OT: More Californians are considering fleeing the state as they blame sky-high c
Papi_Chulo
Miami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
The online survey, conducted last month by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago. The desire to exit the nation's most populous state was highest among millennials, the survey noted.
"California is a great, great place if you're young and ambitious and daddy's paying the rent," said Joel Kotkin, a presidential fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University in Orange, California. "It's similar to New York with the same dynamic, and maybe more of it."
Kotkin, who has researched California demographic and economic trends for decades, said he's astounded when he asks his Chapman students whether they think they'll be in the state in 10 years. "I would say the majority would say 'no,' — and many grew up in California," he said.
"There's no doubt that California's economy, for all of its strengths when it comes to innovation and creating these industries that people want to be part of, is struggling with high costs," said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist with online real estate site Zillow. "Costs have gotten way ahead of incomes in California, and that's making a lot of people think about whether it's worth the hurdles."
According to Edelman, 63 percent of millennials in the 2019 survey indicated they were considering a move from sunny California. The chief reason for dissatisfaction: housing.
When asked in general about what would make them leave California, 60 percent of millennials in the survey gave housing cost and availability as the reason. That was slightly higher than the general population (55 percent), although 65 percent of renters cited housing factors as a reason to leave.
Californians believe housing costs are four times more threatening to the state's economy than high health costs. Residents also consider crime and security as a top-three concern.
Terrazas said millennials in California who are "tired of renting and looking to settle down and buy a home are finding it's often out of reach for them." He said this is especially the case in coastal job centers of the state, whether Los Angeles County or the San Francisco Bay Area.
"California just doesn't strike them as reasonable," the economist said. "The state has consistently seen much faster home value appreciation than most of the country, and the same goes for rent until about two years ago. Rents have begun to slow down, ... although they remain at high levels."
Terrazas said Southern California has high housing costs and on average lower incomes than Northern California. "In some ways, Southern California is in much more dire straits," he said.
Even with higher average incomes in Silicon Valley, though, he said homebuyers now must spend about half of their pretax incomes on a monthly mortgage for a median home. The median home in the Silicon Valley market topped $1.2 million at the end of 2018, according to Zillow data.
Statewide, the median home value in California was $547,400 at the end of 2018, while the U.S. median home value was $223,900. By comparison, the median home value in New York state stood at $289,000 and $681,500 in New York City; New Jersey was $324,700.
The Edelman survey found 47 percent of Californians are considering moving out of the state in the next five years. Again, it found the rates among millennials were higher with 55 percent of them contemplating the move. And 57 percent of Californians with kids under 18 also were considering packing up and leaving in the next five years.
Chapman's Kotkin believes the next wave of discontent in California won't necessarily be focused on housing costs but taxes.
"Taxes are a real killer if you're upper middle class and whether you're a younger person trying to buy a house or you just want to be able to spend what you make," said Kotkin. "There's also concern among people looking to retire and having their income taxed into oblivion."
At 12.3 percent, California led the 50 states in 2018 with the highest top marginal tax rate, according to the Federation of Tax Administrators. And that doesn't include an additional 1-percent surcharge for those Californians with incomes of $1 million or more.
"The tax bill made it worse," Kotkin said, pointing out that the federal tax changes mean deductions for state, local and property taxes now get capped at $10,000. "State taxes have become a significant factor now. We're getting into a situation where the middle class in California really can't hack it."
Overall, the Edelman survey involved a total of 1,900 California residents and was conducted Jan. 4 to Jan. 20. It said results were weighted to the Census to be representative of the state's adult population.
A report from California's Legislative Analyst's Office last year indicated Texas, Arizona, Oregon and Nevada are popular destinations for relocating Californians. It also found families with kids and those Californians with only a high school education were most likely to flee to lower cost states than college-educated residents.
Finally, the survey found more than 60 percent of residents feel that the best days of living in California are behind instead of ahead. And a large number of residents are "ambivalent" toward tech as an engine of prosperity, the survey said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/12/growing-…
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
48 comments
Latest
We also have a problem where developers don't want to build starter homes on the scarce coastal land remaining. They want to build mcmansions and luxury condos.
A big part of the problem is basic geography. The coast has amazing weather. Go 50ish miles inland and you're in desert or mountains. Denver and Phoenix and Vegas can expand in all four directions for the most part. We are very limited.
So yeah we have a housing crisis and the free market can't fix it.
I spent a fair amount of time in Northern California over the years for work--loved my time there but even back then--late 90's the housing cost north of SF ( Marin County) was insane.
There is also a rather large political movement to break California up into two or three separate states.
Now we no the real reasons for Trump's wall.
SJG
extremely good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEk1JAky…
Lots of bullshit the Right has been putting out, specially with Dubyah's Bankruptcy Reform.
SJG
Jimi Hendrix Live Full Concert 1969
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbwUH_eJ…
Net-zero energy homes have arrived — and are shaking up the US housing market
In 2013 De Young Properties built a single-family house in central California that defied nearly three generations worth of homes the family business had constructed. It was a net-zero energy building — it had the potential to produce as much energy as it would consume in a year. De Young didn't build another one for four years, but within that period the company refined its designs to be more energy-efficient and technology-focused and drove down costs.
"Energy bills tend to be pretty high and onerous, and you usually have to sacrifice comfort for your energy bill or your energy bill for comfort, and we saw an opportunity to advance in this realm and become a leader," said Brandon De Young, executive vice president.
In 2017 De Young Properties started the process of constructing three communities near Fresno, California, with more than 140 single-family homes in three different communities that will have the same level of energy efficiency. So far the homebuilder has constructed half of the first community, Envision at Loma Vista, and is in the process of beginning the other two. The cost of each home is typically between $350,000 and $450,000 — and carries an additional $10,000 over the cost of De Young's comparable non-zero energy properties.
The homebuilder's early investment in zero-energy construction was prescient. If you buy a new house in California within the next few years, there's a good chance it will be built along similar lines. In December, California instituted a new requirement that calls for most new homes and multi-family residential buildings up to three stories high to include solar rooftop panels beginning in 2020. Depending on the specifics of the design and the residence's energy consumption pattern, solar panels could produce all the electricity needed for the home. The state's ultimate goal is to produce net-zero energy homes that reduce the state's carbon footprint and make buildings energy self-sufficient.
California is one of the world's largest economies
This is the first time a state has built this requirement into its code, but similar regulations exist in cities like Tucson, Arizona, as well as the City of South Miami, the first introduced in Florida. Renewable energy mandates like residential rooftop solar come at a time when California has faced an unprecedented series of wildfires, with at least some of the natural disasters linked to more extreme weather patterns in an era of climate change.
The Net-Zero Energy Coalition estimates the U.S. has only 5,000 net-zero energy single-family homes and over 7,000 net-zero multi-family homes. That number could expand in 2020 to over 100,000 net-zero energy homes, based on the average annual new home constructions in California.
"California by itself is one of the largest economies in the world," said Jacob Corvidae, a principal at the Rocky Mountain Institute. "What happens there has some impact, and it's going to be an impact that has an effect on the rest of the country because they're going to be figuring out ways to make solar cheaper and that scale will help bring down the cost."
In 2017, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated about 39 percent of the total energy consumed in the country was in the residential and commercial sectors. A majority of the energy was produced by fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and natural gas.
Net-zero energy and zero energy-ready homes — which can be zero energy if solar panels are installed or their capacities are increased — are built to be more energy efficient than a typical building. This includes adding extra insulation, high-quality windows, LED lighting, low-flow water fixtures, heat-reflecting roof tiles and energy-efficient appliances that, when combined, reduce the amount of energy the house consumes.
On the outside, the houses are built to optimize energy efficiency with significant airtight construction and economical roofs, walls, windows and foundations, said Sam Rashkin, Chief Architect of the Building Technologies Office in the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These technologies also allow for better temperature regulation, low-humidity, less noise and minimize exposure to dangerous pollutants.
Cities with the most zero-energy buildings
Sacramento, CA 853
Vancouver, BC 723
Davis, CA 664
Portland, OR 365
New York, NY 361
Austin, TX 346
Honolulu, HI 338
Clarkdale, AZ 323
Washington DC 317
National City, CA 268
There is no one-size-fits-all design for zero-energy homes. In De Young's housing market, the modern style — homes you might find on a Google search with flat walls and a box-like look — are not as prevalent, so the company configured the homes to come in an array of styles, such as cottage, modern-farmhouse, and Italian-inspired variations.
"You don't have to do it that [modern] way. We found out that you can build a zero-energy home that looks just as beautiful as any other home," De Young said.
Costs of going zero energy
California commissioners anticipate the new mandate will add $40 more to a monthly mortgage payment, but with an $80 return on heating, cooling and lighting over a 30-year term. The upfront cost to a single-family house will be approximately $9,500 with savings of $19,000 over 30 years.
Ann Edminster, a board member of the Net-Zero Energy Coalition and a green building consultant, argues that people shouldn't be thinking of the upfront costs in isolation. Home buyers can make decisions in a house's design that offset the additional costs for net zero-energy upgrades, such as sacrificing decorative housing elements.
"It's the same thing as asking for a roof rack on your car. You're going to pay extra," Edminster said, referring to design choices homeowners already make which result in higher costs, and in some cases, less energy efficiency.
In De Young's case, making a home energy efficient usually costs an additional $10,000 before adding solar panels, which makes the home zero energy. Purchasing a solar system outright could add between six to 12 percent to the price, De Young said. The company has a partnership with Tesla which offers zero-down leases on its solar panels, among other financing options. In 2017, 41 percent of residential solar was owned by a third-party, which includes monthly leases and power purchase agreements, or PPAs, that allow customers to pay per kilowatt-hour of generation.
Charles Kibert, a professor at the University of Florida's College of Design, Construction and Planning, said there are some drawbacks to relying on solar. The panels require ample roof space, a certain orientation that allows for optimum energy production and consistent weather conditions.
"All those factors put together and my experience is that you have to try really hard to have a net zero home," Kibert said, adding that how people manage their home is a big factor. "Living behavior every day drives energy consumption pretty reliably."
Problems with the grid
The issues go beyond individual homes to the grid itself.
Kibert said there are two methods for reducing the carbon footprint beyond zero-energy homes: a low-carbon grid and better renewable energy storage. The current method of generating energy for most grids still depends on fossil fuels, but he said a few have moved to renewable energy like hydropower. California is far ahead of many U.S. states with its utilities already producing between 30 percent to 40 percent of energy from renewable sources.
Storing produced renewable energy remains costly, which is why people remain connected to the grid.
"If you had storage in your home and you were careful about your energy consumption, you would be effectively off the grid," Kibert said. "You wouldn't have to worry about it, but storage is expensive."
Tesla's Powerwall home storage solution has a cost of roughly $7,000 per unit. Tesla recommends two units for a home to be powered 100 percent with renewable energy and have at least 24 hours of power during a utility outage, which brings the total cost to over $14,000 — excluding installation costs that range from $1,000 to $3,000, according to the company.
Edminster said it is clear that the grid will not be disappearing anytime soon. The California mandate only requires homes to meet a higher level of efficiency and use solar, but that doesn't mean residents won't be able to use gas from the grid — it only offsets electricity use.
She said we are much further along in building energy-efficient homes than energy-efficient grids. "The efficiency side is pretty dialed in so that if someone felt like being zero-net energy by placing solar panels on their roof they probably would be pretty close to being zero-net energy."
Zero-energy homes highlight a commitment to efficiency and the effort to reduce individual energy consumption. Ultimately, the objective is to find a healthy, reduced level of energy consumption. "What we really want is at the level of the social fabric to have our energy consumption to be met by renewable sources," Edminster said. "That's the big goal."
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that California's new requirement mandating solar rooftop panels on new homes beginning in 2020 applies to multi-family residences up to three stories.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/14/homes-th…
Beautiful country, epic hubris, fiscally incompetant, socially retarded.
- California is the most populous U.S. state and the third-largest by area (behind Alaska and Texas)
- The Greater Los Angeles Area and the San Francisco Bay Area are the nation's second- and fifth-most populous urban regions, with 18.7 million and 8.8 million residents respectively (New York is #1)
- The City and County of San Francisco is both the country's second-most densely populated major city after New York City and the fifth-most densely populated county, behind only four of the five New York City boroughs.
- California's $2.9 trillion economy is larger than that of any other state, larger than those of Texas and Florida combined, and the largest sub-national economy in the world.[13] If it were a country, California would be the 5th largest economy in the world (larger than the United Kingdom, France, or India),[14] and the 36th most populous as of 2017
- The Greater Los Angeles Area and the San Francisco Bay Area are the nation's second- and third-largest urban economies ($1.253 trillion and $878 billion respectively as of 2017), after the New York City metropolitan area
- The San Francisco Bay Area PSA had the nation's highest GDP per capita in 2017 (~$99,000),[16] and is home to three of the world's ten largest companies by market capitalization[17] and four of the world's ten richest people
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California
:)
Our roads our crumbling, and the solutions we’re given are road diets and high speed rail that isn’t going to be high speed and runs between two towns not many people give a shit about. Our gas taxes are amongst the highest in the country, along with high vehicle registration fees.
Our elected officials are more concerned with keeping non voting, non tax paying homeless happy then keeping them off our sidewalks and out of pretty much anywhere else they can get access to. Almost every overpass, river bank, alley, or public park has been taken over by a homeless encampment. We keep hearing that the homeless problem is caused by our housing shortage. BULLSHIT!!! There are actually a lot of resources for people that are having trouble financially keeping a roof over their heads. Frankly, if your marketable skills will only pay you slightly above minimum wage, maybe you need to live someplace where you have a lower cost of living. Sorry, the point I was heading towards is that the homeless that are a problem are the ones with serious drug problems or mental illness. Many of my friends don’t let thier kids play outside or go to the park anymore because these fuckers are always around and you never know when one of them is going to flip out. They are aggressive and violent. You can’t walk down some streets anymore with out having to walk around piles of human shit and streams of urine. Los Angeles City Hall is in the middle of a Typhus outbreak because the homeless encampments have brought so many rats.
With such a housing problem you’d think developers would be lining up to build housing... not really. We have so many regulations and so much red tape driving up costs that there is no benefit to building affordable housing. Also, it takes YEARS to get all the permits and approvals. Most builders and developers have decided that new homes or apartments are just not worth it.
So yes, I look forward to the day when I can retire. I’ll sell my house for way more than the house I’ll be getting out of state will cost. I’ll enjoy my days without having a homeless encampment behind my rear brick wall, or bumper to bumper traffic.
I am all for Ca doing whatever shit the liberal leaders want to do, I just don't want my federal tax dollars supporting it. It seems like for every 10 people that left the state, 100 illegal aliens replaced them.
With regards to the wall, to those of you who have not seen/experienced the influx of illegals in Ca, Az and Tx, you really don't have a clue as to the seriousness of the problem.
I vaguely recall Texas is one of the few red States that pays in more than it takes out from the Federal government.
Not sure what criteria US News used to reach this conclusion. If housing non-affordability and brutal traffic in metropolitan areas were big factors, I get it.
For quality of life, coastal California is spectacular if ocean sports and temperate climate are important to your lifestyle. If both ocean sports and mountain sports are important to you, California simply cannot be beat in continental USA. That's all assuming you can afford to live in coastal California, of course.
Budget and Policy Post
January 18, 2017
Federal Spending in California
Comparing Federal Spending Received to Taxes Paid Nationally
This post compares federal expenditures in California to other states. To do this, we rely on estimates in studies that took a fifty state comparison approach. While we have more confidence in our estimate of federal expenditures in California that we displayed in Post 1, we cannot replicate our estimate for every state. Due to differing methodologies, our estimates of total federal expenditures to California are not directly comparable to the estimates in these studies.
Compared to Other States, California Receives a Smaller Amount of Federal Money Per Person. The Pew Charitable Trusts publishes an annual report on Federal Spending in the States where it estimates that California received $9,172 in federal expenditures per person in FFY 2013-14. (Our estimate of this figure is somewhat higher.) Pew’s estimate of per person expenditures in California is below the national average of $10,200. Figure 1 displays federal spending per person by state in FFY 2013-14, as estimated by Pew. Based on this measure, California ranked 41st (out of fifty states and the District of Columbia). In a blog post published in 2015, we noted this ranking is mostly because California, with a younger population, receives significantly less in federal retirement benefits, such as Social Security. In FFY 2013-14 California received $2,740 per person in retirement benefits, compared to the national average of $3,474. California also receives somewhat less per capita in federal salaries and wages, $752 compared to a national average of $957.
By These Estimates, California Receives $0.99 in Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes Paid. Figure 2 compares the New York Comptrollers’ estimates of dollars of federal expenditures received per dollar of taxes paid by state. Mississippi, the greatest beneficiary on this measure, received $2.57 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, while New Jersey, the lowest, received $0.77. According to these measure, in FFY 2012-13 California received $0.99 in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes paid, ranking 42nd among fifty states and the District of Columbia.
Is California a “Donor State”? In 2007, the Tax Foundation published estimates, using FFY 1981-2005 data, that showed California received $0.78 in federal spending for every dollar paid in federal taxes (in the most recent year). Some have used this finding to suggest that California pays much more in taxes than it receives in expenditures (and, for that reason, has been dubbed a “donor state”). It is important to note that the Tax Foundation figure is adjusted to be deficit neutral so that the federal government receives $1 in taxes for each $1 it spends. To do this, the Tax Foundation increases its estimate of tax revenues from each state in proportion to the total federal deficit. In effect, this inflates the estimated amount Californians “pay” in taxes.
SO, IN 2005 DATA SHOWED .78 RECEIVED FOR EVERY 1.00 SENT, ALTHOUGH IT STATES WHAT WAS PAID IS OVERSTATED. IN 2017 DATA SHOWS .99 RECEIVED FOR EVERY 1.00 SENT. WITH THE AGING POPULATION AND CONTINUED WEALTH FLIGHT OUT OF CA THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT CA IS NOT A DONOR STATE.
Meanwhile the data you published said that California receives less than it pays, donor state is your terminology not mine, capitalizing your conclusions, doesn't change the facts.
BTW the tax foundation isn't where I'd get my facts from but for the purpose of this argument I'm ok with their figures, even though they are a flawed place to get accurate data, based on this
> It is important to note that the Tax Foundation figure is adjusted to be deficit neutral so that the federal government receives $1 in taxes for each $1 it spends. To do this, the Tax Foundation increases its estimate of tax revenues from each state in proportion to the total federal deficit. In effect, this inflates the estimated amount Californians “pay” in taxes.<
after all if the above is accurate the federal government would be deficit neutral, neither in deficit or surplus, and we know that is not correct.
Donor state, was the terminology of the study and it is a common term used in tax allocations. It is not my terminology.
You can basically get your facts from anywhere you want on this and they will basically illustrate the same.
Your last statement is basically nonsense.
You are really missing the big picture.
In the 70's and prior, Ca was a great place to live. They were the place to be for new and growing companies and industries. We did not have an immigration problem and politics were reasonable.
Ca began to get liberal and increase taxes to chase unicorns and fund the necessities of growth do to the demographic changes and influx of illegal immigration.
Due to increasing taxes, wealth began to leave. Taxes had to be raised to offset this loss, more wealth left.
Ca stopped being the go to state for business as other states became more business friendly. As you can see from the data I supplied earlier, Ca is no longer a "donor state".
Consider this, Ca has evolved to where the wealthier taxpayers (individual and business) that pay taxes have left only to be replaced by low income illegal aliens and freeloaders
that receive benefits from these taxes. That is why you are seeing the closing of the gap between federal taxes paid and received.
>The upfront cost to a single-family house will be approximately $9,500 with savings of $19,000 over 30 years.
But taking 30 years to double your money isn't a good deal.
But at least one is saving energy and not using fossil-fuels is perhaps the bigger-point I guess
But because of the rules for apportioning the House, and the Senate, and that Electoral College, voters in Red states are getting far more say from their vote.
Anyway, CA has been high priced for a long time, not it is silly. It influences everything which goes on. Totally corrupts local politics.
SJG
Nuit Blanche - Cyrille Aimée Live at Birdland
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPVbz9vb…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT4Zadzy…
I lived there again in the mid 90s. Things had gone downhill. Traffic. Taxes. More Illegal immigrants. Crime. A preachy, wasteful State government. The free living attitude had been replaced by narcissism and status seeking.
My advice to current California residents is to escape while you still can. A far better life is available elsewhere.
If any more like Mark94 want to leave, I'm sure we can take up a collection to help expatriate them.
SJG
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/11/…
Satin Doll
http://x.imagefapusercontent.com/u/TomTh…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GivaZbLz…
Clark Terry Sextet - Pennies from Heaven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H3zJrZc…