

People who want more flexible zoning are growing in number, these are people who can't find an affordable place to live or are otherwise not happy with the changes made to zoning in the last 75-100 years, and they are driving changes in more and more localities.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#127

Post by pandaman »

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…

I get a nice road system both in the terms of condition and reach from TX, don't know what else is state supposed to give me. Can't complain about the grid too, though I get the electricity from the city it's pretty reliable and cheap. I did not get state electricity in CA either, but the city's utility in LA was much less reliable and much more expensive. I suppose states have their input here through banning the construction of power plants.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#130

Post by soupbowl »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #71
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.

> It's not a problem to me, that's the point. We get it, you don't care about anyone else, only yourself. This was already clear from your previous comments.

I appreciate their honesty. I am little tired of people on the internet pretending to be bleeding hearts for everyone else's problems.
Post reply on HN