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

321–330 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#321

Post by tvaughan »

usednet wrote: post #235
foreverCarlos wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people I know personally who left California in the last 2-3 years were pretty apolitical but definitely left-leaning socially. Around a dozen of them. All left due to the cost of living, none were ever "accused" of being republican. To me it sounds like you are mostly regurgitating some toxic Twitter-talk.

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…

Born and raised in the Bay Area. I've lived in some nice places in SF, LA, and Seattle. I also spent two years in the Netherlands which was by far the highest quality of life experience I've had precisely because it was more progressive.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#322

Post by friedman23 »

sidlls wrote: post #155
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…

I lived in Florida for a while. Between the ultra-conservative retirees and the over-representation of the tragically hilarious on-point stereotypical poor white rural southerner I thought it was an awful place to live. I get a lot of value for the taxes I pay in California: schools that aren't prohibited from discussing certain scientific topics ("climate change") and that aren't outing LGBQTP+ kids to other kids' p…

Ok, so you think being in a bubble with people that agree with you is worth 16% of your income a year. Meaning if you work 30 years you need to work 4.8 years longer to retire. This doesn't take into account investment returns.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#323

Post by cuteboy19 »

Glawen wrote: post #314
danny_codes wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What does it mean to be progressive? All the woke movement we see now in Europe has been imported from US. We just copy paste stuff even when it makes no sense because we do not share the same history.

Example; British activists imported all the BLM stuff, including "Defund the Police". Unfortunately, police in Britain are already quite underfunded and don't have a lot of the negative aspects of American police.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#324

Post by Isamu »

tshaddox wrote: post #229
edgyquant wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Pittsburgh, but don’t tell anybody

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#325

Post by _8j50 »

danny_codes wrote: post #302
_8j50 wrote: post #205

I hope less people live there, too crowded. Making western nevada and much of the mojave habitable would go a long way. Artificial rivers and lakes, importing sand and desalination (at scale to develop more sustainable water systems not on its own) and bullet trains would be ideal. The money and tech is there just not the collective will. Places like Parhump NV, Bishop CA and Reno,NV have huge potentia as population…

This seems like a bad idea. Cali is not very dense, most of it is suburban sprawl. The bay would be much more livable if it was 5x as dense.

The bay is the most expensive real estate in the US, coastal CA in general is already impossible to develop new grand things because if NIMBYism and the coastal commission. Let's say that wasn't a problem, how much would it cost to replace a few acres of single family housing in the bay area with high-rise apartment? Now imagine doing that a lot more. Now take that money and imagine how much you could do in the places I mentioned.

To solve housing for millions, there simply is no realistic way anytime in the next few decades in coastal CA that is both profitable, can get past local law and scales enough to actually solve any problem and of course a ton of money would need to be available all while risking bad decisions by anti-development parties.

It's simply easier to build where there is a small number of people and wide undeveloped land.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#326

Post by zbrozek »

skrtskrt wrote: post #30
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.…

Well they did just pass a bunch of laws last year to upzone the whole state, crush NIMBY zoning BS and lower permitting requirements for dense development near transit stops. Builder’s remedy is already being applied against NIMBY communities like Santa Monica and Redondo beach, no take backs. It takes time to build the homes and see the impact but it’s hard to say that they’re not moving strongly in the right direct…

The laws being passed aren't enough. They have a bunch of caveats (SB-9, for example, has a long list of disqualifiers) that limit the utility of any particular bill and making actually using it difficult. The builder's remedy has been on the books for what, about thirty years? Only now is it starting to see some use.

California needs to dramatically cut back on its land use restrictions and figure out how to streamline everything. Even a typical (nominally uncontroversial) single-family home can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to entitle before anybody even breaks ground. It's madness.

Unfortunately, it's simply not in the culture of the people of the state to want to pursue cost-efficiency or reductions in bureaucracy.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#327

Post by StanislavPetrov »

notwokeno wrote: post #285
drewcon wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maine.

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

Yes, the streets are free from human feces and you can park your car on the street without being sure it will be broken into.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#328

Post by StanislavPetrov »

tshaddox wrote: post #229
edgyquant wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

North Carolina.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#329

Post by zbrozek »

wwweston wrote: post #244
crooked-v wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The demand for new housing in California is high enough to absorb pretty significant costs and I'd be willing to bet regulatory expense is not even in the top 3 factors driving building costs (and definitely not the top 2), so saying it's "not worth it" seems like it ignores the top of the market (which tends to be the market migrating in to CA) that's willing to pay a premium for what they want where they want. With…

Regulatory expense is the single largest line item for building a home, with places like Fremont pushing just the permit fees alone north of $140k.

https://citiesassociation.org/documents/constraints-survey-d...

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#330

Post by zbrozek »

thebigman433 wrote: post #259
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.

> the far left opposes more housing What do you mean by this? Who is the "far left" and what are they opposing exactly?

Dean Preston, by way of example.
Post reply on HN