CA - a land of political paradoxes?

[freepcrusher]

One thing I've always heard is that California is a poster child for left wing policies gone amok. But I've read magazines like Forbes or Money that often do a compilation of The Most Miserable Cities in America or the Least Educated Metro Areas in America.

Areas like Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Stanislaus, San Joaquin - all marginal or GOP leaning counties, tended to be the worst in terms of education, unemployment rates and in general well being. Even though the population grew exponentially faster than counties like San Mateo or Los Angeles, they overall had a worse quality of life. Bash areas like South Central LA all you want. There are parts of Inland CA like Moreno Valley, Baca's district, East Bakersfield etc that are just as bad.

So I take two things away from this
- high population growth does not make an area attractive
- an area's political background does not always coorelate with the state of the economy

[WhyteRain]

One thing I've always heard is that California is a poster child for left wing policies gone amok.

Not "gone amok"; more accurately, "successfully instituted".

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yes, areas in the interior of CA that are whiter, poorly educated, and have a huge divide between the rich and the poor tend to be more conservative than the wealthier, better-educated, more racially and ethnically diverse coastal areas.

This isn't really news.

[WhyteRain]

California is set up for the rich and poor to rape the middle class, which is like a keg tapped at both ends.  Then they wonder why they have all those population outflows.  They need a fence, like East Germany had.

[phk]

Yes, areas in the interior of CA that are whiter, poorly educated, and have a huge divide between the rich and the poor tend to be more conservative than the wealthier, better-educated, more racially and ethnically diverse coastal areas.

This isn't really news.

The coastal parts of California except LA are actually Whiter than California as a whole.

The Bay Area is Whiter than the Central Valley which has a heavy Mexican and historic S/SE Asian presence.

[phk]

[quote author=freepcrusher link=topic=156358.msg3361695#msg3361695 date=1343060858

So I take two things away from this
- high population growth does not make an area attractive
- an area's political background does not always coorelate with the state of the economy
[/quote]

The Central Valley and Inland Empire grow faster simply because more people can actually afford to live there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

California is set up for the rich and poor to rape the middle class, which is like a keg tapped at both ends.  Then they wonder why they have all those population outflows.  They need a fence, like East Germany had.

I've been trying not to get into tone arguments lately, but this post is disgusting.

Also worth noting is that a lot of parts of California that are suffering the outflow are simply running out of space. That and it's simultaneously too difficult and too easy to make any substantive changes to the state's policy on the go because of the atrocious way its constitution is set up. Like the sort of policy changes that one would expect in, for example, a recession, or a state large parts of which have maxed out in terms of how much they can be physically built upon.

[WhyteRain]

California is set up for the rich and poor to rape the middle class, which is like a keg tapped at both ends.  Then they wonder why they have all those population outflows.  They need a fence, like East Germany had.

I've been trying not to get into tone arguments lately, but this post is disgusting.

Typical ad hominem response from an extreme Leftwinger.

Tell it to CNN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or to Joel Kotkin:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

California is set up for the rich and poor to rape the middle class, which is like a keg tapped at both ends.  Then they wonder why they have all those population outflows.  They need a fence, like East Germany had.

I've been trying not to get into tone arguments lately, but this post is disgusting.

Typical ad hominem response from an extreme Leftwinger.

Did I ever claim that middle-class folks aren't leaving California? No. They obviously are and the state's ongoing mismanagement for the past several decades, caused by the extremely erratic nature of how public policy in California is effected and changed, is definitely part of that. For that matter, did I express any notably extreme left-wing ideas? No (although I will later in this post!). Which of us, then, is responding ad hominem?

I claimed that describing the rich and poor as 'raping' the middle class is disgusting, because it is. And then I offered an actual opinion on the reasons for the demographic shifts, which you don't seem to have noticed.

_____

Besides, I think it's a good thing that there are at least some governments that at least try or pretend to give preferential options to the poor. You, obviously, don't agree.

[WhyteRain]

That Kotkin article is worth reading in full:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966.html

Don't miss the part where he calls Calif "a two-and-a-half class society" and compares Calif with Texas.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That Kotkin article is worth reading in full:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966.html

Don't miss the part where he calls Calif "a two-and-a-half class society" and compares Calif with Texas.

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting article, albeit obviously tendentious.

There are some genuinely well-run states in the middle of the country, which tend to have parsimonious and technocratic governing cultures (the mountain states, for example, do genuinely tend to be very well-run on a pragmatic level), but some other places, including Texas, are more attractive for the types of growth that he's talking about in part because they have markedly lower standards of living (which does, granted, tend to lead also to lower costs of living for people who can afford basic things like health insurance).

[memphis]

So I take two things away from this
- high population growth does not make an area attractive
- an area's political background does not always coorelate with the state of the economy

The Central Valley and Inland Empire grow faster simply because more people can actually afford to live there.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And that, in turn, drives down the stats for those areas because (surprise, surprise) poorer people are less educated, less healthy, etc. I'm always amused by surveys that assess quality of life in different places. And the "most livable" locations are usually places that nobody can afford to live reasonably well in.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously California is more complex than a lot of people claim. Some not so liberal things about it.

1. Prop. 13 passed 2-1 and is still popular. It has led to schools being underfunded. Why should new homeowners subsidize long term homeowners?

2. Prop. 8 passed 4 years ago

3. There's an anti-union Prop. with a sizable lead on the November ballot

4. The only Democratic governor in the 28 years in between Jerry Brown's terms were recalled. In fact, Gray Davis is the only Democratic governor not named Edmund Brown since 1942. 6 of the 7 members of the State Supreme court are Republicans.

5. There is a 2/3rds majority required in the state legislature (and also in local elections) to raise taxes. Until recently there was a 2/3rds majority of the state legislature required just for an ordinary state budget. That gives a lot of power to Republicans.

[WhyteRain]

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe so long as the Legislature's in session."

Obviously California needs a government more like Texas'.  Here's how to start:  Prevent the Legislature from meeting more than a few weeks every couple of years, give it almost no power to change anything without voter approval, and pay the members a pittance.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe so long as the Legislature's in session."

Obviously California needs a government more like Texas'.  Here's how to start:  Prevent the Legislature from meeting more than a few weeks every couple of years, give it almost no power to change anything without voter approval, and pay the members a pittance.

Giving the legislature highly limited power to change certain things, and the voters broad power to change almost everything, has obviously worked so well in California in the past.

[freepcrusher]

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe so long as the Legislature's in session."

Obviously California needs a government more like Texas'.  Here's how to start:  Prevent the Legislature from meeting more than a few weeks every couple of years, give it almost no power to change anything without voter approval, and pay the members a pittance.

1. what is so special about Texas?
2. wouldn't making it meet fewer times make it even more dysfunctional?
3. the idea of no power to change anything without voter approval already exists in proposition form
4. Pay the members a pittance? Term limits are bad enough, but you want to attract the best and brightest to the legislature.