I think there might be some nuance in the composition of the leavers vs the comers. This is purely speculative, but one could imagine that in SF:
- leavers are mainly people with established jobs, thinking of starting a family, who want more house per dollar (and more post-tax dollars per salary dollar)
- comers are mainly early 20s unattached aspiring professionals who aren't hit as hard by high real estate prices (price to rent ratios are still very high in SF), and who also don't yet have a large income against which to evaluate the tax impact
This kind of dynamic would result in a "perpetual churn" as each generation matures through their professional lifecycle, each time opening new jobs and housing opportunities (and thus the near-zero net migration).
Again, very speculative. But your observation made me scratch my head for a bit and this was the best explanation I could muster aside from "people just like SF and don't leave despite economic pressure".
That makes sense. The Bay Area also has a lot of H1B and other (legal, not tied to agriculture and thus inherently migratory) immigrants, too (in the tech sector), relative to the rest of California.
OTOH, it's pretty safe to say Californians outside of the Bay Area and maybe LA tech industry are struggling at all ages, so if you live in Redding, and don't own a productive farm or something, jumping up to Oregon or Nevada isn't a big compromise.
I can kind of justify California taxes and other expenses if you get the benefits of industry concentration, and maybe even if you are tied in with UC somehow, but for a person working in a fast food restaurant or light machining job or something, there's a lot less to tie you to California vs. a place with faster growth.
I think that is an important observation. The total population might be stable or slightly rising; however, that should not be interpreted as no one leaving and only a few people moving in. It's has to do with the churn, or velocity of people coming in and then going out (leaving) as children begin reaching school age. The (public) schools, which very few exceptions, are terrible and just about everyone I know who has young children has plans on moving somewhere with better schools when it comes time.
Yes the city has many cultural and civic attractions, but they do not outweigh the educational deficit, for those with young children. For singles and for empty nesters the city is perfect, for people with young families the dearth of good public educational institutions is maddening. The wealthy can afford to send their children to private schools, everyone else cannot.
