California’s demography is at odds with the old California Dream
economist.com
economist.com
> "the state’s demography is now at odds with Californians’ sense of their home state as “a place where we can play in the sun” (to quote the Beach Boys)."
> As a result, California has lost a component of its former diversity: the sense that it is a place where people from all over America come to make good.
> Yet if the state is ethnically more diverse, it is less of a melting pot in a different way: it used to be a place where everyone came from somewhere else.
What is up with these statements? They list demographic changes as though they are a crushing blow to California's sense of self.
> Another sign is that half the states’ foreign-born immigrants are citizens, the highest share for 40 years.
This is a problem? What a strange metrics to pull out.
> Perhaps you have to be rich and educated to move to California.
"California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see;"
"But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot"
"If you ain't got the do re mi."
-- Woody Guthrie, 1937
Most of California's problems are Popular Place Problems™. Seeing it become marginally less popular as a result seems more like part of natural limiting mechanisms than it does a major sign of worry.
But it does worry me that a lot of places seem to think of the issues as "California" problems rather than problems with underlying dynamics that could just as show up where they are, as soon as they become a Popular Place.
South Park stopped at EV owners sniffing their own farts. I think the techbro fantasy and the return of arts from Portland to LA has driven another shift in the story.
Snowbirds from Canada are another kind of California Dream.
Any good readings on this?
Most states have more slightly more sane zoning so would be less badly hit by most of the problems that directly result from California’s extreme form of NIMBYism.
A good chunk of the rest of America is used to being rural, semi-rural, or suburban. Especially places that saw most of their growth since automobiles became household near-essentials. Those places tends towards single family residential zoning too and are either seeing California-like sprawl or California-like price increases. Especially to the degree that market dynamics involve as much asset-first treatment of real estate as housing-first treatment.
But I'd certainly love to hear about places that represent successful exceptions. Especially if they beat certain dynamics where construction also naturally follows demand (capital usually prefers to follow demand rather than lead it).
National rate of single family zoning is about 75%. LA county was, up until recently, around that (which doesn't tell the whole story considering how big and geographically diverse LA county is with cores of high density and more pockets of mid), and that's probably more or less true across the state.
You want to see somewhere that's outlier bad that's experiencing a housing crisis? Pick somewhere like Utah, big growth and waaay too few units on the market, prices almost tripling in the last 5 years, you'll see 80-90% single family zoning in Salt Lake County, and that's the most urban place in the whole state.
And this is a less relevant topic in California since the state basically ended single family zoning a year ago.
You can argue it should have gotten on top of that years ago and there's probably a case for that. But AFAICT no place does. People like single family homes, places try to hold on to that vision until they encounter the problems of popularity and density as they come.
Many states that are both more and less "popular" than CA have lower high school graduation rates than CA. Places like Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, Louisiana, Maryland, Alaska.
The GP was clearly talking about problems like housing unaffordability, traffic, displacement, water scarcity, etc.
1. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_226.60.a...
I grew up in NorCal, and I had the same reaction. That said, I’m in the NYC metro area now and there is a California dream here, and it always starts with the ‘better’, sunnier and warmer weather.
https://ebudget.ca.gov/2022-23/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryChar...
I'm confident that a significant percentage if not a majority of California parents would prefer to get a $15,000 tax credit per school age child per year than the education the public school system is offering. For a family of four, that's an additional $30,000 in after tax money. That's enough to be a single income household even in California.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_fltable06_t...
You really think CA can't "afford" to spend largesse on its citizens?
Do you think the evil masterminds in the fed don't want CA to spend money? because its enough of the US economy at scale, what CA does, ultimately affects the USD overall.
Where I live, the states accrue a lot of public sector debt, and nobody cares. Qld is carrying $105b of debt, rising to $125b by 2025. This is outside of federal public sector debt, theres a huge royalty income, and state tax raising powers as well as a GST/VAT national settlement, so its pretty well understood income exists to cover the debt.
In broad strokes there are a bunch of things to weigh:
- California's got an incredibly powerful initiative process (e.g. Prop 13, both Prop 8s)
- Prop 13 capped one of the main sources of tax income (property tax) and made it significantly more difficult to raise taxes at both the state and local level by requiring a 2/3 majority.
- California is no stranger to issuing debt (and unlike Texas we're not antagonizing the banks that underwite the bonds), and I believe bonds only require a simple majority at the ballot box. Look at Washington state if you want to see absolute fucking lunacy with bonds.
- California is not immune to recession
- To avoid raising taxes initiatives often promise things for free by carving things out of the general fund
- As a strong proponent of public schools: California public schools are an absolute cluster fuck worthy of a few epics. Prop 98 forbids reducing the funding for K-12 schools even as revenue declines. So spending 25% of your budget on K-12 schools doesn't seem bad, but if revenue falls that dollar amount is not allowed to shrink. The two university systems are unfathomably top heavy – to everyone's detriment.
Even if you could get 2/3 of all California voters to agree to raise taxes, it's going to be earmarked for something. And that's how you get death by a thousand cuts. Use fees, special tax districts (and all of their associated overhead), etc. It's how you get random taxes to pay for unrelated things.
For instance, Schwarzenegger cut the vehicle registration fee (sounds reasonable, right?). To make up for that he doubled tuition at community colleges (note: at that point California public unis/colleges weren't allowed to charge tuition so it was simply called a "fee").
More than addicted, which it is, it is, (and I love that about it), it's adapted to the boom-bust cycle. So people just aren't as impressed with eg billionaires there, different attitude, like it could be me who is the billionaire and you who is a minimum-wage earner. And it can flip in one generation, they're not big into "prominent families" in Silicon Valley, like you have to be a multibillionaire to be prominent, I suppose it's more of a country club thing where it comes into play if that. Plus, it's a badge of honor to have arrived with nothing and turn nothing into billions, in Chile no, new money is not the same (though that's changing). But in Silicon Valley, the new money is the big money, old money is big money from one generation ago, never heard the expression there in fact.
Like you can't sit out the boom/bust cycle, you gotta be in the boom every boom if you want to stay relevant.
A far more standard discount rate of 7% results in a debt of $310B.
There are several comments in this thread already with this general vibe. As a CA resident, I definitely don't disagree, but I travel a lot in the US and outside it, and have done so for most of my life (immigrated here fairly young), and I'm really confident when I say that, in terms of infrastructure and general urban/suburban aesthetics, the US has gone from "fairly bad for a developed country" to "complete shithole" pretty quickly in the last ~20 years. (My experience is mostly with larger urban areas, for context, so maybe rural USA doesn't feel as much like Mad Max.)
Every time I come back to the US, as soon as I deplane into the (inevitable) 65 year-old airport with low popcorn ceilings and stained carpeting, I sense it more and more. If I'm coming back from another 1st-world country, it's like "this feels like Guatemala", and if I'm coming back from Guatemala, it's like "this feels like Guatemala". (No hate on Guatemala btw it's an incredible place with incredible people, but it's very poor (thanks in large part to US but that's another hot take for another thread).) This is an anonymous internet comment on an emotional issue so maybe I'm like 10% exaggerating here, but mostly not.
And areas with the highest levels of migration tend to be magnets strictly on the basis that they do have more vibrant economies.
The fact that the US saw massive growth in the decades following WWII, and that much of that building stock and infrastructure were built quickly and cheaply, or are just simply old, also contributes. 40--60 year infrastructure, particularly where weather is a factor --- freeze-thaw cycles, salt, and moisture especially --- can beat the heck out of virtually anything surprisingly quickly.
It's also news to me that a generalised opposition to government and community investment is an ideology especially acquired from immigrants, unless you're referring to, say, the Murdoch family.
That is an amusingly low standard.
I lived in the south, primarily in Texas and Georgia, but I spent a lot of time in Tennessee and Alabama and Louisiana, too, and I'll pass, pass, pass, pass, and pass on all of those places, too.
So, out of the 9 states in this country that I've personally spent significant time in, in many cases living in these states for years of my life: California is the only one I'm willing to put down roots in because I have a minority wife.
Baltimore is a low standard but you could trip over the fucking bar in this country.
It sounds like you've spent time in areas that tend to be more racist than others, particularly the south. I'm sure you and your wife would have different experiences in the northeast, northwest, north midwest, or even Colorado. California will certainly be better than the south too, but it seems like the places you've been aren't generally the most welcoming to whom they deem as outsiders (non white).
It sounds like they have a pretty solid take on good destinations as a minority, since they have experienced quite a bit that they would still see in the areas you mentioned.
By the way, people fly confederate flags in the northwest too!
Prop 47 was another issue. Crime, especially in the Bay Area because much more significant.
Then housing — not much needs to be said there.
And taxes. And gas prices. For those attempting to start a business such as a restaurant, the permitting process is insane. Can take a year. In my suburban Texas county permits take about two weeks.
And car registration. My 2017 Audi cost over $750 for the 2020 registration. In Texas? $74.50.
I didn’t live in San Francisco (was in Mountain View,) but the school board there lost their ever-loving minds. Renaming George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Muir, Robert Louis Stevenson, and others because of “wokeness.” Not to mention the anti-Asian initiatives to degrade admission standards to the selective schools.
Then there’s the anti-lead propaganda being used to close Reid-Hillview airport so Santa Clara County can get ultra rich selling the land to developers while simultaneously protecting Coyote Valley as open space, despite it being literally nothing but farmland — instead of using that land for housing. Supervisor Cindy Chavez is one of the most corrupt politicians in the area with multiple conflicts of interests with area non-profits.
I am sure California is better off without my tax dollars and my politics. I am certain not a single person was sad to see me leave.
Fun fact, my household move to Texas from California cost about $18k for the moving company. If I were doing the same trip I’m reverse, it would have cost $5000. The exodus was real.
Things I miss: Palo Alto Airport, the weather, flying my airplane to Half Moon Bay. Heading over to Mariposa-Yosemite. Hoping down to LA to eat at Carney’s. And despite Silicon Valley being a relatively unfriendly place, there are some really nice people mixed in with the Tesla bros and startup douches.
Edit: grammar
Meanwhile SFPD busted a few of its cops for tossing drug evidence[2] instead of arresting the suspect, but somehow Prop 47 is the problem.
> Then there’s the anti-lead propaganda
I, for one, am kind of enjoying this "exodus".
1: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri...
2: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFPD-cops-allegedly-d...
We've tried the alt right approach and passed the most draconian three strikes law in the country. The result was a prison system that was so overcrowded we had to export prisoners to other states. That's not a tenable solution in the slightest. The (nonpartisan) state Legislative Analyst's Office published a comprehensive review of the consequences of Prop 36.
Lock up all the undesirables works great until you run out of room to keep them warehoused. We ran out of space.
I'm not saying it's the dominant factor. I'm not saying it's a big problem for the whole state. It definitely added to SF's long list of problems though.
No, spouting off unhinged alt right conspiracy theories gets you labeled alt right. That's how it works. Things like "anti-Asian initiatives", "covid extremism", "anti-lead propaganda" or whinging about how raising the felony threshold to keep pace with inflation is the cause of "all the crime".
> accused them of being "alt-right" because they didn't share your opinion
No, I didn't. Look. I couldn't possibly give two fucks about whether or not some random HN user agrees with me or not. Trafficking in alt right conspiracy theories and other alt right nonsense warrants the label alt right. Blaming Prop 47 for California's ills is an alt right talking point.
As someone who's also studied California politics in an academic setting, attempting to lay blame at its feet is objectively ignorant and completely lacking in nuance (at best). At worst it's disingenuous.
As a San Francisco native and lifelong Bay Area resident I've followed the airport thing a bit and aside from the sheer ridiculousness of calling something "anti-lead propaganda" it's a gross mischaracterization of what's actually going on. Ars had a decent writeup, but it's not clickbaity enough to end up at HN.
The only part of your comment anyone needs to read.
My only real issue with Cali is the insane capital gains tax which is why I cashed out most of my gains before becoming a California resident. Now that I'm here my salary went up by 1.6x.
I work remote so the gas prices don't bother me. Car registration is a write off so it's really 66% of what it actually is.
I could have retired at 34 almost anywhere else in the country but decided I'd rather ride the tech salary bubble for another 5-10 years in a place where the jobs are super plentiful.
I don't really mind what this article is saying. Just means less traffic. When the bullet train from LA to SF is complete in 10 years I'll be able to get to SF in 3-4 hours.
The thing I learned about living on both coasts and Hawaii is that corruption exists everywhere. You'll never escape it. The people that go into politics are largely grifter psychopaths and you'll never escape that.
In many ways living in Cali lets me completely ignore politics because my vote on a national level is largely irrelevant.
If you care about taxes so much why did you pay 18k to move instead of just renting a UHaul for a fraction of the cost and driving yourself? I mean jeez my 300 cubic foot container from the east coast to Hawaii was only 4.5k.
For the record my withholding on a W-2 went from 29% to 33%. All in all with the salary bump I don't even care about the slightly higher taxes. My healthcare plan here is already better (lower deductible for same price) and from what I can tell unemployment in California is better so if I do lose my job or something happens I feel like I get a better safety net. I really don't know what you're talking about as far as infrastructure goes. The state is the only place in the country building new train lines right now as I type this.
You should see some of the bridges in Philly. They are falling apart.
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/wasapp/FeeCalculatorWeb/vlfForm.do
If you're a high-income taxpayer, you might also just hit the $10k SALT cap from other taxes alone, making the effective benefit 0.
Also, this is probably dwarfed by amount you actually paid for the car (amortized over its lifetime), plus the amount you pay for insurance.
I also saved money buying my car in Hawaii and shipping it over. But that's only possible if you can live there for a year to avoid the California penalty. Hawaii car sales tax is only 4% and Cali is 10%. If you buy a car from out of state and try to register it in less than 1 year from purchase Cali will ding you on the difference.
But there are ton of other ways I'm saving money. Weed is so much less expensive that I've already saved hundreds on that alone. I used to travel to escape the cold in the winter and now I no longer do that. Heating and cooling a home on the east coast uses a lot more energy year round than what my bill has been here thus far here in Ventura county.
When I lived in Philadelphia no matter how hard I tried to avoid it every once in a while I'd still get dinged by a parking ticket or even once got towed just cause the sign that was up didn't make sense. Although I know that's an LA problem too. Being able to not live in a city anymore is also saving me some cash over all.
Dynamism goes down as the median age increases. This shouldn’t be surprising for anyone following California’s demographics.
> The place has a much different, more ossified feel to it than it did seven years ago.
Paul Flaherty, alt.folklore.computers, March 11, 1993, "Re: Sillycon Valley history" (Message-ID: <paulf.731874319@abercrombie.Stanford.EDU>)
This defense hides the fact that people are still believing the falsehoods and instead of introspecting, they're not even believing the facts presented in the article. The first comment on top is an ad-hominem attack on the credibility of the Economist instead of its substance.
We need to take a hard look at what went wrong.
Imagine if we're a team trying to do a post-mortem of an outage in our company. We'd dig into what the real root cause is. Here, Californians like myself are fed up with decline and all you see is people getting into tribal "Us vs Them (Texans)" game. That's what I see on HN.
I don't think that'll ever be possible in California.
By what metrics?