California's power center - shifting to the north?

[hsw]

Population is only one factor

Top 1% of taxpayers pay ~50% of taxes in places like CA or NYC

Politicians periodically visit SiliconValley or NYC or BevHills to hear views of major donors at lucrative fundraisers; many of these major donors don't actually waste their time voting: one dollar/one vote is far more efficient than one man/one vote

Most of wealth (as measured by valuable companies or wealthy individuals) in CA lives/works in the PaloAlto area, not SF or LA or SJ....wealth is a major factor in power, but most also don't like riots in streets, ala LA of early '90s...reality is CA or NYC has many millions of poorly educated lifelong welfare folks who need to be paid off for peace in streets...sort of like MI's UAW...or community organizers in Wash or Sacramento or Albany

[Steve97415]

Originally Posted by OC Investor2

My perception is So Cal will get more illegals while the growth in Nor Cal (particularly in the immediate bay area) would include a higher ratio of citizens from other states and skilled migrants who may one day become citizens. So I could see the political balance of power tipping more northward.

My perception is that the whole West Coast of North America is like a giant tube of toothpaste being squeezed from the bottom. As Mexican immigrants gush across the border, Californians now living in the southern part of the state will get bumped up to northern California in search of the "Old California" of their youth, and northern Californians will spill over into Oregon in search of lower taxes, lower cost of living and more abundant water.

[UB50]

Regardless the population growth, I see NoCal and SoCal sharing a lot of tech info.

I wouldn't begin to pick a "more popular" between the two of them since both attract different types of people.

I feel sorry for the rest of the USA. They lack the open-minded vibrancy that seems to envelope California.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by hsw

Most of wealth (as measured by valuable companies or wealthy individuals) in CA lives/works in the PaloAlto area, not SF or LA or SJ....wealth is a major factor in power, but most also don't like riots in streets, ala LA of early '90s...reality is CA or NYC has many millions of poorly educated lifelong welfare folks who need to be paid off for peace in streets...sort of like MI's UAW...or community organizers in Wash or Sacramento or Albany

You're post is bizarre. What were you trying to explain? I ask because I don't get it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

I found this on SPUR's website:

The Northern California megaregion has 14 million people and over 5.7 million jobs. Over the next several decades, the Northern California megaregion is projected to grow slightly faster than the state as a whole and will increase its share of the state's population to 40 percent by 2050.

So yes, Northern California is growing faster than the state as a whole.

Also on their website:

Northern California Population in 2050:
Entire megaregion 24 million
Urbanized core 19.1 million

SPUR | The Northern California Megaregion

Spur's NorCal Megaregion doesnt include all of Northern California, just the areas they see combining into a cohesive Metro-like entity.

Inyo and Mono in the East, as well as all of Far Northern CA are still unaccounted for...by 2050 their combined population should be 1 Million or so.

Yes, I've been in the same location from the beginning when we started bickering about same-sex marriage.

[18Montclair]

Northern California has a bigger income disparity between the coast and interior than Southern California.

California Counties by Median Family Income($50,000+), 2008
Marin $114,617
Santa Clara $104,022
San Mateo $101,504
Contra Costa $95,100
San Francisco $91,812
Placer $87,731
Alameda $87,391
Ventura $86,784
Orange $85,985
Santa Cruz $83,997
El Dorado $78,586
Sonoma $78,282
Solano $78,086
Napa $76,739
San Diego $74,541
San Luis Obispo $72,327
Santa Barbara $72,294
Yolo $72,132
Sacramento $66,829
Nevada $65,804
Riverside $64,594
San Joaquin $62,378
Los Angeles $61,937
San Bernardino $61,698
Stansilaus $58,962
Yuba $55,102
Kings $55,067
Humboldt $53,899
Mendocino, CA $52,162
Madera $50,966
Tulare $50,018

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

"But there is one sign of real change in California—the power is shifting north."

Has So-Cal Lost Its Mojo? - Funny Business with Jane Wells - CNBC.com

In my mind, it hardly matters. We're a state in long term decline. Although I do hope this changes, I'm not holding my breath.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

In my mind, it hardly matters. We're a state in long term decline. Although I do hope this changes, I'm not holding my breath.

"The decline of California" has been purported for decades. I don't see it happening. The state might not be what it once was, but I think it's more powerful than its ever been in terms of economic and cultural influence around the world.

[18Montclair]

The NY Times has an article about this too...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/us/25sfpolitics.html

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well obviously we don't have a crystal ball but if the last 60 years are anything like the next 40--these projections are probably close to true.

San Francisco/Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto/Salinas combined CSA and MSA Population between 1940 and 2003.

Population
1940 2,526,054
1950 3,647,000
1960 5,066,320
1970 6,455,400
1980 7,530,800
1990 9,114,800
2000 10,498,800
2003 10,861,000

Net Population Change
1940-1950 +1,120,946(+44.3%)
1950-1960 +1,419,320(+38.9%)
1960-1970 +1,389,080(+27.4%)
1970-1980 +1,075,400(+16.6%)
1980-1990 +1,584,000(+21.0%)
1990-2000 +1,384,000(+15.1%)
2000-2003 +363,000(+3.4%)

Average Annual Population Change(1940-2003) +132,313

1940-2003 +8,335,746

Right, however, immigration, the main source of growth here for the past 10 years, is now trailing off. The trend is unmistakable.