Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Stats IT

Why Is California's Population Falling? Housing Costs (ppic.org) 286

"34% of Californians say they are considering moving out of the state due to housing costs," according to statistics from a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California.

It's a nonprofit think tank founded in 1994 "to inform and improve public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research." (Founded with a grant from Bill Hewlett of Hewlett-Packard, it also gets funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation). The report's startling conclusion? "After a century of explosive growth, California is likely to become a slow-growing state." After the year 2030 California's seniors (older than 65) are expected to outnumber its children. "In 2020, California had nearly four residents ages 18-64 for every adult 65 and older. This ratio is expected to drop to 2.8 by 2030 and 2.2 by 2060, if current trends continue."

Births are outpacing deaths by over 106,000 people a year. (Even during the pandemic California had a lower COVID mortality rate than most states.) And international immigration remained a net positive with a 90,000-person increase in 2022. Yet all of this was offset in 2022 by a net loss of 407,000 people migrating out of the state.

California already has a population of 39 million — but the full report cites July 2023 projections from the state's Department of Finance that now "suggest that the state population will plateau between 39 and 40 million residents in the long term."

The caption on one graph notes that California "is losing households at all income levels." [W]hile the majority of domestic outmigrants are lower- and middle-income, an increasing proportion of higher-income Californians are also exiting the state. The "new normal" of remote work in many white-collar professions has enabled some higher-income workers to move. Politics might also play a role, as conservatives are much more likely than liberals to say they have considered leaving the state.
One other factor: Declining birth and fertility rates are a nationwide, even a global, phenomenon as economic and social events have changed the status of women and their access to educational and job opportunities. Total fertility rates — the number of births the average woman will have in her lifetime — have fallen across the U.S. in recent decades. No state has a rate at or above 2.1, the level necessary to maintain a population's current size (not taking immigration and migration into account), but California's fertility rate has fallen faster than most. In 2008 its rate was above the national average (2.15); by 2020 it fell to the seventh-lowest (1.52).

The declining birth rate among young adults in their 20s is the biggest driver of the fertility rate decline. One major factor is that 20-somethings are now less likely to get married, which can affect decisions to have children... In the past, higher birth rates among immigrants also helped offset lower birth rates among US-born Californians, though more recently birth rates among immigrants have declined, reflecting patterns in sending countries.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Is California's Population Falling? Housing Costs

Comments Filter:
  • by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @06:30PM (#63910731)
    No checks and balances on bad leadership and public servants.
    • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @06:34PM (#63910737) Journal

      Yeah true. But also, housing costs. I left when I had the opportunity because I could not afford to start a family there. Iâ(TM)m much happier now in my new state because of that decision.

      • by VertosCay ( 7266594 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:44PM (#63910873)
        Actually it's the entire cost of living here is the cause. Fuel, food, energy, pretty much everything is taxed within an inch of it's life. If they could figure out how to tax us per breath of air they would, "to save the environment". Virtually everyone I worked with prior to retirement have left, moved back to America. California used to be the place to make a good living and have a decent life. I feel bad for the younger residents, I have no idea how they make ends meet.
      • And the houses here are shit on top of it.

      • by Jhon ( 241832 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @08:02PM (#63910903) Homepage Journal

        "Yeah true. But also, housing costs"

        Housing costs "bone" is connected to the government 'bone'. The insane regulations required to build ANYTHING make it next to impossible to make money for a developer UNLESS they build high-end expensive housing.

        Toss in the "grift" involved, and that adds even MORE costs for business to cover to get anything built.

        That doesn't even include the fact that the land is expensive. Too many people want what is a limited resource. No affordable housing? You'll never build "affordable" housing when the land you are building it on isn't affordable itself.

        • by Arethan ( 223197 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @08:33PM (#63910961) Journal

          I can't disagree with your analysis, but also, it doesn't matter to me anymore. That game is over. I already left and am feeling happier for it. Life is on track as desired sans-California. I'm a very small sample set, maybe a fluke, but TFA suggests otherwise. Don't bother convincing me or anyone else that already left that we made a mistake, instead work on changing your state's situation to not be an endless dumpster fire and then hopefully others will elect to stay.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            To get down to the metal, we allowed the power hungry people with the increasing amount of gold to climb up on top of everyone else and make the rules (the Golden rule). These people don't care if they walk past you bleeding out in the gutter like a stuck pig All they care about is their profits and wealth. Everyone and pretty much everything is expendable in their quest for wealth and power. This affects housing costs, but also a whole lot more. See today's norm of having software give the user a big "FUC
        • by sjames ( 1099 )

          There is a strong trend towards building luxury rather than affordable from California to the reddest of red states. The problem is that real estate investment and banking have been allowed to run rampant for decades.

          • by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @05:58AM (#63911473)

            If it is happening everywhere then why are people leaving California to go to states where it is the same?

            I sold my house and left the state last year. I bought a much nicer house in a much nicer area that is literally 2d the size, with a pool, for 1/4 the cost per square foot. In other words my dumpy California crackerjack house cost 8x more than my very nice luxury home in gated community elsewhere and my yearly property tax bill dropped by 35%.

            If we go by my California buyer's new property vs my new property tax they are paying 2x now for that shit box vs what I am now. I met them. Very nice people with a young kid. I hope they make it.

            Things are definitely not the same across states. California is dying due to government policies. Wait til the huge demographic bubble of state employee pensions starts coming due in about 10 years. They don't include that when they do future budget estimates. Btw. That number will utterly crush the budget, it's mandated by law, and they have no way to pay it.

          • by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Monday October 09, 2023 @09:28AM (#63911839) Journal

            There is a strong trend towards building luxury rather than affordable from California to the reddest of red states. The problem is that real estate investment and banking have been allowed to run rampant for decades.

            No, the problem is government not allowing enough construction. If you allow lots of building, developers will build all the luxury housing the market can bear first, because that's the most profitable. But after that they won't just quit, they'll build whatever else the market needs. And it's not a strictly sequential thing, either, because the number of developers and builders isn't fixed; if government allows lots of construction, some developers will target the non-luxury space.

            Where I live (Utah), we're facing a pretty serious housing crunch, but we also have liberal building policies and housing is going up like crazy, everywhere -- especially four-over-one stick-frame apartment buildings, which are incredibly cost-effective on a per square-foot basis. My wife finds this annoying, calls the huge numbers of tiny (except they're not actually that tiny) apartments being built "lambing sheds". But it's great. Rents have stopped rising and even declined a little, and when the huge number of units under construction are completed, they'll definitely fall.

            As for real estate speculators, meh. If you want to see them forced out, just build, build, build, and those who aren't smart enough to get out right quick will lose their shirts.

        • by Pravetz-82 ( 1259458 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @03:31AM (#63911375)
          The main issue is not regulations. The main issue is that housing was turned into investment vehicle.
          Companies and rich people grab land and house units, strangling the market. It doesn't matter how much is built, if it ends up in the hands of "investors" who are ready to sit on them instead of letting them at reasonable price.
          Residential buildings should be owned by people who intend to live there.
          The fix is simple, but unlikely to happen soon.
          1. Ban companies from owning homes
          2. Increase property taxes for anything but your main/first house/apartment. Maybe also give a tax break, if the property was let under a long term lease.
          3. Forbid foreigners without permanent residency to acquire residential properties.
          This will correct the prices and make housing affordable. Nothing else would.
          These measures (or at least some of them) are working in some EU countries (like Denmark) and housing there is relatively affordable. In Denmark, if you don't live in your home for more than 6 months, you get a nice letter from the tax authorities that your tax is going to the moon.
          In my country, on the other hand, we have the same problem as in the US and the result is - impossible prices (far outpacing the median income) and 40% of residential properties sit empty (not for sale and not for lease).
          • by MBGMorden ( 803437 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @08:53AM (#63911743)

            3. Forbid foreigners without permanent residency to acquire residential properties.

            This is one that makes a lot of sense. I've been looking at retiring abroad and at first I thought it a bit weird that most countries I was looking at had it so that a non-citizen couldn't buy property. The more I thought about it the more it made sense though. Land is one of the few things guaranteed to outlast its owner. It WILL revert to someone else's ownership after your death. You don't want perpetual ownership of that type of asset assigned to a foreigner. A lifetime lease to live there, sure, but that's as far as you can control it.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It's a zoning issue. If the rules create wealthy ghettos and corporate office wastelands, you end up with extreme housing costs and hellish commutes. That in turn makes any land where anyone might reasonably want to live expensive too.

          It's very hard to rectify. Turning some office space into social housing will help, but really it needs news towns that are build right from the ground up. Mixed use everywhere, good walking and cycling options, great public transport.

      • Bingo. I've lived in a few states, California is a nice place to live but horribly expensive. I moved out of there over two decades ago as it was expensive then too. I still get offers from recruiters to come back. I give them a quick math on what it would take to get me back there to keep the same size home and property and keep the same standard of living for me and the family - and I don't live in a cheap place either. That quickly shuts the discussion down. As a side note, one of the issue is that Silic
      • by Chas ( 5144 )

        I'm sure that's part of it.

        But the pro-crime government, hell-bent in importing a new undercaste of cheap workers while killing the old caste off with drugs and violence doesn't help.

        Anyone sane has already left this wasteland.

    • by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:01PM (#63910779)

      Not the only reason. As a resident of Arizona, I can tell you that the problem is that California has gotten too expensive in general and people are migrating to Arizona among other places but then they want to change everything... because they want a cheaper California. That's not going to fly here. The question they should be asking themselves is why it became so expensive to live there. Hint: It's not private sector greed.

      • by HotNeedleOfInquiry ( 598897 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:24PM (#63910831)
        This. I've seen electricity go from $100/mo to $300/mo, fire insurance from $1500/yr to $6000+/yr, gas $3+/gal to $5+/gal, propane $1.50/gal to $3+/gal, etc, etc.
        • by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @08:14PM (#63910925)

          That's one of the things I liked about Arizona over California. Sure, there's more money here in California, but you may as well just toss most of it into a dumpster fire and you'll get just as much use out of it. The state taxes the shit out of you, and has nothing to show for it. The energy grid is maintained almost as poorly as it is managed, they're spending over 100 billion on a high speed rail that literally is planned to go to the middle of nowhere, and even though nothing is built yet they've already spent $10 billion. Speak of transportation, you know how bad public transportation is in Arizona? Well, in California it's even worse. But Arizona at least has well designed and maintained roads to make up for that, where California...well...let's just put it this way: A few weeks ago I was talking to somebody from Boston who told me that the roads there were originally designed by cow herders hundreds of years earlier, and somehow they managed to do a better job of it. California also manages its water so poorly (LA literally funnels 90% of its storm water into the ocean instead of using it to replenish aquifers) that, to make up for it, it's demanding a much bigger share of the Colorado river.

          California is basically "spend more, get less". And the only people who seem to defend how poorly managed California is seem to be either local politicians or white progressives who have never even lived here.

      • Then what is it? I don't think you understand why housing was affordable in the past. We used to spend literally trillions on infrastructure building entire new cities. With that came a huge increase in housing and apartment inventory keeping prices low. We also used to have a lot more programs for subsidized loans targeted at affordable housing for lower and middle income Americans. In the rush to austerity that began in the 80s all that went away with the last of it being a compromise between Reagan and t
      • Californians caused their own problems because the VOTED for them. They shouldn't be allowed to leave. They should have to clean up their OWN mess.
        They just bring the same mindset they screwed up California with and just take it to other states, and screw them up too.
        They are like locusts!

        "California is like a bowl of cereal, if your not a fruit, or a nut, your a flake"
        - Author Unkown

        California Fruits, Flakes & Nuts : True Tales of California Crazies, Crackpots and Creeps [walmart.com]
    • by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:29PM (#63910841) Journal

      Property values are too high because it's a desirable place to live. People WANT to live there, and because Free Market(tm) housing prices go up due to demand. There's a reason why red state shitholes are so cheap; Nobody with actual money to afford better wants to live there.

      The problem is the people who buy and own the housing don't live in them. Too many speculators buying houses as investments with the intent of either renting them out (for as high as price as they can get away with) or flipping them at some future date.

      Crack down on real estate speculation, maybe update some zoning laws, and housing prices will drop.
      =Smidge=

      • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:45PM (#63910877) Homepage Journal

        I'd have to disagree. There is no single cause, for one. It certainly isn't expensive just because people want to live there.

        It is also expensive because it is hard to build there. If it was popular but easy to build, like Texas, housing would remain affordable because more housing would be built.

        But everything I've read is that to build in the cities you have to pay huge fees and satisfy a half dozen committees. Hell, I can apparently stop construction by writing a letter protesting it, even though I don't live there.

        Then you have the tax situation that encourages people to hold onto their property no matter what.

        I've seen the studies. Speculators generally don't hold property for long, they're called flippers for a reason. Buy a place, fix and renovate, sell a few months later. Even if you eliminated ALL empty housing at this point(and supposedly a 5% empty rate is around the best balance point for stable prices), you'd still have huge pent up demand.

        Update the zoning laws to enable building, don't worry about the speculators. I don't thinkmprices would actually drop, but they'd stop increasing above the overall inflation rate, probably become effectively cheaper by nit keeping up with inflation.

        But you're going to need to smartly gut the zoning laws, planning committees, homeowners associations, etc...

        • So, rather than let the people who already live in a city decide what should get built, you want to strip that away, as a higher priority than taxing people on the actual market value of their real estate like the rest of the universe does.

          And those ideas are better than "one-party rule" how?
          • So, rather than let the people who already live in a city decide what should get built, you want to strip that away, as a higher priority than taxing people on the actual market value of their real estate like the rest of the universe does. And those ideas are better than "one-party rule" how?

            The end result of what you prefer tends to be NIMBY-ism. The folks that live there don't want any more development cuz they like the place just like it is. That causes building construction to be stifled which then drives up real estate prices due to "lack of supply" to satisfy the demand.

            And when I read of California now I see some of the "rich & famous" selling off their California holdings and moving to other states.

            There's no chance of those big "rich & famous" mansions/estates being broken up

          • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

            So, rather than let the people who already live in a city decide what should get built, you want to strip that away

            Yes of course, because why should they get to decide what gets built on land they don't own?

            as a higher priority than taxing people on the actual market value of their real estate like the rest of the universe does.

            Taxing that way is completely idiotic because it discourages people from improving their property, building more housing on their land, etc. One way out of this mess is to tax on l

          • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @12:18AM (#63911217) Homepage Journal

            Hmmm... I think you should stop trying to read between the lines and infer stuff, you are bad at it.

            1. Letting people already living there decide? Remember how I mentioned that I, who doesn't even live in California, can bring a project to a halt by writing a single letter? I'm not a resident or owner and I get a vote(if I want it).
            2. Unmentioned, the rights of the property owner. If I buy a plot of land in a residential neighborhood and want to build a house there, is it fair for the rest of the neighborhood to say no because it'll ruin their view and their kids play there occasionally?
            3. If your goal is fixing housing prices and shortages, somebody's toes have to be stepped on.
            4. Where do you even get 'higher priority' from? Where does 'one party rule' come in? I didn't mention either.
            5. For that matter, I didn't mention switching to fair market value property taxes, just that the current regime results in people wanting to hold onto their property. You might as well stay in that 4 bedroom house after the kids move out, because even a small 2 bed place would have 10 times the property taxes if you move due to the lock it. I'm actually a bit fond of ichijo's point about doing land value tax instead.

            My point was simple: "speculators" aren't actually driving the housing shortage or prices all that much. It is the incentives a couple steps up that make building more and denser housing doing that. Make it easier to build housing, more gets built, prices relax.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I don't think that will work. Aside from the fact that zoning laws will never change (if you've heard of NIMBY, California has an "upgraded" version of that called BANANA) there seem to be cultural/societal changes that have a much bigger impact. For example, you hear a lot about supposedly millennials will never be able to own houses (though this millennial does...) and this idea that they have to live with their parents much longer. The way people say it, you'd swear it's a new thing, but it's really not.

      • by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @10:12PM (#63911063) Journal

        I would argue property values are too high because of Prop 13.

        Once you buy in, your property tax increases are capped at a fixed percentage regardless of what inflation is doing. Along with 30 year mortgages, this helps to frontload how much someone is willing to pay for housing because they can spread the pain out for an extended duration.

        This very much makes real estate a worthwhile investment, since you have the property tax equivalent of rent control. And because it is like rent control, there is reduced supply which gets reset to extremely high market level when it comes on market.

        In other states, your property taxes are like rent without the guarantee of rent control. Your municipality/state blows a hole in the budget? They can always balance it on the backs of property owners by hiking property taxes. People buying real estate in those markets shouldn't be willing to take the risk of buying at a high level if they aren't able to secure a benefit like "property tax rent control" in exchange.

        National property tax comparison:

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news... [yahoo.com]

        Impact on household tenure due to prop 13 (from 2005):

        https://www.nber.org/digest/ap... [nber.org]

        Other factors which have impacted housing in California shutdown of local mills and reduced logging.

        2001 article on shut downs of sawmills in California:

        https://www.latimes.com/archiv... [latimes.com]

        2020 opinion piece on need to open new mills in California to support forest management:

        https://forestlandowners.org/r... [forestlandowners.org]

        • Also... there probably will be a bump nationally in property values due to a bunch of people locking in interest rates around 3%. Those people won't want to move, or if they move, they won't want to sell and will will rent out the house instead. This will also act to reduce available housing supply. This is not a California specific problem, but I imagine this issue plus the Prop 13 effect will stack in California.

          Thus, I think it is appropriate to say that yes, property values are high in California bec

      • And build out more infrastructure which would in turn result in new cities being built and a large increase in housing inventory. That's how and why the baby boomers were able to buy their cheap houses although they really hate to acknowledge it. We started in on austerity back in the '80s and we never stopped so we haven't had one of those build-outs since the last one from when Reagan compromised with the Democrats and gave them a bunch of infrastructure spending in exchange for the defense spending he wa
      • It's ironic that housing has gone up 40% in three years and at the exact same time, California has shown year over year loss of population. Wouldn't that mean housing should be going down, at least a little? It's not though. Interest rates have doubled and the prices have stayed the same or slightly appreciated this year.

        So clearly there is more at play here then simple population numbers. I personally blame the AirBNB style companies. It encourages well off people and investment companies to buy up housing

    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

      That's not the reason people are giving for leaving, that's the reason people in other states want to be why because they're afraid the success of California will spread to other states and the dystopian Republican policies won't be in place anymore

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by jwhyche ( 6192 )

        The number one reason people are leaving California is they don't want to live there. There are a number of reasons to them but that is the main reason.

        • by Ksevio ( 865461 )

          Do you have a citation for that? The report says that 34% have considered moving somewhere else due to housing costs which suggests they want to live in CA but can't afford it.

    • There's a substantial Republican base. There are also a large number of Independents who have to be courted. It's a blue state but that doesn't mean it's free from the problems of red States. In this case the problem is government resources on being devoted to building affordable housing and haven't been since the early 90s. In the past huge amounts of money was spent building out new cities which kept a large supply of houses and apartments and prices down. We stopped spending money on infrastructure and e
    • Most states 1 party states now. And almost all counties are 1 party counties.
  • by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Sunday October 08, 2023 @06:37PM (#63910741) Homepage Journal

    It's the fact the entire housing industry in the state is outright corrupt. From charging illegal late fees (Orozco v Casamiro) to using yearly management changes to get around a maximum rent increase law, the entire industry is outright STEALING from people and needs to be outright nationalized, all licenses revoked, and all proceeds reimbursed to the population.

  • That's one factor (Score:2, Informative)

    by sfcat ( 872532 )
    Sure, that and a huge spike in crime (people often have just stopped reporting, look at the murder stats, you have to report those) and it being a single party state whose politics are wildly out of control. I seriously doubt most Democrats if they would read some of the 1400 bills passed in CA each year would agree with most of them or even some of them. They aren't even in line with what most CA politicians say in public a lot of the time. Meanwhile most of the small businesses in San Francisco have cl
  • by HnT ( 306652 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @06:40PM (#63910747)

    I am really feeling bad for the other States getting flooded with the typical holier than thou Californians who seem to know everything better and will try to convert every place into the dystopia that CA has become.

    • Californians will only flee to warm states. Arizona, texas, lousinana, florida.

      So i dont feel bad at all

    • The "dystopia" where property values are too high and business too competitive. Right.

      I bet you also feel bad for people with bigger dicks than you, because they definitely can't get them up, amirite? Loser.
      • by sarren1901 ( 5415506 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @09:51AM (#63911903)

        Does the average citizen, who doesn't won a home, benefit from high property values? I'd say no. In fact, those high property values drive up rents, which also doesn't help the average citizen. I suppose you could claim high property values help fund schools, but when California (matched with Texas) have the lowest graduate (from high school) rates in the country, it doesn't really matter.

        The dystopia is that we have the most homeless people in the country, which is ironic when we are the largest and most prosperous state in the country. It's almost like all our rich people (that claim to be progressive) really aren't. How can we have such wealth and also have the worst possible homeless problem at the same time? I mean, we've spent more money, year on year, for the past 5 years on homeless and the problem is continuing to get worse. You can't even blame Republicans on this, since the Democrats clearly have a super majority in both the State House and the Senate, along with the governor's house and all the major cities also are controlled by Democrats.

        That's the dystopia people are talking about. Yes, it's a beautiful state. We have possibly the best weather (never been to Hawaii so maybe 2nd best) in the country. You can make really good money here, especially if you win out in the genetic lottery with beauty or high intelligence or high ambition.

    • by drwho ( 4190 )

      yes, the same way Boston and New York are spreading their diseased ideas into other parts of the Northeast. Boston has pretty much conquered New Hampshire and southern Maine. We need to build a wall.

  • by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:12PM (#63910807)

    Increased crime. No thanks to Proposition 47, thieves are emboldened in increasing petty theft, which is decimated the downtown of many cities. San Francisco, for example, is heading for ghost town status downtown because petty crime has gone way out of control

  • by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @07:21PM (#63910827)

    If it's anything like Massachusetts, the answer is artificially constrained supply.

  • The number of houses in CA is increasing. More houses are being built than destroyed. If the occupancy rate remains same, it should be able to provide houses to more people now than in the past. So if people are leaving then it indicates that either the occupancy rate is falling or the household size is falling. Indeed the household size has fallen from 2.93 to 2.81 (4%) from 2020-2022 while the population has fallen by 1%. So actually there is a net increase in housing supply.

    So the focus should be on fact

    • If household size has fallen more percentage wise than population then that actually puts more pressure on the housing stock.

      There are reasonably affordable homes in California, they will just be in places that appeal to different people than the traditional population centers, and have limited local job opportunities. You might still pay a 20-30% premium in cost/square foot compared to living a similar distance outside (say) Dallas, TX for a similar property, but there are options.

      Ultimately what has crea

  • Fact: It's better to be homeless in California than live in a house in any other state.

  • by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @08:13PM (#63910919) Journal

    The basic cost of living in CA, is ~42% higher than the nation, in SF is it 76% higher and in LA it is ~51-54% higher. Higher taxes, utilities, transportation, good and services, etc.

  • by MpVpRb ( 1423381 ) on Sunday October 08, 2023 @08:51PM (#63910975)

    Endless growth is impossible
    It might ease the housing shortage

  • Some facts... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beheaderaswp ( 549877 ) * on Sunday October 08, 2023 @10:35PM (#63911105)

    California's GDP is 3.6 trillion a year, is 15% of the US GDP, contributes 1/7th of all revenues to the federal government, receives far less back from the federal government than it sends, and is very rich.

    Of course it's expensive to live there. If you are rich it's pretty good. If you are middle class it sucks. If you are homeless you're still homeless- but you're not in Chicago on Wacker Drive (trust me- California is like a Hilton compared the the hell hole northern cities are for the homeless).

    California is a victim of it's own success.

  • When I retire in four or five years, I am going to get the hell out of California. Why? Because Hawaii is like California but with better weather and better health overall.

    I have been to 15 states, 16 countries, and 3 continents. California is second to Hawaii. Then there is everywhere else in the far distance. This includes Paris, NYC, and Barcelona. I'd not kick them out of bed, but they're just all more polluted and less nice.

    All the wealthy Californians move to Hawaii and then, later, move to wherever t

  • increasing proportion of higher-income Californians are also exiting the state.

    No kidding, their richest resident (who also happens to the planet's richest resident) fled to Texas.

  • Cali is gradually turning into a big South American squatter camp. Due to continuing immigration, SF will soon look like Rio North. It is the Second Spanish Conquest. The Conquistadores just wear rucksacks and sneakers now. Soon we will see a tarp over the Hollywood sign, followed by corrugated sheeting.
  • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday October 09, 2023 @02:42AM (#63911343)
    ...tend to have fewer kids. (See: Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]). If you improve employment & living conditions, i.e. permanent conditions with healthcare & maternity & paternity leave, & quality of life (i.e. enough time to spend looking after babies & young children & pleasant neighbourhoods & schools to bring them up in & have a social life, which becomes very important when trying to raise a family), then birthrates might change.

    California has led the way in decimating stable, high quality employment, & turning working life into a non-stop roller-coaster ride of chasing temporary, part time, low-wage jobs, & constantly having do unpaid work, & pay for studying (which should be paid continuing professional development). Oh, & don't forget the horrendous debts that most graduates leave university with. It all takes its toll on the standard of living & quality of life. And then we wonder why people won't/can't start families?

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...