http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&#...
Quite an exodus we have got here. In fact not only is California the most populous state by far, its population is rising steadily and showing absolutely no sign of slowing down.
The rest of the WSJ article is just the usual half-witted raving against regulation and environmental initiatives.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf
Net migration data from 1995 to 2000 for California:
Inmigration: 1,448,964. Outmigration: 2,202,500. Net migration: -755,536.
Note that it is titled "The Great California Exodus". Sorry but you cannot say that a state that is steadily gaining in population is suffering a great exodus.
Then they imply that this great exodus is evidence of some kind of dysfunction. Sorry but it is utterly normal for a state that is getting more populous and more crowded every year to have out migration.
So perhaps if taken in a very limited interpretation the statistics they made in the article are correct, but if you use that same limited interpretation those statistics do not support any of the later conclusions or, more accurately, ravings of the article. Thus, the article is still misleading, or basically lying with statistics.
Just out of curiosity, would you say that a fictional state whose economy grows by $10B with exports of $5B and imports of $1B has a trade imbalance in favor of exports?
Sure you would, because in judging trade balance the relevant factors are imports and exports. You don't really care how much the economy grew in the same period.
Similarly, this article is discussing the migration status of California and attempting to explain the net outmigration with some conjecture. Countering by pointing out that the state's population has grown seems like an effort to shut down the argument by actively avoiding the data. It's not surprising that population growth by ever-increasing lifespans, birth, illegal immigration (NTTIAWWT), and other factors exceeds the shortfall caused by outmigration.
The way I see it, the article is attempting to explain the net outmigration with what are at least plausible conclusions, whether or not you agree with them. I'm interested in hearing your alternate explanation.
They have a very specific metric: "net migration to/from other states," and even for that I am not sure their data is correct.
Even if it is true, there is a much more logical explanation. Note that California is the most populous state in the nation, and is surrounded by many much less populous states. There is always a natural tendency for some people to go from populated areas to less populated areas. This is why America got settled in the first place for Pete's sake. Were the initial 13 colonies dysfunctional? No, but they got crowded and people started looking for opportunities elsewhere.
Naturally with higher population densities, real estate and certain other resources will be more expensive. Naturally, people that prefer to have more space will look for places where those things are cheaper. So there is a perfectly logical reason why 'some' people will tend to leave higher density states, not because they are dysfunctional but because they are higher density.
And since the WSJ statistics apparently include only 'some' people, than that is a much more logical explanation than assuming all kinds of dysfunctions.
You say, "There is always a natural tendency for some people to go from populated areas to less populated areas."
According to the 2007 data represented at the URL below (which I have not traced to its source, but I wouldn't be surprised if it too leverages Census data in some fashion), there does not seem to be much correlation between population and migration.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/17/u-s-migration-flow... (Warning: Flash required)
The greatest net outmigration is Alaska with a net migration of -60,000 and a population of 683,000. Meanwhile, many states with populations between 5M and 20M had net inmigration.
While it seems plausible that there could be a natural tendency to migrate from high population to low population; the reverse seems just as plausible. California had a relatively high population when it had net positive migration. Texas currently has a high population and a net positive migration.
It seems clear to me that more significant variables are at play than just a desire to switch density levels.
Are those causes dysfunctions? Maybe; I suppose it depends on what you consider dysfunctional. Another poster in this thread pointed out that California's Proposition 13 is a distorting influence. Is it dysfunctional? If you own property, you probably think Proposition 13 is a good thing. If you do not, you probably disagree.
Seems pretty consistent with California's population growth to me given how popular California is with immigrants from outside the U.S.