Los Angeles County suffers nation’s worst population outflow

[YSL]

Los Angeles County had 98,608 more people leave than move in last year, the largest net outmigration among the nation’s big counties.

https://www.dailynews.com/2019/06/24...ation-outflow/

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by YSL

Los Angeles County had 98,608 more people leave than move in last year, the largest net outmigration among the nation’s big counties.

https://www.dailynews.com/2019/06/24...ation-outflow/

It also has the largest population of any county in the U.S. by far (like, nearly twice that of Cook County, IL) so it isn't surprising that if it declined, it had the largest numeric decline.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It also has the largest population of any county in the U.S. by far (like, nearly twice that of Cook County, IL) so it isn't surprising that if it declined, it had the largest numeric decline.

Yes, you need to look at it in terms of percentages.

[saybanana]

LA City gained 8,000 people in population.
LA County overall lost 13,000+

Orange County - 6K gained
San Bernardino - 13K gained
Riverside County 33K gained

Seems to be a reshuffling of population and income brackets.
Yes some area leaving for nearby state cities like Las Vegas, NV and Phoenix, AZ or Texas cities or elsewhere where homes are cheaper and COL is less. Maybe that is best. Others just opt to live someplace else in California since family ties is important.

I think it would be a terrible scenario if all counties in SoCal lost people, but Kern County and San Diego county seem to increase their populations in SoCal area. Just LA county lost but a .13% decline is hardly anything. I wish more left, esp the lower income which they are the vast majority of people. LA is no longer the mega manufacturing region that it used to be. It had thelargest aerospace manufacturing but USA has really slowed down on it. Uses Space X a lot these days. Lots of jobs to other states, to China and other global rising countries, and automation. At one time LA was the biggest garment districtsin the world but most of that is now in other countries. With those jobs gone, yet people remained and set up home. But being replaced by higher paying jobs, higher tech jobs. It is called Silicon Beach for a reason. Lots of tech jobs in OC.

Overall I think LA will a lot healthier in the next decade as a higher percentage of higher educated and higher income brackets will move in. So some population loss I think is a good thing. Just need to figure out how to grow the city, county and region in a smart and healthy balanced way.I think the improvments to public transit like urban rail, intercounty rail, and state rail links is important. Moving manufacturing and logistics to cheaper outer counties from ports via a faster grade separated cargo rail system

[iheartthed]

Percentage or not, LA County has probably not ever had a population decline before this decade.

[dc_denizen]

When will California start to reduce taxes, reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, and generally recognize that more conservative government policies are needed if the state is to compete with the likes of Texas, Colorado and others?

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

When will California start to reduce taxes, reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, and generally recognize that more conservative government policies are needed if the state is to compete with the likes of Texas, Colorado and others?

California doesn't compete with Texas and Colorado. We, frankly, don't care.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Percentage or not, LA County has probably not ever had a population decline before this decade.

Births declines, deaths increased. International migration increased slightly. Overall population loss was a little less than 1%.

Why is this necessarily a bad thing (especially if it's mostly people earning less than 50K), provided it's not a harbinger of long-term trends? Sizable population gains year in and year out can no longer be sustained at this point until we address more than a few things that have been festering for generations.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Births declines, deaths increased. International migration increased slightly. Overall population loss was a little less than 1%.

Why is this necessarily a bad thing (especially if it's mostly people earning less than 50K), provided it's not a harbinger of long-term trends? Sizable population gains year in and year out can no longer be sustained at this point until we address more than a few things that have been festering for generations.

I don't think it needs to be characterized in good vs bad terminology. LA couldn't grow forever. But if this is indeed representative of a growth slump for LA County, then we might be witnessing some type of historical inflection point. Thirty years from now future urbanophiles might spend their days procrastinating at work by arguing over the significance of this point in time.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

California doesn't compete with Texas and Colorado. We, frankly, don't care.

Oh man you guys are starting to sound like the northeastern and rust belt cities.

[jd3189]

Like I said in the NYC thread, this should continue to happen.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

California doesn't compete with Texas and Colorado. We, frankly, don't care.

I think you should.

massive low skill and low wage working class, no middle class, and an upper class consisting of antisocial tech billionaires and their entourages won’t be viable long term .

[dubu]

all the tech that made california california isnt new anymore and we are waiting for the thing to change everything, california isnt very special anymore. only to just go there for a job and leave. they might also be scared of a big earthquake.

[YSL]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It also has the largest population of any county in the U.S. by far (like, nearly twice that of Cook County, IL) so it isn't surprising that if it declined, it had the largest numeric decline.

Percentage or not, this is a very interesting point in history. Los Angeles is shrinking for the first time and California had the lowest growth rate in its history last year. Looking at steady dropping trend lines, California may very soon be the new “rust belt” or North in terms of population patterns.

It’s interesting in historical trends of this country. I don’t think it’s bad at all, why should California want to be Texas? I think California is the greatest state in the nation but it’s interesting seeing what happens to matured, overpopulated states and cities.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

massive low skill and low wage working class, no middle class, and an upper class consisting of antisocial tech billionaires and their entourages won’t be viable long term .

I don't think that that's as unsustainable as you might think. Especially if minority or otherwise-underrepresented communities see economic ascendance.

[SIGSEGV]

I wonder how much is due to reduced immigration...

[the urban politician]

Chicago be like:

“Dayum! Finally those fools lay off me for a sec”

[tdawg]

I know two people who plan on becoming Californians as soon as we finish our postgraduate studies in New York.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

When will California start to reduce taxes, reduce regulatory burdens on businesses, and generally recognize that more conservative government policies are needed if the state is to compete with the likes of Texas, Colorado and others?

We're doing fine.

[MonkeyRonin]

Wow, what's going on in [liberal, high-cost, high-tax] Washington? That's a really impressive growth rate!