8 ms·

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-init

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.
- _zachs 9y ago
  Let me get this straight, if you're not in California you're either in a racist, red state hell hole or a dead end pit of poverty and despair? Dropping out of high-school clearly did you wonders.
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    They said becoming, not is.
    - talmand 9y ago
      So this person is not yet a total elitist jerk, but almost is. Got it.
  - nickthemagicman 9y ago
    He's correct. The rest of the country is pretty bleak for the poor.
- hsitz 9y ago
  Maybe you've been through all your options, so excuse me if I'm being unhelpful or ignorant. But have you tried looking for a roommate(s)? Potentially you wouldn't even need to be on a lease that way, and you might make some good social connections. Admittedly, I'm 50+ and not up on the scene for 20-somethings just starting out. But back when that was me I moved to NYC and the Village Voice (newspaper) was full of ads for roommates. That was how many young people expected to live, i.e., in small apartment shared with others. There's nothing wrong with that, it can even be fun; you're young, enjoy it. Isn't this still a common thing in high rent urban areas, the natural way of 20-something living?
  - aphextron 9y ago
    Roommates are definitely an option, and I did that for a few years when first moving out here. But I'm pushing 30 now and totally over that lifestyle. It makes me sad to realize this is probably the only realistic option for sticking around long term though.
hindsightbias 9y ago
Well done. If only we shut the borders like those great red states want to do, we'd have a lot fewer poor people and our stats would be higher!
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  Do you have any facts to back up your speculation that an "open" border has anything to do with the problems described?
  - rconti 9y ago
    The Op-Ed called it the poverty trap: "55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives." However, it failed to cite any kind of causality. It seems just as likely that those kinds of benefits are precisely why they come here. I'd also be interested in knowing if it's truly a trap -- do immigrant families come here, get those benefits, then move up? Or is it the same 55% decade after decade?
    - optimuspaul 9y ago
      immigrants via a loose border? or immigrants that arrived legally? Or immigrants that just came from other states? What does native mean in this context?
      - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
        Immigrants from other states vs. native Californians.
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    I think his comment was tongue in cheek. The stats might look higher without immigrants, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved.
    - Para2016 9y ago
Aloha 9y ago
I think you raise a very valid point. I'd also suggest that unless you're looking at county adjusted poverty levels (as in adjusted to cost of living by county) - you're gonna end up with a skewed picture. That said, the right is correct about something - once you get on the social safety net, its very hard to get off of it, because benefits don't gradually fade out as your income goes up, there is instead a cliff, and all of your social safety net benefits turn off at once - this is why I feel that means tested welfare is social ill, it helps too few, and doesnt provide a soft landing when you dont need help anymore. I'd much rather us do straight up income redistribution (in the form of a minimum income scheme) and medicaid for all.
- gnarbarian 9y ago
  Ya, could do a negative income tax bracket and eliminate all other forms of safety nets besides healthcare.
  - Aloha 9y ago
    I'd do it as a monthly check or electronic payment to every american over the age of 18.
    - gnarbarian 9y ago
      if you do it that way, the sum ends up being so small as to be of no consequence.
      - Aloha 9y ago
        about 1k a month, per adult - thats the idea - its meant to replace most of minimum wage.
        gnarbarian 9y ago
        Then you wouldn't be able to replace welfare. because their kids aren't 18. I'd say limit the payout to the bottom 10-20% in continuous graduations to eliminate any fiscal cliff.
jacobolus 9y ago
You might also add the weather. Living on the street, out of a car, in a trailer home, or in a poorly insulated small apartment/house without heating is a lot more comfortable in many parts of CA than in places with harsh winters.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  I am absolutely sure that the weather actively attracts homeless individuals, some of whom travel long distances while homeless to take advantage of the dry, temperate weather in some parts of California.
  - temp-dude-87844 9y ago
    Homelessness is a complex problem, but its mechanisms are largely outside of what I outlined in the parent post. California has 12% of the population of the US but 24% of those individuals accounted as 'homeless'; New York State has 6.1% of the US population but 16% of those homeless. This shows a larger homeless-to-population ratio in New York State than in California. However, the most outwardly visible facet of homelessness is individuals who are unsheltered, i.e. sleeping in public places or vehicles. The states with the highest rates of unsheltered people (out of total of those experiencing homelessness) was in California, Nevada, and Hawaii, Oregon, and Mississippi [1]. On the other hand, the statewide percentages themselves are not particularly insightful as to the magnitude of the problem, as they aren't weighed by the total number of individuals. Surprisingly, raw population of unsheltered homeless individuals per metropolitan area, or as a share of total population in a metropolitan area, is a metric rarely aggregated in reports, but from digging though the data [2], one can see that the absolute number of unsheltered homeless individuals is indeed highest in Los Angeles (34000+), San Francisco (~9000), Seattle (~5000+), and New York City (4000+). Weather is certainly a factor in outcomes of unsheltered individuals, but I'm not convinced weather is a factor in contributing causes in the particular concentration of people. It appears that New York City seems to muster more assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness than Los Angeles, where in the latter more people end up on the streets, and San Francisco's problem is, in both absolute and relative terms, not as acute as that of Los Angeles, despite public perception occasionally being the contrary. Sources: [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-1.pdf https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-P... [2] https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homelessness-populous-u-s-metro-areas-2016-interactive-map/ https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homelessness-populous-u...
chiaro 9y ago
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. This is correct. Warm winters is also a significant pull-factor.
asabjorn 9y ago
As pointed out elsewhere there is a much simpler explanation available in the exclusionary zoning rules, that many feel in our daily lives. * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k. * Zoning rules have restricted the housing supply so much that the median age of a San Francisco building is 1964, despite multiple boom times after that which should have lead to upzoning. http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2017/02/age-of-housing-stock-by-metropolitan.html http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2017/02/age-of-housing-stock-by... * On the peninsula there is one housing unit for every four jobs. Cities have build offices and garnish the income from that, but forces the externalities on housing and infrastructure onto surrounding cities because city boundaries does not reflect where those fall A lot of problems solve themselves when a one bedroom doesn't cost $3600 per month. We have plenty of space to build up and are mainly limited by zoning that. There is no question in my mind that when even my tech friends can't afford to live on their own a normal middle class family is in trouble.
- Aloha 9y ago
  I'd suggest to you that your bay area (really peninsula) focus is a little myopic, and that there is a whole lot more California than the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Salano, Napa, Sonoma and Marin - heck, each of those counties have different problems.
  - jdavis703 9y ago
    There are two problems at work. One is the poverty of the Central Valley. I strongly suspect this poverty is caused by more traditional problems, such as lack of economic opportunity, poor educational systems and exploitive corporations. Then there is the "poverty" that is caused by urban planning issues in urban and coastal California. There are families making six figures who can qualify for affordable housing programs here. In no way should a family bringing in six figures be just barely scraping by, but due to the increasing rent burden that’s where many find themselves.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
partycoder 9y ago
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States_by_state#California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... This article has some factual information about it, including statistics from census data and some details. e.g: substance abuse, people being priced out of their homes, etc. I would keep politics and ideology aside.
threatofrain 9y ago
I'd also add that being homeless in some states seems like a far more untenable proposition, out in those middle states where the climate gets extreme.

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.

_zachs 9y ago
Let me get this straight, if you're not in California you're either in a racist, red state hell hole or a dead end pit of poverty and despair? Dropping out of high-school clearly did you wonders.
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  They said becoming, not is.
  - talmand 9y ago
    So this person is not yet a total elitist jerk, but almost is. Got it.
- nickthemagicman 9y ago
  He's correct. The rest of the country is pretty bleak for the poor.
hsitz 9y ago
Maybe you've been through all your options, so excuse me if I'm being unhelpful or ignorant. But have you tried looking for a roommate(s)? Potentially you wouldn't even need to be on a lease that way, and you might make some good social connections. Admittedly, I'm 50+ and not up on the scene for 20-somethings just starting out. But back when that was me I moved to NYC and the Village Voice (newspaper) was full of ads for roommates. That was how many young people expected to live, i.e., in small apartment shared with others. There's nothing wrong with that, it can even be fun; you're young, enjoy it. Isn't this still a common thing in high rent urban areas, the natural way of 20-something living?
- aphextron 9y ago
  Roommates are definitely an option, and I did that for a few years when first moving out here. But I'm pushing 30 now and totally over that lifestyle. It makes me sad to realize this is probably the only realistic option for sticking around long term though.

hindsightbias 9y ago

Well done. If only we shut the borders like those great red states want to do, we'd have a lot fewer poor people and our stats would be higher!

optimuspaul 9y ago
Do you have any facts to back up your speculation that an "open" border has anything to do with the problems described?
- rconti 9y ago
  The Op-Ed called it the poverty trap: "55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives." However, it failed to cite any kind of causality. It seems just as likely that those kinds of benefits are precisely why they come here. I'd also be interested in knowing if it's truly a trap -- do immigrant families come here, get those benefits, then move up? Or is it the same 55% decade after decade?
  - optimuspaul 9y ago
    immigrants via a loose border? or immigrants that arrived legally? Or immigrants that just came from other states? What does native mean in this context?
    - seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Immigrants from other states vs. native Californians.
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  I think his comment was tongue in cheek. The stats might look higher without immigrants, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved.
  - Para2016 9y ago

Aloha 9y ago

I think you raise a very valid point. I'd also suggest that unless you're looking at county adjusted poverty levels (as in adjusted to cost of living by county) - you're gonna end up with a skewed picture. That said, the right is correct about something - once you get on the social safety net, its very hard to get off of it, because benefits don't gradually fade out as your income goes up, there is instead a cliff, and all of your social safety net benefits turn off at once - this is why I feel that means tested welfare is social ill, it helps too few, and doesnt provide a soft landing when you dont need help anymore. I'd much rather us do straight up income redistribution (in the form of a minimum income scheme) and medicaid for all.

gnarbarian 9y ago
Ya, could do a negative income tax bracket and eliminate all other forms of safety nets besides healthcare.
- Aloha 9y ago
  I'd do it as a monthly check or electronic payment to every american over the age of 18.
  - gnarbarian 9y ago
    if you do it that way, the sum ends up being so small as to be of no consequence.
    - Aloha 9y ago
      about 1k a month, per adult - thats the idea - its meant to replace most of minimum wage.
      - gnarbarian 9y ago
        Then you wouldn't be able to replace welfare. because their kids aren't 18. I'd say limit the payout to the bottom 10-20% in continuous graduations to eliminate any fiscal cliff.

jacobolus 9y ago

You might also add the weather. Living on the street, out of a car, in a trailer home, or in a poorly insulated small apartment/house without heating is a lot more comfortable in many parts of CA than in places with harsh winters.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
I am absolutely sure that the weather actively attracts homeless individuals, some of whom travel long distances while homeless to take advantage of the dry, temperate weather in some parts of California.
- temp-dude-87844 9y ago
  Homelessness is a complex problem, but its mechanisms are largely outside of what I outlined in the parent post. California has 12% of the population of the US but 24% of those individuals accounted as 'homeless'; New York State has 6.1% of the US population but 16% of those homeless. This shows a larger homeless-to-population ratio in New York State than in California. However, the most outwardly visible facet of homelessness is individuals who are unsheltered, i.e. sleeping in public places or vehicles. The states with the highest rates of unsheltered people (out of total of those experiencing homelessness) was in California, Nevada, and Hawaii, Oregon, and Mississippi [1]. On the other hand, the statewide percentages themselves are not particularly insightful as to the magnitude of the problem, as they aren't weighed by the total number of individuals. Surprisingly, raw population of unsheltered homeless individuals per metropolitan area, or as a share of total population in a metropolitan area, is a metric rarely aggregated in reports, but from digging though the data [2], one can see that the absolute number of unsheltered homeless individuals is indeed highest in Los Angeles (34000+), San Francisco (~9000), Seattle (~5000+), and New York City (4000+). Weather is certainly a factor in outcomes of unsheltered individuals, but I'm not convinced weather is a factor in contributing causes in the particular concentration of people. It appears that New York City seems to muster more assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness than Los Angeles, where in the latter more people end up on the streets, and San Francisco's problem is, in both absolute and relative terms, not as acute as that of Los Angeles, despite public perception occasionally being the contrary. Sources: [1] https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-Part-1.pdf https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/2017-AHAR-P... [2] https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homelessness-populous-u-s-metro-areas-2016-interactive-map/ https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homelessness-populous-u...

chiaro 9y ago

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. This is correct. Warm winters is also a significant pull-factor.

asabjorn 9y ago

As pointed out elsewhere there is a much simpler explanation available in the exclusionary zoning rules, that many feel in our daily lives. * 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k. * Zoning rules have restricted the housing supply so much that the median age of a San Francisco building is 1964, despite multiple boom times after that which should have lead to upzoning. http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2017/02/age-of-housing-stock-by-metropolitan.html http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2017/02/age-of-housing-stock-by... * On the peninsula there is one housing unit for every four jobs. Cities have build offices and garnish the income from that, but forces the externalities on housing and infrastructure onto surrounding cities because city boundaries does not reflect where those fall A lot of problems solve themselves when a one bedroom doesn't cost $3600 per month. We have plenty of space to build up and are mainly limited by zoning that. There is no question in my mind that when even my tech friends can't afford to live on their own a normal middle class family is in trouble.

Aloha 9y ago
I'd suggest to you that your bay area (really peninsula) focus is a little myopic, and that there is a whole lot more California than the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Salano, Napa, Sonoma and Marin - heck, each of those counties have different problems.
- jdavis703 9y ago
  There are two problems at work. One is the poverty of the Central Valley. I strongly suspect this poverty is caused by more traditional problems, such as lack of economic opportunity, poor educational systems and exploitive corporations. Then there is the "poverty" that is caused by urban planning issues in urban and coastal California. There are families making six figures who can qualify for affordable housing programs here. In no way should a family bringing in six figures be just barely scraping by, but due to the increasing rent burden that’s where many find themselves.
- asabjorn 9y ago

partycoder 9y ago

No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States_by_state#California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... This article has some factual information about it, including statistics from census data and some details. e.g: substance abuse, people being priced out of their homes, etc. I would keep politics and ideology aside.

threatofrain 9y ago

I'd also add that being homeless in some states seems like a far more untenable proposition, out in those middle states where the climate gets extreme.