The thrust of the argument is that what made California great was that it was a great place to move and raise kids in the suburbs with lots of opportunities. The changes in California are hitting those people the hardest. And those people are in fact leaving: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/09/not-the-golden-state-...
The fact that California continues to be a great destination for young single engineers, venture capitalists, and H-1B workers for whom working at a California tech company is a ticket to staying in the US at all, isn’t responsive to that argument.
I worked at big tech in California for a bit, and, anecdotally, all of my coworkers stated that they didn't plan to retire in California, because it's just so expensive it makes no economic sense. It seems the plan for many people who come in California to work at big tech is to make big money for some number of years and then move out.
I ended up leaving, in part because I didn't love the culture there, and some of it was this impression that many people around the bay area don't really care about making friends, because they know they might not be staying for long, and don't care to build roots. This is again anecdotal, but this kind of culture isn't really great long term. If your population is highly unattached and doesn't plan to stay, it doesn't bode well. Besides the high cost of living, the constant inflow and outflow of people in the bay area could end up making you want to leave too.
I agree with you that a lot of people here consider themselves transient and don't work to put down roots, but I've personally found enough people who actually want to stay here to make it worthwhile to me (but I've certainly experienced some sadness when good friends move away). Everyone's mileage will vary in that regard, of course.
They're wrong about that. The reason California is expensive for them is because the state is set up to be easy to retire in - they're just paying for all the retired boomers. If they stay long enough, they'll get to exploit the next generation too.
Gonna be the [citation needed] guy here again. I've lived in the SF Bay Area for nearly 20 years, know other people who moved here around the time of the first dotcom boom and a few more who actually grew up here (they exist), and of that group of a couple dozen friends and acquaintances ranging in age from around 30 to over 60, the number of people who believe California will be "easy to retire in" is precisely zero.
I have a feeling you're trying to make a comment about California's property tax system and the way it's protected now-retired homeowners. And, you know, fine, if someone can buy a California house now and stays here through retirement age and they don't change the property tax system, they can take advantage of that, but that is one heapin' helpin' of "if" there, pardner.
And on top of that, the property tax system makes it really hard to move into a different (even much smaller) place when you're in your retirement years. Rhat has changed recently to be a bit better (people over 65 now have a lot more flexibility in transferring their existing property tax assessment to a different property), but I think that only serves to drive your point home that things can and do change over time, policy-wise.
The thrust of the argument is that what made California great was that it was a great place to move and raise kids in the suburbs with lots of opportunities. The changes in California are hitting those people the hardest. And those people are in fact leaving: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/01/09/not-the-golden-state-...
The fact that California continues to be a great destination for young single engineers, venture capitalists, and H-1B workers for whom working at a California tech company is a ticket to staying in the US at all, isn’t responsive to that argument.