It seems like there are several additional ways one could spin the data in this report.
From a selfish standpoint, should I, as a Californian in a booming industry that looks like it will remain a central part of the economy for the forseeable future, be too broken up about a lot of people moving elsewhere for jobs? Should I want the metro area I live in to be seeing double-digit-percentages population growth over decades (I don't think that would make it any cheaper, or would make traffic any better)? And even then, the overall populations for the parts of California I'd want to live in are still rising, and jobs and new companies are still being created, and I'm meeting a ton of smart people who've moved here from all over the country.
I certainly have no intention to move back east any time soon. I've found a lot more interesting stuff being done out here, and the weather is worlds better, and the high population density allows a ton of things I like.
It's perfectly fine to live in California as a salaried employee, you're likely not to get screwed.
For an entrepreneur, where you might subside 7 years on Ramen noodles to (maybe) have a large windfall during the 8th year, California places an unreasonable penalty on that once-in-a-lifetime event.
Therefore from selfish standpoint, if you start a business, grow it fast somewhere else, and then, when growth plateaus, bring it to California (let's face it, it's still a large consumer market).
This makes about as much sense as someone living in a trailer voting to ensure their own tax rate is higher than a billionaire's, "because I might win the lottery one day".
Except moving to another state is not "living in a trailer", it's more like living in a house next door, unless you feel particularly superlative about California.
There's lots of ways this data could be interpreted. If you look at the data by national origin, a contributor to the outflow of "domestic migration" is first-generation children of foreign immigrants to California. This net flow is a just a fact of life for any state that receives large influx of foreign immigration. The immigrants move here and their children, having no particular long-standing roots in the state, move around.
California has more than twice as many foreign-born residents as any other state, and more than three times as many as Texas. These foreign-born women in turn have more children than natural citizens of the state (about 90 per 1000 women per year).
Comments
It seems like there are several additional ways one could spin the data in this report.
From a selfish standpoint, should I, as a Californian in a booming industry that looks like it will remain a central part of the economy for the forseeable future, be too broken up about a lot of people moving elsewhere for jobs? Should I want the metro area I live in to be seeing double-digit-percentages population growth over decades (I don't think that would make it any cheaper, or would make traffic any better)? And even then, the overall populations for the parts of California I'd want to live in are still rising, and jobs and new companies are still being created, and I'm meeting a ton of smart people who've moved here from all over the country.
I certainly have no intention to move back east any time soon. I've found a lot more interesting stuff being done out here, and the weather is worlds better, and the high population density allows a ton of things I like.
It's perfectly fine to live in California as a salaried employee, you're likely not to get screwed.
For an entrepreneur, where you might subside 7 years on Ramen noodles to (maybe) have a large windfall during the 8th year, California places an unreasonable penalty on that once-in-a-lifetime event.
Therefore from selfish standpoint, if you start a business, grow it fast somewhere else, and then, when growth plateaus, bring it to California (let's face it, it's still a large consumer market).
http://allthingsd.com/20121204/what-proposition-30-means-for...
This makes about as much sense as someone living in a trailer voting to ensure their own tax rate is higher than a billionaire's, "because I might win the lottery one day".
Except moving to another state is not "living in a trailer", it's more like living in a house next door, unless you feel particularly superlative about California.
There's lots of ways this data could be interpreted. If you look at the data by national origin, a contributor to the outflow of "domestic migration" is first-generation children of foreign immigrants to California. This net flow is a just a fact of life for any state that receives large influx of foreign immigration. The immigrants move here and their children, having no particular long-standing roots in the state, move around.
California has more than twice as many foreign-born residents as any other state, and more than three times as many as Texas. These foreign-born women in turn have more children than natural citizens of the state (about 90 per 1000 women per year).