105 comments
California's government is center-right. There is no far left party in US politics. That's why you don't have affordable higher education or healthcare, why your infrastructure is decaying, why you don't have nice public transit, etc.
It's also why your taxes are so high with nothing to show for them. Turns out austerity is expensive for most people. Canada and Mexico have cheap insulin because their governments are only willing to put up with so much profiteering in medicine. One has to ask why the US government is. Is that because of the far left, too?
It's also why your taxes are so high with nothing to show for them. Turns out austerity is expensive for most people. Canada and Mexico have cheap insulin because their governments are only willing to put up with so much profiteering in medicine. One has to ask why the US government is. Is that because of the far left, too?
Left and right aren't objective measurements, they are relative ones. Relative to US politics generally California's government is left. If you're in some even more left European country that doesn't mean anything - Europe is not the objective standard by which everyone measures politics.
While it's true that the terms are relative, there are countries in Europe and South America that have literal communist, socialist or anarchist parties.
Hearing people describe Democrats as far left makes them sound like clowns spouting canned propaganda. It's not conducive to conversation as you know you aren't talking to a rational person who can argue in good faith.
Hearing people describe Democrats as far left makes them sound like clowns spouting canned propaganda. It's not conducive to conversation as you know you aren't talking to a rational person who can argue in good faith.
People who call US Democrats far left likely don't have experience with culture outside of their own and their local/national mainstream news.
Either that or they hang out on 4chan
Either that or they hang out on 4chan
>don't have experience with culture outside of their own and their local/national mainstream news.
Isn't this true of most Americans democrat or otherwise.
Isn't this true of most Americans democrat or otherwise.
Basically yes. I think the internet has changed things quite a bit but many are still isolated
Rural communities need broadband internet access and we need to work to reduce the amount and impact of echo chambers on the internet
Rural communities need broadband internet access and we need to work to reduce the amount and impact of echo chambers on the internet
For most Americans, exposure to outside cultures will happen much more through reading about them or interacting with, say, foreign exchange students and foreign cultural social groups, than visiting the places. Americans who grow up with the money to travel abroad a lot often come from general wealth, which also lets them afford to spend more time doing things like grad school. This affects the liberal causes well-traveled American liberals might support; they may care less about economic fairness than gender/racial equality for instance.
We had a subject called "Social Studies" in school which introduced us to other cultures of the world. I thought every country had something similar.
This is just the opinion of some fool on the internet, but I personally think that interacting with people from other cultures is far more important than just reading about them. Not saying I disagree with you, I definitely had social studies in school in the US but that didn't impact me nearly as much as interacting with other fellow fools on the internet. We can learn a lot more about each others perspectives and cultures by interacting.
I completely agree. I live in Canada, and run a weekly Zoom call on startups etc. We have quite a few members from India, Latin America and elsewhere and I find it useful to get their perspectives. I even have callers from China (you need to change the Zoom data center config to permit this). These are people that I met on WeChat groups (unfortunately not a realistic option outside China for most right now), and some former students. We try to stay away from politics, but interestingly there is a wide range of points of view from Chinese callers.
Agreed. Though the things I learnt in social studies like history, geography, and civics helped me in finding a common ground with people of other cultures. Given my introverted nature I imagine I would have had a much harder time if I did not have this foundation.
Some countries are further left and some are further right. To add even more complexity some countries, all of them really, are just different in ways that a one dimensional scale doesn't really capture that well. This is both true and a trivial observation. It is a banality that doesn't really mean anything but is often offered as if it did.
On this note, most of California's problems come from a populace that apes left wing ideology while acting right wing when the rubber hits the road.
"Black Lives Matter but not if they have to build housing next to me" is a California meme.
See also Prop 13, a tax revolt, being the crux of a lot of California issues.
While government services can certainly be more efficient and cost disease is rampant, we first have to agree that the government should be providing the service in the first place (which we don't, countrywide)
"Black Lives Matter but not if they have to build housing next to me" is a California meme.
See also Prop 13, a tax revolt, being the crux of a lot of California issues.
While government services can certainly be more efficient and cost disease is rampant, we first have to agree that the government should be providing the service in the first place (which we don't, countrywide)
I’d argue there is a difference between what side of the political spectrum California is on and whether or not they are good at governing. You mention that we don’t have good public transit but California is famous for massively expensive infrastructure projects. It seems it’s less of a ideological issue and more of a competency one.
SF spends more on homelessness than any other municipality, but still has rampant homelessness.
SF’s muni is one of the worst in the country in terms of reliability and speed but we have a muni budget that is equal to London per capita.
Most complaints in California isn’t on its ideology, but rather its incompetence at executing its ideology
SF spends more on homelessness than any other municipality, but still has rampant homelessness.
SF’s muni is one of the worst in the country in terms of reliability and speed but we have a muni budget that is equal to London per capita.
Most complaints in California isn’t on its ideology, but rather its incompetence at executing its ideology
Compared to the most populous countries, China and India, would you put the US and California to the left or the right? How about compared to other major world powers like Japan?
It seems to me that California does both more economic redistribution via higher taxes and is more open in terms of accepting a wide variety of foreign immigrants, cultures and religions.
It seems to me that California does both more economic redistribution via higher taxes and is more open in terms of accepting a wide variety of foreign immigrants, cultures and religions.
I don’t think that’a entirely fair. California is the product of good governance during the 1950s-1980s. There is public infrastructure, like good schools and universities, that needs to be laid to attract industry in the first place. California probably wouldn’t the what it is without the UC system, for example. Of course that was a very different California.
In the last 30-40 years the cost to attend UC has gone up significantly (when I attended in the 90s tuition went down to $3,600/yr, it’s 5X that now), but the top schools are still world renown and the next tier have arguably moved up (UCSD and UCSB in particular).
I believe the greatest risk to California’s continued prosperity is the lack of affordable housing (which I would associate partly with Prop 13, but also just general NIMBYism). There have been a lot of efforts in the past few years to move towards higher density but I think we’ll need to wait until the next administration to see if this pro-housing approach is going to stick.
I believe the greatest risk to California’s continued prosperity is the lack of affordable housing (which I would associate partly with Prop 13, but also just general NIMBYism). There have been a lot of efforts in the past few years to move towards higher density but I think we’ll need to wait until the next administration to see if this pro-housing approach is going to stick.
The period you mentioned is one of the most prosperous periods in history. It is easy to look good with everything in your favor.
Then why didn’t other states also do as well with everything in their favor?
Coastal regions are always more prosperous.
Like FLA and GA? California has higher taxes, california also has internationally ranked economies at the city level.
Of course things could be better, and like a previous commenter mentioned, there are missing investments in housing, transportation and more. That is however, because of the continuous specter of the right winning state offices and the "left" party basically being centerist.
Of course things could be better, and like a previous commenter mentioned, there are missing investments in housing, transportation and more. That is however, because of the continuous specter of the right winning state offices and the "left" party basically being centerist.
FL and GA have grown phenomenally in the past decades. FL had 6.7M in 1970 [0] and 21.8M in 2020 [1].
It’s not as big as California, but has had substantial growth.
Georgia is similar.
[0] https://fcit.usf.edu/florida/docs/c/census/1970.htm [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/FL
It’s not as big as California, but has had substantial growth.
Georgia is similar.
[0] https://fcit.usf.edu/florida/docs/c/census/1970.htm [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/FL
Georgia faster than the country as a whole during that period. Georgia's per capita income grew from 70% as much as the national average in 1945 to 94% in 2000: https://cslf.gsu.edu/files/2014/06/historical_perspective_of...
FLA/GA are not major ports. They also do not have the farm land. Prosperity is not entirely location dependent, but it is one of the largest factors. CA has the climate (at least during that period) and natural resources very few places in the world do.
FLA/GA are absolutely major ports. Savannah is the fourth busiest port in the US, right behind combined New Jersey/New York.
People will say anything to avoid admitting that a higher tax, slightly center right state is doing well because of those policies and politics
Cognitive dissonance, just like the fact that all of the red states have way higher gun deaths per capita than any blue state yet they'll scream about Chicago without looking at the actual numbers
Cognitive dissonance, just like the fact that all of the red states have way higher gun deaths per capita than any blue state yet they'll scream about Chicago without looking at the actual numbers
> Cognitive dissonance, just like the fact that all of the red states have way higher gun deaths per capita than any blue state yet they'll scream about Chicago without looking at the actual numbers
That's not cognitive dissonance, just different definitions. Red staters focus on total homicides. Age-adjusted homicide rates don't bear any clear pattern with red states versus blue states: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality.... https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownersh...
Some of the states with the highest levels of gun ownership, like Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Minnesota, and Maine, have the lowest levels of homicides. Rhode Island has far fewer guns than Maine and New Hampshire, but all three have similar homicide rates.
That's not cognitive dissonance, just different definitions. Red staters focus on total homicides. Age-adjusted homicide rates don't bear any clear pattern with red states versus blue states: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality.... https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownersh...
Some of the states with the highest levels of gun ownership, like Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Minnesota, and Maine, have the lowest levels of homicides. Rhode Island has far fewer guns than Maine and New Hampshire, but all three have similar homicide rates.
Focusing on homicides where guns weren't involved in a conversation about guns is disingenuous and distracts from the issue at hand
[deleted]
It's not entirely fair, but mostly
It’s complete bullshit and we can safely dismiss out of hand.
You should try living in California sometime so you'll see first hand
The fact that you called it Cali is pretty good evidence that you don’t live here
Lol, and now you edited it out. Case in point.
Lol, and now you edited it out. Case in point.
Living in California for four decades I have definitely heard people living here call it Cali. California is large and diverse, not everyone speaks like you do.
Good schools? CA is one of the bottom in terms of education despite the 5th largest economy in the world. It's abhorrent.
California schools system is not good.
Some of the best public elementary, middle/junior, and high schools in the country are in California. Some of the worst are as well. California as a whole has a pretty good public school system. There are certainly issues. But many of them are really just debatable trade offs. For example, the whole San Francisco ed board recall. The main issue (aside from the renaming, which really was a side show to the main event) was the proposal to eliminate merit based entry to the premier high schools. The scientific data is pretty clear that if you want to benefit the most, you should not track students based on ability (i.e., put the "gifted and talented" into special advanced programs) but rather spend your limited resources on bringing the bottom half up. However, this is "unfair" to those who could benefit from development of their above average intellectual talents. In any way you proceed, there will be winners and losers. If you have an opinion on this: vote!
The rankings beg to disagree - https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-public-high-schools/. Even the best schools in California are not as good as the other state's top schools. It doesn't help that 18%!!! of students in California's public education system are ESL. That's not due to Visa & green-card immigrants.
Texas and Florida do a much better job educating their minority and ESL kids going by NAEP scores.
> Some of the best public elementary, middle/junior, and high schools in the country are in California. Some of the worst are as well.
...
> but rather spend your limited resources on bringing the bottom half up.
Ok, so right here is the issue. It's like saying that US has no poverty issue, because some of the richest people live here. You yourself mentioned, that it is important to improve the bottom percentiles. And the bottom percentiles in California are not good. Some of the exceptional schools in CA are private, some of them are public, but most likely located in expensive areas. You gonna have to pay for a good school either directly or via insane home prices. Yes, you can find decent schools in less-crowded-but-not-very-rural areas with more reasonable cost of living, sort of a sweet spot. And the majority of those schools aren't gonna be exceptional, the will be fine, just fine. Not better than any other state. But the lowest percentile in the worst area is still gonna drag the whole chart down. Everyone I know in CA who cares about school for their kids either lives in a pricy area or pays for a private school.
Ok, so right here is the issue. It's like saying that US has no poverty issue, because some of the richest people live here. You yourself mentioned, that it is important to improve the bottom percentiles. And the bottom percentiles in California are not good. Some of the exceptional schools in CA are private, some of them are public, but most likely located in expensive areas. You gonna have to pay for a good school either directly or via insane home prices. Yes, you can find decent schools in less-crowded-but-not-very-rural areas with more reasonable cost of living, sort of a sweet spot. And the majority of those schools aren't gonna be exceptional, the will be fine, just fine. Not better than any other state. But the lowest percentile in the worst area is still gonna drag the whole chart down. Everyone I know in CA who cares about school for their kids either lives in a pricy area or pays for a private school.
What the hell do you mean not track students based on ability? How else could you track them?
It's not unfair really. If you let the smart fall to the level of the average, you end up with board and angry smart kids. They will not pull up the middle, they'll check out. The end results will be outsourcing. Based on the skilled worker shortage in Cali, I'd say bringing up the bottom isn't doing much for the top.
My main issue with the BoE was competence. There was a lack of competence across the board, but If I had to give a more specific reason to recall them, it was their incompetence with respect to re-opening schools. Their incompetence around the re-naming showed how bad they were.
As for Lowell, I think that was a big issue for many, but not amongst the 100+ parents that I’ve spoken to on the issue.
As for Lowell, I think that was a big issue for many, but not amongst the 100+ parents that I’ve spoken to on the issue.
In no way, shape or form does California have a "pretty good public school system".
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...
Ranked 42nd overall, 36th in quality and 51st, ie last in safety.
https://wallethub.com/edu/e/states-with-the-best-schools/533...
Ranked 42nd overall, 36th in quality and 51st, ie last in safety.
UC Berkeley, UC San Diego, UC Los Angeles are some of the best engineering schools on the planet.
They are talking about non-higher ed when referring to "schools".
My experience with elementary school in California vs. Florida as a kid had such a disparity in quality in favor of California that I was able to notice it even at that young of an age. I came to figure out why much later in life, but I'll never forget that feeling like I'd taken a huge step back.
Maybe as a kid. But Florida kicks California's ass in K12 education these days. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chor...
*According to Californians
According to most charts, numerous Universities in California are generally high ranking (the UC system, USC, Pepperdine, Stanford among them) but within numerous specialties it's indisputable: UCSD for biotech, UC Davis for Ag-tech/veterinary science, Berkeley/Stanford for CS, Boalt/Hastings/King for Law, etc. The specialization matters here significantly.
The US weirdly in general has a lot of high ranking universities, but its elementary and secondary schools are very very uneven, at any level.
The US weirdly in general has a lot of high ranking universities, but its elementary and secondary schools are very very uneven, at any level.
It’s not an exclusive list; a lot of states have good tech universities. But it’s a pretty objective evaluation. Ask a tech employer anywhere.
They used to be good.
California has plenty of amazing public schools. But California is also highly segregated by both income and ethnicity. Fremont High School, for example, rivals some of the most expensive private schools nationally in terms of achievement, but it's a majority Asian school, especially South Asian, many of whom are middle- and upper middle-class (notwithstanding that by Bay Area standards the Fremont area is considered "working" class. You can find schools like Fremont all over California, but especially in the Bay Area, coastal Central California, and many places in Southern California.
OTOH, just a few miles from some of the best public schools in the country you can also find some of the worst. While California is segregated, most Californians nonetheless live in relative close proximity to people living in vastly different circumstances, so disparities are very evident.
OTOH, just a few miles from some of the best public schools in the country you can also find some of the worst. While California is segregated, most Californians nonetheless live in relative close proximity to people living in vastly different circumstances, so disparities are very evident.
+1. Georgia has homes selling for 500k in the Walton School district. It's ranked higher than Palo Alto's High Schools.
Let that sink in.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/georgia/d...
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/californi...
Let that sink in.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/georgia/d...
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/californi...
I can't claim you are wrong. But I do question when the evidence is so murky. A lot of what folks think they want in efficient systems are systems that would fail because of how efficient they were run.
That is, what evidence do you have that the success is in spite of government? Is there a comparable government or system that is doing better? Why? Or why not?
That is, what evidence do you have that the success is in spite of government? Is there a comparable government or system that is doing better? Why? Or why not?
Bullet train: despite earthquakes and mountains, Japan runs a pretty decent network of high speed trains. Politics, well documented by the papers, show how a high speed train had repeated stops added to it, and was slowed down in California to the speed of a regular train while costing much more.
Despite adding an additional 1.0% tax to fund mental health, homelessness has only increased in California. Efforts to reduce prop 13 inflated property values are feeble at best. Senior and junior water rights, where senior land holders can extract as much water as they want over juniors, based on an arbitrary date chosen in law, have not been reformed. CalPers is very poorly funded compared to other states.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of California's success is due to government. Banning non-competes and funding a strong system of community colleges and state universities for example. But other states are 'kinda' adopting non-compete bans and the state has cut funding years ago to those institutions, which makes me question the value of my tax dollars when a house built just after WW2 costs over a million dollars, K-12 is below the national average, and the public universities here cost much more than well regarded ones in other states. The state is not dealing with it's problems.
I left a while ago and I feel better for it.
Edit: grammar and a few words.
Despite adding an additional 1.0% tax to fund mental health, homelessness has only increased in California. Efforts to reduce prop 13 inflated property values are feeble at best. Senior and junior water rights, where senior land holders can extract as much water as they want over juniors, based on an arbitrary date chosen in law, have not been reformed. CalPers is very poorly funded compared to other states.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of California's success is due to government. Banning non-competes and funding a strong system of community colleges and state universities for example. But other states are 'kinda' adopting non-compete bans and the state has cut funding years ago to those institutions, which makes me question the value of my tax dollars when a house built just after WW2 costs over a million dollars, K-12 is below the national average, and the public universities here cost much more than well regarded ones in other states. The state is not dealing with it's problems.
I left a while ago and I feel better for it.
Edit: grammar and a few words.
Another good point of comparison for the bullet train system is Spain. California is currently projecting to spend $105 billion for 520 miles of track. By contrast Spain built over 2000 miles of track for $72 billion.
I'm not sure this fully tracks. A type of public transit failed in California that succeeded elsewhere. If that is the reference, why can't I point to the tech industry and use it as positive evidence?
And, most of the bad things you are bringing up are happening all throughout the US. Just feels too convenient to say that the tech industry is in spite of the government, but the failures are because of it.
And, most of the bad things you are bringing up are happening all throughout the US. Just feels too convenient to say that the tech industry is in spite of the government, but the failures are because of it.
> I'm not sure this fully tracks. A type of public transit failed in California that succeeded elsewhere. If that is the reference, why can't I point to the tech industry and use it as positive evidence?
You asked for an example of another government doing better. I gave you a recent one by California's government. Japan is perhaps the best one, but many other countries do trains a lot better than California despite all the hype and money they put in it's mediocre result. It was a very open question that your follow up questions are trying to pivot to something else.
> And, most of the bad things you are bringing up are happening all throughout the US.
Please read my post again. Being below average in K-12 among the states, despite the high taxes and land values, is not happening all throughout the US.
> Just feels too convenient to say that the tech industry is in spite of the government, but the failures are because of it.
Please read what I wrote carefully above, I did not agree with that fully. My argument was more of the recent CA govt has not been addressing it's problems and the tech industry's success was due to good decisions in the past (and the weather). The recent CA govt actions has been poor. Calling the recent tech boom in spite of government policies is something I can somewhat agree with.
You asked for an example of another government doing better. I gave you a recent one by California's government. Japan is perhaps the best one, but many other countries do trains a lot better than California despite all the hype and money they put in it's mediocre result. It was a very open question that your follow up questions are trying to pivot to something else.
> And, most of the bad things you are bringing up are happening all throughout the US.
Please read my post again. Being below average in K-12 among the states, despite the high taxes and land values, is not happening all throughout the US.
> Just feels too convenient to say that the tech industry is in spite of the government, but the failures are because of it.
Please read what I wrote carefully above, I did not agree with that fully. My argument was more of the recent CA govt has not been addressing it's problems and the tech industry's success was due to good decisions in the past (and the weather). The recent CA govt actions has been poor. Calling the recent tech boom in spite of government policies is something I can somewhat agree with.
Ah, apologies. This will be a goal post shift, from the question I asked. What I meant was specifically one that does better at the things California is good at.
Think of it as me asking if a tennis player is training well. You want to compare to other tennis players, not cyclists.
You may be able to get some cross learning, of course. But I'm specifically questioning if California's successes are in spite of government. Not if their failures are because of it. These are two questions and it is not clear to me that they would have the same answer.
Think of it as me asking if a tennis player is training well. You want to compare to other tennis players, not cyclists.
You may be able to get some cross learning, of course. But I'm specifically questioning if California's successes are in spite of government. Not if their failures are because of it. These are two questions and it is not clear to me that they would have the same answer.
It's a mix. California has at least some reasons for why it is a tech haven: non-competes unenforceable; well-supported state university system
California also gets a lot wrong that interferes with tech: prop 13 and friends, housing policy, incredible corruption, massive local conservatism
But California is most like America as a microcosm: horrifically corrupt but such a powerhouse that it resembles a leviathan that charges despite the parasites on its back and belly.
California also gets a lot wrong that interferes with tech: prop 13 and friends, housing policy, incredible corruption, massive local conservatism
But California is most like America as a microcosm: horrifically corrupt but such a powerhouse that it resembles a leviathan that charges despite the parasites on its back and belly.
> California also gets a lot wrong that interferes with tech: … incredible corruption…
Indeed, it is literally “incredible”. What passes for corruption in California wouldn’t even be worth noticing on the older states of the east coast, especially the north east. I’ve lived in both.
Indeed, it is literally “incredible”. What passes for corruption in California wouldn’t even be worth noticing on the older states of the east coast, especially the north east. I’ve lived in both.
I've lived in a few countries, but when I was on the East Coast I wasn't anywhere near noticing this. Happy to grant the point that it's better than the older economies of the East.
Non-competes is an interesting point, I always wonder how much it impacts innovation. Probably very hard to measure and isolate this impact. Current tech scene seems to be a combination of few things: remnants of semiconductor industry, great climate and beautiful outdoors. College system obviously is a factor as well.
non-competes is huge. I've personally been involved in a couple of startups in another country that got hammered by non-compete issues (once even just an implied non-compete). The fact that smart motivated folks can just up and leave a sinking ship and start a debt-free competitor next door relatively easily is a gigantic advantage that is absent is most jurisdictions.
High taxes on newcomers. Nearly nonexistent taxes on dynastic families.
California income tax has no carve outs for capital gains so I don’t know where you got that idea. Rich people specifically don’t like California because of the taxes (as compared to other No or low income tax states).
I assume you are referring to property taxes, but undoubtedly any “dynastic” family is going to have more tax liability from income than from property value.
I assume you are referring to property taxes, but undoubtedly any “dynastic” family is going to have more tax liability from income than from property value.
Rich people love California, and all the other blue states with high income tax:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294941/largest-ratio-mil...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/294941/largest-ratio-mil...
Because they are nice places to live with strong economies and lots of amenities. Not because they have a lower tax burden.
yes but the point is that they love CA DESPITE the tax burden. In other words, tax them. They will come anyway because it is great there. And the taxes will pay for ever more lovely things like nature preserves and clean air and water and decent schools (yes they are pretty dang good in CA) and art, museums, science, tech, etc. And this will be a virtuous cycle (as it already has been).
The high taxes are the reason they’re nice places to live with strong economies and lots of amenities.
And that’s why rich people love living in blue states like California.
And that’s why rich people love living in blue states like California.
California has very, very low real estate tax.
That drives real estate values higher, and creates a big tax divide between owners and renters.
That drives real estate values higher, and creates a big tax divide between owners and renters.
Newsom is quite close to that dynastic wealth, too- https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-...
I chuckle whenever I read someone referring to any US political view as "Far Left" ... the most leftist leftist in the US would be considered center-right in most parts of the world
> the most leftist leftist `that you see on TV` in the US would be considered center-right
ftfy
There is some leftists in the US, i found them. Old hippies or young actives doing a lot of hiking/rock climbing/kayaking and playing music. They mostly don't engage in the two-party politics.
ftfy
There is some leftists in the US, i found them. Old hippies or young actives doing a lot of hiking/rock climbing/kayaking and playing music. They mostly don't engage in the two-party politics.
While I respect where you are coming from, the data doesn't match your perceptions. California's governance is exceptional despite the corruption. Here's some data,
- One of the best ways to match models to reality is to see if they have predictive power, for some time now people have predicted that California is doomed, see, “California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms,” https://apnews.com/article/48a9ce5ad7494d22ec0c42ac46ae9baf , but the surplus that year was a $75 B.
- Since 2006, California has cut the rate maternal mortality and women dying in childbirth by 65%, the national maternal mortality rate has increased by 50% to 70%. The impact this one data point has on people's lives cannot be overstated. More women are dying in the States at a rate 6x that of Nordic states and 3x that of Canada, and it's a trend that's increasing for most of the US. Except California. This data is from 2018, but the graph is simply staggering, https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/05/propublica-mortali... and https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220510134152-hponly20...
- Despite the reduction due to the pandemic, California has the longest lifespan in the US for men. If you are born in California, as a man, you will live to 78.4 years on average as compared to 71.7 years (and falling) in West Virginia, 76 years in Texas, 72.6 years in Kentucky, and 75.7 years in Texas.
On average, you will live 6+ to 3+ years longer than most US States if you're born in California. The same is true for women. Data, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf
This is roughly the same amount you would get from an intervention such as lifelong/prolonged caloric restriction, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014770/
- Between 2015 and 2019, California's economy grew at a rate of 22%. For comparison, China was 26%. Germany, 15%. Japan, 16%. In December of 2021, California added 42% of all jobs in the US. Nearly half of all new jobs in the country for that month were created in California. Alone. https://mehabe.com/2021/06/14/among-the-five-largest-economi... | https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/11/californias-economic-recov...
- California has the highest rate of income growth in all of the US. Even when compared to Texas. Here's a comparison of the two states,
Despite a slight decline in population, California's per capita income grew at a significantly greater rate than Texas,
"Between 2000 and 2020, California’s PCI was significantly greater than both Texas and the U.S. as a whole (BEA, 2021). Both disparities grew substantially from 2015 to 2020. For example, while California’s per capita income was 20 percent higher than Texas’ in 2015, this gap surged to 30 percent just 5 years later. And this was not simply a COVID-induced phenomenon, as the rising disparity was apparent in 2019 even before the pandemic."
Between the two states, the government invests substantially more on the public in California, even when adjusting for state revenue,
"A large part of this difference between California and Texas, however, is driven by differences between the two states in GDP per capita, which is 22 percent higher in California ($79,405) than in Texas ($65,077) (BEA, 2020). Even adjusting for this, state and local governments loom much larger in California, with their spending representing 20.3 percent of the state’s GDP versus just 15.4 percent in Texas. By this metric California’s public sector is about one-third larger than in Texas, implying that the greater per capita GDP in California explains almost half of its higher state and local spending."
From the data the study concludes that this spending leads to, "it appears higher government spending in California leads to stronger student performance, better environmental and health outcomes, and safer neighborhoods than in a small government state such as Texas"
Full study, https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tale-tw...
- We can contrast California against states like Kansas, where they've implemented low taxes and cut public spending as a part of the "Kansas Experiment", the state has gone almost bankrupt and there has been no subsequent increase in GDP growth. The experiment is widely regarded as a failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
- One of the best ways to match models to reality is to see if they have predictive power, for some time now people have predicted that California is doomed, see, “California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms,” https://apnews.com/article/48a9ce5ad7494d22ec0c42ac46ae9baf , but the surplus that year was a $75 B.
- Since 2006, California has cut the rate maternal mortality and women dying in childbirth by 65%, the national maternal mortality rate has increased by 50% to 70%. The impact this one data point has on people's lives cannot be overstated. More women are dying in the States at a rate 6x that of Nordic states and 3x that of Canada, and it's a trend that's increasing for most of the US. Except California. This data is from 2018, but the graph is simply staggering, https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/05/propublica-mortali... and https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220510134152-hponly20...
- Despite the reduction due to the pandemic, California has the longest lifespan in the US for men. If you are born in California, as a man, you will live to 78.4 years on average as compared to 71.7 years (and falling) in West Virginia, 76 years in Texas, 72.6 years in Kentucky, and 75.7 years in Texas.
On average, you will live 6+ to 3+ years longer than most US States if you're born in California. The same is true for women. Data, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf
This is roughly the same amount you would get from an intervention such as lifelong/prolonged caloric restriction, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014770/
- Between 2015 and 2019, California's economy grew at a rate of 22%. For comparison, China was 26%. Germany, 15%. Japan, 16%. In December of 2021, California added 42% of all jobs in the US. Nearly half of all new jobs in the country for that month were created in California. Alone. https://mehabe.com/2021/06/14/among-the-five-largest-economi... | https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/11/californias-economic-recov...
- California has the highest rate of income growth in all of the US. Even when compared to Texas. Here's a comparison of the two states,
Despite a slight decline in population, California's per capita income grew at a significantly greater rate than Texas,
"Between 2000 and 2020, California’s PCI was significantly greater than both Texas and the U.S. as a whole (BEA, 2021). Both disparities grew substantially from 2015 to 2020. For example, while California’s per capita income was 20 percent higher than Texas’ in 2015, this gap surged to 30 percent just 5 years later. And this was not simply a COVID-induced phenomenon, as the rising disparity was apparent in 2019 even before the pandemic."
Between the two states, the government invests substantially more on the public in California, even when adjusting for state revenue,
"A large part of this difference between California and Texas, however, is driven by differences between the two states in GDP per capita, which is 22 percent higher in California ($79,405) than in Texas ($65,077) (BEA, 2020). Even adjusting for this, state and local governments loom much larger in California, with their spending representing 20.3 percent of the state’s GDP versus just 15.4 percent in Texas. By this metric California’s public sector is about one-third larger than in Texas, implying that the greater per capita GDP in California explains almost half of its higher state and local spending."
From the data the study concludes that this spending leads to, "it appears higher government spending in California leads to stronger student performance, better environmental and health outcomes, and safer neighborhoods than in a small government state such as Texas"
Full study, https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tale-tw...
- We can contrast California against states like Kansas, where they've implemented low taxes and cut public spending as a part of the "Kansas Experiment", the state has gone almost bankrupt and there has been no subsequent increase in GDP growth. The experiment is widely regarded as a failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
Swinging from a 54B deficit to a 75B surplus then holding that surplus
during a period of record inflation is the absolute definition of
inefficient and wasteful.
A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint of recent government efficiency to be found here.
What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas? Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due to this?
We can contrast California to states like Idaho, which spend 2/3 of what California spends per student and yet gets far better outcomes than California does. California has the lowest rate of education attainment out of any state in the country.
The infrastructure is crumbling. New projects are consumed by consultant driven graft. Sacramento is generally paralyzed by special interests. The complete lack of action on homelessness is tragic for the absolute volume of human life just discarded on the side of the road. Gas prices are absolutely ridiculous and the state is hoarding tax dollars during grotesque inflation.
8 years ago.. I would have agreed, California may have been a little shabby, but it was still on a great track. Today I have far less faith in the state, particularly considering the Governor appears to be desirous of a presidential campaign and the state is about to be used as a prop in his endeavors.
A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint of recent government efficiency to be found here.
What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas? Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due to this?
We can contrast California to states like Idaho, which spend 2/3 of what California spends per student and yet gets far better outcomes than California does. California has the lowest rate of education attainment out of any state in the country.
The infrastructure is crumbling. New projects are consumed by consultant driven graft. Sacramento is generally paralyzed by special interests. The complete lack of action on homelessness is tragic for the absolute volume of human life just discarded on the side of the road. Gas prices are absolutely ridiculous and the state is hoarding tax dollars during grotesque inflation.
8 years ago.. I would have agreed, California may have been a little shabby, but it was still on a great track. Today I have far less faith in the state, particularly considering the Governor appears to be desirous of a presidential campaign and the state is about to be used as a prop in his endeavors.
I am unsure if you've read my comment carefully, but the expectation was a $54B deficit. What they got was a $72B surplus.
> A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint of recent government efficiency to be found here.
I don't understand. Can you please provide citations for what you're trying to say?
> CMQCC was founded in 2006 at Stanford University School of Medicine together with the State of California in response to rising maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Since CMQCC’s inception, California has seen maternal mortality decline by 65 percent between 2006 to 2016, while the national maternal mortality rate continued to rise.
https://www.cmqcc.org/who-we-are
If you read through the links, you'll see that the Californian Government has made substantial investments in maternal mortality and perinatal care which has resulted in this staggering decline. The resources of the state were mobilized with the help of the best evidence backed medicine to save lives. That's a great outcome!
> What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
It's not about efficiency as much as it is about policy. No large organization is efficient; rather they ought to be measured by their effectiveness.
Investment in hospitals, clinics and public health. Reductions in environmental emissions (air pollution dramatically reduces lifespans). Expansion of coverage programs like medicaid via systems like medi-cal; https://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/ Ensuring access to clean drinking water, adequate sanitation - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/23/9379451... . Preventing dumping of toxic waste. Public vaccination programs. And the many, many other levers governments can pull to ensure that people live longer and are healthier.
> Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas? Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due to this?
In the comment, the study compares California and Texas between 2000 to 2020.
I am not a specialist on the rest, and do not have the data on hand, but just a note, American infrastructure is crumbling in general due to a receding of the state from infrastructure investments.
Could you please provide a citation and explanation for your Idaho comment?
> A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint of recent government efficiency to be found here.
I don't understand. Can you please provide citations for what you're trying to say?
> CMQCC was founded in 2006 at Stanford University School of Medicine together with the State of California in response to rising maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Since CMQCC’s inception, California has seen maternal mortality decline by 65 percent between 2006 to 2016, while the national maternal mortality rate continued to rise.
https://www.cmqcc.org/who-we-are
If you read through the links, you'll see that the Californian Government has made substantial investments in maternal mortality and perinatal care which has resulted in this staggering decline. The resources of the state were mobilized with the help of the best evidence backed medicine to save lives. That's a great outcome!
> What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
It's not about efficiency as much as it is about policy. No large organization is efficient; rather they ought to be measured by their effectiveness.
Investment in hospitals, clinics and public health. Reductions in environmental emissions (air pollution dramatically reduces lifespans). Expansion of coverage programs like medicaid via systems like medi-cal; https://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/ Ensuring access to clean drinking water, adequate sanitation - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/23/9379451... . Preventing dumping of toxic waste. Public vaccination programs. And the many, many other levers governments can pull to ensure that people live longer and are healthier.
> Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas? Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due to this?
In the comment, the study compares California and Texas between 2000 to 2020.
I am not a specialist on the rest, and do not have the data on hand, but just a note, American infrastructure is crumbling in general due to a receding of the state from infrastructure investments.
Could you please provide a citation and explanation for your Idaho comment?
> There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
> If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
I lived in California for years before I moved to London 3 years ago. I agree that California does a lot of things better than some states and there's an element of "you get what you pay for." But I think that doesn't let California off the hook for the value they return on the money they collect.
Between federal tax, state tax, social security and all the zany other taxes (CA SDI, etc), the tax rate you pay in California is very close to what you pay in the UK or a lot of other European countries. If you own a home, add in yearly property tax which is similar to what you'd pay in UK council tax.
But in London, you get 100% free healthcare (including all medications at a nominal fee), fantastic public transit, weekly trash/recycling pick-up from your local council, extensive council housing to actually house low-income people, etc. The same money is getting more done. I'm not claiming it's perfect or can't be improved, but the services you get for paying roughly the same tax rate are significantly higher (and the same applies in many other cities in Europe).
I think a lot of people in the US don't realize that CA taxes are essentially at the same level as many countries in Europe. So I have at least a little sympathy for people who throw their hands up and move to a low tax, low service state like Texas when they feel like they aren't getting a European level of services for a European level of taxes.
I think some of the inefficiency in California stems from the proposition system where large pots of money are allocated to seemingly good causes but it ties the hands of government who are trying to manage the overall budget efficiently. The amount of propositions included in every voting cycle is comical and in my opinion it is just shifting the work of detailed governance onto the general public who has neither the time nor the expertise to decide on a lot of the issues presented at the level of detail required.
> If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
I lived in California for years before I moved to London 3 years ago. I agree that California does a lot of things better than some states and there's an element of "you get what you pay for." But I think that doesn't let California off the hook for the value they return on the money they collect.
Between federal tax, state tax, social security and all the zany other taxes (CA SDI, etc), the tax rate you pay in California is very close to what you pay in the UK or a lot of other European countries. If you own a home, add in yearly property tax which is similar to what you'd pay in UK council tax.
But in London, you get 100% free healthcare (including all medications at a nominal fee), fantastic public transit, weekly trash/recycling pick-up from your local council, extensive council housing to actually house low-income people, etc. The same money is getting more done. I'm not claiming it's perfect or can't be improved, but the services you get for paying roughly the same tax rate are significantly higher (and the same applies in many other cities in Europe).
I think a lot of people in the US don't realize that CA taxes are essentially at the same level as many countries in Europe. So I have at least a little sympathy for people who throw their hands up and move to a low tax, low service state like Texas when they feel like they aren't getting a European level of services for a European level of taxes.
I think some of the inefficiency in California stems from the proposition system where large pots of money are allocated to seemingly good causes but it ties the hands of government who are trying to manage the overall budget efficiently. The amount of propositions included in every voting cycle is comical and in my opinion it is just shifting the work of detailed governance onto the general public who has neither the time nor the expertise to decide on a lot of the issues presented at the level of detail required.
I appreciate this post. Thanks.
This should be higher up. California’s policies have shown incredible public benefit. As much of the USA has been sliding back on important metrics, California’s progressive politics have pulled it forward. This makes conservatives very mad and they will do everything to discredit it, including trying to spin the budget surplus as a terrible thing, despite them not long ago (15 years ago?) spinning our budget deficit as precisely the same sign of bloated and wasteful mismanagement. This shows they aren’t arguing in good faith.
Reddit user lists all the reasons why California policies lead to the best health and life expectancy outcomes in the United States: https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/up7wei/uinconvenien...
Reddit user lists all the reasons why California policies lead to the best health and life expectancy outcomes in the United States: https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/up7wei/uinconvenien...
“Cali” — if you’re not a California native, why do you think your opinion is valid? Have you read up on the political and social history of the state?
I agree, current management is pretty bad. I can easily envision a world where it is well-run and with less grift where your California ID essentially unlocks a slew of services like healthcare and university access.
Like i said before, this is wishful thinking, but it’s not for lack of resources.
Like i said before, this is wishful thinking, but it’s not for lack of resources.
You could imagine that in quite a few states. California isn’t even on top in terms of GDP per capita (DC, MA, NY, AK, ND all rank higher, CT, WA, WY slightly below).
As opposed to Republican states, which are utopias of innovation, culture, and industry, and totally not leeching on the merit of the blue states who keep transferring wealth to them via the Federal government.
"Purge it of its corruption…and it would become an impracticable government"
Alexander Hamilton. On california of course
Alexander Hamilton. On california of course
I promise you that California is not entrenched with anyone remotely far to the left
> nothing to show for it
That's why almost 12% of the US population chooses to live in California right?
That's why almost 12% of the US population chooses to live in California right?
Nancy Pelosi has been CA rep for decades and she is worth over $100M, meanwhile California education system is shit, the prison system is shit, taxes are among the highest in the US, income inequality is fucked, water is fucked, electricity is fucked. Same goes for all those politicians like Diane Feinstein, etc.
The last time a Republican had any presence in California was 30 years ago and the Dems have driven this state off a cliff. Why do Californians still keep falling for the same grift election after election? It doesn't matter who you vote for, all they do is steal from the people for their own gain and we keep voting for them because they give us lip service on particular causes.
The last time a Republican had any presence in California was 30 years ago and the Dems have driven this state off a cliff. Why do Californians still keep falling for the same grift election after election? It doesn't matter who you vote for, all they do is steal from the people for their own gain and we keep voting for them because they give us lip service on particular causes.
Republicans have a hammerlock over California to this day, thanks to Prop 13, Prop 218, and the Gann Limit, all of which starve our public resources and prevent duly-elected Democrats from enacting the overwhelming will of the people.
These talking points are all lies, especially Prop 13. Look at the home prices and the home sales, all of which are getting sold at ridiculously high prices. The turnover is huge across the state. Demand for housing is still strong despite the interest rates, despite your Prop 13 BS.
What Prop 13 does is stop retired families from being forced to move out. The retired families in my neighborhood would have to pay $4000+/month in property tax. What will it be in 2030 or 2040? The only thing keeping things sane are things like Prop 13.
And don't forget, Pelosi, in all her glory, was trying to add back in the SALT tax exceptions to the Biden bills earlier this year. Why would she do that except to reward all her rich donors in CA?
What Prop 13 does is stop retired families from being forced to move out. The retired families in my neighborhood would have to pay $4000+/month in property tax. What will it be in 2030 or 2040? The only thing keeping things sane are things like Prop 13.
And don't forget, Pelosi, in all her glory, was trying to add back in the SALT tax exceptions to the Biden bills earlier this year. Why would she do that except to reward all her rich donors in CA?
Without Prop 13, homeowners would support the construction of multifamily housing in their communities, and that would keep property taxes low for everybody (not just dynastic families) and home prices affordable. Just like things were before Prop 13.
NIMBYs would all of a sudden want more housing to be built? 100% delusional.
Nothing would change except homeowners would get crushed by property taxes and especially given the horrific income inequality in California, all the middle and lower income families would get destroyed.
Thank God for Prop 13, it's the last vestige of income equality for Californians.
Nothing would change except homeowners would get crushed by property taxes and especially given the horrific income inequality in California, all the middle and lower income families would get destroyed.
Thank God for Prop 13, it's the last vestige of income equality for Californians.
California has worse income inequality than 47 states, and Prop 13 is at the root of it. It ensures that only rich people can move to our cities.
Whatever glory Cali has— tech, entertainment, farming, weather, natural beauty— is in spite of govt rather than because of it.