TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

At one time people would have said the same about the Rust Belt.

Times change.

California is currently trending downward in certain metrics related to economics but this is entirely different from being in an "economic downturn."

California going into an economic downturn in the future is a 100 percent possibility. CA and the entire united States goes through economic downturns about roughly every decade and this has been going on for centuries. The economy is proovably cyclical.

Either way what Im saying is that the current metrics of migration show that California MAY become an economic waste land like Detroit. This is much worse than a economic downturn. Keyword: may, meaning not outside the realm of fantasy and also not a guarantee, but very very possible.

What is absolutely clear though is that if these metrics of negative brain drain continues then absolutely CA will become an economic wasteland.

I'm not sure why California's in-migration of the highly educated with high incomes, and out-migration of less educated folks counts as a brain drain. I'm not sure why you insist on an economic downturn in California in several comments, but now say that's not the case.

Just letting you know why I'm stopping interaction.

The brain drain consists of measurable negative population growth. More people moving out then people coming in, in aggregate. Additionally the real numbers show that California natives are the ones that are mostly leaving.

This. Is. A. Statistical. Number.

If negative population continues by raw logic after the population is small enough, California or any state would indeed become an economic wasteland. There is no opinion here. This is fundamental fact.

You're stopping this interaction as the discussion increases in productivity while I start citing more and more real numbers and real sources and undeniable logic that you are finding harder and harder to twist to fit your world view.

I think the reality of what's going on here is that the discussion is becoming too productive. It is an exposing a world view you are too biased to accept.

California is not losing population, it's just growing slower than the rest of the country. There is no "brain drain," as those moving in have higher education than those leaving. International immigration, in particular, is making up for the domestic net out-migration:

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

You haven't cited a single number, or a single fact. You accuse me of bias, but shift your phrasing and points on nearly every comment. Your only support is a YouTube video that is heavy on propaganda techniques but says nothing of substance for the first third.

If the population growth is trending downward that means the growth of intelligent people should also by logic be trending downwards. This is 100 percent brain drain.

Let me explain it to you so you can understand. If this trend continues it will eventually become net population decrease. Which means a net loss of intelligent people.

I haven't shifted points. You think I'm shifting points because you are misinterpreting everything I say and I am re clarifying it for you so your brain can comprehend. But your brain is registering this as me shifting topics.

Literally read the thread. You asked me if I'm debating if California is in an economic downturn... And if you look at the entire damn thread... I never said California was in an economic downturn. You assumed this is what I'm saying because you're the one with bias here. I corrected your mistake.

You want citations for things that have been Frontline news and evident for every normal person living in this state? The initial YouTube video was CNBC, which you disregarded as bad because of "YouTube". So I guess journalism in the form of a video is illegitimate for you... I guess written articles are more factual for some illogical reason? Fine. Here you go.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-27/...

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/californ...

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/california-populat...

https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-stalled-population-gro...

https://abc7.com/california-population-decline-congressional...

https://qz.com/1599150/californias-population-could-start-sh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/31/why-calif...

https://www.kqed.org/news/11872755/california-reports-first-...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-to-l...

Now I could cite the raw statistics these articles derive their info from. But I felt legitimate news organizations are enough and easier then a raw statistical paper. Let's not get overly pedantic. Do you really want to argue against sfchronicle, quartz, CNBC and the Washington post? I hope to God you're not that type of person.

I also hope this was "productive" for you. My definition of productive means imparting new knowledge onto someone less knowledgeable than me. But for some people "productive" means not admitting when they are wrong, refusing to look at raw evidence, and running away from a discussion where they are incorrect.

Yeah you can leave this conversation if you feel it isn't "productive." Go. Leave.

Since when is the simplest possible example of the fallacy of division the same thing as “logic”?

For illustration, for a long time California’s net domestic outmigration has been composed of relatively high income domestic inmigration and slightly larger, lower-income domestic outmigration.

So (before considering the effects of natural population change and international migration), the population waa going down, but the population at the upper end of the income spectrum was actually increasing.

This would be consistent with (given the known correlation of income with IQ) high-IQ gain with net population decrease. The correlation is loose enough, and there’s enough other moving pieces of population dynamics, that it is consistent with other possibilities as well, but the point is you can’t generally conclude anything about change in a subgroup population from change in the larger group population.

Without any additional information the assumption that entropy rules the day is "logically" reasonable. Meaning that if out migration and in migration is random the proportion of High IQ people moving out and in will be random and on par with population proportions.

Trust in entropy and probability is a completely reasonable and logical assumption to make. In fact, our entire scientific establishment is built on these axioms. To assume a random correlation exists out of nowhere is the unreasonable claim. Don't twist words and make it sound illogical. It is illogical to think otherwise without presenting new evidence and a new claim.

So what you did here is introduce a new claim. You say there is a mechanism effecting natural entropy and that more intelligent people could be migrating in. This is not an illogical claim, but it is an extraordinary one.

If you were to make such an extraordinary claim. You need to provide equally extraordinary evidence as this trend isn't on the front page of every news organization.

So you say more higher income people tend to migrate into California and lower income people tend to migrate out. Do you have a source? Additionally I would like to know whether the standard deviation between the correlation of income and IQ fits with the incomes of people migrating out and into California. That would be strong evidence for "Brain Gain" if the trends show more intelligent people migrating in.

At this point I acknowledge your claim as a possibility. But the evidence you present (essentially no evidence, just a claim that evidence exists) makes it fuzzy enough that it is equally likely that natural entropy takes precedence here. There is also a lot of anecdotal/qualitative evidence working against your claim including coworkers who are moving out, more and more tech companies offering remote options and such and such.

It looks to me that you aren't really making a claim but your just being pedantic towards my "logic." I can slightly acknowledge the possibility there isn't Brain drain here, but let's be real. Until there's a study specifically targeting this theory it's just a random shot in the dark.