Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a substantial one year loss for any state, especially given the history of California as a state that has always grown.
The warning bells were ringing for years though. The state has had net negative domestic migration for YEARS, but continued to grow nominally due to births exceeding deaths and international migration to the state.
Years of net negative migration have finally caught up with the state when international migration dried up (Mexico fertility rates are now below replacement level) and domestic birthrates have declined. Also, the new wave of immigrants coming from Asia, aren't having babies, like the previous wave of Central Americans were.
This is all adding up to have a flat population and at times, HUGE drops, of 330,000!
Nonsense!
You're looking at a very small two-year trend and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. 330,000 people is not a huge drop on a population of 39 million. I'm sorry but it's just basic math. If anything, people in California would cheer a significant drop in population as it's overpopulated as it is. But less than a 1% drop is not going to get anyone excited except for people that are trying to use hyperbole to imply there's a problem that isn't there. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you might start looking at the work from home trend as the figures come out as a more probable cause on much of this.
This is eye opening when Texas and Florida have zero state taxes. It’s impossible to defend paying tens of thousands in state income taxes when neighboring states are free...
I guess it depends on the COL calculator you're using. These two say there's a 44% difference between Phoenix and SF, 32% between Phoenix and LA, and 28% between Phoenix and San Diego.
Sort of speaks to the comparative attractiveness of Phoenix, doesn't it?
Sorry man but I have to call shenanigans on that news article.
The people putting forth the claim are extremely partisan (as is the news article) and are doing a little sleight of hand with at least 2 things.
1) Property tax. CA housing is much much more expensive and it looks like they are only factoring in property tax paid if you are a homeowner and not what you'd be paying as a component of rent.
Home ownership across income groups is going to be wildly different between those two states and give a dishonest impression.
2) For starters, here is avg. sales tax, 8.82% for CA and 8.2% for TX.
They're imputing a sales tax as a percentage of income. Given higher wages in CA due to the cost of living (housing, rents etc.) this makes the tax look lower despite the person not really having the extra money as it goes to their higher costs.
There are other give-aways that it's a biased article like the arbitrary groupings and of course the "missing 19%" that they cut out of their comparison graph LMAO.
Lower 20%, middle 60%, Top 1% LMAO...I mean come on, that's just laughably bad skewing of the data presentation.
Sorry man but I have to call shenanigans on that news article.
The people putting forth the claim are extremely partisan (as is the news article) and are doing a little sleight of hand with at least 2 things.
1) Property tax. CA housing is much much more expensive and it looks like they are only factoring in property tax paid if you are a homeowner and not what you'd be paying as a component of rent.
Home ownership across income groups is going to be wildly different between those two states and give a dishonest impression.
2) For starters, here is avg. sales tax, 8.82% for CA and 8.2% for TX.
They're imputing a sales tax as a percentage of income. Given higher wages in CA due to the cost of living (housing, rents etc.) this makes the tax look lower despite the person not really having the extra money as it goes to their higher costs.
There are other give-aways that it's a biased article like the arbitrary groupings and of course the "missing 19%" that they cut out of their comparison graph LMAO.
Lower 20%, middle 60%, Top 1% LMAO...I mean come on, that's just laughably bad skewing of the data presentation.
And yet you don't make a big deal out of the original post with the 'massive' .85% drop in population and the implication that the sky is falling?
You're looking at a very small two-year trend and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. 330,000 people is not a huge drop on a population of 39 million. I'm sorry but it's just basic math. If anything, people in California would cheer a significant drop in population as it's overpopulated as it is. But less than a 1% drop is not going to get anyone excited except for people that are trying to use hyperbole to imply there's a problem that isn't there. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you might start looking at the work from home trend as the figures come out as a more probable cause on much of this.
Government services and pensions are unfortunately built on the idea of infinite growth. The state is looking at a massive budget shortfall this next year.
Government services and pensions are unfortunately built on the idea of infinite growth. The state is looking at a massive budget shortfall this next year.
Which is an aside that has nothing to do with the comment you quoted and its context.
And yet you don't make a big deal out of the original post with the 'massive' .85% drop in population and the implication that the sky is falling?
"massive" and "sky is falling" are judgmental and we've had this thread before and I've generally agreed with the state of CA on the topic. (They find it concerning and have proposed laws to combat it.)
Using statistics to try to deceive people and alter public policy is where my attention tends to focus.
I personally find you being upset with my keeping this an honest conversation worse than another partisan using hyperbole. I generally find quibbling with partisans about that stuff to be a waste of time.
"massive" and "sky is falling" are judgmental and we've had this thread before and I've generally agreed with the state of CA on the topic. (They find it concerning and have proposed laws to combat it.)
Using statistics to try to deceive people and alter public policy is where my attention tends to focus.
I personally find you being upset with my keeping this an honest conversation worse than another partisan using hyperbole. I generally find quibbling with partisans about that stuff to be a waste of time.
Signed,
One of the missing 19%
How are you keeping this an honest conversation by not calling out the original premise of this thread?
You are the "math guy" after all. I see nothing partisan at all with the comment(s) I made but perhaps that's an easy way for you to deflect?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
