Somehow I see similarities in Nimbyism, Citizenship, Employment, etc.
Momentum still building.
It is an objective data. Both haters and lovers have observed this alike.
Can we say then that there are similarities in YIMBYism, squatting, raiding, and intruding?
Objective data doesn’t show exodus rather slower growth in population. So if exodus is true why building more homes doesn’t reduce price?
Exodus (slow or fast) from California is not due to lack of housing alone. The state of politics, taxation, regulation, etc come into play. The prisons provide free housing, food, and healthcare. Who wants to live in a prison? Same with any other place that is onerous.
1 Like
You answer everything but my question 
Sorry, I missed your question (or I did not understand). Can you say it again?
if great exodus is happening and more homes are built, why would the home price go up?
First thing first, define exodus 
California, for decades a symbol of boundless growth and opportunity that attracted people from across the country and abroad, has seen its population growth stall and is losing a U.S. House seat for the first time in its 170-year history.
California’s population grew by about 2.3 million people since the 2010 Census but has been nearly flat since 2017.
That means influence will shift to faster-growing states such as Florida and Texas, where business-friendly policies and lower costs of living have fueled high-octane growth over the past decade. Texas gained two seats while Florida added one.
haha… still didn’t define exodus.
Your liberal way of definition requires definition of mass and departure.
Need a STEM definition.
yes right. 6 other states have lost seat as well. I am trying to point the difference between exodus and slower growth. Recent studies show major reason ppl leave CA is affordability. If CA announces home price and rent will be similar to TX, majority will shift from other states. I am not a CA hater or lover. Just observing things from neutral perspective
1 Like
I’ll also echo what you said by quoting above before continuing the rest of my post.
Among the states losing seats the surprising ones are CA,NY. Others which are losing seem to be as expected, i.e. not surprise. If this is a one time thing no problem, however if these are trends could be a problem.
Since, TX has gained 2 seats unlike CA or NY, I’ll mention some TX data here.
Anecdotally, someone I know recently relocated to Austin within the same company with another group. He had good pay in Bay Area, i.e. he moved after working for Apple for a decade to the company in Bay Area and worked there another 6-7 years, now moved from within the same company to Austin. Another guy just resigned and moved to Austin, he said he will find a job after he gets there 
. My neighbor sold his house and moved to Fortworth area after being in BA for 2 decades.
Some more “data”
Despite California being the largest state, it ranks only 16th in total capital investment projects, trailing Texas, which has 7 times more, and even trailing much smaller states, including Louisiana, South Carolina, and Kentucky. Measured in per-capita terms, California ranks 46th in capital investment projects, trailing Ohio, which has 14 times more.
The American Legislative Exchange Council ranks Texas first, while California nudges out New Jersey to barely avoid the cellar. Ease of opening and operating a small business? California ranks 49th, again barely passing New Jersey, and is far behind the entrepreneurial states of Texas, Nevada, Indiana, and others. Taxes? California ranks 49th (meaning second highest) in overall tax burden as well as individual tax burden, while Texas is near the top. How do CEOs view California’s business environment? Annual surveys show they always rank California last and Texas first.
74 known California businesses that have relocated their headquarters to another state in the first six months of 2021—double the rate for each of the three previous years.
I think this debate and tug of war between NIMBY and YIMBY is healthy and desirable to maintain a good balance.
Indiscriminate development and building of housing, offices, retail etc is not good. But building very little or not at all is also not good. Having a system which can take inputs from both the NIMBY and YIMBY camps and steer a middle path is best
Growing by 2.3M is mass exodus?
The total number of seats are fixed. Hence, states gain or lose within this fixed pile. So, this loss or gain is relative. That’s why I posted the states gaining seats vs ones losing. These seats are a representation of relative population gain or loss.
Note the words in bold.
1 Like
I know how House seats assignment works.
Growing by millions is not “exodus” by any definition of the word I know of. Some other states just grew faster.
If we want California to grow faster again we need to adopt some of the growth-friendly policies like Texas has.
If china’s gdp suddenly started growing at USA’s rate economists would say there is a recession in China. It’s technically not a recession, but it would be called one.
I know you know all what is being said, I was just replying to @mcp’s point.