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

191–200 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#191

Post by jeffbee »

jmspring wrote: post #175
dragonwriter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn’t answer the question about infrastructure which California is well known to be lacking What infrastructure do you imagine California to be lacking that would be relevant here?

Water for one. Multiple towns in both northern and southern CA had drought / water issues. Mendocino in the north, multiple places in the south.

I don't think anyone is proposing to installed another 8 million people in Mendocino. Places like San Francisco and the East Bay have tons of water rights because they were originally outfitted for tens of millions of residents before being suddenly down-zoned around 1970. The East Bay Municipal Utilities District currently serves less demand for water than it did in 1980 because of systemic efficiency improvements, despite the fact that the served population increased 50% since then.

Also, there is the small fact that apartment dwellers use a tiny fraction of the water of people who live in detached houses.

In short, there is plenty of water in various major metropolitan areas.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#192

Post by jeffbee »

jmspring wrote: post #135
jeffbee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has not even ¼-assed it. The governor stated in 2018 that we were short 3.5 million homes, which might be approximately correct or at least in the ballpark, and as a state we were going to build them by 2025. That pace should have been 2 million homes by now, but only about 350k units were actually built.

Where does one build 3.5 million houses? The housing needs to be where jobs / etc, are. It should also be where resources are. A good deal of the state has water issues regularly; additional part of the state can't keep the power on due to - heat waves, fires, over use, winds, cats farting. The rural county I live in has open jobs, but a sizeable chunk of the work force is either seasonal (logging, etc) then coast on…

I'm not sure what place you are describing but a place like Chico could easily double their population, and should do so. There are a string of silly towns that are squatting on ideal locations (Chico is one). The state should use its budget to incentivize growth in those places. A town like Chico, or Lodi, or Stockton, or even Sacramento should get slathered in cash if it builds housing in a smart way. The state should pick up the tab for things like pipes and roads and utility undergrounding in smart growth cities.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#193

Post by crooked-v »

yucky wrote: post #146
dragonwriter wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where does one build 3.5 million houses? One doesn't. One builds 3.5 million homes , mostly apartments.

Exactly. Soviet style apartment cities are on the menu. Highly efficient and affordable.

Just replacing a lot of old urban single-family homes with triplexes would be enough to get significantly ahead of housing issues in many major US cities, including in California.

Unfortunately, the sheer regulatory expense of new housing is such that it's not worth it for anyone to try any project short of big apartment/condo buildings.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#194

Post by mch82 »

Here’s a US Census chart of population change across all 50 states (shown as percent of population). It sounds like a lot of people, but as a percentage of total population it doesn’t seem like California is particularly notable.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2022/comm/perc...

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#195

Post by notwhereyouare »

klardotsh wrote: post #131
xnx wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

These numbers are from /dev/urandom or perhaps /dev/null, or maybe they hired white-glove movers and car transporters and flew first class to their destination or something. I moved Chicago to Seattle for like $2-3k all-in (counting plane tickets) in 2017, leaving only couches and beds behind (just wasn't worth bothering to move the cheap Ikea-grade stuff I had). Seattle-Vancouver in 2018 and, a year later, back, wer…

Like everything else, moving has gotten more expensive. But I did manage in June of 2022 manage to move from Boston to outside Atlanta for maybe $2500 -$3000 between the hotels, food, shipping my stuff down, gas, etc

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#196

Post by happytiger »

mc32 wrote: post #143
pram wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, did someone actually tell you the weather is fine? I was born in Texas and I've lived in Austin for 13 years and I've always thought the summers are unbearable. Although my perspective is tempered with what I experienced around the gulf, in Mississippi and Florida. The humidity there is so bad I literally don't think it's fit for human settlement.

San Francisco is one of the most humid cities in the US (so much that mold can be a problem in some cases). Relative humidity is on average higher than Wash DC --but lower than Port Arthur, TX.

San Francisco is moist. But respectfully, it is not the hot humidity that drives you to to find air conditioning and plan you day around staying inside to avoid.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#197

Post by archsurface »

archsurface wrote: post #178
renlo wrote: post #157

How smug are Californians that those who always disagree with them always “must be Republicans”? They really said people are leaving the state because of “political reasons” (ie, “they’re Republicans, aka, ‘non-regrettable attrition’”)? Couldn’t be all of the other reasons could it. I say this as a California native who left for a litany of reasons, last of them being the politics.

Isn't eg Austin full of Californian democrats? Made a mess then ran away?

Sounds like a yes.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#198

Post by fundad »

renlo wrote: post #157

How smug are Californians that those who always disagree with them always “must be Republicans”? They really said people are leaving the state because of “political reasons” (ie, “they’re Republicans, aka, ‘non-regrettable attrition’”)? Couldn’t be all of the other reasons could it. I say this as a California native who left for a litany of reasons, last of them being the politics.

California is basically Georgia with 2.5 Atlantas. Of course it can afford to lose Republicans, there are Republicans being born in every corner of the state to replace them. It’s not safely anything, it’s a competitive battle for political control, remember Arnold? (Whispers: this is how it’s supposed to be)

Also, Do smart people really think the nation’s richest collection of businesses owners, VCs and executives are a bunch of lefties?

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#199

Post by edgyquant »

wysewun wrote: post #43

Moved from the bay to Texas because of everything i heard. It was such a horrible experience. The heat, the bugs, the lack of density. So few days of good weather. Maybe worth it to some, but a bigger house was not worth it to me at all. We moved back in 6 months. So many people want to live in California which causes more issues

We live in a country the size of Western Europe with climates ranging from tropical to frozen tundra most of which are full of cheap land and housing if you don’t mind living a bit out of the way… and you picked Texas?

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#200

Post by subharmonicon »

mc32 wrote: post #182
inferiorhuman wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's very noticeable. Instead of being hot and damp you've got cold that chills you to the bone and you're still really sticky and damp. It doesn't hurt that things stay very foggy so you can pretty much see the humidity (but not the silver painted trams).

True, it becomes noticeable at night as the winds become stronger and the fog denser.

Yes, there are a lot of microclimates here and I suppose in some mold could be likely.

To that point though, most of the neighborhoods I have lived in have had little to no fog. Russian Hill being the exception. I’m not sure how much of a difference that makes in indoor relative humidity or chance of mold.

Post reply on HN