California exodus is a myth, UC research project finds
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
--Incoming--
- 400K domestic immigrants[1]
- 180-200K international immigrants[2]
- 450K births[4]
Subtotal: ~1.1M
--Outgoing--
- 600K domestic emigrants[1]
- 250K deaths[4]
- ?? intl emigrants (anyone know?)
Subtotal: ~850K
Typical annual net change: +250K (California grew 2.4M from 2010-2020[3])
- 50-80K excess deaths
- 180-200K less intl immigration
- 50K fewer births
But possibly a lot of those who left were missed in statistics.
[1] https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 [2] https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/ [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/ [4] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/state-and-territorial-data....
Edit: learning to format...
I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and quite a few people in my family moved to NYC. It has lots of support for people with limited English skills, lots of service jobs, etc. But they moved to Long Island as soon as they got their feet under them. It was a proud moment for them when they made the move!
I also wouldn’t count births or deaths. People don’t choose where they’re born. The exodus theory is generally supported by reference to “net internal migration.” (People coming from other states minus people moving to other states.) That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.
> That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.
If you Google “California population”, you get a graph where Texas and California start at the same population in 1940, then you just see California absolutely booming vs the other, with a meteoritic rise in population. Finally, at the end, you see the boom taper off. If one were to just look at that graph, you’d think something like “no one goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”
Is any of that true? I have no idea; I've never been to California. But it's what a large percentage of the country believes about the Golden State.
We’re staying in-state though—Oakland is far from typical.
But in the central valley where the majority of conservatives in California live, there are MUCH smaller cities, and therefore have fewer “people” problems by comparison. Sure, Fresno and Sacramento have some homeless problems, but those are usually crack and meth users in a particular part of town that everyone else knows should be avoided. The reality is, everywhere has some sort of problems that you’ll find if you look hard enough.
Having said that, I was one of the people who chose to leave California. I love California, and it will always be my home, but being a single father with two children making $140,000 a year in the Bay Area in 2016, I was barely making ends meet.
The rat race of the bay area, combined with high gas prices, combined with terrible traffic that extends 100 miles in any direction from San Francisco, it just stopped being worth it. So I left.
I know that I don’t represent everyone, but I’m one of the statistics that got “rounded off“.
Most years, California has had more net inbound (not gross) international migration than the national H-1B cap. You are greatly exaggerating the role of the H-1B in California stats.
> If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion.
Lots of California international immigration is family-based, often with sponsors who themselves immigrated and went through the whole process in CA.
My dad sponsored other members of our family to immigrate. They settled in New York City, because it’s a great place for immigrants without strong language skills and domestic networks to get menial jobs. But that doesn’t make it a great place. My cousin has a foreign master’s degree and works in food service. He’d be way better off doing the same job in North Carolina, where the low pay would go a lot further. But there’s not many Bangladeshis in Asheville who could help him get a job.
I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing. My family members that came here in more advantaged positions, e.g., getting a U.S. college degree, settled in places like Colorado and Texas. Those are the same places where native born Americans are going.
“Jobs that will sponsor immigrants” and “Jobs that will sponsor one particular class of dual-intent non-immigrant visa” are two very different things, so you are moving the goalposts, but still wrong.
> I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing.
Everyone non-white person I’ve known, immigrant or not, who has traveled from California to...almost any other part of the continental US that isn’t another Pacific Coast or California-bordering state, or NYC or a couple other non-Southern East Coast metropolises—and especially to the Midwest or South—has said that about the other places compared to California, not California.
What you are saying is that California and New York are where the jobs are - hence the immigration. An H1B is equally valid in California and Tennessee.
You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or competitive in states with higher productivity. The out migration is simply a form of semi-retirement to a cheaper location with low economic activity. Just as expats retiring to Colombia doesn't make Colombia "better" than USA, migration out of California to other states can be discounted.
This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary. 2nd generation immigrants also face constraints , primarily monetary. Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home, not because they love the politics or the electricity grid or the weather.
IMHO, it is best to not add any nuance when numbers give u a fairly unbiased picture.
That formulation still makes California sound shitty!
> This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary
No, it avoids distorting the picture. Second generation immigrants and other native born Americans have much more freedom to go where they want, so their choices are more probative. First generation immigrants by contrast face a very restricted set of choices driven by immigration considerations.
> Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home
That’s exactly the conservative critique of California. It’s laws make housing expensive. Add to that crime and school boards more focused on taking Lincoln’s name off buildings than opening up and teaching kids in person. All that sucks for middle class people. And that critique isn’t rebutted by pointing out California has industries that suck in massive numbers of immigrants. In fact it’s the exact opposite. For a middle class person, it’s better not to have a small segment of the population making $750,000/year.
On paper this is an exceedingly productive population, and represents 25% of California.
[1] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigran...
It is true that most American states are unable to attract immigrants. However, they do reap the benefits from the powerhouse states that keep America competitive in the global economic sphere.
> People don’t choose where they’re born.
To varying degrees people choose to have children.
https://insights.dice.com/2020/10/27/h-1b-policy-how-trump-a...
I personally cannot wait to be able to do the same. I want nothing whatsoever to do with California in terms of business. After decades of living here I am just sick of it. I can't make the move yet due to deep family ties that we must respect and be considerate of. My mother just passed two weeks ago. My father is in OK health but he is up there in years. Etc. As some of these ties dissolve it will be far easier to make the decision.
And BTW, this isn't about Democrat vs. Republican states. In fact, one of my potential targets is Massachusetts. CA has simply gone looney. I can't even begin to make a list of the nonsense people and businesses living here have to put up with.
I'll give you a few (of likely hundreds):
They passed a tax added to your property taxes that is a function of any surface area on your property that does not allow rain to come into contact with dirt. So, yes, your driveway, patio, pergola, etc. All of it results in an additional tax assessment. For businesses, this means the entire parking lot is now a tax liability. Installed solar panels on a structure over some dirt? You just incurred an additional tax on your installation.
I am currently helping a friend figure out the technical aspects of a business he wants to start. His initial target was Los Angeles. This business would likely bring dozens, if not well over a hundred jobs to wherever it might be located. We met with the building permit folks for LA County. They pretty much told us no less than three years for all the permits to be issued. He is now talking to people in Arizona, Nevada and Texas. He is also moving his existing company (~100 jobs) to wherever the new business will take root.
And then there's the hundred billion dollar high speed train to nowhere that isn't even a high speed train and (if I remember correctly) might not even have ten miles of track built.
The governor signed an executive order asking for 15% water conservation. At the same time we have no problem growing almonds here and providing this high-water-demand crop with all the water farmers need.
Oh, and have you heard of the County of Los Angeles Business Property Tax? No, not what you might think. You have desks? Copiers? Chairs? Curtains? Equipment? Shelving? Yes? Anything inside the building you own or lease for your business is considered "business property" by the County of Los Angeles. And, as such, you are required to pay a tax to the county. Yes, a tax, permanently, every single year, on your chairs, desks, computers, coffee machine, etc. In fact, they call it a "privilege tax" for the privilege of doing business in or THROUGH the county. Yes, that's correct, if your business isn't in LA County but you do business in or DRIVE THROUGH the county, you are required to pay this tax. For companies with lots of equipment (like manufacturers) this could easily amount to $50K to $100K per year. In other words, a few jobs.
There's a lot more. I'll stop there before my blood pressure goes through the roof.
So they charge you for the externalities incurred by impervious surface cover? How is that anything but rational? Seriously, why do you deserve to add to pollution and drought without incurring any penalty for the cost you inflict on others?
Impervious ground cover is also an issue in Texas, particularly in areas fed by limestone aquifers. In some municipalities you’re simply not allowed to add more impervious ground cover without some sort of exception. The rest of your examples may indeed be ludicrous, but I stopped reading when you opened with something so plainly rational and sensical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13619...
https://www.mit.edu/people/spirn/Public/Granite%20Garden%20R... https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/8/99/htm
Also, don’t you think it is insane that at a time when we are in need of jobs for an increasing population, job creation is stopped due to bureaucracy?
I love California, I am staying to create businesses too. However, there is way too much complacency among residents regarding the situation at which we have arrived due to our policies.
These policies perhaps impact business creators first, but also have massive repercussions on the quality of life of other residents.
The planned max speed for CAHSR is 220 mph, which is faster than TGV or Shinkansen, and well beyond the threshold for "high speed".
Also, nowhere? The initial route is from SJ to Burbank. How is that nowhere? This is absurd.
The planned speed is what they used to sell it to voters. Actual speed is ridiculous due to the issues the train would run into (if it is every finished) in every town or region it crosses. There are parts where it probably won't be allowed to go much faster than 50 mph. So, yeah, nice selling point, but, no, fake news.
Same with the San Jose to Burbank story. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. I think they don't even have ten miles built and it has been years. And those ten miles are not even functional.
If it is ever finished, this is going to be a trillion dollar project (or more). It did not make any sense even below that price point. The entire thing is preposterous. Nobody is going to ride it (translate: not enough people to justify building it) and the cost per passenger will be so high it will be the boondoggle of the century.
This is what happens when politicians sell stuff to a public that can barely calculate the tip at a restaurant.
Somehow the rest of the developed world made them work, and they form a key part of the infrastructure. But, as with everything else that works well in the rest of the developed world, "It wouldn't work here because America is so special."
Tamped earth structures. BOOM. When you make your billions, just cite @musingsole in your about page.
No. It isn't. It applies above and below $100K. The rules are a little different on either side of that threshold.
> Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county.
Well, then you know more than the tax assessor who visited me every year at my business and told me, almost verbatim, that if you do business in Los Angeles county or travel through the county to do business elsewhere, it doesn't matter where your home base might be, you have to pay this tax.
> Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.
The way I learned of this tax, a couple of decades ago, is from a guy who knocked on my front door asking about a business next door. When I told him they were out at a conference, he asked me what my business was (we had no signage outside our industrial unit). When I told him, he said "Oh, yeah, I have you right here" as he opened a thick binder.
This guy was canvasing every single industrial center at the periphery of LA County to both assess and inform businesses they owed this tax. He was well trained. After identifying himself as working for LA county (showing ID, etc.) he asked stuff like "So, do you do business in LA County or are you just local out here". If you said "yes" to any number of his well-prepared questions out came an assessment form. He even tried to come into our facility to do an inventory. Non only was I not going to allow some random unannounced guy to come into our facility, we were doing a bunch of aerospace work that fell under ITAR regulations, NDA's, etc. You can't just walk random folks into your office when you do that kind of work. So, in what I am going to call a "third world style", he proposed an assessment value right there and then, in my lobby. I agreed and wrote the county a check.
F-ing thieves.
Think about it: Businesses in LA County have to perpetually pay taxes on their desks, chairs, tools, computers, tenant improvement (yes, that too!), SUPPLIES, etc. A perpetual tax on the damn chair you are sitting on. That's what it has come to. I don't understand why voters pass this crap and expect job creation, growth and the ability to compete with the likes of China.
A perpetual tax on my coffee machine. Brilliant.
https://assessor.lacounty.gov/personal-property-assessments-...
From the page:
"businesses with personal property and fixtures that cost less than $100,000 are not required to file a Business Property Statement annually. Instead, a value is established based on an initial Business Property Statement filing or by an on-site appraisal. That value may be adjusted by subsequent annual on-site appraisals."
You pay this amount annually so long as you didn't buy anything new. They can show-up and do an on-site appraisal and get you if you under reported.
COVID was part of this, but Boomers are also reaching dying age.
So what this tells me is based on migration alone, (since births / deaths are not indicative of intent to migrate) California has been flat at best, not counting an unknown number of international emigrants - so that number is likely lower. Given that those net immigration numbers have been dropping faster in the past couple years, we may indeed be seeing the tide turning on California immigration.
The thing about states like New York and California is the the fringes rot while everything is great in the core. The areas that are doing gangbuster business may be healthy at the moment, but other areas are dying.
I don’t know California well, but I know New York, and that upstate and western NY have been in free fall for years with some exceptions. Industry left in the 80s… cities like Syracuse are husks. Agriculture has been in decline for a long time and dairy, once the strongest ag industry, is in a death spiral as industry consolidation and subsidized fake products take over. Even NYC is not as resilient as it was… financial services pay the bills much more so than in the past.
California is obviously different, but I can’t imagine there aren’t parallels. Once the bell-weather tech giants start diversifying their physical locations that’s going to have a real impact.
- However, the article/research looks at outflow and doesn't find a trend but this is bad methodology. It looks like they are not factoring in the fact that less people are moving into California then had been previously even if the rate moving out isn't too different. It almost feels intentional given how clean and well-covered the data is on that.
This opening paragraph is good
>Every year from 2000 through 2015, more people left California than moved in from other states. This migration was not spread evenly across all income groups, a Sacramento Bee review of U.S. Census Bureau data found. The people leaving tend to be relatively poor, and many lack college degrees. Move higher up the income spectrum, and slightly more people are coming than going.
Source: https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article136478098.html
As 2020 was a serious outlier I am sticking with U.S. states by net domestic migration (From July 1, 2018 to July 1, 2019):
Net domestic migration rate per 1,000 inhabitants: Alaska −12.96, Hawaii −9.76, New York −9.29, Illinois −8.28, Connecticut −6.19, Louisiana −5.60, New Jersey −5.51, California −5.15, skipping several places Delaware 7.15, South Carolina 10.30, Arizona 12.50, Nevada 14.03, Idaho 15.31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
It’s the territories that are seeing the fastest changes. American Samoa –26.1, Guam –11.0, Northern Mariana Islands –15.4, Puerto Rico –14.1, U.S. Virgin Islands –7.5
What does Eureka have (appart for nice nature)? How much does one has to drive to go to an airport that can fly directly to Europe or Asia? If your local business closed, how long and how much would you have to drive to find another job?
Commanding a mid-level metro prices, without the economy vibrancy of one, is sheer overpricing. And maybe that's why so many locals are leaving. (the influx is usually immigrants, which are more willing to put up with crappier conditions).
Eureka is charming enough, but it has no specific attractive force over any other (very) small coastal city where the next-larger city is many hours' drive away. Compare to Crescent City, or southern coastal Oregon.
So yes, you're still in California up there, and housing is less expensive. But there are no jobs (WFH tide floats all boats), and it isn't the California that most people are looking for. See also: Bakersfield.
But for every buck you save, you lose an hour of your life to our terrible transportation infrastructure. Twice the house, four times the drive. It's why the housing price equation is as unbalanced as it is here.
They must have started renting that house at least 10 years ago and had a landlord who never rose the price. Because rental prices for large houses are $2000+ (Eureka/Arcata) or $1800+ (McKinnleyville) now.
It’s not that an overwhelming percentage of people leaving recently moved in, but they do represent a larger percentage of people moving out which is normal.
However, if you ever talk to uber drivers or your waiters they will complain about how expensive California is. Or even people at parties who are in between jobs and thinking of moving to where they grew up. I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one.
I hear the opposite, people cannot afford where they grew up. Most people from the Bay Area aren’t working high paying tech jobs.
> I guess in real life I just hear more people talk about the general cost of living argument than a than the specific anti-tech one.
Anti-tech sentiment peaked in the early 2010s. Tech buses stopped being vandalized and the “die techie scum” thing mostly went away after 2015.
And almost by definition, if you move to California from somewhere else then "home" would be lower cost of living. Only exceptions are if you grew up in NYC, Boston, DC or a few other cities.
And pretty much all Hawaiian transplants.
Lots of California is cheaper than a lot more than just the few most expensive cities. California is not just the central cities of the Bag Area. Also, on a state level, HI has a higher cost of living than CA.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-expens...
Everyone knows that California is not just LA and SF. But also Florida isn't just Tampa/Miami and Arizona isn't just Phoenix.
The big cities in CA are more expensive than the big cities in other states. The rural areas in CA are more expensive than the rural areas in other states.
Pointing out that the rural areas in CA are cheaper than the cities in other states is not compelling.
And for the record, Hawaii is seeing net out-migration too. At least its excuse for low cost of living is the fact that its an island that has to ship everything in.
I'm not necessarily in the camp that thinks California isn't worth the cost. Though some undesirable location in the desert may indeed not be worth the taxes.
While we're comparing anecdotal evidence, I live in Los Angeles and count among my peers many who work in the Hollywood/Media industry. I can assure you the general sentiment among them toward Big Tech is overwhelmingly negative. I work in tech (albeit not a large company) and even I tend to agree.
Also to be quite honest software engineers aren't as smart or nerdy as they think they are in general. Very arrogant and egotistical, though, for sure.
A sampling of average overall salaries for professors:
- UC Berkeley (ie bay area): $214,300
- UCLA: $234,200
- UT San Antonio: $130,900
- UT Dallas: $169,500
So an average Berkeley professor makes more than half again as much as an average UT San Antonio professor. And 25% more than UT Dallas.
In the end I imagine the prof at UTD could easily have more cash at the end of the month than the prof at UC Berkeley.
UTSA is such a small school it really shouldn't even be compared to UC Berkeley or UCLA.
A major issue in looking at the averages at the entire university level like this is that you might be comparing apples to oranges. There are typically three ranks among research professors: assistant, association, and full. These positions can additionally have chairs. The salaries differ considerably across these ranks. Then there are teaching positions which are usually non tenure track. They may also have the same assistant, associate, and full professor positions but their salaries are much lower than the research professors. AAUP appendix has combined all of them into one single category.
Finally, this survey masks the salary differences among different disciplines. In American universities, B-school professors typically earn way more than other disciplines such as pure sciences, psychology, and engineering.
When we do salary comparisons (we have to do it while negotiating a raise), we pick out colleges/schools that are similarly ranked as ours and then we take average salaries of professors at the same position. As I mentioned, the salaries are public so this is possible although quite tedious.
Many many years later I was sitting at the bar at the top of the Stratosphere in Las Vegas eavesdropping on a conversation by a guy who started some kind of sanitation or janitorial business. He was trying to impress a woman that he was talking with, and I distinctly remember him saying he'd be eaten alive if he started the company in California, and that he was thankful for the tax situation in Nevada.
So I don't think this is entirely a myth.
But CA has long invested large amounts in its people (one reason there is U Cal Berkley, which is one reason for the Bay Area's success), which of course requires taxes, and it long has protected its citizens, including the wealthy ones - something the citizens like and vote for.
How does sampling theory support that your two experiences might be a trend? I got two flat tires in the last ten years. Does sampling theory say it's a trend? Statewide? Worldwide?
> it is also important to understand other perspectives
Absolutely, but let's remember that much of the narrative has been pushed by a political faction for years.
I don't run with startup/entrepreneurial types, so for this to come up in the way it has with my limited exposure to these folks, I consider that at least somewhat significant. I am not saying it is definitely a trend. But I do remember from my social science labs that ballpark-accurate statistical inferences can be made from surprisingly small sample sizes if the population sampled is broad enough. Do I just happen to find myself around locationally-anxious ex-Californian business owners? Who knows.
> Absolutely, but let's remember that much of the narrative has been pushed by a political faction for years
Ah yes, politics' icy tendrils (tentacles?) seem to molest everything they come across, and even some things they don't. All I can say is that I am not trying to push a political narrative, and that the people who are should kindly jump off a cliff.
He doesn't know that because he didn't try it.
There's news articles every year that California "has the worst business environment in the US" or stuff like that, but they're all based on surveys and what they actually mean is business owners are whining in case they get an income tax cut. CA's economy is, of course, doing great, and for the middle class the tax burden is less than Texas if you remember to count taxes other than income tax.
Also, high housing prices are allowing home-owning retirees to cash out and live the part of their life where they don't need to worry about a job quite well elsewhere.
Again small anecdotal data point but take it for what it is worth.
In fact, I love California so much that I buckled the popular media narrative and moved _from_ Texas _to_ California. Funnily enough, people talk about the California-to-Texas pipeline as if it's a new thing, but it's been an observed phenomenon since at least 2005, and it's a lot smaller than the media would have you think (usually net ~40k year leave CA for TX, with about 80k going to Texas and 40k coming from Texas). That is 0.1% migration.
https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2021/03/03/californians-mo...
What does that mean?
This is a tricky article because I can tell it's using the term 'exodus' and 'myth' differently than I would. It's abundantly clear there is a lot of migration out of California. Just ask Texans, Coloradans, and Idahoans.
Also it will show in other stats. People in other states tell me there is an exodus there from California or New England, and their reasoning is based on differences in truck rental prices going either direction, which international immigrants don't need but domestic migrants do.
What this actually means is that people are watching too much TV.
American media isn't even particularly bad in this respect, it looks generally fair and reasonable compared to eg, the British media.
(in general, the legal requirement for TV to be impartial and cover both sides is a much bigger contributory factor).
There is a good reason why international comparison of crime tends to concentrate on murder. Crimes are neither reported not recorded the same way. Murder sorta-kinda comes closest in this regard: it is pretty hard to ignore violent deaths.
Things like endemic petty theft have the potential to make people move to another city, while their official record is pretty low.
Denver sucks now. Kindly find somewhere else to go, y'all have been sending my rent through the damned roof, and companies insist on paying pre-boom salaries.
I left Denver last summer after 7 years; honestly don’t miss it as much as I thought I would. Best of luck!
Or, you know, people generally migrate between states and Californians make up 13% of the population.
Currently residing in Texas for 2.5 years now, moved from California. Yes, I anecdotally meet "a lot" of fellow NY/CA residents moving here. I also anecdotally have noticed that Whole Foods sells lots of local texan brewery beers. Are Texan local breweries on the rise in popularity or is it just that my proximity to the situation is making me thinking thats the case? (Note - I'm middle aged and work in tech, like lots of the people moving to Austin from CA/NY)
The media's obsession with California, is IMHO, hilarious. I lived there for 3.5 years. The quality of life is incredible, but that is offset by the absurd cost (and thus the economics of your work situation). This experience has, IMO, been in decline. But this is exactly how market dynamics work in a union of states. The more people leave California the cheaper (and thus sustainable) it becomes.
This is an overall good thing for Americans, regardless of where you live. Market liquidity means higher optionality.
I love California so much that I buckled the popular media narrative and moved _from_ Texas _to_ California. Funnily enough, people talk about the California-to-Texas pipeline as if it's a new thing, but it's been an observed phenomenon since at least 2005, and it's a lot smaller than the media would have you think (usually net ~40k year leave CA for TX, with about 80k going to Texas and 40k coming from Texas). That is 0.1% migration, and seemingly negligible in either direction.
https://kinder.rice.edu/urbanedge/2021/03/03/californians-mo...
Which would be great if any other state had the weather and beauty of California. And California is fucking huge to boot. Not initially splitting it up into multiple states was one of the biggest mistakes in this nation’s history.
In my current neighborhood there have been 7 families that moved in during the last 12 months. One (us) from Utah, one from Texas, and the other 5 were from California.
Everyone everywhere in this country feels like it is getting inundated by Californians. Some more than others, sure.
I can see two or three cars with Cali plates right now from my stoop. More people will always be from there. I suspect this has been happening for a long time and just now for some reason people are noticing.
Not quite. It's nearly an eighth.
"Research Shows Percentage of Californians Planning To Leave State Unchanged since 2019"
Once SF Gate adds the subjective labels: Exodus and Myth, we get focused on the accuracy of the labels. The meanings of labels evolve, and that evolution is 'phased' through society. Hence labels will always mean different things to different people, different meanings lead to different reactions and then misunderstandings and in worst cases, conflict.
I intentionally try to filter out labels for that reason.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/2020-census-d...
We are hearing a ton of these anecdotal stories very recently about Californians moving to other states, especially wealthy, higher income individuals. My gut feeling is that there is some material shift behind it and our systematically measured data could simply just be lagging at the moment, or they are measuring the wrong things.
I don't claim to be a better researcher than the folks in the article but the conclusion doesn't seem to add up.
Among my friends and coworkers I’ve known dozens who left CA in the past 12 months .
Even just this morning as friend surprised me that he will be gone in a week, and I know many more who are actively looking to leave , particularly before fire season
That's the great myth with statistics. They are deliberately chosen to tell a story. By segmenting the data, you will get signal that matters to you.
If my friends and coworkers are all leaving, that is more meaningful to me and the decisions I'll make over the next year than if the majority of the entire population is staying.
It also has an impact economically on the State if specific segments of the work population are leaving.
As I've been chatting with some people at church* I was told that about 1/3 of the people that attend have moved to our little town in Idaho from Southern California in the past 2 years or so. That might not seem like much, but considering that this is small town in the middle of Idaho it seemed like a pretty big deal to me. It's especially interesting to see many people who have more traditional jobs, often revolving around construction or the cultivation of potatoes interacting with many of the white collar, MBA type Cali expats.
* Note: The church I attend is a world wide church and divides it's congregations based on geographic area, encouraging people to attend the service based on where they live. This point is made to forestall the correlation causation criticism, that would imply the church I attend is particularlye attractive to people that have recently moved in from SoCal,
EDIT: Just to clarify my wife and I did not move from Cali, we moved from Utah, because it was getting filled up with people from Cali, that resulted in prices for housing going up considerably.
If we are talking about movements of people between California and Idaho, we can throw in Utah as well, then there is one church that has traditionally been very strong in those three states (and much of the west). I mean, what other church is so strong in SoCal that it owns a bunch of land (enough for a few sports fields) in LA Westwood near UCLA?
If Mormons are leaving SoCal for Idaho or Utah, that wouldn’t be very surprising at all.
The data must be wrong and all mothers must be as old as my mother.
In my experience it's the #1 source of errors that smart people make.
1. Anecdotes that you notice, by their nature, tend to come from reasonably sized groups of people.
2. "Data" as the term is normally meant in business and government does not. It may originally consist of many individual data points that represent something about large groups of people, but by the time it reaches a decision maker it has been filtered through normally just one or two people who have selected it, normalized it, and analyzed it in various ways.
In other words, "data" is often not being used with its dictionary definition of a raw CSV file but rather it means "analysis". And unfortunately the nature of data analysis is that not only is it easy to make genuine mistakes but it can also be very easily manipulated in all sorts of ways to present whatever the analyst wants to be true.
Academic research is an especially prevalent form of this problem because people don't hesitate to claim they've made a "data" based decision then cite an academic paper that presents a model with some absurd assumptions, or where the model outputs aren't visibly connected to the paper's conclusions at all, or which shows signs of P-hacking, or where the dataset is unusably small and so on and so forth.
Hence why I find myself agreeing with the other posters - if you find yourself strongly disagreeing with Jeff Bezos about something that seems to be within his domain, think twice.
Citation needed.
Given Jeff Bezos success in growing a business from scratch, this is clearly one of his secrets and why "Are right, A Lot" is an Amazon leadership principle. I'm always surprised that people are so easy to dismiss insights from successful people.
One thing we have to remember, savant level of greatness in one area can often indicate deficiencies in other areas.
If I were starting an online retailer 20 years ago, I would absolutely take Bezos’ advice. There are also countless other areas where I would seek advice from those with different areas of experience.
You have been presented with a thesis that the California exodus is a myth. You have responded with a complete non sequitur quote from a mediocre man about trusting the anecdote vs the data asking us to forget or ignore in order the fact that the idea espoused by the quotation is nonsense, that Bezos wasn't registering an opinion on this topic, you are, and that you have made no argument whatsoever.
It is untenable to launder your opinion through a rich dudes mouth and then accuse skeptics of casual dismissal of insights from successful people when people are actually and in fact not dismissing Bezos they are registering their opinion on your comment here today.
That's the key point of the quote:
> There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it
FiveThirtyEight predicted a 28.6% chance of a Trump victory: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ This is a number far greater than zero - it is, for comparison, more likely than flipping two coins and them both coming up heads, or drawing a random card from a deck and having it be diamonds.
Opinion polling of the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election showed Boris Johnson favored to win: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_C...
Opinion polling on Brexit showed that it clearly could have gone either way, with a narrow margin between the two options: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United...
I'm less familiar with Australian politics, but assuming you mean the 2013 election, opinion polls showed the Liberals were clearly in the lead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2013_A...
If people look at data that says "28.6% chance of winning" and they choose to read it as "0% chance of winning," that's not a problem with the way anyone's measuring anything, that's a problem with people trying to treat data as if it's an anecdote.
They definitely mean the 2019 election.
This is cherry-picking of the highest widely-known prediction by far, practically an outlier. And I don't think they do any actual polling, just analysis using others' polling data.
How these get turned to make precisely the opposite point (Not just by you. It happens all the time) never ceases to amaze me. Presumably the thought process is "I and the people I respect build beliefs based on data. I and the people I respect were wrong. Therefore the data was wrong". Unbelievable.
> I’d also suggest that people who have an agenda to promote will often attempt to blur the line as much as possible between empirical measurements, and their own opinions about what they’re supposed to mean.
This ran rampant in all those cases (Trump, BoJo, Brexit), I agree.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/19/voter...
Why do we even use research? Why don't we just run on anecdotes? There have long been anecdotes about witches and black cats, about prayers to the rain god, etc. I'm pretty sure Amazon relies on research and data.
In dramatic contrast, in Texas, 450k left out of 28M, or 1.6%
Nationwide, 7 million people changed states out of 324 M, or 2.1%
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geograph...
If corporations and highly-skilled/high-earning labor are moving out, and low-skill/immigrant labor is moving in, then you develop a major fiscal tax revenue gap that has to support more low-income neighborhoods with the tax revenue from fewer and fewer corporations and high tax individuals.
It can also have a snowball effect where people try to sell their homes before home prices fall further, or try to establish residency elsewhere before taxes are raised more.
In a way, the more we talk about it, the worse it can get. I suppose that's why the denials are so vocal.
At least the neighborhood is allowing some amount of new housing supply, however minor, as that additional supply is vital for affordability: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/theres-no-...
A lot of my in-laws have lived in Palo Alto way before the boom times but are considering leaving when they retire, at that point the upsides of staying are suddenly a lot less.
> For one, while residents are moving out of state, they are not doing so at "unusual rates." Similarly, the research found no evidence of "millionaire flight" from California and notes that the state continues to attract as much venture capital as all other U.S. states combined, despite the recent exodus of Hewlett-Packard and Oracle.
Who is saying California is unattractive for rich people and venture capital? The people leaving are middle and lower income people.
One potential source: this is a popular conservative talking point about the dangers of liberal government, and the "exodus" is often used as evidence to justify those talking points.
"See, just look at California, they implemented <liberal policy I hate>, and everyone is leaving the state". This kind of viewpoint is rampant on places like /r/conservative, and is often followed by similar mischaracterizations of life in Chicago. This always fascinates me - it seems like people are actually excited about the perceived negative forces driving people out, because they feel it validates their viewpoints about certain policies, even when the evidence to support correlation (never mind causation) doesn’t seem to exist.
I haven’t encountered much serious discourse about California being unattractive to people with means.
Edit: I’ve upset some folks with this comment. I’m curious to know how/why.
Any mention of politics tends to get downvoted, but in this case, the myth is in significant part a product of a political narrative. I don't know how we can avoid the subject.
We can't talk about the Earth's orbit without discussing the Sun.
My point was that when I’ve seen this come up, it’s almost always in the political context. That doesn’t exclude other possibilities, but does seem to be a major contributor to the “buzz” about this topic.
The thrust of the argument is that what made California great was that it was a great place to move and raise kids in the suburbs with lots of opportunities. The changes in California are hitting those people the hardest. And those people are in fact leaving: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/09/not-the-golden-state-...
The fact that California continues to be a great destination for young single engineers, venture capitalists, and H-1B workers for whom working at a California tech company is a ticket to staying in the US at all, isn’t responsive to that argument.
I ended up leaving, in part because I didn't love the culture there, and some of it was this impression that many people around the bay area don't really care about making friends, because they know they might not be staying for long, and don't care to build roots. This is again anecdotal, but this kind of culture isn't really great long term. If your population is highly unattached and doesn't plan to stay, it doesn't bode well. Besides the high cost of living, the constant inflow and outflow of people in the bay area could end up making you want to leave too.
I have a feeling you're trying to make a comment about California's property tax system and the way it's protected now-retired homeowners. And, you know, fine, if someone can buy a California house now and stays here through retirement age and they don't change the property tax system, they can take advantage of that, but that is one heapin' helpin' of "if" there, pardner.
The "conservative talking point" mentioned is a bit of a straw man. I doubt you'd hear it much these days by serious commentators (you might hear it from an old guy in a bar or a College Republican).
You're more likely to hear right-wingers these days say that California only works for you the wealthy and well-odd at the expense of the poor and middle classes. Homelessness, petty crime, NIMBYism and even a lot of the environmental initiatives (e.g. $0.10 per plastic grocery bag). All of those things have a disproportionate effect on the poor. M
I recently heard a low performer get hired at a FAANG company and wondered how this person managed to trick that company into hiring him.
* "Among the 50 most populous U.S. cities, 15 shrunk during the pandemic" Top three: 1) Baltimore (-1.42%), 2) San Francisco (-1.39%), 3) San Jose (-1.3%)
* Of people leaving SF: 72% moved elsewhere in the Bay area, ~20% moved elsewhere in California. The next most popular destination was Washington state, the majority going to Seattle.
Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/article/Only-one-U-S-city-...
It's riskier, but you might see if you can buy a used moving truck and plan to sell it at the destination. I've seen a few reports of people doing that with good results, although I can imagine many ways it might go bad.
Or pod style boxes, or load a trailer and a trucking line drops it off at the new place might have better availability.
It seems crazy to rent a box truck just to be able to drive around town (parking has to be a nightmare), but people are doing it, or so I've heard, at least.
It shows a population decrease of around 0.5% in 2020.
Probably won't put much of a dent in traffic or housing costs, even if it continues for 10 years. But I still have fond memories of the 1990s, when things were more sane.
This nonsense is clearly peddled by local politicians trying to save their faces.
I moved from CA to Vegas which automatically boosted my income by +10%. With covid times where major employers allowing people work from home - this is logical move for tens of thousands of people. No houses for sale in decent Vegas neighborhoods here, mostly hunted by people from CA.
My millionaire friend sold his beloved house and moved to NV as well. Lots of people i know moving to TX, FL or NV.
Raising taxes, new taxes, stupid liberal policies stimulating crime and filth, unhealthy political climate, corrupt and uncapable governor.
The list goes on. En masse or not - the tendency is there.
You can swallow whatever illusion you being fed by your local politician, close your eyes and assume it's a reality. You're intended audience.
Tens of thousands of former californians ain't buying more of their taxes and neither more of their BS any more.
Where voting with hands doesn't help - people are voting with their feet.
My lived experience is somewhere in the middle: I've seen some high earners leave, but more high earners stay. Based on this study, it seems my experience might be more representative of the whole.
Also not sure why you're taking this combative, condescending tone. Seems like you have an axe to grind and are emotionally attached to your position for some reason. But it does seem like you weren't happy in CA, so I'm glad you've found a place to live where you're happier.
Ever thought that you maybe in the peer group that moves out of California for whatever reason but your group is just a statistically irrelevant minority?
We're talking about the significant demographic trend that is clearly there and it signifies the utter failure of CA politicians to keep productive and creative people as well as businesses.
The trend is there whether you like it or not.
By your anecdotal experience or do you hard facts? If not your claim is as valid as mine about plane crashes
Then there's this:
California man blasts Texas 'dystopia' in Op-Ed after moving to Austin
https://www.mysanantonio.com/lifestyle/travel-outdoors/artic...
Absolutely rich coming from a Californian.
Also I still can't tell if this article is satire or not.
In Texas the inner cities are like a different world from the suburban and rural areas. (I say this having lived in both SF and Austin.)
Over the past few decades California has seen one of the largest economic booms in history yet population has barely budged. That in itself should indicate a problem but for some reason people need to see housing get so fucked that workers are giving up on their jobs and moving away at such a rate that population declines before they'll admit something is wrong
How about the cost of moving vans?
Last I heard it was much cheaper to take trucks to California then the other way.
That's because we already left, so we're no longer in their survey population.
When I moved out of California, a uhaul was ten times as expensive going from SF to Phoenix as vice versa. When a survey or research project contradicts market prices, believe the market prices. Rates now are $400 AZ->CA, and $2500 CA->AZ.
I really hate polling and surveys.
I personally know > 10 people who have left (in disgust) in the past 2 years. I have a sister in Texas who is getting personally wealthy selling houses to Californians moving there. She's been selling for > 30 years and has never seen an influx like this from a single state, ever. California even lost a seat in the US Congress due to population decline.[1]
[1] https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-04-26/census-dat...
Ok, but who is "allowed" to study the state of California? By your reasoning,
* If UC does a study on California, we can't believe what they say because they have an incentive to paint CA in only the best light.
* If, say, the New York Times publishes an article on California, we can't believe what they say because they have an incentive to show readers that NY is a much better state to live in than CA.
Clearly, this is crazy. People also complain that the UC system has a "liberal bias" when research comes out that paints California's housing policy as racist / classist. So which is it? UC is biased for CA? Against CA?
The answer is that the state of California is home to 40 million people with a wide spectrum of beliefs and motivations. You need to look at the individual groups producing this research, and look at where their incentives lie, where they get their money from, and whether their record demonstrates integrity.
People won't even move states within the same country because of taxes, meaning they certainly won't leave the country if federal taxes were raised (a common argument against raising taxes). Therefore, we should dramatically raise taxes on the very wealthy and actually put that money to use improving society instead of letting a handful of billionaires uselessly hoard it. They're not going anywhere.