Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California population declines for first time in more than a century

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 543 posts

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#281

Post by mjevans »

Lammy wrote: post #232
pbuzbee wrote: post #178

I feel like it's only going to get worse. California has a good number of problems: housing costs, traffic, wildfires, homelessness, ... and the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of enjoying them. But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these. We're still in the stage of "problems are getting worse", and any solutions will take a long time to materialize. I grew up in California. It'…

To me it feels like that’s why it’s expensive. Either that or it just very coincidentally started getting extremely expensive at the same time housing segregation and home-loan discrimination were banned federally (1968 and 1974 respectively. People ask “WTF happened in 1971?” ( https://wtfhappenedin1971.com ) like they never took a high school “american history” class.

That wasn't covered in any of my public school classes. Offhand, none of the teachers for history ever covered past WW-II. None of the material in the books (I read ahead) covered anything during the 70s or beyond either... though the district I grew up in did have some really old books for the time (over a decade old, and no dedicated class for 'recent' history).

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#282

Post by lotsofpulp »

username90 wrote: post #279
lotsofpulp wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> FL seems happy. Happily full of voters that collect tons of government aid via Medicare, Social Security, and National Flood Insurance Program, and yet happy to decry government help for anyone else. Let me know when FL has parental leave or any half decent employment laws that help those at the bottom.

Florida is a net payer. California is a net beneficiary even though they have so many high end jobs. This includes medicare, social security etc. https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-taxes-federal-servic...

I am not sure why net payer/net beneficiary is relevant, but your link states the opposite of your claim.

>The majority of states receive more in federal services than what they pay in federal taxes, but 11 states, including California and New Jersey, spend more than they receive.

>We described the difference as the balance of payments. For example, California's balance of payments is -$13.7 billion. This means California residents get less in return than they pay for.

>In California, each resident is sending in $348 more than they get back.

>Florida: Total balance of payments: $62.4 billion Per capita balance of payments: $2,977

Its also from Sep 2017, after which there were considerable changes to the tax code so it is probably outdated.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#283

Post by bobthepanda »

jiggliemon wrote: post #273
0x000000E2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of California's problems go back to lack of housing and opposition to building more. Everyone wants to live in Cali for nice weather and jobs. If you stop people from building more housing your property value just keeps rising. Property costs are high because NIMBY blocking denser housing. Traffic is bad because housing density is too low for the population. Homelessness is bad because houses are too expensive.…

NIMBYism regarding more housing really only pertains to metropolitan/urban areas. How come the rest of the state can’t build housing consummate to the demand?

People want to live near jobs, services and amenities, and diversity of those can only be achieved at scale.

You could build a million homes in the middle of nowhere and you’d wind up with a million empty houses.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#284

Post by janeroe »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #135
linguae wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a lifelong Californian whose lived in Santa Cruz County for nearly nine out of the past 11 years, and as someone who wants to become a CS professor at a teaching university one day, I feel the exact same way. I love California and I don't want to leave the state. However, the housing prices signal to me that if I want to buy a house, I need to have a very high income and maintain it during the length of a 30-year…

I grew up in Atlanta and highly recommend it.

Aren't you concerned that Californians will turn Atlanta into Little California by supporting the policies that caused the problems they are fleeing in the first place?

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#285

Post by oh_sigh »

gnopgnip wrote: post #66
eganist wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why no need for highrises?

Much of Paris only allows 4-5 story buildings, but Paris is more dense than NYC where skyscrapers are allowed

Aren't skyscrapers in Manhattan mostly offices and luxury apartments?

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#286

Post by throwawayboise »

collaborative wrote: post #84
gautamcgoel wrote: post #67

I'm a PhD student at Caltech. I'd love to stay in CA and become a prof at one of the world-renown universities in the state. The cost for a nice house is > $800K in all of the cities hosting these universities; on top of that, the state income tax on a prof's salary is 9-10%. CA is basically telling me (and millions of other millennials) that we are not wanted here.

No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price control is an illusion and demand will outstrip supply for a long time But state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most (i.e. the homeless) and offer a surplus supply to perhaps not lower current prices…

> state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most

You might want to read the history of Chicago's ugly, tall, public housing projects. Cabrini-Green, Robert Taylor Homes, Stateway Gardens, Henry Horner Homes, etc. That they've all been torn down will give you a clue how it ended. In short, they were horrible shitholes.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#288

Post by avidiax »

Lammy wrote: post #232
pbuzbee wrote: post #178

I feel like it's only going to get worse. California has a good number of problems: housing costs, traffic, wildfires, homelessness, ... and the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of enjoying them. But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these. We're still in the stage of "problems are getting worse", and any solutions will take a long time to materialize. I grew up in California. It'…

To me it feels like that’s why it’s expensive. Either that or it just very coincidentally started getting extremely expensive at the same time housing segregation and home-loan discrimination were banned federally (1968 and 1974 respectively. People ask “WTF happened in 1971?” ( https://wtfhappenedin1971.com ) like they never took a high school “american history” class.

Is the answer that the US left the gold standard and switched to completely fiat currency?

Or the US ended the trade embargo with China?

Or Walt Disney World opened in Florida?

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#289

Post by sagarm »

seryoiupfurds wrote: post #206
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen a good solution for this. If the taxes get locked in, then you get the "2 neighbors with near identical houses paying totally different amounts in taxes" problem. If the taxes are not locked in, then you get the retired lifelong home-owner (or renter) on a fixed income, unable to afford the increasing taxes (or rents).

In other jurisdictions the solution is to allow the retired homeowner to defer property taxes, to be paid out of the eventual proceeds of a sale.

California already has a means-tested property tax postponement program: https://sco.ca.gov/ardtax_prop_tax_postponement.html

We should expand it and repeal income taxes and prop 13.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#290

Post by jjeaff »

jiggliemon wrote: post #273
0x000000E2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of California's problems go back to lack of housing and opposition to building more. Everyone wants to live in Cali for nice weather and jobs. If you stop people from building more housing your property value just keeps rising. Property costs are high because NIMBY blocking denser housing. Traffic is bad because housing density is too low for the population. Homelessness is bad because houses are too expensive.…

NIMBYism regarding more housing really only pertains to metropolitan/urban areas. How come the rest of the state can’t build housing consummate to the demand?

I live in a socal suburb and there is plenty of nimbyism. Any new developments take years or get stalled indefinitely as all the nimbys who already own their home show up to complain and block everything at every turn. Because they don't want the traffic to get worse, or they don't want the community to "lose its charm" or whatever else they can think of.
Post reply on HN