SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A new report from the California Policy Lab finds that Californians who leave the state are moving to significantly more affordable areas and becoming more likely to own homes, offering one of the clearest pictures yet of how the state’s high cost of living is reshaping migration patterns.
Using anonymized longitudinal data tracking households from 2016 to 2025, researchers found that affordability is a central driver behind relocation decisions and that those who leave California often experience measurable financial improvements after moving.
“Californians who leave move to much more affordable areas and see large increases in homeownership, on average,” the report states.
The findings show that, on average, households that leave California relocate to neighborhoods where monthly housing costs are $672 lower. Over time, that shift translates into greater access to homeownership, with former residents becoming 48% more likely—or 11 percentage points more likely—to own a home within seven years.
The report concludes that “affordability plays a major role in Californians’ relocation decisions,” reinforcing a growing body of research suggesting that housing costs are not only a local policy issue but a central factor in statewide demographic change.
A companion analysis highlighted by researchers at University of California, Berkeley, underscores the same trend, noting that the high cost of living is suppressing population growth by discouraging both in-migration and long-term retention of existing residents.
“High costs for essentials also discourage out-of-staters from moving in,” the California Policy Lab report explains, pointing to a dual dynamic in which the state is simultaneously losing residents and attracting fewer newcomers.
That imbalance has contributed to a persistent gap between exits and entrances, although the report notes that the disparity has narrowed somewhat since the peak migration disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“While exits have moderated from their pandemic peak, there are now fewer people moving into the state,” the report states, adding that this trend “continues to drag on California’s population growth.”
The data also complicate common narratives about who is leaving California.
While outward migration has often been framed as a phenomenon driven by lower-income households, the report finds that “people moving out of California increasingly come from higher-income neighborhoods.”
The share of exits from higher-income communities has risen by 19% over the past decade, suggesting that even relatively affluent areas are not insulated from the pressures of housing affordability.
At the same time, those who leave appear to be financially more vulnerable than their immediate neighbors.
“Those who leave have $5,500 more in student debt, on average, and credit scores that were 17 points lower than their neighbors,” the report notes.
That combination—residing in higher-income neighborhoods while carrying greater debt burdens—suggests that many households are being priced out despite appearing, on paper, to be relatively well-positioned economically.
Researchers emphasize that these patterns reflect structural cost pressures rather than short-term fluctuations.
“Growing costs of living are squeezing Californians’ pocketbooks and causing some households to consider relocating,” the report states, framing migration as a response to sustained economic strain rather than temporary dislocation.
Geography also plays a significant role in where Californians go.
“Proximity drives relocation popularity, with Nevada claiming the top spot,” the report finds, noting that nearby states receive the largest share of former California residents on a per-capita basis.
Nevada leads the list, receiving a net 81 Californians per 10,000 residents annually, followed by Idaho, Oregon, and Arizona.
The findings challenge widely circulated narratives about migration to more distant states.
“Contrary to most headlines, Texas and Florida rank only 11th and 20th, respectively,” the report states.
Instead, the data suggest that most households prioritize proximity, likely due to employment ties, family connections, and the logistical ease of moving shorter distances.
The broader implications of these trends extend beyond individual households to the state’s long-term economic and demographic trajectory.
Researchers at UC Berkeley emphasize that California’s population dynamics are increasingly shaped by affordability constraints.
In coverage of the report, Berkeley researchers noted that the state’s high cost of living is not only pushing residents out but also limiting the inflow of new residents who might otherwise offset those losses.
The combined effect is a slowdown in population growth that could have downstream impacts on the labor market, tax base, and housing demand.
The California Policy Lab report makes clear that these trends are not evenly distributed across the population.
By linking migration patterns to financial indicators such as debt and credit scores, the study highlights how economic vulnerability interacts with housing costs to drive relocation decisions.
“Using unique data that anonymously tracks the same households over time from 2016 to 2025, this report examines how many Californians are moving, who is leaving the state, where they are going, and what happens to their finances after they move,” the report explains.
That longitudinal approach allows researchers to move beyond aggregate statistics and examine how individual households’ financial situations evolve before and after relocation.
The results show a consistent pattern: those who leave tend to move to lower-cost areas and experience improved financial outcomes, particularly in terms of housing affordability and homeownership.
At the same time, the report suggests that California’s affordability challenges are affecting even those who remain.
By reducing in-migration and increasing out-migration, high costs are reshaping the state’s population composition in ways that could have lasting consequences.
The report does not prescribe specific policy solutions but makes clear that housing affordability is central to the issue.
“Affordability plays a major role in Californians’ relocation decisions,” the report reiterates, emphasizing that cost pressures are a primary driver of both individual behavior and broader demographic trends.
The findings arrive as California continues to grapple with a housing shortage, rising rents, and increasing pressure from state mandates to build more housing across income levels.
While the report focuses on migration outcomes, its conclusions align with a growing consensus among policymakers and researchers that expanding housing supply is critical to stabilizing costs and retaining residents.
At the same time, the data suggest that even incremental improvements in affordability could have significant impacts on household stability.
The $672 average reduction in monthly housing costs experienced by those who leave represents a substantial shift in disposable income, potentially enabling savings, debt reduction, and eventual homeownership.
For many households, that difference appears to be decisive.
“Californians who leave move to much more affordable areas and see large increases in homeownership, on average,” the report states, underscoring the extent to which housing costs shape life trajectories.
As California continues to confront its affordability crisis, the report provides a detailed empirical foundation for understanding how those pressures translate into real-world decisions.
The data show not only who is leaving and where they are going, but also how those moves affect their financial futures—offering a clearer picture of the stakes involved in the state’s ongoing housing debate.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
But prices are going down, at least in Davis. Both home value and rent cost. What do you want, a real estate collapse? If so, nothing will get built. And those precious beings (The Big D) will have nothing to put up for vote in Davis.
During the 2008 Great Recession, Davis home prices held up better than in other communities.
So? Why is this a bad thing?
” . . . those who leave California often experience measurable financial improvements after moving.”
Congratulations – don’t let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Actually, this is no different than the migration WITHIN the state (e.g., from the Bay Area to Davis/Sacramento), for the same type of reasons.
This isn’t simply about people choosing to move for better financial outcomes—it’s about displacement. Displacement occurs when people are forced to leave because they can no longer afford to stay, even if they would otherwise choose to remain. It’s kind of like asking why is gentrification considered a bad thing.
Displacement pushes out essential workers and middle-income households, creating labor shortages, longer commutes, and higher costs for businesses and services. Over time, it weakens local demand, destabilizes communities, and reduces overall economic productivity.
Displacement doesn’t occur for existing homeowners and renters protected by rent control. Unless a local government approves gentrification (thereby forcing out existing renters, for example).
The article itself notes the additional “personal opportunity” that can arise by leaving – the same reason that people move from the Bay Area to Davis and Sacramento, for example. Your article specifically notes the following:
” . . . those who leave California often experience measurable financial improvements after moving.”
So again, how is that a “bad thing” for those who pursue that?
It’s pretty difficult to commute from Nevada to the Bay Area on a daily basis.
As far as “weakening local demand”, isn’t that what you’re hoping for? What does “weakening local demand” lead to, in your view?
As far as the type of jobs that experience labor shortages, it seems to me that those jobs are often times eliminated (or “move” with those who leave).
As for “destabilizing communities”, what evidence is there for that, and how is it defined? Would you say, for example, that Tiburon is experiencing “destabilization” as a result of high housing prices? How about Atherton? (For that matter, what economic base exists within those cities in regard to what you claim is lost as a result of high housing prices?)
Would you say that Sacramento, for example, is more “stable” than Tiburon, Atherton, or Granite Bay – since housing prices are markedly lower in Sacramento?
Seems to me that there’s a completely INVERSE relationship to high housing prices and stability. That is, the places with the highest housing prices are the MOST stable, safe, and viable.
Ron O
Your comment reflects an false assumption that the world and the resident population is static. The fact is that homeowners sell and move and renters move even more often. The issue is then who is able to buy or rent in the community? When prices are high, only the wealthy can afford to move in, and they are not the local workers and young families needed to keep the town going. Those less wealthy households are displaced by the wealthier ones. This is what happened with the UCD workforce where the number of employees living in Davis went from 6,000+ to 4,700.
“they are not the local workers and young families needed to keep the town going.”
They aren’t needed. Tiburon and Atherton don’t have a lot of McDonald’s restaurants (if any). And if they do, they’re probably staffed by robots at this point.
Probably not a lot of Walmarts, Home Depots, or Amazon distribution centers there, either.
Davis is not a particularly wealthy town – it only “plays one on TV.” There are way too many social justice lunatics in Davis, for it to be truly wealthy (though that hasn’t stopped San Francisco and Berkeley from being expensive, either). In any case, UCD salaries aren’t exactly in the stratosphere, either – and neither are Davis housing prices. (Right around the state average/median, as I recall.)
I do have another example for you and David, though. Which is more stable – Stockton, Vallejo – or it’s neighbors on the other side of the bridge (in Marin county)?
Richard: “they are not the local workers and young families needed to keep the town going.”
Ron: “They aren’t needed”.
Unbelievable.
Quick response to a lot of unverified claims
• Wealthy enclaves don’t eliminate service workers—they export them; the jobs remain, the housing doesn’t.
• Absence of visible retail ≠ absence of economic dependence; labor is still required, just imported.
• Automation claim is rhetorical; most service, care, and public-sector work is not replaced by robots.
• Davis affordability issue is about wage–housing mismatch, not absolute wealth levels.
• Stockton/Vallejo examples reflect displacement effects, not successful exclusionary policy.
• Ron’s overall argument is circular: pushing workers out is used as “proof” they aren’t needed.
Sounds like someone hasn’t been to Tiburon or Atherton. Very few low-wage businesses.
Probably a bunch of people sending their kids to private schools as well, even though their public school system is (no doubt) a lot better than the ones in “low-wage” cities. That is, if they even have kids at this point.
Don’t know about you, but I’d select living in Tiburon, over Richmond or Vallejo (where housing prices are “cheaper”).
It’s a different situation around here, though. Woodland (e.g., Spring Lake) isn’t really “worse” than Davis in most ways, and is better in some ways – especially when it comes to PRICE of housing.
You want to know how it’s better? All I can say is that I breathe a sigh of relief whenever I break free of Davis on Road 102. (The same road that some want to make a whole lot worse with Village Farms.)
I’m not sure if you all know this (obviously not referring to Don, here) but Davis is a relatively intense/dense, somewhat upper-middle class “slum”. It’s like a mini-San Francisco, in some ways. The houses suck, the traffic sucks, and the electric motorcyles suck. And it doesn’t even have a good downtown, when you come right down to it.
“Sounds like someone hasn’t been to Tiburon or Atherton.”
I don’t know why you use these high-cost enclaves as examples of anything. Atherton (6,100) and Tiburon (9,100) together don’t even have the population of Dixon (18,000). Typically cities like that are very dependent on nearby cities for basic retail goods, professional services, and more. And both have some service businesses. In high-cost communities like that, the employees of service businesses typically live in nearby communities and commute in. They aren’t examples for civic governance. They’re basically symbiotic suburbs of nearby towns.
Atherton and Tiburon are suburbs of Silicon Valley and San Francisco, respectively. They are not employment centers for surrounding communities, and the number of local, low-wage workers is extremely limited.
Though they probably do pay their low-wage workers a couple bucks more per hour compared to where those low-wage workers actually live (and could get jobs, if it made more sense for them to do so).
At some point, high gas prices will encourage those low-wage workers to get jobs in their OWN cities.
Trump – the “accidental environmentalist” once again.
I hate to break the news to some folks, but wealthy enclaves don’t “need” riff-raff living in their towns. Never have, never will. But if anything, the need for low-wage workers in those places is DECREASING.
And I say that as a member of the “riff-raff community”, compared to most of those folks.
“I hate to break the news to some folks, but wealthy enclaves don’t “need” riff-raff living in their towns. Never have, never will.”
This bigoted belief is the foundation of housing exclusion that prevailed in this country for generations.
I grew up in a community that is wealthier than both of those cities. That community had and has coffee shops, hardware stores, gas stations and auto mechanics, retail shops, and more. The people of color who worked in those businesses lived in the community to the south, because real estate agents made sure they didn’t live in town. There is a long and sordid history in this country that arises from views like “don’t need riff-raff.”
I grew up in San Francisco – also a relatively wealthy community (but nothing like Atherton or Tiburon – even then).
San Francisco “used to” have more of the type of businesses you’re referring to, but they were pushed out by “economic development”.
But here’s an important point: Even then, those businesses weren’t staffed by “people of color”.
(Not sure why you’re introducing skin color into this. I believe, for example, that there’s some pretty wealthy “people of color” – living in Atherton, depending on how that term is defined.)
It’s not about skin color. If it was, I’d be living in Atherton or Tiburon, and so would you.
Though I am (impressed?) that someone with the same skin color I have ended up in Dixon, while I ended up in Woodland at this point at least. Neither of which are noted as particularly “wealthy” communities.
Are we just unusual “losers”, in that regard? Couldn’t take advantage of our “privileged” skin color and sex?
I hope you’re not trying to purposefully damage my self-esteem. :-)
Seems like David is using “AI” to “substantiate some of his claims. Let’s address them, briefly:
• Wealthy enclaves don’t eliminate service workers—they export them; the jobs remain, the housing doesn’t. (There are no service workers – didn’t you read what I just noted above?)
• Absence of visible retail ≠ absence of economic dependence; labor is still required, just imported. (Nope – no businesses to speak of.)
• Automation claim is rhetorical; most service, care, and public-sector work is not replaced by robots. (Most of it probably SHOULD be replaced by robots. In any case, we’re not referring to a particularly large number of workers in regard to that.)
• Davis affordability issue is about wage–housing mismatch, not absolute wealth levels. (No evidence for this claim. In fact, wealth is not necessarily related to current income. Hence, the people moving from the Bay Area after selling their houses, there.)
• Stockton/Vallejo examples reflect displacement effects, not successful exclusionary policy. (How so? Vallejo is in the “oh-so-desirable” Bay Area. And it’s always sucked (from the time of the military shipyards created during WWII.) Oakland sucks for the exact same reason, as does Hunter’s Point in San Francisco. Marin City (adjacent to Sausalito sucks for this same reason).
• Ron’s overall argument is circular: pushing workers out is used as “proof” they aren’t needed. (O.K. – while I strive to live in some place like Tiburon, I’ll assume that you strive to live in Stockton, Oakland, Vallejo, Richmond, etc. However, I’m guessing that you might suddenly become a supporter of the Second Amendment, if you do so.)