[deep-root]

A "back of the napkin" calculation seems to indicate there is no mass exodus. On mobile, but here is the typical annual CA pop change stats for the past decade, give or take:

  --Incoming--
  - 400K domestic immigrants[1]
  - 180-200K international immigrants[2]
  - 450K births[4]
  Subtotal: ~1.1M

  --Outgoing--
  - 600K domestic emigrants[1]
  - 250K deaths[4]
  - ?? intl emigrants (anyone know?)
  Subtotal: ~850K

  Typical annual net change: +250K (California grew 2.4M from 2010-2020[3])

California shrank in 2020 for the first time in decades seemingly because:

  - 50-80K excess deaths
  - 180-200K less intl immigration
  - 50K fewer births

That's already a loss of 300K people as a one-time event, and the state is down 450K from a typical year. It's easy to come up with another 150K, it's a trivial not "mass exodus" number.

But possibly a lot of those who left were missed in statistics.

[1] https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265 [2] https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/ [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-population/ [4] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/state-and-territorial-data....

Edit: learning to format...

[rayiner]

I’m skeptical about counting international immigrants here. International immigration is a function of a very specific thing, in California’s case a measure of H1-B sponsor companies. If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion.

I’m an immigrant from Bangladesh and quite a few people in my family moved to NYC. It has lots of support for people with limited English skills, lots of service jobs, etc. But they moved to Long Island as soon as they got their feet under them. It was a proud moment for them when they made the move!

I also wouldn’t count births or deaths. People don’t choose where they’re born. The exodus theory is generally supported by reference to “net internal migration.” (People coming from other states minus people moving to other states.) That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s not really weird that immigrants start in California and then wind up elsewhere. That’s normal, and they are quickly replaced with new immigrants anyways. California (and originally New York) as waypoints in immigration before dispersal elsewhere is a very old concept.

> That’s really what illustrates people voting with their feet.

If you Google “California population”, you get a graph where Texas and California start at the same population in 1940, then you just see California absolutely booming vs the other, with a meteoritic rise in population. Finally, at the end, you see the boom taper off. If one were to just look at that graph, you’d think something like “no one goes there anymore because it’s too crowded.”

[KingOfCoders]

+1 for Yogi quote.

[xyzzyz]

It is in fact weird. The entire question is, why don’t these immigrants stay in California? What do the find so repellent, or what do they find so attractive elsewhere that is not available in California?

[senormenor]

If you believe conservative media and "anti-woke" Twitter, California is an unliveable wasteland where you can't walk two paces without stepping over homeless people, discarded needles and human feces, where crime (violent and non-violent) is skyrocketing, where people don't feel safe in their own homes, and where the only response by "progressive" politicians is to double down on their same bad policies that created the mess in the first place.

Is any of that true? I have no idea; I've never been to California. But it's what a large percentage of the country believes about the Golden State.

[bin_bash]

I live in Oakland and I find all of that true. My family and I very much want to leave as soon as possible. (I’m a non-immigrant Democrat for what it’s worth, but not very progressive.)

We’re staying in-state though—Oakland is far from typical.

[travisjungroth]

There are small parts of California where that is absolutely true. A block of the Tenderloin is more likely to have shit and needles than not. Crime in SF is out of control. There’s also about 160 million other square miles where things aren’t so bad.

[sbuttgereit]

This is true, but the bad places tend to also be the big population centers. This naturally means the same people that are content to allow these problems to fester are also politically dominant at the state level.

[skyzyx]

There are definitely some cities like that — San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles metro all come to mind. And we did waste however many billions of dollars on a high-speed rail system that still doesn’t exist. And we keep catching on fire every summer.

But in the central valley where the majority of conservatives in California live, there are MUCH smaller cities, and therefore have fewer “people” problems by comparison. Sure, Fresno and Sacramento have some homeless problems, but those are usually crack and meth users in a particular part of town that everyone else knows should be avoided. The reality is, everywhere has some sort of problems that you’ll find if you look hard enough.

Having said that, I was one of the people who chose to leave California. I love California, and it will always be my home, but being a single father with two children making $140,000 a year in the Bay Area in 2016, I was barely making ends meet.

The rat race of the bay area, combined with high gas prices, combined with terrible traffic that extends 100 miles in any direction from San Francisco, it just stopped being worth it. So I left.

I know that I don’t represent everyone, but I’m one of the statistics that got “rounded off“.

[tomjakubowski]

Is there any evidence that international immigrants are actually fleeing the state at such a high rate?

[modo_mario]

i don't even live in the US but my first guess would be cost of housing.

[dragonwriter]

> I’m skeptical about counting international immigrants here. International immigration is a function of a very specific thing, in California’s case a measure of H1-B sponsor companies.

Most years, California has had more net inbound (not gross) international migration than the national H-1B cap. You are greatly exaggerating the role of the H-1B in California stats.

> If Indians come to California so they can get an H-1B from Facebook, but their kids them move to Tennessee because of poor quality of life in California, then that’s consistent with the “exodus” theory in my opinion.

Lots of California international immigration is family-based, often with sponsors who themselves immigrated and went through the whole process in CA.

[rayiner]

Immigrants face unique constraints in their choice of where to live. Places that have lots of immigrants will attract more because of family-based migration and people’s desire to be closer to support networks. But that still indirectly comes down to the availability of jobs that will sponsor immigrants.

My dad sponsored other members of our family to immigrate. They settled in New York City, because it’s a great place for immigrants without strong language skills and domestic networks to get menial jobs. But that doesn’t make it a great place. My cousin has a foreign master’s degree and works in food service. He’d be way better off doing the same job in North Carolina, where the low pay would go a lot further. But there’s not many Bangladeshis in Asheville who could help him get a job.

I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing. My family members that came here in more advantaged positions, e.g., getting a U.S. college degree, settled in places like Colorado and Texas. Those are the same places where native born Americans are going.

[dragonwriter]

> But that still indirectly comes down to the availability of jobs that will sponsor immigrants.

“Jobs that will sponsor immigrants” and “Jobs that will sponsor one particular class of dual-intent non-immigrant visa” are two very different things, so you are moving the goalposts, but still wrong.

> I’d argue that those same features actually make New York and California kind of a shitty place for people who have more options. The inequality and segregation in those places is soul crushing.

Everyone non-white person I’ve known, immigrant or not, who has traveled from California to...almost any other part of the continental US that isn’t another Pacific Coast or California-bordering state, or NYC or a couple other non-Southern East Coast metropolises—and especially to the Midwest or South—has said that about the other places compared to California, not California.

[random314]

> Immigrants face unique constraints in their choice of where to live.

What you are saying is that California and New York are where the jobs are - hence the immigration. An H1B is equally valid in California and Tennessee.

You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or competitive in states with higher productivity. The out migration is simply a form of semi-retirement to a cheaper location with low economic activity. Just as expats retiring to Colombia doesn't make Colombia "better" than USA, migration out of California to other states can be discounted.

This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary. 2nd generation immigrants also face constraints , primarily monetary. Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home, not because they love the politics or the electricity grid or the weather.

IMHO, it is best to not add any nuance when numbers give u a fairly unbiased picture.

[rayiner]

> You can flip this argument for those leaving California as well. Out migration out of California should be discounted because the folks moving out are the ones who are no longer productive or competitive in states with higher productivity.

That formulation still makes California sound shitty!

> This comment also privileges the choices and constraints faced by 2nd generation immigrants over the choices and constraints of 1st generation immigrants, which is unnecessary

No, it avoids distorting the picture. Second generation immigrants and other native born Americans have much more freedom to go where they want, so their choices are more probative. First generation immigrants by contrast face a very restricted set of choices driven by immigration considerations.

> Most folks moving to Texas are moving to find a cheaper home

That’s exactly the conservative critique of California. It’s laws make housing expensive. Add to that crime and school boards more focused on taking Lincoln’s name off buildings than opening up and teaching kids in person. All that sucks for middle class people. And that critique isn’t rebutted by pointing out California has industries that suck in massive numbers of immigrants. In fact it’s the exact opposite. For a middle class person, it’s better not to have a small segment of the population making $750,000/year.

[random314]

> No, it avoids distorting the picture.

This is simply running around in circles. Privileging 2nd generation immigrants over the first generation cannot be framed as avoiding distortion. I have never heard some one say that they moved into California because they were constrained by language barriers. Virtually everyone moves here for economic opportunity. The ones that move out are the ones who want a large single family home with a large backyard. This is what they find fulfilling and a sign of accomplishment in their life. 1st generation immigrants don't have that kind of baggage. This also explains the hatred that a lot of these smaller towns have when Californians move there. Because they bring the fuckton of money that they earned in California and amp up the price of real estate in the area and gentrify it.

Maybe, we should discount the outflow out of CA/NYC because other states don't appreciate the CA money that disturbs the economic balance there. There are several cuts that can be made if we want to "remove distortion" from hundreds of different POVs.

[dragonwriter]

> That’s exactly the conservative critique of California. It’s laws make housing expensive.

The specific law that does that is championed and defended by conservatives, who keep successfully scaremongering every attempt to even tweak it.

So, that critique is pretty hollow.

[bin_bash]

What about family visas for folks from Mexico and the Philippines? I’m suspicious H1-B would even be the majority of international immigration in California.

[thetrb]

Moving from NYC to Long Island is slightly different than moving from California to Tennessee, so I don't really understand your point.

[rayiner]

The point is that they didn’t move to NYC because they love NYC as a place. They moved there because a Bangladeshi network can help you get a job at Dunkin Donuts and sign up for various social services. Once they had their legs under them they left the city.

[nodesocket]

I did just this, left San Francisco for Nashville. Anecdotally I’ve been seeing a huge uptick in California plates here in Nashville. Great, I did the same thing, welcome, but now don’t ruin it.

[lr4444lr]

Other than the raw comparative distance, how is it different?

[random314]

This unfairly discounts the immigrants that California attracts , while counting folks who leave. To be consistent we must look at population growth as a whole, possibly split by age group. California will typically attract younger folks looking for work.

[deep-root]

Well said. CA immigrants paid ~$50bn in taxes in 2018, ~50% naturalize, a million are business owners.[1] Almost 40% of Silicon Valley is immigrants. Half of all immigrants that come to the US land in California. Most from Asia and Europe.

On paper this is an exceedingly productive population, and represents 25% of California.

[1] https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigran...

[rayiner]

It discounts international immigration in from every state, so California isn’t especially penalized in that regard. It’s not unfair—all it does is separate the question of what makes a state a good destination for international immigrants (which involves very specific factors) and the question of what makes a state a desirable place to live for Americans who have unrestricted choices about where to live.

[random314]

Discounting international immigration from every state is obviously unfair. United States is a country built by immigrants.

It is true that most American states are unable to attract immigrants. However, they do reap the benefits from the powerhouse states that keep America competitive in the global economic sphere.

[tomjakubowski]

Wouldn't international immigrants who enter the United States in California and then relocate to another state be counted in the domestic emigrants statistic?

> People don’t choose where they’re born.

To varying degrees people choose to have children.

[dv_dt]

H1b approvals were severely curtailed by the Trump administration.

https://insights.dice.com/2020/10/27/h-1b-policy-how-trump-a...

[smsm42]

I think when people talk about "exodus" form California, they mean domestic migration mostly. Imagine the most extreme scenario (completely ridiculous in reality, but let's consider it for a moment) - all current California population has moved out, and then has been replaced with fresh immigrants. Would you consider this situation as "population exodus happened in California", in the same meaning as it is discussed now, or it would be more appropriate to say "nothing special happened"? I think it would be the former rather than the latter.

[robomartin]

I don't know about these numbers. What I can tell you is that the business exodus from CA is very real. This means less jobs, or, what could be worse, lower paying jobs. I know of entire companies who picked-up and left for places like Arizona and Texas.

I personally cannot wait to be able to do the same. I want nothing whatsoever to do with California in terms of business. After decades of living here I am just sick of it. I can't make the move yet due to deep family ties that we must respect and be considerate of. My mother just passed two weeks ago. My father is in OK health but he is up there in years. Etc. As some of these ties dissolve it will be far easier to make the decision.

And BTW, this isn't about Democrat vs. Republican states. In fact, one of my potential targets is Massachusetts. CA has simply gone looney. I can't even begin to make a list of the nonsense people and businesses living here have to put up with.

I'll give you a few (of likely hundreds):

They passed a tax added to your property taxes that is a function of any surface area on your property that does not allow rain to come into contact with dirt. So, yes, your driveway, patio, pergola, etc. All of it results in an additional tax assessment. For businesses, this means the entire parking lot is now a tax liability. Installed solar panels on a structure over some dirt? You just incurred an additional tax on your installation.

I am currently helping a friend figure out the technical aspects of a business he wants to start. His initial target was Los Angeles. This business would likely bring dozens, if not well over a hundred jobs to wherever it might be located. We met with the building permit folks for LA County. They pretty much told us no less than three years for all the permits to be issued. He is now talking to people in Arizona, Nevada and Texas. He is also moving his existing company (~100 jobs) to wherever the new business will take root.

And then there's the hundred billion dollar high speed train to nowhere that isn't even a high speed train and (if I remember correctly) might not even have ten miles of track built.

The governor signed an executive order asking for 15% water conservation. At the same time we have no problem growing almonds here and providing this high-water-demand crop with all the water farmers need.

Oh, and have you heard of the County of Los Angeles Business Property Tax? No, not what you might think. You have desks? Copiers? Chairs? Curtains? Equipment? Shelving? Yes? Anything inside the building you own or lease for your business is considered "business property" by the County of Los Angeles. And, as such, you are required to pay a tax to the county. Yes, a tax, permanently, every single year, on your chairs, desks, computers, coffee machine, etc. In fact, they call it a "privilege tax" for the privilege of doing business in or THROUGH the county. Yes, that's correct, if your business isn't in LA County but you do business in or DRIVE THROUGH the county, you are required to pay this tax. For companies with lots of equipment (like manufacturers) this could easily amount to $50K to $100K per year. In other words, a few jobs.

There's a lot more. I'll stop there before my blood pressure goes through the roof.

[antiterra]

> They passed a tax added to your property taxes that is a function of any surface area on your property that does not allow rain to come into contact with dirt

So they charge you for the externalities incurred by impervious surface cover? How is that anything but rational? Seriously, why do you deserve to add to pollution and drought without incurring any penalty for the cost you inflict on others?

Impervious ground cover is also an issue in Texas, particularly in areas fed by limestone aquifers. In some municipalities you’re simply not allowed to add more impervious ground cover without some sort of exception. The rest of your examples may indeed be ludicrous, but I stopped reading when you opened with something so plainly rational and sensical.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13619...

https://www.mit.edu/people/spirn/Public/Granite%20Garden%20R... https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/7/8/99/htm

[DevKoala]

You should have finished reading before getting offended. Some of his examples were very valid.

[antiterra]

Nothing about my response has anything to do with 'being offended.'

[strbean]

Reviewing them all, it seems the only remotely valid points where "LA permit approval is slow" and "California agriculture uses a lot of water"...

[DevKoala]

What about the tax on owning business items in LA? Does that sound fair?

Also, don’t you think it is insane that at a time when we are in need of jobs for an increasing population, job creation is stopped due to bureaucracy?

I love California, I am staying to create businesses too. However, there is way too much complacency among residents regarding the situation at which we have arrived due to our policies.

These policies perhaps impact business creators first, but also have massive repercussions on the quality of life of other residents.

[strbean]

> What about the tax on owning business items in LA? Does that sound fair?

From other comments, it sounds like this only applies to items exceeding some large dollar value. I'm all for increasing the tax base, especially with Prop 13 strangling our budget for things like education.

> Also, don’t you think it is insane that at a time when we are in need of jobs for an increasing population, job creation is stopped due to bureaucracy?

This certainly sucks, especially with how often regulation is abused purely to create barriers to entry and solidify the positions of entrenched players. This is a problem pretty much everywhere but Somalia though, so I'm not hugely moved by one particular instance of it in one county. We certainly have lessons to learn in this regard in California though.

[strbean]

> And then there's the hundred billion dollar high speed train to nowhere that isn't even a high speed train and (if I remember correctly) might not even have ten miles of track built.

The planned max speed for CAHSR is 220 mph, which is faster than TGV or Shinkansen, and well beyond the threshold for "high speed".

Also, nowhere? The initial route is from SJ to Burbank. How is that nowhere? This is absurd.

[robomartin]

You are confusing marketing materials with reality.

The planned speed is what they used to sell it to voters. Actual speed is ridiculous due to the issues the train would run into (if it is every finished) in every town or region it crosses. There are parts where it probably won't be allowed to go much faster than 50 mph. So, yeah, nice selling point, but, no, fake news.

Same with the San Jose to Burbank story. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath. I think they don't even have ten miles built and it has been years. And those ten miles are not even functional.

If it is ever finished, this is going to be a trillion dollar project (or more). It did not make any sense even below that price point. The entire thing is preposterous. Nobody is going to ride it (translate: not enough people to justify building it) and the cost per passenger will be so high it will be the boondoggle of the century.

This is what happens when politicians sell stuff to a public that can barely calculate the tip at a restaurant.

[strbean]

This is a gish gallop. It won't happen, and if it does, it won't work, and if it does, it won't work well enough, and if it does, nobody will want it, and if they do, it will be too expensive.

Somehow the rest of the developed world made them work, and they form a key part of the infrastructure. But, as with everything else that works well in the rest of the developed world, "It wouldn't work here because America is so special."

[musingsole]

> They passed a tax added to your property taxes that is a function of any surface area on your property that does not allow rain to come into contact with dirt.

Tamped earth structures. BOOM. When you make your billions, just cite @musingsole in your about page.

[jjeaff]

The business property tax is for property over $100k. I don't think many offices have that much furniture. Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county. Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.

[robomartin]

> The business property tax is for property over $100k. I don't think many offices have that much furniture.

No. It isn't. It applies above and below $100K. The rules are a little different on either side of that threshold.

> Also, it does not appear to be true that this tax is assessed on businesses outside of la county.

Well, then you know more than the tax assessor who visited me every year at my business and told me, almost verbatim, that if you do business in Los Angeles county or travel through the county to do business elsewhere, it doesn't matter where your home base might be, you have to pay this tax.

> Just how exactly are the figuring out who is driving "through" the county? They have to send you the assessment forms.

The way I learned of this tax, a couple of decades ago, is from a guy who knocked on my front door asking about a business next door. When I told him they were out at a conference, he asked me what my business was (we had no signage outside our industrial unit). When I told him, he said "Oh, yeah, I have you right here" as he opened a thick binder.

This guy was canvasing every single industrial center at the periphery of LA County to both assess and inform businesses they owed this tax. He was well trained. After identifying himself as working for LA county (showing ID, etc.) he asked stuff like "So, do you do business in LA County or are you just local out here". If you said "yes" to any number of his well-prepared questions out came an assessment form. He even tried to come into our facility to do an inventory. Non only was I not going to allow some random unannounced guy to come into our facility, we were doing a bunch of aerospace work that fell under ITAR regulations, NDA's, etc. You can't just walk random folks into your office when you do that kind of work. So, in what I am going to call a "third world style", he proposed an assessment value right there and then, in my lobby. I agreed and wrote the county a check.

F-ing thieves.

Think about it: Businesses in LA County have to perpetually pay taxes on their desks, chairs, tools, computers, tenant improvement (yes, that too!), SUPPLIES, etc. A perpetual tax on the damn chair you are sitting on. That's what it has come to. I don't understand why voters pass this crap and expect job creation, growth and the ability to compete with the likes of China.

A perpetual tax on my coffee machine. Brilliant.

[ryathal]

100k is pretty easy to hit with 75-100 employees. 100 desks, chairs, and computers is going to be at least that much. hopefully you don't have meeting rooms, printers/copiers, a waiting area, a break room with fridge/microwave/coffee/table/chairs...

[robomartin]

He is wrong. The tax applies above and below $100K. The process is a bit different on each side of that threshold.

https://assessor.lacounty.gov/personal-property-assessments-...

From the page:

"businesses with personal property and fixtures that cost less than $100,000 are not required to file a Business Property Statement annually. Instead, a value is established based on an initial Business Property Statement filing or by an on-site appraisal. That value may be adjusted by subsequent annual on-site appraisals."

You pay this amount annually so long as you didn't buy anything new. They can show-up and do an on-site appraisal and get you if you under reported.

[DevKoala]

It doesn’t make it less ridiculous. It disincentivizes business creation in LA. Also, due to inflation $100k will be much less in a decade when small business owners will start getting hit by it.

[fridif]

The influx of 100k people working warehouse jobs does not outweigh the 1,000 software engineers who left and will never return

[dragonwriter]

California's larger number of domestic outmigrants tend to be lower income than the smaller number of domestic inmigrants. The people coming in are more likely to be software engineers, the people going out more likely to be the warehouse workers (or, even more likely, retirees.)

[fridif]

Tell me the number and types of software engineers who have left, and I will measure the loss

[SamoyedFurFluff]

That seems like moving the goalposts.

[fridif]

Whether it is or isnt, it's worth a discussion no?

[deep-root]

It's the opposite, California is the new brain-drainer like US post WWII. https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-brain-gain-continues/

[Black101]

Births and deaths probably shouldn't be included in this? They aren't the ones deciding to leave or stay.

[throwawayboise]

> 50-80K excess deaths

COVID was part of this, but Boomers are also reaching dying age.

[jjeaff]

Excess deaths takes projected deaths into account. That's mostly covid. Or covid adjacent.

[maxk42]

Excellent information!

So what this tells me is based on migration alone, (since births / deaths are not indicative of intent to migrate) California has been flat at best, not counting an unknown number of international emigrants - so that number is likely lower. Given that those net immigration numbers have been dropping faster in the past couple years, we may indeed be seeing the tide turning on California immigration.

[Spooky23]

If you’re not growing you’re dying.

The thing about states like New York and California is the the fringes rot while everything is great in the core. The areas that are doing gangbuster business may be healthy at the moment, but other areas are dying.

I don’t know California well, but I know New York, and that upstate and western NY have been in free fall for years with some exceptions. Industry left in the 80s… cities like Syracuse are husks. Agriculture has been in decline for a long time and dairy, once the strongest ag industry, is in a death spiral as industry consolidation and subsidized fake products take over. Even NYC is not as resilient as it was… financial services pay the bills much more so than in the past.

California is obviously different, but I can’t imagine there aren’t parallels. Once the bell-weather tech giants start diversifying their physical locations that’s going to have a real impact.

[jjeaff]

All the tech giants have had locations in lots of other cities for many years now. Yet it hasn't seemed to affect their main California locations as of yet.

[acenes]

Sorry, but "back of the napkin" calculations are quick order-of-magnitude type estimates based on reasonable guesses or first principles, not by looking up numbers on the web (napkin not big enough to write out URLs; maybe use envelope)

[Talanes]

Are you really trying to gatekeep "back of the napkin?"

[sidlls]

How is it gatekeeping? We don't call estimates sourced with references "back of the napkin" calculations because they aren't.

[Talanes]

It was a small handful of quickly searchable numbers, not an in-depth review of sources and data.