why did California grow for so long in terms of population?

[freepcrusher]

looking at congressional representation, it skyrocketed throughout the 20th century
1910 11
1920 14
1930 20
1940 23
1950 30
1960 38
1970 43
1980 45
1990 52

2000 53
2010 53

As one can see, it slowed down after 1990. But in the post World War II era the population was growing at a breakneck pace, one that would make Texas jealous. But even back then, their business climate was still very liberal and they always had a dem legislature and a very progressive tax system. So why was the state gaining such population then? Was it because of the cold war and there being a lot of jobs in engineering electronics and aerospace?

[Yelnoc]

Lots of open space, almost all of it useful land.  Pristine beaches, Hollywood, economic success, on and on and on...California just had everything going for it.  And it still would, if people weren't stupid.

[memphis]

Lots of open space, almost all of it useful land.  Pristine beaches, Hollywood, economic success, on and on and on...California just had everything going for it.  And it still would, if people weren't stupid.

Forget stupid. People aren't flocking there because it's so damn expensive. And most of California's land is either mountains or deserts, which doesn't make life there any cheaper.

[dead0man]

Well, first it was to pick the fruit that needed picking (see Grapes of Wrath).
Then it was the post WWII boom SoCal went through.
Then the computer era boom Silicon Valley went through in the 80-90s.
The Hollywood dream has played a huge part from the twenties to today.
The weather is pretty nice too.

Today farming is automatic or Mexican (and beneath most "americans"), the SoCal boom is long over (and has turned into sprawling suburbs, ghettos, stinky industry and corruption), speculation did a number on the computer era boom, the Hollywood dream has always been just that, a dream and the weather seems nice, but has a nasty backhand.

[opebo]

Keynesianism.  Like everything else good that happened from 1930-1980, the federal government did it.

[Torie]

It is the theory of equilibrium. CA needed to get as unpleasant as the rest of the country, before they ceased to come. It appears that such an equilibrium has now been reached, via converting CA's economy to the home of the elite, serviced by their factotums.

[freepcrusher]

the home of the elite, serviced by their factotums.

WTF?

[opebo]

the home of the elite, serviced by their factotums.

WTF?

He sure as heck isn't wrong.  In fact he's describing the neo-liberal future in every corner of the globe, but the specific relevance of his post to CA is that is a locale where significant numbers of the overlords will prefer to live and be served.  Very few of them prefer, for example, Missouri or Ohio.

This doesn't mean, you understand, that Missourians or Ohioans will be anything other than servile, just that they won't be near-at-hand factotums.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

speculation did a number on the computer era boom

That was a long time ago.

[dead0man]

Did I say otherwise?

[Beet]

It's the western end of the US. Consider the strategic implications if it were too sparsely populated. I mean, it would be like how the Russians are always worried that the Chinese are going to overrun Siberia. This way is much better; the state can absorb as much immigration as it has without the risk of sectionalism.

[memphis]

the home of the elite, serviced by their factotums.

WTF?

He sure as heck isn't wrong.  In fact he's describing the neo-liberal future in every corner of the globe, but the specific relevance of his post to CA is that is a locale where significant numbers of the overlords will prefer to live and be served.  Very few of them prefer, for example, Missouri or Ohio.

This doesn't mean, you understand, that Missourians or Ohioans will be anything other than servile, just that they won't be near-at-hand factotums.

You don't need to be nearly as rich to live at the same standard in Missouri and Ohio, or many other states.  This is true to such an absurd extreme that it's a wonder state governments don't do more to advertise this fact outside of matters of taxation. An enormous house can be had in my part of the country a for the price of the humblest imaginable property in California. Surely that's worth more than a couple of percent difference in rates of taxation.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Did I say otherwise?

Oh, looks like I misread your post. Never mind, then. What I was trying to say is that the bursting of the bubble ten years ago doesn't much affect the economy here today; it's recovered.

[The Head Beagle]

Ever since World War II there has been significant migration out of the northeast and Great Lakes to warmer and more suburban areas with job growth and affordable housing, whether to California or to the South. But in the postwar decades the South had two major disadvantages that it no longer has: one was that its economic prospects and national image were hampered by racial tension and the various conflicts arising from the decline of the old segregated system. The other was that air conditioning, though available, was more of a luxury then and not standard in middle-class housing, so California's relative climatic advantage was more important. Conversely, California has now developed a major disadvantage of its own in the high cost of living that others have mentioned.

Demand for living space in the California coastal metros is still very high: that's why it can stay so expensive. Lots of people would move there if they could afford it. It is really a supply issue. The population growth of the south indicates high demand and adequate supply, while the high prices of the northeast and Pacific coast indicate high demand but constrained supply. It's mostly only in the rust belt and certain rural areas where you get the combination of low population growth despite low prices that indicates low demand. And the supply thing, in California, is complicated: part of it has to do with geography, but a lot of it has to do with zoning policies as well.

[bgwah]

^ A severe case of NIMBYism has made the desirable parts of California too expensive for most people to live in.

[Progressive Realist]

^ A severe case of NIMBYism has made the desirable parts of California too expensive for most people to live in.

See: The SF Bay Area.

[Senator Sbane]

^ A severe case of NIMBYism has made the desirable parts of California too expensive for most people to live in.

See: The SF Bay Area.

SAVE THE HILLS!!!!!

Yeah, the cost of living is what is pushing people out of California. I was in Stone Mountain,GA today, looking at some houses that are going for 20-30k. It's a mostly black neighborhood, I guess which is why the price is that low, but the houses are nice and look like any middle to upper middle class neighborhood. No chain link fences or barred windows. A pretty nice place to live. There is nothing in the Bay Area, or even in the LA area, which you can get for that price. The crappiest home in the roughest part of Oakland is maybe below 200k these days. Even in San Bernardino, an exurb of LA and the meth capital of America, you will get some houses below 100k but nothing that cheap.

And just in case you are wondering, in the rough parts of Atlanta, there are some houses being sold for only $5,000. And in the nice parts, you can get a fairly large house for 200-300k.

[Invisible Obama]

There's been a lot of build out too, there are less places to build and housing is scarce, which definitely makes expenses go up.

[freepcrusher]

^ A severe case of NIMBYism has made the desirable parts of California too expensive for most people to live in.

See: The SF Bay Area.

SAVE THE HILLS!!!!!

Yeah, the cost of living is what is pushing people out of California. I was in Stone Mountain,GA today, looking at some houses that are going for 20-30k. It's a mostly black neighborhood, I guess which is why the price is that low, but the houses are nice and look like any middle to upper middle class neighborhood. No chain link fences or barred windows. A pretty nice place to live. There is nothing in the Bay Area, or even in the LA area, which you can get for that price. The crappiest home in the roughest part of Oakland is maybe below 200k these days. Even in San Bernardino, an exurb of LA and the meth capital of America, you will get some houses below 100k but nothing that cheap.

And just in case you are wondering, in the rough parts of Atlanta, there are some houses being sold for only $5,000. And in the nice parts, you can get a fairly large house for 200-300k.

The cost of living was high even in the 80s, but that didn't prevent the state from gaining seven congressional seats. Even Texas has never accomplished gaining that many seats.

[Senator Sbane]

I don't know whether the prices were that much higher than the rest of the country in the 80s. Maybe Torie can comment on that. Also there might have been newer neighborhoods being built that were relatively cheap but not that far from job centers. In addition the military industrial complex was still strong in SoCal and that provided a lot of middle class jobs. Now the place has become more upper middle class or lower middle class/working class.

[Beet]

At least housing prices are still falling in California. They've been rising in Washington DC, the only major market to do so. I heard a report that in the past 3 months, there has been a 5% appreciation in my metro area. 5% of $400,000 is $20,000. That's more than I make in 3 months. That means, if I'm saving for a house, 3 months' of my work is just gone. This isn't like inflation where "wah wah my fixed income and savings isn't keeping up with 3% inflation, so I lost 2%". It isn't like taxes "wah wah why do I have to pay a third of my money to the gov't". No. This is all of it. I didn't net a single cent for that three months of work. The money is just out the window. I worked for nothing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

California is still beating the national average for growth.

At least housing prices are still falling in California. They've been rising in Washington DC, the only major market to do so. I heard a report that in the past 3 months, there has been a 5% appreciation in my metro area. 5% of $400,000 is $20,000. That's more than I make in 3 months. That means, if I'm saving for a house, 3 months' of my work is just gone. This isn't like inflation where "wah wah my fixed income and savings isn't keeping up with 3% inflation, so I lost 2%". It isn't like taxes "wah wah why do I have to pay a third of my money to the gov't". No. This is all of it. I didn't net a single cent for that three months of work. The money is just out the window. I worked for nothing.

Houses are still crazy expensive here.