Economics and Population Projections (Los Angeles, San Francisco: car insurance, home, income)

[NewToCA]

A rather long but interesting article was published today concerning the potential future of California. I found it to be an interesting read, containing both positive and negative sentiments, and especially wanted to focus on this particular observation:

California, which has been a natural target for immigration throughout its history, is losing people. Between 2004 and 2008, half a million residents upped sticks and headed elsewhere. By 2010, California could lose a congressman because its population will have fallen so much – an astonishing prospect for a state that is currently the biggest single political entity in America.

Will California become America's first failed state? | World news | The Observer


The reason I posted this in the Sacramento forum though, is I want to see if any want to discuss their views of the proposed growth for Sacramento, and if they believe it is still reasonable. Also what impact do you see on future development.

From the Sacramento Region Blueprint, on Pg 20, they discuss the proposed population growth for the metro area. It shows that we had just under 2 million folks in the metro area in 2000, and projects out a population of 3.65 million in another 40 years, almost doubling during this period.

http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/sa...owthtrends.pdf



My own point of view is that the Sacramento projections are too high, and I believe the population growth may be less than 1/2 of that projected. How do you believe the area will evolve population wise? If you think the projections are too high, how do you see that impacting proposed developments?

[wburg]

One thing to consider is how the changes in the California economy will affect areas like Los Angeles and the Bay Area? Those are huge, expensive places--in the face of a deflating California, will people stay there, or will they look for parts of the state that are less expensive but still offer some of the cultural amenities they expect? We're already the receiving end for that demographic, and have been since the first wave of dot-com washouts crossed the Sacramento in the late nineties. Why wouldn't they try to fall back to Sacramento? Where else would they go--Redding? Fresno? Stockton?

[volleyballer]

I agree with Wburg. Those projections could be accurate because this area is becoming affordable overnight. Of course there's the no jobs issue, but this is not a local issue. If people can move here and work with the family at all minimum wage jobs, they'd live better here over the Bay Area or LA area. Also people are still moving here looking for the CA dream from other states. A little crazy in my mind considering the economy, but they're doing it.

[NewToCA]

Well, another alternative is that much of the work that is done today involves collaboration, and the massive growth in the capability of the internet allows folks to live in remote locations yet participate extensively in many projects. Perhaps this results in many individuals living out of this state, whereas in the past they would have had to physically locate here.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Well, another alternative is that much of the work that is done today involves collaboration, and the massive growth in the capability of the internet allows folks to live in remote locations yet participate extensively in many projects. Perhaps this results in many individuals living out of this state, whereas in the past they would have had to physically locate here.

I think that's a very possible scenario. In weighing where to retire, affordability was a major consideration. I would think that it would be so for working people whose "jobs" are portable. If they can receive California-based wages while living in acceptable/desireable areas/states with lower costs of living, less crowding and less crime, I think they'd be foolish not to consider it. Granted, California offers a lot that is not found elsewhere in such grand supply but in the end, the rest of the quality-of-life equation is a great draw.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I think that's a very possible scenario. In weighing where to retire, affordability was a major consideration. I would think that it would be so for working people whose "jobs" are portable. If they can receive California-based wages while living in acceptable/desireable areas/states with lower costs of living, less crowding and less crime, I think they'd be foolish not to consider it. Granted, California offers a lot that is not found elsewhere in such grand supply but in the end, the rest of the quality-of-life equation is a great draw.

I know in past discussions you've mentioned being involved in budget analysis work for the state. Based upon your experience, would someone have to physically be located in Sacramento or California to do this work, or could it be structured to allow remote access workers?

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

I know in past discussions you've mentioned being involved in budget analysis work for the state. Based upon your experience, would someone have to physically be located in Sacramento or California to do this work, or could it be structured to allow remote access workers?

Easily structured for remote access. When I was home due to pneumonia one time and injujries another, I had no problem accessing my office files, keeping up with the political news and even watching and listening to legislative committee hearings from my home computer, participating in conference calls, etc. I could do it all online and my secretary could access it on the government network to which I was tied.

The issue has more to do with older managers who aren't that computer literate or up on communications in this digital age and have little or no confidence in an employees ability to telecommute. Of course, I was one of those older managers but had used computers since the mid-70s when I was stationed at the Pentagon so I was comfortable.

Ultimately I found I could do two to three times the amount of work at home as I could in the office because there were fewer interruptions. Meetings that required my attendance were put on speaker phone in the conference rooms so I could join in.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

[NewToCA]

Now to me, what you state about remote work rings fairly true. I wonder about the population projections, and associated growth, that was contained in the second link of my original posting. I think it is possible that they based this projected significant growth, almost doubling the Sacramento metro area population over the next 40 years, on some questionable assumptions.

If looking at migration from the San Francisco metro area, I can see some cost logic there. However, if remote access for work becomes more of a norm, and I suspect it will over time, I wonder if the population would really follow that pattern. After all, though Sacramento is cheaper to live in than metro San Francisco, it still has the higher tax burdens associated with California. Also, I wonder if businesses headquartered in California might be more inclined to spin off subsidiaries, headquartered in states that have a lower tax burden.

Basically, I'm exploring the soundness of the population growth projections. It just seems to me that there could be some significant technological evolutions that negate some of the assumptions behind the growth. I noticed on the later charts it shows some aging of the metro Sacramento population, but when I consider the income tax burdens associated with California, plus higher cost for things such as car insurance, I wonder if the older residents may migrate elsewhere.

Just tossing out some alternative perspectives. This is of interest to me because I think a lot of the proposed future development projects are based upon this assumed growth.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

California, which has been a natural target for immigration throughout its history, is losing people. Between 2004 and 2008, half a million residents upped sticks and headed elsewhere. By 2010, California could lose a congressman because its population will have fallen so much – an astonishing prospect for a state that is currently the biggest single political entity in America.

Will California become America's first failed state? | World news | The Observer

This is totally incorrect.

California's population has grown from 33 Million in 2000 to 38 Millon now. Our population will probably surpass 40 Million by 2011.

[rcclifford]

I would like to hear from someone who understands the economic impact of illegals from Mexico and other south of the border countries.

Does anyone know how many will be released from state prisons to re-join street gangs, deal in drugs, etc.?

Do we all agree, they have deeply harmed our state and can we stop putting this back on the federal government who are unable to protect us.

Why don't we hire buses and transport the illegal Mexicans from state prisons back to the Mexican border and let their government deal with them?

How are we going to prevent them from re-entering our culture and making things that much worse?

Does anyone have statistics of how many illegals are in our state prisons?