It doesn't make any sense because the "bleeding" that is such a big meme for the nation's conservatives considers only domestic out-migration. The reason there is so much of it is because a lot of Americans can't compete economically with international elites who have been flooding into California. Net domestic migration has been negative in California since 1991, with the exception of the year 2000. Net foreign migration, and net overall migration, has never been negative in recorded history.

> because a lot of Americans can't compete economically

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).

True, my statement incorporates facts not in evidence. Net domestic migration to California is positive for high educational attainment (bachelors and higher) and positive for high incomes (50k/year+). It's negative for low educational and lower incomes. Basically the state attracts high earners and refuses to build housing, so someone has to leave. That's the competition.

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.

It makes no sense because your logic makes an assumption that is never stated and never occurs.