[97fan]

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.

I agree with what you're saying about the need for more affordable housing in LA and particularly in the Bay Area. The failure to build more housing in California is hurting the economy, and it also has negative environmental consequences.

But why is net domestic migration a useful metric in this discussion? Why not just net migration? Let's say there are two cities in different states, both of which are experiencing 1% annual growth in their housing stock, and both of which have similar rates of GDP growth.

City A is landlocked and has a miniscule influx of immigrants, perhaps somewhere like Columbus, Ohio. City B sits on the Pacific Ocean and is a magnet for immigrants from all over the globe, somewhere like Los Angeles. Doesn't it stand to reason that City A is going to be a magnet for domestic migration, while City B is going to be a net exporter of domestic migrants? So it would seem to me. And yet, it also seems likely that net migration, including both domestic and foreign migrants, would be similar in the two cities.

So why does it matter whether the new arrivals are from Dayton or Singapore?

[97fan]

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.

I agree with what you're saying about the need for more affordable housing in LA and particularly in the Bay Area. The failure to build more housing in California is hurting the economy, and it also has negative environmental consequences.

But why is net domestic migration a useful metric in this discussion? Why not just net migration? Let's say there are two cities in different states, both of which are experiencing 1% annual growth in their housing stock, and both of which have similar rates of GDP growth.

City A is landlocked and has a miniscule influx of immigrants, perhaps somewhere like Columbus, Ohio. City B sits on the Pacific Ocean and is a magnet for immigrants from all over the globe, somewhere like Los Angeles. Doesn't it stand to reason that City A is going to be a magnet for domestic migration, while City B is going to be a net exporter of domestic migrants? So it would seem to me. And yet, it also seems likely that net migration, including both domestic and foreign migrants, would be similar in the two cities.

So why does it matter whether the new arrivals are from Dayton or Singapore?