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

81–90 of 543 posts

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

#81

Post by epistasis »

offtop5 wrote: post #61

The other thing to remember is you generally expect population growth. Even if the decline isn't significant, it means theirs no growth. This is a good thing. California is a horrible horrible place for most working class people. You will never get ahead.

INHO, this is a terrible thing. The drop in population provides no benefit at all to those struggling to get along.

Austerity measures never help those who are struggling. It's always a reallocation of resources from those with less to those with more. And California has embraced austerity in housing and land for almost half a century now.

Under housing austerity, as the wealthier buy more and more of an ungrowing housing stock, those with more will have fewer people per house, driving a population decrease even as demand has not decreased at all, and has likely increased.

I do agree that California is currently a raw deal for anybody not in a high-paying career. Without drastic change, life will eventually get too hard for the very wealthy as they can no longer find anybody to do things such as repairing their house. We are still a decade or more from that, but this news is a very bad sign of what's to come.

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

#83

Post by edoceo »

seibelj wrote: post #75
fennecfoxen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your state’s unfunded pension obligations say otherwise. You’ll want help paying those.

Given the recent bailout of private multi employer pension funds inside of a “COVID Relied Bill” makes me think the democrats will just bail it out.

should the "democrats" have just let them fail? what would a different party have done? why did the party even matter?

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

#84

Post by collaborative »

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 for "nice houses" but at least contain them Bottom line, you're best off leaving CA because no matter what there won't be a solution for YOU in your lifetime. The sooner you do it the better (speaking from a similar experience)

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

#85

Post by serf »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #2

Well...when fire's everywhere, I'd get out of dodge too... (I write this from Utah which also catches fire frequently...but what do I know, lol).

>Well...when fire's everywhere, I'd get out of dodge too...

most people in the U.S. just live where they were born[0].

everyone likes to frequently attribute some reason as to why California shouldn't be lived in, but the reality is that the average size of the family is dwindling[1] within the United States, and this pattern of growth has been expected for many decades. California is one of the first states to expose this trend due to high land values helping to facilitate out-of-the-ordinary social mobility out of the state, another well-predicted happening[2].

It's not fires, it's not earthquakes, it's not tsunamis, it's not social unrest -- It's natural population movement that coincides with social distribution of wealth, power, and opportunity. Whether or not one wants to associate these attributes to poor governance, well that's opinion. I tend to think this type of redistribution is inevitable and not necessarily a negative for quality-of-life across the board.

[0]: https://www.northamerican.com/infographics/where-they-grew-u...

[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a...

[2]: https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf

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

#86

Post by notsureaboutpg »

RC_ITR wrote: post #55
immichaelwang wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the evidence that Marc Andreessen is a NIMBY other than he lives close to his office?

Vote with your feet. At least send your property taxes to a town that allows for at least some multi-unit housing (Palo alto isn’t great but it’s better and right next door).

Palo Alto does not allow multi unit housing. There hasn't been a new apartment built in Palo Alto in like 40 years

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

#87

Post by notsureaboutpg »

mmmBacon wrote: post #36

As a resident of California, I would greatly prefer fewer people. Losing population isn’t necessarily something negative in my opinion.

And vice versa more and more people would greatly prefer to live elsewhere than California.

Your quality of life is declining, that's why people are leaving. Not cost.

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

#88

Post by koolba »

edoceo wrote: post #83
seibelj wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the recent bailout of private multi employer pension funds inside of a “COVID Relied Bill” makes me think the democrats will just bail it out.

should the "democrats" have just let them fail? what would a different party have done? why did the party even matter?

Yes they should. Because the alternative is subsidizing the same bad behavior across the the entire nation and bankrupting our grandchildren before they’re even born.

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

#89

Post by clairity »

raldi wrote: post #59
eganist wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why no need for highrises?

Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a s…

in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually.

i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politicians don’t even let such bills get to vote oftentimes, but vote them down when they do. i’d be down to put them on the ballot as a voter proposition instead.

[0]: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/l-a-s-changing-skyline-a-...

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

#90

Post by imoverclocked »

epistasis wrote: post #58
mmmBacon wrote: post #36

As a resident of California, I would greatly prefer fewer people. Losing population isn’t necessarily something negative in my opinion.

Personally, I disagree, the people of California are probably one of the best parts of it, IMHO. If it's just the climate or the views, there are many other great places in the West coast that are cheaper and have the same natural amenities. But the people are irreplaceable, which is what make California so much more desirable than those other places that you aren't living. However if there was a system for limiting…

> you get like 30 years but then have to leave

Yikes. I wouldn't want to move to this state to begin with if it had a law like that. Also, who would that apply to? Farmers? Families? If someone has lived here for 40 years and is retired, would they have to leave?

Post reply on HN