Aaron747 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

North County SAN, pretty nice place, he’ll build in the Hill Country and mostly just roll over one house to another. He has business, Cali capital gains taxes are 13.3% as regular income vs. zero tax in Texas. He’s not Musk, but saving half a million when he sells out ain’t nothing. Plus no estate taxes. Yes, he’ll save on property taxes, as it’s currently estimated. Loads of friends have done the east coast equivalent—SC, FL TN—and are amazed at the cost reductions.

Nothing wrong with Cali, if you earn $500,000 to $1 million, don’t mind the regulations (no more plastic spoons, ketchup packets is the latest idiocy); or paying taxes. Horses for courses.

Every deal has a buyer and a seller, both think they’re making the right decision. Nice feature about markets, that.

Nothing wrong with it for friends and family earning $90K+...no need for $500K, that’s just more tax. Everyone in my circle welcomed the ban on plastic spoons, and I haven’t even used a ketchup packet since I was 19 or 20. If we need any there’s some at home.

I wouldn’t trade $$ for loss of QOL in the three states mentioned - TN is landlocked and that’s a nonstarter for anyone who grew up on the coast. FL is a humid swamp, not a single mountain in sight, and not much to look at flying GA. Only likable point are the cute critters like gators and caimans. SC is nice, had some enjoyable family trips there, and CHS is charming as hell. But for a west coaster there’s just something wrong with the sun not setting in the ocean.

For a CA native, it’s a tall order to replace 14 national parks/monuments, national seashores, top flight museums, the diverse array of forest, desert, alpine wilderness, all on offer. And the splendor of the great northwest and southwest a day’s drive away.

At the end of the day people should live where they want to live, though it's pretty clear that some people are penny-wise, pound foolish, and miss the forest for the trees. Further, selling out and moving to a cheaper state for the later stages in life is nothing novel or clever -- New Yorkers have been doing it for decades. Getting bent out of shape about the type of spoon you're allowed to use to me is a bit short sighted, particularly when the biodegradable utensils are just as sturdy. If you've ever lived in a coastal area and watched plastic bags and other nonbiodegradable garbage wash up on shore, you might think twice about it.

The US really needs to work at dispersing 'winner cities'. I gather that Austin, Denver, Pittsburg, Santa Fe could be on the edge of that transition. I was disappointed that Tesla moved to Austin. Austin does not need a major blue collar boost, but Tulsa OK does. Also has really great RR connections, potential wind power, and OK domestic air service. An economics academic wrote about the problem of 'winner cities', me and family have enjoyed all the advantages of these, but the US needs to produce more winners. Winners typically have some potentially great universities or research centers, some claim to being a transportation hub, sports, museums, and other cultural attractions*. State government along with corporations, the feds, and others can make it happen.

* odd correlations: usually a vibrant gay presence, rural areas, dependent upon the tax largesse resent the success of the big city. Both of these have major political consequences.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The US really needs to work at dispersing 'winner cities'. I gather that Austin, Denver, Pittsburg, Santa Fe could be on the edge of that transition. I was disappointed that Tesla moved to Austin. Austin does not need a major blue collar boost, but Tulsa OK does. Also has really great RR connections, potential wind power, and OK domestic air service. An economics academic wrote about the problem of 'winner cities', me and family have enjoyed all the advantages of these, but the US needs to produce more winners. Winners typically have some potentially great universities or research centers, some claim to being a transportation hub, sports, museums, and other cultural attractions*. State government along with corporations, the feds, and others can make it happen.

* odd correlations: usually a vibrant gay presence, rural areas, dependent upon the tax largesse resent the success of the big city. Both of these have major political consequences.

A lot of that is dependent on state and local government. Austin has UT which has a well-renowned research culture. A company such as Tesla will certainly benefit from that talent pool. At the same time, Austin has a decades long (liberal) reputation as a fun place to live with a lot of diversity. Tulsa...does not. In spite of all the rhetoric, both philosophies tend to work together to create those places.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The US really needs to work at dispersing 'winner cities'. I gather that Austin, Denver, Pittsburg, Santa Fe could be on the edge of that transition. I was disappointed that Tesla moved to Austin. Austin does not need a major blue collar boost, but Tulsa OK does. Also has really great RR connections, potential wind power, and OK domestic air service. An economics academic wrote about the problem of 'winner cities', me and family have enjoyed all the advantages of these, but the US needs to produce more winners. Winners typically have some potentially great universities or research centers, some claim to being a transportation hub, sports, museums, and other cultural attractions*. State government along with corporations, the feds, and others can make it happen.

* odd correlations: usually a vibrant gay presence, rural areas, dependent upon the tax largesse resent the success of the big city. Both of these have major political consequences.

Tesla didn't move to Austin. They just moved their corporate offices there. The car is still made in CA. So the blue collar thing isn't really accurate. Nothing against OK but Austin is one of the most growing cities and has a much nicer quality of life. Tulsa won't appeal to young people as good as Austin does.

Off topic but Tesla is paying a majority of blue collar workers well under $40 a year. That is not enough money to live well in Austin.

NIKV69 wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

The US really needs to work at dispersing 'winner cities'. I gather that Austin, Denver, Pittsburg, Santa Fe could be on the edge of that transition. I was disappointed that Tesla moved to Austin. Austin does not need a major blue collar boost, but Tulsa OK does. Also has really great RR connections, potential wind power, and OK domestic air service. An economics academic wrote about the problem of 'winner cities', me and family have enjoyed all the advantages of these, but the US needs to produce more winners. Winners typically have some potentially great universities or research centers, some claim to being a transportation hub, sports, museums, and other cultural attractions*. State government along with corporations, the feds, and others can make it happen.

* odd correlations: usually a vibrant gay presence, rural areas, dependent upon the tax largesse resent the success of the big city. Both of these have major political consequences.

Tesla didn't move to Austin. They just moved their corporate offices there. The car is still made in CA. So the blue collar thing isn't really accurate. Nothing against OK but Austin is one of the most growing cities and has a much nicer quality of life. Tulsa won't appeal to young people as good as Austin does.

They are building are large factory to the south of Austin for vehicle production. Should ramp up in the next 18 months or so and is slated to produce the Y, the Truck (however many they will actually sell of those godawful looking things), the Semi, and 3's for the Eastern United States. Fremont will still be open and they're increasing capacity there in spite of the evils of California, and have a received a lot of state support in order to do it.

luckyone wrote:

seb146 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

If you separate retirees, that percentage is right around 100. Cheap states are cheap states for a reason.

Retirees still have to pay living expenses like heat, air, gas, electric as well as health care and transportation. There is a trade off. If someone gets, say, $1000 a month in Alabama vs. $1000 in Washington state but have to pay $900 for living expenses in Alabama vs. $500 in Washington, who is really doing better?

All this focus on the Bay Area and Southern California, there are many, many reasonably priced areas around California to live. Along 395, Modoc county, Siskiyou county, Trinity county. Not the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, but still California with lower cost of living. Same with Washington and Oregon.

Sequim has become a haven for retirees in Western Washington. Personally that sounds terrifying to me because there isn't a decent healthcare system that doesn't require a ferry or helicopter ride.

Pt. Angeles is a good size and does not require any of that. Besides, with all the military on that side of the Sound, there has to be a VA clinic or two, for the retirees who are veterans. Being in western Washington, I would imagine the hospital in Pt. Angeles is run by either Swedish or Harborview out of Seattle. Both are pretty good.

Basic health care does not have to be in a huge, fancy, shiny building. We have two clinics here on the south Oregon coast that are central to most of the population. We don't have to go to Eugene or Portland for basic health care. There is even a cancer treatment center about 1.5 hours drive.

seb146 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Retirees still have to pay living expenses like heat, air, gas, electric as well as health care and transportation. There is a trade off. If someone gets, say, $1000 a month in Alabama vs. $1000 in Washington state but have to pay $900 for living expenses in Alabama vs. $500 in Washington, who is really doing better?

All this focus on the Bay Area and Southern California, there are many, many reasonably priced areas around California to live. Along 395, Modoc county, Siskiyou county, Trinity county. Not the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, but still California with lower cost of living. Same with Washington and Oregon.

Sequim has become a haven for retirees in Western Washington. Personally that sounds terrifying to me because there isn't a decent healthcare system that doesn't require a ferry or helicopter ride.

Pt. Angeles is a good size and does not require any of that. Besides, with all the military on that side of the Sound, there has to be a VA clinic or two, for the retirees who are veterans. Being in western Washington, I would imagine the hospital in Pt. Angeles is run by either Swedish or Harborview out of Seattle. Both are pretty good.

Basic health care does not have to be in a huge, fancy, shiny building. We have two clinics here on the south Oregon coast that are central to most of the population. We don't have to go to Eugene or Portland for basic health care. There is even a cancer treatment center about 1.5 hours drive.

It has nothing to do with being shiny, but rather providing services for people who actually get sick, which happens more frequently in the elderly and retired population. Basic care on the Peninsula (and Kitsap County for that matter) is fine, but anything acute other than simple infections and those patients get transported to Seattle--I know, I used to work there for several years and cared for a lot of them. Transporting these patient's back home was often a logistical headache because their families are far away and many of their social circle in the area can't/won/t drive that far. Heck even getting somebody home to Vashon could be challenging. Also, 90 minutes each way is very hard on cancer patients. Port Angeles and Sequim are served by Olympic Medical Center, a Level III trauma center (ie low acuity) which is independent of any of the systems in Seattle. Harborview is administered by U Washington and yes offers very good care to the sickest patients in the WWAMI region. Swedish is its own system, technically owned by the Catholic Providence Health, and also in the Puget Sound is Virginia Mason which just merged/formed a "joint operation" with CHI Franciscan (VM had a significant presence in the northern and eastern burbs of Seattle, whereas CHI was more prominent in the South Sound, so merging them in theory created a more comprehensive reach for both, but in reality the pandemic would've sent VM otherwise into bankruptcy. VM offers top quality care. CHI...is known within the healthcare community to be rather mediocre, so it remains to be seen how that impacts what was once VM. Telecare and Multicare also have a fair presence in the area, but my point is the services aren't the same, and if I were retiring, it would absolutely affect my decision.

Port Angeles does have the North Olympic Peninsula Clinic, but other than primary care you're going to either Seattle or Tacoma.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

... but Tulsa OK does. Also has really great RR connections, potential wind power, and OK domestic air service.

I see what you did there. . .

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Off topic but Tesla is paying a majority of blue collar workers well under $40 a year. That is not enough money to live well in Austin.

First part is true. Second part, no, not really. If you cannot live well on $40/hr in Austin, it is time to put the bottle down. Most of that town's appeal is being cheap. Which it very much is compared to the cities this thread is about. Lose that, and it is more or less out of steam.

If they just renamed the place Tusla, I’m pretty sure Elon could be convinced.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

First part is true. Second part, no, not really. If you cannot live well on $40/hr in Austin, it is time to put the bottle down. Most of that town's appeal is being cheap. Which it very much is compared to the cities this thread is about. Lose that, and it is more or less out of steam.

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Aaron747 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

First part is true. Second part, no, not really. If you cannot live well on $40/hr in Austin, it is time to put the bottle down. Most of that town's appeal is being cheap. Which it very much is compared to the cities this thread is about. Lose that, and it is more or less out of steam.

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Austin is no longer cheap. What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

First part is true. Second part, no, not really. If you cannot live well on $40/hr in Austin, it is time to put the bottle down. Most of that town's appeal is being cheap. Which it very much is compared to the cities this thread is about. Lose that, and it is more or less out of steam.

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Austin is no longer cheap. What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

$1600 is still cheap compared to $2700 in San Jose or $2500 in LA.

Aaron747 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Austin is no longer cheap. What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

$1600 is still cheap compared to $2700 in San Jose or $2500 in LA.

True, but the rate that they're climbing suggests it isn't going to stay cheap forever, especially with the influx of money from other states into an area that doesn't have the greatest infrastructure to support it. Also the average cost of a house in Austin is appreciating much faster than the national average. I've been to Austin several times, traffic is dense and a lot of development is squeezed, and unlike Dallas, Houston, or even San Antonio the highway network isn't as conducive to all that development continuing to spread evenly around the city itself, which is going to further increase prices as people will start to pay more for better location perception. Boise is also experiencing this type of housing inflation.

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Austin is no longer cheap. What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

$1600 is still cheap compared to $2700 in San Jose or $2500 in LA.

True, but the rate that they're climbing suggests it isn't going to stay cheap forever, especially with the influx of money from other states into an area that doesn't have the greatest infrastructure to support it. Also the average cost of a house in Austin is appreciating much faster than the national average. I've been to Austin several times, traffic is dense and a lot of development is squeezed, and unlike Dallas, Houston, or even San Antonio the highway network isn't as conducive to all that development continuing to spread evenly around the city itself, which is going to further increase prices as people will start to pay more for better location perception. Boise is also experiencing this type of housing inflation.

Typical isn't it? These cities want to pat themselves on the back for luring people and businesses from elsewhere, and their leaders will boast of the increased revenues without having made the infrastructure improvements to ensure the growth can be accommodated. Rinse, repeat.

Aaron747 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

$1600 is still cheap compared to $2700 in San Jose or $2500 in LA.

True, but the rate that they're climbing suggests it isn't going to stay cheap forever, especially with the influx of money from other states into an area that doesn't have the greatest infrastructure to support it. Also the average cost of a house in Austin is appreciating much faster than the national average. I've been to Austin several times, traffic is dense and a lot of development is squeezed, and unlike Dallas, Houston, or even San Antonio the highway network isn't as conducive to all that development continuing to spread evenly around the city itself, which is going to further increase prices as people will start to pay more for better location perception. Boise is also experiencing this type of housing inflation.

Typical isn't it? These cities want to pat themselves on the back for luring people and businesses from elsewhere, and their leaders will boast of the increased revenues without having made the infrastructure improvements to ensure the growth can be accommodated. Rinse, repeat.

I'd say it depends on the place. Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix and the like have done well in that regard with their infrastructure, Seattle to a similar degree but it's geographically constrained which contributes to its notorious real estate market. Austin, Boise, parts of Florida, Charleston-- no. Small towns that are attracting a LOT of money for various reasons but the growth will result in a lot of complications. I was just looking at Bergstrom Airport, and trying to figure out just how much growth the place can support. To the North is a highway, and some type of mining, and the Tesla factory. To the south is the Travis County landfill. There's some land to the east of it, but I've no idea who owns it, and the runways are oriented North-South.

luckyone wrote:

Austin is no longer cheap.

Austin is very cheap.

luckyone wrote:

What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

Conservatives talking about home values mirrors how they talk about anything involving numbers. It is great for those who are into emotive extremes —the more crammed into a single sentence, the better— but seldom do any of their claims pass a 35,000ft test.

As this pertains to Austin's housing, it is wildly affordable to anyone coming in from CA. Or from NYC. Or DC. Or SEA. This is what always happens —irrespective a region's political leanings, though in this case, Austin is indeed resoundingly blue— when a city is far too small to diversify on the level that LA, NYC, DMV, Bay Are, etc, can. It seems attractive at first, but as I mentioned in a previous reply, it is good only for retirees or students willing to take on at least a few roommates.

TX can claim affordability because it has an appalling minimum wage and hides most of its taxation policies. Conservatives, being traditionally not skilled at understanding the implications of this, think this is of course fine. The fact that people get paid miserable wages compared to what is commonly found in CA also often gets lost in the brochure touting...

Aaron747 wrote:

Typical isn't it? These cities want to pat themselves on the back for luring people and businesses from elsewhere, and their leaders will boast of the increased revenues without having made the infrastructure improvements to ensure the growth can be accommodated. Rinse, repeat.

But realistically, how much should they invest? The industries the city is famous for —none in particular, just to be specific— are not big relative to their presence in other American cities. This pastiche works fine —for the time being anyway— for Austin, but it does not provide a lot of incentive for the city to invest in expansion. No one here can see into the future, but there are not a lot of good reasons to imagine Austin growing beyond another 5% or so.

On the plus side, for the same reasons, it probably will not shrink much —hard for a lot of little industries to fail all at once— so it will likely never endure the hardships that have befallen places like the Rust Belt in the past. So there is that. . .

luckyone wrote:

True, but the rate that they're climbing suggests it isn't going to stay cheap forever, especially with the influx of money from other states into an area that doesn't have the greatest infrastructure to support it. Also the average cost of a house in Austin is appreciating much faster than the national average.

That has been true for Vegas and Orlando at several times over the past two decades. Stats like that are pretty transient and do not indicate much outside of a fad in terms of national residential trends.

Aaron747 wrote:

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Yep. That amount for rent in LA means roommates, Paramount, or both.

NIKV69 wrote:

Nothing against OK but Austin is one of the most growing cities and has a much nicer quality of life.

Later this morning, I need to refill my ThermoSpa. During that time, I will have the fastest growing water supply in a very densely populated region. Alas, it is not an indicator that I will have more water than the Salton Sea by Tuesday. Unless you are an Oncologist, "Fastest Growing" is among the least useful metrics ever devised.

NIKV69 wrote:

Tulsa won't appeal to young people as good as Austin does.

In fairness, Tulsa also will not appeal to young people as good as a Cat Litter does. It is one of those places where you would need a good job related reason or family to move to over. I do not suspect the former as a major driving force.

luckyone wrote:

seb146 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Sequim has become a haven for retirees in Western Washington. Personally that sounds terrifying to me because there isn't a decent healthcare system that doesn't require a ferry or helicopter ride.

Pt. Angeles is a good size and does not require any of that. Besides, with all the military on that side of the Sound, there has to be a VA clinic or two, for the retirees who are veterans. Being in western Washington, I would imagine the hospital in Pt. Angeles is run by either Swedish or Harborview out of Seattle. Both are pretty good.

Basic health care does not have to be in a huge, fancy, shiny building. We have two clinics here on the south Oregon coast that are central to most of the population. We don't have to go to Eugene or Portland for basic health care. There is even a cancer treatment center about 1.5 hours drive.

It has nothing to do with being shiny, but rather providing services for people who actually get sick, which happens more frequently in the elderly and retired population. Basic care on the Peninsula (and Kitsap County for that matter) is fine, but anything acute other than simple infections and those patients get transported to Seattle--I know, I used to work there for several years and cared for a lot of them. Transporting these patient's back home was often a logistical headache because their families are far away and many of their social circle in the area can't/won/t drive that far. Heck even getting somebody home to Vashon could be challenging. Also, 90 minutes each way is very hard on cancer patients. Port Angeles and Sequim are served by Olympic Medical Center, a Level III trauma center (ie low acuity) which is independent of any of the systems in Seattle. Harborview is administered by U Washington and yes offers very good care to the sickest patients in the WWAMI region. Swedish is its own system, technically owned by the Catholic Providence Health, and also in the Puget Sound is Virginia Mason which just merged/formed a "joint operation" with CHI Franciscan (VM had a significant presence in the northern and eastern burbs of Seattle, whereas CHI was more prominent in the South Sound, so merging them in theory created a more comprehensive reach for both, but in reality the pandemic would've sent VM otherwise into bankruptcy. VM offers top quality care. CHI...is known within the healthcare community to be rather mediocre, so it remains to be seen how that impacts what was once VM. Telecare and Multicare also have a fair presence in the area, but my point is the services aren't the same, and if I were retiring, it would absolutely affect my decision.

Port Angeles does have the North Olympic Peninsula Clinic, but other than primary care you're going to either Seattle or Tacoma.

That's how it is anyway. If a person lives in a rural area, they will need to go to a large city for specialty care. If a retiree needs care for a chronic condition, they can move to a city where care is nearby. Or, they can move to a small town and get their chronic care from a city. In "left leaning" states, there are programs to help with the cost of transport and housing for appointments.

luckyone wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

First part is true. Second part, no, not really. If you cannot live well on $40/hr in Austin, it is time to put the bottle down. Most of that town's appeal is being cheap. Which it very much is compared to the cities this thread is about. Lose that, and it is more or less out of steam.

I couldn't understand that comment either. Average rent in Austin is $1600/month - making $40/hr, after taxes that rent is comfortably within the 1/3 of take home pay margin.

Austin is no longer cheap. What's funny is some of the talking heads cite that as an example of the success of conservative Texas probusiness policies. It's great that home values in Austin are through the roof! People are willing to pay more to live there! (The same is being said about Florida, and Arizona right now in particular). Then they turn around and complain about how expensive housing is in California and cite that as a failure of liberal policy. People are moving away because it's too expensive and that's because of liberals!

AUS really isn't all that cheap. Frankly, I know my spots in the Los Angeles Area where it's cheaper to go out to eat and drink. I lived there for a year and left because the COVID restrictions were so bad in TX and literally everything in the city was shut down not once but twice in 2020. However, what was much worse: the apartment complex was run by total crooks and would sneakily tuck in extra fees month-to-month so the rent wasn't actually the true amount of what I signed up for. Then they tried to come after me for an extra $900+ dollars for paint and maintenance when I moved out. I got real mouthy with them and they eventually gave up. Either that or the apartment complex no longer exists.

Why are people hesitant to leave CA? IMHO, California's economy really has bounced back post "Great Recession" and don't kid yourself, there are jobs here even now. And what comes with them are higher wages. Good luck making the same salary at a tech job in the Bay Area that you would in Austin. Culture is another consideration as there is a lot of discrimination in other states to people moving there with the common complaint that we're "ruining their culture." This was experienced to me when I lived in both Denver and Austin. Sorry folks, I hate to be an ass, but what culture? DEN had the most WASPY white bread culture I've ever experienced and AUS there really wasn't much outside of University of Texas & Live Music. I will say Austinites were a lot friendlier than Denverites overall though.

The other factor is some people are comfortable in CA and don't really have much of a reason to leave. Now that I'm back and took over a spot (after being a roommate for 6 months) in Redondo Beach and paying $925 a month for a room? This place is huge by comparison to what I had in AUS and DEN and I pay less. Not to mention all the people in the neighborhood who did move out in the Spring and threw a ton of nice furniture out out on the street (sofas, recliners, couches, coffee tables, TVs etc.) which I cleaned up and moved in for free. So I paid very little to furnish the common areas when the previous guy and his GF moved out sprang a quick move out on me and took most things.

With this new job at a higher wage, doing consulting on the side at a high hourly wage, and being 25 minutes walking distance to the beach, I don't see much of a reason to leave again. And most everyone I've met since I've been back has been absolutely more straightforward, laid back and friendlier to me than in Austin, Denver, or where I grew up in Northern NJ by comparison.

Another consideration is weather. DEN had the annoying snowstorms in October and April plus damaging hailstorms in the Spring and Summer. Austin had the creepy Tornado Warnings that would pop up on Spectrum cable *A LOT* and sometimes in the middle of the night. The South Bay has none of that aside a low end Carson-Based Earthquake which was a bit freaky a few months ago.

Another thing that sucks about Texas is infrastructure. At least L.A. seems to be getting it's s*** together for the Olympics. Austin's roads and signage were completely jacked up when I lived there in 2019.

Is it expensive to live in CA overall? Sure, but if you're complacent and can afford it, there isn't much of a reason to go if you ask me these days. I heard on the radio a few weeks ago that NY still has higher taxes overall than CA. I feel there is more of an exodus out there and in places like NJ and IL than CA. It's also not a good time to buy property in general right now with all the inflated construction costs (EG: plywood) but you can still find deals on renting if you look around out here.

You bring up some good points, but numbers don’t lie - the CA exodus is real (it’s estimated that nearly 90% of 2000s high school grads no longer reside here). People overwhelming leave because of either rent or housing affordability, or because they’re cashing in on the equity they built up in their homes. Conservative media would like people to believe it’s because they’re fed up with Democrats and liberally policies, but research shows that politics rarely play a significant role in the decision to leave.

And the housing supply issue is going to get worse. The Register recently reported that there’s so few housing projects in the works, that the average rent in OC is expected to increase by 33% over the next 3-4 years, crossing the $3K threshold. Which is a major problem - rents and housing prices in SoCal are expected to catch up to the Bay Area, but with a significantly smaller regional payroll.

Of course, Democratic policies do come into play. The states’ willingness to give Mei-Cal, CalFresh and other entitlement programs to illegals (many of which are earning $32K/year as the “primary care giver” to friends and family that are otherwise healthy) obviously attracts illegals. And wealthy Democrats continue to buy up the housing supply (about half the homes in LA County are owned by investors), and push for legislation that overrides local deed restrictions, enabling them to collect multiple rent checks from multiple families in single family homes. Some places like Tustin have already adapted this…. The streets are lined up with two rows of cars on each side, making it virtually impossible for delivery trucks, etc. to make it through. Sickening…

casinterest wrote:

There may not be a "Mass Exodus" from California. but it is not growing nearly as fast as the top 10 states and it's neighbors.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... e-map.html



Growth is accelerating in many states, and may skew results in years to come.

Wow, look at that mass exodus from San Juan though

L410Turbolet wrote:

What's the big deal about living in CA (unless one lives on the coast)?

Where are all the big cities?

stl07 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

There may not be a "Mass Exodus" from California. but it is not growing nearly as fast as the top 10 states and it's neighbors.

https://www.census.gov/library/visualiz ... e-map.html



Growth is accelerating in many states, and may skew results in years to come.

Wow, look at that mass exodus from San Juan though

I was thinking the same thing: might be a good time to invest in SJU or something...?

BTW: What is up with MN and NJ being higher in taxes than CA? CA is easily a better bet, wasn't expecting that at all.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

You bring up some good points, but numbers don’t lie - the CA exodus is real (it’s estimated that nearly 90% of 2000s high school grads no longer reside here). People overwhelming leave because of either rent or housing affordability, or because they’re cashing in on the equity they built up in their homes. Conservative media would like people to believe it’s because they’re fed up with Democrats and liberally policies, but research shows that politics rarely play a significant role in the decision to leave.

And the housing supply issue is going to get worse. The Register recently reported that there’s so few housing projects in the works, that the average rent in OC is expected to increase by 33% over the next 3-4 years, crossing the $3K threshold. Which is a major problem - rents and housing prices in SoCal are expected to catch up to the Bay Area, but with a significantly smaller regional payroll.

Of course, Democratic policies do come into play. The states’ willingness to give Mei-Cal, CalFresh and other entitlement programs to illegals (many of which are earning $32K/year as the “primary care giver” to friends and family that are otherwise healthy) obviously attracts illegals. And wealthy Democrats continue to buy up the housing supply (about half the homes in LA County are owned by investors), and push for legislation that overrides local deed restrictions, enabling them to collect multiple rent checks from multiple families in single family homes. Some places like Tustin have already adapted this…. The streets are lined up with two rows of cars on each side, making it virtually impossible for delivery trucks, etc. to make it through. Sickening…

If you're referring to me, I guess I'm a rare breed because I went to high school in NJ but college in CA. So there is obviously more loyalty for me out here than others. I have always found anywhere in Los Angeles to be a better deal than the NY/NJ/CT metro area(s) without breaking a sweat. However, there is there is such is a difference living between places like between Redondo Beach, Los Alamitos, Long Beach, Culver City, Echo Park, Rancho Park, Hollywood, Van Nuys etc. these days that it's all about the rent deal you land.

N649DL wrote:

Why are people hesitant to leave CA? IMHO, California's economy really has bounced back post "Great Recession" and don't kid yourself, there are jobs here even now. And what comes with them are higher wages. Good luck making the same salary at a tech job in the Bay Area that you would in Austin. Culture is another consideration as there is a lot of discrimination in other states to people moving there with the common complaint that we're "ruining their culture." This was experienced to me when I lived in both Denver and Austin. Sorry folks, I hate to be an ass, but what culture? DEN had the most WASPY white bread culture I've ever experienced and AUS there really wasn't much outside of University of Texas & Live Music. I will say Austinites were a lot friendlier than Denverites overall though.

Yeah, culturally, Austin is decent when it comes to shows and performances. There was a time when one could even start a promising entertainment career there too, so long as they were willing to eventually move to LA or NYC.

But yeah, apart from that, I found the place to be very Office Parky. This is not bad or anything, it just really is not the same place as CA, and certainly not enough so to trigger an exodus.

N649DL wrote:

The other factor is some people are comfortable in CA and don't really have much of a reason to leave. Now that I'm back and took over a spot (after being a roommate for 6 months) in Redondo Beach and paying $925 a month for a room? This place is huge by comparison to what I had in AUS and DEN and I pay less. Not to mention all the people in the neighborhood who did move out in the Spring and threw a ton of nice furniture out out on the street (sofas, recliners, couches, coffee tables, TVs etc.) which I cleaned up and moved in for free. So I paid very little to furnish the common areas when the previous guy and his GF moved out sprang a quick move out on me and took most things.

There are deals to be had, as I suspect there would be anywhere. But as with anywhere, I think that depends more upon who you know. Ditto with jobs. I will say that that is not that hard a thing to make work, however. As long as one is not a total ass, it is pretty amazing how far one can get here.

I will say it is interesting that you bring Redondo into the discussion WRT Austin comparison. I have lived here myself for the best part of six years now, after four more in Palos Verdes. And I have to say I do like it better here. South Bay is everything we need from a big city without being a big city.

N649DL wrote:

With this new job at a higher wage, doing consulting on the side at a high hourly wage, and being 25 minutes walking distance to the beach, I don't see much of a reason to leave again. And most everyone I've met since I've been back has been absolutely more straightforward, laid back and friendlier to me than in Austin, Denver, or where I grew up in Northern NJ by comparison.

That is also a thing. But I do feel that that is highly localized. I would not say the same for PV, for example. Austin is definitely friendlier than that.

N649DL wrote:

Another consideration is weather. DEN had the annoying snowstorms in October and April plus damaging hailstorms in the Spring and Summer. Austin had the creepy Tornado Warnings that would pop up on Spectrum cable *A LOT* and sometimes in the middle of the night. The South Bay has none of that aside a low end Carson-Based Earthquake which was a bit freaky a few months ago.

I thought a truck hit my house and was enormously disappointed to find it was only a 4 pointer.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

You bring up some good points, but numbers don’t lie - the CA exodus is real (it’s estimated that nearly 90% of 2000s high school grads no longer reside here). People overwhelming leave because of either rent or housing affordability

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Uh, you do realize that the exodus refers to domestic migration? All those middle class homes that were to be built at El Toro and the surrounding area (areas where housing was previously prohibited due to the base)… largely went to wealthy Chinese immigrants. And there’s no shortage of illegals arriving every day…

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Uh, you do realize that the exodus refers to domestic migration? All those middle class homes that were to be built at El Toro and the surrounding area (areas where housing was previously prohibited due to the base)… largely went to wealthy Chinese immigrants. And there’s no shortage of illegals arriving every day…

In some cases not even immigrants, just investors. In the Bay Area, there are several well known zip codes where valuable homes sit unoccupied long after cash purchases from abroad. It's not illegal to do so, but it definitely makes things worse.

Bringing illegals into the housing conversation is a bit of a misnomer. Three families crowding into one dwelling does not drive rents up, not to mention illegals can't qualify for many rentals even if they have decent income for obvious reasons.

Aaron747 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Uh, you do realize that the exodus refers to domestic migration? All those middle class homes that were to be built at El Toro and the surrounding area (areas where housing was previously prohibited due to the base)… largely went to wealthy Chinese immigrants. And there’s no shortage of illegals arriving every day…

In some cases not even immigrants, just investors. In the Bay Area, there are several well known zip codes where valuable homes sit unoccupied long after cash purchases from abroad. It's not illegal to do so, but it definitely makes things worse.

Bringing illegals into the housing conversation is a bit of a misnomer. Three families crowding into one dwelling does not drive rents up, not to mention illegals can't qualify for many rentals even if they have decent income for obvious reasons.

Illegal immigration is arguably the biggest contributor toward swelling rents and housing prices. Per LA Weekly, it’s estimated that about half the homes in LA County are owned by investors. Few American families are going to live amongst three households in s 1200 sq ft home in Carson, but for illegals, it’s better conditions than where they came from. Most investors buying homes in Carson, Huntington Park, Long Beach, etc. merely care that their tenants are making regular payments.

There was a piece in the LA Times about two years ago or so, in which one of the most liberal scholars at Berkeley said the single best move CA could do to temporarily solve the spike in rents / housing… is to cut off the benefits that attract illegals here to begin with.

Recent reports indicate that rents in SoCal are expected to climb 33% from 2019 levels within 3-4 years - making the average rent cross the $3K barrier. One of the driving reasons… was that during the last 4 years, the illegal population regressed, but since late last year, border apprehensions reached an all-time high. Between Sep 2020-2021, over 200K illegals were caught trying to get into CA from Mexico. Ouch.

Rents and housing in SoCal may catch the Bay Area, even though payrolls are much smaller. Double ouch.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Illegal immigration is arguably the biggest contributor toward swelling rents and housing prices.

Net change in housing supply is the definitely the biggest contributor. Next is proximity to marquee employers and transportation. After that, one can get into the weeds on all manner of drivers at the county, district, and block level. To your point - immigration would impact housing prices in Carson or Garden Grove, sure, but not Laguna Niguel or West Hollywood.

N626AA wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-03/austin-homes-hit-by-construction-delays-in-hot-housing-market

This problem is now hitting Texas, more specifically Austin.

It sure is! I have a friend who moved to Texas last month and is having a hard time finding a house.

I've lived in the AUS metroplex my whole life and just as I got to a point that I was comfortable enough to buy a house, the housing boom really took off this last year. Renting for now I hope things level off soon but I'm weary that will not happen for a while.

Good luck! Yeah, just like the auto industry problems since the 'rona, it seems like it's impacting everything.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nothing wrong with Cali, if you earn $500,000 to $1 million, don’t mind the regulations (no more plastic spoons, ketchup packets is the latest idiocy); or paying taxes. Horses for courses.

What happened with the ketchup packets in Cali?

Aaron747 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Illegal immigration is arguably the biggest contributor toward swelling rents and housing prices.

Net change in housing supply is the definitely the biggest contributor. Next is proximity to marquee employers and transportation. After that, one can get into the weeds on all manner of drivers at the county, district, and block level. To your point - immigration would impact housing prices in Carson or Garden Grove, sure, but not Laguna Niguel or West Hollywood.

No doubt the small growth in new housing is a contributor to swelling prices, but is it the driving reason? Home prices in working class communities like Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, heck even some parts of Santa Ana, have tripled since the Great Recession and sell for $1M. The payroll to support $1M single family homes isn’t there - these homes prices are being driven up by investors, who purchase the property and rent them out to multiple families (generally illegals since the prospects of two or three households living in a single family home are generally not appealing to US-born families). Why do you think there’s been so much push to pass legislation and referendums to override local and deed restrictions?

A lot of families have fled Anaheim, Fullerton, etc., selling high and moving to Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, etc., causing prices to increase there as well (limited supply).

Illegal immigration bears large responsibility in swelling rates; even the far left LA Times acknowledged this recently when it citied record boarding crossings as one of the primary reasons SoCal’s rents are swelling at record rates.

ItnStln wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nothing wrong with Cali, if you earn $500,000 to $1 million, don’t mind the regulations (no more plastic spoons, ketchup packets is the latest idiocy); or paying taxes. Horses for courses.

What happened with the ketchup packets in Cali?

New legislation now requires patrons to request plastic utensils and condiments, rather than having the establishments automatically include them. Most restaurants already required patrons to request condiments, but often automatically included plastic utensils, so it isn’t like it’s going to have much impact.

ItnStln wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Nothing wrong with Cali, if you earn $500,000 to $1 million, don’t mind the regulations (no more plastic spoons, ketchup packets is the latest idiocy); or paying taxes. Horses for courses.

What happened with the ketchup packets in Cali?

I just got steak and eggs with Uber Eats yesterday delivered in Redondo Beach to my house and there were ketchup packets delivered with it. I didn't even request them, so not sure where this is coming from.

If that's the case, then Uber Eats should stop asking how many hot sauce packets I want with my Taco Bell. I usually request at least half a dozen per order.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Why are people hesitant to leave CA? IMHO, California's economy really has bounced back post "Great Recession" and don't kid yourself, there are jobs here even now. And what comes with them are higher wages. Good luck making the same salary at a tech job in the Bay Area that you would in Austin. Culture is another consideration as there is a lot of discrimination in other states to people moving there with the common complaint that we're "ruining their culture." This was experienced to me when I lived in both Denver and Austin. Sorry folks, I hate to be an ass, but what culture? DEN had the most WASPY white bread culture I've ever experienced and AUS there really wasn't much outside of University of Texas & Live Music. I will say Austinites were a lot friendlier than Denverites overall though.

Yeah, culturally, Austin is decent when it comes to shows and performances. There was a time when one could even start a promising entertainment career there too, so long as they were willing to eventually move to LA or NYC.

But yeah, apart from that, I found the place to be very Office Parky. This is not bad or anything, it just really is not the same place as CA, and certainly not enough so to trigger an exodus.

N649DL wrote:

The other factor is some people are comfortable in CA and don't really have much of a reason to leave. Now that I'm back and took over a spot (after being a roommate for 6 months) in Redondo Beach and paying $925 a month for a room? This place is huge by comparison to what I had in AUS and DEN and I pay less. Not to mention all the people in the neighborhood who did move out in the Spring and threw a ton of nice furniture out out on the street (sofas, recliners, couches, coffee tables, TVs etc.) which I cleaned up and moved in for free. So I paid very little to furnish the common areas when the previous guy and his GF moved out sprang a quick move out on me and took most things.

There are deals to be had, as I suspect there would be anywhere. But as with anywhere, I think that depends more upon who you know. Ditto with jobs. I will say that that is not that hard a thing to make work, however. As long as one is not a total ass, it is pretty amazing how far one can get here.

I will say it is interesting that you bring Redondo into the discussion WRT Austin comparison. I have lived here myself for the best part of six years now, after four more in Palos Verdes. And I have to say I do like it better here. South Bay is everything we need from a big city without being a big city.

N649DL wrote:

With this new job at a higher wage, doing consulting on the side at a high hourly wage, and being 25 minutes walking distance to the beach, I don't see much of a reason to leave again. And most everyone I've met since I've been back has been absolutely more straightforward, laid back and friendlier to me than in Austin, Denver, or where I grew up in Northern NJ by comparison.

That is also a thing. But I do feel that that is highly localized. I would not say the same for PV, for example. Austin is definitely friendlier than that.

N649DL wrote:

Another consideration is weather. DEN had the annoying snowstorms in October and April plus damaging hailstorms in the Spring and Summer. Austin had the creepy Tornado Warnings that would pop up on Spectrum cable *A LOT* and sometimes in the middle of the night. The South Bay has none of that aside a low end Carson-Based Earthquake which was a bit freaky a few months ago.

I thought a truck hit my house and was enormously disappointed to find it was only a 4 pointer.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

You bring up some good points, but numbers don’t lie - the CA exodus is real (it’s estimated that nearly 90% of 2000s high school grads no longer reside here). People overwhelming leave because of either rent or housing affordability

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Ain't that the truth: "South Bay is everything we need from a big city without being a big city." Although I have to say, North Redondo where I live and Los Alamitos where my office is seems awfully similar in terms of layout and vibe. To this day, I don't think I've even been to PV. That area of LA County seems extremely isolated.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Illegal immigration is arguably the biggest contributor toward swelling rents and housing prices.

Net change in housing supply is the definitely the biggest contributor. Next is proximity to marquee employers and transportation. After that, one can get into the weeds on all manner of drivers at the county, district, and block level. To your point - immigration would impact housing prices in Carson or Garden Grove, sure, but not Laguna Niguel or West Hollywood.

No doubt the small growth in new housing is a contributor to swelling prices, but is it the driving reason? Home prices in working class communities like Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, heck even some parts of Santa Ana, have tripled since the Great Recession and sell for $1M. The payroll to support $1M single family homes isn’t there - these homes prices are being driven up by investors, who purchase the property and rent them out to multiple families (generally illegals since the prospects of two or three households living in a single family home are generally not appealing to US-born families). Why do you think there’s been so much push to pass legislation and referendums to override local and deed restrictions?

A lot of families have fled Anaheim, Fullerton, etc., selling high and moving to Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, etc., causing prices to increase there as well (limited supply).

Illegal immigration bears large responsibility in swelling rates; even the far left LA Times acknowledged this recently when it citied record boarding crossings as one of the primary reasons SoCal’s rents are swelling at record rates.

Immigration has almost nothing to do with the cost of housing. Supply is limited. Whether it is people not selling or investors asking insane amounts for rent, immigration has zero to do with it. Also, lack of qualified labor and backlog of permit approval is a huge factor. Not to mention the price of lumber and supplies. Some of those supplies are still sitting off the coast waiting to be unloaded because.... wait for it... lack of qualified labor to unload cargo.

If you look at simply the coming in of border crossings, you can say there is a surge. But, let's look at the number going back the other way. And I don't want to hear "But those are American tourists!" because guess what? Some of those coming in from Mexico are.... American tourists.

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Net change in housing supply is the definitely the biggest contributor. Next is proximity to marquee employers and transportation. After that, one can get into the weeds on all manner of drivers at the county, district, and block level. To your point - immigration would impact housing prices in Carson or Garden Grove, sure, but not Laguna Niguel or West Hollywood.

No doubt the small growth in new housing is a contributor to swelling prices, but is it the driving reason? Home prices in working class communities like Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, heck even some parts of Santa Ana, have tripled since the Great Recession and sell for $1M. The payroll to support $1M single family homes isn’t there - these homes prices are being driven up by investors, who purchase the property and rent them out to multiple families (generally illegals since the prospects of two or three households living in a single family home are generally not appealing to US-born families). Why do you think there’s been so much push to pass legislation and referendums to override local and deed restrictions?

A lot of families have fled Anaheim, Fullerton, etc., selling high and moving to Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, etc., causing prices to increase there as well (limited supply).

Illegal immigration bears large responsibility in swelling rates; even the far left LA Times acknowledged this recently when it citied record boarding crossings as one of the primary reasons SoCal’s rents are swelling at record rates.

Immigration has almost nothing to do with the cost of housing. Supply is limited. Whether it is people not selling or investors asking insane amounts for rent, immigration has zero to do with it. Also, lack of qualified labor and backlog of permit approval is a huge factor. Not to mention the price of lumber and supplies. Some of those supplies are still sitting off the coast waiting to be unloaded because.... wait for it... lack of qualified labor to unload cargo.

If you look at simply the coming in of border crossings, you can say there is a surge. But, let's look at the number going back the other way. And I don't want to hear "But those are American tourists!" because guess what? Some of those coming in from Mexico are.... American tourists.

I didn't assert that immigration directly impacts housing values; I asserted that the immigration scenario playing out in SoCal status quo is impacting housing values.

Historically, rents and housing values were dictated by a supply-and-demand, but limited by an area's payroll. That's changed in recent years, as investors continually scoop up homes in search of big returns. The NY Times ran a story early last year that noted that investors owned hardly any homes in LA County prior to the Great Recession, but were now purchasing the majority of the homes on the market. The Register ran a story earlier this year quoting several local scholars who blamed LA's 30% spike in housing values over the last two years squarely on investors.

Here's the thing: when you're buying homes in places like Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, for nearly $1M, you need to collect a big rent check to cover the debt servicing, heft real estate taxes, r & m, etc. And that check is going to be more than most single families are willing to pay, hence the need for multiple households. But most American families aren't willing to live amongst multiple households in single family homes (the LA Times noted several months ago that most investor-owned homes were largely occupied by SE Asian and Latin American families, even in places like Fullerton that just a few years ago were nearly all-white). Hence why there's been so much push in recent years at both the local and state level to override local and deed restrictions on single-family homes.

SoCal has housing prices that rival NYC, the Bay Area, etc. despite not having the payroll to support it because it is the #1 market for investor-owned homes. If we cut off the benefits that attract illegals here to begin with, we wouldn't be looking at 1/3 increases in rents over the next 3-4 years, and housing prices would collapse as investors wouldn't be able to collect $5K/month for a run of the mill home in Santa Ana.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

TX can claim affordability because it has an appalling minimum wage and hides most of its taxation policies. Conservatives, being traditionally not skilled at understanding the implications of this, think this is of course fine. The fact that people get paid miserable wages compared to what is commonly found in CA also often gets lost in the brochure touting...

Texas’ claim to affordability is quite a bit more tangible when you look at the supplemental poverty rate which takes into account cost of living:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40569843

People do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much.

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

TX can claim affordability because it has an appalling minimum wage and hides most of its taxation policies. Conservatives, being traditionally not skilled at understanding the implications of this, think this is of course fine. The fact that people get paid miserable wages compared to what is commonly found in CA also often gets lost in the brochure touting...

Texas’ claim to affordability is quite a bit more tangible when you look at the supplemental poverty rate which takes into account cost of living:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40569843

People do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much.

This is way too broad of a brush you're painting with to go only off of supplemental poverty rate. Within California and within Texas there are a lot of different COL indices.

Let's use one case study with relatives of mine and see in which capital they would be better off (as they live in CA's capital city). One is a school teacher with a Master's degree and the other is GS-10 at a federal agency. Where would they be better off?

TX vs CA average teacher salary with Master's:

$56K / $81K

Austin vs Sacramento GS-10 pay, step 5:

$67K / $72K

Average rents are slightly higher in AUS than SMF. So in their particular situation, they'd be giving up roughly $15-$20K annually in take home pay. Not chump change, especially to lose the Sierra Nevada as a backyard for their kids.

I grew up in Kansas having to listen to know nothing provincials talk about how they wish California would fall off into the ocean. That comment itself immediately tells everyone “I’m a dunce” because the San Andreas isn’t capable of producing an earthquake large enough to separate California from the mainland in the first place. Having to listen to that for years is torture enough but when I got older, I realized these people are actually serious. Careless about the lives that would be lost or the toll on the American economy, their hatred for all things California poisons everything. They talk about California’s as if they’re a different species. People in flyover country absolutely despise California and the people living there, so if you listen to any source with a right wing bias, the information you get about California will be wildly inaccurate.

As for the mass exodus, just look at the 2020 census. It’s literally that easy.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

TX can claim affordability because it has an appalling minimum wage and hides most of its taxation policies. Conservatives, being traditionally not skilled at understanding the implications of this, think this is of course fine. The fact that people get paid miserable wages compared to what is commonly found in CA also often gets lost in the brochure touting...

Texas’ claim to affordability is quite a bit more tangible when you look at the supplemental poverty rate which takes into account cost of living:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40569843

People do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much.

This is way too broad of a brush you're painting with to go only off of supplemental poverty rate. Within California and within Texas there are a lot of different COL indices.

Let's use one case study with relatives of mine and see in which capital they would be better off (as they live in CA's capital city). One is a school teacher with a Master's degree and the other is GS-10 at a federal agency. Where would they be better off?

TX vs CA average teacher salary with Master's:

$56K / $81K

Austin vs Sacramento GS-10 pay, step 5:

$67K / $72K

Average rents are slightly higher in AUS than SMF. So in their particular situation, they'd be giving up roughly $15-$20K annually in take home pay. Not chump change, especially to lose the Sierra Nevada as a backyard for their kids.

Oh you think I’m being overly broad? My comment was simply injecting some nuance in response to another poster’s overly broad brushstroke.

Californians getting pretty salty on this thread

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Texas’ claim to affordability is quite a bit more tangible when you look at the supplemental poverty rate which takes into account cost of living:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40569843

People do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much.

This is way too broad of a brush you're painting with to go only off of supplemental poverty rate. Within California and within Texas there are a lot of different COL indices.

Let's use one case study with relatives of mine and see in which capital they would be better off (as they live in CA's capital city). One is a school teacher with a Master's degree and the other is GS-10 at a federal agency. Where would they be better off?

TX vs CA average teacher salary with Master's:

$56K / $81K

Austin vs Sacramento GS-10 pay, step 5:

$67K / $72K

Average rents are slightly higher in AUS than SMF. So in their particular situation, they'd be giving up roughly $15-$20K annually in take home pay. Not chump change, especially to lose the Sierra Nevada as a backyard for their kids.

Oh you think I’m being overly broad? My comment was simply injecting some nuance in response to another poster’s overly broad brushstroke.

Californians getting pretty salty on this thread

Responding without nuance to a lack of nuance doesn’t sound like a net gain to me. Based on the case study I presented - again, in which capital would they be better off?

Aaron747 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Illegal immigration is arguably the biggest contributor toward swelling rents and housing prices.

Net change in housing supply is the definitely the biggest contributor.

This. People not from here do not understand, but CA is incredibly built out. There is not space to simply plop new neighborhoods William Nilliam all over the place.

We can do small things like converting single family to multi unit lots —always a popular and desirable choice— and maybe a few other things. But by and large, there are no undeveloped areas from 710 west. Very few east of that, even.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

No doubt the small growth in new housing is a contributor to swelling prices, but is it the driving reason?

It is the only reason. Which goes back to the point of this thread. CA is not taking a net population loss. Domestically or otherwise. This causes housing prices to rise.

While it is true here as it is everywhere that housing investors are a scourge, they will be a problem until we get some credible rent control, and other measures to discourage and more specifically tax multihome ownership. We likely at least ten years from that becoming a real thing, but there is a lot of broad support for it out here.
In any case, investment housing also would not be a problem if there were not a more or less constant influx of new people to CA. If there were any semblance of real loss, that market would not exist.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

The payroll to support $1M single family homes isn’t there

It sure is for me. And most people I know and work with. Again, you would not have aprrox 1.5 million such home units in CA if the payroll "was not there."

N649DL wrote:

Ain't that the truth: "South Bay is everything we need from a big city without being a big city." Although I have to say, North Redondo where I live and Los Alamitos where my office is seems awfully similar in terms of layout and vibe. To this day, I don't think I've even been to PV. That area of LA County seems extremely isolated.

Interesting about Los Alamitos. I bought a bike there a few years back, but apart from that I do not have any real experience there. Seemed nice enough though.

Yeah, North Redondo is great. I live pretty close to some of the major cross roads there there, and do appreciate just how much is walking and easy biking distance. And the proximity to the piers and everything they have going on only makes things better. I was impressed enough with the scene to buy a share in one of our local dives just as things were reopening. Suffice it to say, I am certainly not seeing much evidence of people leaving town.

PV was an interesting place. When I had visitors, I always like to tell them it is a great place to live, but you would not want to visit there. The neighborhoods are beautiful and clean, and the in SW corner of the peninsula, it is very easy to forget you are in LA County. But there just is not much going on, and the Karen factor is very real there. You are right to think of it as isolated. No local FWYs, and the place feels like an Island. On the plus side, the Ralphs at the top of Hawthorne is probably one of the most beautiful grocery stores I have ever been to. So there is that. . .

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I didn't assert that immigration directly impacts housing values; I asserted that the immigration scenario playing out in SoCal status quo is impacting housing values.

The literal second clause of that sentence begs to differ with the 1st...

flyguy89 wrote:

Texas’ claim to affordability is quite a bit more tangible when you look at the supplemental poverty rate which takes into account cost of living:
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/40569843

People do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much.

I think you are being more than a little general here. If you did a line by line for most industries, CA still comes out on top. By a lot. In my personal case, I know what I do about Austin as I recently turned down a gig there. It was for a three month shoot with a decent enough rate, and the points were not terrible either. But, like most cheap places, they only hire local. SAG/AFTRA allows me to work that, to be clear, but things like per diems, CA rates and other items —items that really need to be standard— will not appear in such a contract. In the end, it was worth it to hold out for another gig here. At half the time, I still come out pretty far ahead.

It needs to be stressed that this is actually very common across a lot of industries. We saw similar wage and COL issues when I worked in aviation too. Ditto tech jobs, transportation at large, engineering, etc. There is virtually nothing —apart from retirement— where one would actually come out ahead in a place like TX, FL, etc...

Aaron747 wrote:

This is way too broad of a brush you're painting with to go only off of supplemental poverty rate. Within California and within Texas there are a lot of different COL indices.

Let's use one case study with relatives of mine and see in which capital they would be better off (as they live in CA's capital city). One is a school teacher with a Master's degree and the other is GS-10 at a federal agency. Where would they be better off?

TX vs CA average teacher salary with Master's:

$56K / $81K

Austin vs Sacramento GS-10 pay, step 5:

$67K / $72K

Average rents are slightly higher in AUS than SMF. So in their particular situation, they'd be giving up roughly $15-$20K annually in take home pay. Not chump change, especially to lose the Sierra Nevada as a backyard for their kids.

Interesting that rents are comparable for those cities.

CitizenJustin wrote:

their hatred for all things California poisons everything. They talk about California’s as if they’re a different species.

In fairness, I am not sure how badly I would want to be the same species as people like that...

CitizenJustin wrote:

People in flyover country absolutely despise California and the people living there, so if you listen to any source with a right wing bias, the information you get about California will be wildly inaccurate.

It is a weirdly specific type of Xenophobia. I find though that that generally results from two categories.

A. People who tried, but could not hack it out here and wish to externalize their failures.

2. People who never even tried, and are just naturally envious of any success.

Either way, not the sort I would personally engage with.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

People in flyover country absolutely despise California and the people living there, so if you listen to any source with a right wing bias, the information you get about California will be wildly inaccurate.

It is a weirdly specific type of Xenophobia. I find though that that generally results from two categories.

A. People who tried, but could not hack it out here and wish to externalize their failures.

2. People who never even tried, and are just naturally envious of any success.

Either way, not the sort I would personally engage with.

That type of person exists everywhere. More often than not, they have never been to the place they so despise. I moved from a suburb of Atlanta to Chicago, and many people would ask me the typical Chicago questions asked by people who had never lived there about crime, cold, and then-President Obama. One of the more amusing anecdotes came from a neighbor who had never been more than 100 miles from where she was born--which is fine. She said "Well I just remember seeing how things were on that show in Good Times." My reply was, "well, just remember, things change. They rebuilt Atlanta after they burned it down in Gone with the Wind."

luckyone wrote:

One of the more amusing anecdotes came from a neighbor who had never been more than 100 miles from where she was born--which is fine. She said "Well I just remember seeing how things were on that show in Good Times." My reply was, "well, just remember, things change. They rebuilt Atlanta after they burned it down in Gone with the Wind."

An apt response. One wonders how she feels about Tokyo's recovery from Godzilla.

Aaron747 wrote:

Responding without nuance to a lack of nuance doesn’t sound like a net gain to me.

It does to me when you put both points together.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

I think you are being more than a little general here.

Can’t say I agree when I’m posting an actual data point and you turn around and say something general like:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

There is virtually nothing —apart from retirement— where one would actually come out ahead in a place like TX, FL, etc...

One of the key measures that exists with regard to the above demonstrates quite a few people do come out ahead in Texas compared to California.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is the only reason. Which goes back to the point of this thread. CA is not taking a net population loss. Domestically or otherwise. This causes housing prices to rise.

No, it's not the only reason. You can assert it's the primary reason, but investors are clearly having an impact on the market. Per a Times article published last fall, investors are purchasing nearly all of the homes sold outside of families in places like Long Beach, Carsen, Commerce, etc. Supply-and-demand dictates pricing, but payroll is generally a limiting factor; none of those communities have household incomes that support $1M mortgages. The housing prices are clearly being driven up by investors scooping up these properties. As I mentioned earlier, it takes multiple rent checks to turn a profit, hence the strong push in recent years to override local laws and deed restrictions.

It's a domino effect. If it wasn't for investors pushing up housing prices in Inglewood, Long Beach, Carsen, Commerce, Santa Ana, Tustin, etc., you wouldn't have as many families using the newfound equity in their homes to flee to Redondo Beach, Laguna Niguel, etc., in turn causing further increases in the market.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

No doubt the small growth in new housing is a contributor to swelling prices, but is it the driving reason? Home prices in working class communities like Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton, Garden Grove, heck even some parts of Santa Ana, have tripled since the Great Recession and sell for $1M. The payroll to support $1M single family homes isn’t there - these homes prices are being driven up by investors, who purchase the property and rent them out to multiple families (generally illegals since the prospects of two or three households living in a single family home are generally not appealing to US-born families). Why do you think there’s been so much push to pass legislation and referendums to override local and deed restrictions?

A lot of families have fled Anaheim, Fullerton, etc., selling high and moving to Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, etc., causing prices to increase there as well (limited supply).

Illegal immigration bears large responsibility in swelling rates; even the far left LA Times acknowledged this recently when it citied record boarding crossings as one of the primary reasons SoCal’s rents are swelling at record rates.

Immigration has almost nothing to do with the cost of housing. Supply is limited. Whether it is people not selling or investors asking insane amounts for rent, immigration has zero to do with it. Also, lack of qualified labor and backlog of permit approval is a huge factor. Not to mention the price of lumber and supplies. Some of those supplies are still sitting off the coast waiting to be unloaded because.... wait for it... lack of qualified labor to unload cargo.

If you look at simply the coming in of border crossings, you can say there is a surge. But, let's look at the number going back the other way. And I don't want to hear "But those are American tourists!" because guess what? Some of those coming in from Mexico are.... American tourists.

I didn't assert that immigration directly impacts housing values; I asserted that the immigration scenario playing out in SoCal status quo is impacting housing values.

Historically, rents and housing values were dictated by a supply-and-demand, but limited by an area's payroll. That's changed in recent years, as investors continually scoop up homes in search of big returns. The NY Times ran a story early last year that noted that investors owned hardly any homes in LA County prior to the Great Recession, but were now purchasing the majority of the homes on the market. The Register ran a story earlier this year quoting several local scholars who blamed LA's 30% spike in housing values over the last two years squarely on investors.

Here's the thing: when you're buying homes in places like Long Beach, Santa Ana, Anaheim, for nearly $1M, you need to collect a big rent check to cover the debt servicing, heft real estate taxes, r & m, etc. And that check is going to be more than most single families are willing to pay, hence the need for multiple households. But most American families aren't willing to live amongst multiple households in single family homes (the LA Times noted several months ago that most investor-owned homes were largely occupied by SE Asian and Latin American families, even in places like Fullerton that just a few years ago were nearly all-white). Hence why there's been so much push in recent years at both the local and state level to override local and deed restrictions on single-family homes.

SoCal has housing prices that rival NYC, the Bay Area, etc. despite not having the payroll to support it because it is the #1 market for investor-owned homes. If we cut off the benefits that attract illegals here to begin with, we wouldn't be looking at 1/3 increases in rents over the next 3-4 years, and housing prices would collapse as investors wouldn't be able to collect $5K/month for a run of the mill home in Santa Ana.

What benefits do illegals get?

You start off talking about immigration being a driving factor of home prices then go on for two paragraphs about investors wanting a return on their housing. Maybe we should look at that?

I also find it interesting that CA has a minimum wage far above the federal level and housing prices rival those in TX and AZ and UT and ID. We have always been told that if minimum wage goes up, prices of everything , like housing, will go up. Yet, when we actually look at what is happening, the prices of everything is going up regardless of minimum wage.

seb146 wrote:

[What benefits do illegals get?

Lots of them -- it's shockingly easy to get CalFresh (food stamps, now redeemable at many restaurants) and CalFresh Cash (cash that's intended for household essentials but can be cashed out and spent on anything), no-cost Medi-Cal (now including dental, vision and a host of other benefits) with no out-of-pocket payments, school lunches (breakfast in many places, too), etc.

FYI - I volunteered with Orange County, so I'm not guessing or repeating false rhetoric.

You start off talking about immigration being a driving factor of home prices then go on for two paragraphs about investors wanting a return on their housing. Maybe we should look at that?

I connected the dots in earlier postings -- it takes multiple rent checks for investors to turn a profit on $1M homes. Few Americans are willing to share a 3 bedroom, 1200 sq. ft. home in Inglewood, so investors turn toward immigrants. who are willing to do it as it's better conditions than where they came from. The benefits are often the biggest reason they choose to come to what's otherwise an expensive area. If we cut the benefits off, we'd see significantly fewer immigrants.

I also find it interesting that CA has a minimum wage far above the federal level and housing prices rival those in TX and AZ and UT and ID. We have always been told that if minimum wage goes up, prices of everything , like housing, will go up. Yet, when we actually look at what is happening, the prices of everything is going up regardless of minimum wage.

You must be thinking of Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. when you assert that housing prices in CA rival those in TX, AZ, UT, ID...

CitizenJustin wrote:

People in flyover country absolutely despise California and the people living there, so if you listen to any source with a right wing bias, the information you get about California will be wildly inaccurate.

It is a weirdly specific type of Xenophobia. I find though that that generally results from two categories.

A. People who tried, but could not hack it out here and wish to externalize their failures.

2. People who never even tried, and are just naturally envious of any success.

Either way, not the sort I would personally engage with.[/quote]

This is also true, but I found the type of Xenophobia to not be just towards people from CA. When I lived in CO there was also just as much of a hate towards people from the Tri-State Area in NY / NJ. They thought of us as mean and just as much a part of ruining their local culture. So I was cursed by both coasts being raised in Northern NJ and having moved from Los Angeles when I lived in Denver.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

CA is not taking a net population loss. Domestically or otherwise.

So you think the California Department of Finance is lying?

https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/05 ... nk-exodus/

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

In any case, investment housing also would not be a problem if there were not a more or less constant influx of new people to CA. If there were any semblance of real loss, that market would not exist.

Not really. Prices and speculative interest are still going to rise if supply remains constrained and unable to meet even slackened demand.