So how has California’s big, bold progressive political approach worked for the state? It turns out — awesome. The California economy is booming, doing better than the rest of the United States by many standard economic measures. Since Brown started leading as governor, California has added 2.3 million jobs, which leads the nation (from 2012 to 2016, California accounted for 17 percent of job growth in the United States, and a quarter of the growth in GDP.) From 2011 to 2014 coming off the Great Recession, California’s economic growth rate was 4.1 percent. In 2016, California’s rate was still 2.9 percent compared to rival Texas’s paltry growth rate of 0.4.
Michael Shellenberger writes (pointer from Tyler Cowen),
Where 56 percent of Californians could afford a middle-class home in 2012, in the third quarter of 2017, just 28 percent could.
…Progressive leaders who daily denounce Republicans as racist have blithely presided over a significant decline in the academic performance of black and Latino eighth graders relative to their counterparts in other states. Today, less than 40 percent of non-white and non-Asian students meet state educational standards.
There is more at both links. Did you two visit the same state?
Both things can be true at once. High growth due to silicon valley etc.
Low educational achievement for non Asian minorities perhaps as many of them are children of recent immigrants without a family focus on education (or other factors of course).
I wonder what the per capita growth rate looks like.
I thin Iskander gets it right. If you owned a home in coastal California you bought 20 years ago or you are in a high paid tech job you are doing great. If you are a blue collar worker and renter your pay is good but your land lord is benefiting not you. The easter part of the state is different though.
I don’t think they are in two states. Shellenberger is a true localist. If he was leading the progressive movement, Trump would not be president and polarization would be a great deal lower, at least in the USA. Inside California, maybe not.
California is turning itself into a gated community: really nice – but expensive – amenities in a delightful setting, with a selective clientele. And that business strategy is proving successful: lots of growth, with lots of highly productive residents generating high incomes in the kind of environment – green, scenic, affluent – they appreciate. And, also, lots of income inequality, as increasingly only three groups live there: high-income residents; those who provide services to high-income residents; and the token poor who justify the policies used to shut out everyone not in these three groups (and who, in any case, just won’t leave).
A lot of people – most people – can’t afford to live in a really nice place with expensive amenities; they’re not “selective clientele”. Indeed, many people essentially aren’t welcome in a really high-end community with expensive amenities. Such communities don’t want people who work in modest-income jobs (other than providing services to the residents). One way to get rid of such undesirables is to encourage their employers to leave the state, with high income taxes, heavy regulations on businesses that produce tangible things, high workers’ comp costs, etc. Another, of course, is to restrict the supply of middle-income housing.
It must be noted that people who live in really nice places, with expensive amenities, are just like the rest of us, and want to think well of themselves. They don’t like to think of themselves as elitists, pushing away “undesirables”. So, instead, they think of themselves as helping. The business regulations and high workers’ comp are to help the employees (it’s unfortunate that those employees are having to move to follow their thoughtless, selfish employers to Texas and Idaho). The high income taxes are to help the poor (it’s unfortunate that they also cause selfish, thoughtless, less-elite employers to move to Texas and Idaho). The restricted supply of housing is to protect neighborhoods from gentrification (it’s merely a coincidence that they also cause the lower middle class to move away). “Affordable housing requirements” are to provide affordable housing (it’s unfortunate that greedy developers then raise the cost of middle-class housing to offset the cost of those requirements). And so forth. And, yes, some “undesirables” do benefit from those policies. We used to hear of “token” beneficiaries of policies in an environment structurally hostile to them; same sort of thing. “Look, there’s a poor person, and we’re helping them; we’re not elitists!”
Once the lower-middle-class “undesirables” move out, the (admittedly high) taxes paid by the residents can largely go to… really nice amenities for the residents, instead of roads and schools and infrastructure largely used by huge numbers of the lower middle class. High taxes can be just like high rent: worth it, if you get nice amenities (clean air, attractive architecture, lower population density, sophisticated neighbors, open roads, lots of “green” infrastructure…).
And that’s what’s happening in Progressive California.
California goes through hude boom bust cycles. Look at unemployments swings in the previous two recessions, California is the boat anchor during recessions.
California builds energy inefficient rail systems for the elite neighborhoods, gets the money with regressive gas taxes on the poor.
LA has 50,000 homeless in camptown with a life expectancy of 48 years.
California is the fourth or fifth most bankrupt state.
And I notice that it was Texas and the frackers that kept the expansion going, even today.
California almost went broke in the crash, and a ten point market correction sends municipal budgets crashing.
From Leyden on how CA is the future of the USA:
” First, the Republican party and the conservative movement that captured it essentially would have to be neutralized — completely discredited and marginalized to the sidelines of politics.”
His purpose is pretty clearly to give his customers, the rich CA / Elysium tech Masters of the Universe, more reasons that their own current stupidity is fine. He can keep up this shtick for a few more years, and it does pay well.
The non-honest Dem media is hiding the problems, or mis-blaming them on Trump, but when black voters understand the Elysium tech Masters don’t care about the real human black problems that workers have, and start voting Rep, there will be a bigger electoral wipeout of the Dems, who constantly support identity minorities against normals.
Also, the CA tech Sili Valli bubble success is both non-reproducible in any other region, and unsustainable even now. In media and in tech, scaling globalization has increased the network effects of a “winner-take-all” economy. Along with New York for TV, Hollywood movies funnel the vast monies spent on consuming movies to a tiny percentage of movie stars and the media elite.
The tech Masters funnel unsustainable amounts of consumer cash toward the 5 DataOpolies mentioned (Apple, Google/Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook). This is not going to last. In the coming breakup (s?), it’s not clear what the new configurations will be, but it will almost certainly be less concentration in CA.
Shellenberger doesn’t coin it, but “Jim Crow Environmentalism” is going to become a real thing that Dems are going to start having to defend themselves over. Because there IS data about how those areas with more NIMBY restrictions are hurting blacks, such a label will stick.
“doing better than the rest of the United States by many standard economic measures”
Cherry picked to ignore any problems, I’m sure.
“California has added 2.3 million jobs”
Few of which likely pay enough to afford to live in California. Anyone can merely add jobs. It’s a bit trickier to add jobs that are meaningful and beneficial to the economy.
“From 2011 to 2014 coming off the Great Recession, California’s economic growth rate was 4.1 percent. In 2016, California’s rate was still 2.9 percent compared to rival Texas’s paltry growth rate of 0.4.”
And here’s where we pretend that a larger percentage over a smaller base is meaningful.
just think SoCal is the home of the distinctly different rock groups: The Beach Boys and NWA. Even during the Reagan boom of the 1980s, our state had the worst gang town in the country, Compton. So none of this is new.
Living here both can be true very easily and it feels similar to Charles Dickens “They were The Best Of Times, They were the Worst of Times”:
1) California houses three of the businesses that benefit most from free trade, Shipping/Docks, Hollywood and Tech. There is lots of opportunity here.
2) Housing is huge issue and I believe deregulation is necessary but let not exaggerate the potential impact. (Are investors going to put money in market dropping more than 10% of value? And there is fair amount of building in SoCal.)
3) California has the highest portion of Immigrants that are real issue for education. (Yes I fine with bilingual education but there is really an issue of non-English citizens.) For the issue high Immigrant levels adds a dynaimism to the economy as well.
4) Unfortunately our trying a competitive electric system in 2001 was terrible on all ends and we do have the worst system in the nation. (Solar rooftop is popular because it does save money.)
5) We are the one state that Democrats run on treating Immigrants fairly. (Numerous Democrats running for office show pictures of the candidate shaking hands with Obama.)
6) It is really hard not see why Trump is so disliked. (Also remember point 1 that Trump trade deals will negatively impact our jobs.) Our state almost everybody knows and works and friends with an Immigrant. (I almost married an Immigrant) About 10% of kids at the local school are multi-racial.
7) The Cali economy is becoming weird mix of Far East Asian Tigers and working class Hispanic-Americans. (many of the Hispanic-Americans in my neighborhood sound like White Working class families in the 1950s. )
The last several years I suggest living in California is becoming more like Scott Summer description of living Singapore:
It is great for upper class, harder for upper middle/middle class (I bought a house at the right time years back), and good for poor Immigrants compared to home country. (Remember Singapore has lots of immigrants as well.)
Again, if there is anything the media, especially for conservative media, is the impact of Asian Immigrants on our state.
Talk about your ‘normative analysis’. It seems to be a sympom of modern self-serving advocacy and journalistic pathology to reflexively and entirely attribute every salient feature of life, whether position or negative, to the state, political decisions, and other matters of governance and policy. Makes for better narravies of credit or culpability, of heroes or villains. Motivated Rashomon. Two lawyers can be describing the same underlying events in one trial, and while remaining perfectly honest, seem as if they are talking about two entirely different situations and sets of characters.
In this case, we have a parade of horribles on the one hand and a parade of positives on the other (well, depending on your perspective on some of them) and in neither case is it accurate and fair to say that almost any of that derives from state activity, or enlightened politicians, or “racist” elites, or what have you.
As an example, for anyone who believes in something resembling the Null Hypothesis in Education, or The Case Against Education, what is he to make of Shellenberger’s claims about meeting state educational standards, or the DC study which showed (probably not, as it turns out) “student performance can be improved significantly by rewarding teachers for performance …” or “85% of Californian parents want their child to earn a four-year college degree, but only 30% of California’s ninth graders will. And in 50 years, the percentage of California’s high school graduates attenting a four-year college has not changed, even though a higher percentage are qualified to do so.” Please, this guy is supposed to be taken seriously?
Meanwhile, job and output growth numbers are pretty volatile. Consider, according to the BLS’s latest data, “seasonally adjusted employees on nonfarm payrolls by state”, Texas growth was 2.7% while California’s was 1.9%. Meanwhile, the BEA says “percent change in Real GDP by State, 2017:Q3-2017:Q4” puts California at 3.4%, but Texas at 5.2%. That makes Leyden and Teixeira’s number look awfully cherry picked, and indeed, they picked the flatest Texas year possible, with the following year rising above 6%!
As a matter of fact, since they use Fred as the source of one of their charts, and brag about California’s 4.1% growth rate during the period, I also went to Fred for “Total Gross Domestic Product for Texas” and from 2011 to 2014, the annualized Texas growth rate was 6.3%, which a cumulative growth rate over three years at “booming developing country” level of 20%!
Can’t take those guys serious either, I’m afraid. Many other S’s though: sneaky, shady, sleazy …
All writers cherry pick and the higher California growth over Texas the last couple years can be pointed to one thing: Energy. (Texas is likely to overtake Cali in 2018.) It is just surprising the growth as most conservatives were holding funerals for our state in 2010.
I find it better to analyze the good stuff as well. I wish our state (and the US) followed the deregulation of the electric markets that Texas has which would improve a lot lives.
Handle, talk about someone cherry picking the data.
How about from 2010 to 2015, real per capita income in 2000 $ rose
15.4% in California and
14.4% in Texas.
Rather than use Fred, I went directly to the source, BEA.
Essentially the difference between the 15.5% and 14.4% is witin the margin of error so it is not significant.
The same thing with the level of real per capita income:
Texas is 101% of the national average while California is 94% of the national
average.
That difference is significant, but at least I’m not picking a one quarter reading that may not be representative of long run trend. Seriously, quoting a one quarter growth rate while accusing others of cherry picking data really has to take a lot of nerve. I bet you are a republican, true believer, because anyone else would be ashamed to make such a comparison.
Try reading more carefully. The point was precisely to show how volatile the growth rates are, bouncing around, often showing the opposite of what the article was asserting both explicitly and by implication, such that one ought not make some kind of California >>> Texas claim on the basis of the facts the authors were citing.
The point is, Red Texas and Blue California have both been doing pretty well on aggregate measures in the wake of a truly incredible national recovery following the last downturn, and it’s pure slant and spin to try and ascribe all the positives or negatives respectively to the ideological and policy positions of either party.
Kevin Drum reported a few days ago that Los Angles public schools out shined the cities of Chicago, New York, Boston and Washington D.C. in improving math and reading NEPA scores, 2003-2017.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/06/we-not-making-much-progress-in-educating-our-black-kids/
Looking at differences in rates of change is fraught with the usual problems, since we can’t be sure we can attribute all those changes to pedagogical factors.
Black math scores, 2017 (eyeballing his graphs):
New York City: 256
Los Angeles: 255
Chicago: 259
Boston: 261
DC: 251
Given the volatility and the confidence intervals, it’s reasonable to say that all those cities are doing more or less the same on that measure, and probably well into the range of quickly diminishing marginal returns when it comes to the effect of investing additional effort and resources.
People like to think of California as some pure blue state, the ultimate expression of left of center politics.
It isn’t.
It was more like that decades ago, but then prop 13. In a number of important ways California has long been a ‘red state’. Its low and bizarre property tax system incrementally squeezing school funding, etc year after year. Until fairly recently its 2/3 majority budget rule giving the dwindling republican minority a veto over all polices which require spending. And then there are just all the propositions tying up large chunks of the state budget regardless of the legislators.
So, essentially, they are both right. California has a very strong and innovative economy built on the back of the worlds best public university system last century, and one of the best public school systems for most of the last century. But it is also a place with a bizarre property-bubble-exacerbating tax system and, for the past few decades, a badly underfunded public school system and public university system with high out-of-pocket costs for students. Its a place where the state tries to keep an eye on identity theft for you, non-compete agreements are heavily restricted, and most workers have a right to overtime pay… but half the state parks are often closed and it’s transit systems are pathetic.
California was a Red State in the Post WW2 era until 1992 with some progressive leanings. (The university system being the most obvious.)
Several things happen but one of the biggest was the withdrawal defense (some by government and some company movement outside the state for lower cost of living) spending after the Reagan years. That used to the Republican base in the state.
I meant in the modern sense of a red state, tax revolt in particular. Not which party was being elected there. I don’t think that is very useful given the huge realignments that happened over the past 70 years. But prop-13 is very much of the modern tax-revolt republican party, and is still one of the most powerful influences on California policy and has given the slowly dwindling republican legislative minority an unusual amount of power.
In general I agree with California past and I have explained to my kids who Ronald Reagan was in the 1980s. (With housing prices skyrocketing in the 1970s in real and especially nomial value, property taxes went through the roof.) And they were leader on tax revolt and there are still some anti-tax movement in the state with the recent gas tax. California voted for Republican President every post war election from 1948 – 1988 except for the 1964 LBJ victory.
I think one under-rated aspect of California going Republican to Democrat was the huge withdrawal of Defense spending from 1988 – 1995.
What about the revolt against the ridiculously high income-tax rates? Oh yeah, there wasn’t one.
These are examples of all news being “fake” news. Few want to read “Just the facts, Ma’am.” They want to see those facts dance. And those facts dance with who brung them. The writer emphasizes and ignores to produce a story. A true story, but dramatized for your entertainment.
These days it’s just a lot easier to experience both dramas in nearly the same timeframe.
SV is a huge IQ magnet that sucks up talent. The rest of CA is slowly becoming large groups of low IQ Mexicans packed together in expensive housing. Hence inequality.
So basically the whole state outside SV is a kind of third world failure, but they can live off SV fumes for now. Of course SV is an IQ shredder, and high IQ Asians won’t immigrate forever as their home countries get richer. The good is unsustainable while the bad is here to stay. And woe to someone that tries to copy it because there aren’t enough high IQ people to make SV 2.0, so you’ll just get the bad but not the good.
Housing can’t get deregulated because public schools are a private good and high IQ parents don’t want their high IQ kids getting beat up by low IQ Mexican kids. So that’s not improving. Oh and retirement liabilities are out of control.
CA will limp along as pockets of very high performing people working late and the office to pay rent/taxes and not having kids because they can’t afford it.
Several points:
1) It is probably best to avoid IQ stuff because an stats on IQ are Bell Curve and there lots of high IQ Hispanic-Americans. (And I suspect a lot of the historical lower IQ points are many H-A were heavy Spanish speaker and thus lower scores. I have a autistic son whose IQ test can range from 85 to 103 so I find IQ reasonable scores but test scores can vary.)
2) Doesn’t a modern capitalist economy need cheap labor and high labor supply? In reality, I suspect that is what is making this economy so grumpy with 4% unemployment. Labor supply, especially working class, has not been this constrained in 60 years.
3) The biggest drop in birth rates lately are Hispanic-Americans? Lyman Stone has all kinds of charts on falling fertility and the fall in birth since 2008. And H-A and A-A are the biggest drops although they are still higher than white or Asian-American populations. (The joke in SoCal is Hispanic-Americans are becoming Asian-Americans!)