4 ms·

Is California a Good Role Model?

27 points by ishikawa 8y ago

jdhn 8y ago
>Depending on how you look at it, it’s one of the richest states or one of the most unequal. It can be both, you know.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  That's a pretty obvious conclusion that modern commentators have a hard time with. Folks go to great lengths to ignore stratified society. In 2018 California, New York (ie. My grandma thought White Plains was some frozen tundra near Niagara Falls) and even Massachusetts are examples of that. Victorian England is another great example.
  - eli_gottlieb 8y ago
    So what's it like living in a less stratified society?
- brightball 8y ago
  It pretty much has to be both.
unit91 8y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again!
- asaph 8y ago
  TIL about Betteridge's law of headlines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
- tome 8y ago
  tome's law strikes again! "In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's law is mentioned with probability 1." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772
funkythings 8y ago
No it's not. - Most unequal state in America - VERY high taxes (that are supposed to stop inequality, but it doesn't. Surprise) - skyrocketing housing prices - Very illiberal mindset towards the first amendment, especially on college campuses and in younger generations - Allows illegal citizens to vote - Very "shallow" show-off culture due to the show biz
- zdw 8y ago
  What exactly is an "illegal citizen"?
  - walldivide 8y ago
    Exactly, no building should have walls or doors, everyone should come in and be welcome everywhere.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - st26 8y ago
    It sounds like the name of a B action movie.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    I think that's supposed to read as "Someone who votes differently than I do"
- hef19898 8y ago
  Some of the Points are relevant (inequality, housing), one is subjective (shallow culture), one is relative (taxes), one is without proof (voting). And regarding the last, and this question is truely serious because I don't get it, what is it with the obsession about the First? Maybe I'm so used that everybody can voice opinion and a free press that I take it for granted, but still. And free speech goes both ways, just saying. Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, so some insight into how free speech is looked at in the US would really be appreciated.
frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>Take per capita personal income, which grew nationally from $4,218 in 1970 to $51,631 in 2017, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more, from $4,966 to $58,272, in real dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Am I just crazy or is that actually less growth than the national number (in terms of percentage)? >What stands out is the concentration of high rates of mobility in Democratic areas of the state. >The Democrats are essentially an urban party so are we sure it's not just that urban areas have higher mobility?
rayiner 8y ago
Looking at total GSP makes no sense. California has the largest GSP, but it is only #8 in GSP per capita. Also, when we compare countries, we usually compare PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP per capita, not nominal GDP per capita. California has a cost of living much higher than the national average. If you look at real purchasing power, California ranks #37: http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-taxes-and-price-levels-may-change-our-perceptions-of-which-us-states-are-poor-or-rich http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-t.... The usual retort to attempts to adjust for cost of living is that iPhones, Teslas, etc., cost the same anywhere in the country. This is where inequality comes in--your average person spends most of their income on purchases indexed to cost of living: rent, food, gas, child care, etc. If you make $300,000, you'll have more disposable income in California than if you made $200,000 in Minnesota even with the higher cost of living. If you make $75,000 in California, you might be living very similarly to someone making $50,000 in Minnesota. Nor is California like say Germany or France, where substantially lower GDP per capita and higher taxes (relative to the U.S.) is balanced by a robust safety net and ample public services. California has among the worst public schools in the country: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geographic-disparity-states-best-and-worst-schools/1079181001 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog.... Its public universities are quite expensive. It doesn't have a leg up in healthcare like say Massachusetts. Public transit is basically non-existent outside SF/LA. (To compare: Dresden and Sacramento are about the same size; Dresden has an extensive commuter rail system, and a tram system with 150 stops. Sacramento has no commuter rail and a light-rail system with 50 stops.)
- brookhaven_dude 8y ago
  Your purchasing power map is also misleading because it just compares how far $100 will go in each state. Of course CA will appear to be worse. What this misses is that CA salaries trend higher too. (But it's AEI, so kinda expected).
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Scroll down: the state-by-state ranking (where California ranks #37) accounts for the higher salaries.
actuallyalys 8y ago
I think Jonathan Rodden is right. People like to attribute economic results to whoever's in charge, but a lot of it depends on factors that are either outside of political control or only changeable through long-term policies.
- hef19898 8y ago
  I think it's the latter. Which makes constant politics just so much more important. And also democracies so fragile.
spenrose 8y ago
Edsall, whose work I generally hold in high regard, does not address the argument that the common cause of many of the problems is a regime which prevents home building where the jobs are.
jedberg 8y ago
> At the moment, the Democratic coalition in California is — relatively speaking — a smooth running machine. I'm not so sure about that. If that were true, we wouldn't see so many vetoes by the Democratic Governor of the laws passed by the Democratic legislature, nor we would we see so many failed bills in the Legislature. There is definitely a split in the party between those that are "almost Republicans" and those that are "liberal Democrats". The Democrats have a supermajority in both houses -- they should be able to pass anything with ease. But for example, they couldn't pass a new zoning law that would allow for a ton of new housing, something we desperately need. If the party were running smoothly, they would have been able to work out a new zoning bill that everyone was happy with.
rectang 8y ago
I think you have to separate whether California is a good social and cultural role model from whether it is a good economic role model. Social liberals will naturally see inclusive (relative to the rest of the country), majority-minority California as a success story. Cultural conservatives will continue to regard it with distrust. But the questions raised in this article are primarily economic, and I think the point about inequality is particularly salient given which party holds power.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  A handful of (mostly) coastal states manage to exempt themselves from criticism for how their culture and government policy unnecessarily makes being being less than wealthy a bigger pain in the butt than it needs to be by saying "look, we have legal weed and easy to get abortions, look how great we are!" and ignoring the economic reality that their government/society imposes on people who are living paycheck to paycheck or worse. I really don't like it. The issues that the upper classes in states like to pat themselves on the back about are a lot farther down the hierarchy of needs than being able to afford to register your vehicle. It's not even a left or right thing, it's a whether or not people have to spend time/money/effort jumping through hoops (thereby driving up the cost of living) set up by the government thing. States shouln't be measured by how nice it is to be "average" there, they should be measured by how shitty it is or isn't if you're just scraping by.

27 points by ishikawa 8y ago

jdhn 8y ago

>Depending on how you look at it, it’s one of the richest states or one of the most unequal. It can be both, you know.

Spooky23 8y ago
That's a pretty obvious conclusion that modern commentators have a hard time with. Folks go to great lengths to ignore stratified society. In 2018 California, New York (ie. My grandma thought White Plains was some frozen tundra near Niagara Falls) and even Massachusetts are examples of that. Victorian England is another great example.
- eli_gottlieb 8y ago
  So what's it like living in a less stratified society?
brightball 8y ago
It pretty much has to be both.

unit91 8y ago

Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again!

asaph 8y ago
TIL about Betteridge's law of headlines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headli...
tome 8y ago
tome's law strikes again! "In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's law is mentioned with probability 1." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772

funkythings 8y ago

No it's not. - Most unequal state in America - VERY high taxes (that are supposed to stop inequality, but it doesn't. Surprise) - skyrocketing housing prices - Very illiberal mindset towards the first amendment, especially on college campuses and in younger generations - Allows illegal citizens to vote - Very "shallow" show-off culture due to the show biz

zdw 8y ago
What exactly is an "illegal citizen"?
- walldivide 8y ago
  Exactly, no building should have walls or doors, everyone should come in and be welcome everywhere.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- st26 8y ago
  It sounds like the name of a B action movie.
- vorpalhex 8y ago
  I think that's supposed to read as "Someone who votes differently than I do"
hef19898 8y ago
Some of the Points are relevant (inequality, housing), one is subjective (shallow culture), one is relative (taxes), one is without proof (voting). And regarding the last, and this question is truely serious because I don't get it, what is it with the obsession about the First? Maybe I'm so used that everybody can voice opinion and a free press that I take it for granted, but still. And free speech goes both ways, just saying. Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, so some insight into how free speech is looked at in the US would really be appreciated.

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>Take per capita personal income, which grew nationally from $4,218 in 1970 to $51,631 in 2017, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. In California, over that same period, income grew significantly more, from $4,966 to $58,272, in real dollars, unadjusted for inflation. Am I just crazy or is that actually less growth than the national number (in terms of percentage)? >What stands out is the concentration of high rates of mobility in Democratic areas of the state. >The Democrats are essentially an urban party so are we sure it's not just that urban areas have higher mobility?

rayiner 8y ago

Looking at total GSP makes no sense. California has the largest GSP, but it is only #8 in GSP per capita. Also, when we compare countries, we usually compare PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP per capita, not nominal GDP per capita. California has a cost of living much higher than the national average. If you look at real purchasing power, California ranks #37: http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-taxes-and-price-levels-may-change-our-perceptions-of-which-us-states-are-poor-or-rich http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-t.... The usual retort to attempts to adjust for cost of living is that iPhones, Teslas, etc., cost the same anywhere in the country. This is where inequality comes in--your average person spends most of their income on purchases indexed to cost of living: rent, food, gas, child care, etc. If you make $300,000, you'll have more disposable income in California than if you made $200,000 in Minnesota even with the higher cost of living. If you make $75,000 in California, you might be living very similarly to someone making $50,000 in Minnesota. Nor is California like say Germany or France, where substantially lower GDP per capita and higher taxes (relative to the U.S.) is balanced by a robust safety net and ample public services. California has among the worst public schools in the country: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geographic-disparity-states-best-and-worst-schools/1079181001 https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog.... Its public universities are quite expensive. It doesn't have a leg up in healthcare like say Massachusetts. Public transit is basically non-existent outside SF/LA. (To compare: Dresden and Sacramento are about the same size; Dresden has an extensive commuter rail system, and a tram system with 150 stops. Sacramento has no commuter rail and a light-rail system with 50 stops.)

brookhaven_dude 8y ago
Your purchasing power map is also misleading because it just compares how far $100 will go in each state. Of course CA will appear to be worse. What this misses is that CA salaries trend higher too. (But it's AEI, so kinda expected).
- rayiner 8y ago
  Scroll down: the state-by-state ranking (where California ranks #37) accounts for the higher salaries.

actuallyalys 8y ago

I think Jonathan Rodden is right. People like to attribute economic results to whoever's in charge, but a lot of it depends on factors that are either outside of political control or only changeable through long-term policies.

hef19898 8y ago
I think it's the latter. Which makes constant politics just so much more important. And also democracies so fragile.

spenrose 8y ago

Edsall, whose work I generally hold in high regard, does not address the argument that the common cause of many of the problems is a regime which prevents home building where the jobs are.

jedberg 8y ago

> At the moment, the Democratic coalition in California is — relatively speaking — a smooth running machine. I'm not so sure about that. If that were true, we wouldn't see so many vetoes by the Democratic Governor of the laws passed by the Democratic legislature, nor we would we see so many failed bills in the Legislature. There is definitely a split in the party between those that are "almost Republicans" and those that are "liberal Democrats". The Democrats have a supermajority in both houses -- they should be able to pass anything with ease. But for example, they couldn't pass a new zoning law that would allow for a ton of new housing, something we desperately need. If the party were running smoothly, they would have been able to work out a new zoning bill that everyone was happy with.

rectang 8y ago

I think you have to separate whether California is a good social and cultural role model from whether it is a good economic role model. Social liberals will naturally see inclusive (relative to the rest of the country), majority-minority California as a success story. Cultural conservatives will continue to regard it with distrust. But the questions raised in this article are primarily economic, and I think the point about inequality is particularly salient given which party holds power.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
A handful of (mostly) coastal states manage to exempt themselves from criticism for how their culture and government policy unnecessarily makes being being less than wealthy a bigger pain in the butt than it needs to be by saying "look, we have legal weed and easy to get abortions, look how great we are!" and ignoring the economic reality that their government/society imposes on people who are living paycheck to paycheck or worse. I really don't like it. The issues that the upper classes in states like to pat themselves on the back about are a lot farther down the hierarchy of needs than being able to afford to register your vehicle. It's not even a left or right thing, it's a whether or not people have to spend time/money/effort jumping through hoops (thereby driving up the cost of living) set up by the government thing. States shouln't be measured by how nice it is to be "average" there, they should be measured by how shitty it is or isn't if you're just scraping by.