Why doesn't anybody from other western states move to California? (middle-class, sales)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looking at the New York Times state migration map, practically nobody from other western states seems to move to California - it's always Californians moving to other western states to get away from the high cost of living and urbanity of California. It's interesting because California is touted as such a desirable place to live yet almost no one from nearby states chooses to move there.
Because in everyday life where you always feel broke, moving some place where everything is three times as expensive doesn't seem like a step in the right direction.
The NYT map is deceptive - it shows the percentage of California's current population who were born in another state and moved to California - but migrants are only counted by the state of their birth. So if you were born in Seattle, WA, moved to Oregon as a child and then moved to California, you'd be counted a Washington move, not an Oregon move. Or, if you were born in California, your family moved to Oregon and then you moved to California as an adult, you wouldn't be counted as a "migrant" at all.
Let us do some math - California has 38 million people.
If the ENTIRE population of Oregon (3.9 million) moved to California tomorrow, it would barely dent the number of Californians - and besides, remember the graph shows population migration by the state migrants were BORN in - a lot of Oregon's population moved to Oregon from California in the first place.
As it is, the map shows that 1% (probably less, 1% is likely the rounded figure) of California's population was born in Oregon - that means that 380,000 people in California now were born in Oregon. That is about 10% of Oregon's current population and a substantial number.
Same thing applies for other states - Arizona's population is 6.6 million. Nevada's is 2.97 million.
People from other western states do move to California--however take into account the total population of the West is about 71 million and 38 million of that is California. So the percentages are going to be pretty small in comparison--and with over half the population obviously most of the people transplanting to other states in the West from the West will be from California. Also a lot of these look at where someone was born--and people moving from other Western states to California might not have even been born in the West to begin with.
This map is slightly older but if you click on counties in California you'll see places where there's a higher number of people moving out to other places in the West, but also a considerable amount moving in from some of the same counties(for example when the map was last updated--more people were moving to Santa Clara County from King County(Seattle) than vice versa. So, people still move to California, though in overall the outflow domestic outflow might be higher than inflow.
In part though, there's not going to be a big huge middle class influx back into California overall for a while--because much of the state is expensive as it is and other parts are economically weak. So you won't have the big middle-class influx that California used to get in the 20s through the 70s that now goes to a lot of other Sunbelt states(like Texas). However it's not true to say that no one moves to California anymore(outside of immigrants). I went to high school in California and college in Oregon and I know more people from college who moved to California(most of whom were from Oregon) than vice versa. It's just that it's a different demographic---people trying to make it Silicon Valley or Los Angeles with career ambitions--rather than looking for a easy place to raise a family(those people stayed in Oregon).
The NYT map is deceptive - it shows the percentage of California's current population who were born in another state and moved to California - but migrants are only counted by the state of their birth. So if you were born in Seattle, WA, moved to Oregon as a child and then moved to California, you'd be counted a Washington move, not an Oregon move. Or, if you were born in California, your family moved to Oregon and then you moved to California as an adult, you wouldn't be counted as a "migrant" at all.
Let us do some math - California has 38 million people.
If the ENTIRE population of Oregon (3.9 million) moved to California tomorrow, it would barely dent the number of Californians - and besides, remember the graph shows population migration by the state migrants were BORN in - a lot of Oregon's population moved to Oregon from California in the first place.
As it is, the map shows that 1% (probably less, 1% is likely the rounded figure) of California's population was born in Oregon - that means that 380,000 people in California now were born in Oregon. That is about 10% of Oregon's current population and a substantial number.
Same thing applies for other states - Arizona's population is 6.6 million. Nevada's is 2.97 million.
It says less than 1% but you make a good point - less than 1% could mean as many as 300,000 Oregonians. But still, New York, Texas and Illinois all have a lot more natives that live in California despite being much further away and no Western state makes up more than 1 percent of California's population. There are more Midwesterners, Southerners and Northeasterners living in California than people from other Western states.
EVERYTHING in CA is not three times as expensive as other places. Where do people get these crazy ideas?
The property taxes are basically fixed as long as you own your home. Most other places in the country will reassess your property values and charge you ever-increasing taxes. Not so in CA.
The city/county sales taxes fluctuate depending on where you are.
For instance, the sales tax in Houston is 8.20%. Where I live in Redding, CA, it's 7.5%. In San Francisco, it's 8.75%.
Produce is cheaper in CA than anywhere I've ever lived, as is a lot of seafood, and wine is crazy cheap.
Rents are high in the urban areas that are in demand - the SF Bay Area, for sure. I don't know southern CA.
Depending on where you live, utilities are very cheap, because it doesn't get too hot or too cold.
Anyway, keep the myth going, I guess. The traffic is bad enough in the major urban areas, so we don't need a ton more people moving there. But, you might want to take a look at a map of CA and look at how much space there is around SF and LA. Lotta farms, dairies, ranches, woods, small towns. The entire state is not L.A. Or three times as expensive as anywhere else.
And as far as people not moving to CA from neighboring states? I think you should look at the SF/Oakland and the San Jose forums. Constant new posts about people moving there for jobs from everywhere.
Great place to visit, but why pay more when you can get pretty much the same things everywhere else?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
