Los Angeles looses 44,000 people in 2012

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by hjt123

Wendell Cox is another one. He's even worse than Kotkin.

Thanks! I wasn't familiar with that guy.

Looks like he opposes spending public funds to support smart growth, density, urban planning, and public transportation. Instead, he promotes of big houses, long commutes, and SUVs. Because "most people prefer that lifestyle".

Wonder which oil company is paying him.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by jacobwilliam77

\


Thats the thing that matters the most. In the past 10 years most of my family has left here. My parents, brothers, cousins, aunt, uncles. They all moved to the Southern US.

This has been discussed in several threads in the past. I'm not commenting on your family because I don't know them. However, the overall statistics of the people leaving California is that they have significantly lower educations and lower incomes than the average Californian. California isn't losing it's best and brightest, it's primarily losing the people who can't hack it. In fact, slightly more Americans with incomes > $200K/yr move TO California than leave it. It's about equal for in and out-migration for families with incomes between $100 and $200 K. The biggest difference in the proportion of people leaving California compared to those coming in from other states is in the $20-$40K income bracket, with far more leaiving California in this bracket than moving in. For lower and lower-middle class families, cheap housing in the South could allow them to have more space than what they could get in California. As other posters have stated, California is still growing due to immigration and natural increase.

[Marv101]

However, the increase in the population for both the state as well as for the city of Los Angeles both slowed dramatically between 2000-10.

California's population grew by 9.7%, while LA's population grew by a microscopic 2.6%, or just under 98,000 residents, as the US Census Bureau figures pointed out, which constituted very sharp drop from the 6% growth rate of the previous decade within the city.

US Census Bureau stats for the 2000-10 time period are available at Population Reference Bureau.

If you want booming states population-wise the top 5 were Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Utah & Texas, all of which experience population growth ranging to from just over 20% in Texas to over 35% in Nevada, and all which far exceeded California's population growth by a wide margin.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Is that you, Joel Kotkin?

I doubt it. The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank headquartered in, of all places Manhattan, and always happy to to tout up the states of the freezing prairie and the inland Sun Belt as the new California, with low taxes, low services, and sprawl--lots and lots and lots of sprawl. I can't quite parse all the levels of irony here.

Kotkin is based in OC, or he was last I heard.

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by Marv101

However, the increase in the population for both the state as well as for the city of Los Angeles both slowed dramatically between 2000-10.

California's population grew by 9.7%, while LA's population grew by a microscopic 2.6%, or just under 98,000 residents, as the US Census Bureau figures pointed out, which constituted very sharp drop from the 6% growth rate of the previous decade within the city.

Probably just as well. There are few "For Rent" signs in my neighborhood and house prices are still ridiculous, the 2008 recession and bubble burst notwithstanding. For us to handle significant population growth in this city there will have to be significant changes in our lifestyle and cityscape, IMO chiefly high-density housing and transit development, and just as necessarily enough of us have to become comfortable living in the former and using the latter.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

Probably just as well. There are few "For Rent" signs in my neighborhood and house prices are still ridiculous, the 2008 recession and bubble burst notwithstanding. For us to handle significant population growth in this city there will have to be significant changes in our lifestyle and cityscape, IMO chiefly high-density housing and transit development, and just as necessarily enough of us have to become comfortable living in the former and using the latter.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the concept of slow-growth/sustainability for CA's future.

There are 38 MILLION people here now. That's plenty.

I am troubled, though, that so many working class families chose to leave. It contributes to the huge wealth disparity here. But I understand why they did it. When your income is >$50k, and you have a couple kids, you have to go where the jobs are, and your cash goes the farthest.

From about 1946-1990, California was a PARADISE for blue collar types. My whole family belonged to unions, and worked in factories in the IE- Kaiser Steel, Riverside Cement, Rohr Aircraft.

But times change. Unfortunately, California's just not the best place for them anymore.