California's biggest problem is too much success. SF and LA are generating jobs and attracting competitive, well-resourced people, especially young people, from around the country and the world. And global investors see California real estate as a great, safe place to park their wealth. So housing costs skyrocket and cost of living overall is tough. Here in SF, it's noticeably more crowded. It's very dynamic but I'm sick of elbowing hordes of twentysomethings out of my way at Trader Joe's. I kind of wish Trump would tank the economy so I can get some damn peace and quiet! And not have to make a reservation just to visit Muir Woods.
5
@nerdrage The population growth is a real thing. Los Angeles City limits has increased in population by a full one-third in the 40 years I've lived here. That's without adding any territory to the City limits and not counting the megalopolis sprawl that stretches for many miles outside of its already sprawling borders. Personally, I'm not complaining. It's gotten us an expanding transit system, better restaurants and simply more interesting things to do and more interesting people to meet. But I am one of the lucky ones with a decent income and a centrally located house that's paid off.
2
So in other words...
Cali is great for those with their hands out and get $ from the state government from high taxes, intrusive government, and crushing small businesses in the form of non-sense regulations....
Uhhh.... No Thanks, ...I'll take Texas (as have many Californians that are moving here...smh.
8
@Ruben
That doesn't in the slightest describe California. Small businesses? They line endless urban sprawl streets like they used to in middle American towns and cities. Los Angeles is a sea of small businesses. California's issues are simply not going to be understood by Americans in the rest of this country. You couldn't believe it if you were even capable of not arguing and actually listening. It's beyond belief.
This is a state of people who are loaded. In numbers that are beyond your comprehension (apparently) with ten times the number of homes worth a million dollars in CA than in Texas, or any other state. And loaded to a degree that you also wouldn't believe. It was reported that a bank here doesn't consider someone rich unless they have at least 25 million dollars. That's not a joke. That's a necessity of triaging the level of service you're providing to your customers.
And the government of California doesn't control these people or their wealth. It's the other way around. The affluent call the shots here. And the streets are lined with the homeless who are driven by without a glance from inside the Bentleys, RR, Masarati, Ferarri, etc.
11
This must be alien to so many progressive ears. How can the right, center and left agree. It's like a listening to Coulter explain why Democrats been losing votes to Republicans when even Rhodes Scholars can't figure it out. Or when Malcom X says how liberals divided the working class black and white. Or when liberal politicians say there can't be open borders. It hurts, it's gut wrenching but when everyone agrees can they be wrong?
Look at California as an example of where the world is heading. Many doing very well while the rest are forgotten. It's not about welfare its about jobs. You have to ask how spendi g billions on bullet trains and energy projects that drive up its cost will affect the impoverished? 64,000 homeless families in NYC. Could NY learn from California?
Look at this way we've read dozens of pieces on why aren't there more female CEO's but never one on more black CEO's. Not many on why so many poor and working class boys drop out long before the twelfth grade either but many how hard it is to get into Harvard. See it for what it is.
2
I am one of those who view the coastal cities of California as a source of Evil emanating therefrom and covering the interior of the country. Having said this, I do not see, where could California be a "good role" for anything.
3
What is so important about this piece is that it presents a long overdue examination of what California means to the rest of the country. Here is a quote from an earlier piece on CA.
"The hinterlands are also filled with people who might want to move to wealthier regions ... but can’t because an immigrants-and-professionals ecosystem effectively prices out the middle class.”
Only those of us who have successfully pulled off this minor miracle know how challenging it is has always been and therefore how much more hopeless it gets with each passing year of growing economic disparity.
The better parts of this country have in essence run away from the rest of America. But someone still needs to build things, clean houses, cook food, and maintain the lush landscapes and properties.
What no one has yet told the rest of the country is that CA's wealthy have chosen latino immigrants to be in their homes and on their properties OVER actual Americanss for discriminatory reasons.
It’s not about cheap labor, to believe that is to not know how affluent the rich of California truly are or how integrated and hard working is the ever-replenishing labor base of immigrants here.
But power in California lies in the hands of the privately affluent and they decided a long time ago that they prefer Latino ‘help’ over black or white American workers.
The irony is they will never face a reckoning for it as long as they keep the issue centered on counter charges of xenophobia and racism.
2
California is on an unsustainable path. And the US is entering the same unsustainable path.
The problem is population growth. California has finite natural resources. And as the population grows those resources get divided among more people, meaning less resources for each individual.
Take water, for example. Los Angeles and Las Vegas drain the Colorado River so that it never reaches the ocean.
There is talk in the papers of a "drought." But Southern California has been a desert for centuries. And condos are springing like mushrooms in the middle of this desert.
What happens is that houses get smaller and roads get more congested. Your parents may have had a single family home. But as the population grows people become accustomed to crowded living. You can hear your neighbors making love in the next apartment. Getting to work is a battle with the traffic.
What is needed is an end to population growth.
That could be done with an end to illegal immigration and birth rates sufficiently low to offset legal immigration.
We need mandatory e-verify and a one-child policy like that which China. But these solutions are never discussed. In fact, liberals prevent a discussion of these topics by labeling those who suggest them bigots and racists.
The state and the country divide into two warring groups, one advocating a Wall, the other open borders.
The second group is winning and driving California to a Malthusian end state.
3
@Jake Wagner. We do need to rationalize our use of the land and resources. Remembering the physical size of the state our 40 million isn't an unsustainable population at all but, yes, the old single family house model is outdated. Dense cities use resources far more efficiently than this sprawl. You don't like cities? Ok, the country is full of more empty spaces; go there. California is an increasingly urban state. The only change that is going to happen in next few decades is that it will become more so. People who don't like that will leave and tell all their new neighbors what a terrible place California is. And other people will be moving in to experience what California is becoming.
1
I moved to LA 30 years ago and quickly became aware of the extreme wealth in this state who are liberal Democrats by party and sophisticated in asserting their influence on the levers of power in America, but who themselves personify anything but the classic image of benevolent wealthy liberals.
The greed, cruelty, racism, bigotry, and willingness to manipulate anyone and every process, has enabled them to create and permanently entrench themselves as the largest base of super wealthy households on the face of the earth.
There are almost a million homes in California valued at $1M or more. There are less than 100K in New York or any other state. Think about that. Yes, CA Democrats (lifelong Dem here) want open borders and a sanctuary state and that seems on the surface to be just kind and benevolent policy. So the sympathies to those ideas spread across the country through liberal regions and on college campuses.
But out here? The ultra powerful individual and the well-being of their households are dependent on making sure there’s always a fresh supply of hardworking Latino labor to keep their properties and everything they see and touch looking just so, and to cook and clean and help raise their children, too, etc.
We think wealthy Democrats and sadly we still see the Kennedys. The reality is something much different: individuals more likely to reflect only disdain for regular working class Americans, who are, honestly, in their eyes, totally useless to them.
9
California leads, others must follow or fail!
California’s knowledge and service economy is the future of every advanced society. Have you noticed the touted “silicon valleys” blossoming in other states and foreign countries? Do you know about the film industries in India, the UK, and Atlanta spawned by a cottage industry in LA?
California’s science, technology, entertainment, and fashion are the basis of vigorous and adaptive enterprises that inspire and encourage people to rise above their circumstances, that create a social eclecticity that every savvy young person in the world longs to experience. Now really, wouldn’t you rather party in San Francisco or West Hollywood than Jersey City or Des Moines?
Problems? Yes, there is a housing problem and a school problem. Far too many people want to live in California. In fairness, residency should be restricted to 5 years, by law.
Yes, there is poverty among the influx of people who are just beginning to integrate into society and develop their potential. Yes, too many American street people prefer the mild LA climate to the dank, cold alleys of Philadelphia and Chicago.
Have I neglected to mention the nearly perfect climate of California coastal areas, or the agricultural bounty of inland valleys? Have I failed to gush over the courtesy and friendliness of neighbors and the service personnel?
Oh, my goodness! Just be sure your children and grandchildren get to experience California living for a few years of their lives!
4
Can't you just say it is both --"one of the richest states" and "one of the most unequal"? Even better, can you come up with more challenging juxtapositions, e.g., highest-minded and yet most exploitative (measured by the percentage of people it keeps poor)?
2
Manufacturing and its middle class jobs are fleeing California due to high taxes and extreme environmental rules.
And even the most generous employer can't afford to pay a factory worker an adequate wage in a region where a modest home goes for half a million or more (due to NIMBY and environmental restrictions on new home construction).
2
I've lived in California for the last 10 years or so and the one thing that stands out to me of how this state is run is that the talk never seems to match the walk. There are measures passed by large margins to collect money to help the homeless, but then when it comes time to implement the plan it's stopped in it's tracks by NIMBY-ism. Everyone wants to help the desperate and impoverished, but they won't step forward themselves to do it.
There are numerous examples of this. San Francisco for instance just dropped its push to get the homeless off the streets because the people didn't like the price tag.
Any effort to address the lack of housing supply is met with shouts from all sides. The best plan the state legislature has managed to put forward is essentially state-sponsored gentrification. And that was supposedly from our great innovators like Senator Weiner.
They talk real progressive around here, but when it comes time to walk the walk... well they'd rather someone else do that. It's very disillusioning to see how this state is run. Even after 10 years of living here I refuse to consider myself a Californian.
2
The difference between California and other states is not that California is problem free. Of course California has problems. The difference is that California’s governor and legislature are working on them, not passing “bathroom” or climate change denial bills. There is a bill on the governor’s desk which would make it easier to build housing at BART stations throughout the Bay Area. Governor Brown has creatively fashioned state level responses to climate change. Los Angeles and other cities have passed or are considering taxes for affordable housing.
California has the problems of success—our current infrastructure is inadequate for the number of people who want to live here. But we can fix this and maintain a good quality of life.
5
@Walker77...
Ok, I'll bite
How you gonna pay for it all?
5
This is not just a California problem it is a neoliberal problem. Toronto is one of the richest and most liveable cities on the planet but for most Canadians the things that make Toronto great also make it unaffordable. Driving in Toronto endangers sanity and empathy. A single family home with only a single family in Toronto's suburbs may seem a Canadian birthright but three or incomes have made the Canadian lifestyle a dream in Canada's most successful and dynamic city. Neoliberalism may have liberal in it but is about winners and losers which for most Canadians is a nonstarter based on equality of rights and the most level of playing fields. When subdivisions with two car garages and two outside driveways for two cars musical parking spaces becomes a 24 hour a day spectacle. This has led to a right wing incompetent Premier and its now hitting the fan.Ontario has yet to see California or USA poverty but unless they find a way of getting rid of the so far three month catastrophe of Doug Ford California may be the best Ontario can hope for. So far Canada's far right has been kept in check but when Ottawa becomes Washington, California will look very good.
The word left out of this synopsis of California's poverty is corruption. In a one party state the incentive to blow the whistle on the bad cops in your own precinct is near zero. The electorate needs a real choice. In Europe, commonly there are 3 to 5 parties that could step in to govern in coalitions of 1, 2 or 3 parties. This allows the electorate to shift gradually left or right of center, or if they think the whole centrist coalition is corrupt radically toward the left or right. All 50 states lack this healthy mechanism because of the hegemony of the two parties and thousands of state laws passed to allow a real choice. The National Republicans represent no one in California now because even the 1 percent there isn't bigoted as in many states. California is wonderful, but the solution here is the same as in all states — A strong and viable Green Party, Progressive Party and / or Libertarian Party would give Californians real choice to shift in a nuanced way over time, instead they have one choice - the Two Party System. To end poverty and much of what is wrong in our country the two party system must die because it has evolved into little more than a series of one party states. It worked well during the Cold War, all the political systems in Western Europe have gone through radical evolution of choice since the end of the cold war, it's time for our system to as well, otherwise our democracy is just a sham and won't become a better place to live.
4
In the classic argument of conservatives versus liberals, Free Enterprise vs Big Government, California is a good model for liberals to hold up as a creation of BIG Government. Clearly, California is a creation of Nature and Government and when you pose the question was it a successful creation, I answer yes.
It is almost a perfect model for the success of Homo Economicus in the struggle of our inventive species to adapt to Nature, which rules us all.
There is still much work to be done because it is a challenging area of varied ecoregions that creates the most picturesque region in the U.S. but a hellish challenge to provide the water for agriculture, providing energy for transport, providing housing, and powering the military and industrial logistics of the new knowledge age.
I have never lived in California, I have only visited there as a member of the military, or as a government employee, my self-being a creature of liberal big government, who provided my higher education, my lifetime income, healthcare, and many years in government housing when I was a Navy Officer. But I still love to visit and if I were younger would move there in a heartbeat.
The symbol that I use for my logo depicts a 2-way Maglev guideway running along the right-of-way of Interstate 5. see www.magneticglide.com This idea for the use of the Federal highway infrastructure to build a 300 mph, all-weather, extremely energy efficient should be a major component of the US and World future.
3
Since when has it become the responsibility of California to support everyone who wants to live here?
If it is too expensive or the skill set does not match the available jobs, people need to move.
I have lived all over the US and there are plenty of great places besides California.
The high cost of living and risk tolerant mindset will attract innovative people to CA, but it is certainly not for everyone.
5
@CC If you're already into SF real estate, it's hard to leave. I wanna see my housing value go up up up. And if it crashes, that's good too. Will drive away the short timers and give the rest of us some breathing space. But then the cycle begins again...
1
Subtracting the spurious and secondary measures of the same thing, California has a very well known affordable housing problem, in part the product of historical zoning favoring single family ranch-style homes, in part the product of the sheer affluence of many of its residents. It also has the wealth to deal with that and other problems. It remains to be seen whether the political will to do so emerges.
In any event, conservatives are best advised not hold their breath waiting for the California Democratic party to dissolve into debilitating internecine warfare. We've been doing quite well, thank you, as a de facto one-party state with our past and present, four-term governor. And we have an open primary system to keep that party from ossifying. The general political ethos, since the effective purge of the Republican party from the corridors of power, is neither band-aid, feel-good liberalism nor wild-eyed leftist radicalism but a kind of progressive pragmatism. There's no serious running room for feed-the-rich Republicanism or Trump's white nationalism here.
Final note on California's "inequality" - a subject about which I happen to know something, as my wife and I live quite comfortably well below the state's median income. However great California's statistical inequality, if you're going to be poor in America, it remains the case that [cue the banjo] "Californy is the place you ought to be."
2
Yeah. The second verse is “If you got the dough, dough, dough”
1
Great piece. Well annotated with evidence based data. I looked at the St. Louis Fed (FRED) graph of California and compared with New Jersey. It appears that New Jersey has increased rate of total gross domestic product compared to California. It is the shaded graph just below the big graph. I will conclude that California is not a model.
1
California isn't perfect, but I have no doubt it would be worse under conservative rule. In fact, it has been. This piece captures some of the highs and lows, but leaves out a lot of important facts.
The state budget now has a surplus which has been put into a rainy day fund; and it has opted to expand the ACA more than many, perhaps all, other states. Also, quality of life is quite good overall. Even if you are homeless, the weather is usually survivable, the public isn't hostile to you just because you'r down on your luck, and there are programs that offer help.
Also, look at how California's poverty is concentrated in conservative-ruled districts within the state, Local governments can and do work against state programs and efforts that could help people. Start with Kevin McCarthy's congressional dist. - one of the highest for drug use, teen pregnancy, poverty, and low education. With no real solutions from our elected deli counter guy.
Eliminate the wacko statistical outliers created by conservative rurals and the state's metrics would improve immediately.
Yet people still think liberals are the problem.
7
I live in Marin County, where every morning thousands of cars and trucks carrying low and middle income workers that are unable to afford housing in Marin clog the highways from the north and east to come into the county, and every afternoon, they leave. Marin's population has not budged while that of the Bay Area as a whole has increased substantially since the 1970s. Opposition to any new housing is ferocious, thereby contributing to more suburban sprawl. Public transit is virtually non existent. And yet high tax, high regulation Marin is considered "ultra liberal" by national standards.
11
@Murray Kenney, Marin has always been over the rainbow, in it's own world, away from the rest of the Bay Area. Full of liberal hypocrites and fake equality.
2
In the classic argument of conservatives versus liberals, Free Enterprise vs Big Government, California is a good model for liberals to hold up as a creation of BIG Government. Clearly, California is a creation of Nature and Government and when you pose the question was it a successful creation, I answer yes.
It is almost a perfect model for the success of Homo Economicus in the struggle of our inventive species to adapt to Nature, which rules us all.
There is still much work to be done because it is a challenging area of varied ecoregions that creates the most picturesque region in the U.S. but a hellish challenge to provide the water for agriculture, providing energy for transport, providing housing, and powering the military and industrial logistics of the new knowledge age.
I have never lived in California, I have only visited there as a member of the military, or as a government employee, my self-being a creature of liberal big government, who provided my higher education, my lifetime income, healthcare, and many years in government housing when I was a Navy Officer. But I still love to visit and if I were younger would move there in a heartbeat.
The symbol that I use for my logo depicts a 2-way Maglev guideway running along the right-of-way of Interstate 5. see www.magneticglide.org This idea for the use of the Federal highway infrastructure to build a 300 mph, all-weather, extremely energy efficient should be a major component of the US and World future.
1
@james jordan
Age is taking its toll.
I should have linked www.magneticglide.com vice the .org.
I like for people to see this system, because it is idea of the late Senator Pat Moynihan of NY and its time has come. Chairman Moynihan went on a search for an alternative to more lanes and the increasingly high costs both in health, fatalities, and injuries in our crowded highways. He found Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby at Brookhaven National Lab and introduced their invention as the next surface transport system. I was a Senate staffer and it caught my attention from an energy and logistics viewpoint, which is my military expertise (I was the Navy Director of Energy R&D during our oil crisis of the 1970's.
I later became friends with Powell and Danby and offered my editing to publicize their superconducting Maglev and all of its applications after Moynihan's legislation was defeated by other transport interests led by the airlines.
I am convinced we should do this and it should be tested as a government program. We do this kind of thing in the military and because of its importance to public safety and standardization it should also be tested and competed at a government test facility.
Global warming means that we will need to create a new very cheap non fossil source of energy and Powell has continue to invent a Maglev Launch System, which would be a terrific way to capture solar energy in space and beam it to the Earth for all people at a very cheap price.
3
Very interesting piece from Mr. Edsall, as usual. He doesn't mention, though, California's enormous unfunded pension liability, which in 2014 was $245 billion ( surely higher by now). That bill will eventually come due.
8
A fair and balanced article, as a 49 year resident of Silicon valley owning a home midway between Google Headquarters in Mt. View and the Apple "Spaceship" Headquarters in Cupertino I can attest to the economic and societal changes over those years. Our neighborhood at one time was middle class caucasian, B.A. degrees. engineering prevalent, gas station owner, middle manager, etc., all that has changed. We have neighbors now with M.D. degrees, Ph.D's engineering dominating but not exclusive with chemistry and biology counted also on our block. No longer 100% caucasian but a mixture of Asian, European, and Indian cultures, with the common denominator higher education. The mix of different cuisine's available in our local restaurants is great, to those who can afford the area the culture mix is good. from Michigan. On the negative side we have friends who retire, sell their homes enjoying windfall $$$$ equity, a home purchased 30 years ago in our area for $220,000 sells now for $2-3 million. The other primary reason for leaving the state is the high California taxes with Nevada their destination particularly Lake Tahoe and Reno areas, and also to flee the impossible congestion. Homelessness is a major problem, sanitary issues with aggressive panhandling prevalent. The high tech industry with their insatiable need for highly educated people fuels Silicon valley, but I'm not sure there is an answer to the subsequent disappearance of the middle class, so far.
1
Interesting to see how Edsall, as well as so many Commenters, fail to discuss the chronically poor performance of California's public schools. Rankings by different methodologies have placed the state's schools around 45th in the US, including a 2018 ranking that was hoped would show new funding schemes targeting poor schools would help - they didn't. This problem has persisted for decades, despite voter-approved propositions and state laws that both mandated and increased state funding for the schools. And yet, no Democrat truly embraces this embarrassing problem. What gives?
I think the "paradox" Edsall describes illuminates, harshly, the Democrat's willingness to turn to problems that are both progressive and seemingly more solvable - immigration and sanctuary, global warming and energy use in California, even single-payer health care - but quietly ignore the most desperate problems in the state, kind of the Big Six: public schools, roads and highways, mass transit, homelessness and mental illness, income inequality, and high housing costs.
Well, all of that taken together is a state that needs a new awakening. It doesn't seem like we'll get it this November, but eventually the grinding social cost of living in California - the longer and longer commutes, the house you can't afford, the spreading stain of homelessness - will lead to another voter revolt akin to Prop 13 and Ronald Reagan. Too bad, a few good, courageous, Democrats could change that.
6
From the article: "Take per capita personal income, which grew nationally from $4,218 in 1970 to $51,631 in 2017, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more, from $4,966 to $58,272, in real dollars, unadjusted for inflation."
So nationally, over that time frame income grew approximately 12.4 fold from $4,218 to $51,631, while California incomes grew approximately 11.73 fold from $4,966 to $58,272. In other words, if incomes nationally grew at the rate they grew in CA, they would have gone from $4,218 to only $49,477 or about $2,000 less than they did - or if CA incomes grew at the rate national incomes did, they would have gone from $4,966 to $60,784 - about $2,500 more than they did? Or did I misinterpret this?
6
Figures can tell different stories: "Out of the 10 U.S. metro areas with the fastest growing income gains last year, California contains 10. The Wall Street Journal, citing census data, notes that California's economy is the "white hot center" of the U.S. economy, with job growth across sectors as diverse as construction, tourism, and technology. San Diego topped the list, where median annual household income rose 5.4% in 2017 to $76,207. Silicon Valley saw a 4.6% rise in median income to $117,474."
1
All parts of the country would benefit from de-agglomeration of the tech industry. There is nothing special about sitting behind a computer screen in Silicon Valley - that can be done almost anywhere.
Specifically, given the tech industry's reliance on H1-B immigrant visa holders, make those visas geographically dependent. Make it relatively easier to get those visas in Pittsburgh or Peoria than in Palo Alto (as in by allocating them by population). Give tech some extra reason to geographically diversify, bringing good jobs to other parts of the country and easing the need to squeeze so many people into so little space in California.
1
Since when have conservatives shown the slightest concern about growing inequality anywhere in this country? Or for that matter, racism either?
So, why suddenly attack California for it?
Hmmm, I wonder....
4
@Bryan Mostly to point out the hypocrisy of liberals always blaming conservatives for inequality, when California - essentially a one party state- is one of the worst offenders.
3
@Bryan
Just illustrating the hypocrisy. The inequality meme is a joke. You want less inequality? Move to Venezuela.
1
The U.S. Department of Education and the State of California have been pouring money into low-income school districts, such as L.A. Unified. None-the-less, L.A. high school graduation rates remained dismally low. In December of 2015, L.A. Unified realized that only about half of ifs seniors were set to graduate in June. It then urged those who would lack the credits to graduate to register for a credit recovery program. Students could retake courses they had failed, and get credit for them in as little as a week. There were no set curriculum, tests, or time requirements. Everything was left up to the individual teachers, and no one knew what anyone else was teaching. Even the school administrators did not know. All that mattered was that more students be able to graduate. And, as if by magic, 77% of seniors graduated in June.
Similarly, in March of 2017, L.A. Unified feared only 52% of its seniors would graduate. Then in June, they used the credit recover program to raise their estimate by 20%.
Does a high school diploma from L. A. Unified have any meaning?
Reference: 7/2/17 L.A. Times article titled "Schools are boosting graduation rates by offering 'credit recovery.' But what are students learning?"
<http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-pass-credit-recovery-20...
6
To me this op-ed points out the inequality for fair reasonable interpretation. The folks supporting California use language and statistics that are to show a positive reflection. The same is true of those that want California to be a hell hole. The descriptions and wording reflect a negative intent.
California has 12% of the US population with a total of US on welfare 80 million, total population of 320 million. I could not find searching the internet how many Californians are on welfare, I thought odd. There are close to 40 million in California, so does that mean California has more than ten million on welfare. AND what is considered collecting welfare, Social Security checks.
On Inequality, this is all I have to say. If you take a room full of people, say 100 average Americans and one of those average attendees is Bill Gates, you average their net worth would show we are much better off than we thought.
I just wish people would start a fair discussion, without a predisposed agenda to prove the other wrong, but with an open mind. Its like compromise, it takes both sides, to reach a conclusion. Is California a good role Model? Still unanswered.
5
This subject is really too complex for one editorial, less one comment, but nonetheless as a nearly lifetime Californian, let me chime in on a few points.
California (at least coastal) will always be more expensive to live in because we have incredible weather and great scenery. Add in the fact that LA and the SF Bay Area have become such centers of industry and you have an affordability problem of major proportions.
And yes, restrictive housing regulations are a problem, but the rest of the country doesn't have a good understanding of the geographical problems here. There is basically zero buildable land within reasonable commuting distance of either LA or SF, and earthquakes and soil conditions (google Millennium Tower) make building skyscrapers difficult and expensive.
And certainly inequality is bad here. But a lot of that is because here in Silicon Valley we have have a surplus of newly minted billionaires. You can argue that they're making too much (and I would too), but would we not want to see a lot of successful people? However, inequality is something that's almost impossible to solve at a state level. And we haven't had much help at all from the Federal Government in decades.
Is CA perfect? Not even close. But it's at least trying. And along with anyone here with enough money to get by, I'm not planning on moving anywhere.
27
@BruceS My husband and I moved from the Bay Area to Texas for his job. In California people tend to be friendly and tolerant. In Texas several neighbors tried to 'convert' us to their church, and when that failed, started to try to convert our children. It was a very long 18 months...
6
The article falsely places California with the highest poverty rate: "On the negative side of the ledger, California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, 20.6 percent."
By the same measures, Puerto Rico is last at over 40%, more than double CA. This omission further contributes to the lack of understanding we have about Puerto Rico as a part of the United States.
Born in SF and lived in the East Bay 39 of 42 years. Last year on a MUNI Metro J Church there was an enormous ad plastering the side of the car: “Marijuana is Available”. Ironically an entire class of 3rd graders was getting on the train. I’m as left as they come, but I found this outrageous. I wrote to the Chronicle, MUNI BOD, and no response. Now I live in El Paso, a deep blue thumb on the red hand of Texas. Still liberal (Go Beto!!!) but neither crowded or with the permissive “its all good” attitude.
4
@Roswell DeLorean So, you moved to Texas to vote for the same policies that made you leave California?
4
If you want to criticize California's K-12 Education , remember that Proposition 13, which constrains spending on schools, was imposed when the Republicans ran California.
4
The real divide remains between the educated and the uneducated, which Trump has famously said he "loves." He loves them because an immense, unaddressed gullibility is required to believe Trump is doing anything at all for low income people. He just gave himself a yuge tax cut.
2
As of today, a oneway 26" UHaul rental from LA to Dallas is $3,790. On the other hand, Dallas to LA is $1,138. I wonder what could cause the difference? :)
5
@Dave People in LA are richer and can afford the higher price.
@DavePeople moving to Dallas are stupid?
California's economy has surpassed Britain's, but London is no longer for ordinary Londoners. If the 99% have to struggle that much, you have a failed state.
I haven't returned in 10 years. My $850 '60s studio apartment now rents for $1600. You may land a great job, but once health fails you or life otherwise happens, you're screwed.
There's always been coastal room for new strip malls and yardless luxury homes. Besides hyper-environmentalism and Prop 13, I suspect an unspoken racism pervades many city councils.
D.C. and Boston are right behind them, and really, so's much of the country; it's all relative. The rich don't get richer building moderate-income apartments or starter homes.
1
Drives me nuts how "liberal" is used. OK. We have red states and blue states, but not one of them is truly liberal economically. Now, every state tax system in the Union is regressive as is the federal tax system. They all favor the wealthy - every one of them.
California has one of the more regressive tax systems. Let me repeat (over and over and over again): Capitalism means money makes money. But, really, money is not made, only transferred. It's zero sum. Winners and losers. Progressive taxation is required or run-away inequality ensues - as we are seeing.
4
But given the size and complexity of California, why are things not a whole lot worse? My property taxes are less than half of what they were in New Jersey. California is still a place people look to, to see what works and what doesn't. Some things have worked quite well and this has been accomplished without a regulation-free environment like Texas.
California isn't a nice place to be poor but what place is? The flip side is that those who can afford to live where they choose will inevitably drive up inequality in desirable areas. Republicans rejoice; the free market is at work.
4
Born and raised Californian. Lived in the Bay Area all my life. The state is a disaster. If you are not a part of Silicon Valley or some other $150,000 dollar job you have no shot buying a house, starting a family and becoming part of the American dream. My two college educated daughters chose education and wildlife management as careers. They know they will have to relocate if they want to be a part of previous mentioned. My 1000 + sq. ft. cracker box is now selling for $700,000 dollars. Just waiting for my daughters to decide where they will lay down roots then I am out of here..
7
@zinn21
From your perspective you are probably right. You should leave - and make room for someone else who can appreciate it.
2
@Mark Condescending? Zinn21 delivers a description of the canary in the proverbial mine: it is becoming impossible for middle-class people, even with degrees, to afford California. He doesn't spew racist invective or blame; he describes the sorry state of affairs, realistically in my opinion.
Appreciate it or afford it?
Colorado is right up there with California for rich white folks.
3
greetings from Southern California!
to our conservative critics who promote the idea that people are fleeing California for their economic lives, I invite you to visit the place you claim is rapidly turning into a ghost
town -
experience for yourself the choking taffic jams on our overcrowded highways. try to rent an apartment or buy a house, even if you have money, when the vacancy rate is troublingly low.
of course we have problems, but these overcrowding issues are not because people and businesses are leaving en mass, but because people are streaming in, looking for opportunity for the future and an environment that is comparatively unhostile, if not overly welcoming, while millions more are staying in place.
for older, relatively uneducated, conservative people... to the very religious who see threats to the kind of life they take on faith everyone must lead lurking behind every palm tree... to those who understand the value of their California real estate far outweighs the money they can hope to make working for the rest of their lives... yes, the appeal of moving to low cost of living states is undeniable.
they are the Joads in reverse, heading back to Oklahoma in pickups with California plates with visions of the sugarplums of the old days dancing in their heads.
meanwhile, on the way back to the ranch, we sit in traffic and its not all headed out of state.
12
just a million a year out of state; cumulatively. best not to create a false narrative.
@Jesse a year...? where did you get this information? Best not to create false talking points.
Walls and armed border patrols do not work we are told by liberal elites who are ensconced in gated neighborhoods or protected buildings with 24/7 security.
9
California is 500 miles long, 300 miles wide and a quarter of an inch deep.
3
The poor and/or illegal aliens are attracted to CA by their social support (read give-a-way) system. Plus the sidewalks for sleeping are much warmer than Boston's for example. No wonder there are so many poverty stricken clients in CA.
4
@leaningleft
You are right, some sidewalks do have homeless individuals sleeping on them. Many come from Boston and other states because of the good weather throughout the year. Most of the homeless are not home grown, they come here and stay here after their first visit. Actually, California should collect rent from all of you in other states for dealing with the problems you sent us.
More "Jill Stein" attacks on the progressive engines of American economic growth from right wing wolves in sheep's clothing.
Gotta love how the right cheers on growth and conveniently forgets about "equality" when it suits them, and then magically remember "fairness" when it's time to attack successful progressives.
Same playbook used in 2016 by the RNC and the Kremlin.
Good luck to you if you fall for it.
3
Caliornia is not a model for the rest of the country for a number of reasons. While our robust economy may lead the nation, we have a number of issues that must be fixed.
We rank #44 (close to Mississippi) in K to 12 public education and few politicians want to take on Proposition 13 that limits revenues from property taxes. Schools in wealthy areas excel thanks to local taxes and fundraising while schools in less afffluent areas suffer.
Our health care sytem also caters to the well to do with UCSF, Stanford and UCLA providing the best care money can buy while the poor are left in the hallway waiting for care in substandard hospitals.
Our roads and bridges are falling apart but our politicans decide to build high speed trains that start in towns called Visalia (must have been where the high ranking State Senator resides).
We elect Governors that don't have kids (Brown) or send their kids to private schools (Arnold) and so have very little understanding of why our public schools are struggling.
We love to tax everything and have some of the highest tax rates in the nation but spend money like drunken sailors and run huge budget deficits that even the most basic budeting should be able to antipate.
Caliornia is a tale of two cities and your experience in each of those cities tells you whether our state is a role model or not.
5
Once I sell my tiny 2-bed, 1-bath property in Silicon Valley I will be able to move anywhere in the United States, even without a job. I'm in my 50's, not working, and yet I will have enough ca$h to buy a huge home free and clear in almost any other state, region other than the San Franciso Bay Area. I could have been a middle-aged, divorced, out-of -work (unemployed) person in any other region of the country, but no other region would have provided me with the money I will need to live on and invest for the remainder of my life. Should I feel guilt-ridden, or ashamed for being fortunate, and yes, wise enough to have made a sound investment in a tiny home, in a highly urbanized, condensed region? Not everyone who was in the dotcom boom-bust of 1990's or after made any money. Stock options were worthless. It was real estate that helped me out, and solid investments in mutual funds. But I won't leave California, ever. This is the future, and I intend to support California as a leader of innovative ideas and civil rights. Frankly, the entire nation is jealous of our climate, culture, and prosperity. Jerry Brown is not perfect, but I am damn glad he's our governor, and only hope Gavin Newsom can aspire to Brown's standards of governing. The only adjustment I'd make to Prop 13 would be to deny the inheritance of the 2% tax rate cap to descendants of a deceased property owner. Properties should be assessed at current appraised values and taxed accordingly.
6
What is missing from this essay can be summed up in two elements which need serious factual investigation:
1. California's legislature toyed with the idea of universal healthcare for all of the states residents...
There was broad support for the measure in the legislature and with Governor Brown, and with the voters of California in general...
The measure collapsed when the annual bill for the measure would add more than $10 billion to the state's budget annually. And since the states CANNOT deficit spend the way that the federal government can do, those billions would have to be added to the bill presented to the already highly taxed residents.
2. The unfunded pension and pension related liabilities for California's state and local pension plans is north of $366 billion and growing every year.
When a complete analysis of California's abilities to be a laboratory for social change is done, one MUST look as to just much of an unrecognized burden that the social experiments are going to cost in the long term.
California might just be a great state to live in, but affording to do so may just be beyond the reach of many that are already there...
And many that are currently not part of the statistics counting those that are struggling even to survive.
Sorry. I think California's shortsightedness is going to prove to be an unacceptable burden, particularly when the excesses force the California government to go begging to their neighbors and the feds to bail them out.
6
As a 45 year Bay Area resident I think assigning the problems or success to either side of the political spectrum is incomplete and misleading. Stop and look at the resources CA has in comparison to other states. A coastline facing the pacific rim, a defense industry, an electronics and software industry coupled with abundant sunshine, water, a temperate climate, agriculture of all kinds, energy reserves, timber, minerals and the list goes on. An endless supply of migrant labor necessary to support the development of the state. Of course the state runs most of the others economically - CA has a huge head start.
The diversity and multicultural acceptance is what for so long has separated CA from the rest of the country and that is good. I hope that will continue.
But I also believe that either party could have presided over all the good that has come from CA our the last 40 years and that while by many measures the good times continue, I am not sure that living in CA in the past 15 years has gotten better. But it may be better than what has happened elsewhere. The concerns about income inequality are real and make me uncomfortable about the proper solution. I’m not sure that government spending and transfer payments are the solution they seem to be. If they were we wouldn’t have the continuing problems we have.
Thoughts? I’m open to ideas.
@Paul Things are decidedly worse. 80% of the jobs in the Bay Area that previously supported the wherewithal to buy a house in urban California can no longer.. Taxes, leftist politics and Silicon Valley buried California.
4
There is apartheid in California, but it's economic apartheid, which has become the American New Normal. It's what happens everywhere there is unrestrained capitalism. This is a fundamental truth that has been known for more than 150 years.
Californians are well aware of this harsh fact of capitalism and have consistently made attempts to blunt capitalism's hard edges, much as the New Deal tried to even things out with Social Security and a strongly progressive income tax - which conservatives have had in their sights ever since.
But even California has a regressive flat tax that in some places reaches 10% - the sales tax on just about everything, including food, and that hurts anybody who isn't wealthy.
The crisis of homelessness pales before the crisis of housing prices, which is only getting worse. As the article states, the middle class is finding California user-unfriendly. The only reason the population keeps rising is the birth rate and foreign immigration.
But even that will end; most of those new people will also have to leave because the real crisis is climate change, which is reaching critical mass. It's all about fire and water. As forests burn, they pollute instead of clean the air; as winter snows fail and water becomes scarcer, housing prices and taxes won't be the only reasons people and businesses abandon the state. It's wake-up time for the California dream. As a native Californian, I'm sorry to see what it's become and where it's going.
4
@William LeGro
I'm surprised that the article didn't mention California's environmental fragility, and you're the first commenter to do so. For all its beauty and fecundity, California is extremely vulnerable to drought/water depletion and global warming, bad enough to eventually ruin the Central Valley as a breadbasket. Forest fires are encroaching into towns and cities. I love California and hope it continues to do well, but I worry.
2
California is not a good row model for the rest of the country. The state has massive problems that most people in this country would find intolerable. For example state, county, & municipal legislators have made it impossible for new housing to be built.This is a Democratic controlled state from top to bottom. Affordable housing has always been one of the cornerstones of our party. This state should be a showcase on how well we can execute this policy. Instead, it's yet another example of our complete intellectually bankruptcy. It's symptomatic of a much bigger problem. The growing divide between some Democrats who want to practice what they preach & fanatical progressives who want to strangle everything. Environmentalists will go to the barricades to stop any housing projects from being built here. Mind you we are talking about affordable housing for working class families. Thanks to their efforts the gateway to middle-class security, has been pushed beyond their reach. The ease with which environmentalists can stop housing developments is a direct result of the numerous local & state laws that favor environmental concerns over affordable homes. The result: millions of people are without access to high-quality low cost housing. Do we really need people in the party who are subverting core American values? If we can't fix affordable housing here then we are a joke. All of us have a stake in solving California’s (and soon, the nation’s) housing-affordability crisis.
5
Changes to zoning laws that would have allowed higher density building and lower housing costs were defeated at the statehouse. By Democrats. Democrats who represented property owners.
.
Democratic welfare policies do little to move people out of poverty. They are designed to make poverty more comfortable. The working poor who wish to get ahead in California move to Texas, where the poor are less comfortable, but the working poor can afford to live and prosper. The only mobility in California is through education for high IQ individuals. That's important, but what hope do you have to prosper in California if your IQ is less than 120?
.
The danger of the California model is that it is a gated community, writ large. The rich and the clever live in very expensive enclaves, served by the poor who are allowed in every morning and strongly encouraged to leave every night. The poor are kept comfortable, but remain poor (their smart children can get ahead).
.
If California really wanted to be progressive, it would put a 3% tax on capital and property, reducing income taxes accordingly. There would be a strong incentive to use property more wisely (i.e. more dense housing), and in any case the cost of property would drop sharply. And I'm sure all of those liberal billionaires wouldn't mind sharing the wealth they hold in their stock portfolios. Inequality would plummet. Come on, California, let's see some some truly progressive policies.
4
@Tom..... gated communities…..People living in fear. This is so funny for an European. I had always to laugh when passing one along Jog Rd in Lake Worth, FL.
1
@Peter
Maybe if you paid for your own defence you'd stop laughing.
1
Let's see how the California Model holds up when the state's population hits 100,000,000. That should happen around 2099. California will probably be its own sovereign country by then, without borders, of course. And, it will have a new name reflecting the tectonic demographic shifts that will supplant the current Anglo-American culture. Utopifornia?
1
Housing costs are driven by the desire to live here. I live in Santa Barbara and many upper income people move here and push the price of housing up.
Homelessness is also a mental health issue. Thank Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson for super-sizing those problems. California is not a liberal monolith (Devin Nunes is from California). Conservatives prefer to invent problems (voter fraud, violent crime by immigrants) rather than solve real ones.
It is going to take time for California to undo the mistakes of the past.
7
No. It's not. Strict gun control and they still have more than their share of mass murders. They also have more than their share of police killings of unarmed civilians, with strict laws that protect police from having to report their abuse of authority. They also use the liberal progressive agenda to hire incompetent people for politically correct motives, like that obviously incompetent fire chief of the Oakland fire dept. who was forced to retire, with a huge annuity, after the Ghost Ship warehouse fire. And perhaps California has more than an ordinary share of anti-vaxers who endanger the rest of humanity with their refusal to be vaccinated for contagious diseases.
It appears California is like one big, statewide home owners association.
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus Not sure what "strict gun control" you're referring to. You can still buy semi-auto AR-15/M16/M4 clones in most places (excepting some cities), and at gun shows around the state. Ammo is available most everywhere. But handguns remain the most prevalent firearms, used by all. There is no real gun control. And that reflects the national law enforcement attitude towards firearms. Next door, in Nevada, you can buy machine guns, bumpstocks, whatever you want. There needs to be a national referendum on gun control. (Army vet).
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus
Sorry Aristotle, but if you look at actual statistics instead of merely pontificating, you'll find that CA gun death statistics per capita are much lower than say, Louisiana.
And if you are suggesting that Louisiana hasn't had (more than) it's share of incompetent and/or corrupt politicians then you're even worse than willfully blind.
2
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus California is among the states with the lowest rates of gun deaths: only seven other states have a lower rate. In the meantime, your state, Louisiana, has the third highest rate of gun deaths. Your state joins Alaska, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Montana, and Missouri for highest rates of gun deaths. All states without gun control.
Nor does California have a particularly high rate of police shootings as a percentage of the population. It's pretty much average in that regard.
1
Betteridge's law of headlines: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
I'm originally from NYC, and have lived in upstate NY, Seattle, DC, and lastly the Bay Area for almost 40 years. California is by far the best, and most enlightened. We have problems and disagreements, but little of the sheer government idiocy that plagues places like Kansas, Alabama, etc. The state is big enough to stand up to corporate interests, and at least tries to be helpful to its residents. It is important to understand how big and diverse the state is - not only it's population but the economy and the geography. For example, one of the state's biggest economic sectors is agriculture, barely mentioned in the article, but a sector that routinely relies on cheap labor, which exacerbates income disparity. Coastal California is one of the most desirable places in the world to lives, attracting people of extreme wealth, also skewing the income disparity and driving up the cost of living. The fact is that most of the developable land near the coast has been used, and finding space in and around the coastal cities to put millions more is a real problem.
8
The general model of a faux capitalistic system creates this wealth disparity. Instead of allowing market forces to choose winners and losers, the government, at the behest of the highest donors, tilts the playing field in the favor of the wealthy.
On another point, homelessness is more of a problem in CA do to the weather and the willingness of the people to treat them like human beings who are down on their luck. In many other states, they treat them like criminals and do not want to be part of the solution. Maybe smart policy economically, but awful humanity policy.
15
@Raul Campos
Solution is to spend time with those less fortunate than ourselves. It is to interact with them on a human level and to help them create a better situation.
The problem in California is largely housing costs, as noted, and this is probably true for a lot of the country. We need to focus on this. If you’re on the low end in income, half of your pay goes to a roof and a piece of dirt. How is one supposed to climb the ladder when they have to spend half their week working just to pay the landlord? You need free time or money to invest if you want to advance, but there’s very little of either after paying rent and basic living expenses. There’s no easy solution, especially when housing is so broad and lucrative an industry. Are we going to tax/punish people for inheriting properties or for making shrewd financial decisions in buying rentable property? Any public solution that really works is likely going to drive property values and rental incomes down significantly, or otherwise force taxes up even more. But this is the choice we have to make. An injustice to the “haves,” or continued injustice and misery for the “have-nots,” ... and California remaining at the top of the nation in poverty rates.
1
"if Democrats’ top goals are to reduce poverty, lessen inequality, get a roof over everyone’s head and close the education gap, the party has a long way to go."
But, then again, picture how far the state has come.
I know people who were in the labor camps of the Great Depression, people who saw food being dumped or left to rot because the growers didn't like the price. I have friends, black & white, who were the first of their family to go to college.
At one time CA had the best education system from kindergarten through graduate school in the world. The came Reagan and the beginning of the conservative dumb down which, like many aspects of CA, went national.
Prop. 13 was a hack saw approach to a problem that needed a scalpel. It, too, went national with predictable results.
The growers in the great food producing valleys have fed the US and much of the world while in less than a hundred years draining underground reservoirs that took eons to fill. Many of the workers, 'tho, can not afford to buy the food that they grow.
And still the state grows and still what starts in CA usually goes national.
2
If you were homeless, where would you move to. This explains why many are here.
Unlike many Red states, I moved here from Arizona, California solves problems. It is only a matter of time until state intervention with modern technology and innovative regulations will solve our current housing crisis. But, be honest, all other things being equal would you rather live where you are or California. So our housing problem will persist. Right now one in eight Americans live in California and more want to come.
3
No longer a first-world state. I left 21 years ago and it was the best move I ever made.
On the other hand, I highly recommend all Californians stay there. You wouldn't like eastern Washington state. Not enough diversity, crime, traffic, pollution, social conflict around here.
5
Yes, but there sure is a lot of economic support from all those liberals in western Washington, federal farm subsidies (and cheap immigrant workers) helping you live the "good" life out in conserv-o-ville eastern WA!
3
@vbering Good riddance.
Keep the checks comin'. Keep the people on the wet side.
with California representing such a high total in regards to both population and size of the economy, isnt it sort of odd to compare it only to a national average, as though its numbers were somehow excluded from the USA. Wouldnt it be more appropriate to compare it to the rest of the USA, or if ine is going to compare California to Texas than do that across the board.
This is Mr Edsall using Republican talking points in an attempt for “balance” instead of a belief in looking at the numbers. Nice try, but this is cherry picking and lying with statistics that dont hold up under examination.
My bet is that Mr Edsall is just naive. More interested in his own centrism than any relationship with reality. Par for the course for a times editorial. High on opinion, low on facts.
3
@Edward Brennan Having read a good bunch of the other comments yours hits the target... We're doing pretty good out here over all... even the bums who pass themselves off as homeless agree.
@Edward Brennan What has Mr. Edsall lied about?
What I’m tired of hearing is people that say “that place is horrible” often stated by people that never been, much less lived there.
3
The Republican position represented in this piece reeks of hypocrisy.
Their dear leader Trump is screaming to the rafters about how well the economy is doing (never mind that they really mean the stock market, which isn't the economy), while their policies gut programs that help the poor. Then they turn around and point fingers at California for doing what they contend is the very same- fomenting a surging economy at the expense of those at the bottom.
The GOP's all heart. Who knew?
1
With your primary election today, I'll confess I have politics on my mind. Politically speaking CA is way ahead and much more progressive than Nw York based on the steady courageous, financially sound and pro environmental leadership of Gov Brown compared to the timid cowardly Republican lite failure of leadership of your Gov Cuomo sadly and cowardly hiding behind his enabling Republican conttrol of the State Senate for many years, failing to take significant action on enviirornmental issues, signing the marriage equality act a sign the issue went mainstream and he had no choice. What should be the final straw is his derogatory scurrilouss and bigoted campaign tactics reminiscent of the campaign he ran for his father for New York Mayor 41 years ago. A 41 point lead is not enough for this insecure control freak bigot as he unleashes an anti semitic attack against his opponent no less scurrilous than the signs he posted across Queens long ago. Everyone knows he controls everything and no one one would put up those signs then or send out that mailer last week without his approval. Top it off by his risking safety by pushing for the opening of a bridge whcih could have waited a week. The only question is will NY voters shrug it off as Andy being Andy or finally say no more enough is enough. The only certainty is that few in NY doubt who he is and what he does.,
1
How about the Kansas model?? Sam Brownback did a low tax GOP experiment and the results were devastating. That is all the Dems should be talking about. California is absolutely a good role model. There's a lot CA could do in terms of removing zoning restrictions in order to build more housing, but its year round mild weather is going to always be a haven for the homeless. If you are going to live on the street...why wouldn't you choose to live besides the beach in Santa Monica vs. anywhere else in the country?
4
@Fish And Dannell Malloy did a high tax experiment - in fact, he never saw a tax increase he didn't like, and the state is circling the drain as employers can't leave fast enough.
I love California. I have lived in seven states, Ohio, Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Lousiana, Minnesota and California and have been a homeowner in there of them ( Lousiana, Arizona and California). I am an African immigrant with a PhD working in the high tech industry. I have sent three kids to college and have paid my large share of taxes and have never needed to depend on the government for anything. The only state I would think of moving to other than California would be the other blue state on the list (Minnesota) where a guy with my talent would be appreciated.
7
Great article, but I think Mr. Edsall's comment about income growth - "In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more" - is misleading. Obviously, this is true in terms of dollars, but if my math is correct the average annual growth rate nationally is actually a little higher at 5.6% vs. 5.5% for California.
1
If there is one truth demonstrated in this article, to a life-long (83yrs) resident, it is the inbred East coast attitude toward the West coast, and California in particular. Whether it is jealously, fear or just plain incomprehension I have never been able to understand, but it shows it ignorant face whenever easterners try to speak about California.
7
@michael Paine: I think you misconstrue mr. Edsall's motives. This is a very well-informed article about California by an experienced journalist, loaded with facts from reputable research, citing many Californian academics and other Californians. It is not at all ignorant and shows a respectful and nuanced understanding of California from a non-Californian's perpective, describing both what's good and what's problematic about California society. Often "outsiders" offer relevant perspectives and raise questions that are taken for granted by "insiders', which can enrich insiders' knowledge of themselves and help solve hitherto intractable problems they are dealing with.
1
@michael Paine Though I think this article was relatively even-handed, I agree with you Michael that East Coast attitudes about California are a strange mix of patronising, ignorance, jealousy, and incomprehension. California really is its own kind of beast, and as a third-generation native, it is my home, and I love her. I have met many East Coast transplants (they seem to outnumber us) who "get it," but there are many more who don't. For many outsiders, California will forever remain inscrutable.
1
The rich liberals trashed the place.. They completely gentrified San Francisco and marched all the Black and Latino residents out of Hunters Point, Mission and Filmore districts. The taxes are outrages - the middle class is leaving [moving to Boise] -- In 20 years this state will be rich liberals and their undocumented immigrant nannies, gardeners, maids, pool cleaners and car washers. All of whom will have free education and healthcare.
4
Many problems in California are not related to politics, but abuse of power.
Much of the income inequality is being driven by a tech industry that, on the surface, leans left—mostly to placate a basically progressive populace that they need to staff and drive their businesses.
Meanwhile they use the most banal, shallow, and selfish conservative and libertarian tenets to justify their most predatory and monopolistic capitalist behaviors.
Maybe we should strive less to be "right", work on being less distracted by divisive politics, and keep our eye on the crooks and con men seizing power and money behind the cover of Californian and American myths.
The differences between Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump are really no so great. They're both con men taking us all for a ride.
2
I'm a Calif resident... it should NOT be a model for ANY state. We have the highest sales tax, income tax and gasoline taxes. A legislature that claims they want to help the poor, but then they pass a 12-cent gas tax..keep in mind, we already have the highest gasoline prices in the nation. Our global warming bills have caused us to have the highest electricity rates in the nation by 35% on average. And our global warming bills have had ZERO EFFECT on the global climate....We have a great university system, but UC schools exclude 35% of Calif applicants...Why? because they want the higher revenue from out of state tuition..so, even though I pay taxes in Calif, I have a very difficult time getting my kids into college...On top of all of this, our legislature has been hell-bent on letting criminals out of jail early to terrorize us tax-paying and honest citizens...The last 15 years in this state have been awful....there is a reason why so MANY people are leaving Calif!!!!!!
5
@Luis
would california be a better place with lower taxes? have you considered that outcome?
1
@Luis California income taxes are highly progressive--people in lower income brackets pay less than in many states. Nor do we have the highest sales tax, although we are in the top 10.
Because of our relatively mild climate and conservation efforts, energy bills are actually less than in many states. The average energy bill in California is pretty much average for the nation.
1
@gct
are you serious? Lower sales tax would help everyone. lower gasoline taxes would help everyone. Have you ever looked at how much California government mis-spends. We don't need to keep raising taxes we need to watch what we spend.
Your response is comical
It's funny how social structure in CA resembles ancient India's caste system. The upper caste comprising of 1. impressive intellectuals/ bureaucrats (Brahmins) 2. powerful warriors/rulers (Kshatriyas) and 3.wealthy merchants/entrepreneurs ( Vaishyas) ruled over the Peasants (Shudras) who did back breaking work and made up 90% of the population. Mind you, the ancient Hindu kings didn't build ostentatious palaces for themselves. Instead they build huge temples that offered free food, big choultries that offered free shelter. India also observed open border policy. One can see how ethnically and religiously diverse the country is even today. So things hummed along fine, social stability having replaced social mobility, until the invasions started. Turks, Arabs , Persians,Central Asians and later Portuguese, French, British all drawn by the 'fabulous riches of the Indies, started to attack, to loot and plunder. The peasantry did not 'eagerly embrace' the invaders religion but did not rise up to the defense of the country either. Perhaps because it had no stake in the society...
2
Sure, California does have its problems, but California is not in command of all the solutions. We still live in the shadow of federal policies that allow banks to run rampant, tax policies that favor the wealthy, and environmental policies that harm us all. California sends more money to the Federal government than it receives in benefits. Our 38 million citizens have 2 Senators. Our neighbor, Arizona, has 2 Senators for its 8 million citizens, and Nevada has 2 Senators for its 1.8 million citizens.
Given how screwed up the national political scene is, I will take California over any other state in the nation. As a body politic, we are doing our best to go the right direction for all our citizens.
9
I think it’s important to mention that California produces enormous quantities of fruits and vegetables, and employs a vast army of low wage agriculture workers.
4
Whether California should be emulated by other states is really not the correct question. "Can California be emulated?" is perhaps the more salient one.
California has a unique appeal to people which no other state (except New York) has--people want to live here regardless of logical/practical reasons. It's the reason why we can tax the rich and they stay despite that--because they view CA taxes as a small price to pay to enjoy the California life. On the flip side, this morning I was reading an article about how the LAPD raided an empty building full of homeless squatters in Hollywood. Some of those homeless people were artists who moved to CA to "pursue their creative pursuits." Again, there's something about CA that beckons to people rich or poor--it seems to hold a promise of the fulfillment of their dreams whatever they may be. California's inherent problem is how to cater to people on both sides of the economic spectrum who for the most part made a conscious choice to be here. So it's really no surprise that there is inequality in California as people jostle for space here that really cannot accommodate everyone who wants to live here.
6
In most rich countries, mobility is positively associated with equality -- easier to move up in egalitarian Denmark than unequal US. But among states within the US, that may be reversed. California has better opportunities for the young, well-educated, or ambitious -- but also a steeper hill to climb.
This raises the question of whether the inequality and poverty rates for California should not be *adjusted* for in migration -- especially if we are considering it as a model for where the nation as a whole is headed. The article states that young (and typically lower income) people move to California to strike it rich. And there are probably a lot of poor people who come for similar reasons -- better opportunities for their kids -- as well as for the high social spending.
This is part of the standard conservative beef with California -- that it attracts 'deadbeats' from the rest of the country by its social spending. If it is attracting the poor for some mix of opportunity and liberality, then it is misleading to consider it as a *national* model without first adjusting for the effects of in-migration. This will be tricky in statistic modelling, but important nonetheless.
2
Mr. Edsall, your first paragraph is entirely misleading. It is true that California has the largest population of people under the poverty line. However, it is also the most populous state. So, if you look at percentage of state population under poverty line, California is better than 1/3 of the states including Texas. I would suggest (without looking up the numbers) that fraction of people in a state under the poverty line is proportional to the degree of urbanization. It is just easily for very poor people to survive in cities than outside.
It is also interesting to look at Gini index by state. Gini index is a measure of the disparity between the rich and poor. DC, New York, California, and Connecticut took four of the top five spots. Yes. There are high inequality in California, and similar states. If California doesn't have a disproportional high poverty rate, the conclusion must be that it has a lot of very wealthy people. This is consistent with where wealth is being generated in the country. The remedy for this inequality is in the federal tax system where income tax should be much more progressive and investment taxes must increase. It is also interesting to note that Louisiana is among the top five states. The reason is very different. Looking at poverty rate, Louisiana has the highest percentage of people under poverty except Mississippi and New Mexico. The disparity in this case is a bigger concern because it is driven from below.
6
The problem with foreign born tech workers is they do not follow, necessarily, American values when they create things.. For example, why have tech companies been called before Congress and other governments.
2
Not just tech and not just in the work place and not just foreigners. (Although foreigners are especially unconcerned with American values, rules, laws etc.)
If you grew up in a part of America where you were taught to play by the rules, to fear the consequences of not playing by the rules, and you come to a place like Los Angeles, which is better thought of as a four county sprawl that’s home to over 30M people, you’re going to be in for a long and very rude awakening.
And the gaslighting part of all that is that complaining about people not playing by the rules in a generally political way is, of course, red flagged (and was years before the thought ever entered your head) as being right down the line right wing everything. Xenophobic. Intolerant. And I say this as a lifelong Democrat. Progressive. Etc.
This is a good piece but as in depth as it is, it barely scratches the surface. You’re missing the attitudes and the selfish intent of the massive numbers of affluent individuals and families, which is as cold and calculating as the most inhumane corporation.
That’s the real story of California. It’s what makes this place tick. Out here it’s already the Hunger Games. Nobody cares about the poor or homeless at all. A small handful of families (Democrats all) could wipe out homelessness by giving up less than one percent of their fortunes. Massive facilities could be built treating every last street person. The liberal politics of this state really are just a charade.
4
@Rob
I take it you would have them act more like true blue Americans like Mark Zuckerberg. Americans hold no monopoly on values. Far from it.
Given that trump has totally ignored the West Coast it has probably contributed to their progress in California. Cascadia would be a formidable economic block.
3
The focus on income taxes (~$80b/year) in this article ignores an important aspect of taxation in the state: property taxes (~$65b/year). Since 1977 property tax growth has been capped for all buildings that don't change ownership. It's a complicated issue that has follow on effects on education and other social spending--i.e. the kinds of things that facilitate social mobility. Prop 13, the initiative that created this property tax regime, was spearheaded by conservatives four decades ago, and a full repeal is unlikely. Even though Dems are in control here, that persistent conservative policy alone helps calcify existing inequalities and limits funding for social programs that may combat them. It's not the sole source of the incredibly high housing costs and insufficiently funded schools, but it's part of the puzzle. And it's part of the puzzle that liberals are stuck with even if it came from conservatives.
After living here for 15 years, our family will be relocating next month to a place where we can afford a house and send our kids to the school down the street without worry. I hope CA can address some of its structural issues, there are some amazing things about the state, but for our family it's become to expensive to continue to be part of the experiment.
1
California has had a Democratic Governor and a supermajority Democratic legislature for the past five years. And they can’t repeal prop 13? Sounds to me like they don’t want to. It wouldn’t be in the interest of their sponsors. By the way, we should stop referring to the paymasters as “donors”, which implies gifting in some way. People and businesses who give large amounts of money to politicians are purchasing something and should be referred to as “customers” or “sponsors”.
1
@Cold Eye "Can't they repeal prop 13?"
No, by law the California legislature cannot repeal or amend statutory initiatives at any time (in all other states that have ballot initiatives the legislative branch has at least some legal authority to amend or undo ballot initiatives). The governor also cannot veto an initiative.
They could put forward a ballot initiative to overturn prop 13, which they haven't done, but they can't overturn it--only the majority of voting Californians can do that.
That is a small technical problem. So make it a ballot measure. Can Democrats at least do that?
Just as a technical note, the main difference between the "Supplementary Poverty Measure" and other poverty indices is a much greater emphasis on housing costs. This is not a wrong thing to do, but any national index imperfectly reflect state conditions, and the assumptions in this index affect California particularly harshly.
4
After 40 years on "The Peninsula" and retired to Portland 10 years ago - I'll just say that California is the best example around of a broad-based mobile meritocracy, extremely diverse, and simply not a commodity. As for homelessness - a mild climate (Nevada gets cold at night - I grew up in Reno) and a society with a social conscience will always be appealing
6
The irony of California as a progressive state is that our very own Prop 13 in 1978 set off the anti-tax conservative ideology that has dominated US politics for 40 years. The property tax cut benefitted large corporations and landowners (Chevron, Irvine) as well as homeowners, harming local government, schools, housing and land use for a generation.
Many of California's commercial strips, large corporate properties and shopping malls are taxed at extremely low values, despite being held by wealthy owners and investors worldwide. And the tax burden everywhere has shifted from commercial to residential. Re-assessing those commercial properties will be on the 2020 ballot (!) which among the many benefits will be to get more housing built as well as funding infrastructure, schools and public safety.
Hopefully the "demonstration affect" that occurred from the 1978 tax revolt will also apply nationally when Californians decide that large corporations and wealthy investors should pay their fair share of taxes.
8
A very interesting collection of facts and points of view.
There are some other things to think about as well; California is conducting it's own responsible foreign policy, making treaties with foreign governments to reduce carbon emissions. In many ways, that California is eliminating the use of carbon in the generation of the power it needs is a strong case against the argument that we need to allow carbon emissions to grow the economy; in fact, it looks like the opposite is true--lowering carbon emissions improves the economy.
5
The comments that ascribe California's economic success to its political liberalism are, at best, speculative claims: personally, I can think of a few reasons that have little to do with politics. The economy of Texas, for example, is the second-largest in the U.S. and the tenth-largest in the world, ahead of Canada.
I am always puzzled by the criticism that California is, in a nutshell, a semi-socialist state. In my experience, the flavor of liberalism here is of the bourgeois variety, the domestic politics of the suburban, Whole Foods shopping yogi.
The climbing cost of living, mostly due to housing, is a real issue. A lot of people live paycheck-to-paycheck, whatever their incomes. Tax laws (from the right) and environmental laws (from the left) have made it harder to build in this state and, as a result, to build individual wealth.
I grew up in the Central Valley and am happy to have moved back years ago. I am now a homeowner. A lot of people move back when they get married and have kids. We do worry that housing will get so expensive elsewhere that commuters will begin to move here and put a swift end to this era of relative affordability.
3
Thomas is exactly right. This is what brought us DJT. The response of Sacramento, LA and Frisco really is to push lower wage workers to the outskirts of the urban centers. This is clearly coming to an end. As the California DMV notes there is no longer a "rush hour". When the GDP numbers are evaluated, the only sector of the economy that remained flat financially was agriculture. Obviously putting pressure on farmers to sell for continued growth. One needs to remember that California has fewer people than both France and the UK. So as the pressure for growth persists the obvious battle between expansion and equality will become even more obvious.
I lived in California for 25 years and now live in Texas. I think Edsall points out valid criticisms and cites to reports on which most of us will agree--the housing costs in California are largely responsible for a widening gap between rich and poor. But between the Texas and California model, Edsall doesn't point out the failures of the Texas model. The gap between rich and poor is similar to California, even though our overall housing costs are much lower, meaning that a much smaller percentage of people are earning a much higher income. Texas has a much higher infant mortality rate and maternal death rate than California. With all the money in this state, there are some huge problems. The main difference between the two places is that I think California attempts to address them and Texas, by and large, attempts to sweep them under the rug (at the state level--local municipalities and cities are entirely different).
12
Enlightening article, but as a Texas resident I completely disagree with the idea that merely a serious challenge to Ted Cruz from Beto O’Rourke means that somehow the California model is favored here.
I’m an independent who has major issues with leftist ideology and certainly don’t want California-style taxes. However, I will vote for Beto (and all other Democrat candidates), just like most of my friends. The reason is exactly the same I voted for Hillary and not for Trump; I think Ted Cruz is a demagogue who has little to do with any reasonable conservative ideas.
On top of that, I deeply dislike how Texas has become a one party state, just like California. Right or left, this kind of dominance brings out the worst.
7
@Gimme A. Break Dear Gimme: while acknowledging that my home state is facing enormous challenges, I'm thankful, in the Trump era, to wake up every day in the world's 5th largest economy, with a solidly blue governor and majority Democratic state leadership and another blue, San-Francisco-values governor looming on the horizon. Long live CA, and TX needs to wake up and join the 21st Century.
4
@Julie
Give her/him a break--why use language bound to alienate a thoughtful independent who disagrees with you but is voting with you?
@Julie Dear Julie, as the second largest economy in the nation, with three of the ten most populous cities, Texas seems to be solidly in the 21st century. I, like Gimme A. Break, am an independent and agree with his/her assessment of the problems Texas faces and the problems in any system where one party rules, much like the blue system you are advocating. Perhaps a better response is that our country needs to "wake up" and start encouraging civic minded, caring, responsible people (red or blue) to run for office without fear of being shredded during campaign season, end this ridiculous partisan hate mongering, and come together to save us all before we are broken beyond repair.
1
I've lived for decades in both California and California, and what probably strikes me as the most significant difference between them rests not in current and ephemeral statistics. but in attitudes regarding inevitable change ( e.g. the Bay Area of my youth is not that of 2018). With apologies to generality, California commonly sees and accepts change as potential progress. Texas, in it's inherent conservatism, tends to cling to the past and view change as a threat. That's why California will lead, just as it did long ago with its Master Plan for higher education.
5
@StanC California instigates change - that's what progress is all about.
5
Let's ignore the useless debate about left versus right. What is most disturbing is that the CA economic engine is driven by mostly worthless activities for society: Hollywood/entertainment and technology toys and social platforms for advertising, distraction and entertainment of the masses (Apple, Facebook and Google).
5
@No That's a bit reductionist. Software rules the world, more than most realize. It's in everything (your car, MRI machine, washer). It's a lot more than toys and pretty wrappers for databases.
3
@No
Why are these activities useless? They have economic values clearly. Is consuming a car inherently more "useful" or "virtuous" than consuming a movie? After everyone is fed (production short fall is not the reason that some people do not have enough to eat in America), clothed, and housed, what other economic activities are "useful"? We should make more money just for the heck of it?
3
@Patchy Fog Don't forget election tampering and propaganda.
California does certain things very well. It is a very diverse state, and many people, from all different backgrounds, are accepted (for the most part). For instance, the university where I write this has an enrollment of 80% non-white students. I think CA is a great role model for ethnic and religious diversity. However, California is a very poor role model when considering economic diversity. There is a staggering amount of homeless people who live and die on the streets here. Also, the housing costs ensure that most working class people and poor immigrants will never own property or carve a thriving economic existence for themselves within this State (only the very select and very high paying jobs offer someone an opportunity for success). This State is one of the largest economies in the world (for a fairly small amount of people considering other top economies) yet most people do not share in its prosperity. The amount of people suffering in this State is tragic, and I firmly believe the system failed most of its residents. I hope CA will be a cautionary tale to other parts of America of an example not to follow.
1
In America, wealth has become unequal, and self sustaining, self serving.
So of course in California we see the same. If they are richer, then they are also leading the trend for all that means in America today.
If we are lucky, then will end this new Robber Baron Era the same as others ended the last. However, they are not, and their establishment is actually supporting it, actually part of the problem.
Where will we find the leadership to overcome our new era of inequality and extreme wealth? Will we at all?
5
CA is tripling-down on progressive policies. Let's see if they are right, or run the state right into the ground, before we/they try and export progressivism in major matters to the rest of the country.
2
@Dave I don't think they care about exporting their model. The bigger issue is, how will Missouri compete with California for talent? Whether you like it or not, Wichita has to compete for the same engineers that work in LA or Silicon Valley.
6
@RPU Not really. There are many fine engineers in the midwest (and educated in the midwest) who frankly would not move to CA no matter how much you paid them. I am one of them, and I've rejected very lucrative offers to go (back) there. Californian's (and NYC dwellers) have a far too inflated opinion of how attractive their "lifestyle" is to others in flyover country. Having lived in both those other places, I am much happier in the Midwest than I ever was living in L.A. and CT/NYC, due to much lower housing prices, no smog, far better traffic, no crowds (at least relatively), far better overall cost of living, and, frankly, nicer and more relaxed people. As one small anecdote, I spent 6 hours in commute time getting into and out of a Yankees game. We (the Yankees) won, but by the time I got home the game was a distant memory, as the traffic and fellow traveler's rudeness totally destroyed whatever positiveness resulted from the game. In contrast, round-trip time (door to seat, and back again) for a Cardinals game it is literally 1 hour to 90 minutes, tops. It's the little things in life, alot of them, that truly make practical life enjoyable - not the hoopla around some "special" place that you have to compete with millions to "enjoy".
1
Two very simple solutions can fix California's poverty problems:
1) Invest heavily in housing. Landed old timers need to get over the idea of San Francisco being some kind of idyllic seaside village with Victorians and cable cars; it was meant to be a megaopolis rivaling New York back in the 1920's complete with buroughs before a series of political failures derailed the plan. Build dense and build high. The best way to fix the homeless problem, as Utah has demonstrated, is to make sure everyone has some form of housing. Hard to do that with real estate prices as high as they are.
2) Invest in public transportation, to the point where we have high speed rail snaking all around the state and running reliably. The automobile is a fine concept if you're the only one who has one.
California was never shy to invest billions of dollars in super high cost infrastructure projects in the past, such as highways and dams. Time to roll up our sleeves again.
10
@T. Warren. These are good ideas, but they won't address the long term, hard core homeless problem. In San Francisco, the great majority of homeless are substance dependent and suffering (very obviously and not pleasantly) from mental illness. Since Reagan shut down the state's mental hospitals (to lower taxes for the wealthy) and the state has been denied reasonable property tax revenues, the mentally disabled and drug dependent have migrated to the streets of our cities. No one has come up with anything effective for these people. We need facilities - something like state hospitals. Housing alone won't do the trick. Shelters don't work. These folks need institutions. Anything else is magical thinking.
1
Yes, because as Eero has said here, it is a testament to this:
"The Democrats have worked hard to fix the problems created by the Republicans. California is a testament to the benefits of a Democratic government."
People here voted for tax increases because they, like the populations of most OECD nations, know that you get what you pay for, unlike the GOP, who wants only a free ride for the 1% and thrives on creating chaos in government and inducing fiscal crisis by reckless and unsustainable policy. No thanks.
4
Seattle is going through a crash course in "Californication," so it's easy to see the culprits in this wealth bifurcation as they have played out over the past couple decades. I would argue that the concentration of wealth at the top, combined with strong population growth and both geographic and regulatory barriers to housing development, are the main issues. The newly minted rich drive up housing costs at the high end, which then percolates down through the ranks, driving up all housing prices. Meanwhile, the cost of dirt drives up retail prices, and more cars means much higher car insurance rates. But fairly stagnant wages cannot keep up with these jumps in the cost of living. The economy is really smoking here, but most of the gains are going to a small, elite work force at the top, along with management and shareholders. Seattle is becoming more like SF, or NYC, a great place to be rich.
3
@JS -- All true, but the failure to build and market lower end housing is real too, a separate cause. It need not be so. After WW2 there was a housing boom in starter homes, and a lot of money was made doing that. Now, nobody is doing that. We could address that now as we did then, with some equivalent of VA loan guarantees for starter homes, and other programs to promote such homes.
7
@Mark Thomason Sheet rock prices have quadrupled in a decade, nails, screws, wood, everything, copper, fixtures, glass- it's very expensive to build even a very plain small house.
1
The Federal government under Republican leadership has syphoned off huge amounts of California taxes into the military. There is a net loss of about 13 billion in federal taxes.
California as a State is growing, other States are shrinking. How much poverty are Red States exporting to CA? Hard to know. I suspect it's a lot easier to be homeless in CA which has a tempered climate along with social services than it is in Michigan.
Trump didn't win because of the fragility of the alliance. He won because of Republicans started smearing Hillary Clinton for years with unending fake investigations. They reduced her turnout. Republicans control all 3 branches of government with a minority of voters because our Republic no longer represents a broad section of the population since agriculture is mostly automated and uses large amounts of undocumented workers who can't vote.
3
@HL -- The government under Democratic leadership did that too, and did not end any of the wars, and started new ones in Syria and Libya, and spreading from Libya. It created South Sudan, and with it another war.
There is nothing to defend with either one, no partisan advantage there. It is war from all of them.
The enemy is the status quo establishment that Obama called The Blob, and not merely the newest offender in office.
5
@Mark Thomason
No Mark they aren't the same at all. Republicans broke sequester to vastly increase military spending. When Obama was President the Republicans blocked infrastructure spending and forced the sequester. As soon as he was gone they broke sequester to increase our ability to deal arms around the globe.
Obama didn't end the wars but he blocked a war in Iran with the Nuclear deal and was establishing norms of International cooperation and law.
The economic picture in California is complicated and diverse. There are many Californias and statistics just average all of them together.
The economy on the coasts is driven by a college-educated workforce that is paid relatively well, and the property values are high. In more rural areas, agriculture, retail and construction are larger drivers of the economy.
As the article points out, those with only a high school education will find it difficult to live in coastal California. Those folks are relocating out of state. The rural areas absorb some in construction.
College education is supported reasonably well in California, although it could be better. The economy requires college-educated workers, so it will either educate its own or import them.
Much of the statistics in this article ignore the causes and focus just on the results. California is a cutting edge economy, so those who don’t study up will find themselves left behind.
3
I find it amusing that California is considered the 5th largest economy in the nation, yet it truly isn't. When the tech industry is truly measured, most of the production and most of the profit is actually kept offshore. So the billions produced by these companies are not taxed by California, therefore it shouldn't even be considered part of the economy. It would be as if the State of Delaware, because so many companies incorporate there, decides, by this measure alone, it is now the 6th largest economy in the world.
California does have the largest income discrepancy in the US. Yet cannot find ways to bridge this gap, without the introduction of high taxes. Attempts to increase wages through legislation have only resulted in more unemployment as employers, either shut down and move to another state, or cut back on the number of employees to cover costs.
The state has a regulatory reach that adversely impacts the ability of companies to operate, people to start business, and yet fails to properly enforce the collection of taxes and fees. This failure actually creates the budgetary problems where the state cannot effectively operate. As even Gov Brown has claimed, California, despite the booming economy, finds itself nearing a budgetary deficit once again!
Per the Franchise Tax Board, the state has over 1 million workers who fail to file their taxes and owe the state billions in tax revenue. Revenue that it fails to collect or even make an effort to collect.
3
@Mike -- You are right about counting a California economy that really isn't in California.
However, I think it too limited to say, "Yet cannot find ways to bridge this gap, without the introduction of high taxes."
There are many sorts of taxes, and still more sorts of government regulation. Long Arm jurisdiction of a state can reach further than this credits, as we've just seen regarding sales taxes on internet transactions.
There is a real limit on running away from the US, if we make the effort to limit it. They want to keep the benefits of living in the US and access to the US legal system and other infrastructure.
We just need to impose it, and that means we need to get away from the purchase of our politics by donor interests meant to limit it.
3
I've lived here in California since 1976. The only bad thing about the place is the cost of housing.
But all the other great things make it worthwhile to live here. If I lived where there are low housing costs, I'd be miserable due to all the other terrible things that exist where there are low housing costs. I'd rather be happy and pay the price....
6
@sfdphd So many reasons to live in California...beautiful weather; beach, mountains, desert, wine country...tolerant and friendly people, far away from Washington DC ...
The average cost to buy a house nationally in the US is $265,000; in my very expensive county there are plenty of new houses for sale in the $300,000 range. They are close to our second largest city and within an hour commute of Santa Barbara. The county offers bus transport to those who don't want to drive. So even in what is considered a very expensive county there are plenty of moderately priced options.
4
I agree. I find those complaining about housing prices most often are those who feel entitled, by way of their privilege, to live in the heart of the most expensive areas without an income to support such a lifestyle. The notion of living where you can afford and working your way up the property later seems to be all but gone. Entitlement culture demands the best immediately without sacrifice. That is why new immigrants are getting ahead faster--they work harder, don't have a sense of entitlement, and work their way up. @Irene Goodnight
1
As one reader pointed out already - the dichotomy of a knowledge economy and service economy may be the real culprit. Knowledge workers attract service workers, yet service workers appear very fragmented in their skills to organize, unlike the industrial workers of the industrial age. The reason for that are probably many - legislative burdens perhaps, fragmentation, and diverse work force - students, immigrants (with no rights) and two wage earners. This is just a hypothesis. This hypothesis does not answer the alluded dichotomy of Texas and California though.
3
@j -- "service workers appear very fragmented in their skills to organize, unlike the industrial workers of the industrial age"
That is not a difference in workers, that is a difference in laws. Unions have been busted by our laws. Even in California, the laws disfavor unions.
3
A shallow tunnel vision view. I’ve lived in CA since the 70’s - supply and demand - boom and bust. Taxes - yes bit not wasted. Schools - abysmal across the country - it’s the methods. As for poverty- it’s both urban and in the South, Midwest, and NE. CA supplies 80% of the country’s produce, military, aerospace, IT, education, and entrepreneurs and has the same population as Canada - go figure!
3
California is a failed state for the simple reason that it has no social solidarity. Solidarity requires a rough equality of *means* not just abstract opportunities.
California is not a truly progressive state. It fails the test of Teddy Roosevelt's Osawatomie, Kansas speech and FDR's "Economic Bill of Rights."
California's upper class (there is no middle) sits secure and complacent in its privilege and prospects and lectures everyone else on political correctness and values. They willfully ignore that the most important common value is shared wealth.
Shared wealth begins with a secure home and wages sufficient to provide for all social necessities (i.e. education, insurance, savings) while allowing sufficient leisure for self-regeneration and sufficient family time for education of the young.
For all its inclusive talk, California is an exclusive disaster.
4
@Chip
"California is a failed state for the simple reason that it has no social solidarity. "
By your definition, then, the US is also a failed state and has been since its inception...
3
As a native Californian, I believe that the last and greatest problem for the state is to stop having wealthy people prevent the construction of new affordable housing space near them. With enough affordable housing, overhaul of public transit, and more money into education, California's worst problems will be resolved within a decade.
6
@ziqi92 California's worst problem is that it is a semi arid desert, never able to support the current population. The water shortage is the biggest problem. Building homes is easy. Public transit? (Well in California, we are paying $80 billion for a train.) Education? Again, that's solvalbe.
Water? That's not.
3
These types of articles leave out so many pertinent details. For instance, on homelessness. The numbers are high because other states ship their homeless to large CA cities. You would think by reading this article that tons of people lost everything and are living on the streets. No--they came from somewhere else.
11
Do Conservatives really want to hold up California and its liberal policies as a failure, when the most obese and least educated states are Conservative-run?
Is West Virginia a success compared to California somehow?
We need to educate Conservatives on this little thing called supply and demand. If people couldn't afford the expensive housing, it would go down.
9
@wilsonc -- That there are places worse does not excuse nor eliminate the problems of California. There is still no housing for too many, and vast inequality getting ever worse.
4
With all due respect, I believe Woody Guthrie is equally instructive here:
“California is a garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or to see,
But believe it or not, you won’t find it so hot,
If you ain’t got the do re mi.”
13
Holding up Texas as a role model for good conservative economic policy is just silly. Conservatives have followed the same mantra in other states (Kansas, Kentucky, Alabama to name a few) and the results have been disastrous.
So what makes Texas different? You guessed it, oil!
2
Tech. All the big tech companies are in the same tiny space. Seriously, what did people think would happen? That you can earn $100,000 in the East Bay and still have a hard time paying rent is the obvious symptom to a broken system. And those people aren't teachers!
Don't get me started on BART. One thing goes wrong and the whole system shuts down, so the freeways get clogged. Then hit one of those potholes at 60mph and your car is in the shop. Seriously, potholes on a freeway in one of the world's most expensive cities?!
How about America spreads the tech wealth around a bit. In the 21st century there's no reason for companies to be joined at the hip. And certainly not when they take thousands of acres of excellent arable land out of the food chain.
8
@James Devlin,
I'm a native Californian and I agree with you about spreading tech around geographically. I'd like some farmland back.
However, the problem is that innovators didn't move out.
Here's probably one of the bigger reasons they were in California in the first place:
In 1849, the state of California ratified its first constitution, which contained the express objective of creating a complete educational system including a state university. ...
The Organic Act, establishing the University of California, was ... signed into state law ... on March 23, 1868. ...
As of 2016, UC researchers and faculty are responsible for 1,745 inventions, which have led to the creation of 934 startups, and UC controls over 12,200 active patents. ...
At 34 million items, the University of California library system contains one of the largest collections in the world.
UC (see Wikipedia) and, indeed, all of California have a lot of problems but the number of innovators is high.
Other US states could have followed this model but haven't done so yet. Other countries have been quicker to get the message. Think about it.
1
The republican canidate for governor of Colorado is running ads that say don't turn Colorado into California , but seriously who would want to live in a state like Kansas or Nebraska , over California . We in Colorado would take California anytime over the Red states / period .
7
@donald carlon...but seriously, donald, y'all live just a short drive from a Red state. It's called the Rest of Colorado.
4
@Albert Edmud Colorado is so blue now that the republican don't even have candidates in some of the state districts / and republican only control the areas without the majority of Coloradans .
@Albert Edmud Sorry, sport but most of Colorado is Blue and getting more blue with each passing day ! The republicans can't even get people to run .
I moved from San Francisco to Portland OR in 2004, in part due to frustration with the insanely high cost of real estate there (and it has only gotten worse). We lived in a modest 1000 sq foot house in a nice but non-glamorous neighborhood which Zillow now estimates is worth 1.6 million. There’s no way we’d be able to afford that same house if we were trying to buy there now.
Despite that and the many other problems California has, I would much rather live there than in any Republican dominated state. It’s ironic that conservatives criticize California for inequality...since it has achieved the winner take all economy of their dreams. And it’s managed to do so while retaining liberal social values which is what they really can’t stand.
If I have to choose between living in an unequal economy and a society modeled after the Handmaid’s Tale and an unequal economy that at least treats those of us who are not heterosexual white men as human beings with rights, I’ll take the latter, thank you very much.
News flash for conservatives: people who are not heterosexual white males are the majority in this country!
9
@Ken California's model of welcoming diversity is like a shining beacon compared to many states in the midwest and south.
Inequality & the large disparities between rural & urban economies are problems throughout the country not just CA. Housing costs are crazy in CA & it's boom/bust history is a function of a long history of real estate speculation (also not limited to CA). Traffic is also nightmarish as is our prison system. Our state is still trying to dig itself out of the damage done by decades of republican governors; don't forget Ronald reagan came from here & wreaked his damage on CA first before he took his show national. That's why a republican can only rarely win office any more here (this should be a national cautionary tale). Tech is both a boon & a curse--see the Richard A. Walker book, Pictures of a Gone City. However CA has one of the highest union densities in the US & unions have been in the forefront of the progressive measures to reduce inequality & an active progressive coalition in this state is working unceasingly to improve conditions. We are proudly a majority minority state & immigrants are crucial to improving our economy. I would never live anywhere else in this country.
6
I spent 14 years working in Silicon Valley and then moved to Colorado 6 years ago. What drove us out of CA? Poor schools, expensive housing (particularly if you want good schools) and long commutes (made worse when we had kids and I had to be home in time for dinner).
Colorado is certainly not perfect, but I work from home so I save 1.5 hours a day not commuting. I also get to see my family more, which is great. Schools here are good and housing is (relatively) cheap compared to Silicon Valley. Income taxes are lower in Colorado compared to California, but sales tax is roughly the same (CO sales tax is enormously complicated as every zip code has its own tax rate). Property taxes are also lower here.
If you want a real example of the wealth disparity even in Silicon Valley look at Atherton, one of the wealthiest towns in the country. Selby Lane Elementary is in Atherton so you'd think it would be one of the best schools around, but it's not. The residents of Atherton don't seem to care about public schools as their kids have private schools, academies, etc. The kids who attend Selby Lane are largely poor Hispanic kids from Redwood City. (I just noticed that the ratings for Selby Lane Elementary have improved some since we left, so maybe things are turning around at the school.)
It's a real tragedy that people with so much don't want to make the space around them better.
4
Take a look and see which counties in California have the highest poverty rates. Mostly rural agricultural ones that vote Republican. They pay the lowest rates, have the least amounts of support, and even the lowest performing schools.
We have a sub state The State Of Jefferson, very right wing, mostly poor except for the few wealthy land owners, corporate farms and ranches. However the climate here make it easy to be homeless. Mos of those you see sleeping on the streets would be in one of the mental hospitals that St. Ronnie closed down by believing they would take their meds on their own. The other homeless like families we do try to take care of them. It is expensive and providing housing for the low income is difficult, the developers have made the cost of land and housing as close to unaffordable as possible.
The Republicans have led the fight against good fast transportation for many years now. They say it costs too much, as usual ignoring the costs of not having it.
California will stay a great place to live as long as immigrants from Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma don't come here. On the other hand, the Asians, Mexicans, Central Americans take those low paying jobs, save, invest, sent their kids to college and keep our economy growing.
21
I think it is a bit difficult to focus on poverty numbers in California as California has always been a magnet for poor people looking for opportunity. Just the nature of the state creates a concentration of the poor.
More to the point is the glaring gap between the knowledge economy and the service economy. Our two tier society keeps expanding. No one seems to have much of a realistic idea of how to deal with it. Trump's efforts to restore the industrial economy are laughable.
130
@goofnoff. Agree: the gap you refer to is at the heart of the real issue(s) that our societies should be focus on tackling, rather than ideological flag-waving.
19
@goofnoff Exactly. And if you are homeless, where would you rather live? Minnesota? Kansas? I'd take SoCal anyway.
I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat. I'm also a union-member and a public school teacher. My job provides an adequate, but not overly generous salary, but it also provides health care for me and my family, and one of the few defined-benefit pensions left in the country.
If I didn't already live in California, I'd move here, especially in the age of Trump. Yes, there are problems, but California's liberal state government will solve them. I wouldn't trade California's problems for those of Texas.
For a true model of what a conservative state government looks like, gaze on Kansas. It's a basket case.
248
@Vesuviano
or Louisiana-last on every list
5
@Vesuviano So you got yours. You buying a home here? I doubt it. I suspect you got yours when the market was at 40% of where it is now. Teachers in Ca can't afford homes today.
2
@Vesuviano Kansas and California are both basket cases. Far left far right neither one works.
1
It is interesting to look at some of the causes of the disparities described in this article. In my memory California has had Republican governors since the 1970's, except Grey Davis, who was recalled and replaced by Schwarzenegger. Reagan began the destruction of the California public school system by slashing funding for the University of California and Schwarzenegger drove up the deficit created by Republican tax slashing by incurring $15-20 billion dollars in debt to finance that deficit. Jerry Brown assumed a California mired in debt with serious public support deficiencies. He promoted and the public supported higher taxes on the wealthy, paid off the debt and built up a rainy day fund. The Democrats imposed a gas tax (now under attack) and the amount of repairs now on-going on California roads and highways is huge. In Oakland housing for the homeless is being constructed and used. Immigrants see their children profiting from available public education to progress to higher paying jobs, getting out of the minimum wage mire. And decent healthcare is available to most people. Many of the poor are in rural areas, which suffer the same as rural areas across the country. The Democrats have worked hard to fix the problems created by the Republicans. California is a testament to the benefits of a Democratic government.
272
@Eero
The Terminator believed in Keynesian deficit spending to stimulate the ailing CA economy and it WORKED
2
@EeroTrue, but the Democrats still haven't fixed the myriad problems that Prop 13 has caused for forty years. I await the day.
1
As a native Californian, I've watched population growth overwhelm the overloaded power and transportation infrastructure, while home prices and rental costs skyrocketed. Definitely not the "golden state" any more...
https://www.dailybulletin.com/2018/09/04/californians-and-the-american-d...
6
In physicist Geoffrey West's outstanding book "Scale: the Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies" he elucidates how many statistical measures of social characteristics scale super linearly with city size. That means if one compares two cities, one city twice as populous as the other, quantities like income, number of businesses, number of patents annually, etc., are more than twice that in the smaller city. Unfortunately, other social characteristics which are negative, such as crime, also tend to scale super linearly. These statistical results hold on average over comparisons of many cities -- it's worth reading the book and, for those really interested, the many scientific papers it is based on, to get a deeper understanding of this research and how much greater scientific understanding of cities has emerged in the past couple decades. West and other researchers have developed underlying models for these consistent scaling patterns. I don't know if the researchers have looked at whether similar scaling patterns apply not just to cities but for larger social/economic/political entities such as states and countries. But it appears something very much like this could be going on. California is larger than other states and with that may come an out-sized (i.e. super linear) increase of both the good and bad social characteristics. If true, that could change our understanding of the current debate between liberal and conservative pundits.
1
If you compare CA to Texas, it has better services for everyone. It is far better to be poor in CA.
More importantly, part of why CA has such a large disparity between the rich and the poor is the rich are SO rich, and there are so many of them.
I find the comparison to NY the most relevant. NY is worse in every way, from k-12 and higher education to services for the homeless. This article is really a warning to NY state, and it's terrible Governor and legislature.
3
I frequent California a lot. A few things stick to mind:
The sheer amount of homelessness is insane. I am going to LA in October and San Fran in a week, and each time the cities get dirtier and dirtier.
Affordable housing faces NIMBYs in LA. Everyone wants housing for the poor, but not next to me. Liberals turn into conservatives very fast when their housing values are affected.
They keep raising taxes for roads, but the nothing changes. California government raids whatever funds to pay off other priorities.
They're billions of dollars in pension debt.
Prop 47 - stealing below $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor now. Surprise: shop lifting on the rise. Best story I've read about this: shoplifter brought a calculator to the store as not to go over $950
California now houses 1/3 of the homeless, and LA county gives you 'homeless' help, basically a nice $200 check.
So yeah, it enacts liberal ideas but there are consequences. Keeps the bums out of Arizona!
12
Not yet out of H/S it became apparent to me that the working poor or People of Color like myself (mixed race Hispanic) couldn't catch an even break from the conservative GOB power structure who then controlled Colorado; so I lit out for Cali.
Working two jobs flipping burgers at night and going to a locals H/S in the Bay Area, I soon learned that to most Californians the color of your skin, where you came from or what was in your pockets meant less then who you proved yourself to be through your willingness to do your best. And 10 years later, after several jobs -one, for example, working as an alfalfa sprout grower for a large natural food company, and another working as a low paid aide with D/D and mentally ill children and teens at a state hospital- and 7 years at an affordable State supported University, I graduated with a type of degree in physiotherapy that allowed me to live a type of life middle class life that I could only dream about 10 years earlier in a Class and Color bound State like Colorado was then.
Now, having married, had a child of my own and on the cusp of retirement as a hand therapist and Occupational therapist I just want to thank the people and the State of California for giving me this opportunity-And yes, to me you are still the Golden State who provides open arms to whoever wants to work hard enough for that American Dream, and who is willing to judge others primarily on the basis of their willingness to share that dream. Love,Birddog
23
TX or CA? Gee what a choice. But put it like this, OH or CA? Easy choice.
4
@Paul
Ohio's a very nice place to live, especially if you're middle class and have a family. The economy is much more broadly based; housing costs are low, as is traffic congestion. There's less stress in general. Parts of Cleveland and Toledo are wastelands, but the same is true of Oakland and East LA. I'd take Ohio in a minute. I did, in fact, for 20 years. I'd be there now if work didn't move me.
.
I see you live in DC. I guessing you make 6 figures or more, and a good thing, because DC is a terrible place to be poor or middle class. Sort of like California.
2
California does look like the future. Like it or not, ethnicity matters. In the 1990s, CA was no liberal bastion. The percent of "whites" fell to 60% and below. The rump white coalition freaked. They imposed draconian English language and anti-immigrant laws. Tax cuts and deficits were big.
Then, sometime in the 2000s, the white percent dropped below 50%. Things changed. The white rump lost power, shrinking too much. Those who felt the Republican's blows remembered. The state turned blue. Slowly at first, then with more certainty.
Texas is different, because the rump white group is unusually large. The US more broadly resembles California. The politics of fear infects around 1/3 of the population, not 1/2 like in Texas. Of course, 1/3 of America, combined with gerrymandered districts, the Electoral College, and low turnout, can elect a President.
32
@Brian California is not a good row model for the rest of the country. The state has massive problems that most people in this country would find intolerable. For example state, county, & municipal legislators have made it impossible for new housing to be built.This is a Democratic controlled state from top to bottom. Affordable housing has always been one of the cornerstones of our party. This state should be a showcase on how well we can execute this policy. Instead, it's yet another example of our complete intellectually bankruptcy. It's symptomatic of a much bigger problem. The growing divide between some Democrats who want to practice what they preach & fanatical progressives who want to strangle everything. Environmentalists will go to the barricades to stop any housing projects from being built here. Mind you we are talking about affordable housing for working class families. Thanks to their efforts the gateway to middle-class security, has been pushed beyond their reach. The ease with which environmentalists can stop housing developments is a direct result of the numerous local & state laws that favor environmental concerns over affordable homes. The result: millions of people are without access to high-quality low cost housing. Do we really need people in the party who are subverting core American values? If we can't fix affordable housing here then we are a joke. All of us have a stake in solving California’s (and soon, the nation’s) housing-affordability crisis.
3
@Brian...If 2/3 of America can't defeat 1/3 of America in an election, no matter how many excuses the 2/3 congers up for its failings, then the 2/3 needs to do some serious soul searching.
3
@Brian
Well, but not all of Texas, which might just oust Ted Cruz in favor of Beto O'Rourke. According to the Times's own article on that Senate race, Houston can justify a claim to being the most diverse city in America.
A very useful and informative piece. I have only been in Northern California for a little more than 5 years but it seems to me that traffic is as bad as I have ever seen and getting worse. Wait times as the DMV are a statewide scandal, and "mass transit" outside of BART, is a cruel joke. Gas prices are outrageous and many of the roads are back-island Caribbean in quality.(No disrespect to the Caribbean.) The fires seem to be getting worse each year, and we are all waiting for the eventual Big One.
And the out-migration is real. Friends of ours recently announced they are selling their house and moving to Florida. But the weather is nice and the wine is good.
6
The state’s strengths are its Universities- a lot else is noise. They fueled innovation and an educated populace. Unfortunately the funding has suffered under the current Democrat regime, enough so they are no longer the model of low cost, high value public education and are too expensive for an average family.
9
Edsall says … “The left celebrates California’s rapid growth while turning a blind eye to its inequality. The right decries poverty and inequality while discounting rapid economic growth.” This is an excellent reason to discard the artificial and false division of US society in left and right boxes. The question must be … how does society generate the wealth necessary to keep a baseline of services sustainable so that we all have equal access to natural opportunities and liberty. Tax wages and capitalist profit, then there will be less of them. Tax land and none of it goes away … in fact, if California did the right thing and tax land value, they’d have high growth and less poverty because there would be great revenues available for those important social adjustments like healthcare, education, job training, entrepreneur incubators, clean air, low carbon, safe water, and sustainable waste management. It’s a laugh to hear conservative think tanks decrying poverty under “left” policies, when in fact poverty is the product of people implementing policies in line with the entire political spectrum.
1
@Marty Rowland, Ph.D., P.E. Poverty is a problem of Corporations making bigger and bigger profits each year.
1
If it is truly all about the money, California wins in economic growth. Whether that growth is equally shared is another question entirely. Second, there are really three Californias (as noted by the attempt to break up the state). The inland, conservative part of california is quite different from the coast so using averages to rank the state compared to other states is apples to oranges. Third, history shows us much of the progress and innovation in environment, social structures and other public goods starts in California and eventually works its way to the rest of the country. Lastly, the difference in education levels of those moving to and moving from California is striking. Most states want and need an educated workforce for the jobs of today and tomorrow and being a magnet for an educated worker will pay off in the long run for California. Decrying and deriding the state of Kalifornia appears to me to just be envy by conservatives whose own states are not nearly as successful. We lived there in the late 70's and as nice as it was, there were just too many people and more coming every day. That is why we left.
51
The real culprit is wealth inequality. And not just in California. How are we going to redistribute wealth and income so that working people can make enough to live a middle class life and have a chance to move up? Parts of the answer are: much stronger unions, higher income tax rates on the highest income earners, elimination of the tax break on capital gains, high tax rate on inheritance above an appropriate minimum, affordable medical care and insurance, availability of free quality higher education, nationwide $15/hour minimum wage, affordable housing.
6
Republicans who wishfully think of how much better a "Conservative California" could be are deluding themselves. Progressivism in Cali is more than just a few governmental policies. It's a whole way of life/thinking intertwined with the state's economy, history, it's culture. You won't "make California better" by prescribing conservative solutions to its ills. Doing so is infeasible without fundamentally changing how California views itself as a state and what it aspires to. The result would be a new state separate from the one we celebrate and admire so much currently. It's not just a coincidence that such a wildly successful, prosperous, and yes, uniquely troubled state has the unique political landscape and culture that it does. This is California, whether you like it or not.
9
Let's be TOTALLY honest here. While its easy to criticize, and also to defend, California, many faults that it does have, its not the same thing as say FL or NY or any other state for that matter. You cannot compare what say Ohio is doing to what CA is doing in various areas and for various causes. Because....CA is not a state. Its the 5th largest economy in the world. Its its own nation, unlike and uncomparable to NY or FL or any other state. Im from NY originally but I dont say CA is comparable to NY. Its like saying China is comparable to Arizona. The rhetoric and finger pointing and criticism are based on templates applied to other states. But do those states have much in common with CA? CA has more in common as an economy with France than with Florida. What Im saying is its just too complex to boil it down to one thing or another.
14
Of all the statistics the one that strikes me as most important is mobility; ie, the percent of low income people who move up in terms of income faster than the overall rate of growth. By that measure California looks pretty good.
7
Given all the bashing it receives from the rest of the country, you'd think California was a separate, burdensome, and unfriendly country, rather than a donor state to the U.S. treasury. How many of these (envious) critics consider that California makes the greatest single contribution (13.3%) to the total U.S. economy (Texas is number two at 9.5%)? Also worth noting, for every tax dollar California contributes to the U.S. treasury, it gets back only 78 cents. Things aren't perfect here, and yes, housing is too expensive, but the stereotypes (tree huggers, snooty celebrities, murderous illegal immigrants, etc.) are a gross exaggeration.
77
@Jackson
Just for the record. California isn't alone when it comes to the 'bashing department' -- New York City is also on the receiving end, and not only from the rest of the country, but from the rest of New York State.
So, we feel your pain.
2
@Jackson, There is a lot of envy directed toward California. It is certainly humorous to hear Conservatives complain about income inequality.
California could improve its affordability by shifting some of the taxation from sales tax to property tax, especially on commercial property. Prop 13 placed most of the property tax burden in the young, who have the most debt and the least home equity. That is driving much inequality.
When I arrived in CA, I was provided with a subsidized education after one year, and I graduated and stayed here. My subsequent success and taxation have been a good investment for the state. That model worked then and would work again if implemented.
We talk too much about the cost of these social investment programs and forget that many of the benefits arrive years down the line.
2
The difference is NYC bashing is well-deserved. California has a much more balanced ledger of assets and liabilities and holds its own.
1
Editor, please?
"Let’s look at the plus side first. Take per capita personal income, which grew nationally from $4,218 in 1970 to $51,631 in 2017, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more, from $4,966 to $58,272, in real dollars, unadjusted for inflation."
Using these numbers, per capita personal income grew nationally by a factor of 12.24 from 1970 to 2017. In California per capita personal income grew by a factor of 11.73. How is this "the plus side" for California? These numbers indicate Californians' incomes declined relative to the rest of the nation over the last 47 years.
10
Leaving all these Conservative vs. Liberal debates aside for one moment, the truly most important leeson California can teach us these days is how to legislate climate control laws independently from the mandates put forth by this administration -- especially in light of its determination to scale back every protection measure put in place during the Obama era.
It's bad enough Donald Trump pulled this country out of the Paris Accord, but with his recent decisions to release more methane into the atmosphere and weaken fuel efficiency standards on cars, the only way to prevent this planet from burning up sooner than later is for states to independently enact their own environmental standards.
And for this reason alone, we owe California a debt of gratitude.
21
The Repubs can't stand any sign of success from an ideology other than their own. Of course California isn't perfect. But what are they holding up by way of contrast? Alabama?
12
California does have structural problems, but it's silly to think they're all the result of Democratic policies. To put it another way, does anyone think the Republican Party, which frequently drives much smaller states into the red, would really be able to solve California's problems?
Is the Republican Party of low taxes and no social services going to address inequality? No, they love inequality. Are they going to regulate housing costs? No, they hate regulation.
14
In LA the citizens claim to be liberal but that is total bunk. When the rubber meets the road we have NO progress from "so called progressives". LA is not liberal, it's the most self centered population on the planet. Me me me.The main problem is with the "not in my back yard" group and lazy politicians. The residents of Beverly Hills do not want a subway. Residents in the South Bay do not wish to allow a temporary homeless encampment. People in Koreatown shut down a planned homeless shelter. We claim to be compassionate but we want that compassion to happen in other places. Truly it is the wealthy and the home owners who run the state. Nothing happens without home owner approval and they always vote to maintain the status quo. Nobody wants a high rise built next to single family homes. No one wants more traffic but no one wants to use the metro, which I do. So NOTHING changes. Civic groups shut down projects because it may be god forbid four stories tall? Zoning is out of date. I tried to start a new business in LA but couldn't because I need 1 parking spot for every 100 square feet of space. You don't find that anywhere. Those regulations have not been updated for 25 years. Lazy officials unwilling to kick over the apple cart. Please let's stop calling it a homeless problem. It is a drug addiction and mental illness problem. I pay part time workers $50 an hour and they still struggle making rent. We need big changes now!
15
@M The overdevelopment in Hollywood and elsewhere since the turn of the century confirms some of the resistance. I would argue that the whole appeal of L.A. vs. NYC is obliterated when we go high density. The fundamentals fo horizontality, sense of space, sunlight, and exotic flora are what appealed in the first place. Turning Los Angeles into New York with (fewer and fewer) palm trees isn't appealing.
6
@M I want to work for you! I have great Refs! What is it you do?!?
1
@Blair. You are 100% correct!
Many, many people posting have a severe case of "sour grapes". When looking over the worst places to live, the Deep South states continue to make the list. The Flyover States are just that - fly over. Eight to nine months of winter, mosquitoes and bugs in the summer months, plus humidity and heat.
Most importantly, I don't see many jobs being created in the Deep South, nor in the Rust Belt states. Instead, I see many older white males who were laid off refusing to retrain themselves for a paying job. I see disdain from these white males who don't want to do "pink collar" type jobs, such as nursing, administrative assistants and the like.
I see many hardworking couples of all races successfully holding down jobs and raising families out here. They attend church, pay their bills and are involved in charity work. They don't plan on retiring anywhere else. Both women and men are allowed to take some time off for raising kids. Companies out here allow employees to flex their time at work and also work remotely. As a working woman, my talents were respected (computer programming) and, due to hard work, I got some fantastic assignments.
Our place has been paid off for about 10 years. I was able to retire at 55, my husband retired at 60 years of age. I have museums to go to, at least five different colleges and universities I can attend to keep my skill set updated.
And, best of all, I get up to sunshine roughly 330 days/year.
17
Housing costs and traffic are real headaches here.
Still, it's hilarious to read about conservatives criticizing California for inequality. Uh, what?
I seem to recall multiple GOP attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, while offering NO replacement.
Had they been successful, I could have watched people leaping into poverty from my patio.
15
Totally ignores the huge role of agriculture in taking huge amounts of land that could be turned into housing, and paying farm workers pittance. Urban taxpayers are subsidizing farm owners via social services to their workers.
That’s even before I mention farm owners abuse of California’s water. One single almond requires a gallon of water to produce—subsidized by California taxpayers.
3
@Citizen60 That's not happening. On the contrary, urban sprawl has moved into agricultural land all over CA. The water abuse, I agree absolutely. It's a crime.
5
@Citizen60 The biggest abuse of water here in California is alfalfa which is used to feed cattle, both in the U.S. and abroad, followed by beef. Almonds, unlike cows, don't die after producing food, they keep producing year after year. Certainly almonds can be grown in other parts of the country where water is more abundant.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/12/398757250/beyond-almonds...
5
It is a topsy-turvy world indeed. The Republicans, when it comes to affirmative actions, has always emphasized equal opportunity over equal results. And now they criticize the most diverse state in the union, the state of Silicon Valley and Central Valley, for its unequal appearance.
The only measure that should matter for Republicans, the true Republicans anyway, is the social mobility. And the social mobility is the highest in Democratic counties in Democratic states. Game, set, match.
8
I've lived all over the USA. I moved here for the health of my son, and he now attends Berkeley. I wouldn't stay if I didn't have to because of the cost of housing and unchecked homeless/drug abuse problems. Many parts of the city we use are filthy and unsafe.
We allow Chinese investors to buy up property here with no penalty. Seattle got smart and started taxing shell corporation investors. Housing here should be available to workers, not foreign investors. We should allow property tax to increase. We should take zoning laws away from local districts and give the state more control, which would result in denser housing along public transportation routes.
We should disallow homeless people to sleep in the streets and parks, and we should provide housing in cheaper areas for them, along with services. It should be mandatory. We should tax corporations and the uber wealthy to pay for these services.
We should fund UC and Cal State universities adequately, and admit more California students and fewer foreign students (a very large percentage of students because they pay more tuition.) We should fund public schools and pay teachers better. (Starting salary $50K in a place where a two bedroom apartment costs $48K a year.) California is a leader in many ways, but we've got some glaring problems that cry out for solutions.
13
@Kathy Please run for office! I'll be happy to contribute to your campaign.
4
@degalsf
HA! I volunteer to get other practical Democrats elected, but depending on how much you can contribute, I just might! ; )
1
The only thing California has done wrong is excessive limits on housing development in urban areas. As others have pointed out, this one factor leads to the high poverty numbers when percentage of income going to housing is used, due to a lack of sufficient supply. There have been legislative efforts to fix this, but NIMBYism and misguided environmentalism continue to drive policy. Concentrated growth in urban areas is actually better for the environment and creates better cities in which to live. Would you rather live in San Francisco or Dallas?
4
@Anna
Neither?
1
Housing is absolutely a problem in California. But the use of some of these statistics seem a bit disingenuous.
For example, comparing homelessness in CA to other "warm weather" states. The three listed are HI, MS, NV. There is an ocean between HI and the rest of the country. MS is a brutal place to be low income, let alone homeless, in terms of social services. And NV, in addition to being incredibly hot, has been caught buying mentally ill homeless people bus tickets to CA!
Or relative rather than absolute measures of mobility and inequality. I'm less interested in whether I, born in the bottom quintile, will make it to the top, than I am in whether a person born into a more absolute measure of poverty--housing or food insecurity, for example--can make it out. And yes, the 1% in CA is very rich, because of tech and Silicon Valley. But is the remaining 99% doing especially poorly, especially given the number of immigrants? Relative measures punish states for innovation and entrepreneurship. What is the actual experience of a person living in these states?Would they rather be in the lowest quintile in CA, or in a state that didn't expand Medicaid, is actively hostile to immigrants, women, and people of color, is slashing education, and has the maternal mortality rate of a developing country?
There are structural issues in the entire national economy, and of course affordable housing is a big problem here. But this is a rather calculated way of looking at the numbers.
17
Ca.'s problem is not housing, it's virtuous circles, they have tremendous ones, which result in people wanting to live in those areas at the expense of other areas. Housing is cheap in many parts of the state, namely anywhere not on the coast north of the suburbs of LA.. To address this age old problem Ca DOES NOT need to build more housing in the virtuous circle areas, which are already far overcrowded, it needs to help business move into cheaper areas through tax incentives and infrastructure building.
Create new virtuous circles, stop feeding the ones that already exist and are now so large they are dysfunctioning.
3
@Mike G.
This is what is so misunderstood in the zoning debate. The current coastal cities are built up and occupied.
Sure we can increase the density, but the number of “affordable” units will not increase by that much. Many people still have cars and that demands a place to park them. That limits how affordable you can make housing in a very desireable area.
The best solution is to incentivize development in other areas where land is cheaper. Build more UC campuses outside the coastal cities and encourage more modern economic development in those areas so the workforce can spread out and not miss the desireable quality of life.
@Jazz Paw
The success and growth of University of California Merced (founded 2005 -- far inland) underscores the wisdom in your suggestion.
Just imagine that if all of the taxes on Californian residents and businesses, if it were only for California, how different things would be. For one, all the "federal" taxes would stay in the state, and we wouldn't need the state tax. Lower taxes and higher revenue. All of that money for our own healthcare, education, infrastructure-- and we'd still let the US military have their bases, at a fee of course.
9
No, @Jorge, to keep the taxes, California would have to confiscate the military bases and use them for our own military. But ... well ... hhmmmmmm.
Question.
If you were to remove Federal Assistance they receive to give free things to the poor, how would it affect California’s economy?
The point is that they boast of being the example to follow, but are propped up by the federal government, thus this is not the example we need. The example would be an economy that is self reliable, not dependent on federal hand outs.
Yes they have a 2.7 trillion economy, but they also have 1.3 trillion deficit (as of 2017), this despite some of the highest taxes and costs of living in the world.
They parrot so much about their ‘equality’ as they have many ethnicities, but that is all geographic lottery, they are north of Mexico, and 5 days out from Asia by sea, so of course they will be more mixed than Ohio, or Montana.
Yet for all this happiness, the difference between the lowly worker and their rich brothers would make Maria campaign for change; yes that is an allusion to Metropolis, because the difference between the rich and poor in California is just as bad as this classic movie.
With all that in mind, can you tell us if California, really, is all they claim to be? Or just a mirage in the dessert?
3
@AutumLeaff
California receives significantly less in federal funding than it pays in federal taxes.
California's tax rates are extreme (too much income tax, not enough property tax, etc.), but the federal govt runs a tax/spend deficit with CA, not the other way around.
13
@AutumLeaff
CA is a net contributor to federal revenue. It sends more to the federal government than it takes back. Which means that money from CA is flowing to the other states through the channel of the federal government.
So no, the state isn't dependent on what you derisively refer to as 'handouts'. Rather, it helps pay the 'handouts' for other states.
6
Two quick points.
First, for this article to make its point there needs to be a clearer analysis of what causes inequality in California. How much inequality results from state policies and how much results from federal policies? Federal tax policies have inordinately favored the rich and are driving high inequality across the US. Since California has the largest and strongest economy in the US it shouldn't be a surprise that it has high inequality. But is that something that results from state policies? Also, what are the services provided to the poor and how does that compare to other locations? Does the high level of spending make life better for the poor than is the case in other locations? Of course high poverty rates need to be a concern and must be addressed, but looking at poverty rates absent a look at social services is problematic in this analysis.
Second, while it is interesting to look at different perspectives on California, the really interesting comparison is between how liberal policies promoted by Democrats have impacted California as compared to how conservative policies promoted by Republicans have impacted Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, etc. Conservatives can criticize California and may make some valid points, but if they their alternative is a model that follows the policy prescriptions that have guided Republican dominated states then they are not the people to whom we should listen.
18
The median value of a small house built in 1950's is 2-3 million in CA locations that have good jobs like the Bay Area/Silicon Valley. This is not progress or innovation. There is nowhere in the entire country where it's tougher to live and survive for those in the lower middle class to upper middle class. My friends who are lower middle class, middle class, upper middle class and even those on 2 physician salaries cannot generally afford to buy homes in many parts of CA. They are renting at astronomical prices, often 5,000 per month. In CA, we are #1 in homeless population, poverty, highest taxes, high crime, high inequality, have 10 times more illegal immigrants than anywhere else and have the most expensive health care. Purchasing health care for 1 person is often $1000 plus per month unless you have poverty level income and are given government subsidies. CA is a dysfunctional model that should not be emulated.
10
@Jane
As a fellow Californian living in the North Bay, I must take issue with your inflated numbers. I agree that housing is extremely expensive, but the median price house, with the exception of San Francisco/Silicon Valley, is $600,000, and there are many areas with good jobs not located in those two places. Average health insurance for one person is $342, not $1000. These figures are per Google statistics. The number of homeless people, however, is deeply disturbing. The cost of housing is a huge factor, and the lack of sufficient options for care for the mentally ill is another. But if you consider climate change to be the biggest threat to humanity that we all are facing, (and you should) then you will have to acknowledge that California is striving to address it as best one state, without national support, possibly can.
7
Kind of funny that the Republicans care so much for those living in poverty in California. What we actually see is them putting up roadblocks to building homeless shelters in their communities, opposing gas taxes to improve our road infrastructure and on and on. So this arguments rings hollow. It's all about the politics and money and not about the people. They couldn't care less.
13
Inequality has a strong connection with segregation and racism. The 'Democrats good / Republicans evil' is somewhat of a paraphrase of 'North good / South evil', but as Edsall noted all is not well in the Democratic arena.
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integrat...
BROWN AT 62: SCHOOL SEGREGATION BY RACE, POVERTY AND STATE
For many years, the Civil Rights Project has been publishing lists of the states where African American and Latino students have been most severely segregated. We have consistently found New York and Illinois to be at or very near the top of the list, often with Michigan and New Jersey close behind.
The states that have moved into the top of this list include Maryland, where there has been substantial residential resegregation in large parts of suburbia, and California…
Because of the dramatic changes in southern segregation produced by the enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, none of the 17 states that completely segregated schools by law (e.g., the type of mandatory segregation that was the focus of the Brown decision) have headed this list since l970—in spite of the fact that twelve of them have higher shares of black students than the most segregated states today.
1
If California were a reliably red state, republicans would be gushing over its success and ignoring inequality, while democrats would be ranting about inequality and poverty.
In other words, there are pros and cons to California, and depending on your political leaning, you'd choose to emphasize the cons if California voted against your party, and emphasize the pros if California voted for your party.
Simple, no?
6
@DaveB Democrats *are* ranting about inequality and poverty as they should. It's only the Republicans that are being hypocrites.
7
It should be noted that California has a quarter of the country's homeless population. They are not all from California, a lot have travelled here because the weather especially in Southern California is better all year round, and there are plenty of other states/large cities who export their homeless population, with a one way bus ticket to our state.
17
If there is any truth to 'how California goes the rest of the nation usually follows', then I want out of here. I am not interested in living in a third world country.
5
California is a 2nd world state, bordering a 3rd world one.
You either are a maid (servant) or have a maid.
Very little in between right now and in 10 years time there will be nothing in between the two. It is more like the country of Brazil,
8
@james Wow! I must be in the minority. I neither am a maid, nor do I have one. I would like to know just how much of a rarity I am.
6
@Steve Griffith, Hold on tight to your being in the quickly evaporating middle class! You are a dying breed.
1
There is no balance here politically. Red is dead. Blue is the hue. We need purple. Without it the politics have become unbearable. This is too much of one and not enough of the other so there is no middle road, the ideal political arrangement. There is too much regulation which actually raises the cost of living and creates waste.
7
@DENOTE MORDANT,
The ideal political arrangement isn't at a midpoint between sides.
It has to be an arrangement -- different elements moving in time and adjusting to changes as they inevitably and constantly occur.
@DENOTE MORDANT Most of the country is red. I hope California continues to support LGBTQ, black, Latino, women and immigrant rights. There are PLENTY of other places for 'social conservatives' to live.
The Democratic People's Republic of California is a good role model for confusing and conflating reality with fiction and mythology.
Walt Disney, Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Willie Brown, Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown belong in a Hollywood movie musical " The Californians". Featuring songs like " It is all San Andreas Fault", " Where is the Water for my Fire?", "New York Trump Time Dreaming" and "Vladimir Putin on My Mind".
2
California is a great place to live provided you live in one of the great places to live here.
There is a huge disparity between wealthy and poor here. There are no real working class or middle class communities that are decent places to live. Schools are either great or horrible. You either live in a crime heavy area or a quiet and polite neighborhood.
Regardless of where you live though you can be guaranteed that homes are far more expensive than they should be.
6
People love to hate on California. Yes we pay insanely high taxes. Yes we have issues just like everyone else. We are working on them. Still, I'm betting most of us agree that California is the best, love it here, and can't imagine being anywhere else.
16
While the cost of housing is one of the, if not the most, important issue facing California, it is a bit misleading to bring up homelessness. There are a large number of homeless because California provides many social services (and is seeking to provide more), is accessible, and has a pleasant climate. To compare California to Hawaii (how is a homeless person getting to Hawaii) or Nevada (the climate is far more inhospitable than the areas of California where homeless individuals gravitate towards) is unfair.
16
California is a great example of Keynesian economics at work as oppose to trickle down economics. We have seen trickle down economics fail over and over again.
And yes, California has some issues to address, but quite frankly, the problems we have here are solvable and we will try to solve them. I'd take these problems over the issues faced by Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana or any other state that has made different decisions and embraced trickle down economics.
12
Inequality is a national (and global) problem. Research has shown that inequality is, perhaps, worse now that it has ever been in human history, and certainly as bad as it was during the Gilded Age (look at the new book from University of Arizona Press, Ten Thousand Years of Inequality for a broad look at the newest archaeological data). California demonstrates all of the contradictions of the US -- there are people here with incredible wealth and abundance, and people who are living on the margins. To hear anyone from the 21st century Republican Party talking about poverty and inequality is laughable. It is their policies, for the most part, that have led to such rampant inequality. It seems that California is their new punching bag. Perhaps throwing stones at Chicago has lost its political usefulness. Focusing on one state or one city takes our sights off of the broader, systemic machinations at play.
12
I live in a city in CA with a very high Gini index, and what it means on the ground is that children from poor families headed by high school educated parents go to school shoulder to shoulder with children of highly educated professional workers in a broad variety of fields. It has zero impact on the low income children, but at least the change for a good education is there and available.
5
It would be worth engaging in this debate if the Republicans were participating in good faith. For them to point out the inequality in California is like a person with kleptomania blaming the stores for being there to steal from.
The housing problem in California is real, but progressives can and will solve it without help from the regressives. Cal democrats should go about their business and just ignore what the paid hacks of the 0.1% at the Manhattan and Heritage institutes and their ilk are yapping about. Let the dogs bark.
Step 0 in any discussion with a Republican should be to ask that person to condemn Trump, in print, for the vile lie that President Obama was not born in the US. If they can't do that, no discussion on any other point.
16
While I wish fervently for a solution to the homeless problem, I believe it's best addressed at the federal, not state, level. If California alone were to provide comfortable shelters for all its homeless, it would be a magnet for the homeless in other states.
8
@netwit: Good point, but I doubt homeless in other states have the means to move, provided the other states do not help them by bussing them to California - which some may do...
2
Edsall writes, "In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more, from $4,966 to $58,272, in real dollars, unadjusted for inflation." He should have said that the figures are in nominal, not real, dollars.
3
As a long time Californian, 55 years, I have seen the state change tremendously.
The article is quite encompassing. The very liberal California Democratic Party is increasing taxes and costs of doing business at an astounding rate. I bought my home many years ago, or would not be living here in Oakland, where and entry home costs $750k and rentals are $3k a month for a good apartment.
It is not sustainable. Small business is being forced out ( not to mention medium and big business) by an astounding anti-business atmosphere. The assumption is made that any business is bad, and needs to be punished. And it is carried out.
If anyone thinks Ca is bad now, when the tax base leaves, as so many residents and businesses are planning, there won't be a magic unicorn to supply the taxes needed to feed the Democratic Party machine and its constituents.
21
As a 50 year resident of Oakland, I really don’t know what city you’re describing. Go downtown, get out of your car and walk around. The streets are full of people. New buildings are going up seemingly on every other block. The business community seems pretty comfortable here, with major firms and new startups both seeming well-represented. Not to gloss over the obvious signs of income stratification that Mr. Edsall is referring to; it’s impossible to walk a quarter mile in any direction without going through a homeless encampment. But the idea that business is being taxed out of California doesn’t stand up to reality.
15
@Ernest Montague
People have been saying the same thing about NYC for decades, and yet NYC continues to grow, expand, and spin off thousands of new jobs every year. And people like you continue to complain about high taxes, anti-biz bias, blah, blah.
Oakland, SF, and Silicon Valley, just like NYC has, is a successful concentration of wealth, business, and job creation, resulting in high real estate values, and a tough situation for people on the bottom of economic ladder. But no one is predicting a collapse of NYC "when its tax base leaves." (Dream on.) And the same is true of Oakland, SF, Silicon Valley, etc. Where you see your area drowning, others see a concentration of wealth and job creation. As Sinatra sang "if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere." Just substitute your area for NY. Same thing, same dynamic, same SUCCESS.
6
But Trump didn't win California. That kinda suggests that the reasons he won exist elsewhere - doesn't it?
Besides, independent, cut loose from the rest-of-the-US dead weight, California would be like Canada, Australia and New Zealand in about five minutes. (Okay, so I'm exaggerating - but it would have "Medicare for all" - at least - pretty soon right?)
And as it stands, how much does California subsidise "rugged individual conservative fantasism" in other US states, in cold hard cash?
24
@GRW California gets about 85 cents back for every dollar it sends to the feds. Texas, (the other "miracle" state) gets about $1.34.
So yes, California is a maker state and Texas a taker state - but that's never bothered a Republican.
5
@UH
Thanks UH. But how much does it not get back in billions of US dollars?
It seems like the "paradox" can be explained by housing and low-skill immigration rates (where else would Spanish speakers want to end up?!). Housing can be worked on by making it easier to build up and out, local zoning is often the issue. The lower classes need to to vote more in local elections to have their voices heard over NYMBYism or they will end up moving to those other states too and Silicon Valley will have to get robots to do a lot more than they can currently do.
California is not really a state but a separate county, with nearly 40 million people and the 5th largest economy in the world and supplies the largest share of taxes to the federal government. For all its failings, there are infinitely more successes -- certainly far more than any other state in the union (like most of the South and the entire midwest). If it wasn't for California, , the US would be more of a third world country than it already is. When it comes to 'role models' for states to follow, we'd be left with Alabama.
42
An important item omitted from Edsall’s analysis is the percentage of the impoverished and the homeless who come from out-of-state; who are drawn to California on account of her relatively generous safety net combined with her benign climate. It is very likely that the California taxpayer is taking on a burden that is rightfully borne by the taxpayer in other states.
Do conservatives in Congress thank California for providing this service? Quite the opposite. They further penalize the California taxpayer by rendering payments to state taxes non-deductible on federal income tax forms.
38
@WmC like the "service" that allows California lifeguards to retire at 45 with six figure pensions. I don't want to subsidize that sort of thing.
2
Yes, the problem is housing--Prop 13 did it's damage for sure, but so does the constant heating and re-heating up of the economy and the huge immigration problem. I don't mean illegal immigration, but the influx from other states and other countries to follow the high paying jobs AND the weather! Yes they come for the jobs, but then stay for the weather. That goes for many of the homeless too, many of whom come to California because it's easier to be homeless here than in Minnesota. This 6th generation Californian now faces the probability of emigrating to a low cost state to retire, unable to remain in my beloved Bay Area on a pensioners income. Can I blame anyone for this? Not really.
12
@jsk Prop 13 did not do damage. It passed at a time when 10-15% yearly tax increases were a fact. It stopped the state from pushing out homeowners.
7
@Ernest Montague No really. The biggest beneficiary was Union Oil. In no way did they have to include commercial property and frankly, they could have abated taxes until the deaths of the owners and then paid them. Instead, the heirs now inherit Mom and Dads 1975 tax rate. Prop 58 as an add on is an absurd policy. Prop 13 was really bad for policy, planning and cities willing to approve affordable (low tax forever) housing. This led to lots of now defunct box stores.
1
@jsk You are so right. No one ever mentions the biggest elephant in our room, Prop 13. Not that I don't benefit, but its hamstrung our tax base for 30 years now. Not sure its sustainable at this point...
If you build it they will come.
Renowned California historian, Kevin Starr observed, "Mother Nature didn't intend for 40 million people to live in California".
Meanwhile politicians throughout the state advocate for rampant development, and a near future of endless population growth as a way to keep tax revenues up.
And this week Governor Brown committed the state to !00% clean energy by 2045. Is this hypocrisy or just tortured logic?
I am not sure, but I do know that California politicians, and city planners tout the need for faster development, but also consider themselves forward- thinking crusaders against climate change. This as natural resources and a crumbling and limited infrastructure are already stretched to the limits. ie, lack of water and traffic for starters.
14
There are a lot variables to consider in this piece--but one stands out--outmigration. This number has nothing to do with what pundits on the left or right may think. It's about simply this: what do the people currently living The California Experience think? The verdict is that more are leaving than moving there. Perhaps offering free health care to illegals will change all that.
For now, Census Bureau statistics are clear: more are leaving the high cost, high tax states, for those that are more affordable. People are fleeing not just California, but Illinois, New York, New Jersey--and my state, Vermont--for places like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Kentucky, Florida and the Carolina's.
In these lefty-dominated states, it's only when Liberals have no one left to tax but themselves, will they perhaps get a clue. But my guess is that in their ignorance and arrogance, they'll ride their governo-centric, income redistribution model into the dust. Once it becomes obvious that they've ruined things beyond repair, they themselves will leave--and like a virus, pop in other states to begin anew--espousing their high-minded ideals--which have worked nowhere.
16
@Jesse The Conservative, They, the liberals, are already leaving in droves.
3
@Jesse The Conservative Texas has about 50% of the population uninsured and Houston is a toxic mess. Florida has poison algae everywhere and will be submerged in seawater in 50 years. It may feel good to spout "lefty" but let's be honest. Many places have these policies and are successful. Look at Minnesota for starters. Also Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Ireland all have pro-citizen policies and are very successful. As are France and Germany.
The old south is still mired in poverty and illiteracy 150 years on. Gate guarded housing does not change that.
4
@Jesse The Conservative Alaska, Kansas, West Virginia, Louisiana, North Dakota, Wyoming. What do these states have in common? They are all reliably red states that are losing people faster than California--in some cases, much faster than California.
Oddly enough, California is gaining people in the higher tax brackets, despite California's progressive state income tax that taxes them at much higher rates.
So perhaps taxes are not the big consideration for where people live that you think they are.
3
One more reason the homeless proliferate here. The weather. It is very possible to live outside and not freeze to death in most of the state. Every community I know treats the problem seriously, if not effectively.
As a third generation white Californian married to a first generation Hispanic immigrant, we can attest that truly possible upward mobility, and general goodwill toward all races is the norm here, especially in the sprawling Central Valley. It’s a great place to live-raise our six children and enjoy a dozen grandchildren.
21
Moderate leftists believe that taxing the uber wealthy to insure the poor do not suffer disease and starvation is the moral and egalitarian thing to do, given that the poor are not at fault for being poor.
The far right billionaire rich loathe the poor as irresponsible “takers” who unfairly burden them, taking hard earned profits that they would have spent in the miracle of the free market economy. Profits that trickle into economic ocean lifting all boats allowing only the deserving deadbeats to drown.
These are the central socio-economic mythologies of American politics. Both utterly ignore Capitalism as the cause.
That you cite a notoriously failed economic “guru” like Richard Florida, and his utterly failed magical economy of gig artisanal entrepreneurs, simply shows how we as a society evade the elephant in the room.
Texas will continue trickle down long after it has proved an utter failure and the average Texan is killing armadillos with sticks to survive. California will create an alienated displaced society living in flavela like conditions.
Meanwhile the new robber baron multi-billionaires will restate ad-nauseam before Congress how they are working to fix the externalities.
Mr. Edsall, why don’t you do a column interviewing leftists like Richard D. Wolfe and Terry Eagleton who have genuinely workable solutions based on Marxist analysis? A way that would deal with the inherent evil of Capitalism that would make better world and a true Democracy for all.
7
I would suggest that if you haven't already, read yesterday's article about the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis and who has benefitted the most from the recovery. It has provides much insight into who the haves and have-nots are today, what's happened to the middle class and the persistence of poverty. After reading the article ask yourself how much any state government can do to change the structure of the US economy that created the current situation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/business/middle-class-financial-crisi...
11
there are three types of people in California: the upper class, the poor, and those on the government docket. I've spent a great deal of my life there, it is being strangled more every year, when will it break?
13
@Jesse
As a 72 year old lifetime Californian, I have to ask, how in the world you came up with those three categories?!
I personally am familiar with numerous people who are not rich, poor, nor on the "government docket." As for California "breaking," dream on.
4
All Prop 13 did back when we still had realistic housing, was drive up housing prices and allow realtors to pocket the excess, instead of local schools and services. Realtors have been pressing the idea here since Prop 13 that since the real estate taxes are locked in, you can afford to pay more for the house. The main result was huge commissions for realtors, mushrooming home costs, and less for communities and schools.
That original tax-busting idea has led to this, as they all eventually do.
23
@Entera Prop 13 stopped local government from raising property tax raises 10-15% a year. It was a great thing. It did not raise property values, on the contrary, inflated home prices raise property taxes hugely. My property taxes in Oakland have gone up an average of 5% a year WITH Prop 13 in place. That's how it is done. The municipalities add on bond issues and fees. And yet, if my house sold today, the new owner would be paying 5x as much in property taxes as I pay.
4
@Entera Yup. No one ever wants to point to Prop 13 but its hamstrung our tax base for 30 years now.
1
Edsall and the commenters are, in various ways, speaking about California and the U.S. as a whole from a monetary point of view. While the discussion has its merits, what is missing is a discussion about TIME--specifically, life expectancy. Monetary statistics, while valuable, are ultimately a means to a greater end--quantity and quality of life for the people of a certain region.
In 2018, a Journal of the American Medical Association study listed life expectancy at birth rates and rankings by state. California 2nd in the U.S., behind only Hawaii. (Note about the rankings: the top 11 states went for Clinton whereas the bottom 12 went for Trump.)
Despite its faults and challenges, California is doing well for itself compared to the U.S. on the statistic that matters the most. One cannot help but wonder if California's biggest critics ridicule it not because it is a failure but because it a success.
26
California (and for that matter Seattle and WA state) need to do more to solve the affordable housing and homelessness problems. This is undeniable. But also undeniable is that these problems are greatly exacerbated by the tremendous economic successes of these regions. Finally, income and wealth inequality could and should be (IMHO) addressed at the federal level, with a higher income tax on the wealthy, a higher minimum wage, and greater social services. These attributes are the norm in every other wealthy democratic country (think Canada, Europe, Japan, etc). It's not hard. There are no credible Republican solutions to these problems that I recall hearing in the last 10 years.
22
The column fails to mention that most poor are Hispanics (Latinos make up 52.5% of all poor Californians), which suggests that many poor Latinos (and other poor) move to California for better wages and social net. Put another way, it is better to be poor in California than in any other state, which is why it attracts poor people to come to the state in the first place. The rising housing costs may be pushing some long time residents of Californians into poverty - we do need a reform in zoning laws and resist NIMBYism. We need to make it easier to build more concentrated urban housing zones near public transportation to bring the cost of housing down.
15
@RR
How many aren’t paying any income tax?
8
Re: High housing prices in CA , cited in many comments
You can buy a house in downtown Oakland for 1/3 of what you would pay in SF, and it is less than 15 minutes by BART to the center of SF.
Stockton is even cheaper.
There is a bifurcation in CA , not only in salaries, but in housing. East Palo Alto was a classic example. You crossed 101 and houses were 1/4 of those in Palo Alto.
The well to do have their own enclaves.
5
@Woof
Sure - move to Oakland - and move to what CBS tagged as the 10th most dangerous city in America.
6
@Woof No, you can't. A home in downtown Oakland doesn't exist. Downtown is high rises and business. There are condos there, but no, zero, no homes. The nearest home neighborhood costs well over $1 million a home. That's not 1/3 of the SF price, lol.
2
@Woof: that was true of Oakland 20 years ago but not today. Prices there have escalated dramatically in the last 5 years.
2
I do find it strange that most Americans can't see the obvious: inequality is the looming problem and main reason for the disparities in both "blue" and "red" states. The parties blame each other, yet tax policies supported by both are responsible for both situations. I don't understand the point for an American citizen to cheer about the booming economy while fellow Americans are struggling in deep poverty, even living on the streets in great numbers. It apparently is preferable to continue subsidizing the 0.01% than to work to make sure every American has enough to eat, a roof over their heads and healthcare. Look at Bezos and Wal Mart, whose employees must depend on government help. Obscene.
7
@Linda Petersen Yup.
2
You have omitted the 800-lb gorilla in the room: Proposition 13. This measure simultaneously crippled the major source of funding for K-12 education, and tilted the economic playing field in favor of legacy wealth. Given that education is the most important rung of the ladder upward, it is remarkable that the state has recovered sufficiently to be in the upper rankings of upward mobility. Some of the comments here blame Democrats for the under-funding of education in the state. This is risible--they have made some major mistakes (and paid for them at the ballot box--remember Grey Davis?)--but under-funding of education lies squarely at the feet of the petulant anti-tax crusaders of the 1970's and '80's. Still, if the Democrats (who now control the state) don't focus on building up the educational on-ramp for immigrants and native-born poor alike, their political dominance here may prove short-lived. Nothing else compares in importance.
35
@Charles Thank you. No one ever wants to touch Prop 13 but its a major problem and has hamstrung our tax base for 30 years.
1
California's housing issues are tied directly to the states high-tax, high regulatory environment. It's incredibly expensive to build in California. These costs ultimately get passed to buyers and renters. California's economy is rapidly growing but it's almost exclusively tied to a single industry, Tech. If the wealthy Tech companies and their high-salaried employees left the state, California would collapse under the weight of it's astronomically high spending. What would to fall out be for the already seriously underfunded public pensions?
7
If equality of opportunity is what we're talking about ... and that's really the only equality we should be talking about ... then yes, California is a good model based on its superior minimum wage, tax structure and state universities. It also has a strong military presence ... another gateway to college for dedicated young people who want to climb the ladder.
Not sure why Edsall is making this political. Not all of California is liberal. San Diego -- which has its own thriving tech and biotech industries -- is much more conservative than LA or the Bay area. California is a large state ... evidently one where two regions with opposing politics can coexist for the betterment of everyone. If that's not a model the rest of the country should follow, I don't know what is.
11
Arguments that point to the high percentage of poor people, many being recent immigrants, in California completely ignore what it takes to assimilate poor people into a high tech economy.
The arguments suggest that poor uneducated immigrants who speak only Spanish will immediately be hired into well paid high tech jobs. Isn't it obvious that is nonsense?
Immigrants come to California because they are welcome here. The children are provided with educations. Agriculture provides jobs, not well paid engineering jobs, but jobs that pay more than their country of origin. Hopefully within a generation children of those families will go to college and move into the median life style here. It is a transition that will not be completed in a year -- more like a generation or two. And no state in the country would do as well.
Just tell me that if those same immigrants moved to essentially any Southern State in the US they would be given anything like the opportunities they are given here. They mostly don't go there because they know they won't!
135
@dpaqcluck
Well I guess the immigrants are smart enough to check out state funded programs before choosing their new home, huh?
California is welcome to host them. I moved out of California after owning a mom and pop store there for over 10 years. It was simply too expensive for me to run a nano business. The time I spent complying with bloated government departments was maddening and frankly took all the joy out of being a businesswoman.
Low taxes, affordable real estate and cost of living - truly almost heaven here!
5
California is very competitive. You might as well criticize a top university for not giving all students, including bad ones, straight A's.
Quit whining if you don't have what it takes to make it here.
7
@ZOPK55
How very Republican of you.
2
Spent the first 18 years of my life in SoCal. Then my Uncle Sam offered me an opportunity I couldn’t refuse. After my return and after seeing other places I did not see it in the same way. After GI bill and 7 years in and out and in college I left for a job in a really strange place Idaho. Been here ever since. When I return to visit family in Oakland and San Diego or come camping at Crystal Cove St Beach park El Moro camp ground I spend enough time to remember what I liked about it but on the same token I see a lot of stress in people’s lives. Probably the worst thing Is the traffic and the overhanging white noise everywhere. Lots of homeless pretty much everywhere - some sad wrecks, some young and lost, some angry and pushy. Very much a downer. When leaving a sense of relief but can’t quite put my finger on it. My kids there are spending a lot of money for homes I don’t think are anywhere worth it but they got in as they say. I guess I would say California seemed like heaven when I was young but now it does not. Seems rundown, crowded, stressful, full of pushy people, always in a hurry going as fast as they can just to keep up. I think you need an awfully large income to be happy there. No not a role model in any sense, just a worn out shell with a fair amount of really rich and a Hugh amount of hangers on. The politics there seem really bizarre as neither party has any idea what to do to turn things back to times when more things seemed possible for more people.
13
Predictably Edsall ignores that while middle class Americans are moving out of California, illegal immigrants from Mexico are moving in to take their place. That is why the Hispanic population is increasing. Over time California will look more like Mexico than the United States, which I predict will result in ever more Californians moving to other states.
10
Young techies are moving in, at least in the Bay Area, to work for Google, Facebook, etc. This is why we have a housing crisis, too many people are arriving, not leaving, and they are a highly diverse group.
4
@jaco These "illegal immigrants" you talk about are not that. They are fellow Californians. In case you forgot, this USED TO BE MEXICO until not that long ago.
The Hispanic population is increasing because the entire world population is too. It's geometric progression. There were only 2 billion people on this planet when I was born, and almost 8 now. Mexico has actually done one of the best jobs on earth in reducing its population growth, especially since it's largely Catholic.
2
@jaco
Why bother to post comments if you don't even read the article? Leavers are NOT being replaced by illegal immigrants (in fact, illegal immigration is down).
"Families with children headed by adults with a high school education led the charge out of the state, many of them unable to afford California’s high housing costs. Dominating those coming into the state were those with high incomes and college-educated 18-to-35 year olds."
8
How California Votes says it all. Not perfect but pretty good.
8
No denying the economic and technological might of California, its vast influence on popular culture, and its vaunted good intentions. It is also a leader in hypocrisy: Behind the pious exhortation of open borders and undocumented immigration, lies an economic machine that ‘consumes’ poor immigrants in the fields, factories, hotels, and urban services, and leaves low wage U.S. citizens on the brink of poverty, while glamorous celebrities preach against global warming from lavish estates that consume more energy than entire third world villages. Individuals who are tech giants have personal wealth greater than entire nations. Compacted, unecological urbanization and suburbanization have stressed the environment to the point that ‘Californiation’ is a nightmare word to neighbors in the Pacific Northwest through to the Rocky Mountains. And we hope this is our future?
33
@anwesend I notice most posts from places other than CA like to carry on about abuse of farm workers. While some employers are definitely guilty of this, I personally know of many who aren't after having lived for years in the agricultural belt.
We've ALWAYS had immigrant farm labor here, because we grow over 50% of the fresh produce, etc., on American store shelves. Those first generations are still choosing to be here for those jobs because believe it or not, they're better than where they came from. Their kids get educated and have regular careers, and their descendants are our friends, coworkers, teachers, leaders, employers, etc. etc. They assimilate because we accept them as part of our culture and life.
10
As a 60 year old native Californian I'm always amazed people ascribing mobility to a lot of issues that are lesser than the main here.
This became a realtor's never ending dream 40 years ago. Now in Los Angeles the AVERAGE housing payment for rent OR mortgage in roughly 49% of take home pay.
God, when do Americans get it? Our obsession with housing property and price is killing us as nation California is just in the lead (Yes New York). We now have your prices. And that's why all of the pejorative use of "socialism" often ascribed to our state is ridiculous. We've barely met the need on services considering what the relatively inert real estate people make here.
We really would be well served to split off and take the Pacific Northwest with us. There is so little real understanding of the "Left Coast" (lol) outside of our region. I'm not sure that's changing anytime soon.
22
@Walter You can trace that back to the tax cutting hysterics of Prop 13. Period. Sales taxes on real estate frozen so prices just rose with no "penalty" by the state.
3
@Entera
Prop 13 was a completely rational response to the tax and spend and tax and spend philosophy of the local politicians.
It did not arrive out of nowhere
1
California's unfunded state pension liabilities are reason enough to not be a role model. The bill will be massive.
9
Better to first ask, "Compared to what?"
Next ask: "Are the Blue States are good role models?"
Looking at the numbers, the Golden State is certainly a fine role model, as are the Pacific Northwest and New England.
One might also ask, "Are Democrats good role models?"
First note that California's very high income inequality has not resulted in sky-high power inequality as one finds in the Red States. California's rich do not believe they're entitled to all money. Instead, they understand their responsibility to help those less well off, and they research the best solutions.
The well off in Texas, for example, barely lift a finger for the poor.
Second, it's important to realize that California's problems are mostly the result of leftover Republican policies, including Schwarzenegger's Prop 57 $14.2 Billion debt -plus $5 billion more in interest and fees.
(As always Republicans run up the debt, while Democrats have to work it off while taking Republican flack for any austerity)
The obvious conclusion is that Democrats are always good role models - and that either Republican policies in Blue States, or the Red States themselves, or Republicans are not.
41
@Fourteen "The well off in Texas, for example, barely lift a finger for the poor." is a patently false statement. The amount of private, charitable services provided by the poor, including feeding the homeless done at my well to do church, all across Texas helps alleviate the gap between what the government provides to the less fortunate. As a Texan, I would chafe at the California nanny state model and am glad that in this country there are differing models.
5
@Iconoclast Texan
"The amount of private, charitable services provided by the poor, including feeding the homeless done at my well to do church, all across Texas helps alleviate the gap between what the government provides to the less fortunate."
Yes, but that voluntary charity is sorely needed to bridge the gap. Glad to see that Texans do care, but is that help mostly from ordinary Christian-minded Texans or the rich Texans?
According to a study from the CATO Institute, the State government (ruled by rich Texans for themselves) does not much care:
"Total welfare benefits have decreased $5,338 since 1995, adjusted for inflation. Overall, Texas ranks 47 in the welfare programs it offers to its residents."
Versus California:
"Total welfare benefits have increased $4,029 since 1995, adjusted for inflation. Overall, California ranks 11 in the welfare programs it offers to its residents."
These numbers are from 8/2013. The social welfare disparity would be much greater now.
Mr. Edsall has, as is usual for him, but unusual for regular NY Times columnists, written an article that is informative, obviously the product of a considerable bit of thought and work on the author's part, and non-dogmatic. It draws from the work and knowledge of various other people, from whom Mr. Edsall quotes at some length. These people are not, however, chosen at random, much less because they support a polemical stance adopted by Mr. Edsall - Mr. Edsall never takes polemical stances. Rather, Mr. Edsall, it seems to me, has attempted to use his own knowledge of the subject matter to identify individuals of intellectual integrity and perception with additional reasoned input on the issue at hand.
These characteristics in my opinion make Mr. Edsall a model for enlightened journalism. So I wish to say that I consider him a good role model. As for whether California is such a role model - Mr. Edsall and quite a number of interesting and also informative reader comments on his article provide readers with a good deal to consider - and not in an idle "who knows in the end?" type of way.
By the way: the reader comments I have seen ignore the larger point Mr. Edsall makes at the end of his article on the structural weakness of the Democratic coalition and the potential strength of populism.
12
Course what the article doesn't mention is that for all the job growth in Texas, which the GOP and Trump crow about is because of 'low taxes, and a business friendly government' is that most of the jobs created are really, really low wage, basically minimum wage. It is must like unemployment figures (that the NY Times promulgates, by the way), that talk about "200,000 jobs were created" but they don't give real figures, like for example, what the median salary is with them, what percent have benefits with them. If you create 200,000 jobs at fast food restaurants or in service industries like building cleaning and the like, it is very different if a lot of them have good pay and benefits. The jobs created in Texas for the most part lie at the low end of things, by any statistic I have seen.
10
@bill d And the minimum wage, service driven growth has already put such a dent on the United States over the last several decades it should be obvious where it's headed. Nowhere.
@bill d
Great point bill d.
Actually, the government numbers about mostly 'jobs created' should not include 'full-tme' jobs that do not
pay a living wage.
If working full time, say at Wall Mart, still allows one to claim government assistance, it should not be included in job growth numbers.
2
@bill d The state wage for tipped workers/service sector is only $2.13/hour. In 2018. In Texas.
1
The first class education I got in the Midwest was my ticket to go anywhere. Over 40 years in LA I have done well professionally, and extraordinarily well on the three homes I have owned. Flippers needing quick profits can get caught in a dip, but most homeowners hold on for years and, like me, have seen equity accrete to values that are unheard of elsewhere. This has not been a hard bet in LA or SF—there is no land to build more housing. In other markets housing appreciation is capped by the price of land and new construction, and there’s buildable land in Texas, Florida and other markets Mr. Edsall reviews. So while this blue/red discussion is important, the mountains and the ocean are also key drivers, pinning us into a very tight area and guarantying supply constrained returns for anyone lucky enough to own a home.
5
@Mike Keeley If you're talking about Los Angles County, there's plenty of land on which to build. People in L.A. tend to forget that both Lancaster and Palmdale are part of L.A. County. (Would I want to live in those cities? Nope. Spent a few years in Lancaster, near Edwards Air Force Base, and never want to move back. But, hey, they ARE part of L.A. County).
Similarly, people in the SF Bay Area tend to forget about Solano County, which is one of the nine Bay Area counties and much cheaper than San Francisco or cities on the tech-oriented peninsula.
Not everyone lives in the close-in urban area. I believe it's wise to take a regional, or at least a county-wide (in the case of L.A, County) view of what's needed, what's available, and what things cost.
4
Getting it “right” is a dynamic, not a fixed goal. Both California and New York are centers of technical, economic, and social innovation in the nation. This dynamic naturally creates a tension between the very successful and those who are drawn to the glamour of the frontier. Just as most gold miners did not strike it rich and took more menial agricultural jobs and would-be movie stars generally end up waiting tables the frontier dynamic creates a mixture of success and those seeking to succeed.
These pioneer states are more closely attuned to global economics and future changes than old technology states such as Texas heavily mired in petroleum and “dirty” manufacturing. Conservatives may complain about progressive states, but they are only denying and delaying the inevitable future of their own states. Technology is the driving factor and states can either go with the flow or be dragged into the future.
5
Housing costs do not explain the 20.6% poverty rate. Housing is an expense. Poverty reflects a lack of income.
The bigger issue for me as a new Florida progressive is that there is still no universal healthcare in California. I would have thought California would be the leader in this area. What is wrong with the Democratic party in California?
8
@Tim The idea's been floated, but it hasn't got off the ground. Why? It's very, very expensive. Vermont took a look at single-payer a few years ago and didn't move forward with it because of the enormous cost.
Add to that the fact that California has a lot of illegals living here. In general, Californians don't want to pay to provide them with free healthcare. I'm not saying that's right, I'm telling you what the popular sentiment is here.
People love the idea of single-payer, but often when they take a look at the cost - especially at the one-state-only level - they change their tune. It's not an easy issue.
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with the Democratic party in California. I'd say the state's population isn't ready for single-payer because in an already highly taxed state, folks aren't ready for yet another whopping tax bill. And whopping it would be if you're looking at a state-wide, rather than a nation-wide, single-payer healthcare system. Heck, it wouldn't be cheap at the national level, either, but at that level it would probably be easier to spread the costs, determine the least impactfull way of assessing those costs, and lower the individual tax hit.
6
How is single payer not viable for the fifth largest economy in the world? The only reason people keep pushing it off on the Feds is the Feds can issue debt and have unbalanced budgets. That does not seem like a path to long term viability.
1
California had a mystique two generations ago, people came here, just because. The middle class was strong, minimum wage was less than two dollars per hour, but with a union job, or as a school teacher, you were a homeowner.
The real estate boom started in the mid seventies and the middle class started trading up, in one generation homes became much less affordable, for most. Only six figure incomes can buy now.
In the early 80's, Gov. Reagan, and the Jarvis Gann real estate tax cut, ruined the best education system in the country, and the departing Gov. Brown has finally balanced the books, in spite of huge social pressure challenges.
It is a fact that a six hundred thousand dollar home in California will cost two hundred thousand dollars in Texas,
trade offs.
21
@been here: That Jarvis Gann tax cut is the only reason that there are any middle income people in and around Silicon Valley. I'm not talking about the uber-skilled geniuses but instead about the test engineers, second-tier tech support persons, tech writers, marketing types and others who support the uber techies and their advances. It takes all types and levels to keep an engineering department working, and most earn low 100k's.
That might sound like a princely sum in Redding or Stockton, but it wouldn't be enough to pay the tax on the house I live in if it was taxed at its ridiculous market valuation. My company would have to do without the services of thousands of people like me without Jarvis Gann. And replacing us is proving ridiculously difficult, as many solid but non-genius techies do the math and decide that they can't afford to be here.
California has another problem... almost everyone wants to be here, and there has to be something to discourage them. It just happens to be the cost of housing. If your economic plan doesn't include a path to making 250k, get used to your one-bedroom apartment, because that's where you will live.
Without Jarvis Gann, Silicon Valley would stop running yesterday. With Jarvis Gann, Silicon Valley might last until the holdouts like me retire.
5
As a former Californian who stills loves and identifies with that state (I now live in Costa Rica), I can only reiterate what several other writers have mentioned here...Kansas. I realize that the arguments surrounding the California model are unique and complex, but I would suggest, given the results of the trickle down alternative as practiced in these republican strongholds, that there is more right than wrong happening in the California model. California Democrats attempt, perhaps imperfectly, to ensure a sense of value to all it's citizens while Republicans are still practicing a kind of cruel, late 19th century social darwinism in which only the strong survive and the rest be damned.
69
The real answer is that California highlights the same problems that the conservative red states are facing. As a country, wealth inequality is increasing, in large part because the economy favors the highly skilled, and for the well off it favors tremendously those whose incomes come, not from wages and cash pay, but investment income and stock based compensation. The California model shows problems with a more liberal approach, that housing is based on market forces, and despite what conservatives claim, getting rid of rent controls doesn't cause there to be sufficient moderate priced housing, in NYC, where housing is insane, we have tons of luxury housing being built with little affordable housing, we have neighborhoods rapidly gentrifying and taking apartments out of the affordable category, and public housing that is falling apart, yet nothing is changing that, Diblasio is as liberal as Giuliani was conservative.
The real issue is that all politics are rooted in the past, conservative and liberal and moderate. They are not addressing the real problem, that more and more jobs are being lost, due to there search for low cost labor in part, but also AI and automation. No one wants to face the future Vonnegut did in "Player Piano", what do you do when most labor is superfluous outside the 'uber skilled'? Vonnegut had everyone in the military or public works projects outside the 'skilled', and it wasn't workable...so what is the answer?
9
California is the Utopian dream of all those who believe that individual merit, smarts and drive are responsible for individual success and will be rewarded financially and socially. The young, talented and really wickedly smart want to test their luck there.
California is the Dystopian nightmare of all those who believe that wealth created by those who can do so must be given to with those who cannot do so. Even in California, there just isn't that amount of wealth to transmorgify all of society's left-behinds into the middle class.
Ironically, two factors will have a consequential impact on California in the coming decades.
1. The networked software technologies will make it possible for high tech workers to live outside of the densely populated, high cost of living, traffic-clogged locales that dominate the economy.
2. Climate change, increasing desertification, decreasing water supplies combined with the suffocating population density will motivate people to leave.
California, Massachusetts and some other states offer opportunity for those who can do, and some support for those who can't. They're not perfect by any means.
7
Since when did conservatives start worrying about poverty? What have they ever done to alleviate poverty?
80
Does anyone believe the Republicans care about poverty inequality? Since when have they complained about poverty and inequality in the Republican dominated South?
The Republicans are con men. They can never represent the majority because they serve only the 1%. Consequently, most of what they say is misdirection and deception.
61
The Republican party is dying here. There is no higher recommendation.
76
It seems that moving to California, the land of plenty, is indeed a pipe dream. Instead of offering an abundant life for everyone, California seems to provide for the wealthy at the expense of the poor and middle class. In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer, and then have irrefutable proof about such things like the real causes of inequality in our societies. Only then can we begin to sort out the contradictions that are California. The computer mind will be based on a "survival" algorithm, and when this is programed in the computer, we will be able to see how we have tricked this program with our ridiculous beliefs about just exactly what is supposed to survive. When we see this, we can begin the long road back to reason. See RevolutionOfReason.com
1
California is one of the largest, most economically and geographically diverse states in the country.
So why would California be a model for say Kansas or Texas or Florida?
Yet if we have to choose a model for any state, California or Kansas, Texas or Florida, then yes, California is the BETTER model.
It's not even close.
If fact, if we add Iran and Afghanistan to the list of models, then Texas and Kansas both beat Afghanistan, but compared to Iran, it's too close to call.
39
@Jay David
Thanks. Made me laugh.
2
Growth 'pains' do afflict California, but consider the alternative of a dormant state that keeps everyone depressed and repressed...for lack of opportunity. Social justice is the ideal we all struggle to achieve, however difficult when our unequal educational endeavors leave some to be desired. Peace in society being our aim, perhaps the state's efforts in controlling Housing and make it more comfortable is the next aim, recognizing that ownership is not always possible nor desirable. And commuting made easier and affordable may contribute to some semblance of equity in the system. To each according to his/her needs, from each according to his/her abilities (remember Louis Blanc's, not Marx's, famous words?).
3
California is a state run by what Joel Kotkin terms "gentry liberals," or what Cynthia Nixon calls "corporate Democrats." This has been the establishment wing of the Democratic Party at least since Bill Clinton took office.
The rise of gentry liberals in California began with the fundraising efforts of Tony Coehlo in the late 1980s.
The gentry liberals are well known for being disingenuous. In reality they are liberal in that they favor diversity with womens' rights front-and-center. But they differ only culturally from establishment Republicans. One can regard both groups as representing the same social class of PhD-level professionals and managers, whom Christopher Lasch termed the 'professional-managerial class.'
Labor rights and inequality are panned by this bunch. We saw this with the Obama administration, where he and his professionals like Jack Lew touted hard work and effort and subscribed to libertarian views.
At bottom, self-interest taking the form of class-interest will come first. Over time, the gentry liberals will evolve into gentry-conservatives. If ousted from the Democratic Party, they will rejoin the Republicans as a modern-day Rockefeller wing.
For working-class and poor Americans to have any voice in government, the progressive wing must regain control of the Democratic Party. We've seen the hollowness of Republican populist talk.
10
@Epaminondas
This comment reflects the simplistic view of the far left that only far-left policies can help the poor and middle class. This view is entirely self-serving and ignores the facts.
What CAN help those less fortunate (and save the country) is a Democratic return to power, not only in Washington but in the state houses as well. To win—and to govern effectively—the Democrats need to restore their big-tent coalitions of the past, where all the less fortunate, not just people of color, were deemed worthy of help and support.
15
"In California, Rodden continued, “the policy demands of high-income professionals in Silicon Valley will often be in tension with those of low-income service workers,” mirroring the built-in tension nationally between upscale well-educated Democrats and the disproportionately minority poor who make up a crucial part of the coalition."
Today’s Democratic coalition is not quite what Edsall’s penultimate paragraph suggests. Rather, it's a coalition of high-income white liberals and mostly poor PEOPLE OF COLOR, bound strongly together by identity politics.
That is both its strength and its weakness. Weakness because it excludes working-class, white, swing voters in critical swing districts, who are needed to win back the House. But to describe this coalition as "fragile" is to ignore the strong bond between white and color engendered by liberal guilt.
10
California has sacrificed the middle class in favor of the rich and the poor. If you can afford it, it’s a great place to live and the financial burden of supporting the poor is easily absorbed by the high salaries in the tech and entertainment sectors. It is much the same in NY and other “progressive” states. People are being pushed to either end of the economic spectrum by the high cost of progressivism.
8
@Larry
Larry, you are 100% correct!!! The SF Bay Area is the land of the haves and have-nots. Life is good if you inherit your parents' house with low taxes, etc., work in Silicon Valley in a very techie position (not admin or staff), or have been here since the 70s. But if you are a newer resident, a non-techie, or do not inherit a windfall real estate property, you are in for a very tough daily existence. Traffic is horrible, commutes are long, and the public transportation system is expensive, extremely crowded, dangerous and unreliable. No illegal immigrants here - just "undocumented." SF is filthy, unsafe, and losing tourist dollars. Lots of help for poor - middle class is extremely squeezed. Many young people looking to move out. Weather is good despite periodic droughts.
Democrats totally in control. So they got us into this mess and want to do more of the same damage. Dems are drinking the Kool-Aid.
2
Providing handouts does not make good citizens, it fosters laziness. There are obviously many that need short-term assistance and that is what these programs should be. Unfortunately, it is a way of life for many. I firmly believe that moderation is the key to any successful partnership between government and the citizens. California cand and often does whatever the liberal citizens want. But what about the conservatives? If this is such an effective and successful approach, why is California broke and why re taxes on the rise? California may be the country of the future, but I shudder to think of an ultra-liberal US. Too bad that's where we're headed. The United Social States of America (USSA). It has a nice ring, don't you think?
4
@Box, we are not broke, just having put another eight billion dollars into a rainy day fund. Compare that to Kansas and Oklahoma, and the red states, living off federal largess and money from the blue states.
7
@Box Actually, this: "Providing handouts does not make good citizens, it fosters laziness." Has been proven false time and again, in this paper no less.
1
Manhattan Institute, in particular, has a neo-liberal, conservative agenda- as does Forbes and, to a certain degree, Stanford; consequently, the views expressed by these sources are tainted, or, at the very least, skewed toward an anti-democratic set of principles. Additionally, the questions Thomas Edsall proffers are, perhaps, not the most important, nor do they necessarily address California's distinct, dynamic political and cultural features in a comprehensive manner. Distillations of a complex, highly functioning state like California are impossible. Binary sound bites are of little use. Better, I think, is to have the Manhattan Institute, Forbes, and other capital-oriented sources focus on the states that fail to institutionally care for its citizens and, more inhumanely, actively work for the demise of democratic norms and values: Texas, Kentucky, Florida, Ohio, Indiana.
13
It all depends on what you want. No state has it all. We moved there from Georgia and lived there 11 years. Loved the natural assets and cultural diversity. Got jobs but they didn't pay any better than in Georgia while the housing cost was triple and our dream of owning a few rural acres was impossible. If you earn six-figure salaries, I suppose you can have it all in California.
4
@abigail49, I do understand, not now being able to buy the house we bought in 1975. But do you not see now that happened? It was not us, but all of you who moved in and raised the prices so even we who were born here cannot afford to live in our own state.
6
@George Kamburoff Sorry! I guess the same thing is happening in Georgia with in-migration from high-cost areas. Native Georgians in Atlanta metro now are probably out-numbered by transplants and rents and home prices are sky-high. Oh well.
Why not present these metrics for California in comparison to Texas, Florida and New York? (high population states which are in many respects peers) By using national averages you include small population states such as North and South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, Idaho that aren't at all comparable in any important way.
6
Most of the Californians relocated to my neck of the woods are retired blue collar folk from the defense, manufacturing & ag related sectors with high school educations. All of these people profited from labor union membership & even though most worked thirty or more years for one employer & left Calif. with great pensions & the proceeds from sales of homes three times more valuable than the ones they bought here in Oregon, are now fiercely conservative.
There's a large contingent of former school teachers, secondary & below, with a high net worth in retirement derived from liberal largesse, who now identify as conservative here in rural Oregon.
All of these people are on a par with well heeled business & professionals of long term residence in living standard.
Talk to anyone in adjacent states & it's the same story; hordes of departing Californians with deep pockets arriving to drive up costs & manipulate the tax structure to their advantage.
They benefited from liberal California & want to turn Oregon into the opposite of what they left & into a serfdom.
95
@Apple Jack Excuse me.....but the retirees now moving into Oregon....made their fortunes in a California run by republicans.....like Earl Warren, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.....Only once the DNC,Inc took over.....did it become advantageous to retire, cash in, and move on.........
2
@Apple Jac, having ruined California, those from other states are now moving elsewhere.
1
@Wherever Hugo
There's a big difference between organized labor toleration & advocacy with the three mentioned here. Look at the population demographics over time for Calif. & you'll see why it was "advantageous" to retire.
Edsall's opening premise is fatally flawed. For Republicans to attack California - America's most successful state - for poverty, homelessness and high housing costs is hypocritical when they could not care less about the impact of these real problems on real people. Instead, they simply want to lower taxes on the rich under the guise of the discredited trickle-down and supply-side economic myths. Why would anyone look to Republicans to offer solutions?
102
It's laughable that conservatives cite poverty, homelessness, and lack of upward mobility in California. Can someone please enlighten me on the policies conservatives embrace to correct these social ills?
93
@C Scott as you identify with San Diego....you must be aware that you're personal success and happiness in California is directly linked to Republican support for Defense Spending. The downfall of middle class California began when the Bush Minions deliberately sought to gut California's influence in DC by BRAC-ing darn near everything in California. Bush famously sabotaged Pete Wilson's administration....seeing Wilson as a rival for the Presidency.......dont forget California rose to prominence in the USA under Nixon and Reagan....both CA repubs.
3
@Wherever Hugo Tell that to the other major industries in CA, like the 50% of all fresh food/produce on American shelves, especially in the winter months, or the oil refining/drilling (not offshore, still don't do that here) that is the #1 largest industry in CA. And others. The military has bases EVERYWHERE, including in 150 other countries. Including your state. It's not all there is.
@Wherever Hugo Any many of us didn't come here for the military but are unfortunately stuck with it.
Much of the income inequality in California could be solved if businesses paid higher salaries to all those who toil to serve and clean up. How hard is this to figure out?
19
The flaw in the analysis is the unsaid assumption that the Republicans are the party of the poor which is belied by its history.
In reality they are the party of only poor whites, a group of people wholy dependent on white supremacy.
You will notice, that unlike the Appalachian unemployed, Californians are mobile, will leave the state for better opportunities for their families
16
A more detached and objective observer would not that California has never been a very egalitarian or democratic place. A cornucopia of riches spilling out for all to take.......and only a few take it all....the rest must settle for crumbs. But then the climate is so hypnotic, no body seems to care that they are living lives of despair and want. First, it was the Franciscan priests getting fat off native slave labor at their California Missions.....soon enuf the Spaniard soldiers became Californios living in magnificent haciendas on sprawling ranchos. Then came the Gold Rush.....a handful of entrpenuers became Kings while 90% of the miners starved or died violent deaths. But hey...Eureka!! I found it. Nirvana!! They stole land, they built railroad empires, real estate empires, agricultural empires, newspaper empires, MOVIE empires, Internet Empires.......to this day, the average Californian has little input into how the state is run.....effectively hypnotized by constant propaganda about how lucky, beautiful, sophisticated, progressive they are.....all while Federal Judges nullify their election results and powerful political clicks manipulate them. why is real estate so expensive? Why do we need Giant water powered solar collectors in the desert? Why are we short on water when we have an 800 mile coast line with the worlds largest ocean? Why is our poverty rate so high? Why is California so polluted after everything the politicians did to legislate clean air?
4
@Wherever Hugo, Can't make it here?
Many have to go back home, since the competition is high here.
Don't despair, second-best is okay, too.
2
Interesting and useful article. But I was noted that
"the bifurcation of the labor market into a small share (say 33 percent) of knowledge jobs and a much larger share of low wage service jobs (say half)."
leaves out the the role of immigration. Basically, the low wages in services jobs in CA are due that that wages in this sector, via immigration, both legal and illegal, are substantially coupled to the wage level of Mexico (roughly 1/8 of US)
Attempts to raise the wage level in that sector will increase the labour supply, via immigration, of people willing to work for less
11
Tribal politics at its worse. Conservatives argue that the USA economy is better than the economy of Northern European countries because the USA is more prosperous, has higher growth rates in GPD and lower unemployment than Europe. Liberals argue that Northern European economies are better because of lower levels of inequality, a lesser bifurcation of society between winners and losers in society and fewer low paying, low skill service jobs. However, when comparing the economy of California and other States, liberals argue that California has the better economy because it more prosperous, has higher growth rates in GPD and lower unemployment. Conservatives argue that argue that the economy of other States is better because of lower levels of inequality and a lesser bifurcation of society between elites and everyone else, given that 50% of all jobs are low paying service jobs.
Now while both sides are consistent in wanting either higher taxes and higher levels of government services or lower taxes and lower levels of government services, this is no consistency as to what they point to as the more successful economies in the world. In the end, it looks like cheering for your team is the most important thing. Sounds like the Roman Senate at the end of the Republic and the battles between the Optimates and Populares.
5
Now that's rich. Republicans pointing out inequality and poverty when their tax and economic policies do their best to create such. Hilarious.
203
Economic disparity is nationwide, and worse in red states. Why aren't conservatives talking about disparity and poverty in the south?
87
The U.S. Census Bureau now publishes an annual poverty report titled the Supplemental Poverty Measure that takes regional cost of living into account. The report is changing perceptions regarding which states are rich and which are poor. The most recent report shows that California is by far the poorest state, with 20.4 percent of its residents below poverty level. The poverty rate in often maligned Mississippi is 16.9. The national average is 14.7
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo...
10
@William Case: I believe those figures are from 2010, and therefore, out of date.
It's WORSE NOW!
California has a 24.1% poverty rate -- housing has increased exponentially in cost!!! -- and that's almost 1 in 4 residents!!!!
Even at the 20% figure, it is one resident in FIVE.
So much for "the golden state".
1
Mr. Edsall completely omits a crucial factor in discussing the quality of life in California -- the actual number of people in the state. In 1970, a baseline he uses in the article, there were about 20 million people in California. Since 1970, California has added 20 million people, doubling in size. It is intentionally obfuscatory and misleading to dwell on the cost and availability of housing and not include that the number of people to be housed has doubled.
12
@Marigrow So? any conclusions you can make about that Open Borders Philosophy?
9
@Marigrow That explains why housing is so insanely expensive in CA.
4
@Wherever Hugo The U.S. borders are federally controlled and California is a “sanctuary” state not an open border state. I live in San Diego with the busiest border crossing in the country and also the tightest regulated and enforced border enforcement. “Good fences make good neighbors”, but the state does not make nor enforce border and immigration policies.
"Why can't the poor just accept that the rich deserve all the goodies and unfettered access to public money - because the rich are entitled to everything - and pay taxes, work for free, breathe the mercury, and shut up?"
This meets:
"Why can't everyone just fork over everything they earned - because all profits are social - so that every hard luck story is addressed before anyone gets anything. Everyone must get something before anyone gets anything."
No one would care about these ideologues unless they produced horrible consequences. Conservatives now shape laws and its enforcement to privatize their profits and socialize their losses. Liberals want everyone's profit directed toward the absolute bottom of the ladder. If C's want profits at any cost, L's want a commune at the expense of profit. If C's revel in lynching, L's revel in poverty porn.
But outcomes do not depend on how you look at it.
Conservatives will vote for the person who can destroy everything liberals have built, produce the Valhalla with a road paved with bones of the undeserving. Liberals want a pristine, unspoiled, blameless god who will wave a magic wand and solve all their problems in one fell swoop - else they will throw tantrums (such as not bother with voting).
Guess who wins?
Conservatives are winning in California, even if liberals are in charge. It is indeed a conservative heaven; huge inequality, decent life beyond the grasp of all but a select few, and huge slums with drugs.
6
Sometimes the 1% decries corruption (as in Brazil to shut out Lula;) and sometimes as in California they try to co-opt the democrats cry of "inequality." It's just a way of attacking progressives and retaining their hold on the levers of power--wealth.
But on crucial issues like climate change California leads the other states in actually applying the science we know to effect a better future. And it's no mystery why a proponent of nuclear power would bash "inequality." His job is under attack by California's dedication to clean energy without toxic waste.
Real estate is big business in California alongside entertainment and big tech. It's contributing to the homelessness. On the one hand welfare and education are better, but many can't afford a roof over their head. That needs to stop.
All in all California seems to be doing well by doing right.
5
In its economics, California is a unique state.
Their major industries are tech and entertainment. Thus, huge sums of money from Facebook and Google users, moviegoers and TV watchers, goes there. The money comes in from the other 49 states, and from all around the world. This gives them a huge class of very wealthy people who can pay extraordinarily high taxes.
This economy is one of a kind. If the money from tech and entertainment flowed equally to all fifty states, California could not exist.
So California cannot be your role model, unless you can dream up some way to get Hollywood and Silicon valley to pull up stakes and move en masse to your state.
So everybody else will just have to continue to live in the real world, where money is limited and hard choices have to be made.
4
@Jonathan don't forget agriculture. We are still the biggest provider of food in the nation.
2
Government exists, in part, to afford its citizens structure first, then opportunity. California, blessed with a scenic coastline and magnificent topography, was a natural magnet for the entertainment industry—warm weather; droughts kept to a minimum by forward-thinking irrigation systems and a willingness to expand its connections through a highway system that now is overburdened. Perhaps the state’s finest recommendation is its superb college and university system. Compared with Republican-run states, its progressivism should be a model.
The article, however, points out the obvious: the stunning and seemingly unbridgeable gap between the well-to-do and the despairingly impoverished. Who’s to blame for this? Government? Individual initiative? Family?
The Bay Area’s technology culture jump-started the influx of foreign-inspired start-ups, a dynamic that’s not thought to be welcome in red states, where investment in education is certainly not a priority and innovation (except in the oil and gas industries) is largely seen as a “liberal” threat.
On balance, California would seem to have the best of the best and the worst of the worst. The golden mean must be bridged if the Golden State is to hold off the social difficulties that have become the starting point for so many indigent (Southern and Appalachian) states—a feudal economy and refusal to invest in their own citizens instead of the existing wealthy families and their bought politicians.
2
This all seems evidence in support of the Gillens/Page study showing public policy to be a function of donor class concerns, juiced by the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions from Roberts' SCOTUS:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_515...
As regards Cruz vs. O'Rourke here in Texas - while we Progressives are always hopeful - the single act of replacing lyin' Ted (per POTUS 45*) with Beto doesn't seem as if a new age would suddenly dawn here.
It could be a good sign that public policy might quit getting worse here, but replacing 1 U.S. Senator in D.C. won't by itself be increasing the level of Texas services or public spending here - it could signal an end to the social retrogression, or might merely evince the extent of dislike for Cruz's personality.
Now, if Texans kick out our current GOP'er Attorney General, who's been under grand jury indictment for the last 3 years, then we might believe Texans are actually woke.
16
I wish there was less focus on within-community poverty and inequality. Any community can reduce poverty and inequality by keeping all the poor people out. But it would be foolish to look at a gated community and conclude that they are doing a great thing because they have no poverty.
The only relevant poverty and inequality measure is global. Communities should be judged on their impact on poverty and inequality worldwide, not merely what they do for their own members. One of the main reasons for California’s inequality is that it is attracting many poor people from around the world and giving them a chance at mobility. This is to be celebrated, not attacked with selective statistics.
44
This debate is one of those that can be settled easily--by removing the political hot air--and looking at the numbers.
Just as no one is trying to emigrate to Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea--the same holds true for California. Out-migration tells the story, as does the hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded mandates--which liberals try to ignore--or dismiss.
Eventually, California will succumb to Stein's Law--"If something cannot go on forever, it will stop". Some day, the unfunded liabilities must be funded--which will bankrupt the taxpayers. And if people keep leaving, there will come a day when the last person out will have to turn off the lights.
There will come a day, when a group of explorers and archeologists will cross a vast wasteland--to find the remnants of of a failed civilization--and they will wonder..."what caused these people to abandon their rail system?" We already know the answer--they ran out of other people's money.
14
@Jesse The Conservative - You advocate looking at the numbers -- which the article does -- then focus on one -- outmigration. You should consider that for an older couple with a fixed income selling the house that was purchased decades ago for a large sum to move to Nevada is a rational choice.
2
@Allan Dobbins, I focus on that number--outmigration, because it has nothing to do with what I think--or you think. It's about simply this: what do the people of California think? The verdict is that more are leaving than moving there.
Census Bureau statistics are clear: more people are leaving the high cost, high tax states, for those that are more affordable. People are leaving not just California, but Illinois, New York, New Jersey--and my state, Vermont--for places like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Kentucky, Florida and the Carolinas.
Only when Liberals have no one left to tax but themselves, will they get a clue. But my guess is that they'll ride their governo-centric model into the dust.
2
We lived in California for several decades as well as some others here. We moved to the Midwest to care for my wife's elderly mother, who was ill. She passed away late last year and we now must consider where to go and what to do. As much as we loved living in California, the cost of living in any place there where we'd like to be in the state is pricing us out of a move back. It's a serious dilemma.
8
The problem with trying to decide if California or Texas are good or bad is the problem with granularity. The same problem exists in medicine.
In comparing treatments for a disease, you might claim Treatment A which cures 70% of people is better than Treatment B which cures 50% of people. But any one patient is either cured 100% or cured 0%. So, recipients of treatment are either fabulously successful or utterly ravaged by their disease. No one is 50% or 70% cured.
We use averages and aggregated data to guide our choices and allow us to ask better questions in an effort to understand WHY a particularly treatment, whether medical or economic, results in a particular distribution of outcomes.
We can often be surprised by such things as root cause analysis in teasing out unexpected reasons for differences in outcomes. The medical literature is replete with such studies, the most famous of which is John Snow's ability to break the back of a cholera epidemic in 1854 London by removing the pump handle from a contaminated well.
Sure, let's continue discussing averages and aggregated outcomes but just without "gotcha" screeds touting a set of particular and partisan positions.
56
I lived in CA for many happy years. It is a wonderful place, period. Poverty there is mainly a result of high cost of housing.
Benefits though are legend: people don't have to saddle themselves with enormous debt to get an excellent higher education in the state university system.: Not so in private universities. Graduating from Stanford Law, for example, can leave you with as much as $100,000 in debt.
Ted Cruz attempts to ridicule CA to discourage voters from choosing his opponent. But, give me tofu over Cruz any day.
138
Forging a lasting alliance among constituencies of the Democratic Party is challenging in California just as it is Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The solidarity of Democrats in Boston with those Scranton is every bit as dicey as the solidarity of Democrats in San Francisco with those in Scranton.
Edsall concludes , "The fragility of that alliance is what left an opening for a candidate — and a president — like Trump." The Democratic alliance did not fail in California and Trump did not find an opening in California. He found his opening in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Trump won an electoral college victory by fewer than 78,000 votes. Trump won only 32.8% of the vote in California.
The lesson of 2016 is that voters are conflicted. They cannot decide which matter most, identity or inequality. That challenges Republicans just as it challenges Democrats. That is reflected in Trump's narrow margin of victory in several southern states.
51.3% of the vote in Georgia,
50.5% in North Carolina,
54.9% in South Carolina, and
52.6% in Texas
The elections since 2016 show that the Democratic Party must develop a message that enables voters to reconcile their internal conflict between identity and inequality.
29
@OldBoatMan: excellent commentary and points to consider - thank you. You are a wise man.
2
@OldBoatMan
Well said. You truly understand the political issue.
2
In recessions, which despite all efforts to the contrary likely have not gone away, an interesting thing happens. The poor, with very little discretionary income, don’t change their spending habits much because they mostly have to do with feeding and clothing themselves, and providing for basic housing – and we all have to keep eating. What changes are the spending patterns of the upper-middle classes and the wealthy, whose incomes plummet, as do the taxes generated by those incomes. States such as California and to a lesser extent New York, which derive the vast bulk of their tax revenues from such cohorts, see their expenditures remain about the same yet the taxes that fund those expenditures shrivel and die. California during the Great Recession was as manifestly evident a bankrupt as Illinois.
Additionally, about 30% of California’s population receives Medicaid benefits, among the very highest of any state in America. However, for many years funding for both their infrastructure maintenance and schools has been starved to pay for this – California’s public schools are rated among the least effective in the nation and their roads are notoriously exercises in axle-challenging minefields.
They have many other challenges, some of which Tom has taken up. I’ll mention just one more: fewer than 20% of California home owners carry earthquake insurance, due to its unwearable cost. When the big one hits, America will be paying to rebuild a state that …
9
… Californians created, with the highest levels of poverty and one of the highest levels of homelessness in America.
Is CA a good role model? Based on how well it actually redeems the promises it makes to its people and its ability to maintain basic services in economic emergencies … no, it is not a good role model.
8
@Richard Luettgen If you lived in CA Richard, you would love it.
3
@Harold
I went to college (Occidental, in L.A.) and was a resident of California for those years (under both Reagan and Moonbeam, in the Linda Ronstadt years). I believe I was the originator if the expression "Great place to visit, but …". My favorite vacation jaunt still is driving down the Coast Hwy in a convertible with the Beach Boys blaring annoyingly, on the three days every summer when Monterey is not occluded by fog and Big Sur is, amazingly, spandex-free.
1
I think 50% of workers in low paying service jobs is an economic tragedy.
Apparently people in these jobs are more likely to become unemployed than to move up.
11
Very fair, even-handed column. I live in California and, in my view, you've described it as it is. Two areas in addition to housing that make California a difficult, expensive place to live: utility costs are brutal. Much of the state (inland) requires A/C to live - cost of electricity very high (policy driven); and gas. Cost of gas drops dramatically when you drive into neighboring states (policy driven). Both those costs hit working people hard, urban and coastal people less. I worked for a corporation that gave people, where possible, an option on where to live. Very few (families especially) chose California. Most ended up in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, etc. California, though, remains a beautiful place to live - thanks mostly to Mother Nature.
21
For a time before my retirement, I worked as a senior executive of a large public company headquartered in California. The C-suite group relished living in the Bay Area, with its largely spectacular weather, fabulous hilltop homes, trendy restaurants, and seemingly unlimited leisure time activities. Seven and eight-figure compensation packages took the sting out of California's confiscatory state income tax, particularly given that the compensation system included a California premium for executives at our level.
We worked side-by-side with marooned late-career support personnel who commuted nearly 3 hours per day and paid $400K or more for a cramped and deteriorating tract home in a poor suburb with high crime and bad schools. In the mean time, our management team moved everything we could out of California to places where normal salaries could provide decent living conditions for families.
The fact that C-suite executives, wealthy techies and the Hollywood elite are attracted to the California lifestyle is an advantage no other state has. And that advantage masks the great damage progressives are doing to the fundamentals of the California economy.
23
Two other problematic issues are not noted in this piece. First, the state's public education system is horrible. High school graduation rates are very low and many of those who do graduate have poor basic skills. The public colleges and universities charge high fees and tuition and still provide crowded classes and limited schedules which make it hard to graduate in 4 years and leave most students with huge debts to pay off.
Second, despite Gov Brown's self proclaimed environmentalism oil wells are increasing, fracking continues to pollute water and the air, and the proposed plan to build two large tunnels to transport fresh water from the Sacramento Delta to the south ignores the reality of a growing population trying to continue its wasteful use of a very precious resource.
Things are far, far from great on the so called Left Coast.
18
@richard This article is not about whether or not California is a great place. It is about whether its model of government with higher taxation and more social welfare is doing better or worse than that of Texas. clearly neither is solving all the problems, but on balance it seems to me that California is doing better.
30
@richard
Poor public education resulting from right wing "propositions".
18
@richard Jerry could have run again for governor and would have won hands down / and the republican only control the rural parts of California where cows live and not the areas where people live . ENOUGH SAID !