Earlier this year there was a lot of reporting about how California recovered much quicker from the first few waves that shut down the country, especially as compared to states like Georgia. Just because other states had fewer restrictions does not mean people actually returned to their routines.
Some argued that in California more people were quicker to return to economic life, greater social restrictions notwithstanding, because they felt safer. I have no idea how those trends and theories have actually panned out since then. And the theories weren't necessarily needed. It's not surprising California's economy did relatively well simply because it benefits disproportionately from tech, entertainment, and related industries which were more amenable to work-from-home, and which actually saw growth potential from people spending more time at home.
By what measure? Major cities in CA saw significant population declines during the pandemic and the SF Unified School district has a major budget short fall now. Places like Miami and Austin which were much less restrictive are now booming and gaining residents by all accounts. SF crime is so bad businesses are closing because no sooner do they stock the shelves than roving bands of thieves clean them out.
Is there any evidence that the SF Unified School District short fall has anything to do with either the pandemic or population decline?
California has population decline because its such an attractive place to live, which I know goes against the conservative narrative but its the reality. Austin, Seattle, Portland, Denver, and Phoenix are full of Californian expats who would move back in a heart beat if they could afford it.
The budget problem is a direct result of losing 3,500 students since COVID began. schools are funded based on the number of pupils they serve. It also didn’t help that they remained shutdown longer for in person learning than most other districts while they did stuff like soap box about eliminating advanced math.
The costs of the pandemic and the decline in enrollment have certainly significantly exacerbated the problems. But one of the reasons so many locals (of all political persuasions) were upset with the school board committing so much attention to changing the names of schools and related social activist causes is because all the while they were dithering on addressing far more pressing budgetary problems and related structural issues. And they continued to do so even into the pandemic.
Anecdote: I've lived in Santa Clara, Seattle, and now Austin. I've been much happier in Seattle/Austin and it's not even close. The thought of moving back hasn't ever entered my mind and is frankly repulsive.
They can’t afford it because they aren’t building enough housing and especially higher density housing. The high cost of living is a direct result of political policies that keeps housing supply low and taxes high.
Some argued that in California more people were quicker to return to economic life, greater social restrictions notwithstanding, because they felt safer. I have no idea how those trends and theories have actually panned out since then. And the theories weren't necessarily needed. It's not surprising California's economy did relatively well simply because it benefits disproportionately from tech, entertainment, and related industries which were more amenable to work-from-home, and which actually saw growth potential from people spending more time at home.