• sartalon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the headline was the only thing you read, yes. The article actually says it still has a net loss every year.

    It even says it still has a net 60k/year net loss to Texas alone.

    The article’s missing headline was driven from the single point that of the people moving to Califorinia, the largest percentage was from Texas.

    • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which makes sense given the size of Texas. I would think the percentage would reflect the relative proportion of people in the states.

    • Octavio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, 60 thousand people is like 0.15% of California’s population. That’s like a 400 lb. man going on a diet and losing 9.6 ounces. Is it really even worth mentioning?

        • Octavio@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t remember, tbh. I do agree with your comment that the headline is misleading in that it implies wrongly that net migration from Texas to California is positive.

          I do think people make way too much of the net migration from California to Texas, which I think can fairly be described as negligible. I don’t recall what made me think that a reply to your comment was the best place to make that argument. Maybe because this was where I was when I saw the 60k figure. Sorry if it was off-putting.