[jacketree]

I'd love to know the premise of Garvin's Grenade ™ here....

Why should we give a flip about some dipstick journalist bailing on the traffic and taxes in Orange County, California for traffic, taxes, and Texas? (Hey they also have an Orange County! Looks to be due east of Hell, er Beaumont.)  GTFO already and stop bitching about us on your way out!!

I mean shit, we really need to get our act together to keep this gem of a guy....

Anecdote No. 1 - Picked up my son from one Midshipman's house in LaJolla where they just played a round at Phil Mickelson's home course. Drank an IPA with the kid's parents while waiting for them (the Mids; not the parents) to change into their summer whites.  It is June 22 at 1:30 in the afternoon.  73 degrees and a light sea breeze.  Piled into the Pilot and drove down to Coronado NAS, picking up another two Mids from a hotel near Sea World.  One from South Carolina; one from Colorado.  They are both praying to Neptune they wind up stationed in San Diego.  God forbid they get shafted to Norfolk.

(Possible Future) Anecdote No. 2 - If, after our August cross country trip through the heat, humidity, hail, hurricanes, hicks, and (affordable) housing, I decide that some $450,000 split level ranch style in Tennessee or wherever is worth going without a mortgage, I will recant this entire post.


Love it or leave it, bastiches!!!

[jacketree]

I'd love to know the premise of Garvin's Grenade ™ here....

Why should we give a flip about some dipstick journalist bailing on the traffic and taxes in Orange County, California for traffic, taxes, and Texas? (Hey they also have an Orange County! Looks to be due east of Hell, er Beaumont.)  GTFO already and stop bitching about us on your way out!!

I mean shit, we really need to get our act together to keep this gem of a guy....

Anecdote No. 1 - Picked up my son from one Midshipman's house in LaJolla where they just played a round at Phil Mickelson's home course. Drank an IPA with the kid's parents while waiting for them (the Mids; not the parents) to change into their summer whites.  It is June 22 at 1:30 in the afternoon.  73 degrees and a light sea breeze.  Piled into the Pilot and drove down to Coronado NAS, picking up another two Mids from a hotel near Sea World.  One from South Carolina; one from Colorado.  They are both praying to Neptune they wind up stationed in San Diego.  God forbid they get shafted to Norfolk.

(Possible Future) Anecdote No. 2 - If, after our August cross country trip through the heat, humidity, hail, hurricanes, hicks, and (affordable) housing, I decide that some $450,000 split level ranch style in Tennessee or wherever is worth going without a mortgage, I will recant this entire post.


Love it or leave it, bastiches!!!

[81alum]

Agree.  Perhaps the heart of the problem is lack of term limits, at ALL levels.  Power is a strong drug and many succumb.  The proven way to remain in power is bread for the masses (or schools, parks, water features, whatever.). The Founders set up a great system:  one third of the legislature turns over on a regular basis.  If some sort of reasonable term limit were in place we would have the necessary experience and institutional memory without lifetime politicians.  Not California's model please, where term limits sllow pols to migrate from assembly to senate to county then back to Sacramento, with perhaps a lobbying job inbetween.  At some point perhaps a requirement to return to private life.  Why not?  Not all pols are corrupt or power hungry, but enough are.  It's just human nature and exists regardless of political system.

But we do have term limits in California.  The state legislature and statewide offices are all term limited, and more than 100 cities and counties have adopted term limits too.  It has actually made the problem worse.

What political scientists have discovered is that term limits work in a perverse way given the culture of fundraising.  Before term limits, the most established politicians could tell special interests to go to @#$% because they did not need their money or support to be reelected.  Term limited politicians, on the other hand, never get established sufficiently to be independent of the interests that back them.  They are in a constant money grubbing mode and, combined with their lack of experience, they become vulnerable to the advice and money of special interests who employ lobbyists who are far more experienced than the politicians themselves.  Many of the lobbyists are ex-politicians who have all the experience and practical advice that the current office holders lack. 

Nowhere is this more obvious that on local city councils, where just a few tens of thousands of dollars means winning or losing.  Consequently, some council members are virtually known as belonging to various special interests--with those who have an interest in seeing certain zoning changes adopted first in line.

[81alum]

Agree.  Perhaps the heart of the problem is lack of term limits, at ALL levels.  Power is a strong drug and many succumb.  The proven way to remain in power is bread for the masses (or schools, parks, water features, whatever.). The Founders set up a great system:  one third of the legislature turns over on a regular basis.  If some sort of reasonable term limit were in place we would have the necessary experience and institutional memory without lifetime politicians.  Not California's model please, where term limits sllow pols to migrate from assembly to senate to county then back to Sacramento, with perhaps a lobbying job inbetween.  At some point perhaps a requirement to return to private life.  Why not?  Not all pols are corrupt or power hungry, but enough are.  It's just human nature and exists regardless of political system.

But we do have term limits in California.  The state legislature and statewide offices are all term limited, and more than 100 cities and counties have adopted term limits too.  It has actually made the problem worse.

What political scientists have discovered is that term limits work in a perverse way given the culture of fundraising.  Before term limits, the most established politicians could tell special interests to go to @#$% because they did not need their money or support to be reelected.  Term limited politicians, on the other hand, never get established sufficiently to be independent of the interests that back them.  They are in a constant money grubbing mode and, combined with their lack of experience, they become vulnerable to the advice and money of special interests who employ lobbyists who are far more experienced than the politicians themselves.  Many of the lobbyists are ex-politicians who have all the experience and practical advice that the current office holders lack. 

Nowhere is this more obvious that on local city councils, where just a few tens of thousands of dollars means winning or losing.  Consequently, some council members are virtually known as belonging to various special interests--with those who have an interest in seeing certain zoning changes adopted first in line.

[terry]

This discussion about how undesirable it is to live in California reminds me of something Yogi Berra once said:  "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

The market is telling us that people want to live in California. Not everyone, of course. But overall, on average, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. Just look at the housing prices in California compared to elsewhere. Prices could not be that high unless people were willing to pay them. You can criticize taxes, regulation, NIMBY-ism, or whatever else. But despite all that, the bottom line is that overall, people are willing to pay premium prices to live in California. The market is telling us where people want to live.

[terry]

This discussion about how undesirable it is to live in California reminds me of something Yogi Berra once said:  "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

The market is telling us that people want to live in California. Not everyone, of course. But overall, on average, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. Just look at the housing prices in California compared to elsewhere. Prices could not be that high unless people were willing to pay them. You can criticize taxes, regulation, NIMBY-ism, or whatever else. But despite all that, the bottom line is that overall, people are willing to pay premium prices to live in California. The market is telling us where people want to live.

[Bruce Wang]

terry wins.

[Bruce Wang]

terry wins.

[81alum]

Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

If you believe the oh-so-reliable Wikipaedia (I don't generally :D), the Tax Foundation bills itself as a non-partisan think tank, but is a unit of "Citizens for a Sound Economy" which is a political group whose mission is "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation."  The Tax Foundation itself was founded by a group of corporate executives during the Great Depression to resist the New Deal. 

With regard to the stats themselves, the full database is online here:
http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/migration/
but something is screwy in the California numbers.  It keeps coming up 0 when I try to isolate California's stats.  Still, it is an interesting database and I thank you Garvin for pointing me to it. 

In Gerston's book (I have referenced before) there is an extensive analysis of California's out-migration.  The upshot of that analysis is that the lion's share of out migration is by working class people driven out by high housing prices, while high income people overwhelmingly stay in California.  I am not sure how that squares with this conservative group's numbers, but I suspect there is more to the story.  It would be fun to nose around their methodology.

[81alum]

Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

If you believe the oh-so-reliable Wikipaedia (I don't generally :D), the Tax Foundation bills itself as a non-partisan think tank, but is a unit of "Citizens for a Sound Economy" which is a political group whose mission is "to fight for less government, lower taxes, and less regulation."  The Tax Foundation itself was founded by a group of corporate executives during the Great Depression to resist the New Deal. 

With regard to the stats themselves, the full database is online here:
http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/migration/
but something is screwy in the California numbers.  It keeps coming up 0 when I try to isolate California's stats.  Still, it is an interesting database and I thank you Garvin for pointing me to it. 

In Gerston's book (I have referenced before) there is an extensive analysis of California's out-migration.  The upshot of that analysis is that the lion's share of out migration is by working class people driven out by high housing prices, while high income people overwhelmingly stay in California.  I am not sure how that squares with this conservative group's numbers, but I suspect there is more to the story.  It would be fun to nose around their methodology.

[Farm93]

Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.

[Farm93]

Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.

[Rally]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10167.msg93438#msg93438 date=1406904467]
Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.
[/quote]

Why would you include foreign migration is you are trying to measure domestic migration?

[Rally]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=10167.msg93438#msg93438 date=1406904467]
Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.
[/quote]

Why would you include foreign migration is you are trying to measure domestic migration?

[81alum]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=10167.msg93441#msg93441 date=1406907510]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=10167.msg93438#msg93438 date=1406904467]
Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.
[/quote]

Why would you include foreign migration is you are trying to measure domestic migration?
[/quote]
A good guess would be that most of California's in-migration is foreign and most of its out-migration is domestic.  That is what it means to be a "gateway state."  California and New York have been subsidizing the rest of the country by taking a large proportion of the nation's immigrants and then educating their children to become major contributors to the economies of all 50 states.

Here is another hypothesis: California exports many college graduates to other states--for example, many of you here on this board who are Stanford graduates--and this drives up the "exported income" side of the ledger.  Meanwhile, California imports more H1B visa workers than any other state and all of their incomes are excluded by the methodology, and this in turn holds down the "imported income" side of the ledger. 

[81alum]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=10167.msg93441#msg93441 date=1406907510]
[quote author=garvin link=topic=10167.msg93438#msg93438 date=1406904467]
Well, perhaps  it's not a slam dunk, Publius.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfounda..._large.png

Caveat says it all..."Does not include Foreign Migration"  For California and New York that little exclusion is not trivial.  I would guess without that Foreign immigration the domestic migration would be reduced, at least for California.
[/quote]

Why would you include foreign migration is you are trying to measure domestic migration?
[/quote]
A good guess would be that most of California's in-migration is foreign and most of its out-migration is domestic.  That is what it means to be a "gateway state."  California and New York have been subsidizing the rest of the country by taking a large proportion of the nation's immigrants and then educating their children to become major contributors to the economies of all 50 states.

Here is another hypothesis: California exports many college graduates to other states--for example, many of you here on this board who are Stanford graduates--and this drives up the "exported income" side of the ledger.  Meanwhile, California imports more H1B visa workers than any other state and all of their incomes are excluded by the methodology, and this in turn holds down the "imported income" side of the ledger. 

[CornFed]

But then, using Terry's and Yogi's guidance, if those H1B visa immigrants are leaving as you say to benefit the other 49 states, doesn't that imply that they are voting with their feet?  Further, the element that is referred to obliquely in your post but not really explicitly discussed in any of our posts is the impact of illegal immigration on these numbers.  I suspect, since the numbers are generated from tax filings, that there are a significant number of these missing from the database.

[CornFed]

But then, using Terry's and Yogi's guidance, if those H1B visa immigrants are leaving as you say to benefit the other 49 states, doesn't that imply that they are voting with their feet?  Further, the element that is referred to obliquely in your post but not really explicitly discussed in any of our posts is the impact of illegal immigration on these numbers.  I suspect, since the numbers are generated from tax filings, that there are a significant number of these missing from the database.

[yvonne]

H1Bs aren't leaving to other states. They must return to their countries.

I haven't thought about how that figures into the calculus.

[yvonne]

H1Bs aren't leaving to other states. They must return to their countries.

I haven't thought about how that figures into the calculus.

[Farm93]

But then, using Terry's and Yogi's guidance, if those H1B visa immigrants are leaving as you say to benefit the other 49 states, doesn't that imply that they are voting with their feet?  Further, the element that is referred to obliquely in your post but not really explicitly discussed in any of our posts is the impact of illegal immigration on these numbers.  I suspect, since the numbers are generated from tax filings, that there are a significant number of these missing from the database.

It is a multigenerational thing.  The foreign immigrants come to California, and New York.  Many are poor, but not all.  Either way, they settle in California driving up demand for things, changing the community culture, etc.

Their children, born in the USA, and other American born citizens likely recognize that their version of the American dream might be easier to obtain in places in the USA.  Therefore they leave, but they wouldn't need to if the demand from new immigrants magically disappeared.

This has been common for decades now.  So any methodology that convenient excludes the potential for foreign born immigration bringing wealth with them will almost certainly show California as a place where wealth is leaving.  My Indian born tenants of my Bay Area home are rather wealthy and have annual income that pushes them comfortably into the top 2 or 3%.  Happy to have them as my tenants even if it means that some other native California family can't afford to rent my home.    Immigrants - IN!  Native Borns - Somewhere else.  :)

[Farm93]

But then, using Terry's and Yogi's guidance, if those H1B visa immigrants are leaving as you say to benefit the other 49 states, doesn't that imply that they are voting with their feet?  Further, the element that is referred to obliquely in your post but not really explicitly discussed in any of our posts is the impact of illegal immigration on these numbers.  I suspect, since the numbers are generated from tax filings, that there are a significant number of these missing from the database.

It is a multigenerational thing.  The foreign immigrants come to California, and New York.  Many are poor, but not all.  Either way, they settle in California driving up demand for things, changing the community culture, etc.

Their children, born in the USA, and other American born citizens likely recognize that their version of the American dream might be easier to obtain in places in the USA.  Therefore they leave, but they wouldn't need to if the demand from new immigrants magically disappeared.

This has been common for decades now.  So any methodology that convenient excludes the potential for foreign born immigration bringing wealth with them will almost certainly show California as a place where wealth is leaving.  My Indian born tenants of my Bay Area home are rather wealthy and have annual income that pushes them comfortably into the top 2 or 3%.  Happy to have them as my tenants even if it means that some other native California family can't afford to rent my home.    Immigrants - IN!  Native Borns - Somewhere else.  :)

[Farm93]

I doubt if H-1Bs are a major factor in these calculations; there are only about 200,000 or so in all the United States. The majority of immigrants in California are undoubtedly low-income illegals who don't contribute much in terms of income, at least in the short term.

It is not as if every immigrant, even every wealthy immigrant, comes in via that H-1B route.  There are plenty of family sponsored immigrants that bring the family wealth with them once they get a few family members into the USA to sponsor the rest.  In any event a few is all you need really to swing the money equations.  Just need the right few 1%ers, or their cash, to really offset the less successful natives leaving the state. 

In any event to display wealth movements without accounting for any foreign wealth movement is rather silly.  At least for a place like the SF Bay Area where plenty of SF Bay Area homes are purchased in cash by Asian immigrant families.

[Farm93]

I doubt if H-1Bs are a major factor in these calculations; there are only about 200,000 or so in all the United States. The majority of immigrants in California are undoubtedly low-income illegals who don't contribute much in terms of income, at least in the short term.

It is not as if every immigrant, even every wealthy immigrant, comes in via that H-1B route.  There are plenty of family sponsored immigrants that bring the family wealth with them once they get a few family members into the USA to sponsor the rest.  In any event a few is all you need really to swing the money equations.  Just need the right few 1%ers, or their cash, to really offset the less successful natives leaving the state. 

In any event to display wealth movements without accounting for any foreign wealth movement is rather silly.  At least for a place like the SF Bay Area where plenty of SF Bay Area homes are purchased in cash by Asian immigrant families.

[Redrum]

Why would you include foreign migration if you are trying to measure domestic migration?

Because the evidence of migration posted by garvin is not "people" migrating.  It's wealth   or Adjusted Gross Income that was "migrating".

So the argument about counting in-migration from foreign shores doesn't directly factor into countering or failing to counter garvin's proffered evidence.  To  really engage with garvin's statistics, one would have to know the wealth or AGI those migrants were bringing into the state.  If, those numbers are significant.

But garvin had an easier burden of proof.  His target was to trump publius' statement that terry's post made.  Garvin did make that case.  It's not a slam dunk.

[Redrum]

Why would you include foreign migration if you are trying to measure domestic migration?

Because the evidence of migration posted by garvin is not "people" migrating.  It's wealth   or Adjusted Gross Income that was "migrating".

So the argument about counting in-migration from foreign shores doesn't directly factor into countering or failing to counter garvin's proffered evidence.  To  really engage with garvin's statistics, one would have to know the wealth or AGI those migrants were bringing into the state.  If, those numbers are significant.

But garvin had an easier burden of proof.  His target was to trump publius' statement that terry's post made.  Garvin did make that case.  It's not a slam dunk.

[terry]

A few points --

1. California has a net inflow of migrants. The net outflow of people to other states is more than offset by a net inflow from other countries. The Census Bureau estimates that in the year ending July 1, 2013, California had a net outflow to other states of 49,000, and a net inflow from other countries of 123,000, for an overall net gain of 74,000.

2. California ranks third among the states in overall net migration (including both state-to-state and international migration). The only states that had higher net migration last year were Texas and Florida.

3. California still is one of the most popular destinations for state-to-state migrants. According to the Census Bureau, only Texas and Florida drew more state-to-state migrants in 2012 -- Florida drew 537,000 people from other states, Texas drew 508,000, and California drew 493,000.

4. Although California gains a lot of state-to-state migrants, California loses more people to other states than it gains. The people who leave California for other states tend to be those in lower income brackets, not the wealthier people. That makes sense -- California is expensive and not everyone can afford it. Of course, the reason California is so expensive is because lots of people want to live here, and they bid up the housing prices. Some people in lower income brackets can't afford to stay, so they move to other states. The fact that lower-income people move out doesn't prove that California is undesirable. Quite the opposite: it's a byproduct of the fact that California is very desirable, and therefore very expensive.



5. International migration has a significant economic impact on California. For example, Silicon Valley is full of immigrants from China and India who have come to the U.S. to start, or work in, tech companies. I know some of these people. They are my firm's clients. They are my neighbors. They have created many thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of wealth in California.

6. It seems misleading to base an economic analysis on the out-migration from California to other states (49,000 people last year) while ignoring the economic impact of immigration from other countries (123,000 people last year). But that's what the Tax Foundation's graphic does. It seems to me that the Tax Foundation is trying to create a narrative to the effect that high tax rates are driving wealth out of California. It's easier to tell that story if they ignore the wealth brought to California and created in California by immigrants. However, it's not a particularly good reflection of reality. And it begs the question of whether the net out-migration to other states is attributable to high-earning taxpayers being driven out by high tax rates or lower-earning residents being driven out by the high housing prices. The chart above tends to suggest that the issue is affordability, not tax rates, and the people who are leaving are the lower-income people, not the higher-income people.

7. That brings me back to a point I made earlier: the market is telling us that people want to live in California. Overall, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. The housing prices in California could not be so high unless people were willing to pay them. The market is telling us where people want to live.

[terry]

A few points --

1. California has a net inflow of migrants. The net outflow of people to other states is more than offset by a net inflow from other countries. The Census Bureau estimates that in the year ending July 1, 2013, California had a net outflow to other states of 49,000, and a net inflow from other countries of 123,000, for an overall net gain of 74,000.

2. California ranks third among the states in overall net migration (including both state-to-state and international migration). The only states that had higher net migration last year were Texas and Florida.

3. California still is one of the most popular destinations for state-to-state migrants. According to the Census Bureau, only Texas and Florida drew more state-to-state migrants in 2012 -- Florida drew 537,000 people from other states, Texas drew 508,000, and California drew 493,000.

4. Although California gains a lot of state-to-state migrants, California loses more people to other states than it gains. The people who leave California for other states tend to be those in lower income brackets, not the wealthier people. That makes sense -- California is expensive and not everyone can afford it. Of course, the reason California is so expensive is because lots of people want to live here, and they bid up the housing prices. Some people in lower income brackets can't afford to stay, so they move to other states. The fact that lower-income people move out doesn't prove that California is undesirable. Quite the opposite: it's a byproduct of the fact that California is very desirable, and therefore very expensive.



5. International migration has a significant economic impact on California. For example, Silicon Valley is full of immigrants from China and India who have come to the U.S. to start, or work in, tech companies. I know some of these people. They are my firm's clients. They are my neighbors. They have created many thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of wealth in California.

6. It seems misleading to base an economic analysis on the out-migration from California to other states (49,000 people last year) while ignoring the economic impact of immigration from other countries (123,000 people last year). But that's what the Tax Foundation's graphic does. It seems to me that the Tax Foundation is trying to create a narrative to the effect that high tax rates are driving wealth out of California. It's easier to tell that story if they ignore the wealth brought to California and created in California by immigrants. However, it's not a particularly good reflection of reality. And it begs the question of whether the net out-migration to other states is attributable to high-earning taxpayers being driven out by high tax rates or lower-earning residents being driven out by the high housing prices. The chart above tends to suggest that the issue is affordability, not tax rates, and the people who are leaving are the lower-income people, not the higher-income people.

7. That brings me back to a point I made earlier: the market is telling us that people want to live in California. Overall, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. The housing prices in California could not be so high unless people were willing to pay them. The market is telling us where people want to live.

[washingtonismoney]

7. That brings me back to a point I made earlier: the market is telling us that people want to live in California. Overall, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. The housing prices in California could not be so high unless people were willing to pay them. The market is telling us where people want to live.

But terry, that's only a first-move economic analysis. In the ideal market, when the price rises, supply commensurately rises to meet demand -- which drives the price back down to the old level. That's not happening in California. Housing isn't the ideal market for a number of reasons: space, for one. But the other is regulatory. Towns like Mountain View and Redwood City don't have to have as much sprawl as they do; regulations keep them that way.

[washingtonismoney]

7. That brings me back to a point I made earlier: the market is telling us that people want to live in California. Overall, people value living in California more than they value living just about anywhere else. The housing prices in California could not be so high unless people were willing to pay them. The market is telling us where people want to live.

But terry, that's only a first-move economic analysis. In the ideal market, when the price rises, supply commensurately rises to meet demand -- which drives the price back down to the old level. That's not happening in California. Housing isn't the ideal market for a number of reasons: space, for one. But the other is regulatory. Towns like Mountain View and Redwood City don't have to have as much sprawl as they do; regulations keep them that way.

[pefloresjr]

There seems to be a lot of income migration to retirement states.  Less expensive warm weather locations like Florida and North Carolina.  I know many people who have retired from high income jobs then left California.  Those folks are not voting with their feet as much as they are cashing in their high value real estate to use in less expensive locations when their incomes drop.  I agree with Terry, those values are high because it is so desirable to so many to live in California.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

There seems to be a lot of income migration to retirement states.  Less expensive warm weather locations like Florida and North Carolina.  I know many people who have retired from high income jobs then left California.  Those folks are not voting with their feet as much as they are cashing in their high value real estate to use in less expensive locations when their incomes drop.  I agree with Terry, those values are high because it is so desirable to so many to live in California.

Cheers,
Pete F.