[CowboyIndian]

Adios, mofo.

[CowboyIndian]

Adios, mofo.

[stupac2]

Adios, mofo.

Exactly. If you want to live in Texas, move to Texas. I'll take California. This is one of the beautiful things about this country.

[stupac2]

Adios, mofo.

Exactly. If you want to live in Texas, move to Texas. I'll take California. This is one of the beautiful things about this country.

[martyup]

Ten years ago I saw the coming of everything he complains of, and I said adios to the Golden State.  I was a fifth generation Californian.  Our family moved to Southern Utah.  We still visit often, but we are happy in Utah where we are homeschooling our two daughters.

[martyup]

Ten years ago I saw the coming of everything he complains of, and I said adios to the Golden State.  I was a fifth generation Californian.  Our family moved to Southern Utah.  We still visit often, but we are happy in Utah where we are homeschooling our two daughters.

[needle]

Don't a couple of posters here have a bet pitting Texas and California against each other as far as some measure of economic well-being?

[needle]

Don't a couple of posters here have a bet pitting Texas and California against each other as far as some measure of economic well-being?

[Mick]

I've been contemplating for a little over a year.  Honestly, I'd prefer to remain in CA.  But I'm considering alternatives.

[Mick]

I've been contemplating for a little over a year.  Honestly, I'd prefer to remain in CA.  But I'm considering alternatives.

[washingtonismoney]

It's surprising to me that the author neglects the two most injurious regulations/government policies that CA imposes: its biggest cities' inability to build enough housing (which is mostly zoning-related); and its prison situation, which is a big reason why CA spends so much but nevertheless has had to raise fees for the UC system so highly.

(Oh, and CA is poor on scope of practice as well.)

[washingtonismoney]

It's surprising to me that the author neglects the two most injurious regulations/government policies that CA imposes: its biggest cities' inability to build enough housing (which is mostly zoning-related); and its prison situation, which is a big reason why CA spends so much but nevertheless has had to raise fees for the UC system so highly.

(Oh, and CA is poor on scope of practice as well.)

[Farm93]

Too funny.

People move around the USA and the world for all kinds of reasons.  So good for him.  I hope he finds a place that works better for him.

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time.

I am not a UC grad, but comparing the UC schools to the University of Florida seems like a bad example.  According to Payscale the mid-career annual salary for a UC Irvine grad is far above Florida.  UCB is in another tier entirely.  Florida grad earnings are also well below SJSU and are a bit below Long Beach State.  So it probably would be more appropriate to compare UF costs to Long Beach State.

[Farm93]

Too funny.

People move around the USA and the world for all kinds of reasons.  So good for him.  I hope he finds a place that works better for him.

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time.

I am not a UC grad, but comparing the UC schools to the University of Florida seems like a bad example.  According to Payscale the mid-career annual salary for a UC Irvine grad is far above Florida.  UCB is in another tier entirely.  Florida grad earnings are also well below SJSU and are a bit below Long Beach State.  So it probably would be more appropriate to compare UF costs to Long Beach State.

[washingtonismoney]

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time

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.

[washingtonismoney]

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time

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.

[Class_of_75]

Adios, mofo.

CowboyIndian, I agree! Also, I'm not living anywhere without a good Japanese supermarket.

[Class_of_75]

Adios, mofo.

CowboyIndian, I agree! Also, I'm not living anywhere without a good Japanese supermarket.

[81alum]

Too funny.

People move around the USA and the world for all kinds of reasons.  So good for him.  I hope he finds a place that works better for him.

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time.

I am not a UC grad, but comparing the UC schools to the University of Florida seems like a bad example.  According to Payscale the mid-career annual salary for a UC Irvine grad is far above Florida.  UCB is in another tier entirely.  Florida grad earnings are also well below SJSU and are a bit below Long Beach State.  So it probably would be more appropriate to compare UF costs to Long Beach State.

Good point Farm93.  The CSU, despite its own skyrocketing prices, still remains among the nation's most affordable 4 year public universities.  And the quality of its degrees are in many cases superior to those from "flagship institutions" in other states.

Also note that the editorial was written by the Vice President for Policy of a Libertarian think tank.  I respect the libertarian view, but I can easily see why he would be uncomfortable in California.  One of the beauties of a federal system is that we have 50 political experiments running at all times, and some people can move to the place that suits their philosophy.  He is welcome to move to a state that bends more toward his own perspective.  In fact, there is something a bit libertarian about people choosing whichever of 50 political systems suits them!

By the way, if you want a solid look at California's problems, complete with a scholarly look at the out-migration issue (hint: it is more complicated than most people know) you might have a look at my colleague's excellent book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Golden-After-A...B007IFNLOW

[81alum]

Too funny.

People move around the USA and the world for all kinds of reasons.  So good for him.  I hope he finds a place that works better for him.

For a few decades now there have been stories about people leaving California because of taxes limiting economic activity and increasing cost of living, etc.  And yet, California has been a very good place for wealth creation throughout that time.

I am not a UC grad, but comparing the UC schools to the University of Florida seems like a bad example.  According to Payscale the mid-career annual salary for a UC Irvine grad is far above Florida.  UCB is in another tier entirely.  Florida grad earnings are also well below SJSU and are a bit below Long Beach State.  So it probably would be more appropriate to compare UF costs to Long Beach State.

Good point Farm93.  The CSU, despite its own skyrocketing prices, still remains among the nation's most affordable 4 year public universities.  And the quality of its degrees are in many cases superior to those from "flagship institutions" in other states.

Also note that the editorial was written by the Vice President for Policy of a Libertarian think tank.  I respect the libertarian view, but I can easily see why he would be uncomfortable in California.  One of the beauties of a federal system is that we have 50 political experiments running at all times, and some people can move to the place that suits their philosophy.  He is welcome to move to a state that bends more toward his own perspective.  In fact, there is something a bit libertarian about people choosing whichever of 50 political systems suits them!

By the way, if you want a solid look at California's problems, complete with a scholarly look at the out-migration issue (hint: it is more complicated than most people know) you might have a look at my colleague's excellent book on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Not-Golden-After-A...B007IFNLOW

[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.

[oman]

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.

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

[oman]

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.

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

[washingtonismoney]

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.

[washingtonismoney]

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.

[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?

[97fan]

WIM--

I should have read the article you linked before weighing in. I now see that the author goes beyond just domestic migration, and points out that LA's foreign migration has fallen behind numerous other big U.S. cities that are magnet for immigrants.

Still, the article strikes me as overly alarmist. The comparison between coastal California and the Rust Belt should be laughable to anyone who's ever spent time in both places. California's population may be aging, but that's true for the entire country. As of 2009, the last year for which I could find state-by-state data handy, California's median age was 34.8, a full 2 years younger than the nationwide median age. You'd also never guess from that article that California's population grew by 3.5 million people -- from 34.5 million to 38 million -- between 2000 and 2012.

[97fan]

WIM--

I should have read the article you linked before weighing in. I now see that the author goes beyond just domestic migration, and points out that LA's foreign migration has fallen behind numerous other big U.S. cities that are magnet for immigrants.

Still, the article strikes me as overly alarmist. The comparison between coastal California and the Rust Belt should be laughable to anyone who's ever spent time in both places. California's population may be aging, but that's true for the entire country. As of 2009, the last year for which I could find state-by-state data handy, California's median age was 34.8, a full 2 years younger than the nationwide median age. You'd also never guess from that article that California's population grew by 3.5 million people -- from 34.5 million to 38 million -- between 2000 and 2012.

[stupac2]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.

He was only talking about temperature, which is basically the same in Palo Also as it is in, say, East Palo Alto. Or Oakland. Or Santa Cruz. Or whatever, as long as you're close to the ocean or the bay it doesn't get all that hot.

If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater

Is that really true? Roble, the only dorm in which I ever lived, had radiators, and my recollection is that we used them very regularly from late November through the end of February.

Depends on the structure. I pretty much never had my heat on in Stanford's dorms or in the apartment tower I lived in after graduation, but my current duplex might as well not have walls in winter. Things built in the 20's just don't have enough insulation...

I think a modern house would be able to handle "it's cool, but I can just put on a sweater" through most of the winter here without much trouble.

[stupac2]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.

He was only talking about temperature, which is basically the same in Palo Also as it is in, say, East Palo Alto. Or Oakland. Or Santa Cruz. Or whatever, as long as you're close to the ocean or the bay it doesn't get all that hot.

If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater

Is that really true? Roble, the only dorm in which I ever lived, had radiators, and my recollection is that we used them very regularly from late November through the end of February.

Depends on the structure. I pretty much never had my heat on in Stanford's dorms or in the apartment tower I lived in after graduation, but my current duplex might as well not have walls in winter. Things built in the 20's just don't have enough insulation...

I think a modern house would be able to handle "it's cool, but I can just put on a sweater" through most of the winter here without much trouble.

[Class_of_75]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.

[Class_of_75]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.

[washingtonismoney]

[he was using it as a reason why its great to life in California.  If we're just talking about the weather, shall we write off the millions who don't live near the coast?]

No, I was talking about the weather. It's much cooler in places like Palo Alto than it is in San Bernardino. Insofar as high housing costs in Palo Alto push people to live further inland, that's a problem. Of course many people might prefer to live in, say, Fremont, for non-housing reasons, and that's fine. But I think if there were a lesser differential for housing costs, many more people would live in Palo Alto or Mountain View or Redwood City, which would bring about other benefits -- such as higher economic productivity, lesser commute times, and greater environmental sustainability.

And the economic vitality of the Bay Area -- and, to a lesser degree, L.A. -- means it's paradoxical that so many people should be leaving California. And, again, that's due to housing costs -- which are traceable to cities' overregulation of new housing, particularly in the South Bay.

[washingtonismoney]

[he was using it as a reason why its great to life in California.  If we're just talking about the weather, shall we write off the millions who don't live near the coast?]

No, I was talking about the weather. It's much cooler in places like Palo Alto than it is in San Bernardino. Insofar as high housing costs in Palo Alto push people to live further inland, that's a problem. Of course many people might prefer to live in, say, Fremont, for non-housing reasons, and that's fine. But I think if there were a lesser differential for housing costs, many more people would live in Palo Alto or Mountain View or Redwood City, which would bring about other benefits -- such as higher economic productivity, lesser commute times, and greater environmental sustainability.

And the economic vitality of the Bay Area -- and, to a lesser degree, L.A. -- means it's paradoxical that so many people should be leaving California. And, again, that's due to housing costs -- which are traceable to cities' overregulation of new housing, particularly in the South Bay.

[Class_of_75]

[quote author=Class_of_75 link=topic=10167.msg91867#msg91867 date=1404342943]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10167.msg91861#msg91861 date=1404340665]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.
[/quote]

Mt reference to a Japenese market was to a poster on this thread (you? :) who said they wouldn't live anywhere without a Japanese market.  My point wasn't that it is elitist, but probably offers healthy items which my hypothetical working couple wouldn't have time to take advantage of.  No offense intended.

AND i agree owning a Ferrari seems fairly elistist.  I reallt wouldn't know as I have never owned one.
[/quote]Yup, I was the poster. I am of Japanese heritage, so it's natural for me to crave Japanese food. :) No offense taken.

[Class_of_75]

[quote author=Class_of_75 link=topic=10167.msg91867#msg91867 date=1404342943]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=10167.msg91861#msg91861 date=1404340665]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.
[/quote]

Mt reference to a Japenese market was to a poster on this thread (you? :) who said they wouldn't live anywhere without a Japanese market.  My point wasn't that it is elitist, but probably offers healthy items which my hypothetical working couple wouldn't have time to take advantage of.  No offense intended.

AND i agree owning a Ferrari seems fairly elistist.  I reallt wouldn't know as I have never owned one.
[/quote]Yup, I was the poster. I am of Japanese heritage, so it's natural for me to crave Japanese food. :) No offense taken.

[washingtonismoney]

As long as we remain a free market economy there is no way to reduce that differential and I am sure you know that.  It is physically impossible to build enough affordable housing in Palo Alto, or Malibu, to reduce the differential without destroying the place, in which case no one would choose to live there.  What is your proposed solution?

On the contrary -- I think if we became a free-market economy with respect to housing, we'd reduce the differential. If University Ave were leveled in an earthquake tomorrow, it'd probably be illegal to reconstruct it in the exact same form. Why? A number of things, including minimum parking requirements and other zoning laws.

And I think people underestimate the amount of density you can generate from simply building a little bit higher. Paris and Barcelona, for example, are very dense cities -- but are certainly aesthetically charming and don't exactly have a ton of skyscrapers.

If you built, say, the Sunset neighborhood at Mission district density, you'd have a ton more housing -- and no one would exactly cry about the fabric of San Francisco being ripped asunder.

[washingtonismoney]

As long as we remain a free market economy there is no way to reduce that differential and I am sure you know that.  It is physically impossible to build enough affordable housing in Palo Alto, or Malibu, to reduce the differential without destroying the place, in which case no one would choose to live there.  What is your proposed solution?

On the contrary -- I think if we became a free-market economy with respect to housing, we'd reduce the differential. If University Ave were leveled in an earthquake tomorrow, it'd probably be illegal to reconstruct it in the exact same form. Why? A number of things, including minimum parking requirements and other zoning laws.

And I think people underestimate the amount of density you can generate from simply building a little bit higher. Paris and Barcelona, for example, are very dense cities -- but are certainly aesthetically charming and don't exactly have a ton of skyscrapers.

If you built, say, the Sunset neighborhood at Mission district density, you'd have a ton more housing -- and no one would exactly cry about the fabric of San Francisco being ripped asunder.