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

371–380 of 413 posts

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#371

Post by nxm »

JeremyNT wrote: post #320
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

I'm a southerner (not TX, but living in TN currently) and I really dream of making it to CA some day. The south is cheaper for a reason, and CA is expensive for a reason. You get what you pay for. Red State governance is truly abysmal, the climate is terrible, and there is precious little BLM land to explore. If enough people leave CA to reduce the price (or enough people move to the south to raise the price here) I'…

And yet the economic growth of the red states, particularly in last few years has outpaced the blue states. Not to mention the tons of people moving into red states. Hence there are many that disagree with your assessment. I’m sure you‘ll miss Tennessee’s no state income tax once you move to California.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#372

Post by bradlys »

foreverCarlos wrote: post #353
fortuna86 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally anywhere in Europe outside of Poland or Hungary ?

Welcome to Bulgaria, my friend. The most progressive country in the World! In all seriousness, if the parent commenter is expecting modern US woke-inspired progressive policies to be driving decision-making anywhere in Europe, they will be disappointed. (I don't like throwing the word "woke" around but have no better way to summarize the difference between the modern progressive movement and the original progressive…

Both movements in the US are very neoliberal.

The US doesn’t have a real “left” movement. It has a center movement at most.

Most posters here are talking about economics - which have little to do with “woke” anything.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#373

Post by anigbrowl »

MaxHoppersGhost wrote: post #210
anigbrowl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the far left opposes more housing Not true at all. The far left objects to gentrification, where the supply of housing nominally increases but prices continue to go higher. Short-term rentals and properties being kept vacant for land speculation are two factors. The far left hates landlords and property speculators, for more or less the same reasons Adam Smith did.

Fine. The far left opposes more housing… but for different reasons than the far right.

Please don't mischaracterize what I wrote, I clearly stated my belief to the opposite. In years of being in and around the far left, I have never seen anyone try to prevent the permitting or construction of new housing. Arguing that housing needs to be affordable to address the problem of homelessness is not opposition.

Your original claim is just not factual. No rhetorical flourishes are gonna change that.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#374

Post by bradlys »

gedy wrote: post #239
throwntoday wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not on the red or blue team. Careful, I have said the same and many assumed it meant I'm far right. The extent of my conservative beliefs are wanting very small government, being anti-war, and wanting a balanced budget. I'm pretty egalitarian otherwise but I don't think that's enough to appease those who invest their lives in identity politics.

> I don't think that's enough to appease those who invest their lives in identity politics. This is the weird one for me - I'm not sure how it took over the left to where younger people are confused that my father was a serious leftist/communist before identity/racial politics took over, and since he totally rejected identity politics they assume he was some sort of right-winger, which is bonkers if you knew him.

Your first problem is thinking there was ever a “left” in the US to begin with.

Democrats are a center party - at best. They’re neoliberal at their core.

What’s the best way to get people advocating for left oriented reforms? Break them up. How? Identity politics. Get them to fight each other.

Congrats - you’ve managed to keep power between two neoliberal parties that agree on most everything. (And everything they don’t agree on - it’s mostly for show because money is the number one thing they’re both most concerned about!)

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#375

Post by bradlys »

zbrozek wrote: post #330
thebigman433 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah - his issue is that he rather block any market rate housing rather than it not be public government housing.

That’s tough when we live in a super neoliberal country. Government housing is dreaming.

He lives from a place of comfort since he’s owned his house for a long time.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#376

Post by foreverCarlos »

bradlys wrote: post #372
foreverCarlos wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to Bulgaria, my friend. The most progressive country in the World! In all seriousness, if the parent commenter is expecting modern US woke-inspired progressive policies to be driving decision-making anywhere in Europe, they will be disappointed. (I don't like throwing the word "woke" around but have no better way to summarize the difference between the modern progressive movement and the original progressive…

Both movements in the US are very neoliberal. The US doesn’t have a real “left” movement. It has a center movement at most. Most posters here are talking about economics - which have little to do with “woke” anything.

By the "original movement" I mean Woodrow Wilson and such, which was not neo-liberal. The modern progressive movement is still left-leaning, at least by American standards (yes, quite different from European).

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#377

Post by fragmede »

nikolay wrote: post #217

It should and will continue to! Paying $3,200+ for a 2-bedroom is insane!

It is, but yesterday's high in SF was 55° with a low of 48°. LA's high was 83 and a low of 54. Global climate change will probably turn our summers super toasty, but this past week's bomb cyclone makes me grateful I'm living here. Not sure it's worth $3.2k for a 2 bed, but I'll take the good things I can get.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#378

Post by tormeh »

rsj_hn wrote: post #290
tormeh wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I think we have opposite assumptions here. Afaict, young upwardly mobile professionals love density and (income++) diversity. SF was kinda sketchy before it got gentrified by tech, no? Tenderloin was bad, I’ve heard? The notion that people primarily move from less to more exclusive places don’t match with what I see. And people who are actually poor can’t afford new construction, so poor people (and the real social problems they often have) aren’t going to move into unsubsidised new-builds. Will upper-middle class people move away from an area just because craftsmen move in? Area you sure you’re not getting the causality the wrong way around? High-income people move out of area for various reasons not related to their neighbors, property values fall, lower-income people can afford to move in. That sounds more plausible to me.

I do have some arguments in favor of your position, but they’re mostly specific to the US: 1. Many people’s primary retirement plan and emergency fund is often their house, so property values are exceptionally important to them. 2. School funding per student goes down if less wealthy parents move to the district. 3. Violence in poor neighbourhoods can get really bad. None of this is God-given, though, which is why nimbyism isn’t quite as bad in many other countries. And while important, these factors don’t seem to be dominant.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#379

Post by kbob »

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?

Eugene or Portland Oregon, Pittsburgh area, northern Ohio, Maine, Santa Fe or Albuquerque, Colorado Front Range, Madison Wisconsin, maybe Milwaukee, maybe West Lafayette Indiana, maybe Chattanooga, just off the top of my head.

The maybes are places that were nice to visit but I don't know very well.

Re: California’s population shrinks for third straight year

#380

Post by mempko »

STM32F030R8 wrote: post #368
mempko wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that California is better, but all those places are stupid places to move to for global warming reasons. At least in the long term.

TX, NC, SC, and TN are bad states for global warming? Please explain.

This report goes into detail why. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report

Essentially the south and south west have the worst impacts, with PNW least in the lower 48.

Post reply on HN