> Who is saying California is unattractive for rich people and venture capital?

One potential source: this is a popular conservative talking point about the dangers of liberal government, and the "exodus" is often used as evidence to justify those talking points.

"See, just look at California, they implemented <liberal policy I hate>, and everyone is leaving the state". This kind of viewpoint is rampant on places like /r/conservative, and is often followed by similar mischaracterizations of life in Chicago. This always fascinates me - it seems like people are actually excited about the perceived negative forces driving people out, because they feel it validates their viewpoints about certain policies, even when the evidence to support correlation (never mind causation) doesn’t seem to exist.

I haven’t encountered much serious discourse about California being unattractive to people with means.

Edit: I’ve upset some folks with this comment. I’m curious to know how/why.

> Edit: I’ve upset some folks with this comment. I’m curious to know how/why.

Any mention of politics tends to get downvoted, but in this case, the myth is in significant part a product of a political narrative. I don't know how we can avoid the subject.

We can't talk about the Earth's orbit without discussing the Sun.

In a complex state with millions of people and perspectives, is it not possible that a large group of people from California do feel that way and do express those views when they move to other states?

I absolutely think that is possible. I’m sure a combination of factors plays into this.

My point was that when I’ve seen this come up, it’s almost always in the political context. That doesn’t exclude other possibilities, but does seem to be a major contributor to the “buzz” about this topic.

The version of that argument I tend to see is more refined than that: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/04/19/. National Review just had an entire issue on the subject.

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.

> Edit: I’ve upset some folks with this comment. I’m curious to know how/why.

The "conservative talking point" mentioned is a bit of a straw man. I doubt you'd hear it much these days by serious commentators (you might hear it from an old guy in a bar or a College Republican).

You're more likely to hear right-wingers these days say that California only works for you the wealthy and well-odd at the expense of the poor and middle classes. Homelessness, petty crime, NIMBYism and even a lot of the environmental initiatives (e.g. $0.10 per plastic grocery bag). All of those things have a disproportionate effect on the poor. M

And these people will be replaced by less experienced or less talented workers.

I recently heard a low performer get hired at a FAANG company and wondered how this person managed to trick that company into hiring him.

Maybe he was a sacrificial hire? Aren't some managers expected to cull the lowest relative performers every year?

Is this satire? If it is, spot-on commentary.