10 ms·

California has the highest poverty rate in the USA

205 points by rhapsodic 9y ago

purplezooey 9y ago
Good points in this article. Prop 13 and land use regulation here is out of control. It's at the point where the government should be buying neighborhoods at market rate and selling to developers who will build at a high density.
overcast 9y ago
I hope this gets more visibility on HN, so people can see others do live outside the reality distortion bubble. It was only last week people were arguing whether $150,000 was an average salary for programmers in the bay area.
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  Pish-posh, everyone knows that poor people are a red state problem. California is a net contributor to the federal budget, along with all the other coastal states, after all.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
megaman22 9y ago
Interesting to see how differently this does today, with an editorialized title, vs the actual title that was submitted a day or two ago and insta-flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447
- sageabilly 9y ago
  Yeah, this is some serious political opinion masquerading as journalism: Original Title: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America? With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.
  - masterleep 9y ago
    The article is an op-ed.
Mankhool 9y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr... >41 million people who officially live in poverty. Of those, nine million have zero cash income
rdtsc 9y ago
Interesting, saw this article yesterday and it was flagged and gone within minutes. I understand there are some silly and wrong assumptions in it, but is it really that offending and off-topic to be flagged? Could easily just make a comment saying "This is wrong and here is why..."
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  Well looking at this it appears it was a very misleading op ed piece. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...
  - oagboghi2 9y ago
    yes it does. Your own article proves it.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sampo 9y ago
Some economists have started to suggest that exclusionary zoning policy is the main driver of wealth inequality. And California is pretty much the world leader in exclusionary zoning policy. https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-... https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-inequality/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-... https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-regulation-undermines-affordable-housing https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-regulation...
- dbcooper 9y ago
  This paper is pretty interesting too: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_regional_income_convergence_in_the_us_declined_01.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_region... Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined? >The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decline in the rate of income convergence across states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific returns to living in those places, and (3) a redirection of unskilled migration away from productive places. We develop a model in which rising housing prices in wealthy areas deter unskilled migration and slow income convergence. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this channel in the data. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has mostly stopped in places with more regulation.
  - eecc 9y ago
    I’ll take a look. I live in Amsterdam and the city is developing a serious problem with housing and income distribution. There’s a huge portion of the housing stock owned by social housing and a red-hot debate on how does it affect - contributes or mitigates - the problem. My theory is that unit size is the greatest mitigator, whereby more affluent buyers move out to the countryside to buy larger properties. If larger apartments were allowed in the city — lower tax or land lease prices — it would trigger a price war among Oil Barons over that penthouse on the canals. Opinions?
jxramos 9y ago
Some Italian friends of mine mentioned some sort of political joke about whatever political party claims to be for the poor, that "they [championing political party] like them [the poor] so much they want more of them". Something to that effect. Reading this bit of the article below made me think of their laughing together at however you say the above in Italian. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base.
lifeformed 9y ago
By all other poverty metrics California is doing okay, I think it's the high housing prices that skew this particular measurement.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jeffbax 9y ago
  I think you should take a look at their looming pension crisis... California is already taxed to hell, and their balance sheet is not something to be optimistic about.
tstactplsignore 9y ago
The author has a pretty radical and completely unsubstantiated anti-environmental outlook. He claims that California energy prices are so high because of "liberal" policies including extremely important (but honestly still fairly modest) regulations to help stem carbon emissions - however, California energy prices have been far above the US average for decades [0] and the impact of carbon regulations on the consumer have been minimal, and certainly have nothing to do with California's poverty rate. (Note that most of the east coast lives in states with similar regulations [1], and there too costs have not been pushed onto the consumer). As to the argument that a ban on plastic bags is causing California's poverty because it hurts the workers in the factories that make them... I think the ridiculousness of that idea stands on its own. California has a poverty problem. It's driven by things like the housing crisis and high consumer prices. Not because we provide any kind of support the poor or the environment. [0] http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/static/img/la-fi-g-electricity-capacity-web.jpg http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/s... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initia...
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Stemming carbon emissions (as well as other environmental toxins), improves life by reducing medical costs due to pollution. Not that CA is perfect at that, see Exide lead contamination in LA.
- dsr_ 9y ago
  "The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) is a California-based free-market think tank which promotes "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government." -- first paragraph of the wikipedia article. Always ask "Who benefits?".
ryan_j_naughton 9y ago
This Op-Ed is picking and choosing facts and associating them together as if there is causation. Instead of "CA didn't adopt welfare reform ==> higher poverty rates", it could be there are more poor immigrants who move here from Mexico and Central America (along with a myriad of other factors). Further: >"Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on 'remaking the world.'" The article then goes on to list policies that are more about ideology than making real impacts, including: >"The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system." Public transportation is obviously valuable and furthers the public interest. Has it been done poorly in California, yes, but if we had trains like Europe it would dramatically increase quality of life for our citizens. >"enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime" This isn't about "remaking the world" or winning political points. Climate change is real and having real impacts on people's lives. >"Established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants" Again, this has very real impacts for a significant percentage of our residents. Not just an ideological fluff policy. >"Banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture" Plastic is destroying our oceans and causing significant, irreparable farm to our ecosystems. In the cost-benefit analysis, the externality costs outweigh the value of those jobs. When Florida just got an exemption to prevent offshore drilling off their coasts, conservatives reacted positively, recognizing the trade-offs between one economic activity (drilling) and another (coastal tourism) when externalities are involved. It's so infuriating how conservatives, who used to be a group that understood economics, now willfully ignore sound economic theory when it doesn't fit their talking points.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  I agree that it is a shame everything has to be so politicized, both of the left and right, even when a good point is made. We clearly have a problem in California, but it is unlikely that this is because of a welfare system that support people in need. As pointed out elsewhere a more likely culprit is exclusionary zoning that has increased living costs to unsustainable levels even for high paid employees. A lot of problems solve themselves when having a roof over your head doesn't costs $3600 for a very low-standard one-bedroom.
- 9y ago
ryanobjc 9y ago
An oped isn’t a great place to learn about this problem. The author has massive incentives to distort or mislead in pursuit of their argument. For example, I have heard from state senate staffers that although the state is blue, the notion that progressive forces are in control of the government isn’t true. If you think about it, this makes sense. California is diverse so why wouldn’t the politicians be?
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  You appear to be correct on your suspicion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...
- oagboghi2 9y ago
  Whoever told you that is lying to you. "progressive forces don't control the state" , well then who the fuck does? Aliens? Or wait, let me guess....Russia
etchalon 9y ago
So, the entire premise of this op-ed seems to be based on this report: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... It should be said that CA does not have the highest SPM. DC does (20.4 vs 21). But that's not really the point of the article. I don't fully understand yet why SPM is better than the "official" poverty metric, or why the calculations involved in SPM create such a dramatic difference between CA's official rate and their "SPM" rate. However, I'm willing to venture a guess that it's a fairly complicated interaction of policies and demographics which don't tell you much about the "success" of more conservative policies on eradicating poverty. Plenty of conservative states have a higher SPM than plenty of other "liberal" states, so it seems to me that using it as an indictment/evidence for policy approaches on either side is fairly flimsy.
- spondyl 9y ago
  > I don't fully understand why SPM is better than the "official" poverty metric I'm no statistician but here's what it says in the introduction section: Beginning in 2011, the Census Bureau began publishing the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure. I'm not a US citizen so my understanding may be quite off but I assume that since (presumably) the states themselves do the official measure, then that's why they don't account for federal programs? EDIT: I just realised that while the District of Columbia has the highest SPM, they're probably playing semantics. The article starts with "Guess which state" which excludes DC, a federal district. It's just weasel wording to get at Cali though :)
  - etchalon 9y ago
    The whole op-ed piece is weasel wording, really.
temp-dude-87844 9y ago
This essay is an op-ed that lays the blame for most of California's poverty woes at the feet of a variety of liberal, leftist, progressive, and/or Democrat-initiated policies. From a conservative point-of-view, I can do better. I propose that California's poverty woes are disproportionately due to a permanent and ever-growing underclass, whose existence and continued plight isn't caused by policies like rent control, welfare reform, and targeted eco-taxes that end up being regressive; but rather, is a simple consequence of individuals desperate for more prosperity and financial security making tough choices for the good of their families. They are attracted to the cores and fringes of urban areas that play host to islands of productivity and wealth, where they work long hours and multiple jobs in an effort to provide. Some are later-generation Americans born to immigrant ancestors, some are youth from elsewhere in the US trying to flee metros with no growth, some are recent arrivals from regions of the world plagued by poverty and strife, and some are undocumented, working under the table and living in the shadows of mainstream society, more avoidant of law enforcement than groups who suffer the most violence at the hands of the law, and always at the mercy of their employer, handlers, and pure luck. These groups are there because in California they can capture a larger portion of the effects of trickle-down than in North Carolina, Texas, or New York; and because the state-provided safety net, average people's compassion, and availability of human connections and capital allows them a small, but more meaningful chance of breaking out of the poverty trap. In other words, the prosperity, concentration of wealth, human capital, and laxer attitude of California allows these marginalized groups a better shot than elsewhere -- especially places like Mississippi and West Virginia, whose poverty is primarily indigenous, and isn't among recent arrivals. California is somewhere where trickle-down does display elements of it working, at the very least in the hearts and minds of those attracted to the state. We can argue about its magnitude all day long, but to flagellate all manner unrelated policies after a myopic reading of statistics is absurd.
- aphextron 9y ago
  This is a fantastic point. I count myself among those desperate youth fleeing the stagnation that exists in the rest of our country. I’ve been able to, as a high school dropout, move here to California and teach myself enough skills to make more money than I could have remotely even imagined 5 years ago. I am homeless now though, drifting between motels because even though I have the money to pay for it, I simply cannot get someone to rent me a studio apartment within reasonable commuting distance to my east bay tech job. It’s miserable being unable to put down any roots here, to spend your days begging a landlord just to look at your application. But the thought of leaving and taking my shot at getting by anywhere else is terrifying. The rest of this country is slowly becoming either a racist red state hell hole, or a dead end pit of poverty and despair for anyone with ambition.
birken 9y ago
When I read this article I was surprised and looked for some data, and while the fact that California is the leader in this poverty metric is true, the claims of why I'm not entirely sold on. 1) The state with the 2nd highest adjusted poverty rate, Florida, has had republican governors since 1999, republicans in both chambers of the legislature and is not a "welfare state". 2) California "welfare" spending per-capita has been dropping for the past 5 years, not rising at some out of control rate [1] 3) The adjustment in poverty rate causing CA to shoot to the top is almost certainly due to high housing costs, which is serious problem but not tied to the welfare state [2] So while I think it is a useful wake up call that California isn't a perfect place where everybody is doing well, blaming the welfare state is probably not very accurate, and more sane housing policies would probably do far more to help the poverty rates than curtailing support programs. And another thing to note, the rate has been dropping. In 2013 it was 23.4, and now it is 20.4, which I'm sure is mostly due to the economy being much stronger, but at the same time shows this isn't a problem spiraling out of control. 1: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2022CAb_19c1li211mcn_40c https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_202... 2: http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  One could maybe speculate that climate might be a correlation worth looking at.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    If I was homeless I would either go to Florida or California. At least you won't die in the winter.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  The reason why the welfare spend per capita went down might be because people without the means to pay for the high living costs move away, while we got more high-paying jobs. A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year.
IronWolve 9y ago
There's videos of the long line of tents in orange county making the rounds on social media today. With 1/3rd of the welfare recipients live in California, seems to be a pretty big issue thats not being addressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-WtQ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-WtQ8E
pascalxus 9y ago
And yet, it doesn't need to be this way. Cafeteria workers at facebook earn 40k per year and are stuck living in people's garages. Anywhere else in the country, and they'd be thoroughly midclass with 40k per year. It mostly comes down to egregiously awful housing policies that make it 5-10 times more expensive to live here. This hurts everyone. Other cities manage to do it. Look at red cities like Houston, that are growing every bit as fast and still manage to keep housing costs low. And the population density in TX is roughly same as CA, at least overall. Ultimately, it comes down to the ratio of jobs to housing. The penninsula has 4 jobs to every 1 person place to live. You have to build more housing or get rid of jobs, to make two back into balance. and, for christ sake, get rid of those CEQA laws and anything else that gets in the way of housing costs. We need to start working with developers, not against them.
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Is Houston really red? Most of its political representation seems firmly in the urban liberal left. That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red Texas artifact. The population densities of Texas and California are about the same overall because they both have vast amounts of unpopulated land. If you look at the density of cities, however, California is much more dense than Texas in general.
  - technofiend 9y ago
    >That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red Texas artifact. It's actually an artifact of Houston's original charter which allowed nearly unlimited growth via annexation and Houston's use of that annexation power to reclaim its tax and voter base each time they moved outward from the city center. Houston grew from 9 square miles in 1900 to ~600 square miles today. See http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-events/article/Aggresive-annexation-generates-growing-pains-8338701.php http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-events/arti... for more details. As to our voting patterns, see https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-t... for analysis. We're generally a blue dot surrounded by red but that's on average.
waxwander 9y ago
Ummm... LA has more homeless people than any other city because of the weather. NYC winters kill. LA's outdoors are basically like the indoors most other places. No mosquitoes. Only rare rain. 70 degrees most of the time. Much of California's poor are created elsewhere and they move to California. It's easier to be homeless in California than most other places.
- tabtab 9y ago
  Indeed that may be a big factor. A better study of who, where, and why is needed to understand the bigger picture. It's premature to fill in details with the typical partisan angles.
unabridged 9y ago
The homelessness problem is one the most straight forward social problems that can be solved, unlike nebulous goals like decreasing crime, improving health, creating jobs, etc. Literally all it takes is building more places to live. The resources and land exist, the only thing standing in the way is political will.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Appears that this article is not true according to another article titled https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...
SubiculumCode 9y ago
There are at least two Californias. 1. LA and Bay areas. 2.The Central Valley. One is rich. The other is poor. I grew up in the central valley. The central valley is agriculture, and is disproportionately populated by generally hard working migrants (or 2nd/3rd generations thereof) of Mexico. They pick our fruit and our vegetables, but they are dirt poor. I grew up along side them, land of dirt and chicken coops. They were my neighbors and my friends.
branchless 9y ago
Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry in the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth... The Remedy by Henry George. https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-Depressions-Increase/dp/0911312587 https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-Depressio... Yet vanishingly few on hacker news wants to tax land, not labour.
ljsocal 9y ago
Factual counter arguments here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/california-is-doing-fine-thank-you-very-much/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/california-is-...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Drum does rebut the causal argument in the LA Times Op-Ed (which is pure ideological dogma detached from facts; the claim that “Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price” is particularly amusing, given that ignores that until recently California has (whoever held the majority, with or without also holding the governor's mansion) had an effective minority-party veto via the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget (and still has a 2/3 requirement to pass new taxes through the legislature) which has prevented anyone from being free to impose any ideology other than one of government inaction-responsiveness. OTOH, California is not doing okay; Drum provides no reason to disregard the SPM, but even if you do, being just a bit worse than middle of the road by the federal poverty line while being 8th in per capita GDP is, by itself, an alarming number that shows that the aggregate wealth in California is a rising tide they is absolutely not lifting all boats. But to Drum it's somehow “just fine”.

205 points by rhapsodic 9y ago

Good points in this article. Prop 13 and land use regulation here is out of control. It's at the point where the government should be buying neighborhoods at market rate and selling to developers who will build at a high density.

overcast 9y ago

I hope this gets more visibility on HN, so people can see others do live outside the reality distortion bubble. It was only last week people were arguing whether $150,000 was an average salary for programmers in the bay area.

deadmetheny 9y ago
Pish-posh, everyone knows that poor people are a red state problem. California is a net contributor to the federal budget, along with all the other coastal states, after all.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

megaman22 9y ago

Interesting to see how differently this does today, with an editorialized title, vs the actual title that was submitted a day or two ago and insta-flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447

sageabilly 9y ago
Yeah, this is some serious political opinion masquerading as journalism: Original Title: Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America? With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity that drove California to its golden years.
- masterleep 9y ago
  The article is an op-ed.

Mankhool 9y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-poverty-un-special-rapporteur https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extr... >41 million people who officially live in poverty. Of those, nine million have zero cash income

rdtsc 9y ago

Interesting, saw this article yesterday and it was flagged and gone within minutes. I understand there are some silly and wrong assumptions in it, but is it really that offending and off-topic to be flagged? Could easily just make a comment saying "This is wrong and here is why..."

jacksmith21006 9y ago
Well looking at this it appears it was a very misleading op ed piece. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...
- oagboghi2 9y ago
  yes it does. Your own article proves it.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

sampo 9y ago

Some economists have started to suggest that exclusionary zoning policy is the main driver of wealth inequality. And California is pretty much the world leader in exclusionary zoning policy. https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-inequality https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-... https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-gra... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-inequality/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-... https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-regulation-undermines-affordable-housing https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-regulation...

dbcooper 9y ago
This paper is pretty interesting too: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_regional_income_convergence_in_the_us_declined_01.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/shoag/files/why_has_region... Why Has Regional Income Convergence in the U.S. Declined? >The past thirty years have seen a dramatic decline in the rate of income convergence across states and in population flows to wealthy places. These changes coincide with (1) an increase in housing prices in productive areas, (2) a divergence in the skill-specific returns to living in those places, and (3) a redirection of unskilled migration away from productive places. We develop a model in which rising housing prices in wealthy areas deter unskilled migration and slow income convergence. Using a new panel measure of housing supply regulations, we demonstrate the importance of this channel in the data. Income convergence continues in less-regulated places, while it has mostly stopped in places with more regulation.
- eecc 9y ago
  I’ll take a look. I live in Amsterdam and the city is developing a serious problem with housing and income distribution. There’s a huge portion of the housing stock owned by social housing and a red-hot debate on how does it affect - contributes or mitigates - the problem. My theory is that unit size is the greatest mitigator, whereby more affluent buyers move out to the countryside to buy larger properties. If larger apartments were allowed in the city — lower tax or land lease prices — it would trigger a price war among Oil Barons over that penthouse on the canals. Opinions?

jxramos 9y ago

Some Italian friends of mine mentioned some sort of political joke about whatever political party claims to be for the poor, that "they [championing political party] like them [the poor] so much they want more of them". Something to that effect. Reading this bit of the article below made me think of their laughing together at however you say the above in Italian. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base.

lifeformed 9y ago

By all other poverty metrics California is doing okay, I think it's the high housing prices that skew this particular measurement.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jeffbax 9y ago
I think you should take a look at their looming pension crisis... California is already taxed to hell, and their balance sheet is not something to be optimistic about.

tstactplsignore 9y ago

The author has a pretty radical and completely unsubstantiated anti-environmental outlook. He claims that California energy prices are so high because of "liberal" policies including extremely important (but honestly still fairly modest) regulations to help stem carbon emissions - however, California energy prices have been far above the US average for decades [0] and the impact of carbon regulations on the consumer have been minimal, and certainly have nothing to do with California's poverty rate. (Note that most of the east coast lives in states with similar regulations [1], and there too costs have not been pushed onto the consumer). As to the argument that a ban on plastic bags is causing California's poverty because it hurts the workers in the factories that make them... I think the ridiculousness of that idea stands on its own. California has a poverty problem. It's driven by things like the housing crisis and high consumer prices. Not because we provide any kind of support the poor or the environment. [0] http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/static/img/la-fi-g-electricity-capacity-web.jpg http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-capacity/s... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initia...

dv_dt 9y ago
Stemming carbon emissions (as well as other environmental toxins), improves life by reducing medical costs due to pollution. Not that CA is perfect at that, see Exide lead contamination in LA.
dsr_ 9y ago
"The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) is a California-based free-market think tank which promotes "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government." -- first paragraph of the wikipedia article. Always ask "Who benefits?".

ryan_j_naughton 9y ago

This Op-Ed is picking and choosing facts and associating them together as if there is causation. Instead of "CA didn't adopt welfare reform ==> higher poverty rates", it could be there are more poor immigrants who move here from Mexico and Central America (along with a myriad of other factors). Further: >"Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly describes as a fixation on 'remaking the world.'" The article then goes on to list policies that are more about ideology than making real impacts, including: >"The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail system." Public transportation is obviously valuable and furthers the public interest. Has it been done poorly in California, yes, but if we had trains like Europe it would dramatically increase quality of life for our citizens. >"enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime" This isn't about "remaking the world" or winning political points. Climate change is real and having real impacts on people's lives. >"Established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants" Again, this has very real impacts for a significant percentage of our residents. Not just an ideological fluff policy. >"Banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved in their manufacture" Plastic is destroying our oceans and causing significant, irreparable farm to our ecosystems. In the cost-benefit analysis, the externality costs outweigh the value of those jobs. When Florida just got an exemption to prevent offshore drilling off their coasts, conservatives reacted positively, recognizing the trade-offs between one economic activity (drilling) and another (coastal tourism) when externalities are involved. It's so infuriating how conservatives, who used to be a group that understood economics, now willfully ignore sound economic theory when it doesn't fit their talking points.

asabjorn 9y ago
I agree that it is a shame everything has to be so politicized, both of the left and right, even when a good point is made. We clearly have a problem in California, but it is unlikely that this is because of a welfare system that support people in need. As pointed out elsewhere a more likely culprit is exclusionary zoning that has increased living costs to unsustainable levels even for high paid employees. A lot of problems solve themselves when having a roof over your head doesn't costs $3600 for a very low-standard one-bedroom.
9y ago

ryanobjc 9y ago

An oped isn’t a great place to learn about this problem. The author has massive incentives to distort or mislead in pursuit of their argument. For example, I have heard from state senate staffers that although the state is blue, the notion that progressive forces are in control of the government isn’t true. If you think about it, this makes sense. California is diverse so why wouldn’t the politicians be?

jacksmith21006 9y ago
You appear to be correct on your suspicion. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...
oagboghi2 9y ago
Whoever told you that is lying to you. "progressive forces don't control the state" , well then who the fuck does? Aliens? Or wait, let me guess....Russia

etchalon 9y ago

So, the entire premise of this op-ed seems to be based on this report: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio... It should be said that CA does not have the highest SPM. DC does (20.4 vs 21). But that's not really the point of the article. I don't fully understand yet why SPM is better than the "official" poverty metric, or why the calculations involved in SPM create such a dramatic difference between CA's official rate and their "SPM" rate. However, I'm willing to venture a guess that it's a fairly complicated interaction of policies and demographics which don't tell you much about the "success" of more conservative policies on eradicating poverty. Plenty of conservative states have a higher SPM than plenty of other "liberal" states, so it seems to me that using it as an indictment/evidence for policy approaches on either side is fairly flimsy.

spondyl 9y ago
> I don't fully understand why SPM is better than the "official" poverty metric I'm no statistician but here's what it says in the introduction section: Beginning in 2011, the Census Bureau began publishing the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure. I'm not a US citizen so my understanding may be quite off but I assume that since (presumably) the states themselves do the official measure, then that's why they don't account for federal programs? EDIT: I just realised that while the District of Columbia has the highest SPM, they're probably playing semantics. The article starts with "Guess which state" which excludes DC, a federal district. It's just weasel wording to get at Cali though :)
- etchalon 9y ago
  The whole op-ed piece is weasel wording, really.

temp-dude-87844 9y ago

This essay is an op-ed that lays the blame for most of California's poverty woes at the feet of a variety of liberal, leftist, progressive, and/or Democrat-initiated policies. From a conservative point-of-view, I can do better. I propose that California's poverty woes are disproportionately due to a permanent and ever-growing underclass, whose existence and continued plight isn't caused by policies like rent control, welfare reform, and targeted eco-taxes that end up being regressive; but rather, is a simple consequence of individuals desperate for more prosperity and financial security making tough choices for the good of their families. They are attracted to the cores and fringes of urban areas that play host to islands of productivity and wealth, where they work long hours and multiple jobs in an effort to provide. Some are later-generation Americans born to immigrant ancestors, some are youth from elsewhere in the US trying to flee metros with no growth, some are recent arrivals from regions of the world plagued by poverty and strife, and some are undocumented, working under the table and living in the shadows of mainstream society, more avoidant of law enforcement than groups who suffer the most violence at the hands of the law, and always at the mercy of their employer, handlers, and pure luck. These groups are there because in California they can capture a larger portion of the effects of trickle-down than in North Carolina, Texas, or New York; and because the state-provided safety net, average people's compassion, and availability of human connections and capital allows them a small, but more meaningful chance of breaking out of the poverty trap. In other words, the prosperity, concentration of wealth, human capital, and laxer attitude of California allows these marginalized groups a better shot than elsewhere -- especially places like Mississippi and West Virginia, whose poverty is primarily indigenous, and isn't among recent arrivals. California is somewhere where trickle-down does display elements of it working, at the very least in the hearts and minds of those attracted to the state. We can argue about its magnitude all day long, but to flagellate all manner unrelated policies after a myopic reading of statistics is absurd.

aphextron 9y ago
This is a fantastic point. I count myself among those desperate youth fleeing the stagnation that exists in the rest of our country. I’ve been able to, as a high school dropout, move here to California and teach myself enough skills to make more money than I could have remotely even imagined 5 years ago. I am homeless now though, drifting between motels because even though I have the money to pay for it, I simply cannot get someone to rent me a studio apartment within reasonable commuting distance to my east bay tech job. It’s miserable being unable to put down any roots here, to spend your days begging a landlord just to look at your application. But the thought of leaving and taking my shot at getting by anywhere else is terrifying. The rest of this country is slowly becoming either a racist red state hell hole, or a dead end pit of poverty and despair for anyone with ambition.

birken 9y ago

When I read this article I was surprised and looked for some data, and while the fact that California is the leader in this poverty metric is true, the claims of why I'm not entirely sold on. 1) The state with the 2nd highest adjusted poverty rate, Florida, has had republican governors since 1999, republicans in both chambers of the legislature and is not a "welfare state". 2) California "welfare" spending per-capita has been dropping for the past 5 years, not rising at some out of control rate [1] 3) The adjustment in poverty rate causing CA to shoot to the top is almost certainly due to high housing costs, which is serious problem but not tied to the welfare state [2] So while I think it is a useful wake up call that California isn't a perfect place where everybody is doing well, blaming the welfare state is probably not very accurate, and more sane housing policies would probably do far more to help the poverty rates than curtailing support programs. And another thing to note, the rate has been dropping. In 2013 it was 23.4, and now it is 20.4, which I'm sure is mostly due to the economy being much stronger, but at the same time shows this isn't a problem spiraling out of control. 1: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2022CAb_19c1li211mcn_40c https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_202... 2: http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/ http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...

optimuspaul 9y ago
One could maybe speculate that climate might be a correlation worth looking at.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  If I was homeless I would either go to Florida or California. At least you won't die in the winter.
asabjorn 9y ago
The reason why the welfare spend per capita went down might be because people without the means to pay for the high living costs move away, while we got more high-paying jobs. A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year.

IronWolve 9y ago

There's videos of the long line of tents in orange county making the rounds on social media today. With 1/3rd of the welfare recipients live in California, seems to be a pretty big issue thats not being addressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-WtQ8E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-WtQ8E

pascalxus 9y ago

And yet, it doesn't need to be this way. Cafeteria workers at facebook earn 40k per year and are stuck living in people's garages. Anywhere else in the country, and they'd be thoroughly midclass with 40k per year. It mostly comes down to egregiously awful housing policies that make it 5-10 times more expensive to live here. This hurts everyone. Other cities manage to do it. Look at red cities like Houston, that are growing every bit as fast and still manage to keep housing costs low. And the population density in TX is roughly same as CA, at least overall. Ultimately, it comes down to the ratio of jobs to housing. The penninsula has 4 jobs to every 1 person place to live. You have to build more housing or get rid of jobs, to make two back into balance. and, for christ sake, get rid of those CEQA laws and anything else that gets in the way of housing costs. We need to start working with developers, not against them.

seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Is Houston really red? Most of its political representation seems firmly in the urban liberal left. That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red Texas artifact. The population densities of Texas and California are about the same overall because they both have vast amounts of unpopulated land. If you look at the density of cities, however, California is much more dense than Texas in general.
- technofiend 9y ago
  >That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red Texas artifact. It's actually an artifact of Houston's original charter which allowed nearly unlimited growth via annexation and Houston's use of that annexation power to reclaim its tax and voter base each time they moved outward from the city center. Houston grew from 9 square miles in 1900 to ~600 square miles today. See http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-events/article/Aggresive-annexation-generates-growing-pains-8338701.php http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-events/arti... for more details. As to our voting patterns, see https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-red-political-sea/ https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-t... for analysis. We're generally a blue dot surrounded by red but that's on average.

waxwander 9y ago

Ummm... LA has more homeless people than any other city because of the weather. NYC winters kill. LA's outdoors are basically like the indoors most other places. No mosquitoes. Only rare rain. 70 degrees most of the time. Much of California's poor are created elsewhere and they move to California. It's easier to be homeless in California than most other places.

tabtab 9y ago
Indeed that may be a big factor. A better study of who, where, and why is needed to understand the bigger picture. It's premature to fill in details with the typical partisan angles.

unabridged 9y ago

The homelessness problem is one the most straight forward social problems that can be solved, unlike nebulous goals like decreasing crime, improving health, creating jobs, etc. Literally all it takes is building more places to live. The resources and land exist, the only thing standing in the way is political will.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Appears that this article is not true according to another article titled https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010 California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...

SubiculumCode 9y ago

There are at least two Californias. 1. LA and Bay areas. 2.The Central Valley. One is rich. The other is poor. I grew up in the central valley. The central valley is agriculture, and is disproportionately populated by generally hard working migrants (or 2nd/3rd generations thereof) of Mexico. They pick our fruit and our vegetables, but they are dirt poor. I grew up along side them, land of dirt and chicken coops. They were my neighbors and my friends.

branchless 9y ago

Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry in the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth... The Remedy by Henry George. https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-Depressions-Increase/dp/0911312587 https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-Depressio... Yet vanishingly few on hacker news wants to tax land, not labour.

ljsocal 9y ago

Factual counter arguments here: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/california-is-doing-fine-thank-you-very-much/ http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/california-is-...

dragonwriter 9y ago
Drum does rebut the causal argument in the LA Times Op-Ed (which is pure ideological dogma detached from facts; the claim that “Democrats have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political price” is particularly amusing, given that ignores that until recently California has (whoever held the majority, with or without also holding the governor's mansion) had an effective minority-party veto via the 2/3 requirement to pass a budget (and still has a 2/3 requirement to pass new taxes through the legislature) which has prevented anyone from being free to impose any ideology other than one of government inaction-responsiveness. OTOH, California is not doing okay; Drum provides no reason to disregard the SPM, but even if you do, being just a bit worse than middle of the road by the federal poverty line while being 8th in per capita GDP is, by itself, an alarming number that shows that the aggregate wealth in California is a rising tide they is absolutely not lifting all boats. But to Drum it's somehow “just fine”.