• 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.