By David M. Greenwald
We have seen a steady narrative of news stories arguing that California is losing population for the first time in its history, and that high-profile technology companies and billionaires are leaving the state.
In a study released by the University of California this week, however, they found “no evidence of an abnormal increase in residents planning to move out of the state.”
Instead the study found, among other things, that a majority of Californians still believe in the “California Dream.”
There are of course residents moving out of state, “but not at unusual rates.”
More importantly, there is no evidence of “millionaire flight” from California. On the contrary, “California’s economy attracts as much venture capital as all other states combined.”
Formed in fall 2020, the UC-led project is a research consortium “designed to bring a fact-based, empirical approach to California’s population patterns, helping to inform state policy and public knowledge.” The project includes studies conducted by scholars at UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC San Diego, as well as Cornell University and Stanford University.
The research draws on many data sources to investigate the so-called exodus: public opinion data, the U.S. Census, consumer credit histories, home ownership rates, venture capital investments, and 
information from the Franchise Tax Board.
“From housing affordability to post-pandemic recovery, California is faced with solving a daunting number of existential challenges. To help inform those important public discussions, UC assembled many of the state’s top researchers to provide a data-driven understanding of California’s population trends,” said UC Regent John A. Pérez.
He added, “Sliced and diced by geography, race, income and other demographic factors, our efforts have produced a clearer picture of who perceives California as the Golden State versus a failed state. The empirical data will be, at once, disappointing to those who want to write California’s obituary, as well as a call to action for policymakers to address the challenges that have caused some to lose faith in the California Dream.”
UC San Diego conducted a survey. It found that “the percentage of Californians who plan to leave the state has remained static over the past two years. Twenty-three percent of California’s voters reported that they were seriously considering leaving California, which is slightly lower than the 24 percent found in a 2019 survey conducted by UC Berkeley.”
In fact, you could argue it’s within the clear margin of error.
They also found, “By nearly a 2-to-1 margin, Californians respond that they still believe in the ‘California Dream’ (that it’s a great place to live and raise a family) but belief in that dream depends on demographics, economic status and partisan affiliation.”
Interestingly enough: “Spanish speakers, Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans and younger Californians are more optimistic, while middle-class Californians, white respondents, older residents and Republicans are more pessimistic.”
There are areas of concern.
For example, “Middle-class Californians making incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 are the most concerned about the state of California today as well as its future. “
At the same time, you might find it interesting that the gap between Republicans (30) and Democrats (21) is there but not overwhelming, in terms of those considering moving.
Those who are opposed to growth, however, may take solace, “Growth is not a goal for most Californians: Asked to look ahead 10 years, 35 percent of respondents believe it would be better if the population decreases significantly and 46 percent want it to stay about the same. Only 19 percent of those surveyed said that the state would be better if its population increases.”
Down about eight points are those who believe California is the best place to live—down from 50 percent in 2019 to 42 percent in 2021.
“Despite the popular notion of unhappy Californians leaving the state en masse, our robust research shows there is actually no exodus,” said Thad Kousser, chair of the political science department at UC San Diego and the lead researcher of the most recent survey. “Most residents say that they still believe in the ‘California Dream.’ Policymakers, including those trying to prevent an exodus, should focus more on those who are not as optimistic about the state’s direction, including many in the middle class facing steep housing costs and people from areas of the state facing the greatest economic challenges.”
There is evidence of people moving out of San Francisco.
“Using 16 years of credit history data to track residential moves through the end of 2020, a UC California Policy Lab report found “no evidence of a pronounced exodus from the state” and “little evidence that wealthy Californians are leaving en masse because of the pandemic,” they report.
But they did find a “net migration away from San Francisco during the pandemic along with a decline in the number of people moving to the state.”
But even then, most of those leaving San Francisco stayed in the state.
“Approximately two-thirds of people who moved out of San Francisco remained within the 11-county Bay Area economic region, and 80 percent remained in California which is consistent with trends in prior years,” the survey found.
“Counties in the Sierra Nevada mountains and other parts of northern California saw huge increases in former Bay Area residents, with 50 percent and in some cases double that in 2020 as compared to 2019,” they found.
Finally, California continues to draw about half of all venture capital investment in the entire nation.
“California’s share of venture capital dollars rose from one-third in 1995 to more than half throughout the 2010s. In the first quarter of 2021, the state’s share of VC funding stood at 48 percent, slightly below trend but consistent with normal year-to-year fluctuations,” the survey found.
The report did not analyze causes. But putting all of this together, it appears that the middle class is a bit more stressed right now than the wealthy. There is a slight partisan effect, but it’s hardly overwhelming.
The surveys seem to suggest that it is more middle class rather than the wealthy who are dissatisfied. That suggests that it might be housing prices and affordability that are driving people out. And, in fact, the movement from San Francisco to the hills seems to bear that out as well.
Bottom line: the idea of a mass exodus out of California seems to be another false media narrative.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sure there is some bad reporting, but even if one believes your arguments, which I don’t, perception is reality. You have lost this battle. In fact there never was a battle – you will be seen briefly as an annoying fungus on the toe of your foe, easily extinguished with an anti-fungal.
Love it… compose once, on a thread, then Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V for another… meant as respect for a cool concept… works well when some of the underlying issues are the same… efficient! Like!
Yes Alan, perception is reality. I remember this conversation I had with David, it looks like he agrees:
The reason for California’s population decline and stabilization is not solely due to net migration out of the state.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/06/california-population-decline-zero-growth/
But the reason for in-state population shifts was due to Covid (and the rise of telecommuting). Turns out that if you build sprawl, they will come. (The opposite of the so-called “density” movement.)
Seems like the state hasn’t caught on to that, and are essentially encouraging “both” (sprawl and infill). In other words, business as usual.
In a study released by the University of California this week, however, they found “no evidence of an abnormal increase in residents planning to move out of the state.”
So a bunch of really smart stupid people done another study huh. 😳
Simple check: lookup the rental rates for a U-Haul truck from any CA city to any TX city, then compare it to the exact opposite direction. So many middle class people are moving CA to TX that the rates are nearly twice as high to Texas as From Texas (they’re cheap from TX to CA because the company needs to get all those rentals back to CA). There are many other simple sanity checks you can do on this idea if yeah put in a little effort.
Just one person’s humble opinion.
Chris
Opinion doesn’t matter when gathering statistical evidence–facts and data matter. The UC study uses facts and data. Your anecdote doesn’t address the fact that the number of total rentals is a tiny percentage of the total California population. You also haven’t covered the net movement among ALL states, not just Texas. A simple, narrow anecdote cannot trump a comprehensive study using a complete data set.
There’s a link for some U-Haul migration trends for ya..
California is at the bottom of the list by the way.
https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/2020-Migration-Trends-U-Haul-Ranks-50-States-By-Migration-Growth-22746/
Here’s United Van lines migration data for you also.
https://taxfoundation.org/state-migration-trends/
Chris, the people coming to California for jobs are highly unlikely to use U-Haul as their moving company.
the people coming to California for jobs are highly unlikely to use U-Haul as their moving company.
That is very true Matt I have to agree the haves are leaving and they have nots are coming.
I find it interesting that you needed to add the “parentheses”, to define exactly what that meant (in your view, at least). It certainly wasn’t in the survey question.
What kind of survey question is that to ask of people, in the first place?
That was actually a direct quote from their press release, I didn’t add the parenthetical.
Thanks. Regardless, I strongly suspect that the part in parenthesis was “not included” in the question to survey respondents.
It’s a very squishy question either way, and would not qualify as “science”. I suspect that’s true of the entire survey.
There is actual data that exists, regardless of this type of b.s.
Ron O
You’re more than welcome to read the entire report and provide a comprehensive critique, rather than speculating about what may or may not be in the study. Criticism from afar because the results contradict your position is not valid criticism.
It likely demonstrates the exact opposite – those with money are “heading for the hills”. Sometimes, with second homes (e.g., in the real mountains – Tahoe, Truckee), sometimes moving entirely to new sprawling developments in the foothills (think Folsom).
Those with second homes retain their original homes.
Sometimes, moving to Nevada – where there is no state income tax. (I know a high-earner who did this, and finally bought a home in the process. Which has gone up significantly in value, since purchased a couple of years ago. Despite my predictions.)
And those with less money end up in new sprawl, in the valley.
All of which is the largely the result of the ability to work remotely.
As a side note, I read somewhere that there’s more than enough vacant homes in Los Angeles to house all of the homeless individuals, there. (Not that I’m advocating that.)
As I’ve been pointing out for months, Davis is a “target” community for those moving out of the Bay Area. They remain close enough to their current employment, but away from the high housing prices caused by inadequate housing supply in that region. That’s why Davis needs to prepare for the influx of housing demand by increasing supply.
Davis also has the opportunity to capture the economic benefits of that immigration by encouraging more retail development to serve the new residents and by attracting Bay Area businesses to move facilities closer to their employees (the opposite of the usual cycle).
Don is right about our need to plan ahead for the issues he’s identified.
I agree with Richard on all but one of his points. Specifically, “encouraging more retail development to serve the new residents”
Brick and Mortar retail in Davis is anemic at best, and you can probably count on one hand the number of Californians who believe that their retail needs can be met by the very small complement of retailers located in Davis.
A huge reason for that hopeless retail situation is that the Davis community (the City, UCD, Yolo County and local businesses ) has done nothing to attract retail demand from beyond the City Limits. Communities that rely solely on local residents as the demand for local retailers simply don’t generate sufficient demand to sustain their retail businesses, so one-by-one those retail businesses shut their doors and turn off the lights (for example Hibberts). Adding more local residents will not change that unfortunate fact. Any successful “encouraging retail” strategy is going to have to generate enough attraction for people who live beyond the Davis community to come to Davis and spend their money. The Davis Farmer’s Market achieves that end result for a few hours each week. A “encouraging retail” strategy is going to have to create similar visitor appeal seven days a week 12 hours a day. Otherwise the Davis retail lifeblood will become thinner and thinner and thinner.
Encouraging Davis to accept becoming a bedroom community will further cause economic strain on the city. Encouraging growth for growth’s sake is just a horrible idea. You’re incurring the costs of infrastructure and services without the added benefit of local business tax revenue. Piddly local property tax revenue (about $400 per person by my guestimate) doesn’t cut it.
I’m all for creating destination retail (I worked for the biggest destination retail developer/owners in the world….though I wasn’t part of the retail part of the business). You don’t create destination retail to serve local residents. You create it to bring in people (and their money) to visit the community. The benefit is that you get the business and sales tax revenue without having to provide the residential services and infrastructure.
Intra-state migration, with a net outflow from San Francisco to other parts of the state, is a trend that was accelerated by COVID impacts. This is going to be an important consideration for regional planning agencies going forward as they assess and project population changes for other regions, especially the other counties of the Bay Area and the Sierra foothills, and to a lesser extent the Sacramento metropolitan area including Yolo County and Davis.
It is likely that the numbers will change for SACOG to reflect this increase in regional population as they plan ahead for the next cycle of housing elements.
Inflow of workers from Mexico into California has been declining since the Great Recession, and that trend has been exacerbated by strict immigration policies and heightened border enforcement, especially under the previous administration.
This has led to a serious shortage of labor, especially in agriculture and ranching, as well as in other industries that have historically relied on immigrant labor (landscaping, construction, hotel/hospitality, restaurant). The acute labor shortage may ease as the economy returns and workers in Mexico see opportunities, but reform to immigration enforcement and laws will be necessary.
Studies showed that the main reason for return of Mexican migrants to Mexico was family reunification. If we want a stable work force we will encourage, not discourage, families of those who work here to come and join them here.
This study of the migration between the US and Mexico is from 2015. All of these trends have been intensified due to COVID and immigration enforcement and restrictions since then:
https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/
Key issues to me in addressing this are acute shortages of decent housing for those who work in the fields and ranches, inequities in funding of schools that their kids attend, the digital divide isolating their communities, and sustainable wages in the industries where they predominate. But those factors don’t lessen the critical need for labor and the adverse impact current policies are having.
Despite the extreme ideological divide between the ag community and those who typically argue on behalf of immigrants, they can agree on the need for a stable and predictable labor force. The state may have to take the lead, since immigration reform is stymied in Washington, and the one area where the state has clear policy oversight is in pushing communities forward on the provision of housing.
This is the exact opposite of the primary purpose of the state’s efforts, to encourage infill and development near public transit lines.
And if HCD (which administers the RHNA numbers) is now enabling policies to encourage sprawl (and abandon denser areas), shouldn’t the dense areas then have a lower RHNA number, as a result? (Especially in a state that’s no longer growing, overall?)
Or, perhaps the state needs to reconsider its entire effort. Of course, that won’t happen with Wiener in office (and on a key committee). Nor will it occur if YIMBY’s continue to be funded.
Regarding farmworkers, perhaps it’s time to reconsider how this country takes advantage of them. But as far as housing is concerned, the state and federal government “efforts” on housing isn’t intended for farmworkers, for the most part.
Someone generally builds glorified chicken coops to house them, seasonally. These folks “move” as crops ripen in different areas.
There will likely be increased mechanization to replace farmworkers, perhaps in conjunction with UCD’s efforts to create crops that can be increasingly harvested by machine. Uhm – yummy. Rubber tomatoes, Frankenfood, etc. Have you ever seen how those tomatoes “bounce”, when they fall off the overloaded trucks around here? 🙂
My fifth comment.
This was covered in the the South Park Episode: “Last of the Meheecans”
Plot Summary
The boys play “Texans vs. Mexicans” at a sleepover at Cartman’s house, a game in which the “Mexicans” attempt to elude the “border patrol” (led by an overly gleeful Cartman) and cross the border into Texas (in Cartman’s backyard). All of the “Mexicans” do so, winning the game, much to Cartman’s irritation. However, Butters is not among his teammates, having been lost, and when Cartman later realizes that Butters is not present, he realizes the game is not over. As Butters’ teammates begin searching for him, Cartman’s team resumes protecting the backyard. Butters’ team puts up fliers to help find him.
As Butters tries to find his way back, he is struck by a passing car. The couple in the car, believing Butters to be a Mexican immigrant named “Mantequilla” (Spanish for “butter”), take him to their home and employ him as a stereotypical Mexican servant, giving him menial jobs to perform such as cleaning windows and washing dishes. However, the couple eventually abandons Butters at an El Pollo Loco restaurant, believing that Butters needs to be with his “own kind” to be happy. Inside, Butters regales the staff with tales of his imaginary exploits. The staff recognize him from “missing” posters put up by his friends and, believing him to be someone famous, they start to question the value of their new lives in the United States. They misinterpret Butters’ desire to “cross the border” and rejoin his friends as a desire to return to Mexico, and a mass exodus of Mexican emigrants soon begins. As more and more Mexicans leave, Americans realize they cannot keep up with their newfound menial labor tasks due to having become complacent and lazy, creating a labor shortage and damaging the U.S. economy.
Cartman joins the actual United States Border Patrol as a volunteer, where he is instructed to stop Mexicans from crossing the border, regardless of the “semantics” of which direction they are traveling. Mexican emigrants start being rounded up and ordered to get back to work. Butters, as “Mantequilla”, is hailed as a hero in Mexico.
He is received in the Zócalo and is credited with instilling a sense of national pride in the Mexican people. However, he soon becomes homesick and attempts to return to the United States. While attempting to cross into the United States, Butters is spotted by border patrol agents, who are overjoyed in their belief a Mexican wants to enter the United States and make no attempt to stop him. Recognizing Butters, an enraged Cartman tries to prevent him from crossing the border. With the Border Patrol’s help, Butters successfully eludes Cartman and re-enters the United States, winning the game.
Here’s some data pertaining to income levels and the age of the individuals that are leaving California and some reasons why they’re leaving California .
https://www.unitedvanlines.com/newsroom/movers-study-2020
And here are the migration trends from Atlas Van Lines.
https://www.atlasvanlines.com/migration-patterns