California is very expensive for what you get, and grew to become quite unpleasant to live in. High crime rate and a bunch of woke DAs and activists makes family life in the Bay area uncomfortable. And then you're supposed to pay a premium for it all? Expensive daycare, indoctrinating schools, crappy government and private services, high taxes, NIMBYs, and the constant moral judgment of kidless activists who know what's best.
If I were single and in my 20s, SF would be where I go for all the bright minds. But the calculus as a 30s yo with a family is that California overplayed its hand. We left and aren't coming back unless a lot changes.
> Expensive daycare, indoctrinating schools, crappy government and private services, high taxes, NIMBYs, and the constant moral judgment of kidless activists who know what's best.
All of this applies to Arizona, Texas, and Florida. Arizona in particular has had the highest increase in housing cost since the pandemic started of out of any state.
If you can't afford a million dollar home you're gonna have a much harder time in urban or suburban coastal CA than you will in... almost anywhere else, including AZ, TX, FL.
The rest of the parent poster's complaints are pretty SF-centric, though.
Even more, SF is just a very small part of the Bay Area in general, which with the remote-first movement has also expanded to the north (Santa Rosa) and south (Santa Cruz).
There are many many places that are nice to live in California - and I almost don’t want to tell anyone about my town (Aptos) because I don’t want it overrun. :)
Aptos and Capitola are really nice areas for sure! But I don’t think they’ll be overrun any time soon as there’s nowhere to build :) and I agree, there is much more to California than the Bay Area. Across the bay there’s PG, Monterey, big sur. Further down you have SLO, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Laguna, San Clemente, …
> If I were single and in my 20s, SF would be where I go
You're conflating SF and Bay Area. SF is not the Bay Area. SF isn't even in Silicon Valley, technically. The issues with SF are not the issues in SV/BA.
> California is very expensive for what you get
California is crazy expensive. Often I look for alternatives. What would be a good alternative?
I want to be near the ocean. I don't want to freeze in the winter and don't want 100F with 90% humidity in the summer.
Just with that criteria I ruled out most of the country.
But then add the requirement of having good jobs. So what's left?
I live in an area that meets most of these requirements, plus many others that California doesn't meet. I lived in many different places, including California, and in the end it's a matter of balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each place.
You are basically defining your requirements in a way that can only be met California. If California didn't exist, would you jump in the ocean? What I mean is that perhaps one of your requirements could be relaxed so you can get many other benefits. For instance, the "100F with 90%" humidity is greatly mitigated by Air Conditioning or going out very early in the day. When I spent some time in Louisiana, which is crazy hot and humid, I was able to mitigate the heat in the way I describe to the point that it didn't affect my life.
I'm not. I just saw first hand how you call the cops and no one comes, can't be bothered. Don't leave anything in your car, don't ride your bike or get mugged. Drugged out zombies. I'm good. We were there in and out over a 5y span and I've had enough. How anyone convinces themselves that this is normal.. has Stockholm syndrome.
Since we arrived as foreigners, the locals all have been telling a well rehearsed line of "that's normal for any major urban area". These folks don't know what normal cities are supposed to be like. Clearly they think this as a coping mechanism or because they don't know what they're talking about.
Great things and ideas come from California, but this stuff is the tax paid for that greatness. The social experimental tendencies don't come for free or without consequences.
?? Even the local politician acknowledge crime or at-least super visible crime is up. They have different views of why but they aren't just like "no it's not!".
Demographic breakdowns would be interesting, because there are always people going both way between any two states.
I remember reading that there were quite a few elderly Texans moving to California for a reason that you probably would not expect: taxes.
Texas does not have a state income tax. They make up for that with high sales tax and high property tax.
California does have a state income tax. It also has a high sales tax, which is about the same average rate as Texas (the state rate is lower in Texas but local rates are high so it comes out about the same). Property taxes are lower in California. It is #16 among states when sorted from low to high property taxes. Texas is #45. Rates are about 2.4x as high in Texas.
Thus if you are a retired homeowner in Texas considering moving to California it comes down to whether the lower property taxes will outweigh state income tax.
California state tax does not apply to Social Security, so if your income is mostly that and low tax investments (like a Roth IRA) it can quite easily turn out that you won't pay much if any California income tax.
Can you post a link to the article if you can find it?
I'm wondering if they're downsizing given median home cost in Texas is about $300k versus $750k in California, from a quick search. It's nice to have the extra money go to equity instead of taxes, I'm sure, but I'm not sure how moving to California without the bump in income would make sense from a pure cost of living perspective.
Maybe if they're coming from Austin and moving to somewhere cheaper in California they'd find apples for apples. Austin's always been a little expensive but never anything near where it's gotten the past few years.
Another few interesting facts about Texas property taxes:
- Your primary residence gets a "homestead exemption" that lowers the overall rate and also caps any tax increases to 10% a year.
- If over 65, you can defer paying property taxes indefinitely for a 5% yearly interest rate as long as you don't move. You still owe the taxes, but they'll be taken out of your estate.
I like the 10% cap as it makes costs way more predictable, while still not having the weird effects that a permanent capped tax does where people are still paying tax rates based on a home value from the 1980s.
I'm pretty sure it was a link in a comment on Reddit that I read several months or more ago, so there is pretty much no hope that I can find it again.
They are probably downsizing a bit. A little random checking on for sales houses on Redfin gives me the impression that someone with maybe a 2300 sq ft house in San Antonio could get maybe a 1500-1700 sq ft house for about the same price in the the central valley in California (e.g., in Modesto, Merced, or Fresno).
My guess is that it is mostly people who are not living in major cities in Texas moving to not major cities in California.
> If over 65, you can defer paying property taxes indefinitely for a 5% yearly interest rate as long as you don't move. You still owe the taxes, but they'll be taken out of your estate.
"Taken out of your estate" suggests they take the taxes when you die. If you move before you die to you have to pay when you move, or does it still come out of your estate when you eventually die?
No worries. That makes sense to me, about people moving from non-major to non-major cities.
I could see someone wanting to move for the difference in climate alone, honestly. There are a lot of people on Texas subreddits talking about moving after the recent heatwave. It was the most brutal one I've ever been in, having lived here off and on for a few decades. Having said that, it was interesting learning how adaptable the human body is after mentioning how "nice out" it felt once the high temperature started dropping below 100F consistently!
I'm not well-read on it, but I believe the taxes are due if you sell the property. It seems intended to allow people who want to live in their home forever to stay there if they have cash flow issues in retirement. In the event other assets couldn't cover the amount due, the state would get back the tax money from the heirs, if they wanted to keep the home, or sale of the house eventually.
Note that the only of the three changes mentioned in the headline that exceeds the margin of error on the measurement is the increase in California->Florida migration. The decrease in California -> Texas is ~5,000 on a measure with a margin of error of ~9,900, the increase in California -> Arizona is ~5,000 on a measure with a margin of error of ~8,900. [0]
Especially since it has always been this way. A decade ago it was people to Seattle and Portland.
And it also works in reverse, but since every other state is much smaller, no stories are written. Both of my neighbors have recently left Texas to relocate to the Bay Area.
> Especially since it has always been this way. A decade ago it was people to Seattle and Portland.
California has lost people to net domestic migration for a few decades (with lower income workers and retirees flowing out and, on average, higher wage workers flowing in at slightly lower rates from other states), IIRC, but until recently it was making up for it between natural growth and international in-migration [0] (the latter also often of higher wage workers); international migration tailed off just before (and even more with) the pandemic, which shifted things to a net loss of population.
[0] Carefully not saying "immigration" because a H-1B admissions, an important part of this, aren't immigrants, even though they may later become immigrants. But its still in-migration of population, regardless of status.
> The flow of Californians to Texas has marked the largest state-to-state movement in the U.S. for the past two years, but it decreased from more than 107,000 people in 2021 to more than 102,000 residents in 2022
The data is available for anyone to download, and it has margins of error itemized for every number they provide [0]. The margin of error is around 10k for this number (CA->TX) and the observed difference is 5k, which means that the entire article is just interpreting statistical noise.
The reported variation in AZ's inflows are also within the margin of error. The only number in the headline that isn't is FL, with a difference of 13k and a MOE of 7K.
Regardless of the numbers referenced in the article, the bottom line is people are continuously leaving CA and NY for other states. Florida's real estate is by no means less expensive than CA or NY. It seems rather obvious the continued outflow from CA and NY is CA's and NY's suffocating regulatory and tax environment.
What you are failing to factor is the the ancillary costs associated with owning real estate in Florida, namely the cost of insurance. Also, Miami and Tampa are seeing the latest influx of new residents where the average price of real estate dwarfs other markets in Florida but is on par with NY and CA.
Multiple annual hurricanes with increasing intensity that are harder to get insured against due to said factors or few hundred dollar a year insurance for a “big one” earthquake coming soon™? Easy choice in my book.
Literally so: 2 of the 3 changes they highlight are "movement" within the margin of error on the estimates (in both cases, only a bit over half of the MOE). So just from sampling error, there is very low confidence that a change in the direction stated in the headline actually occurred.
A responsible headline would be "More Californians moving to Florida", without mentioning the "changes" in California-to-Texas/Arizona flows, which from the data cannot reliably be said to have occurred.
Cherry-picked data points combined with basically meaningless anecdotes. I'm sure there are some meaningful patterns overall but they're hard to reach conclusions absent a broader picture with percentages as well as absolute numbers over time.
A majority of these sort of posts seem to be mainly to generate clicks from people who have an axe to grind about California, they offer no real insights.
Makes sense since Texas is akin to California with regards to restrictions where you can carry a firearm. Namely gun free zone signs carrying the force of a felony preventing carry pretty much anywhere slightly urbanized. In for a penny, in for a pound as they say. FL and AZ are far less punitive in this regard.
A very US comment and surreal for the rest of the world, for most people in the most of the developed world this doesn't come in top 1500 priorities during any phase of life.
If we talk about picking a place to live, why not choose something that is not completely FUBAR that you don't actually have to worry about such things? That isn't a mark of high quality life.
I am in California and I struggle to reconcile my love for this place and opportunities in other places. If you left California for another state what helped you make the jump? I appreciate that there are reasons to leave but I am early in my career, and have a good job that I would like to keep.
As an outsider, for me the interesting part is if those who move out will be able to replicate SV.
People like to claim that Europe missed on tech because of regulations but there’s no EU regulations in TX or FL or AZ or anywhere outside of Europe and yet no successful replications so far. Many places are actively trying to replicate it, Silicon Valley of this Silicon Valley of that and no one ever came close.
It would be very interesting if AZ, for example, becomes the next SV so we can study it.
On the other hand, China and India seem to have their moments in hardware or niches or Scandinavian countries in EU are seeing some success too.
Anyway, it’s curious to see the effect of people moving around.
Historically, the outmigration has been lower-income than the in-migration (lower wage workers and retirees are major subsets). They aren't going to replicate Silicon Valley, they are leaving largely because they are the people who weren't (or were done) participating in the successful segments of industry driving California prices higher, and are moving for lower prices.
This thread won't end well... People on both sides has pretty strong opinions about the California culture. And if the problems don't bother them that much, they defend it. But the same problems might be dealbreakers to others, and those will heavily criticize it. And I doubt there is an objective truth here since it is about people's perception of a human culture, both are literally definition of subjective.
CA is insanely expensive, however I left AZ and came here to a very beautiful city. I don’t regret it, but I won’t be here long term. It truly is a place for the ultra wealthy, at least where I’m at.
My partner and I bring in around $350k and it’s barely cutting it here
If I were single and in my 20s, SF would be where I go for all the bright minds. But the calculus as a 30s yo with a family is that California overplayed its hand. We left and aren't coming back unless a lot changes.