[stupac2]

Well, there's a rather obvious disjunction here. We know California's net domestic migration has been negative throughout the aughts (http://www.newgeography.com/content/0035...world-hurt). And yet its metropolises have, as you've said, been fantastic for wealth creation and boast low unemployment rates. These two things shouldn't coexist. In a normal world, places with high economic vitality attract people. California has been driving them away. Why? Because its housing is too expensive, which is primarily due to poor regulations in San Francisco, L.A., and especially the South Bay.

That has a number of negative effects. People in California are more productive than other places -- that's why they're paid more. If you leave California, then, from an economic perspective, you're damaging the broader economy. The other substantial effect is environmental. We know San Franciscans and Angelinos have -- per capita -- fewer carbon emissions and less energy intensive lifestyles than people in most places in the U.S. (particularly Nevadans and Arizonans, which I believe are the main recipients of Californian migration). So California's inability to hang onto its residents is damaging the broader economy and the longterm sustainability of the environment. It's a catastrophe.

Sometimes I think we're twins. It's really too bad I didn't know you on campus.

[stupac2]

Well, there's a rather obvious disjunction here. We know California's net domestic migration has been negative throughout the aughts (http://www.newgeography.com/content/0035...world-hurt). And yet its metropolises have, as you've said, been fantastic for wealth creation and boast low unemployment rates. These two things shouldn't coexist. In a normal world, places with high economic vitality attract people. California has been driving them away. Why? Because its housing is too expensive, which is primarily due to poor regulations in San Francisco, L.A., and especially the South Bay.

That has a number of negative effects. People in California are more productive than other places -- that's why they're paid more. If you leave California, then, from an economic perspective, you're damaging the broader economy. The other substantial effect is environmental. We know San Franciscans and Angelinos have -- per capita -- fewer carbon emissions and less energy intensive lifestyles than people in most places in the U.S. (particularly Nevadans and Arizonans, which I believe are the main recipients of Californian migration). So California's inability to hang onto its residents is damaging the broader economy and the longterm sustainability of the environment. It's a catastrophe.

Sometimes I think we're twins. It's really too bad I didn't know you on campus.