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.
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.
Because it is a 1 party state for the most part. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And the houses here are shit on top of it.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:4, Funny)
I thought they only shit on the sidewalks. They shit on the houses too?
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
A problem a long time in the making. In the 80s, a coworker got a house in a cul-de-sac in the East Bay town of Fremont. She reported that hers was the only house where owners really lived, and the other 5 houses were owned by speculators. That was nearly 40 years ago. My grandparents had a ranch in the Sierra foothills, and they used to complain in the 70s about land being subdivided for building homes, and today while it is not crowded it certainly is mostly homes for retirees.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be missing parents point. When a region has lots of money in it, guess what happens to the price the market will bear? Income in California is some of the highest in the country so it makes sense for all goods to cost more as the market will bear more. Absolutely sucks for those that make less, but again, its not government regulation causing that.
Combined with overpopulation and California's issues are quite easy to predict, if you've ever driven in Cali you know how bad the traffic is, there
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
California Gas tax - highest in the nation at 77.9 cents per gallon. 2nd in line, Illinois at 66.5 cents per gallon, 3rd in line is Pennsylvania at 62.2 cents per gallon. But wait, there's more. California ALSO has it's own special winter and summer gas formulations that the rest of the nation doesn't use. So specific refineries make Cali gas, making the gas that those private companies sell in California SIGNIFICANTLY more costly to produce. But sure, it's the PriVAte COmPanIES that are to blame for the co
If it's not private sector greed (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
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]
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
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=
More than just desirability (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: More than just desirability (Score:2)
And those ideas are better than "one-party rule" how?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course, because why should they get to decide what gets built on land they don't own?
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
Re: More than just desirability (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:4, Interesting)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Ordinarily the government would step in (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
It elected Ronald Reagan as governor before.
That was 43 years ago, when the Republican Party was very different.
RR was from the libertarian wing of the party, which no longer exists.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
California isn't one party (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, gaining population? No, California is not like Texas.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is gaining population a good thing?
I live in California, and it's fine with me if people leave.
Less traffic, less smog, less complaining.
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:5, Insightful)
Is gaining population a good thing?
I live in California, and it's fine with me if people leave.
Less traffic, less smog, less complaining.
Yep, and you find the Texans are complaining about people moving there and driving up property prices in the desirable parts of the cities. They're already complaining about being priced out of Houston and Dallas, not even Texans want to live in some shithole hick town in West Texas.
Then they'll start voting like they did in California. It'll take some time due to the insane gerrymandering in Texas and the law that effectively says they can ignore the results of elections if they don't like them.
People need to be very careful about what they gloat over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because it is a 1 party state for the most part (Score:4, Insightful)
All state offices are held by Republicans in Texas. They control both houses of the legislature and have a majority of the judiciary. It is about as much 1-party control as it can be, and the GOP is determined to keep it that way by gerrymandering and voter suppression.
And they do a crap job of running the state, it is basically owned by the oil business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most par (Score:4, Insightful)
California dysfunction thread. Bring up Texas: +5 Insightful
Texas dysfunction thread. Bring up California: -1 Flamebait
Re: Because it is a 1 party state for the most pa (Score:3)
Except the opposite happened? Because every California thread or anything immigration or involving cultural diversity attracts the kind of mods that do the exact opposite of what you just claimed.
More than housing costs (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: Nope...it's ONLY property costs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'd solve the homeless problem almost overnight.
And as it stands, about 5 companies own almost every bit of property in California. Follow the chain of ownership.
5 companies, or the state doling out housing.
Which sounds better?
Re: (Score:2)
We have similar housing issues in Canada, where more and more units end up rental and wealth concentration continues.
I don't know if it applies in California or not, but up here I'd love to see municipal residential single-family zoning ban rental by default. Homes should be an (eventual) option for every citizen who holds down a job and right now it seems you need two people making twice minimum wage just to get a starter home... but there are a lot of landlords and property management companies buying h
Re: (Score:3)
It's nice that you have an opinion, but you;re an ignorant fucking loudmouth, not an informed debater:
"The number of units in the purpose-built rental market, reported by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, grew by almost one-fifth from 2010 to 2020, rising from about 1.8 million units to almost 2.2 million units. In comparison, about 14,000 net units were added from 1990 to 2010."
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n... [statcan.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
5 companies, or the state doling out housing.
Which sounds better?
Neither? Sure there are other possibilities than those two.
Re:More than housing costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing how Democrat mayors are sounding very Republican now that they are having to deal with 100k people showing up, much like the Republican Mayors in the border states have been dealing with? Being a "Sanctuary" city/state basically invites this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remove urban containment.
That's one factor (Score:2, Informative)
Feeling bad for the other States. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Californians will only flee to warm states. Arizona, texas, lousinana, florida.
So i dont feel bad at all
Re:Feeling bad for the other States. (Score:5, Insightful)
Californians will only flee to warm states.
So, all states in the next 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Californians will only flee to warm states. Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Florida.
So, all states in the next 20 years?
And probably not those last three as they'll probably be under water ...
Re: (Score:2)
I bet you also feel bad for people with bigger dicks than you, because they definitely can't get them up, amirite? Loser.
Re:Feeling bad for the other States. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Or Florida where the governor wants schools to teach that slaves benefited from slavery [nbcnews.com].
You are entirely free to dislike any policies in red states. But any policy that doesn't fit your political preferences isn't therefore dystopian - that is just a histrionic abuse of language.
Texas and Florida, in contrast to California gained 450k and 400k citizens in 2022, respectively [yahoo.com]. Clearly people very much want to live there and, even if they didn't like the policies you mentioned, their cost-benefit-analysis is that, taken as a whole, TX and FL have much more enticement than CA. That doesn't immed
Re: Feeling bad for the other States. (Score:2)
You forgot this factor: (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:You forgot this factor: (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment. [ojp.gov] What emboldened thieves was when the police stopped enforcing shoplifting laws because they were no longer felonies, an unforseen consequence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Next question: why does it cost so much? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's anything like Massachusetts, the answer is artificially constrained supply.
Re: (Score:2)
Pittsfield's empty. Springfield will have some more room now that Smith and Wesson is leaving.
Re: Next question: why does it cost so much? (Score:2)
That's nice. Something like 2/3 of the state lives in and around Boston, where 1 acre and 2 acre minimums cavort with off-limits conservation land right up until you get to dense city, with very little in between.
Fallacy (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Unbridled Greed (Score:2)
California (Score:2)
Fact: It's better to be homeless in California than live in a house in any other state.
It isnt just housing (Score:3)
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.
Might be a good thing (Score:3)
Endless growth is impossible
It might ease the housing shortage
Some facts... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I am planning on leaving California (Score:2)
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 Californian (Score:2)
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.
The Second Spanish Conquest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The precariat... (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Think of that - the burden of retirees on workers will double between 2020 and 2060. That is huge. (Although, per the summary, not very specific to California!)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish 34% would leave. It would likely fix the housing problem rather quickly. But they won't. Probably won't even see 5% leave. I'd like to leave but I still have about 12 more years before I can get my pension and then I'll leave.
Re:"Nobody goes there anymore...too crowded". (Score:5, Insightful)
Almonds? While those are a much touted example of a crop that requires a lot of water, the real water hog in California is Alfalfa hay grown to feed cattle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you not know how to read? High housing costs for renters (which is a function of property value for owners) are literally cited at the very beginning of the blurb for this article as a factor in net outward migration.
So the answer is "No," you don't know how to read. Or how numbers work. 400,
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did the Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane start getting internet access?
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of it depends on how pragmatic they are, and how much they care about the economy. 17th-century-style abortion laws tend to drive OBGYNs away. For some strange reason, the young women tend to follow. And then, for some even weirder reason, a bunch of young men tend to follow the young women. Can't imagine w
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you're modded troll as you're not wrong. The people that run sanctuary cities are very supportive of illegal immigration, and they're also used to pushing the cost of caring for them on border towns that have neither the means nor the money for this at all. If they want to support illegal immigration, then they should support it, not make somebody else do it.
This is all above ground too by the way. Earlier they were putting them on busses without telling them where they were going (though it tu
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.heyjackass.com/ Halloween in Chi-town is gonna be lit!
Re:rent control or else (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Current rent control issues in NYC - 13k apartments not being offered for rent due to required repairs costing more than rents would earn. [gothamist.com]
Blast from the past: how rent control virtually destroyed NYC during the 60s and 70s. [ocregister.com]
I can verify the neighborhoods in NYC affected with abandoned buildings went straight to hell. Ever wonder where those GTA craptastic buildings you shoot up came from? Now you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Houses don't disappear."
Sure they do.
"Residents evacuated as homes slide down Los Angeles County hillside following âsignificant land movementâ(TM)"
"Twelve homes were red-tagged as of Monday night, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said on Twitter. Sixteen residents had been displaced by that point, the department said."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11... [cnn.com]
"With 5% of its housing destroyed by fire, Santa Rosa faces wrenching questions about its future"
"The city lost 3,000 homes â" fully 5%