Literally the next paragraph:
With investors and high-income taxpayers receiving substantial compensation in the form of stocks, last year’s sluggish stock market accounted for a major share of the decline in state income tax revenues. So did layoffs and financial weakness in the tech sector.
Will be interesting to see which direction the remote work trend will go in the next few years.
Also data, this time looking at population change this year:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/population-exodus-2023-18566180.php
California’s Department of Finance, whose estimates use different data sources than the Census, suggested the state’s population could be even less severe. By its measure, the state’s 2023 population is about 39.1 million, falling by just 37,000 people from the year prior. The department, which also said San Francisco’s population has grown slightly in the past two years, told the Chronicle they believe their data tracked in-migration slightly better than the Census Bureau.
Data again. Since this doesn’t match some people’s bias I am sure they will say the data’s invalid. Better to rely on their feelings from far away.
The city’s population began growing again in 2021 after plunging at the onset of the pandemic, a year earlier than previously thought, according to California Department of Finance data released Tuesday.
The city gained about 1,400 people between July 2021 and July 2022, according to a revised estimate. A previous Department of Finance report estimated a loss of around 4,400 people during that period. The revisions incorporate migration data from the Internal Revenue Service and 2020 census data.
Gains were stronger in the following 12 months: The city grew by about 4,900 people to a total of a little over 848,000 residents, a positive sign that it remains appealing in the age of remote work and despite persistently high housing costs. San Francisco’s 0.6% gain was the fourth-highest percentage increase among California counties, behind the three rural counties of Yuba, Madera and Mono.
I’m curious how they were so far off with their initial numbers….
I’m curious to know how much in-migration is illegals. Not likely to add much to revenues.
I am curious to know how many of the new people coming into SF are startup founders, creating the next batch of 10B companies in tech.
See, I can also play this making stuff up game.
In the tax filing years 2020 and 2021, the average gross income of taxpayers who had moved from California to another state was about $137,000. That was up from $75,000 in 2015 and 2016, according to migration and personal income data from the Internal Revenue Service.
IRS and other data show that Texas has long been, by far, the top destination for Californians. And in the years 2015-16, an individual or couple who had moved from California to Texas reported an average income of $78,000, about the same as Texans who relocated to California. But by 2020-21, California transplants in Texas reported an average income of about $137,000, while tax returns from former Texans who moved to California showed an average income of $75,000.
The income gap between those coming into California and those going out is even bigger when it comes to Florida, which, as far away as it is, has become a top five destination for emigrating Californians.
Of course none of the states to which they are moving are happy to see them.
Most San Francisco Bay residents leaving are going to the Sacramento MSA. I am betting on that not against San Francisco.
I have better summer weather than Sac.
Tahoe is in the Sacramento MSA
This is the keyphrase behind the doom and gloom:
When trying to extrapolate from past data, one should ask if conditions will be the same as in the past.
Do people remember what 2020 and 2021 were like? Will we have similar conditions going forward?
Meanwhile this is much more recent data:
San Francisco saw an increase of 4,682 net new migrants between July 2022 and July 2023, combining both domestic and international migration. Net new migrants is the number of people who moved in minus the number of people who moved out. Overall, with births added in, the population of San Francisco increased by 4,925 to a total of 848,019.
The city’s 0.58% population growth ranked as one of the highest marks across a state generally characterized by population declines. In absolute figures, San Francisco’s number of new residents ranked No. 3 behind Alameda and Santa Clara counties, which have much larger populations and had more births than San Francisco.
Since this is the exact opposite of what many on this thread predicted (SF = Detroit, SF/BA/CA in permanent decline etc), now is a good time to revisit one’s prior belief. Seems it doesn’t match with reality.
Yeah, it’ll only take 12 more years to offset the 2018-2022 population loss. It’ll be interesting if it’s a one-time or a new trend.
Pasting a comment on this article.
I work with financial data for a major California based hospital network and we are preparing for this. Medi-Cal patients are already serviced at a loss, meaning we lose money on each Medi-Cal patient that comes through the door. To offset this, patients with private insurance are billed much more (sometimes double to triple the Medi-Cal patient cost) to help make up the difference. The more Medi-Cal patients there are, the more private insurances will be billed, and the higher the premiums will go. If you live in California and have private insurance, be prepared to see your premiums increase by 10-20% next year or the following year to help offset this.
This (increase in premiums for private insurance) and the payroll tax increase are too much.
No wonder middle class is fleeing.
and in related news…
Statistics are a funny thing. Women live longer than men. So maybe a sex change operation could extend your life… Who knew.
BTW Sacramento is in the top three most desirable places to mve to. Mainly BA escapees? I have seen a lot of tenant profiles coming here from central and southern Ca also. And Vegas too.
