Talk:California exodus

alleged

Why is this an 'alleged' when there is statistics that show people are net leaving the state? Massintel (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I found that odd, too. The "criticism as a narrative" section seems to be arguing that: a) the political reasons given for why people are leaving are wrong, and/or b) that the rate of leaving is not that exceptional. I don't think they are arguing that the state is *not* seeing negative net migration.

However, it looks like the state was already seeing that pre-2020, so maybe to the degree that "California exodus" is specifically linked to COVID era policies, it's arguable?

However, seeing "alleged" at the very top of the article is indeed strange when there is no doubt that people are on net leaving in significant numbers. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I tried making the change, but someone got unhappy about it. 76.8.213.252 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is just silly. There is pleanty of proof that such migration is present. I mean you can not fake the statistics, and it is clearly shown that California has a net population decline, so the part about "alleged" is just not true. It is a fact.

Now the part about the narrative - this could stay because yes, one can present an objective data in different forms and try to explain them. 2A02:A311:C546:6880:A109:42D8:8798:EBBD (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

An exodus isn't just a smaller than historic increase, or a small decrease. It is a large, and usually sudden, decrease. That's why the California exodus is an alleged mass emigration. Mississippi, for example, lost about 6000 people between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, but we're not talking about a "Mississippi exodus" because, while it is the norm for states to increase in population over time, that isn't a substantial decline. Those who criticize the idea of there being an exodus aren't saying that the numbers are made up, they are saying that those numbers aren't large enough shifts to constitute an exodus.

That is why we have the word alleged in the first sentence. Whether the demographic trends in California are changing enough for exodus to be a fair characterization is still in dispute, and so removing the word alleged would be lying by omission, because it would give an unduly small weight to those voices saying that an exodus isn't happening. While I would be open to some different solution (as long as that one still makes it clear that the premise of an exodus is not universally accepted), just blindly removing the word alleged would be doing a disservice to our coverage of this topic. - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Whether exodus is an appropriate description, sure, that's a reasonable question given that the number of people leaving - while very large in absolute terms - is a small proportion of the state's total population; if people are using the term to imply California is emptying, sure, that's an (incorrect) "narrative".

But the article lead currently says "alleged mass emigration", and also says its "existence" is question. A mass [internal to the US] emigration clearly has occurred.

But it would probably be better to say something like "'California exodus' is a term which has been used by some within the US to refer to the net emigration of California residents to other states. The significance of this movement, and whether it is properly called an exodus, is disputed"

...making it clear that it's the significance / term that's disputed not the existence of net migration of hundreds of thousands of people. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The claims supporting the exodus are sourced and list numbers showing that it is happening. There is no source for the inclusion of alleged in the opening paragraph and it does not belong in the opening. The editors who keep including it are very much pushing a narrative that they are decrying. 47.189.235.91 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Would a net decrease of 10 people be an exodus? No, most likely not. Would a net decrease of 10 million people be an exodus? Yes, most likely. We're in a sorites paradox kind of situation here. At what size does a net loss become an exodus? Unless the sources agree that any loss at all (even 10 people for example) counts as an exodus, it belongs in the lede of the article that this exodus is alleged, or disputed, or controversial. If we just take it on faith from some sources that this exodus is real, while ignoring other sources that say it isn't, then we are lying to the readers. - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The answser to this question lies in documenting where these people are headed to. A decent number of articles exist documenting the "where". 2603:6010:BA00:3D4F:41DF:B27E:C6AF:A72F (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 April 2023 and 11 June 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SiliconValleyEditor (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Picklenchips.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Significance?

California saw a net negative growth for the first time in 2021 (-0.29%) and again in 2022 (-0.91%) per U.S. Census Data (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/data/data-sets.html). When looking at domestic migration from 2007 to 2016, ~6 million left California while ~5 million people moved to California. That's a net of 1 million residents (2.5%), which is still considered low, historically (American Community Survey, census.gov)

Why does this article even exist, other than as a misaligned attempt to confirm a political bias? Has the phenomenon of a "California exodus" been studied by experts and cited in publications? 24.234.5.118 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)