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.
Your post doesnt prove anything because Uhaul is used for moving and CA's population only grew thanks to natural increase (births minus deaths). I already posted a link in this thread, that you also used in your post, which shows the hundreds of thousands of CA residents that leave the state annually. It's the far right column. So many leave that it negates the international immigtation numbers, of which CA's share is also dropping due to high housing costs (cheaper states have seen more growth there). I honestly don't know how you can use that link and post what you did about CA's population.
And yes for Austin, outside of the people it gets from Houston and DFW, the largest share of its newcomers are from California.
Btw the source for the link is not A&M but the Census. All A&M does is compile the data in easy to read formats.
The actual numbers are all the proof that is needed and the OP fails miserably to prove his point.
Net outflows from CA = -0.176%
Net inflows to the South = .51%
Again....MATH
Btw, the net amount of Californians moving to Texas (so people moving from CA to Texas less people moving from Texas to CA) was a whopping 45,000 on a population of 29 million. That's .15%. That's called making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Look what two cities are in the top 20 for GAINING U-hauls:
8. Sacramento, California
12. San Diego, California
Sorry to burst your bubble, California haters. More people are moving to Sacramento and San Diego than are leaving.
They're on a roll. Don't try and stop them. Their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to see your comment.
I know, thanks. I won't even bother to explain why so many seniors don't leave California because for them it's a low tax state. Hint: Prop 13 and Soc Sec is not taxed, and if income is less than ~$80k, total taxes are higher elsewhere, so they stay. It's the "Prop 13 trap."
What, no Fresno? I guess it’s not as attractive of an LA overflow zone as San Diego is. And Sacramento is Bay Area folks looking for more affordable housing.
What, no Fresno? I guess it’s not as attractive of an LA overflow zone as San Diego is. And Sacramento is Bay Area folks looking for more affordable housing.
Much of fresnos growth comes from surrounding cities(Bakersfield, Visalia, etc), so uhauls aren't needed as often.
South bay/San Jose is probably the number 1 coastal metro for Fresno migration
Phoenix and Vegas get a lot more socal interest than Fresno. So much that Both are now a bit more expensive than Fresno. I think you'll see more socal interest in Fresno if prices keep rising in the desert.
Edit: per redfin
Average price
Fresno 360k
Vegas 390k
Phoenix 418k
Last edited by dontbelievehim; 01-07-2022 at 01:33 AM..
The actual numbers are all the proof that is needed and the OP fails miserably to prove his point.
Net outflows from CA = -0.176%
Net inflows to the South = .51%
Again....MATH
Btw, the net amount of Californians moving to Texas (so people moving from CA to Texas less people moving from Texas to CA) was a whopping 45,000 on a population of 29 million. That's .15%. That's called making a mountain out of a mole hill.
They're on a roll. Don't try and stop them. Their cognitive dissonance won't allow them to see your comment.
The actual numbers come from the link both you and I posted which shows California loses 100k+ in domestic migrants each year. Here do you need to see it again? https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/p...ate/California
So in the last five years CA has lost close to 900,000 residents who moved out of state, which is about 2.5% of CA's population. No other state loses this many residents numerically, but proportionally there are others similar to CA (NY, Illinois, etc.). That's basically the City of SF leaving every five years in CA. Good thing there are more births than deaths in CA because that is what kept the number in the positive until this last year.
The only one making a mountain out of a mole hill is you. The interior west mountain states obviously receive more CA transplants. Who was trying to say Texas got the most? Somebody in some old thread you mentioned earlier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
Look what two cities are in the top 20 for GAINING U-hauls:
8. Sacramento, California
12. San Diego, California
Sorry to burst your bubble, California haters. More people are moving to Sacramento and San Diego than are leaving.
So Sacramento is the only one seeing healthy moderate growth in all metrics, meanwhile San Diego is more like the state at large in that it continues to lose domestic migrants, and so much that it cancels out the diminishing international immigration. What keeps it afloat the most is natural increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachmouse
What, no Fresno? I guess it’s not as attractive of an LA overflow zone as San Diego is. And Sacramento is Bay Area folks looking for more affordable housing.
Yet another CA metro area that loses thousands of domestic migrants a year.
See what happens in California is you get a family of 4+ being replaced by a single or DINK couple with two cars. This means the traffic situation isnt helped because cars werent removed from the roadway (the kids are not driving yet in that family of 4+), a home sale was marked too and for a nice high price, but this will still show up as CA losing 2+ residents.
Because people base a lot of their opinions on only traffic and home sales instead of migration data, they think cities like Fresno are growing from people moving in. Not necessarily.
The actual numbers are all the proof that is needed and the OP fails miserably to prove his point.
Net outflows from CA = -0.176%
Net inflows to the South = .51%
Again....MATH
Btw, the net amount of Californians moving to Texas (so people moving from CA to Texas less people moving from Texas to CA) was a whopping 45,000 on a population of 29 million. That's .15%. That's called making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The actual numbers come from the link both you and I posted which shows California loses 100k+ in domestic migrants each year. Here do you need to see it again? https://www.recenter.tamu.edu/data/p...ate/California
So in the last five years CA has lost close to 900,000 residents who moved out of state, which is about 2.5% of CA's population. No other state loses this many residents numerically, but proportionally there are others similar to CA (NY, Illinois, etc.). That's basically the City of SF leaving every five years in CA. Good thing there are more births than deaths in CA because that is what kept the number in the positive until this last year.
The only one making a mountain out of a mole hill is you. The interior west mountain states obviously receive more CA transplants. Who was trying to say Texas got the most? Somebody in some old thread you mentioned earlier?
Twist and shout all you like (you're good at it). As stated, their is no mass exodus out of California and there is no significant inflow of people in the south. Every number concerning inflows and outflows on these states is statistically insignificant and no amount of spin on your part is going to change that...try as you might.
See post #48 to answer your question on who was talking about southern states.
What I am seeing is that people make their money in blue states in tech, finance, biglaw, etc. and then, once they have earned enough “FU money” they move to a cheaper, less developed state. It’s the same as Americans retiring in third world countries after working in the US for 30 years. Why do you think there are over 1 million Americans living in Mexico right now?
This is exactly what happens.
Blue states generate more GDP than red states.
70% of our nation's economic activity occurs in counties that vote for Democrats.
So folks make their money, then move to lower cost of living, warmer climate states.
But according to stats as analyzed above, it is hardly a tidal wave.
Twist and shout all you like (you're good at it). As stated, their is no mass exodus out of California and there is no significant inflow of people in the south. Every number concerning inflows and outflows on these states is statistically insignificant and no amount of spin on your part is going to change that...try as you might.
That depends on what you consider a mass exodus. I think losing over 2% of a state's population every five years to people moving out to be a high amount. What does that number need to be for you to consider it a mass exodus? 50%?? We know thats not happening anytime soon. You have to look at it in relation to what other states are doing.
And also it isnt a bad thing or mean CA is suffering as a state. It is simple data.
Also how am I twisting the data? Just because you didnt interpret it correctly doesnt mean I'm twisting it. And wht do you keep talking about inflows to the South when there are other red states closer to CA that its residents are moving to? Besides we're talking about anywhere from a fourth to a third of the domestic migrants leaving CA annually that choose Texas which is still a significant amount of those leaving. Again what number do you need this to be? Lol.
That depends on what you consider a mass exodus. I think losing over 2% of a state's population every five years to people moving out to be a high amount. What does that number need to be for you to consider it a mass exodus? 50%?? We know thats not happening anytime soon. You have to look at it in relation to what other states are doing.
And also it isnt a bad thing or mean CA is suffering as a state. It is simple data.
Net difference is not 2%....sorry, fail.
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.
