It’s not all peaches and cream in this fast growing city though. The tremendous growth results in colossal strain on traffic and infrastructure, but ownership of a large house with a yard is available to most people. That’s not such a big deal when you’re single, but it’s huge when you have kids. The demand for increased economic security likewise dramatically increases when you have kids.

California is growing in population though, but very slowly and without equivalent growth in wealth per capita. That is largely a result in personal wealth primarily tied to home ownership and home ownership declining generationally in California.

I take from your comment that you are less concerned with raw numbers and more concerned with vanity labels and trends. If you are a well funded founder perhaps California remains the place to be, but the numbers indicate it’s no longer the epicenter of economic growth that it certainly was in prior decades.

I don’t personally think it’s taxes, or any particular brand of politics (per se, as I know this is a political issue, I just mean relative to this), but that, in essence, that is destroying California slowly from the inside. Both Oregon and Washington are similar politically and Oregon is very close in taxes but they aren’t seeing any population outflows like this. I firmly believe it’s due to the issue of housing before any other factor.

I’m trying to gather more data to back my assertion but all personal experiences of people I know and others I’ve met who have moved have cited this as one of the major or the single biggest reason for having moved

Prop 13 is killing California, repealing it and replacing it with a Land Value Tax, in my opinion, would fix it.

Yes, exactly. I collect vanity labels and make little stickers out of them for my fridge. What a completely useless thing to say. You have no idea what my thoughts are based on one sentence and a half so keep your ad hominems to yourself please.

All you are saying is that California is way too expensive thus people are leaving. Yes, we all know that. Now, why are people unable to live in California? And how should it be fixed? Those are the real questions. And there are reasonable arguments to make for many different theories, which was my point above.

And yet:

> California is growing in population

So, N people move to California each year, and M move away for M < N, and of those T move to Texas for T < M, and this is "bleeding?"

I'm not a demographer but this makes no sense.

Could you please explain what you mean here?

That’s an assumption not directly based on numbers. Yes, the net in migration to California is largely from non-domestic people. That could be due to exactly the reason you provided, or it could also be the result of less movement freedom tied to visa sponsorship, or a variety of other factors. Many of my tech coworkers in Texas are non-citizens under visa sponsorship who, given the choice, have stated they prefer the Midwest due to a variety of economic conditions (not just cost of living).

Speaking of unsupported anecdotes, it makes sense that the people you meet in the middle of the country express a preference for being there. That's pure selection bias. In terms of revealed preference, the states that are getting more than their per-capita share of California out-migrants are Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington.

Not to detract from your overall comment, but that's only just under 2% year on year growth - that's pretty low for a city? (Not trying to imply that faster growth is good, just that you've framed it as rapid growth - a big exodus - and it's.. Not ?)

There are only 37 cities in the US greater than half a million people and only a tiny fraction of those grew by more than 20% over the last decade. The largest two of those are both in Texas and none are in California.

If a city is able to consistently grow at 2% per year it will only take 20 years and a few months to be 50% larger due to compound interest and only 35 years to double in size.

In this context, I care about trends that happen over the course of decades and labels that become popular in recognition of those trends. I don't know why you're bringing up "vanity".

And it's happening: people are fleeing the state.

"California likely to lose congressional seat for first time in history after 2020 Census. Californians moving out lead to cut in Golden State’s political clout."

"other states like Texas are expected to gain as many as three new seats"

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/03/california-lose-congr...

Poor people are leaving to other parts of the USA slower than rich people are moving in from other parts of the world; California has net in-migration despite net domestic out-migration. This is bad in terms of domestic political power, of course, but it's directly a consequence of economic success.

It has lower net growth than many other parts of the country, but that is not just a matter of migration but also the lower natural growth rate that usually accompanies greater wealth. And it's not one of the places actually shrinking because people are actually fleeing, not being displaced by richer people—there are a number of states where that is true, but CA isn't one of them.

I'm familiar with the statistics, the issue gets raised here every couple months or so. You and your friends from. Google aren’t the whole universe. Sure, some well-off people leave and some less well-off people move in, but that's not what is dominating the aggregate statistics.