Live data from Hacker News

California’s population shrinks for third straight year

sacbee.com

281–290 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the Bay Area for my entire life and am considering leaving only because it's not progressive enough. The Bay and most of California is only progressive on inconsequential social issues. Housing? Homelessness? Fucking Houston Texas is more progressive than us. Frankly, I blame the venture capitalists. They have turned what was once a vibrant region I loved into a soulless husk of itself though money. Our…

> I've lived in the Bay Area for my entire life and am considering leaving only because it's not progressive enough. Where will you go? Wakanda?

Anyplace in Europe I suppose. And I think plenty of other US cities.

The bay is actually not very progressive. Economically I'd say it's purely neoliberal. We simply refuse to inconvenience the rich to fix things.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived in the Bay Area for my entire life and am considering leaving only because it's not progressive enough. The Bay and most of California is only progressive on inconsequential social issues. Housing? Homelessness? Fucking Houston Texas is more progressive than us. Frankly, I blame the venture capitalists. They have turned what was once a vibrant region I loved into a soulless husk of itself though money. Our…

> I've lived in the Bay Area for my entire life and am considering leaving only because it's not progressive enough. Where will you go? Wakanda?

Literally anywhere in Europe outside of Poland or Hungary ?

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you moved to Texas specifically to get a bigger house for your money, then of course you are going to hate it. We moved to Austin-adjacent and downsized on the house. We put away about 100$k from the sale of our previous house, and used the rest for downpayment, netting us a The rest of the time, weather is nice, plenty of good food, plenty of things to do.

> During the periods of heat or cold, we now just peace out and travel, because we have ample cash to do so and still manage to put away for retirement. that's nice but is it a good long term solution? i presume you don't have any kids. i wonder how this approach would work once you have kids and they start school. or maybe you do have kids but they are much older and moved out or no plans for kids idk.

> i wonder how this approach would work once you have kids and they start school.

Simple solution: don’t have kids.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#284
post #166

The CA government has a budget the size of Finland’s GDP ($250B), if they wanted to fix the housing issue, they could. But not enough people do want it fixed because they are trapped with their real estate investment which they can’t adored to have decrease in value.

The housing problem isn't a money problem, it's almost entirely laws/policy issues. There's already a mountain of private capital ready and consumer demand that the moment laws let them build they will, regardless of gov $ investment.

100%. Land use policy in CA (and the US more generally) is insane. Suburbia/car-dependency is a terrifically bad policy decision that CA _heavily_ bought into. We may need to wait for the boomers to die out a bit more before we can fix it.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where would you choose to live with cheap land and housing where it doesn’t get extremely hot in the summer?

Maine.

Doesn't that lack the diversity people in California like?

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#286
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where does one build 3.5 million houses? The housing needs to be where jobs / etc, are. With the resources of an entire state government, or a lot of private equity, this is very solvable. Take a place like Sunol, CA or Livermore, CA, either one about an hour east of San Francisco and trivial to connect to public transit. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5871047,-121.8716321,3a,75y,... (California has nowhere to bui…

> Done. Solved. But they don't do it. Why? This is called the Napkin Fallacy . When you write down some solution to a long standing social problem on a napkin in a coffee shop, and then instead of asking "What is wrong with my solution, that it hasn't been adopted?" you ask "What is wrong with the world, that it hasn't adopted my solution?" The world needs a lot more people asking the first question rather than the s…

When it comes to housing, the napkin solution is correct. There are no technical or practical problems with it. To many, there are aesthetic and social problems with it, and we choose to prioritise those. That’s not a given.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#287

I like California a lot but with the cost of housing what it is I know I’ll probably never put down roots. We can talk policy this and that until our heads are spinning but at the end of the day I need to live my life. I have my eye on Chicago. There’s always something going on, it’s very multicultural, and housing is extremely affordable.

You'll have your frozen balls in Chicago, too. I remember a Sun-Times cover when I was in grad school saying: WIND CHILL TODAY -89F!!

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if you are speaking from experience or looking at weather data, but in 13 years I have never seen indoor humidity high enough to make mold likely. Higher humidity with cool temperatures does not feel like high humidity with high temperatures, which can be unbearable. I sweat profusely in the latter conditions and not all all in the former.

Lived in the Presidio, all my neighbors plus our house has a pretty big mold problem, likely from the humidity. When we called maintenance, the answer was to manage airflow and yeah, it’s the presidio, stuffs gonna mold.

To be fair, the Presidio is the foggiest/most humid part of SF. Any part of the city & broader Bay Area directly touching coast line attracts dramatically more moisture than anywhere even a few hundred meters inland. Even in the Marina district half a mile away mold isn’t an issue afaik

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#290
post #286
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Done. Solved. But they don't do it. Why? This is called the Napkin Fallacy . When you write down some solution to a long standing social problem on a napkin in a coffee shop, and then instead of asking "What is wrong with my solution, that it hasn't been adopted?" you ask "What is wrong with the world, that it hasn't adopted my solution?" The world needs a lot more people asking the first question rather than the s…

When it comes to housing, the napkin solution is correct. There are no technical or practical problems with it. To many, there are aesthetic and social problems with it, and we choose to prioritise those. That’s not a given.

All problems requiring this type of collective action are social problems.

There are many vacant houses in the U.S., and many cheap houses -- pretending this is about shortage of physical housing is just foolish.

This is about shortage of desirable housing, and instead of stopping to ask what are the mechanisms that cause desirable housing (for you) to be so expensive, you just assume the problem is like a shortage of lumber or "space" or something equally irrelevant. If you build lots of affordable housing in Livermore, what would happen is that Livermore would stop being desirable for you, and you would end up wanting to live in some satellite area that was created outside of Livermore in which the exclusivity was maintained. Then good jobs would move there, because over the long term, the jobs follow the skilled workers and not the other way around. Then your utopian project in Livermore would find itself turned into a low income area where there is a shortage of good jobs, and most of the good jobs are elsewhere, in more exclusive areas, that are within commuting distance of the Lab. Then the Lab would find itself having trouble hiring enough people, and it would open satellite offices elsewhere. Then you would complain about a shortage of housing there, and want to rinse and repeat, not understanding why your intervention failed to solve the problem.

A good example is San Francisco. Most tech jobs were in Santa Clara county, not San Francisco. But a lot of tech workers enjoyed living in SF and did a long commute. Then tech companies realized they could hire more easily if they opened offices in San Francisco. Then companies began to be founded there, etc. All of a sudden, lots of tech jobs in SF. The jobs follow the skilled workers, and skilled workers have a lot of options in terms of picking where they want to live. They vote with their feet, and the jobs follow. How did the jobs end up in Santa Clara? Or Belmont. Through a similar process. Jobs chase high skilled people.

So you have to come to grips with why people that have a lot of choices choose to live in expensive, more exclusive areas. Why does the average high income person really not want to live in a neighborhood with a lot of poor people? Or, for that matter, even average income person? Why this hatred towards average people (something that can easily be found even on this site)? Why are they willing to commute elsewhere, and even take a pay cut, to be in a more exclusive area that is surrounded by other high income people? (And so signals to employers to open an office nearby). This is a social issue, not about lack of nails or space or a shortage of lumber.

Post reply on HN