Despite the so-called "Great California Exodus" that has seen residents leave the state in droves, mostly because of the high cost of living, there are plenty of people bucking the trend and making their way to the Bay Area.
So, 60 thousand people is like 0.15% of California’s population. That’s like a 400 lb. man going on a diet and losing 9.6 ounces. Is it really even worth mentioning?
I don’t remember, tbh. I do agree with your comment that the headline is misleading in that it implies wrongly that net migration from Texas to California is positive.
I do think people make way too much of the net migration from California to Texas, which I think can fairly be described as negligible. I don’t recall what made me think that a reply to your comment was the best place to make that argument. Maybe because this was where I was when I saw the 60k figure. Sorry if it was off-putting.
I feel like people keep going to Texas because the rent is too high in california, then they go back to California because there are no freedoms in Texas, which forces them to go back to Texas because there’s no place to live in California as it’s too expensive. And they’re just stuck in this Loop
I feel like people keep going to Texas because the rent is too high in california, then they go back to California because there are no freedoms in Texas, which forces them to go back to Texas because there’s no place to live in California as it’s too expensive. And they’re just stuck in this Loop
It been fucking hillarious seeing people doubletalk California demographics.
“Everybody keeps leaving California because the cost of rent and housing keeps going up!” which feels true but like…
It has big “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded” energy.
There have always been more people entering than leaving lol.
If the headline was the only thing you read, yes. The article actually says it still has a net loss every year.
It even says it still has a net 60k/year net loss to Texas alone.
The article’s missing headline was driven from the single point that of the people moving to Califorinia, the largest percentage was from Texas.
Which makes sense given the size of Texas. I would think the percentage would reflect the relative proportion of people in the states.
So, 60 thousand people is like 0.15% of California’s population. That’s like a 400 lb. man going on a diet and losing 9.6 ounces. Is it really even worth mentioning?
Are you making a statement about the article, or my comment?
I don’t remember, tbh. I do agree with your comment that the headline is misleading in that it implies wrongly that net migration from Texas to California is positive.
I do think people make way too much of the net migration from California to Texas, which I think can fairly be described as negligible. I don’t recall what made me think that a reply to your comment was the best place to make that argument. Maybe because this was where I was when I saw the 60k figure. Sorry if it was off-putting.
https://www.macrotrends.net/states/california/population
I feel like people keep going to Texas because the rent is too high in california, then they go back to California because there are no freedoms in Texas, which forces them to go back to Texas because there’s no place to live in California as it’s too expensive. And they’re just stuck in this Loop
I feel like people keep going to Texas because the rent is too high in california, then they go back to California because there are no freedoms in Texas, which forces them to go back to Texas because there’s no place to live in California as it’s too expensive. And they’re just stuck in this Loop