The top ten POOREST states are all RED states: MS, WV, AL, LA, KY, AR, SC, OK, TN, TX

[cawacko]

Some posters do not want to accept a fact that people want to move from a blue to a red state because it offends their partisan sensibilities.

If the people leaving CA are lower income, working class, and minorities, it tells us something about how CA policies affect the working class.

You can't reach some people.

We've had this discussion before. Within the U.S. California has lost population for years but due to births and immigration our overall population has grown. Since the pandemic I believe births have dropped but immigration has definitely slowed down. On top of that you had people leaving because of COVID and the lock downs and the ability to work remotely. Not all those folks have returned.

And the perception is it's just poor and working class people leaving but the reality is people with money are leaving as well. And its the latter the state really cares about. They'll never be an exodus from this state but it only takes a small number of rich people leaving to materially affect state and local budgets (because we lean on high earners so much for tax revenue) so it's a big deal.

[LV426]

• The population of California in 2021 was 39,237,836, a 0.66% decline from 2020.
• The population of California in 2020 was 39,499,738, a 0.16% increase from 2019.
• The population of California in 2019 was 39,437,610, a 0% increase from 2018.
• The population of California in 2018 was 39,437,463, a 0.25% increase from 2017.

OK, now you have to dig deeper in order to get a complete and accurate picture.

So from where in CA were those people leaving? Because it wasn't from the major areas like LA, SF, SD, SJ, Oakland, the San Fernando Valley, Culver City, La Jolla, or Orange County.

It was the shitty, garbage, inland parts of CA, wasn't it? The parts like Bakersfield, Fresno, the Inland Empire, the I-5 inland corridor, the counties north and northeast of Humboldt...all the shitty, red parts of the state...the parts without the high skill tech workers.

Because remember...San Francisco gained 100,000 people between 2011-2020.

[Flash]

OK, first of all, that links says nothing about these being tech workers.

Secondly, 45,000 and 50,000 isn't 60,000, which is what you originally claimed.

Furthermore, without knowing from WHERE in CA these people left, you can't conclude that they are the high-skill tech people.

And then, of course, we have the hard facts that between 2011 and 2020, Los Angeles gained 200,000 people.

And even if we look at more detail, between 2018 and 2019, Los Angeles' population went from 3.96 to 3.97M, which would be a gain of 10,000 people.

In SF, the same trend...870,000 in 2018 and 875,000 in 2019.

So before you pull a DeSean Jackson and spike the ball before the goal line, you should probably do the work to find out who actually left CA because it doesn't seem like you have really challenged yourself to fully understand this topic, since you seem to be skipping over the details.

Because some cities are gaining population does not mean 45,000-50,000 Californians are not moving to Texas and many others are going to other states accounting for the lack of growth in the CA population. Showing only cities that gained is a lame effort to ignore the losses.

"For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migration—about 2.5 percent of its total population."

California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]

Referring to them as "tech workers" was just a reference to all the high-tech jobs moving to Texas.

Where they moved from and who they are is irrelevant to the question of whether CA is losing people to Texas and other states.

Posters prove to you that CA is losing population with many going to TX and your argument is that we didn't say where they moved from or who they were. That is irrelevant.

But, it proves your elitist, classist attitude that they are poor people from bad areas--sounds like you think it is good if they lose the lower classes. It tells us who is being hurt by CA policies.

[LV426]

California has lost population for years but due to births and immigration our overall population has grown..

Facepalm

[Flash]

OK, now you have to dig deeper in order to get a complete and accurate picture.

So from where in CA were those people leaving? Because it wasn't from the major areas like LA, SF, SD, SJ, Oakland, the San Fernando Valley, Culver City, La Jolla, or Orange County.

It was the shitty, garbage, inland parts of CA, wasn't it? The parts like Bakersfield, Fresno, the Inland Empire, the I-5 inland corridor, the counties north and northeast of Humboldt...all the shitty, red parts of the state...the parts without the high skill tech workers.

Because remember...San Francisco gained 100,000 people between 2011-2020.

It is accurate to prove CA lost population. Where they came from does not change the fact that the population declined which was the only claim. It also proves who benefits from CA policies since only the upper income can afford to live in areas like SF.

When you lose one argument you change goal posts.

[Flash]

No, you're trying to magnify what amounts to 0.3% of the working population because YOU'RE trying to push through partisanship.

Every time a BoTHSiDerIst makes an accusation, they are really confessing.

Nope. I don't care which states people move from or to and don't think lesser of someone because of which state they choose to live in--that is for elitist snobs to think they are better because they live in blue states while they pretend to champion the poor and minorities.

"Some of my best friends are poor black people but I don't want to live near them."

[LV426]

Because some cities are gaining population does not mean 45,000-50,000 Californians are not moving to Texas and many others are going to other states accounting for the lack of growth in the CA population.

Flash, until you get into greater detail to find out specifically from where these people were leaving, your points will not land.

You seem to hedge that these people left from those growing centers, but you offer nothing other than your "feeling". If I take a look at the actual population data, I don't see those places losing people...I see them gaining people. But when *I* look at it at the county level, what I find is that the places that are dragging down CA's population aren't the blue parts of the state, it's the red parts of the state.

If you went down to the county level for population, what does that look like? Well, since I've already had to do this work for you, I might as well follow through.

Between 2010 and 2022, these were the counties in CA that lost population:

Butte County
King's County
Calaveras County
Siskiyou County
Lassen County
Del Norte County
Plumas County
Mariposa County
Mono County
Modoc County
Sierra County

Now, how many of those counties are in the major urban, wealthy areas of CA?

Maybe ask Cawacko to tell you since he thinks he knows so much about the state.

[cawacko]

It is accurate to prove CA lost population. Where they came from does not change the fact that the population declined which was the only claim. It also proves who benefits from CA policies since only the upper income can afford to live in areas like SF.

When you lose one argument you change goal posts.

FWIW, the areas losing the most population within the state are SF and LA. And the Inland Empire for example had big population growth. (This stuff makes our local news on a regular basis but for even those who don't live here have access to Google and this info is all readily available.)

[LV426]

Referring to them as "tech workers" was just a reference to all the high-tech jobs moving to Texas.

You keep saying this but it's not true and it wasn't between 2018-2019.

And you don't even know from where those people left!

Your problem is always the same: you don't get into detail because the details change the picture you're trying to paint.

[LV426]

It is accurate to prove CA lost population.

Now you're moving the bar so low that it's resting on the floor.

Intellectual dishonesty...sophistry...that's what you're doing now because it's all you have left.

Where they came from does not change the fact that the population declined which was the only claim.

This is another "apples and oranges are the same thing because they're both fruit" example of sophistry.

Flash, making that claim isn't staking a position on anything if you refuse to get into the details.

As it stands, you still don't know for sure who left CA and from where they left.

And if all those supposedly high paying, high tech, high skill jobs left, how come San Francisco's median income has only grown?

How come the median income in San Jose has also grown?

If all those people left, wouldn't that bring DOWN the median income of those cities? But their median incomes increased.

So...maybe those tech workers who left were replaced with better tech workers who get paid more.

[LV426]

It also proves who benefits from CA policies since only the upper income can afford to live in areas like SF.

So you think that all 875,000 people who live in SF are upper income?

[LV426]

When you lose one argument you change goal posts.

Exactly...like by moving the goalposts so far back that they're meaningless by saying "CA lost population to Texas" without bothering to go into any detail.

I think the reason you didn't go into detail and are resisting going into detail is because the detail is going to show that the people leaving CA are leaving shitty old Mariposa county, not LA county.

[LV426]

Nope. I don't care which states people move from or to

Ummm...except that you do really care because it's all you've been running your big mouth about all afternoon.

Saying CA lost population to TX is telling but a fraction of the story.

I know how afraid you get when I get into the details because the details almost always back up what I've been saying, while we have to rely on your word for things.

[LV426]

Ndon't think lesser of someone because of which state they choose to live in

Well you should because that is a reflection of their choice.

that is for elitist snobs to think they are better because they live in blue states while they pretend to champion the poor and minorities.

You're the snob who thinks sitting on the fence and heaping scorn on both sides elevates your ideas, when it actually does the opposite because it goes to prove that you are allergic to distinctions and differences (aka THE DETAILS).

If you refuse to choose a side, you will never be on the right side of anything.

And maybe you've already made the calculation that since you're closer to the end of your life than the beginning, what's the point of picking a side now?

[ExpressLane]

Yeah, but you have to live in Texas.

For most people, that's a non-starter.

Yeah that is the reason people are moving from California to the paradise of Texas.