<p>The 1000 foot house I grew up in in queens is now worht more than the 2000 square foot house I live in in Californai. Prices are still dropping in my neighborhood, and a houses that was for sale a few months ago, now have a for lease sign. </p>
<p>With regard to NYC vs LA traffic, I think the difference is how many lanes wide, and how far you can see. In NY, you can always tell yourself that around the next corner it might be better. but when you are sitting on one of those clover looking thingys ( all the on and off ramps from various freeways converging) in LA, and you can see for miles in many directions, there is no deluding yourself about your situation. Bay area and San Diego seem better in that regard.</p>
<p>100,000 is insignificant. We had a major financial crisis in this country. California is an expensive place to live and taxes are only part of that. If people get into financial difficulties it makes sense to leave. </p>
<p>This is from the Economist. </p>
<p>This is a little more balanced than crap written by Victor Davis Hanson or some of the other nonsense in this thread.</p>
<p>Yeah, BUT. This is from a local news analysis, fwiw:
*About 100,000 more people moved away from California in 2011 than relocated to the Golden State, according to the latest report from the U.S. Census Bureau…The Census Bureau calculated that the most popular destination is Texas, with 58,992 residents relocating there along with a number of California companies.</p>
<p>Arizona was next on the list, with 49,635 people moving, then Nevada, Washington, and Oregon.</p>
<p>Although in smaller numbers, others are still relocating to the Golden State. Texans make up the largest number of new California residents with 37,387 people, according to the report. That is followed by people from Washington (36,481), Nevada (36,159), Arizona (35,650), and New York (25,269).*</p>
<p>[I deleted the other post, before dstark’s, to clean this up.]</p>
<p>Net migration out of CA was high in the early 90’s too- so much hate from Oregon and WA with the CA refugees changing the flavor of small communities. </p>
<p>Just a guess, but probably 99.9% of California’s high earners live within 20 miles of the coast. Once I see property values in those locations tanking I will worry about losing our $250 K/ year residents. Many Californians have left because of the drought in manufacturing and construction jobs during the recession.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the whole thread but I will say that after 25 years we are considering leaving CA. We aren’t earning over 250K per year but we are in the top 2-3 percent. As small business owners we have worked long and hard for every penny and the state keeps making it more difficult to make a profit.
And for everyone going off on Phil Mickelson don’t be mistaken about how hard golf pros work. They tour, they practice and they spend a ridiculous amount of time on the road. It’s as difficult as any business. He didn’t get to the top without a lot of hard work.</p>
<p>THe figures don’t break down who is moving in and who is moving out. When he was visiting here, and I was remarking how NYC has cleaned up a lot of their “street people”, he groused that they all moved to CA. </p>
<p>Of course, I don’t take it literally, but my DH’s home town has been wrecked by the influx of so many who have needs and no jobs due to an influx of federal money and housing to support the have nots. Anyone in that state or neighboring ones, wants a place to live and easy access to government handouts makes a beeline there, which has changed the charactor of that area drastically. It took a number of years for the transformation, but, yes, it did happen. Just like the San Jose area got a boost with Silicon Valley. I know old timer from there who cannot believe what their old cheapie homes are selling for now.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap, I guess it depends on where in CA. Though I’ve been shocked at how high real estate in some faraway areas costs in CA. My old high school friend lives in GIlroy and what those homes cost is shocking. Also depends on where in Queens. My son found an apartment there for $600 and pretty close to public transportation too. Not gonna happen near a major CA city.</p>
<p>People who have jobs in California cannot leave unless they can find another job in another state, and this is not exactly a great time for expecting that to happen. There are probably a significant number of high earners who would leave, if they felt this was a viable alternative, but it isn’t for most people, because if they work in CA, they must pay taxes in CA, regardless of where they live. We already went over this.</p>
<p>Bay, my brother waited through the real estate down turns looking for a break in buying a house in the Bay area, and it just didn’t happen. The break was maybe a better chance getting your full price + bid accepted. But again, he is in a prime location. But cross country, our locale is considered comparable, and this is not the case. Many homes underwater here, and it’s bargain snap up time.</p>
<p>Zooser, it is getting worse, not nowhere like what is was like in the late seventies and early eighties which was when my brother lived here. My dad who was born and grew up in NYC was appalled when he visited, at how bad it had gotten. My mother refused to walk around in Manhattan. Now she does and has commented how much better things had gotten. </p>
<p>cpt,
I sold a house in the Bay area 10 years ago (2002). I just googled it, and it is valued at 10% less than I sold it for in 2002. The chart shows that its current value is a bit higher than it had been in 2009.</p>
<p>cpt, in some places it is getting that bad, and I’ve worked in Times Square for almost 20 years now (!!). We were doing very well for a long time, but this mayor just doesn’t prioritize quality of life. It’s all about the control. Which is why he is out running his mouth all over the country instead of fixing one crisis and one serious problem currently making life even more difficult in the city.</p>
They were back this fall on the far west side. They have been for a couple of years. Not as extreme as the worst of times, but absolutely, emphatically back.</p>
<p>Those “arbitrary cutoffs of irrigation water” VDH talks about are hardly arbitrary. Agriculture is far and away the largest water user in California and is far and away the most wasteful water user in California. The state has limited water resources and the state is increasingly understanding the need to appropriate water in a manner that protects a diverse set of human and ecological needs.</p>
<p>For example, California’s inland streams once had incredible anadromous fish runs that rivaled anything seen in Alaska. The construction of dams and irrigation diversions have largely destroyed those productive fisheries - impacting not only ecology but also the fishing economy. Efforts are now being made to restore some of those fisheries - which means taking water from other users. Urban areas of the state have historically led the nation in reducing residential and commercial water use, and the same changes need to be made with agriculture as well.</p>
<p>Ultimately, agriculture in California needs to become a much wiser steward of water resources. There is no more water to be had in the state, no more untapped rivers or unpumped aquifers - that is a hard and fast environmental reality. What there is is what there is, and all parts of the state will have to learn to live within their ecological limits.</p>