4 ms·

States need to be wary of leaping out in front of the rest of the country with new regulations. California can kind of do it, it's a big enough state. But thin

States need to be wary of leaping out in front of the rest of the country with new regulations. California can kind of do it, it's a big enough state. But things like this and the Washington state long term care "tax" really could only fully succeed if done by the federal government.

mooreds 5y ago
On the other hand, sometimes you just need someone to do it first. Apparently there are other areas with pay transparency requirements. I just learned about NYC: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/02/1069784225/pay-transparency https://www.npr.org/2022/01/02/1069784225/pay-transparency
EricE 5y ago
Can California continue to do it? They have lost enough people they are loosing a representative in the House. Companies are bailing out at a record rate. They are bleeding high wage earners at an even more alarming rate. People assuming CA will always be "big enough" to keep doing brain dead things will one day wake up to find that is no longer true. Nor as far away as they would also like to assume.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They have lost enough people they are loosing a representative in the House. No, California gained >2¼ million people between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census [0] on which the most recent apportionment is based, but because the size of the House is fixed, it is possible to gain population and still lose a seat, e.g., by gaining slower than the average rate of growth across the country, as actually occurred, or, if the population changes across the country are distributed just right, even by gaining faster than the national average. [1] Losing a seat in the House had nothing to do with losing population. California has had an estimated population loss since the 2020 Census (in part because the pandemic and policy responses to it further reduced international migration, which had been offsetting California’s net internal outmigration.) There's a whole lot of sui generis stuff going on over that short time window that it would be foolish to extrapolate from it. > They are bleeding high wage earners at an even more alarming rate No, California, during the “exodus”, has had net domestic inmigration of high earners, it's low and middle earners where there is net domestic outmigration. [2] [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [1] this could occur require population losses or gains slower average in states that are already only have one 1 rep because you can't have fewer, and then the state losing seats to gains at a rate slower than the average of the remaining states. [2] https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/ https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-m...

mooreds 5y ago

On the other hand, sometimes you just need someone to do it first. Apparently there are other areas with pay transparency requirements. I just learned about NYC: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/02/1069784225/pay-transparency https://www.npr.org/2022/01/02/1069784225/pay-transparency

EricE 5y ago

Can California continue to do it? They have lost enough people they are loosing a representative in the House. Companies are bailing out at a record rate. They are bleeding high wage earners at an even more alarming rate. People assuming CA will always be "big enough" to keep doing brain dead things will one day wake up to find that is no longer true. Nor as far away as they would also like to assume.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> They have lost enough people they are loosing a representative in the House. No, California gained >2¼ million people between the 2010 Census and the 2020 Census [0] on which the most recent apportionment is based, but because the size of the House is fixed, it is possible to gain population and still lose a seat, e.g., by gaining slower than the average rate of growth across the country, as actually occurred, or, if the population changes across the country are distributed just right, even by gaining faster than the national average. [1] Losing a seat in the House had nothing to do with losing population. California has had an estimated population loss since the 2020 Census (in part because the pandemic and policy responses to it further reduced international migration, which had been offsetting California’s net internal outmigration.) There's a whole lot of sui generis stuff going on over that short time window that it would be foolish to extrapolate from it. > They are bleeding high wage earners at an even more alarming rate No, California, during the “exodus”, has had net domestic inmigration of high earners, it's low and middle earners where there is net domestic outmigration. [2] [0] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA [1] this could occur require population losses or gains slower average in states that are already only have one 1 rep because you can't have fewer, and then the state losing seats to gains at a rate slower than the average of the remaining states. [2] https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-moving-in/ https://www.ppic.org/blog/whos-leaving-california-and-whos-m...