UC survey finds Californians aren't leaving the state any more than usual

[Buckeye Native 001]

I'm not sure we'll see the same type of crash we saw in 2007-2008. I don't think it's people taking on mortgages they can't afford, it's flippers/investors/companies (Blackwater?) buying up properties that can seemingly handle the costs and market fluctuations.

The problem is there's a lack of supply, which is why house prices are astronomical at this time. How that busts, if at all, remains to be seen?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

absolutely no thanks

Yup, furthermore Im not thirsty for a bunch of people to move here just so the population will grow, like what for?

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yup, furthermore Im not thirsty for a bunch of people to move here just so the population will grow, like what for?

Then everybody would be mad at us for growing......
Lol @ building in the sand on unstable coastlines, in an earthquake area.

[homebucket]

Agreed, there's plenty of better places to build more housing within our urban areas (parking lots/structures, warehouses, TOD). Continued preservation of the coastline is what makes the West Coast unique. The only place I could see highrises along the beachfront are places like Santa Monica or Long Beach. Otherwise, the coast is far too rugged, especially north of Big Sur, to be developed in any meaningful way that would increase housing stock.

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by lio45

Yeah but the goal isn't to have the most people possible in the state, rather it should be to keep the state a nice place to live for the residents who are there.

So, you just discovered that destroying California's appeal would make it more affordable. That's not rocket science.

Alright! Then just pick one city on the South CA coast and allow high rises just in that city. How about Venice Beach?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Then everybody would be mad at us for growing......
Lol @ building in the sand on unstable coastlines, in an earthquake area.

Yeah, there is so much undeveloped land/back roads in the East Bay, much of very developable, but it isnt. We are creating way more jobs than commensurate housing units required to sustain growth, but people dont gaf. I just dont understand, on the one hand, we want to be economically competitive, but then do everything we can to stifle growth.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yup, furthermore Im not thirsty for a bunch of people to move here just so the population will grow, like what for?

The problem is that the people moving out are mostly middle class and upper middle class taxpayers and to a significant extent they are being replaced by low-wage, unskilled immigrants who may earn too little to pay taxes at all but use benefits which California, more than most states, makes them eligible to receive.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yeah, there is so much undeveloped land/back roads in the East Bay, much of very developable, but it isnt. We are creating way more jobs than commensurate housing units required to sustain growth, but people dont gaf. I just dont understand, on the one hand, we want to be economically competitive, but then do everything we can to stifle growth.

I disagree that there is much land in the inner Bay Area that is in private hands and that is large enough to be developable for other than one or a few expensive custom homes. For the kind of housing tracts most people can afford you need many acres in a single chunk, preferably flat, and where is that on the back roads of the East Bay?

[homebucket]

I would prefer not to develop on the private/formerly private, or public open space ranch lands of the East Bay. We want to discourage further sprawl, and instead focus on building responsibly within our urban cities along existing public transit corridors.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The problem is that the people moving out are mostly middle class and upper middle class taxpayers and to a significant extent they are being replaced by low-wage, unskilled immigrants who may earn too little to pay taxes at all but use benefits which California, more than most states, makes them eligible to receive.

You have it backwards. It's exactly the opposite lol

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

You have it backwards. It's exactly the opposite lol

WAS perhaps you mean--it WAS the opposite when the economy WAS booming. Most of the people I see moving out of CA now are techies moving to other tech cities like Austin and retirees cashing in on their long-time CA homes and moving to places where housing is cheaper.

No doubt many immigrants who cross into CA do move on to other places but many stay because, as I said, CA offers them benefits other states don't and also because they have relatives already living in the state.

I frankly don't think the state has much of a handle on the immigrants--who they are, how many they are and so on. I also think there's a change lately. During "the good years" what you say may be true as recent college grads come to the state for high paying jobs. But during covid and during recessionary times, those same people disperse back to where they came from or to other places and that's what I see happening now. I saw the same thing in 2000-2003 and in 2008-2010. I "see" it in the empty lofts and condos they used to occupy in my city but it's not likely to be just a local phenomenon.

Poor people simply don't have the same mobility as the better educated and higher earning.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

WAS perhaps you mean--it WAS the opposite when the economy WAS booming. Most of the people I see moving out of CA now are techies moving to other tech cities like Austin and retirees cashing in on their long-time CA homes and moving to places where housing is cheaper.

No doubt many immigrants who cross into CA do move on to other places but many stay because, as I said, CA offers them benefits other states don't and also because they have relatives already living in the state.

I frankly don't think the state has much of a handle on the immigrants--who they are, how many they are and so on. I also think there's a change lately. During "the good years" what you say may be true as recent college grads come to the state for high paying jobs. But during covid and during recessionary times, those same people disperse back to where they came from or to other places and that's what I see happening now. I saw the same thing in 2000-2003 and in 2008-2010. I "see" it in the empty lofts and condos they used to occupy in my city but it's not likely to be just a local phenomenon.

Poor people simply don't have the same mobility as the better educated and higher earning.

Poor people move alot. That's wrong

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I would prefer not to develop on the private/formerly private, or public open space ranch lands of the East Bay. We want to discourage further sprawl, and instead focus on building responsibly within our urban cities along existing public transit corridors.

And to stop development in fire zones.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

And to stop development in fire zones.

Yes, I believe Socal has a lot of these types of areas too, with Tejon Ranch being one of the more high profile locations where sprawl is creeping.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The problem is that the people moving out are mostly middle class and upper middle class taxpayers and to a significant extent they are being replaced by low-wage, unskilled immigrants who may earn too little to pay taxes at all but use benefits which California, more than most states, makes them eligible to receive.

Immigrants to U.S. now end to be better educated than native-born, have much higher upward mobility, and generate far more net tax revenue than native born. Elderly, infirm, addicts, those on welfare, unemployed, criminals, etc. are disproportionally native-born and have greatest tax burden.

This should be especially obvious to someone living in the immigrant techie wealth-driven Bay Area, and in a state bathing in a vast gusher of immigrant-driven tax revenue.

The easiest way to make the U.S. richer, with lower proportionate tax burden and social pathology, is to open up the immigration floodgates. Cupertino vs. Selma.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The problem is that the people moving out are mostly middle class and upper middle class taxpayers and to a significant extent they are being replaced by low-wage, unskilled immigrants who may earn too little to pay taxes at all but use benefits which California, more than most states, makes them eligible to receive.

That claim is not obviously true. Do you have any data from reliable sources to back it up?

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by craigs

That claim is not obviously true. Do you have any data from reliable sources to back it up?

Yeah, sounds like unfounded conservative talking points that stereotype so-called "unskilled" immigrants as being inferior, incapable of "dignified" tasks, and a burden to society.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by craigs

That claim is not obviously true. Do you have any data from reliable sources to back it up?

Tucker Carlson.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Tucker Carlson.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

WAS perhaps you mean--it WAS the opposite when the economy WAS booming. Most of the people I see moving out of CA now are techies moving to other tech cities like Austin and retirees cashing in on their long-time CA homes and moving to places where housing is cheaper.

No doubt many immigrants who cross into CA do move on to other places but many stay because, as I said, CA offers them benefits other states don't and also because they have relatives already living in the state.

I frankly don't think the state has much of a handle on the immigrants--who they are, how many they are and so on. I also think there's a change lately. During "the good years" what you say may be true as recent college grads come to the state for high paying jobs. But during covid and during recessionary times, those same people disperse back to where they came from or to other places and that's what I see happening now. I saw the same thing in 2000-2003 and in 2008-2010. I "see" it in the empty lofts and condos they used to occupy in my city but it's not likely to be just a local phenomenon.

Poor people simply don't have the same mobility as the better educated and higher earning.

Poor people seem way more geographically mobile than middle class people of any level. Not being attached to sticky things like mortgages and professional networks makes it easy to pick up and move on the fly.