Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Texas voters do not register by party. However, when those voters participate in a partisan primary, that ballot choice is recorded and reported on the state voter file. But you are right, the lack of voter registration by party is why the Texas GOP mostly used race as a proxy in their recent gerrymandering effort at Trump's behest, which was a return to Jim Crow efforts to disenfranchise black voters before the Voting Rights Act that was effectively overturned by this Supreme Court.

---

ACC Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Texas voters do not register by party. However, when those voters participate in a partisan primary, that ballot choice is recorded and reported on the state voter file. But you are right, the lack of voter registration by party is why the Texas GOP mostly used race as a proxy in their recent gerrymandering effort at Trump's behest, which was a return to Jim Crow efforts to disenfranchise black voters before the Voting Rights Act that was effectively overturned by this Supreme Court.

---

A large number of the registered voters that vote in Republican primaries are Democrats, which is how Nikki Haley was able to have a Presidential campaign. So counting voters that vote in primaries is not a good way to determine party registration.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

Texas has been growing fast, currently has 31M people, while the CA population has stagnated this decade. Texas is set to overtake California within the next two decades.

---

Very dangerous to assume that present trends will continue for two decades.

---

Quote:

---

Supply and demand. High prices are not an indication of decreased demand.

---

Quote:

---

Half of the top 10 cities for residential construction are from Texas
State-wise, Texas is the king of residential construction in the U.S. Supported by its robust economic sector, the Lone Star State added more housing units than any other state in the past decade. That's mainly in response to the massive influx of new residents that pushed local population numbers to over 30 million in 2022.
Among Texas's powerhouses, Houston has the most active residential market. Nationally, it was second only to New York City in terms of numbers of building permits issued over the last ten years. Roughly 55K permits were issued for single family homes and 89K for multifamily units between 2013 and 2022.

---

Quote:

---

Have you actually been to Houston?

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

Texas has been growing fast, currently has 31M people, while the CA population has stagnated this decade. Texas is set to overtake California within the next two decades.

---

Very dangerous to assume that present trends will continue for two decades.

---

The trend has been ongoing since the 90s. Back then median home price in Houston were around $100k. Haas grad friends who moved there working for local companies like Sysco, Enron (hehe), Schlumberger, which were hiring from Haas at a time the job market dipped in the Bay lived very large. While California has kept growing since the 90s, the growth rate in TX has been higher, and sustained whereas CA has had dips with the tech bubble bursting and covid. TX today has 4/5th the pop. of CA, so the gap is relatively narrow.

The projections are for sustained growth in TX, and flat net growth for CA:





https://www.newgeography.com/content/008302-dallas-fort-worth-top-los-angeles-official-state-population-projections

Calumnus wrote:

Quote:

---

Supply and demand. High prices are not an indication of decreased demand.

---

One of the main differences between CA and TX is that housing supply is severely constricted in the main CA metropoles due to zoning/antigrowth regulations and to a lesser extent geography, while in TX housing supply has kept up with high demand.

Quote:

---

Half of the top 10 cities for residential construction are from Texas
State-wise, Texas is the king of residential construction in the U.S. Supported by its robust economic sector, the Lone Star State added more housing units than any other state in the past decade. That's mainly in response to the massive influx of new residents that pushed local population numbers to over 30 million in 2022.
Among Texas's powerhouses, Houston has the most active residential market. Nationally, it was second only to New York City in terms of numbers of building permits issued over the last ten years. Roughly 55K permits were issued for single family homes and 89K for multifamily units between 2013 and 2022.

---

https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/top-cities-for-residential-building/

If you're a nurse, teacher, accountant, developer, or more generally a middle class couple that wants to raise a family, you can buy a nice home in TX, vs a renter in a less desirable neighborhood in the Bay, LA, SD.

Quote:

---

Have you actually been to Houston?

---

Several times, have family there. The Houston core has a liberal, pedestrian neighborhood with some decent nightlife like the Rice Village, some diversity with large mixed Asian and Hispanic communities and many expats in the energy industry. It's definitely not as beautiful as SF, lacks older housing stock and is largely an amalgam of strip malls and suburban housing but for those whose main priority is nice, affordable family-friendly housing, it remains a great option.

Whereas the entry point in NorCal is confined to high/very high income professionals. That is why population growth will remain capped in CA (see bar graphs above). California is only a nice place to live if you're a middle class homeowner who bought in decades ago or a wealthy professional. For younger people, the financial hardship isn't worth it, especially for families.


BearlyCareAnymore:

Austin is the 4th largest city in TX (San Antonio is bigger), it's undergone a boom and bust cycle. But generally speaking the TX economy is fairly diversified. The one vulnerability that might kick in 10-20 years could be the projected decline in the Permian Bassin fracking production.

---

Lol. Texas' projections are from the state of Texas and it's clear that they are doing exactly what sycasey and I said, assuming very short term numbers will continue for decades. Your source itself says IF the projections turn out to be correct and they often aren't accurate because conditions change. But here is the kicker. They project that California's population will only increase 500,000 by 2060 which is ludicrous. But the bigger kicker is that California has already surpassed their 2060 projection.


California's population nearly doubled from 1970-2000 and that is when the real estate prices exploded. If you were around here at the time you know that there was an explosion in new home building around the Bay Area suburbs until places as far away as Fairfield were filled up. Why weren't liberal policies stopping things then. It's not liberal policies. We are filled up. Other (Republican) cities are reaching the same point the Bay Area did 20 years ago and clamping down on building. Texas' population growth and explosive building looks like California in the 80's and 90's. It's not politics. They will get where we are (as Austin is already getting there)

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

Texas has been growing fast, currently has 31M people, while the CA population has stagnated this decade. Texas is set to overtake California within the next two decades.

---

Very dangerous to assume that present trends will continue for two decades.

---

The trend has been ongoing since the 90s. Back then median home price in Houston were around $100k. Haas grad friends who moved there working for local companies like Sysco, Enron (hehe), Schlumberger, which were hiring from Haas at a time the job market dipped in the Bay lived very large. While California has kept growing since the 90s, the growth rate in TX has been higher, and sustained whereas CA has had dips with the tech bubble bursting and covid. TX today has 4/5th the pop. of CA, so the gap is relatively narrow.

The projections are for sustained growth in TX, and flat net growth for CA:





https://www.newgeography.com/content/008302-dallas-fort-worth-top-los-angeles-official-state-population-projections

Calumnus wrote:

Quote:

---

Supply and demand. High prices are not an indication of decreased demand.

---

One of the main differences between CA and TX is that housing supply is severely constricted in the main CA metropoles due to zoning/antigrowth regulations and to a lesser extent geography, while in TX housing supply has kept up with high demand.

Quote:

---

Half of the top 10 cities for residential construction are from Texas
State-wise, Texas is the king of residential construction in the U.S. Supported by its robust economic sector, the Lone Star State added more housing units than any other state in the past decade. That's mainly in response to the massive influx of new residents that pushed local population numbers to over 30 million in 2022.
Among Texas's powerhouses, Houston has the most active residential market. Nationally, it was second only to New York City in terms of numbers of building permits issued over the last ten years. Roughly 55K permits were issued for single family homes and 89K for multifamily units between 2013 and 2022.

---

https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/top-cities-for-residential-building/

If you're a nurse, teacher, accountant, developer, or more generally a middle class couple that wants to raise a family, you can buy a nice home in TX, vs a renter in a less desirable neighborhood in the Bay, LA, SD.

Quote:

---

Have you actually been to Houston?

---

Several times, have family there. The Houston core has a liberal, pedestrian neighborhood with some decent nightlife like the Rice Village, some diversity with large mixed Asian and Hispanic communities and many expats in the energy industry. It's definitely not as beautiful as SF, lacks older housing stock and is largely an amalgam of strip malls and suburban housing but for those whose main priority is nice, affordable family-friendly housing, it remains a great option.

Whereas the entry point in NorCal is confined to high/very high income professionals. That is why population growth will remain capped in CA (see bar graphs above). California is only a nice place to live if you're a middle class homeowner who bought in decades ago or a wealthy professional. For younger people, the financial hardship isn't worth it, especially for families.


BearlyCareAnymore:

Austin is the 4th largest city in TX (San Antonio is bigger), it's undergone a boom and bust cycle. But generally speaking the TX economy is fairly diversified. The one vulnerability that might kick in 10-20 years could be the projected decline in the Permian Bassin fracking production.

---

Lol. Texas' projections are from the state of Texas and it's clear that they are doing exactly what sycasey and I said, assuming very short term numbers will continue for decades. Your source itself says IF the projections turn out to be correct and they often aren't accurate because conditions change. But here is the kicker. They project that California's population will only increase 500,000 by 2060 which is ludicrous. But the bigger kicker is that California has already surpassed their 2060 projection.


California's population nearly doubled from 1970-2000 and that is when the real estate prices exploded. If you were around here at the time you know that there was an explosion in new home building around the Bay Area suburbs until places as far away as Fairfield were filled up. Why weren't liberal policies stopping things then. It's not liberal policies. We are filled up. Other (Republican) cities are reaching the same point the Bay Area did 20 years ago and clamping down on building. Texas' population growth and explosive building looks like California in the 80's and 90's. It's not politics. They will get where we are (as Austin is already getting there)

---

My point about CA, and probably that of the projections above is, who is going to move into an area like the Bay where the median home price is $1.4 million? It's a fairly narrow segment of top IT talent, MBAs and JDs hired out from top schools, maybe H1Bs from India or EEur. who will pay $1.400 to shack in a house in SV with 6 other guys. All the while you have an outflow of older people cashing out on their home to buy the equivalent for a fraction of that price in a cheaper market.

That's the kind of churn you have had in CA in recent times and that you can expect to continue seeing for years to come. resulting in a stagnant total population figure, unless home prices come down, somehow. But they're not likely to come down because housing supply is throttled.



The outflow from LA is from working class people cashing out on their million dollar home to move to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte where they can get the same salaries, and the same house at a third ot a quarter the cost of their LA home. Or they could retire in their original Mexican state in a small hacienda with plenty of left over savings. And similarly, the high housing costs are going to be an obstacle for new middle class people moving in.

In comparison metropoles like DFW and Houston can continue to expand outwards 360 degrees while also adding density in their cores due to lax zoning, developers can buy a cluster of old homes in the inner loop, raze them and build a condo tower. The supply of housing moving fluidly with demand yields constant low housing prices primarily driven by construction costs.

---

So you are just going to keep citing more graphs from the same source whose numbers are shyte and who says in their own materials that their numbers are shyte.

Here's the thing. LA had some population decrease during COVID and the years that followed and is back increasing again. But the outflow is not going to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte or people going back to Mexico. The Greater LA Metro Area has been slowly increasing throughout the same time. The outflow from LA went to greater LA. Basically during COVID and aftermath, with the advent of remote work people moved out from the core because the horrible traffic wasn't the barrier it once was.

Funny you should mention Phoenix. That is one of the cities that used to point at the liberal policies inhibiting growth in California's cities and they have not been able to keep up with the infrastructure. Their permit rates have plummeted while they undergo a significant housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. And they have implemented significant water restrictions because they don't have enough and that is severely hampered their ability to expand housing.

And that is a major obstacle to your vision of Texas just expanding and expanding. If you want to see the future of Texas, look at Phoenix. Texas is already bumping up against water scarcity and they do not have the water infrastructure to support the growth you envision. It is already questionable whether they can handle one drought of any significance with the current population. Texas does not have enough water to support this level of growth and new sources are going to get more and more expensive. They also ironically have an energy infrastructure problem and the cost of energy is often just as much a barrier to an individual in affording housing than the house itself in a state that is brutally hot much of the time. Yes, they have the land to keep on building, but land isn't the only resource you need. Texas' rate of growth has already started to slow, though it is still in a fast growth phase. Its growth curve is very similar to California's just further back in the curve. They will plateau like everyone else. They won't run out of land, and they will be able to build highways to manage the extra cars, but they will use up their resources and that will define their upper limit.

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

California is out of its high growth phase because we have simply hit max on land, resources and infrastructure. The cities you are citing are going through the same growth curve. Each one of them will continue their growth until they bump up against their particular scarcity, whether it is land, water, energy, transportation or something else. And when they hit that scarcity, they will have to take measures to protect that resource which will limit housing expansion.

It has nothing to do with political persuasion. Again, where were the liberal NIMBY's when farm communities like Sonoma County and Walnut Creek built massive amounts of housing? We built suburban communities and we built them en masse until commute times were beyond tolerable and resources were stretched and that is when people say "no more". You have never accounted for things like transportation or resources in your analysis. It's been "there is a bare plot of land. why can't we put a high rise apartment building there? NIMBY's!"

---

Quote:

---

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

Texas has been growing fast, currently has 31M people, while the CA population has stagnated this decade. Texas is set to overtake California within the next two decades.

---

Very dangerous to assume that present trends will continue for two decades.

---

The trend has been ongoing since the 90s. Back then median home price in Houston were around $100k. Haas grad friends who moved there working for local companies like Sysco, Enron (hehe), Schlumberger, which were hiring from Haas at a time the job market dipped in the Bay lived very large. While California has kept growing since the 90s, the growth rate in TX has been higher, and sustained whereas CA has had dips with the tech bubble bursting and covid. TX today has 4/5th the pop. of CA, so the gap is relatively narrow.

The projections are for sustained growth in TX, and flat net growth for CA:





https://www.newgeography.com/content/008302-dallas-fort-worth-top-los-angeles-official-state-population-projections

Calumnus wrote:

Quote:

---

Supply and demand. High prices are not an indication of decreased demand.

---

One of the main differences between CA and TX is that housing supply is severely constricted in the main CA metropoles due to zoning/antigrowth regulations and to a lesser extent geography, while in TX housing supply has kept up with high demand.

Quote:

---

Half of the top 10 cities for residential construction are from Texas
State-wise, Texas is the king of residential construction in the U.S. Supported by its robust economic sector, the Lone Star State added more housing units than any other state in the past decade. That's mainly in response to the massive influx of new residents that pushed local population numbers to over 30 million in 2022.
Among Texas's powerhouses, Houston has the most active residential market. Nationally, it was second only to New York City in terms of numbers of building permits issued over the last ten years. Roughly 55K permits were issued for single family homes and 89K for multifamily units between 2013 and 2022.

---

https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/top-cities-for-residential-building/

If you're a nurse, teacher, accountant, developer, or more generally a middle class couple that wants to raise a family, you can buy a nice home in TX, vs a renter in a less desirable neighborhood in the Bay, LA, SD.

Quote:

---

Have you actually been to Houston?

---

Several times, have family there. The Houston core has a liberal, pedestrian neighborhood with some decent nightlife like the Rice Village, some diversity with large mixed Asian and Hispanic communities and many expats in the energy industry. It's definitely not as beautiful as SF, lacks older housing stock and is largely an amalgam of strip malls and suburban housing but for those whose main priority is nice, affordable family-friendly housing, it remains a great option.

Whereas the entry point in NorCal is confined to high/very high income professionals. That is why population growth will remain capped in CA (see bar graphs above). California is only a nice place to live if you're a middle class homeowner who bought in decades ago or a wealthy professional. For younger people, the financial hardship isn't worth it, especially for families.


BearlyCareAnymore:

Austin is the 4th largest city in TX (San Antonio is bigger), it's undergone a boom and bust cycle. But generally speaking the TX economy is fairly diversified. The one vulnerability that might kick in 10-20 years could be the projected decline in the Permian Bassin fracking production.

---

Lol. Texas' projections are from the state of Texas and it's clear that they are doing exactly what sycasey and I said, assuming very short term numbers will continue for decades. Your source itself says IF the projections turn out to be correct and they often aren't accurate because conditions change. But here is the kicker. They project that California's population will only increase 500,000 by 2060 which is ludicrous. But the bigger kicker is that California has already surpassed their 2060 projection.


California's population nearly doubled from 1970-2000 and that is when the real estate prices exploded. If you were around here at the time you know that there was an explosion in new home building around the Bay Area suburbs until places as far away as Fairfield were filled up. Why weren't liberal policies stopping things then. It's not liberal policies. We are filled up. Other (Republican) cities are reaching the same point the Bay Area did 20 years ago and clamping down on building. Texas' population growth and explosive building looks like California in the 80's and 90's. It's not politics. They will get where we are (as Austin is already getting there)

---

My point about CA, and probably that of the projections above is, who is going to move into an area like the Bay where the median home price is $1.4 million? It's a fairly narrow segment of top IT talent, MBAs and JDs hired out from top schools, maybe H1Bs from India or EEur. who will pay $1.400 to shack in a house in SV with 6 other guys. All the while you have an outflow of older people cashing out on their home to buy the equivalent for a fraction of that price in a cheaper market.

That's the kind of churn you have had in CA in recent times and that you can expect to continue seeing for years to come. resulting in a stagnant total population figure, unless home prices come down, somehow. But they're not likely to come down because housing supply is throttled.



The outflow from LA is from working class people cashing out on their million dollar home to move to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte where they can get the same salaries, and the same house at a third ot a quarter the cost of their LA home. Or they could retire in their original Mexican state in a small hacienda with plenty of left over savings. And similarly, the high housing costs are going to be an obstacle for new middle class people moving in.

In comparison metropoles like DFW and Houston can continue to expand outwards 360 degrees while also adding density in their cores due to lax zoning, developers can buy a cluster of old homes in the inner loop, raze them and build a condo tower. The supply of housing moving fluidly with demand yields constant low housing prices primarily driven by construction costs.

---

So you are just going to keep citing more graphs from the same source whose numbers are shyte and who says in their own materials that their numbers are shyte.

Here's the thing. LA had some population decrease during COVID and the years that followed and is back increasing again. But the outflow is not going to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte or people going back to Mexico. The Greater LA Metro Area has been slowly increasing throughout the same time. The outflow from LA went to greater LA. Basically during COVID and aftermath, with the advent of remote work people moved out from the core because the horrible traffic wasn't the barrier it once was.

Funny you should mention Phoenix. That is one of the cities that used to point at the liberal policies inhibiting growth in California's cities and they have not been able to keep up with the infrastructure. Their permit rates have plummeted while they undergo a significant housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. And they have implemented significant water restrictions because they don't have enough and that is severely hampered their ability to expand housing.

And that is a major obstacle to your vision of Texas just expanding and expanding. If you want to see the future of Texas, look at Phoenix. Texas is already bumping up against water scarcity and they do not have the water infrastructure to support the growth you envision. It is already questionable whether they can handle one drought of any significance with the current population. Texas does not have enough water to support this level of growth and new sources are going to get more and more expensive. They also ironically have an energy infrastructure problem and the cost of energy is often just as much a barrier to an individual in affording housing than the house itself in a state that is brutally hot much of the time. Yes, they have the land to keep on building, but land isn't the only resource you need. Texas' rate of growth has already started to slow, though it is still in a fast growth phase. Its growth curve is very similar to California's just further back in the curve. They will plateau like everyone else. They won't run out of land, and they will be able to build highways to manage the extra cars, but they will use up their resources and that will define their upper limit.

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

California is out of its high growth phase because we have simply hit max on land, resources and infrastructure. The cities you are citing are going through the same growth curve. Each one of them will continue their growth until they bump up against their particular scarcity, whether it is land, water, energy, transportation or something else. And when they hit that scarcity, they will have to take measures to protect that resource which will limit housing expansion.

It has nothing to do with political persuasion. Again, where were the liberal NIMBY's when farm communities like Sonoma County and Walnut Creek built massive amounts of housing? We built suburban communities and we built them en masse until commute times were beyond tolerable and resources were stretched and that is when people say "no more". You have never accounted for things like transportation or resources in your analysis. It's been "there is a bare plot of land. why can't we put a high rise apartment building there? NIMBY's!"

---

The level of growth they project for Texas, 14 million more people, is for 2060, over a period of 37 years from the time of that study in 2023. That represents an annual growth of 370k, so about 1.25% annual growth, which doesn't seem like an amount that will overwhelm their resources.

Quote:

---

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

---

Would you qualify as "middle class" people who buy $1.2 million homes? Because that is the price tag for setting in the Bay today, and that price will further rise. The gap between middle income and CA housing prices has widened a lot since the 80s.

High/very high income professionals will still come, as will younger renters, but their numbers are not very large. This segment further drives up home prices, which in turn incentivizes more older homeowners with middle incomes to cash out and settle elsewhere.

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

I wonder if it was a typo/graphic oversight when we placed the order or a mistake by the manufacturer? Either way it's funny and will be a keepsake. If I could get my hands on one I would

---

They took out the "R" because there are no Republicans ("R's") left in Califonia

---

There are more registered Republicans in California than any other state in the Union. Go figure.

---

Registered Republicans
1. Texas 6,601,181 (38%)
2. California 5,896,203 (25%)
3. Florida 5,722,615 (38%)
4. New York 2,817,847 (23%)
5. Ohio 2,407,227 (31%)

According to this website:
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-registration-by-state

---

Texas does have more people who vote Republican but they don't register voters by party affiliation.

---

Twas a small witticism. However, California has a lot of mosts because California is by far the most populous state. California has 8.2 million more people than Texas, the next most populous state. If that 8.2 million people were a state unto themselves, it would be the 13th most populous state. But as you say, Texas doesn't register voters so it can't have the most registered Republicans. So the next state that could have more registered Republicans is Florida. California is a state of 39M people. Florida is a state of 23M people. That 16M people would be the 5th largest state on their own. While California is 1.7 times more populous than Florida, it has fewer than 167,000 more registered Republicans. It is realistically extremely unlikely for California to not have the most registered Republicans, though we almost pulled it off. Go Florida!

---

Texas has been growing fast, currently has 31M people, while the CA population has stagnated this decade. Texas is set to overtake California within the next two decades.

---

Very dangerous to assume that present trends will continue for two decades.

---

The trend has been ongoing since the 90s. Back then median home price in Houston were around $100k. Haas grad friends who moved there working for local companies like Sysco, Enron (hehe), Schlumberger, which were hiring from Haas at a time the job market dipped in the Bay lived very large. While California has kept growing since the 90s, the growth rate in TX has been higher, and sustained whereas CA has had dips with the tech bubble bursting and covid. TX today has 4/5th the pop. of CA, so the gap is relatively narrow.

The projections are for sustained growth in TX, and flat net growth for CA:





https://www.newgeography.com/content/008302-dallas-fort-worth-top-los-angeles-official-state-population-projections

Calumnus wrote:

Quote:

---

Supply and demand. High prices are not an indication of decreased demand.

---

One of the main differences between CA and TX is that housing supply is severely constricted in the main CA metropoles due to zoning/antigrowth regulations and to a lesser extent geography, while in TX housing supply has kept up with high demand.

Quote:

---

Half of the top 10 cities for residential construction are from Texas
State-wise, Texas is the king of residential construction in the U.S. Supported by its robust economic sector, the Lone Star State added more housing units than any other state in the past decade. That's mainly in response to the massive influx of new residents that pushed local population numbers to over 30 million in 2022.
Among Texas's powerhouses, Houston has the most active residential market. Nationally, it was second only to New York City in terms of numbers of building permits issued over the last ten years. Roughly 55K permits were issued for single family homes and 89K for multifamily units between 2013 and 2022.

---

https://www.storagecafe.com/blog/top-cities-for-residential-building/

If you're a nurse, teacher, accountant, developer, or more generally a middle class couple that wants to raise a family, you can buy a nice home in TX, vs a renter in a less desirable neighborhood in the Bay, LA, SD.

Quote:

---

Have you actually been to Houston?

---

Several times, have family there. The Houston core has a liberal, pedestrian neighborhood with some decent nightlife like the Rice Village, some diversity with large mixed Asian and Hispanic communities and many expats in the energy industry. It's definitely not as beautiful as SF, lacks older housing stock and is largely an amalgam of strip malls and suburban housing but for those whose main priority is nice, affordable family-friendly housing, it remains a great option.

Whereas the entry point in NorCal is confined to high/very high income professionals. That is why population growth will remain capped in CA (see bar graphs above). California is only a nice place to live if you're a middle class homeowner who bought in decades ago or a wealthy professional. For younger people, the financial hardship isn't worth it, especially for families.


BearlyCareAnymore:

Austin is the 4th largest city in TX (San Antonio is bigger), it's undergone a boom and bust cycle. But generally speaking the TX economy is fairly diversified. The one vulnerability that might kick in 10-20 years could be the projected decline in the Permian Bassin fracking production.

---

Lol. Texas' projections are from the state of Texas and it's clear that they are doing exactly what sycasey and I said, assuming very short term numbers will continue for decades. Your source itself says IF the projections turn out to be correct and they often aren't accurate because conditions change. But here is the kicker. They project that California's population will only increase 500,000 by 2060 which is ludicrous. But the bigger kicker is that California has already surpassed their 2060 projection.


California's population nearly doubled from 1970-2000 and that is when the real estate prices exploded. If you were around here at the time you know that there was an explosion in new home building around the Bay Area suburbs until places as far away as Fairfield were filled up. Why weren't liberal policies stopping things then. It's not liberal policies. We are filled up. Other (Republican) cities are reaching the same point the Bay Area did 20 years ago and clamping down on building. Texas' population growth and explosive building looks like California in the 80's and 90's. It's not politics. They will get where we are (as Austin is already getting there)

---

My point about CA, and probably that of the projections above is, who is going to move into an area like the Bay where the median home price is $1.4 million? It's a fairly narrow segment of top IT talent, MBAs and JDs hired out from top schools, maybe H1Bs from India or EEur. who will pay $1.400 to shack in a house in SV with 6 other guys. All the while you have an outflow of older people cashing out on their home to buy the equivalent for a fraction of that price in a cheaper market.

That's the kind of churn you have had in CA in recent times and that you can expect to continue seeing for years to come. resulting in a stagnant total population figure, unless home prices come down, somehow. But they're not likely to come down because housing supply is throttled.



The outflow from LA is from working class people cashing out on their million dollar home to move to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte where they can get the same salaries, and the same house at a third ot a quarter the cost of their LA home. Or they could retire in their original Mexican state in a small hacienda with plenty of left over savings. And similarly, the high housing costs are going to be an obstacle for new middle class people moving in.

In comparison metropoles like DFW and Houston can continue to expand outwards 360 degrees while also adding density in their cores due to lax zoning, developers can buy a cluster of old homes in the inner loop, raze them and build a condo tower. The supply of housing moving fluidly with demand yields constant low housing prices primarily driven by construction costs.

---

So you are just going to keep citing more graphs from the same source whose numbers are shyte and who says in their own materials that their numbers are shyte.

Here's the thing. LA had some population decrease during COVID and the years that followed and is back increasing again. But the outflow is not going to Phoenix, Houston or Charlotte or people going back to Mexico. The Greater LA Metro Area has been slowly increasing throughout the same time. The outflow from LA went to greater LA. Basically during COVID and aftermath, with the advent of remote work people moved out from the core because the horrible traffic wasn't the barrier it once was.

Funny you should mention Phoenix. That is one of the cities that used to point at the liberal policies inhibiting growth in California's cities and they have not been able to keep up with the infrastructure. Their permit rates have plummeted while they undergo a significant housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. And they have implemented significant water restrictions because they don't have enough and that is severely hampered their ability to expand housing.

And that is a major obstacle to your vision of Texas just expanding and expanding. If you want to see the future of Texas, look at Phoenix. Texas is already bumping up against water scarcity and they do not have the water infrastructure to support the growth you envision. It is already questionable whether they can handle one drought of any significance with the current population. Texas does not have enough water to support this level of growth and new sources are going to get more and more expensive. They also ironically have an energy infrastructure problem and the cost of energy is often just as much a barrier to an individual in affording housing than the house itself in a state that is brutally hot much of the time. Yes, they have the land to keep on building, but land isn't the only resource you need. Texas' rate of growth has already started to slow, though it is still in a fast growth phase. Its growth curve is very similar to California's just further back in the curve. They will plateau like everyone else. They won't run out of land, and they will be able to build highways to manage the extra cars, but they will use up their resources and that will define their upper limit.

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

California is out of its high growth phase because we have simply hit max on land, resources and infrastructure. The cities you are citing are going through the same growth curve. Each one of them will continue their growth until they bump up against their particular scarcity, whether it is land, water, energy, transportation or something else. And when they hit that scarcity, they will have to take measures to protect that resource which will limit housing expansion.

It has nothing to do with political persuasion. Again, where were the liberal NIMBY's when farm communities like Sonoma County and Walnut Creek built massive amounts of housing? We built suburban communities and we built them en masse until commute times were beyond tolerable and resources were stretched and that is when people say "no more". You have never accounted for things like transportation or resources in your analysis. It's been "there is a bare plot of land. why can't we put a high rise apartment building there? NIMBY's!"

---

The level of growth they project for Texas, 14 million more people, is for 2060, over a period of 37 years from the time of that study in 2023. That represents an annual growth of 370k, so about 1.25% annual growth, which doesn't seem like an amount that will overwhelm their resources.

Quote:

---

The arguments you are making about the middle class moving out of California and the Bay Area specifically are the same arguments that were made in the 80's when I was in high school. Housing prices couldn't possibly continue to climb because who could afford to pay them. Yet middle class people do live here and they do pay the housing prices.

---

Would you qualify as "middle class" people who buy $1.2 million homes? Because that is the price tag for setting in the Bay today, and that price will further rise. The gap between middle income and CA housing prices has widened a lot since the 80s.

High/very high income professionals will still come, as will younger renters, but their numbers are not very large. This segment further drives up home prices, which in turn incentivizes more older homeowners with middle incomes to cash out and settle elsewhere.

---

Median price for a two bedroom condo in the Bay Area is $670,000.

We (my wife) have a great two bedroom unit in an older gated community on a hill overlooking the Bay with a view of San Francisco, right off 580 within walking distance to BART in Castro Valley, pools, tennis courts….A unit in our development is going for $400,000 right now. Lots of middle class people around us in Hayward, San Leandro, Castro Valley, Oakland, Union City, Fremont….

Meanwhile my wife's family's "ranch" in very rural (Robert E Lee County between Aston and Houston) Texas, where my sister in law lives on social security, had its property taxes raised to $20,000 per year! With buyers showing up the next day. Many families getting forced out of their homes that way.

Of course, we rent out the Castro Valley place to a family member who moved from Texas and live on a Pacific Island in a house with an ocean view we bought for $75,000 and renovated…. And are looking at much lower priced homes in Japan, but that is a different story.

---

sycasey said:

---

As I have been saying elsewhere: it is too expensive to live in the Bay Area, but high housing prices don't happen if no one wants to move to a place. They happen because a lot of people do.

---