NYT: The Myth of California Exodus

Aaron747 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:18 am

We all heard the narrative over the last year and a half that the pandemic accelerated a burgeoning exodus from California. As Californians know, that was mostly based in certain media magnifying stories of relocations to other states without context. Yes, for the last 10+ years, the numbers show a steady movement of lower-middle class people from out of California. But for California residents with steady and gainful employment, the most significant moves have been intrastate. In short, the pandemic provided a chance for people to keep their jobs while relocating to far less expensive areas than central LA and SF metro areas.

The NYT ran the numbers and has a detailed report out yesterday.

82 percent of Californians who moved last year stayed in the state, according to a report from the California Policy Lab. That figure has been basically stable over the past five years.

“A lot more people are moving around within the state than they are out of the state,” Eric McGhee, a senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California, told me. “That movement tends to be within a certain metropolitan area, and a lot of that is people moving to suburbs and exurbs.”

Californians are likely to move from Los Angeles to the Inland Empire or from San Francisco to the fringes of the Bay Area or the Sacramento region, McGhee said. That’s because they want cheaper housing but don’t want to end up so far away that they need to change jobs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/us/c ... Position=1

This is all also good news for residents of Idaho and Texas worried that a surge of Californians will ruin the culture of their states. For what it's worth, my conservative uncle relocated from Ventura County to rural Wyoming four years ago and loves it there.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:09 pm

I have followed a similar sort of thing in the Seattle area. Housing prices are horrendous, and only a little better in Kitsap County. I stopped and yakked with a bunch of homeless people in an about to be built on parking lot. I read the posted permit aloud, and assured them there would be some affordable units. We all had a mordant laugh - affordable means $1500-1800 a month for an efficiency apartment. About none of the developments, higher rise apartments and condos amongst the literally thousands of permitted residences being built are budget, three bedroom, 1200 square foot units which would have the possibility of housing lower paid folks with housing. Its almost a crime, and I blame city and county planners, code, and spec writers. We are treating the bottom 50% (that is an income not a value label) like dirt, and are reaping the results of those policies. The success of an economy is dependent on not only seeing the bottom 50% fed, housed, medically cared for, educated, and financially secure in retirement, BUT also successfully employed and ensuring we are all taken care of, then they and we know they are valued fellow citizens.

ps - sorry for the sermon

luckyone · Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:34 pm

These were the top destinations for Californians leaving:

Texas (82,235 people in Texas had moved from California in the last year)

Arizona (59,713)

Nevada (47,322)

Washington (46,791)

Oregon (37,927)

It's worth noting that while Texas has the overall largest number -- because Texas is like California and a massive state with multiple large economic centers -- more Californians moved to two blue states (Washington, Oregon) that combined are smaller than Texas than they are to red states. And that's before one factors in the fact that Nevada and Arizona narrowly voted Democratic in 2020. All that to say is that the narrative about people "escaping" California's liberal policies only holds so much water.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/02/us/w ... oving.html

Alias1024 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:47 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
We all heard the narrative over the last year and a half that the pandemic accelerated a burgeoning exodus from California. As Californians know, that was mostly based in certain media magnifying stories of relocations to other states without context. Yes, for the last 10+ years, the numbers show a steady movement of lower-middle class people from out of California. But for California residents with steady and gainful employment, the most significant moves have been intrastate. In short, the pandemic provided a chance for people to keep their jobs while relocating to far less expensive areas than central LA and SF metro areas.

The NYT ran the numbers and has a detailed report out yesterday.

82 percent of Californians who moved last year stayed in the state, according to a report from the California Policy Lab. That figure has been basically stable over the past five years.

“A lot more people are moving around within the state than they are out of the state,” Eric McGhee, a senior fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California, told me. “That movement tends to be within a certain metropolitan area, and a lot of that is people moving to suburbs and exurbs.”

Californians are likely to move from Los Angeles to the Inland Empire or from San Francisco to the fringes of the Bay Area or the Sacramento region, McGhee said. That’s because they want cheaper housing but don’t want to end up so far away that they need to change jobs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/us/c ... Position=1

This is all also good news for residents of Idaho and Texas worried that a surge of Californians will ruin the culture of their states. For what it's worth, my conservative uncle relocated from Ventura County to rural Wyoming four years ago and loves it there.

It seems obvious that the majority of moves would stay within state and even the same metro area. Uprooting your life and starting over somewhere new is hard and disruptive. Moving a couple miles because you need an extra bedroom or want to downsize now that the kids have moved out is far less of a leap.

I personally know two friends that moved from California in the last year. One was able to transfer to Republican nirvana, a.k.a Idaho, and the other can work fully remote and moved from super expensive San Jose to be near family in far less expensive New Mexico. Both seem happy with their decision.

Still, I think the exodus has been massively overblown. The strength of California’s economy and its climate along the coasts will continue to attract people.

B777LRF · Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:09 pm

[quote="frmrCapCadet”] ... budget, three bedroom, 1200 square foot units[/quote]

If people’s idea of “budget” in a metropolis area is as described above, one would be tempted to say “overtly entitled”.

Around here (Copenhagen) the city council has a rule stating 1/3’rd of all new build apartments must be 90 square meters, 2 bedrooms, to receive a subsidy. And even that is not considered “budget”, not as long as it’s new built at least. If you want “budget” in Copenhagen, it’s in the suburbs at least 10 km from city centre, at least 20 years old, not in an overtly up-to-date condition and around 60 square meters. Those can be had for around 1000 USD a month. But the waiting list for those apartments can easily run into 15-20 years.

frmrCapCadet · Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:11 pm

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

And speaking of this being a nationwide concern.

seb146 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:59 pm

I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:01 pm

seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

Huh? Nevada has great public trans everywhere. Health care can be a challenge in the rural areas but in Vegas I would put it against anywhere.

seb146 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:04 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

Huh? Nevada has great public trans everywhere. Health care can be a challenge in the rural areas but in Vegas I would put it against anywhere.

That's what I mean. We were looking at Carson City. JAC kept odd hours, as does the Lake Tahoe Blue. Nothing at all in Elko or Winnemucca. And you just proved my point about health care.

casinterest · Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:13 pm

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.

NIKV69 · Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:22 pm

seb146 wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

Huh? Nevada has great public trans everywhere. Health care can be a challenge in the rural areas but in Vegas I would put it against anywhere.

That's what I mean. We were looking at Carson City. JAC kept odd hours, as does the Lake Tahoe Blue. Nothing at all in Elko or Winnemucca. And you just proved my point about health care.

Can't disagree, I live in a town smaller than Carson City and our healthcare is non-existent. We don't even have a pharmacy. Have to go over the border to AZ.

Aesma · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:05 pm

We're told Cali has too much people so it growing slower should be a good thing, housing might catch up to the growth.

Tugger · Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:16 pm

luckyone wrote:
These were the top destinations for Californians leaving:

Texas (82,235 people in Texas had moved from California in the last year)

And don't forget, there are also people moving OUT of Texas and TO California. it appears to be about half the number that move the other way. (In the case of the below article, about 38,000)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/ ... on-austin/

Tugg

CometII · Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:23 am

Aaron747 wrote:
Yes, for the last 10+ years, the numbers show a steady movement of lower-middle class people from out of California. But for California residents with steady and gainful employment, the most significant moves have been intrastate. In short, the pandemic provided a chance for people to keep their jobs while relocating to far less expensive areas than central LA and SF metro areas.

Isn't this a terrible indictment in itself though? I also had always suspected that people over a certain income level did not feel much pressure to leave the state. That it was the people with high school diplomas and Bachelors in "low demand" fields who were being squeezed out of California. So it's fair to say that this is a deliberate attempt of economic cleansing. The way California laws are set up from housing to benefits, benefit the upper middle class, the wealthy, and the government dependent poor who have nowhere to go.

Is having a state that will be emptied out of working class, and average middle class folks and left just with posh-college techies, one-percenters, Hollywood and Pro-sport millionaires, and a large subsidy dependent underclass (I include California farmers here), really positive?

ltbewr · Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:50 am

California is growing slower than many states, but note the negatives of Illinois, Mississippi and W. Virginia. In WV, you have the massive decline of coal mining and certain heavy industry like chemicals and steel making. In IL, I suspect most of it is the cuts in industrial 'blue collar' jobs outside of Chicago, high state taxes and many retirees leaving the state due to high costs of living. As to MS, likely the lack of good paying jobs and high taxes on working class persons. ND is high due to the expansion of the oil industry in the previous decade. New England states and 'rust belt' states have low growth rates while FL, NC SC, GA are seeing significant gains, mainly from rust belt states. While states like NJ have in particular retirees moving to low tax/low cost of living states, they have been balanced by the shifts to work from home from the pandemic and likely beyond of people from NY City. Even in NJ we have internal shifts from the the northeastern cities and suburbs to lower cost of central and southern parts of the state. Some in PA and NJ have also moved to DE due to low taxes and cost of living.

L410Turbolet · Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:51 am

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

Kno · Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:52 am

L410Turbolet wrote:
What's the big deal about living in CA (unless one lives on the coast)?

Weather and jobs I think?

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:10 pm

L410Turbolet wrote:
What's the big deal about living in CA (unless one lives on the coast)?

For people who love the outdoors, it has all on offer the Pacific Northwest does (and more), just with far less rain. And probably the best state overall for any GA pilot who tires of flat boredom.

DarkSnowyNight · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:14 pm

seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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

Tugger wrote:
And don't forget, there are also people moving OUT of Texas and TO California. it appears to be about half the number that move the other way. (In the case of the below article, about 38,000)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/ ... on-austin/

Tugg

I have no regrets about the time I lived in DFW. But since moving out here a decade ago, it is plain to see that there is nothing in the US that compares to Southern CA.

Aesma wrote:
We're told Cali has too much people so it growing slower should be a good thing, housing might catch up to the growth.

We would like that, yes. Housing values are fine, if a little on the undervalued side given the density, but we can forgive slower growth there in favor of developing a higher QOL. We will see what happens though...

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 12:17 pm

CometII wrote:
Is having a state that will be emptied out of working class, and average middle class folks and left just with posh-college techies, one-percenters, Hollywood and Pro-sport millionaires, and a large subsidy dependent underclass (I include California farmers here), really positive?

Nobody in the state polled would say that it's a positive, but the strength of NIMBY voting throughout populated areas in the state suggests people only care about their immediate area. California is the size of a medium-population country and has all the heightened issues of local protectionism that come with that.

I talked to a landlord last year who was vehemently against rent control proposals, yet he constantly complains that the drain of talent in the trades means rates for electricians and plumbers have gone up 20% in recent years. I bet he still won't change how he votes.

luckyone · Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:45 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
CometII wrote:
Is having a state that will be emptied out of working class, and average middle class folks and left just with posh-college techies, one-percenters, Hollywood and Pro-sport millionaires, and a large subsidy dependent underclass (I include California farmers here), really positive?

Nobody in the state polled would say that it's a positive, but the strength of NIMBY voting throughout populated areas in the state suggests people only care about their immediate area. California is the size of a medium-population country and has all the heightened issues of local protectionism that come with that.

I talked to a landlord last year who was vehemently against rent control proposals, yet he constantly complains that the drain of talent in the trades means rates for electricians and plumbers have gone up 20% in recent years. I bet he still won't change how he votes.

It's also the end result of the fact that eventually you run out of cheap places to build. California is a geographically large state, but the places where middle class housing can easily and cheaply be built have been built on. And I don't care what your political slant is, we all want our home values to go up and wouldn't accept a neutral home value no matter where we are. Eventually...they hit a point where it prices out people. We love market economics until we don't.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:54 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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

Tugger wrote:
And don't forget, there are also people moving OUT of Texas and TO California. it appears to be about half the number that move the other way. (In the case of the below article, about 38,000)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/ ... on-austin/

Tugg

I have no regrets about the time I lived in DFW. But since moving out here a decade ago, it is plain to see that there is nothing in the US that compares to Southern CA.

Aesma wrote:
We're told Cali has too much people so it growing slower should be a good thing, housing might catch up to the growth.

We would like that, yes. Housing values are fine, if a little on the undervalued side given the density, but we can forgive slower growth there in favor of developing a higher QOL. We will see what happens though...

You think the housing values in CA are fine? That's interesting.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:07 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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

Tugger wrote:
And don't forget, there are also people moving OUT of Texas and TO California. it appears to be about half the number that move the other way. (In the case of the below article, about 38,000)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/ ... on-austin/

Tugg

I have no regrets about the time I lived in DFW. But since moving out here a decade ago, it is plain to see that there is nothing in the US that compares to Southern CA.

Aesma wrote:
We're told Cali has too much people so it growing slower should be a good thing, housing might catch up to the growth.

We would like that, yes. Housing values are fine, if a little on the undervalued side given the density, but we can forgive slower growth there in favor of developing a higher QOL. We will see what happens though...

You think the housing values in CA are fine? That's interesting.

Given how little housing has been built in Orange and LA counties since the 1990s, a lot of owners there feel the market is pretty undervalued.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:10 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:

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

I have no regrets about the time I lived in DFW. But since moving out here a decade ago, it is plain to see that there is nothing in the US that compares to Southern CA.

We would like that, yes. Housing values are fine, if a little on the undervalued side given the density, but we can forgive slower growth there in favor of developing a higher QOL. We will see what happens though...

You think the housing values in CA are fine? That's interesting.

Given how little housing has been built in Orange and LA counties since the 1990s, a lot of owners there feel the market is pretty undervalued.

I get that Southern CA has awesome weather and are really nice places (particularly San Diego), but I don't equate having the highest average home price to being undervalued. I get that it is nuanced and varies per neighborhood, but I wouldn't ever say the housing values are fine. If the market is paying that, then so be it, but to say its fine doesn't jive well with me.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:24 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

You think the housing values in CA are fine? That's interesting.

Given how little housing has been built in Orange and LA counties since the 1990s, a lot of owners there feel the market is pretty undervalued.

I get that Southern CA has awesome weather and are really nice places (particularly San Diego), but I don't equate having the highest average home price to being undervalued. I get that it is nuanced and varies per neighborhood, but I wouldn't ever say the housing values are fine. If the market is paying that, then so be it, but to say its fine doesn't jive well with me.

For the jobs on offer in the region and population growth vs. housing stock built the last 30 years, I think plenty of homeowners and market analysts would disagree. Supply has not kept pace with demand.

Orange County population by decade:

1960 - 700,000
1970 - 1.4 million
1980 - 1.9 million
1990 - 2.4 million
2000 - 2.8 million
2010 - 3.1 million
2020 - 3.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Co ... mographics

The last big boom of residential building in Orange County was in the 1980s, so they are well behind now, as are the surrounding counties:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/10/c ... -a-decade/

For reference, median Orange County home prices by decade:

1990 - $228K
2000 - $322K
2010 - $499K
2015 - $700K
2020 - $950K

http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37.php

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:32 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

Given how little housing has been built in Orange and LA counties since the 1990s, a lot of owners there feel the market is pretty undervalued.

I get that Southern CA has awesome weather and are really nice places (particularly San Diego), but I don't equate having the highest average home price to being undervalued. I get that it is nuanced and varies per neighborhood, but I wouldn't ever say the housing values are fine. If the market is paying that, then so be it, but to say its fine doesn't jive well with me.

For the jobs on offer in the region and population growth vs. housing stock built the last 30 years, I think plenty of homeowners and market analysts would disagree. Supply has not kept pace with demand.

Orange County population by decade:

1960 - 700,000
1970 - 1.4 million
1980 - 1.9 million
1990 - 2.4 million
2000 - 2.8 million
2010 - 3.1 million
2020 - 3.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Co ... mographics

The last big boom of residential building in Orange County was in the 1980s, so they are well behind now, as are the surrounding counties:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/10/c ... -a-decade/

For reference, median Orange County home prices by decade:

1990 - $228K
2000 - $322K
2010 - $499K
2015 - $700K
2020 - $950K

http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37.php

Like I said, if the market will pay it, then so be it. That still doesn't change my mind, or as I suspect many others, about the price being "fine",

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:36 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

I get that Southern CA has awesome weather and are really nice places (particularly San Diego), but I don't equate having the highest average home price to being undervalued. I get that it is nuanced and varies per neighborhood, but I wouldn't ever say the housing values are fine. If the market is paying that, then so be it, but to say its fine doesn't jive well with me.

For the jobs on offer in the region and population growth vs. housing stock built the last 30 years, I think plenty of homeowners and market analysts would disagree. Supply has not kept pace with demand.

Orange County population by decade:

1960 - 700,000
1970 - 1.4 million
1980 - 1.9 million
1990 - 2.4 million
2000 - 2.8 million
2010 - 3.1 million
2020 - 3.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Co ... mographics

The last big boom of residential building in Orange County was in the 1980s, so they are well behind now, as are the surrounding counties:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/10/c ... -a-decade/

For reference, median Orange County home prices by decade:

1990 - $228K
2000 - $322K
2010 - $499K
2015 - $700K
2020 - $950K

http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37.php

Like I said, if the market will pay it, then so be it. That still doesn't change my mind, or as I suspect many others, about the price being "fine",

I didn't say it was fine, but regarding homeowners it is understandable if they feel that way. Obviously both the price increases and lack of new housing explain why the population growth in OC has slowed appreciably since 1990 despite becoming a major regional employment center in that time. When OC first boomed in the 50s/60s, people were commuting into jobs in LA county.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:38 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

For the jobs on offer in the region and population growth vs. housing stock built the last 30 years, I think plenty of homeowners and market analysts would disagree. Supply has not kept pace with demand.

Orange County population by decade:

1960 - 700,000
1970 - 1.4 million
1980 - 1.9 million
1990 - 2.4 million
2000 - 2.8 million
2010 - 3.1 million
2020 - 3.2 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Co ... mographics

The last big boom of residential building in Orange County was in the 1980s, so they are well behind now, as are the surrounding counties:

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/10/c ... -a-decade/

For reference, median Orange County home prices by decade:

1990 - $228K
2000 - $322K
2010 - $499K
2015 - $700K
2020 - $950K

http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37.php

Like I said, if the market will pay it, then so be it. That still doesn't change my mind, or as I suspect many others, about the price being "fine",

I didn't say it was fine, but regarding homeowners it is understandable if they feel that way. Obviously both the price increases and lack of new housing explain why the population growth in OC has slowed appreciably since 1990 despite becoming a major regional employment center in that time. When OC first boomed in the 50s/60s, people were commuting into jobs in LA county.

My comment was solely on the poster saying he thought the prices were fine. I don't pretend to know jack about the population influx/exodus of CA.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:39 pm

bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:

Like I said, if the market will pay it, then so be it. That still doesn't change my mind, or as I suspect many others, about the price being "fine",

I didn't say it was fine, but regarding homeowners it is understandable if they feel that way. Obviously both the price increases and lack of new housing explain why the population growth in OC has slowed appreciably since 1990 despite becoming a major regional employment center in that time. When OC first boomed in the 50s/60s, people were commuting into jobs in LA county.

My comment was solely on the poster saying he thought the prices were fine. I don't pretend to know jack about the population influx/exodus of CA.

Sure, but you can't deny you would think the prices were fine if you had bought in 1972 and your house was north of the $900K median now. For a NorCal comparison, by grandparents bought near the present-day Intel and Apple HQs when they didn't exist for $25K in 1964. Their modest 1960s home is now worth $1.85 million.

bpatus297 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 2:41 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
bpatus297 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

I didn't say it was fine, but regarding homeowners it is understandable if they feel that way. Obviously both the price increases and lack of new housing explain why the population growth in OC has slowed appreciably since 1990 despite becoming a major regional employment center in that time. When OC first boomed in the 50s/60s, people were commuting into jobs in LA county.

My comment was solely on the poster saying he thought the prices were fine. I don't pretend to know jack about the population influx/exodus of CA.

Sure, but you can't deny you would think the prices were fine if you had bought in 1972 and your house was north of the $900K median now.

Wouldn't change my mind, I had similar situation in another state. I was just the happy benefactor of the situation.

Aesma · Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:41 pm

In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:16 pm

Aesma wrote:
In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

Thay make even less sense in metro areas hemmed in by 2000 meter mountains.

luckyone · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:33 pm

Aesma wrote:
In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

Aaron747 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:38 pm

luckyone wrote:
Aesma wrote:
In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

The irony is that lot sizes in CA suburbs are pretty small compared to other parts of the country.

luckyone · Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:42 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Aesma wrote:
In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

The irony is that lot sizes in CA suburbs are pretty small compared to other parts of the country.

Yup. Sooner or later, the fiddler is going to be paid. Now it's happening in Florida (coupled with absurdly high home owners insurance).

seb146 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:33 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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.

luckyone · Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:42 pm

seb146 wrote:
DarkSnowyNight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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.

dfwjim1 · Fri Dec 03, 2021 6:43 pm

DarkSnowyNight wrote:
seb146 wrote:
I wonder how many of those people regret their decision to move to TX or AZ? We have thought about moving to Nevada but, one decision not to, was publicly funded departments like transit and health care.

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

Tugger wrote:
And don't forget, there are also people moving OUT of Texas and TO California. it appears to be about half the number that move the other way. (In the case of the below article, about 38,000)
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/ ... on-austin/

Tugg

I have no regrets about the time I lived in DFW. But since moving out here a decade ago, it is plain to see that there is nothing in the US that compares to Southern CA.

I moved to DFW from San Francisco in 2000 and eventually grew to like the DFW area before moving to Florida in 2013. DFW is okay but I would much rather live in SFO due to its superior climate and number of things to do.

Aesma wrote:
We're told Cali has too much people so it growing slower should be a good thing, housing might catch up to the growth.

We would like that, yes. Housing values are fine, if a little on the undervalued side given the density, but we can forgive slower growth there in favor of developing a higher QOL. We will see what happens though...

frmrCapCadet · Fri Dec 03, 2021 7:50 pm

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ing-market

This problem is now hitting Texas, more specifically Austin.

ItnStln · Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:19 pm

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.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:00 am

Aaron747 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
Aesma wrote:
In other countries many of these houses would have been replaced by condos... Gigantic suburbs don't make sense.

The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

The irony is that lot sizes in CA suburbs are pretty small compared to other parts of the country.

My brother is leaving San Diego for Texas as are most of his thirty employees. As are three of his Navy buddies who retired from FDX as captains—headed for TX, GA and TN. One of my former Chief’s just departed CT for TN—no winters and no taxes.

I’m in a famously high-tax state—200’ road frontage and 2 acre zoning, still too close to neighbors on 8 acres. My wife and I have paid well over $300,000 in state income taxes and $120,000 in property taxes. I don’t even have city water, septic or gas. Other than driving on our crappy roads, I’ve gotten zippo for that money. Heck, we got charged $600 for an ambulance ride a few years ago, town FD.

Aaron747 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:06 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

The irony is that lot sizes in CA suburbs are pretty small compared to other parts of the country.

My brother is leaving San Diego for Texas as are most of his thirty employees. As are three of his Navy buddies who retired from FDX as captains—headed for TX, GA and TN. One of my former Chief’s just departed CT for TN—no winters and no taxes.

I’m in a famously high-tax state—200’ road frontage and 2 acre zoning, still too close to neighbors on 8 acres. My wife and I have paid well over $300,000 in state income taxes and $120,000 in property taxes. I don’t even have city water, septic or gas. Other than driving on our crappy roads, I’ve gotten zippo for that money. Heck, we got charged $600 for an ambulance ride a few years ago, town FD.

That's a little different from what natives are doing - I have friends I grew up with who have been in WA, GA, and NE for years - all are using new jobs to move back to CA. My parents, on the other hand, are cashing in on their SJC home value and are moving elsewhere in the state to slim down for retirement.

luckyone · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:17 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
The ethos (and thus selling point) of California for years was to move out of the cold cities in the Northeast and Midwest and have your own yard and swimming pool (in water deprived desert Southern California...), and zoning laws in many places reflect that, particularly in SoCal suburbs. The residents pretty much universally resisted zoning changes for many different reasons, regardless of their political persuasion.

The irony is that lot sizes in CA suburbs are pretty small compared to other parts of the country.

My brother is leaving San Diego for Texas as are most of his thirty employees. As are three of his Navy buddies who retired from FDX as captains—headed for TX, GA and TN. One of my former Chief’s just departed CT for TN—no winters and no taxes.

I’m in a famously high-tax state—200’ road frontage and 2 acre zoning, still too close to neighbors on 8 acres. My wife and I have paid well over $300,000 in state income taxes and $120,000 in property taxes. I don’t even have city water, septic or gas. Other than driving on our crappy roads, I’ve gotten zippo for that money. Heck, we got charged $600 for an ambulance ride a few years ago, town FD.

Correction: no INCOME taxes. Texans pay some the highest median property taxes and sales taxes in the country. Texas also has a similar business tax structure as the often chided high tax Washington state (and Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, and Virginia)

Where Texas wins (for now at least) is it has plenty of flat cheap land on which to build. And absolutely there’s issues of regulation. But don’t kid yourself. Texas is not a tax haven. It’s just telling you that is and then lumping that tax into your mortgage payment and retail spending. It’s overall tax burden is mid pack. And even then, the difference between California and Texas is about 2 cents on the dollar when all of ones actual taxes are tabulated, and not just the ones withheld from a paycheque. Georgia is not much different (I paid less income tax living in Illinois than I did in Georgia) https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-h ... rden/20494

N626AA · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:24 am

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 :roll:

I hope things level off soon but I'm weary that will not happen for a while.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:25 am

A lot depends on individual financial and life situation. My brother’s no dummy and his finance officer proved moving would save big dollars.

Aaron747 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:34 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A lot depends on individual financial and life situation. My brother’s no dummy and his finance officer proved moving would save big dollars.

Location within the state too. Big AC/utility bills in FAT or SMF - high summer heat and freezing overnight temps in winter. Almost never the case in SBA or SAN. Hell even in the LA basin there's a huge difference between SMO and VNY.

luckyone · Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:35 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
A lot depends on individual financial and life situation. My brother’s no dummy and his finance officer proved moving would save big dollars.

If he owns property in San Diego County and sells it I'm sure relocating would indeed be financially advantageous for him. But keep in mind...somebody's willing and able to pay for that high dollar real estate, which should reflect that it's not all doom and gloom. And taking those dollars elsewhere as some people are doing will make those places more expensive over the long run.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:17 am

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.

When Weicker put the “temporary” income tax in CT, Dad and mom left for Florida. Dad said the tax would ruin the finances, which it has. When I was looking to build, the house prices in CT capitalized the zero income tax in CT vs. MA. Then, the income tax leveled things over a few years.

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

Newark727 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:27 am

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.

Well, don't come crying to us when you run out of room in your landfills.

Aaron747 · Sat Dec 04, 2021 4:30 am

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.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net