8 ms·

The Golden State's War on Itself

47 points by cwan 16y ago

surlyadopter 16y ago
Great summary of (mostly) how California has screwed itself. This: "California must shift its public priorities away from lavish pensions for bureaucrats and toward the infrastructure critical to reinvigorating the private sector." needs to happen soon or the failure spiral will continue.
- Aaronontheweb 16y ago
  I'm optimistic that this will happen, because frankly I think the state doesn't have a lot of other realistic options. If the state doesn't implement this on their own soon, it's going to happen anyways once its bond rating falls and we can't use debt to supplement our declining tax reciepts. Correct me if I'm wrong here: a city CAN declare bankruptcy but a state CANNOT under current law and precedent - true or false?
  - surlyadopter 16y ago
    I believe both entities can declare bankruptcy. There have however been rumblings that if a city were to declare bankruptcy the county and/or state can do something to either block it, or block the judge from invalidating the employment(ie pension) contracts. Hopefully it won't come to that but a few OC/Inland Empire cities are right on the edge.
    - wooster 16y ago
      California cannot declare bankruptcy: http://www.slate.com/id/2246915 http://www.slate.com/id/2246915
      - surlyadopter 16y ago
        Well there you go. Even if we could it probably would not be a good idea (except in the hearts of our states Ron Swansons).
      - Aaronontheweb 16y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I can't imagine what a bankruptcy process would look like for a public entity as large as California. Putting aside the legal reality for the moment, in theory if the state could and did declare bankruptcy, wouldn't CA need to sell off assets to its creditors in order to pay down some of the outstanding debt before it could proceed with a debt restructuring plan? Couldn't we end up with a scenario where another state who purchased CA debt (if there are any) ends up owning CA state parks, port authorities, schools, and other state-owned policies? How might that go down? I know it's not realistic, but now I'm curious as to what it would look like...
      - sbov 16y ago
        California cannot declare bankruptcy, but according to the article its because it doesn't need to - states have sovereign immunity. They don't need the protection bankruptcy normally provides. So technically California cannot, but its more because it never needs to, not because it always has to pay any debt it takes on. They can just tell debtors to f off (of course, no-one would lend to California if it made a habit of doing so).
        nradov 16y ago
        I think you mean that as a sovereign borrower, California can freely default or unilaterally impose a restructuring on its creditors. California is the debtor in this case. Federal bankruptcy courts wouldn't be able to interfere. The wild card is what the California Supreme Court would do? While the state has sovereign immunity, in a default any creditors would certainly file suit in state court. There isn't much law covering the situation so it is conceivable that the judicial branch would order the executive and legislative branches to raise taxes or sell assets in order to meet obligations. That would create a constitutional crisis.
  - pchristensen 16y ago
    Correct, that's one of the reasons why New York City got bailed out in the 1970s - everyone was scared of what it would mean if the city went bankrupt. NY state can't declare bankruptcy, so even though it's in a similarly bad situation now, there's not the same urgency to fix the problems.
artsrc 16y ago
California has a lot of issues and potential. I just don't feel this article really convinces me that they have selected the important ones. The cost of the prison system may be a significant burden and the article did not address that. The failure of electricity privatization is another issue that was not mentioned. Are the pensions for bureaucrats the main costs or is it actually cops and teachers pensions that are more significant? Living in another first world country that has just lost its textiles industry to third world competition, I hardly see this loss of indicative of anything, except being in the way of globalization and cheap labour from China. Showing income tax alone seems one sided. What about property and sales taxes? Are these lower than other states? If you already believe all this stuff, sure you may be right, but for an open minded critical thinker I found it unconvincing.
- surlyadopter 16y ago
  Property and sales tax in CA are both very high(varies by county but most are up there). The LA county sales tax is 9.75%! You are right that CA has a lot of potential. The double whammy of decreased revenues from the recession impacted construction industry coupled with the soaring cost of entitlements over the last half decade are probably the two major factors in the states current situation. They are not the ONLY ones, but they are the most signifigant.
  - necubi 16y ago
    Property taxes are actually at the root of much of the problem, but not because they're too high. Thanks to Prop 13, which prevented property taxes from increasing except when a property is sold, they're very unevenly distributed. In essence, we have a subsidy on old homeowners paid for by new homeowners. Not only has this starved local governments of revenue traditionally used to pay for schools, police and other municipal services, but it has badly distorted the housing market. For example, my parents bought a house in Santa Cruz, CA for about $100,000 in the 1970s. Before the housing crash, the house was probably worth more than 8x that. This makes it very difficult to move, because if they did their property taxes would go up almost an order of magnitude. The problem is even worse with commercial real estate, which can stay in the same hands for decades. Without repealing Prop 13 and making our tax system more equitable, we cannot reduce the high property/sales taxes that currently pay for municipal government.
wooster 16y ago
I'm not a big fan of the potshots he takes at New Urbanism and Smart Growth. He seems to not have much of a grasp on the changing demographics of urban versus suburban populations, or the impetus behind higher density construction in urban centers. For example, this sentence is complete nonsense: Instead, they favor policies, such as “smart growth” and an insistence on “renewable” energy sources, that would make the area look like a gated community—a green one, naturally. Gated communities are typically residential subdivisions. "Smart Growth" planning focuses on mixed-use development and walkable (to buy groceries, shop, work from professional offices, etc) neighborhoods.
- papa 16y ago
  Kotkin definitely has an axe to grind with respect to "traditional urbanism". Among urban studies circles he's often criticized for his "anti-urban" (i.e. pre-automobile/highways urbanity) stance and his pro-suburban views. If you read his works he seems to relish predicting the downfall of San Francisco (a Disneyland city in his mind) and Los Angeles. He's certainly not as outright crazy as Wendell Cox (another noted anti-urbanist), but I certainly don't agree with much of of what he writes. That's not to say all that he has to say is bunk. He usually raises a lot of good issues. But it is worth, as you suggest, noting some of his clear biases.
api 16y ago
"What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California. During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered." Pure gold. I would add another factor: since the 1970s, the old progressivism which actually believed in progress has been replaced by things like green ideology. The latter is a form of puritanical suffering-and-atonement religious fundamentalism. I think it's properly classified as a species of religious conservatism, and doesn't even belong on the left. Note that I'm referring to the quasi-religious ideology... cleaning up the environment and building more renewable energy systems is great. The ideology has nothing to do with that. Greenpeace has as much to do with saving the planet as "Focus on the Family" has to do with helping actual families. Both are just fundamentalist cults using their respective issues for publicity.
- alextp 16y ago
  This is the best characterization I've ever read of the Green movement. I've joked for years about how nature has replaced god for some people, but it was always too vague without the connection to atonement and suffering.
  - kiba 16y ago
    Perhaps, we ought to replace their Green religion with an inert religion like the Wiccia religion.
  - api 16y ago
    To be more precise, I think green ideology is a secular rehash of Calvinism. It follows the same basic sin-and-redemption narrative. I've often wondered if the failure of green ideology to take off is Asia is due to the absence of the Judeo-Christian hole for it to plug into.
    - alextp 16y ago
      Catholicism has a very similar sin-and-atonement-based logic, and I've seen some non-practising catholics turn green.
protomyth 16y ago
California is a leading edge example of what happens when an increasing % of the population are either directly (state workers, people on welfare long term) employed by the government or don't pay any taxes have disproportionate representation in politics.
Tokala 16y ago
There is plenty of blame to go around in what has made California such a dysfunctional state. You cannot, however, take Proposition 13 and pretend it's not part of the problem. If a proposition is put on the ballot most of the time it requires a simple majority. Three strikes and the prohibition on same-sex marriage were done by a simple majority. Taxes? A 66% approval is required thanks to Prop. 13. California is like Scandinavia with no taxes.
sspencer 16y ago
Sort of an aside, but this article has the worst graphics imaginable. Why is about 1/2 the graphic made of garbage stock photos or "helpful" graphics like that giant up-arrow with a percent symbol on it? Ugh.
binspace 16y ago
There are some good points, however the emphasis needs to be on how green regulation is applied. The article seems to be complaining about "green" regulations (which are outdated and inane), not against the idea of the necessity of sustainable technology. One quibble, more offshore drilling will not solve the problem, and causes problems, as in the Gulf of Mexico. It's also a drop in the ocean of energy demand. It solves nothing. You only need to look as far as global rising energy consumption (especially China) and the supply/demand curve. Basic economics. This means the sustainable energy problem needs to be solved, and what better place to solve it than in California? We need solutions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, make it easier for entrepreneurs and relieve the tax burden to encourage businesses. Provide an environment where technology (even green technology) can thrive. Create incentives for people to adopt more environmentally friendly approaches to living, etc. I think there are plenty of examples where sustainable living & and strong economic fundamentals can coexist.
- kiba 16y ago
  All we need is for oil energy cost to goes up, than you'll get "green energy". Currently, it does not make sense to invest in green energy technologies. It doesn't need to be solved right now, but it will become urgent in the future. Urgency will increase flow of capital. Increased flow of capital mean we'll get technological solutions faster. Right now, we can put our money to other, more urgent things that's more important. Green energy is not that important, for now.
- brc 16y ago
  What's wrong with offshore drilling? Yes, GoM events do happen but are very rare. You can't go around being completely risk averse and not doing anything - this is the whole problem with the green ideology. Why not drill the oil and get the tax revenue, bring in the jobs, get a little industry going? This is what the article is about : refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building. As for alternative energy - by all means continue R&D but drop the tax subsidies and using the government to 'pick winners'. The subsidies starve other technologies of capital, funding and attention while prolonging the life of unsuccessful technology. The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. To me your reply sounds as though you acknowledge the problem (green regulations and intervention) but aren't willing to accept that the solution is to wind it all back and let solutions develop naturally. Green regulations should be restricted to reducing pollution and preserving areas of natural beauty, not stomping on every little use of the earth to provide, and certainly not picking future energy direction. Set the rules of the game, then let private entreprise go and come up with the solutions. Oil will cease to be an issue once better, cheaper alternatives exist.
koops 16y ago
"In the Central Valley, for instance, regulations designed to save certain fish species have required 450,000 acres to go fallow." Who could support "impoverishing whole regions" this way? Those who understand ecology. If the Delta Smelt goes extinct, a whole chain of species, fish and otherwise, will likely go with it, with unknown consequences. This is to human Californians' detriment, to say nothing of those species. Extinction is forever.
kalk 16y ago
I won't pretend I'm predisposed in its favor, but the arguments in this article are really pretty terrible. Take this paragraph from the first section, just about the only attempt to present big-picture numbers: "Between 2003 and 2007, California state and local government spending grew 31 percent, even as the state’s population grew just 5 percent." The article doesn't say if the 31% is inflation adjusted - which makes me suspect it's not. Also, what's happened since 2007? That was three years ago. Why cherry-pick numbers from the height of the housing boom, which presumably saw steadily increasing revenue? Is that the only way to show a dramatic spending increase and validate the article's thesis? "The overall tax burden as a percentage of state income, once middling among the states, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation, says the Tax Foundation." No periodization here at all, and then we get... "Since 1990, according to an analysis by California Lutheran University, the state’s share of overall U.S. employment has dropped a remarkable 10 percent." How much of this occurred over the 2003-2007 period that saw increasing spending? From anything the article tells us, the answer might very well be none. What was the population doing in the meantime? Again, for all I know, it might have changed proportionately. If one was to look up numbers that all covered the same time periods, I don't know what results one would get. But the numbers in the article really don't set up the case it goes on to make, that the problem is spending and regulation. And then that case has its own independent issues. Though again I don't have quick access to the real numbers, it's not plausible to me that "bureaucratic pensions" are really a substantial proportion of the state budget, unless teachers, firefighters, and prison guards are all alike "bureaucrats", a characterization which would be pretty tendentious. And are carbon-emissions regulations really likely to have contributed more to those 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs than a nationwide trend towards outsourcing?
geebee 16y ago
I enjoyed the article, and in general, I agree with the general philosophy of government behind it - a conservative, small government mindset that is practical enough to see a positive role for the state. One thing it missed, in my opinion, is the extremely negative consequences of prop 13. Proponents of Prop 13 often argue that it lowered property taxes. As a recent home(owner/debtor), I assure you that it really did not. My taxes are extremely high. And when I move to a more expensive house (all part of that upward mobility), they will adjust upward once again. Very wealthy individuals and corporations who bought a long time ago and never move pay extremely low property taxes. Young families and new businesses pay extremely high property taxes. To me, this is the most loathsome outcome of prop 13 - a low tax aristocracy of established wealth that keeps its own taxes low but enjoys a bloated state paid for on the backs of young families and new businesses. I have no idea why principled small government conservatives can't see this problem with prop 13. You'd think that someone who wrote an article like this would be opposed to putting young families and new businesses at a tax disadvantage. Aside from this (in my opinion) glaring omission that doesn't reflect well on self-declared fiscal conservatives, I think it was a good analysis. It's a shame, because while the article is measured in tone, it clearly does show a (deserved, I think) distain for the big government liberals who created a bloated state. C'mon, dude, hypocritical, fake "small government" conservatives who create a low tax aristocracy are also to blame here. On the bright side, hey, my parents bought an expensive house in SF and an expensive vacation house in the wine country long ago, so their property taxes are far lower total then what I pay for a small 2br house in an unfashionable district of SF. If I inherit these houses some day, I'll also inherit their low taxes, too. Aren't aristocracies wonderful?
jsz0 16y ago
I can't help but think part of the problem in CA is the .03% of the budget being spent on labor and workforce development and the stagnant higher education budget for the last 25 years which is now being cut to pre-1980 levels when you factor in inflation. If you can't stop manufacturing jobs from leaving and don't want to invest in your workforce these things tend to happen.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Something nobody else seems to think about... In short, the economy created by the new progressives can pay off only those at the peak of the employment pyramid — top researchers, CEOs, entertainment honchos, highly skilled engineers and programmers. As a result, California suffers from an increasingly bifurcated social structure. This is not just a matter of politics, public v. private sector, and the competing vested interests in California. Those socioeconomic factors are all important, but the elephant in the room is that a very high proportion of our wealth derives from computers and software. We have automated away a great deal of what the labor force used to do, so successfully that many industries have pushed unit labor costs down to the level where only developing nations can compete. Outsourcing is generally blamed for the decline in US manufacturing jobs, but I think that's a symptom rather than a cause. If there wasn't a large pool of cheap labor in Asia, then we'd just be seeing more robots in the US, as is the case in Japan to a large extent. Of course the internet has brought all kinds of wonderful new opportunities. But because the key economic benefits are disintermediation and delocalization, the rewards are distributed very differently. Take Amazon - hugely successful company, clear benefit to the consumer, and a good advert for capitalism generally. Jobs at Amazon: warehouse drone, middle manager, engineer, senior manager. I simplify, of course, but what do you think are the chances for a warehouse drone to 'learn the business' and rise up the ranks? Virtually zero unless they study at home, because the warehouse job consists of picking up order slips, scanning things taken off shelves, and putting them in boxes. The inventory management, purchasing, accounting, and analysis aspects are entirely automated, so you're not going to pick up many skills on the job. This isn't just an internet problem. In my supermarket the checkout is not staffed mainly by people whose job is recite scripts written by the marketing department and to make sure I'm not stealing anything. They wave barcoded products over a laser scanner and announce a total. All the price-checking, calculation and cash dispensing is carried out by a computer, and the job doesn't even require accurate data entry. The job requires so little that it doesn't pay much, and there's no real room for improvement, skill development, or competition. There's no opportunity to become the most efficient and accurate checkout operator; and it demands so little competence that getting fired is nearly impossible. So if you're tired of stacking shelves, don't hold your breath waiting for a chance to try life as a checkout clerk. You could occupy your thoughts with examining what goods sell best in which shelf positions, but display management is largely automated these days as well. You just scan the wholesale box and your scanning wand tells you which shelf section to put the inventory on today. Work as a mechanic? Well, a lot of modern engines are just black boxes now, and your job is about running diagnostics and then either resetting the firmware or ordering whatever the manufacturer's website says you need. Clerical work/bookkeeping? Greatly reduced - spreadsheets take care of all the arithmetic, and even the data entry is increasingly automated. As we all know, writing is a good deal easier with a computer than a typewriter, and there's been a corresponding decline in the importance of writing ability, accuracy in spelling and grammar, and handwriting. For many people now, the most complex tasks they perform at home are operating the microwave and assembling Ikea furniture. Earning a living now requires either long hours in low paying jobs or long hours of study and professional commitment for well-paying ones, so for a lot of people housework and DIY are necessities to be minimized - there isn't the same time or economic freedom to develop ancillary skills for their own sake. So it's not just how we divide the income or the taxes. It's how we divide the work too.

47 points by cwan 16y ago

Great summary of (mostly) how California has screwed itself. This: "California must shift its public priorities away from lavish pensions for bureaucrats and toward the infrastructure critical to reinvigorating the private sector." needs to happen soon or the failure spiral will continue.

Aaronontheweb 16y ago
I'm optimistic that this will happen, because frankly I think the state doesn't have a lot of other realistic options. If the state doesn't implement this on their own soon, it's going to happen anyways once its bond rating falls and we can't use debt to supplement our declining tax reciepts. Correct me if I'm wrong here: a city CAN declare bankruptcy but a state CANNOT under current law and precedent - true or false?
- surlyadopter 16y ago
  I believe both entities can declare bankruptcy. There have however been rumblings that if a city were to declare bankruptcy the county and/or state can do something to either block it, or block the judge from invalidating the employment(ie pension) contracts. Hopefully it won't come to that but a few OC/Inland Empire cities are right on the edge.
  - wooster 16y ago
    California cannot declare bankruptcy: http://www.slate.com/id/2246915 http://www.slate.com/id/2246915
    - surlyadopter 16y ago
      Well there you go. Even if we could it probably would not be a good idea (except in the hearts of our states Ron Swansons).
    - Aaronontheweb 16y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I can't imagine what a bankruptcy process would look like for a public entity as large as California. Putting aside the legal reality for the moment, in theory if the state could and did declare bankruptcy, wouldn't CA need to sell off assets to its creditors in order to pay down some of the outstanding debt before it could proceed with a debt restructuring plan? Couldn't we end up with a scenario where another state who purchased CA debt (if there are any) ends up owning CA state parks, port authorities, schools, and other state-owned policies? How might that go down? I know it's not realistic, but now I'm curious as to what it would look like...
    - sbov 16y ago
      California cannot declare bankruptcy, but according to the article its because it doesn't need to - states have sovereign immunity. They don't need the protection bankruptcy normally provides. So technically California cannot, but its more because it never needs to, not because it always has to pay any debt it takes on. They can just tell debtors to f off (of course, no-one would lend to California if it made a habit of doing so).
      - nradov 16y ago
        I think you mean that as a sovereign borrower, California can freely default or unilaterally impose a restructuring on its creditors. California is the debtor in this case. Federal bankruptcy courts wouldn't be able to interfere. The wild card is what the California Supreme Court would do? While the state has sovereign immunity, in a default any creditors would certainly file suit in state court. There isn't much law covering the situation so it is conceivable that the judicial branch would order the executive and legislative branches to raise taxes or sell assets in order to meet obligations. That would create a constitutional crisis.
- pchristensen 16y ago
  Correct, that's one of the reasons why New York City got bailed out in the 1970s - everyone was scared of what it would mean if the city went bankrupt. NY state can't declare bankruptcy, so even though it's in a similarly bad situation now, there's not the same urgency to fix the problems.

artsrc 16y ago

California has a lot of issues and potential. I just don't feel this article really convinces me that they have selected the important ones. The cost of the prison system may be a significant burden and the article did not address that. The failure of electricity privatization is another issue that was not mentioned. Are the pensions for bureaucrats the main costs or is it actually cops and teachers pensions that are more significant? Living in another first world country that has just lost its textiles industry to third world competition, I hardly see this loss of indicative of anything, except being in the way of globalization and cheap labour from China. Showing income tax alone seems one sided. What about property and sales taxes? Are these lower than other states? If you already believe all this stuff, sure you may be right, but for an open minded critical thinker I found it unconvincing.

surlyadopter 16y ago
Property and sales tax in CA are both very high(varies by county but most are up there). The LA county sales tax is 9.75%! You are right that CA has a lot of potential. The double whammy of decreased revenues from the recession impacted construction industry coupled with the soaring cost of entitlements over the last half decade are probably the two major factors in the states current situation. They are not the ONLY ones, but they are the most signifigant.
- necubi 16y ago
  Property taxes are actually at the root of much of the problem, but not because they're too high. Thanks to Prop 13, which prevented property taxes from increasing except when a property is sold, they're very unevenly distributed. In essence, we have a subsidy on old homeowners paid for by new homeowners. Not only has this starved local governments of revenue traditionally used to pay for schools, police and other municipal services, but it has badly distorted the housing market. For example, my parents bought a house in Santa Cruz, CA for about $100,000 in the 1970s. Before the housing crash, the house was probably worth more than 8x that. This makes it very difficult to move, because if they did their property taxes would go up almost an order of magnitude. The problem is even worse with commercial real estate, which can stay in the same hands for decades. Without repealing Prop 13 and making our tax system more equitable, we cannot reduce the high property/sales taxes that currently pay for municipal government.

wooster 16y ago

I'm not a big fan of the potshots he takes at New Urbanism and Smart Growth. He seems to not have much of a grasp on the changing demographics of urban versus suburban populations, or the impetus behind higher density construction in urban centers. For example, this sentence is complete nonsense: Instead, they favor policies, such as “smart growth” and an insistence on “renewable” energy sources, that would make the area look like a gated community—a green one, naturally. Gated communities are typically residential subdivisions. "Smart Growth" planning focuses on mixed-use development and walkable (to buy groceries, shop, work from professional offices, etc) neighborhoods.

papa 16y ago
Kotkin definitely has an axe to grind with respect to "traditional urbanism". Among urban studies circles he's often criticized for his "anti-urban" (i.e. pre-automobile/highways urbanity) stance and his pro-suburban views. If you read his works he seems to relish predicting the downfall of San Francisco (a Disneyland city in his mind) and Los Angeles. He's certainly not as outright crazy as Wendell Cox (another noted anti-urbanist), but I certainly don't agree with much of of what he writes. That's not to say all that he has to say is bunk. He usually raises a lot of good issues. But it is worth, as you suggest, noting some of his clear biases.

api 16y ago

"What went so wrong? The answer lies in a change in the nature of progressive politics in California. During the second half of the twentieth century, the state shifted from an older progressivism, which emphasized infrastructure investment and business growth, to a newer version, which views the private sector much the way the Huns viewed a city—as something to be sacked and plundered." Pure gold. I would add another factor: since the 1970s, the old progressivism which actually believed in progress has been replaced by things like green ideology. The latter is a form of puritanical suffering-and-atonement religious fundamentalism. I think it's properly classified as a species of religious conservatism, and doesn't even belong on the left. Note that I'm referring to the quasi-religious ideology... cleaning up the environment and building more renewable energy systems is great. The ideology has nothing to do with that. Greenpeace has as much to do with saving the planet as "Focus on the Family" has to do with helping actual families. Both are just fundamentalist cults using their respective issues for publicity.

alextp 16y ago
This is the best characterization I've ever read of the Green movement. I've joked for years about how nature has replaced god for some people, but it was always too vague without the connection to atonement and suffering.
- kiba 16y ago
  Perhaps, we ought to replace their Green religion with an inert religion like the Wiccia religion.
- api 16y ago
  To be more precise, I think green ideology is a secular rehash of Calvinism. It follows the same basic sin-and-redemption narrative. I've often wondered if the failure of green ideology to take off is Asia is due to the absence of the Judeo-Christian hole for it to plug into.
  - alextp 16y ago
    Catholicism has a very similar sin-and-atonement-based logic, and I've seen some non-practising catholics turn green.

protomyth 16y ago

California is a leading edge example of what happens when an increasing % of the population are either directly (state workers, people on welfare long term) employed by the government or don't pay any taxes have disproportionate representation in politics.

Tokala 16y ago

There is plenty of blame to go around in what has made California such a dysfunctional state. You cannot, however, take Proposition 13 and pretend it's not part of the problem. If a proposition is put on the ballot most of the time it requires a simple majority. Three strikes and the prohibition on same-sex marriage were done by a simple majority. Taxes? A 66% approval is required thanks to Prop. 13. California is like Scandinavia with no taxes.

sspencer 16y ago

Sort of an aside, but this article has the worst graphics imaginable. Why is about 1/2 the graphic made of garbage stock photos or "helpful" graphics like that giant up-arrow with a percent symbol on it? Ugh.

binspace 16y ago

There are some good points, however the emphasis needs to be on how green regulation is applied. The article seems to be complaining about "green" regulations (which are outdated and inane), not against the idea of the necessity of sustainable technology. One quibble, more offshore drilling will not solve the problem, and causes problems, as in the Gulf of Mexico. It's also a drop in the ocean of energy demand. It solves nothing. You only need to look as far as global rising energy consumption (especially China) and the supply/demand curve. Basic economics. This means the sustainable energy problem needs to be solved, and what better place to solve it than in California? We need solutions without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, make it easier for entrepreneurs and relieve the tax burden to encourage businesses. Provide an environment where technology (even green technology) can thrive. Create incentives for people to adopt more environmentally friendly approaches to living, etc. I think there are plenty of examples where sustainable living & and strong economic fundamentals can coexist.

kiba 16y ago
All we need is for oil energy cost to goes up, than you'll get "green energy". Currently, it does not make sense to invest in green energy technologies. It doesn't need to be solved right now, but it will become urgent in the future. Urgency will increase flow of capital. Increased flow of capital mean we'll get technological solutions faster. Right now, we can put our money to other, more urgent things that's more important. Green energy is not that important, for now.
brc 16y ago
What's wrong with offshore drilling? Yes, GoM events do happen but are very rare. You can't go around being completely risk averse and not doing anything - this is the whole problem with the green ideology. Why not drill the oil and get the tax revenue, bring in the jobs, get a little industry going? This is what the article is about : refusal to let private enterprise get on with making, doing, exporting, building. As for alternative energy - by all means continue R&D but drop the tax subsidies and using the government to 'pick winners'. The subsidies starve other technologies of capital, funding and attention while prolonging the life of unsuccessful technology. The only way the energy problems are going to be solved is by letting free enterprise innovate and compete to a solution. Governments can't and shouldn't pick winners. Let any energy solution live and die on it's merits. To me your reply sounds as though you acknowledge the problem (green regulations and intervention) but aren't willing to accept that the solution is to wind it all back and let solutions develop naturally. Green regulations should be restricted to reducing pollution and preserving areas of natural beauty, not stomping on every little use of the earth to provide, and certainly not picking future energy direction. Set the rules of the game, then let private entreprise go and come up with the solutions. Oil will cease to be an issue once better, cheaper alternatives exist.

koops 16y ago

"In the Central Valley, for instance, regulations designed to save certain fish species have required 450,000 acres to go fallow." Who could support "impoverishing whole regions" this way? Those who understand ecology. If the Delta Smelt goes extinct, a whole chain of species, fish and otherwise, will likely go with it, with unknown consequences. This is to human Californians' detriment, to say nothing of those species. Extinction is forever.

kalk 16y ago

I won't pretend I'm predisposed in its favor, but the arguments in this article are really pretty terrible. Take this paragraph from the first section, just about the only attempt to present big-picture numbers: "Between 2003 and 2007, California state and local government spending grew 31 percent, even as the state’s population grew just 5 percent." The article doesn't say if the 31% is inflation adjusted - which makes me suspect it's not. Also, what's happened since 2007? That was three years ago. Why cherry-pick numbers from the height of the housing boom, which presumably saw steadily increasing revenue? Is that the only way to show a dramatic spending increase and validate the article's thesis? "The overall tax burden as a percentage of state income, once middling among the states, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation, says the Tax Foundation." No periodization here at all, and then we get... "Since 1990, according to an analysis by California Lutheran University, the state’s share of overall U.S. employment has dropped a remarkable 10 percent." How much of this occurred over the 2003-2007 period that saw increasing spending? From anything the article tells us, the answer might very well be none. What was the population doing in the meantime? Again, for all I know, it might have changed proportionately. If one was to look up numbers that all covered the same time periods, I don't know what results one would get. But the numbers in the article really don't set up the case it goes on to make, that the problem is spending and regulation. And then that case has its own independent issues. Though again I don't have quick access to the real numbers, it's not plausible to me that "bureaucratic pensions" are really a substantial proportion of the state budget, unless teachers, firefighters, and prison guards are all alike "bureaucrats", a characterization which would be pretty tendentious. And are carbon-emissions regulations really likely to have contributed more to those 400,000 lost manufacturing jobs than a nationwide trend towards outsourcing?

geebee 16y ago

I enjoyed the article, and in general, I agree with the general philosophy of government behind it - a conservative, small government mindset that is practical enough to see a positive role for the state. One thing it missed, in my opinion, is the extremely negative consequences of prop 13. Proponents of Prop 13 often argue that it lowered property taxes. As a recent home(owner/debtor), I assure you that it really did not. My taxes are extremely high. And when I move to a more expensive house (all part of that upward mobility), they will adjust upward once again. Very wealthy individuals and corporations who bought a long time ago and never move pay extremely low property taxes. Young families and new businesses pay extremely high property taxes. To me, this is the most loathsome outcome of prop 13 - a low tax aristocracy of established wealth that keeps its own taxes low but enjoys a bloated state paid for on the backs of young families and new businesses. I have no idea why principled small government conservatives can't see this problem with prop 13. You'd think that someone who wrote an article like this would be opposed to putting young families and new businesses at a tax disadvantage. Aside from this (in my opinion) glaring omission that doesn't reflect well on self-declared fiscal conservatives, I think it was a good analysis. It's a shame, because while the article is measured in tone, it clearly does show a (deserved, I think) distain for the big government liberals who created a bloated state. C'mon, dude, hypocritical, fake "small government" conservatives who create a low tax aristocracy are also to blame here. On the bright side, hey, my parents bought an expensive house in SF and an expensive vacation house in the wine country long ago, so their property taxes are far lower total then what I pay for a small 2br house in an unfashionable district of SF. If I inherit these houses some day, I'll also inherit their low taxes, too. Aren't aristocracies wonderful?

jsz0 16y ago

I can't help but think part of the problem in CA is the .03% of the budget being spent on labor and workforce development and the stagnant higher education budget for the last 25 years which is now being cut to pre-1980 levels when you factor in inflation. If you can't stop manufacturing jobs from leaving and don't want to invest in your workforce these things tend to happen.

anigbrowl 16y ago

Something nobody else seems to think about... In short, the economy created by the new progressives can pay off only those at the peak of the employment pyramid — top researchers, CEOs, entertainment honchos, highly skilled engineers and programmers. As a result, California suffers from an increasingly bifurcated social structure. This is not just a matter of politics, public v. private sector, and the competing vested interests in California. Those socioeconomic factors are all important, but the elephant in the room is that a very high proportion of our wealth derives from computers and software. We have automated away a great deal of what the labor force used to do, so successfully that many industries have pushed unit labor costs down to the level where only developing nations can compete. Outsourcing is generally blamed for the decline in US manufacturing jobs, but I think that's a symptom rather than a cause. If there wasn't a large pool of cheap labor in Asia, then we'd just be seeing more robots in the US, as is the case in Japan to a large extent. Of course the internet has brought all kinds of wonderful new opportunities. But because the key economic benefits are disintermediation and delocalization, the rewards are distributed very differently. Take Amazon - hugely successful company, clear benefit to the consumer, and a good advert for capitalism generally. Jobs at Amazon: warehouse drone, middle manager, engineer, senior manager. I simplify, of course, but what do you think are the chances for a warehouse drone to 'learn the business' and rise up the ranks? Virtually zero unless they study at home, because the warehouse job consists of picking up order slips, scanning things taken off shelves, and putting them in boxes. The inventory management, purchasing, accounting, and analysis aspects are entirely automated, so you're not going to pick up many skills on the job. This isn't just an internet problem. In my supermarket the checkout is not staffed mainly by people whose job is recite scripts written by the marketing department and to make sure I'm not stealing anything. They wave barcoded products over a laser scanner and announce a total. All the price-checking, calculation and cash dispensing is carried out by a computer, and the job doesn't even require accurate data entry. The job requires so little that it doesn't pay much, and there's no real room for improvement, skill development, or competition. There's no opportunity to become the most efficient and accurate checkout operator; and it demands so little competence that getting fired is nearly impossible. So if you're tired of stacking shelves, don't hold your breath waiting for a chance to try life as a checkout clerk. You could occupy your thoughts with examining what goods sell best in which shelf positions, but display management is largely automated these days as well. You just scan the wholesale box and your scanning wand tells you which shelf section to put the inventory on today. Work as a mechanic? Well, a lot of modern engines are just black boxes now, and your job is about running diagnostics and then either resetting the firmware or ordering whatever the manufacturer's website says you need. Clerical work/bookkeeping? Greatly reduced - spreadsheets take care of all the arithmetic, and even the data entry is increasingly automated. As we all know, writing is a good deal easier with a computer than a typewriter, and there's been a corresponding decline in the importance of writing ability, accuracy in spelling and grammar, and handwriting. For many people now, the most complex tasks they perform at home are operating the microwave and assembling Ikea furniture. Earning a living now requires either long hours in low paying jobs or long hours of study and professional commitment for well-paying ones, so for a lot of people housework and DIY are necessities to be minimized - there isn't the same time or economic freedom to develop ancillary skills for their own sake. So it's not just how we divide the income or the taxes. It's how we divide the work too.