|
This stuff always gets blown out to fit certain poster's narratives.
So out of 40 million people, 70,000 people moved to Texas? Whats 700,000 out of 40 million? Whats the percentage of these things? If you listen to certain "media" you would believe these numbers would be MUCH HIGHER than they actually are. As Diamondpark stats showed, Texas didn't even gain 1 more percent of job growth for this decade than California. I believe Idaho was the first choice for Californians's, if you go by percentage. |
Depends on what time frame those 700,000 left. If it's within a year, that's a lot even for California's population. If it's over a 5-10 period, not so much of a big deal.
RE: Idaho v. Texas, I would imagine Californians who pick one over the other do it for very different reasons. ID strikes me as a destination for more well-to-do Californians who reject CA's 'liberalism' or looking for slower pace of life where as Texas is just an affordable alternative regardless of politics. |
It was for one year, but 500,000 moved in from other states too.
Texas, New York and Florida also had 450,000 people move out last year. By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california. |
I think the listed cities will grow but the real emphasis in the next decade will be on the 2nd tier of cities. Nashville, Charlotte, & Austin are already beginning to siphon off projects and construction that a couple of decades ago would never have considered them in the running. As an example Nashville scores huge with part of the Amazon expansion. Twenty years ago Atlanta or Dallas or Houston would have easily scored it. My point is instead of one of the historically larger cities continuing exponential growth many companies are looking to these second tier cities as having more potential.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
List of U.S. states annual net domestic migration. 1] Florida -- 132,602 2] Arizona -- 83,240 3] Texas -- 82,569 4] North Carolina -- 66,991 5] South Carolina -- 50,775 6] Nevada -- 47,596 7] Washington -- 46,549 8] Colorado -- 43,293 9] Georgia -- 41,914 10] Tennessee -- 39,952 ----- Here's the negative net domestic states: 24] Vermont −62 25] District of Columbia −936 26] Wisconsin −1,011 27] North Dakota −2,379 28] Rhode Island −2,639 29] Missouri −2,790 30] Iowa −2,886 31] Nebraska −3,314 32] Wyoming −3,686 33] Oklahoma −4,474 34] New Mexico −5,851 35] West Virginia −7,029 36] Virginia −9,831 37] Alaska −10,752 38] Mississippi −10,818 39] Ohio −12,146 40] Hawaii −12,430 41] Kansas −12,564 42] Michigan −16,766 43] Pennsylvania −20,463 44] Connecticut −21,509 45] Maryland −24,518 46] Massachusetts −25,755 47] Louisiana −27,914 48] New Jersey −50,591 49] Illinois −114,154 50] California −156,068 51] New York −180,306 And here's the top 3 states Net International Migration: 1] Florida 175,670 2] California 117,797 3] Texas 104,976 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"By percentage,Florida and New York have more people leave than california." Which doesn't matter because Florida is the top destination in terms of net domestic migration and international migration. In other words, grouping a state like Florida with New York isn't really telling an accurate story. |
Over 470,000 people left Florida last year. Florida just gained more people from other states to negate it. It doesn't change the fact that 470,000 people still left the state. Which would be more than California departures, by percentage, by a good amount too.
From an article- The exodus from California also led among other states. Only the numbers for Texas, Florida, and New York came close. Texas lost 462,000; New York lost 458,000; and Florida lost 470,000. According to the Census data, most Californians found themselves heading to Texas, Arizona, Washington, Nevada, and Oregon. Texas - 86,000 Arizona - 68,000 Washington - 55,000 Nevada - 50,000 Oregon - 43,000 Idaho was not far behind its Pacific Northwest neighbors, with an estimated 21,000. While California led in people leaving the state in 2018, it came in third for the number of people who moved in. The state was behind Florida, who had 587,000, and Texas, who saw 563,000 move in |
California metros often have lower housing burden than Florida metros, because salaries suck. SF is cheap compared to Miami.
|
According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2018, about 691,000 Californians moved to another state and 501,000 people moved into California from other states.
That net domestic loss is a grand total of 190,000 people. Considering the state was estimated at 39,557,045 in 2018, that "exodus" amounts to a mere 0.48% of the total population. Yet that kind of small deficit is more than overcome through international immigration and natural increase: between 2010 and 2018, California's population increased by 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, and is still growing. |
Quote:
Getting things more recent, in 2018 California gained about 150,000 new residents, Texas 400,000, and Florida 320,000. For comparison New York lost 50,000 people, bringing it nearly back to where it started at the beginning of the decade. But then, it's hard to know just how much California's growth is being hampered by lack of affordable housing. The state government is really starting to crack down on localities that refuse to build. SoCal alone is essentially being forced to permit 1.5 million new homes by 2030, or enough for 4.5 million people just on its own. |
Quote:
Florida is 1st and California at 49th. They could not be more different. |
Ugh. You keep glossing over a simple point. What you're talking about is something different, as I've already stated.
I know you don't want to accept that hundreds of thousands of people leave Texas and Florida a year, but they do. As with Calfiornia and New York, much of this is due to higher populations. Calfiornia has the most, by far, so it's not weird more people would leave than any other state. How this is incomprehensible is hilarious. |
Quote:
Oh, and the entire state is on fire, there's homeless on every block, and everyone struggles to get something to eat. We're all in danger of getting medieval dieeases as well, because Fox News said so. |
Quote:
Domestic out-migration is not a good sign for Californians future nobody has ever suggested that California is in imminent or prolonged collapse but for 7 years running people have been leaving the state. The homeless issues, the failing infrastructure, the expense, the tax burden, the mismanagement of the cities. This isnt a "fox news" conspiracy its reported all over the press from the very far right to the very far left. Stop taking it so personally its weird. |
Nah, I find the "demise of California: opinions to be exaggerated and comical.
|
Quote:
|
like i woke up with a stomach ache and nausea the other night but couldn't vomit. that's what this thread is like (and all the sunbelt/california threads)
|
Quote:
California sent 691,000 people to other states in 2018 and received 501,000 people from other states in 2018, for a net domestic out-migration amounting to less than 0.5% of the state's total population. Yet California continues to grow via natural increase and international immigration, adding 6.2%, or roughly 2,303,089 people, to its total population between 2010 and 2018. What if we didn't experience net domestic out-migration during that time frame? The population would have grown roughly a half a percent faster in 2018 alone, and cumulatively over this decade, we'd have hundreds of thousands more Californians than we do right now. How would it be an improvement to add hundreds of thousands more Californians to the current population, clogging up the roads and increasing pollution, competing with the rest of us (and with all the kids growing up, and with foreign immigrants) for housing, employment, educational resources, mental health and homeless services, etc.? It wouldn't be. No, that even more crowded and competitive scenario would be worse than the one we face today, not better. So why the hand-wringing and phony assertions to the contrary? Why the assertion that whatever is happening in California is necessarily bad and negative and destructive? Hmm.... Quote:
The orchestrated campaign to deride, denounce, and derail California for its political sins by the Trump regime, its partisans and culture warriors, and their propaganda outlet Fox is the reason we're getting all this phony 'concern trolling' over Californians' well-being right now. Oh, they have not one iota of actual concern for us--but they've got the trolling down pat. And it is that Trumpian crusade against California that creates the larger context in which this forum's anti-California threads are understood by locals. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The free market is not obligated to provide affordable housing in desirable areas for everyone who wants it. |
Dallas/Fort Worth. already over 7 million, can sprawl in every direction, high enough to not have to worry about rising sea levels, too far inland to get the worst effects of hurricanes.
Dallas seems to have everything going for it. |
Quote:
People are correctly pointing out that Dotard frequently cites California as a "disaster" when it's plausibly the most successful geography on the planet. At the very least, it's unquestionably the most innovative place on the planet. |
These realities are not a good thing in the long term:
1] Net negative domestic growth 2] Slowing international growth 3] Natural increase in decline 4] An aging population This is the reality in California. There are currently 6 million seniors in the state. By 2030 there will be 9 million. Over 20% of the population will be over 66 years of age -- more than Florida -- yet not nearly as affordable as low cost, low tax Florida. |
Quote:
Yes, there have always been bums in society, but let's get real here. |
Quote:
But back then we didn't have maniacs in the WH lying about everything to their Jonestown cult. |
Quote:
California has had domestic out migration for 7 years running. Presidents are not nearly as important as you seem to think. Whatever issues you think California may or may not have they have absolutely nothing to do with current policy changes which have had almost no time to even go into effect, and they have almost nothing to do with National political policy in general. Almost all of the real impact on your life is from local politicians and politics, not federal unless its war. I cant imagine how much of a blessing it is for incompetent state governments to know the average dreg blames their failures on DC. What a godsend for them. Additionally: why should you be allowed to offset expensive state tax on federal taxes? That just allows high tax states to hide the true burden of their cost in the federal budget. It should be removed as a deduction entirely. Thats another argument however :cheers: Whataboutism argument: RED STATES GET MORE FEDERAL AID ***Despite that being disingenuous because rural western states have more federally owned property in than costal states via BLM and massive subsidies due to the outdated and horrible Farm Subsidy system as well as Native American Communities, not to mention that southern states have lots of poor so they get more federal aid due to welfare support (You dont hate the poor do you????)*** Id agree that most federal support should be ended and in these areas, Id also like to see the millions of square miles of land the federal government arbitrarily holds in the west turned back over to the states and citizens of the west. and I would like to see a total reformation of the welfare system that is rife with abuse. |
Welfare programs aren’t rife with abuse. Qualifying for programs entails completing paperwork and interviews with multiple bureaucracies. The identified cases of abuse, fraud, or waste are minimal.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As they work slow California's population growth while we struggle to solve problems exacerbated by population growth, like spiraling housing costs, I think these are good things. I think adding more people faster would make our problems worse. But let's see your argument for why California would be better off with hundreds of thousands of additional residents than we already have right now, or why we would be better off in the future if we grew even faster than we would without net domestic out-migration. Quote:
Quote:
Please explain how would we be better off, and be better able to solve growth-related problems like spiraling housing costs, if we kept adding more people faster and faster, while nobody moves out? |
Quote:
I'm sure in their minds, these older people will move to Texas and Florida, and spark a massive boom in those economies. What kind of boom? Who the hell knows. Senior Citizen Housing?:shrug: |
Quote:
We'll see what really happens though. My money is on they will get fed up like anywhere else as their commutes become even more hellish. There was some DC poster on another site who threw out the idea of Baltimore-DC growing to 20 million people. If you asked people in real life if they would want that, you'd be laughed at there. The traffic is already miserable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I love California, you certainly can't accuse me of being "anti" anything. But the homeless crisis is not fabricated. Surely we're on the same page...? |
Quote:
(If you want to challenge me on this, I bet I can find the exact quote for you, then you'll have to admit it.) |
Quote:
It's already starting to happen. A lot of Texas homeowners got sticker shock on their property taxes this year, especially in the Dallas area which is already relatively high cost for the state. At least they passed a law similar to prop 13 which should help homeowners down the line, but maybe it'll create some of the same problems and market imbalances that prop 13 did in California? We'll see if Texas manages growth better than California did. Maybe in 30 years Texas will have 50 million people and Fox News will be running apocalyptic news stories about how too many people and liberal policies have ruined Texas :haha: |
That's honestly my guess. I don't see any evidence why Texas would be different. I just see emotional Texas pride.
Manages their growth better? Their sprawl is totally out of control and their more auto dependent than California is. They have a giant suburb with no bus routes ffs. Can you imagine Long Beach or Santa Ana with no transit options? |
Quote:
Not just Dallas but Houston and especially Austin. Our property taxes are atrocious. They've been trickling in the mail this past week and they'll be higher this year. I also own land in CA, not a lot but dig the low tax rate. |
Quote:
That said, it will probably keep growing fast and sprawling into Oklahoma. Weren't California's property taxes were capped years ago (Prop 21?) and has there been any study as to whether the cap has contributed to California problems with high housing costs and his general taxes? |
Quote:
|
I've never understood that either. How did people think their services were getting funded?
|
Quote:
Not just on the streets either. I had to use the restroom in the Westfield Mall and found someone slumped over, face down towards the urinal, arm tied off and all. Had to get the security guard. It's really, really rough around there nowadays. |
Quote:
It's an easy dismissal of facts, without providing any factual data at all. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 1:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev