I'm personally all for more growth. I'd love to have more representatives and I think people are going to be very surprised at the results of the 2020 census. But we do need to do something about housing and traffic.
Those people would be wrong. California lost a net of approximately 1 million residents between 2007 and 2016 [1]. Chalk it up to over-regulation (like the issue we are discussing here), high state income taxes, overcrowded/underfunded public schools, expensive housing, etc., but anyone complaining about too many transplants arriving in CA simply doesn't know the statistics.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the quoted statement is wrong. The statistic appears to be that: From 2007 to 2016: the number of people moving into CA was 1 million fewer than then number of people moving into CA. However the net population increased by about 3 million [0]. Happy to be enlightened if I'm missing some nuances.
Nonetheless, the immigration vs emigration is a really interesting statistic.
[0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=california+population+h...
Multiply by the 10 and you have 5 million people that appear in California without migrating (or I guess closer to 4.8 million, whatever).
I’m pretty certain this doesn’t actually apply to the Bay Area in isolation, though. Population there is climbing much faster than the birth rate, I’d expect.
I replied initially because on a first read, I read it as a population drop, found it remarkable and then my gut told me that didn't seem right. I hoped to provide clarification to others of the too general statement (the part I quoted) about the cited study.
Good reminder on the Bay Area not being reflective of the state as a whole (aka the broad numbers discussed above). I think it will be worth my time to poke around later and understand the population change components at a finer grain that state-wide.
The number of immigrants to CA during that time far exceeded 1 million net loss domestically.
The study doesn't say that, it says there was 1 million in net outbound domestic migration. It doesn't discuss population change due to international migration (inbound and outbound, legal or otherwise) or natural increase/decrease; in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/206097/resident-populati...
in fact, California gained, not lost, 3 million people between 2007 and 2016.
Most of those gains were through births to existing residents, which says nothing about California being a destination for transplants, which was the point that I was refuting. Children born in California generally don't have a choice as to whether or not to live there. Adults do, and on a net basis, they are choosing to leave.
“From other states” alone, sure, OTOH, California has had net positive total (domestic and international) migration.
“Some people think we're getting too many transplants and that regulating the development of new housing will somewhat curb that”
The “transplants” he is concerned with are those with both the means and legal standing to purchase and drive up demand for new homes. How many illegal immigrants to California fall into that category? So most of the “transplants” that are relevant to this discussion are coming from other US states.
But certainly a sizable share of the foreigners migrating into California have substantial means (either pre-migration assets and/or post-pubescent income) and China isn't exactly underrepresented among the sources of such migration.
Any data to back up this claim or are you just arguing to argue at this point? There are many news outlets that would love to see your data on this, because it is a startling revelation indeed.
Edit: to those downvoting this, please provide data corroborating his claim above. Otherwise there is nothing to downvote, as I am simply calling into question his claim that wealthy, legal Chinese immigrants outnumber poor illegal immigrants from Mexico in California.
He's saying that the majority of immigrants who are buy houses are Chinese. I'm not arguing for or against that by the way. For places where this already took place, Toronto and Victoria Canada.
No, I'm not saying anything like that.
No, and you can tell they because the only mentioned of the phrase “wealthy Chinese” in my comment refers to people buying up property from abroad, and the phrase.“vadt majority” (or even the word “majority”) doesn't appear in my comment at all.
> Any data to back up this claim
Since I never made the argument you reference, and it's not necessary either to the core issue or the tangent from the main discussion in my comment, why would you ask for that?
Why in this thread do you keep making the mistake of thinking migration consists only of domestic migration and illegal immigration? You know that legal international migration (both immigration directed at permanent residency and more transient legal residency by foreigners) is a thing, right, and actually quite a big one in Californiaz right?
Those people are either idiots or don't care about anyone but themselves. Not everyone born and raised in California has parents who are well off enough to pass down a house to them (in fact I doubt most have parents that can). What happens when our teachers and every low paid worker get fed up with the quality of life (which includes lining their landlords' coffers instead of building equity) and decide to move elsewhere? Are the home owners suddenly going to pick up the slack and do the jobs of the 99%? "Snap decisions that sound good to my tribe but ultimately lead to long term problems for everyone" should be the motto of a certain group of people here.
It's also disconcerting that some tech people fall into that group of people because you would think tech people of all people would have basic enough skills to look beyond the first consequence of a solution.
Regarding traffic - it is really sad that the epicenter of tech (and frankly our entire US economy) is so backwards on public transit and infrastructure. Its such an easy fix if we rolled our sleeves up and did it now and not over the next 40 years...
That people still sit in traffic for hours so that they can sit in front of their laptops all day in a germ-farm office and poop next to their coworkers.
It's dance monkey mentality. It's living in the past.