> That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.
If you Google “California population”, you get a graph where Texas and California start at the same population in 1940, then you just see California absolutely booming vs the other, with a meteoritic rise in population. Finally, at the end, you see the boom taper off. If one were to just look at that graph, you’d think something like “no one goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”
Is any of that true? I have no idea; I've never been to California. But it's what a large percentage of the country believes about the Golden State.
We’re staying in-state though—Oakland is far from typical.
In the 1920s, Californians would complain about hobos hopping trains to LA and San Francisco (The Little Tramp stereotypes weren't completely baseless). This was when California was predominantly run by Republicans. During the Great Depression, California then attracted a bunch of jobless/destitute Okies and so on...
If the problem has existed for more than a hundred years, maybe it's not the politicians and residents enabling it. If California wants to get rid of its homeless problem, they need to change their weather (or get fixes on a national level, but with the current Republicans in place, probably changing the weather would be easier).
Er, what? You realise the federal government is currently controlled by Democrats, right?
But in the central valley where the majority of conservatives in California live, there are MUCH smaller cities, and therefore have fewer “people” problems by comparison. Sure, Fresno and Sacramento have some homeless problems, but those are usually crack and meth users in a particular part of town that everyone else knows should be avoided. The reality is, everywhere has some sort of problems that you’ll find if you look hard enough.
Having said that, I was one of the people who chose to leave California. I love California, and it will always be my home, but being a single father with two children making $140,000 a year in the Bay Area in 2016, I was barely making ends meet.
The rat race of the bay area, combined with high gas prices, combined with terrible traffic that extends 100 miles in any direction from San Francisco, it just stopped being worth it. So I left.
I know that I don’t represent everyone, but I’m one of the statistics that got “rounded off“.
Most years, California has had more net inbound (not gross) international migration than the national H-1B cap. You are greatly exaggerating the role of the H-1B in California stats.
> If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion.
Lots of California international immigration is family-based, often with sponsors who themselves immigrated and went through the whole process in CA.
My dad sponsored other members of our family to immigrate. They settled in New York City, because it’s a great place for immigrants without strong language skills and domestic networks to get menial jobs. But that doesn’t make it a great place. My cousin has a foreign master’s degree and works in food service. He’d be way better off doing the same job in North Carolina, where the low pay would go a lot further. But there’s not many Bangladeshis in Asheville who could help him get a job.
I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing. My family members that came here in more advantaged positions, e.g., getting a U.S. college degree, settled in places like Colorado and Texas. Those are the same places where native born Americans are going.
“Jobs that will sponsor immigrants” and “Jobs that will sponsor one particular class of dual-intent non-immigrant visa” are two very different things, so you are moving the goalposts, but still wrong.
> I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing.
Everyone non-white person I’ve known, immigrant or not, who has traveled from California to...almost any other part of the continental US that isn’t another Pacific Coast or California-bordering state, or NYC or a couple other non-Southern East Coast metropolises—and especially to the Midwest or South—has said that about the other places compared to California, not California.
What you are saying is that California and New York are where the jobs are - hence the immigration. An H1B is equally valid in California and Tennessee.
You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or competitive in states with higher productivity. The out migration is simply a form of semi-retirement to a cheaper location with low economic activity. Just as expats retiring to Colombia doesn't make Colombia "better" than USA, migration out of California to other states can be discounted.
This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary. 2nd generation immigrants also face constraints , primarily monetary. Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home, not because they love the politics or the electricity grid or the weather.
IMHO, it is best to not add any nuance when numbers give u a fairly unbiased picture.
That formulation still makes California sound shitty!
> This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary
No, it avoids distorting the picture. Second generation immigrants and other native born Americans have much more freedom to go where they want, so their choices are more probative. First generation immigrants by contrast face a very restricted set of choices driven by immigration considerations.
> Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home
That’s exactly the conservative critique of California. It’s laws make housing expensive. Add to that crime and school boards more focused on taking Lincoln’s name off buildings than opening up and teaching kids in person. All that sucks for middle class people. And that critique isn’t rebutted by pointing out California has industries that suck in massive numbers of immigrants. In fact it’s the exact opposite. For a middle class person, it’s better not to have a small segment of the population making $750,000/year.
This is simply running around in circles. Privileging 2nd generation immigrants over the first generation cannot be framed as avoiding distortion. I have never heard some one say that they moved into California because they were constrained by language barriers. Virtually everyone moves here for economic opportunity. The ones that move out are the ones who want a large single family home with a large backyard. This is what they find fulfilling and a sign of accomplishment in their life. 1st generation immigrants don't have that kind of baggage. This also explains the hatred that a lot of these smaller towns have when Californians move there. Because they bring the fuckton of money that they earned in California and amp up the price of real estate in the area and gentrify it.
Maybe, we should discount the outflow out of CA/NYC because other states don't appreciate the CA money that disturbs the economic balance there. There are several cuts that can be made if we want to "remove distortion" from hundreds of different POVs.
Favoring 2nd gen over 1st gen is not a viable position. It easily falls apart.
The specific law that does that is championed and defended by conservatives, who keep successfully scaremongering every attempt to even tweak it.
So, that critique is pretty hollow.
On paper this is an exceedingly productive population, and represents 25% of California.
[1] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigran...
It is true that most American states are unable to attract immigrants. However, they do reap the benefits from the powerhouse states that keep America competitive in the global economic sphere.
> People don’t choose where they’re born.
To varying degrees people choose to have children.
https://insights.dice.com/2020/10/27/h-1b-policy-how-trump-a...
I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and quite a few people in my family moved to NYC. It has lots of support for people with limited English skills, lots of service jobs, etc. But they moved to Long Island as soon as they got their feet under them. It was a proud moment for them when they made the move!
I also wouldn’t count births or deaths. People don’t choose where they’re born. The exodus theory is generally supported by reference to “net internal migration.” (People coming from other states minus people moving to other states.) That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.