The Great California Exodus (San Diego, San Francisco: section 8, 2014, rentals)

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

NIce cherry pick. Houston's a special case now because of the oil industry boom. I'll bet the rates between there and other cities are a similar ratio. How are they between CA and the East coast or Chicago?

Beating the dead horse.

U-haul stat o' the day - Austin Contrarian

I like the author's bluntness. Would I leave? No, not really. There's a ton of opportunity here, great social scene (for me, probably not for bible thumping bigots), weather, diverse culture. But it is, especially on the coast, undeniably expensive. It doesn't really have anything to do with progressive policies. It has to do with price relative to wages. Housing in good neighborhoods with good schools and low crime close to high-paying jobs is insane where most of Californians live. Progressive policies aren't to blame for that, supply and demand is. Los Angeles and San Francisco are pretty much as built out as they can get unless you want to commute more than hour each way. I mean, you could point the finger at NIMBYism and say it's because it's too hard to build up, but compared to Austin? Really? Austin is way more NIMBY in that respect.

Anyway, what we should really be looking at is net immigration. Austin-San Francisco U-Haul does show an interesting trend that really nobody goes from Austin to San Francisco but many go in the reverse, but it's not like San Franciso and Los Angeles are shrinking. Growing at half or less the rate of Austin, yes. Shrinking, no.
Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SportyandMisty]

The core message is the exodus of young families. Again, this doesn't seem to apply to the very well educated engineers & scientists seeking their fortunes in Silicon Valley; it is every-day families where the bread-winners are just normal middle-income families (by national standards). The author of the article is correct when he observes that such a family can have a much better quality of life living elsewhere (at least as measured by financial & economic indicators).

Not all young families depart -- many have deep ties even if they realize they can never afford an affluent life style - just as many young families in Manhattan, without employment in investment banking or related high income fields, have strong ties to Manhattan and are willing to live in an 800 square foot 6th floor walk-up just to live in Manhattan.

[EdJS]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Here's another article in the exploding California "gloom and doom" genre - The Great California Exodus:

"As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the 'entrenched incumbents' who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money. Then there's a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don't pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid ...

As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California's politics become even more left-wing. It's a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, 'the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees.'"

Hammer, nail, wham.

How long does one have to have lived here to qualify as "entrenched incumbents"? Our family moved to California in 1977 and we are thriving.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by EdJS

How long does one have to have lived here to qualify as "entrenched incumbents"? Our family moved to California in 1977 and we are thriving.

That would definitely qualify you as it was before the major residential real estate booms.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The utopians have long wanted to try out a version of Scandanavian Socialism, with a Green tint, here.

They've now got it.

Good luck to everyone involved, be they involved voluntarily or involuntarily.

[DMenscha]

I sorta wish everyone that says they're going to leave CA, would.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Even the illegals are leaving:

Pew: immigration from Mexico drops to net zero | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Even the illegals are leaving:

Pew: immigration from Mexico drops to net zero | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

The Report:

http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/201...-Migration.pdf

[majoun]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Even the illegals are leaving:

Pew: immigration from Mexico drops to net zero | Politics Blog | an SFGate.com blog

Joel Kotkin said awhile back that Texas gets more Mexican illegals than California does nowadays (and proved it with pretty strong and coherent data)

It should not be forgotten that PA (not just Philly), OH, and MI used to be amongst the top destinations for immigrants, and now they are not. (If one took the Philly Metro area out of Pennsylvania it would be whiter than, and would have fewer immigrants than, Idaho and Montana) Economic decline can happen.

(On an aside note, I think parts of the Rust Belt will rise again but that is a topic for a different thread)

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Beating the dead horse.

U-haul stat o' the day - Austin Contrarian

I like the author's bluntness. Would I leave? No, not really. There's a ton of opportunity here, great social scene (for me, probably not for bible thumping bigots), weather, diverse culture. But it is, especially on the coast, undeniably expensive. It doesn't really have anything to do with progressive policies. It has to do with price relative to wages. Housing in good neighborhoods with good schools and low crime close to high-paying jobs is insane where most of Californians live. Progressive policies aren't to blame for that, supply and demand is. Los Angeles and San Francisco are pretty much as built out as they can get unless you want to commute more than hour each way. I mean, you could point the finger at NIMBYism and say it's because it's too hard to build up, but compared to Austin? Really? Austin is way more NIMBY in that respect.

Anyway, what we should really be looking at is net immigration. Austin-San Francisco U-Haul does show an interesting trend that really nobody goes from Austin to San Francisco but many go in the reverse, but it's not like San Franciso and Los Angeles are shrinking. Growing at half or less the rate of Austin, yes. Shrinking, no.
Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This kind of rational perspective has no place in this forum.