
California has the highest poverty rate in the USA - rhapsodic
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html
======
temp-dude-87844
This essay is an op-ed that lays the blame for most of California's poverty
woes at the feet of a variety of liberal, leftist, progressive, and/or
Democrat-initiated policies. From a conservative point-of-view, I can do
better.

I propose that California's poverty woes are disproportionately due to a
permanent and ever-growing underclass, whose existence and continued plight
isn't caused by policies like rent control, welfare reform, and targeted eco-
taxes that end up being regressive; but rather, is a simple consequence of
individuals desperate for more prosperity and financial security making tough
choices for the good of their families.

They are attracted to the cores and fringes of urban areas that play host to
islands of productivity and wealth, where they work long hours and multiple
jobs in an effort to provide. Some are later-generation Americans born to
immigrant ancestors, some are youth from elsewhere in the US trying to flee
metros with no growth, some are recent arrivals from regions of the world
plagued by poverty and strife, and some are undocumented, working under the
table and living in the shadows of mainstream society, more avoidant of law
enforcement than groups who suffer the most violence at the hands of the law,
and always at the mercy of their employer, handlers, and pure luck.

These groups are there because in California they can capture a larger portion
of the effects of trickle-down than in North Carolina, Texas, or New York; and
because the state-provided safety net, average people's compassion, and
availability of human connections and capital allows them a small, but more
meaningful chance of breaking out of the poverty trap.

In other words, the prosperity, concentration of wealth, human capital, and
laxer attitude of California allows these marginalized groups a better shot
than elsewhere -- especially places like Mississippi and West Virginia, whose
poverty is primarily indigenous, and isn't among recent arrivals. California
is somewhere where trickle-down does display elements of it working, at the
very least in the hearts and minds of those attracted to the state. We can
argue about its magnitude all day long, but to flagellate all manner unrelated
policies after a myopic reading of statistics is absurd.

~~~
aphextron
This is a fantastic point. I count myself among those desperate youth fleeing
the stagnation that exists in the rest of our country. I’ve been able to, as a
high school dropout, move here to California and teach myself enough skills to
make more money than I could have remotely even imagined 5 years ago. I am
homeless now though, drifting between motels because even though I have the
money to pay for it, I simply cannot get someone to rent me a studio apartment
within reasonable commuting distance to my east bay tech job. It’s miserable
being unable to put down any roots here, to spend your days begging a landlord
just to look at your application. But the thought of leaving and taking my
shot at getting by anywhere else is terrifying. The rest of this country is
slowly becoming either a racist red state hell hole, or a dead end pit of
poverty and despair for anyone with ambition.

~~~
_zachs
Let me get this straight, if you're not in California you're either in a
racist, red state hell hole or a dead end pit of poverty and despair? Dropping
out of high-school clearly did you wonders.

~~~
newfoundglory
They said becoming, not is.

~~~
talmand
So this person is not yet a total elitist jerk, but almost is. Got it.

------
sampo
Some economists have started to suggest that exclusionary zoning policy is the
main driver of wealth inequality. And California is pretty much the world
leader in exclusionary zoning policy.

[https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-...](https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/03/wealth-
inequality)

[https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-
gra...](https://medium.com/the-ferenstein-wire/a-26-year-old-mit-graduate-is-
turning-heads-over-his-theory-that-income-inequality-is-actually-2a3b423e0c)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/19/meet-
the-26-year-old-whos-taking-on-thomas-pikettys-ominous-warnings-about-
inequality/)

[https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-
regulation...](https://www.mercatus.org/publication/how-land-use-regulation-
undermines-affordable-housing)

~~~
asabjorn
You make a great point, so I would like to add some facts.

* A snapshot of more recent U.S. Census migration numbers shows that nearly three-quarters of those who have left California for other states since 2007 earn less than $50k a year.

* San Francisco's African American population has declined from 13.4% of the population in 1970 to 6.1%

* 41 percent of San Franciscans spend 30 to 50 percent on rent, despite a lot of rent control for longer-tenure residents and a population average income being $104k as well as median $77k

* low skilled entry level jobs are moved elsewhere [https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-...](https://www.google.com.tw/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/03/those-...).

I understand that this might not be the intended consequence for all people
fighting for the current zoning rules, but due to its effects on African
Americans and latinos as well as the poor I find the effects immoral.

The current situation makes it almost impossible to grow up with lower middle
class parents or work in a low-pay low-skilled position, and mingling with the
tech crowd to work your way up.

Anyone supporting these policies knowing this has the right to do so, but not
while at the same time claiming they fight for diversity and the dispossessed.

~~~
esturk
Hold on there. Dropping that 2nd fact seems to be more race baiting than not.
The indication of AA population shrinking could be explained by the increase
of the AA population in neighboring counties.

According to
[http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov](http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov), the AA
population was increasing throughout the 80s - 2000s in all 8 other bay area
counties. They could very well left SF to get better opportunities elsewhere.

~~~
asabjorn
You make an interesting point, According to this link
[https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/841/RTT_RPI...](https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/841/RTT_RPIC.pdf):

* Large urban school districts are experiencing the greatest numerical decrease in Black enrollment. These districts include Oakland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Inglewood, Lynwood, and Compton.

* The largest percentage increase in the Black population occurred in smaller, rural communities (Susanville, Tehachapi, Calipatria, and Elk Grove). Before 1980, these communities had a very small number of African Americans.

According to the cal budget center
[http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/californians-parts-
stat...](http://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/californians-parts-state-pay-
can-afford-housing/)

* More than 2 our of 3 Californias with unaffordable housing costs are people of color

And there are a few more interesting facts in both links, so you are correct
that it is a complex problem. That said I don't think you can access the best
opportunities in California from where the largest percentage increase in the
black population is, but it might be that they also moved to neighborhood
populous counties in which case percentage increase is not interesting.

------
tstactplsignore
The author has a pretty radical and completely unsubstantiated anti-
environmental outlook. He claims that California energy prices are so high
because of "liberal" policies including extremely important (but honestly
still fairly modest) regulations to help stem carbon emissions - however,
California energy prices have been far above the US average for decades [0]
and the impact of carbon regulations on the consumer have been minimal, and
certainly have nothing to do with California's poverty rate. (Note that most
of the east coast lives in states with similar regulations [1], and there too
costs have not been pushed onto the consumer).

As to the argument that a ban on plastic bags is causing California's poverty
because it hurts the workers in the factories that make them... I think the
ridiculousness of that idea stands on its own. California has a poverty
problem. It's driven by things like the housing crisis and high consumer
prices. Not because we provide any kind of support the poor or the
environment.

[0] [http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-
capacity/s...](http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-
capacity/static/img/la-fi-g-electricity-capacity-web.jpg)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Greenhouse_Gas_Initiative)

~~~
dsr_
"The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRI) is a California-based
free-market think tank which promotes "the principles of individual freedom
and personal responsibility" through policies that emphasize a free economy,
private initiative, and limited government."

\-- first paragraph of the wikipedia article.

Always ask "Who benefits?".

------
pascalxus
And yet, it doesn't need to be this way.

Cafeteria workers at facebook earn 40k per year and are stuck living in
people's garages. Anywhere else in the country, and they'd be thoroughly
midclass with 40k per year. It mostly comes down to egregiously awful housing
policies that make it 5-10 times more expensive to live here. This hurts
everyone.

Other cities manage to do it. Look at red cities like Houston, that are
growing every bit as fast and still manage to keep housing costs low. And the
population density in TX is roughly same as CA, at least overall. Ultimately,
it comes down to the ratio of jobs to housing. The penninsula has 4 jobs to
every 1 person place to live. You have to build more housing or get rid of
jobs, to make two back into balance. and, for christ sake, get rid of those
CEQA laws and anything else that gets in the way of housing costs. We need to
start working with developers, not against them.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Is Houston really red? Most of its political representation seems firmly in
the urban liberal left. That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red
Texas artifact.

The population densities of Texas and California are about the same overall
because they both have vast amounts of unpopulated land. If you look at the
density of cities, however, California is much more dense than Texas in
general.

~~~
technofiend
>That the city sprawls like crazy is more of a red Texas artifact.

It's actually an artifact of Houston's original charter which allowed nearly
unlimited growth via annexation and Houston's use of that annexation power to
reclaim its tax and voter base each time they moved outward from the city
center. Houston grew from 9 square miles in 1900 to ~600 square miles today.
See [http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-
events/arti...](http://www.chron.com/local/history/major-stories-
events/article/Aggresive-annexation-generates-growing-pains-8338701.php) for
more details.

As to our voting patterns, see
[https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-
dots-t...](https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/11/analysis-blue-dots-texas-
red-political-sea/) for analysis. We're generally a blue dot surrounded by red
but that's on average.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Blue dots surrounded by red also happens in California (and indeed, in any
state with cities). It’s just that the blue dots are much more dense in
California.

I don’t think there is such a thing as a red big city.

------
birken
When I read this article I was surprised and looked for some data, and while
the fact that California is the leader in this poverty metric is true, the
claims of why I'm not entirely sold on.

1) The state with the 2nd highest adjusted poverty rate, Florida, has had
republican governors since 1999, republicans in both chambers of the
legislature and is not a "welfare state".

2) California "welfare" spending per-capita has been dropping for the past 5
years, not rising at some out of control rate [1]

3) The adjustment in poverty rate causing CA to shoot to the top is almost
certainly due to high housing costs, which is serious problem but not tied to
the welfare state [2]

So while I think it is a useful wake up call that California isn't a perfect
place where everybody is doing well, blaming the welfare state is probably not
very accurate, and more sane housing policies would probably do far more to
help the poverty rates than curtailing support programs. And another thing to
note, the rate has been dropping. In 2013 it was 23.4, and now it is 20.4,
which I'm sure is mostly due to the economy being much stronger, but at the
same time shows this isn't a problem spiraling out of control.

1:
[https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_202...](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2006_2022CAb_19c1li211mcn_40c)

2:
[http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...](http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-
mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/)

~~~
optimuspaul
One could maybe speculate that climate might be a correlation worth looking
at.

~~~
maxxxxx
If I was homeless I would either go to Florida or California. At least you
won't die in the winter.

------
ryan_j_naughton
This Op-Ed is picking and choosing facts and associating them together as if
there is causation.

Instead of "CA didn't adopt welfare reform ==> higher poverty rates", it could
be there are more poor immigrants who move here from Mexico and Central
America (along with a myriad of other factors).

Further: >"Apparently content with futile poverty policies, Sacramento
lawmakers can turn their attention to what historian Victor Davis Hanson aptly
describes as a fixation on 'remaking the world.'"

The article then goes on to list policies that are more about ideology than
making real impacts, including:

>"The political class wants to build a costly and needless high-speed rail
system."

Public transportation is obviously valuable and furthers the public interest.
Has it been done poorly in California, yes, but if we had trains like Europe
it would dramatically increase quality of life for our citizens.

>"enacted the first state-level cap-and-trade regime"

This isn't about "remaking the world" or winning political points. Climate
change is real and having real impacts on people's lives.

>"Established California as a “sanctuary state” for illegal immigrants"

Again, this has very real impacts for a significant percentage of our
residents. Not just an ideological fluff policy.

>"Banned plastic bags, threatening the jobs of thousands of workers involved
in their manufacture"

Plastic is destroying our oceans and causing significant, irreparable farm to
our ecosystems. In the cost-benefit analysis, the externality costs outweigh
the value of those jobs. When Florida just got an exemption to prevent
offshore drilling off their coasts, conservatives reacted positively,
recognizing the trade-offs between one economic activity (drilling) and
another (coastal tourism) when externalities are involved.

It's so infuriating how conservatives, who used to be a group that understood
economics, now willfully ignore sound economic theory when it doesn't fit
their talking points.

~~~
asabjorn
I agree that it is a shame everything has to be so politicized, both of the
left and right, even when a good point is made. We clearly have a problem in
California, but it is unlikely that this is because of a welfare system that
support people in need.

As pointed out elsewhere a more likely culprit is exclusionary zoning that has
increased living costs to unsustainable levels even for high paid employees. A
lot of problems solve themselves when having a roof over your head doesn't
costs $3600 for a very low-standard one-bedroom.

------
etchalon
So, the entire premise of this op-ed seems to be based on this report:
[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.pdf)

It should be said that CA does not have the highest SPM. DC does (20.4 vs 21).
But that's not really the point of the article.

I don't fully understand yet why SPM is better than the "official" poverty
metric, or why the calculations involved in SPM create such a dramatic
difference between CA's official rate and their "SPM" rate. However, I'm
willing to venture a guess that it's a fairly complicated interaction of
policies and demographics which don't tell you much about the "success" of
more conservative policies on eradicating poverty.

Plenty of conservative states have a higher SPM than plenty of other "liberal"
states, so it seems to me that using it as an indictment/evidence for policy
approaches on either side is fairly flimsy.

~~~
spondyl
> I don't fully understand why SPM is better than the "official" poverty
> metric

I'm no statistician but here's what it says in the introduction section:
Beginning in 2011, the Census Bureau began publishing the Supplemental Poverty
Measure (SPM), which extends the official poverty measure by taking account of
many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and
individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure.

I'm not a US citizen so my understanding may be quite off but I assume that
since (presumably) the states themselves do the official measure, then that's
why they don't account for federal programs?

EDIT: I just realised that while the District of Columbia has the highest SPM,
they're probably playing semantics. The article starts with "Guess which
state" which excludes DC, a federal district. It's just weasel wording to get
at Cali though :)

~~~
etchalon
The whole op-ed piece is weasel wording, really.

------
overcast
I hope this gets more visibility on HN, so people can see others do live
outside the reality distortion bubble. It was only last week people were
arguing whether $150,000 was an average salary for programmers in the bay
area.

~~~
deadmetheny
Pish-posh, everyone knows that poor people are a red state problem. California
is a net contributor to the federal budget, along with all the other coastal
states, after all.

------
ryanobjc
An oped isn’t a great place to learn about this problem. The author has
massive incentives to distort or mislead in pursuit of their argument.

For example, I have heard from state senate staffers that although the state
is blue, the notion that progressive forces are in control of the government
isn’t true. If you think about it, this makes sense. California is diverse so
why wouldn’t the politicians be?

~~~
jacksmith21006
You appear to be correct on your suspicion.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010)
California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...

------
jxramos
Some Italian friends of mine mentioned some sort of political joke about
whatever political party claims to be for the poor, that "they [championing
political party] like them [the poor] so much they want more of them".
Something to that effect.

Reading this bit of the article below made me think of their laughing together
at however you say the above in Italian.

"Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist
William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize
their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and
security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare
bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base.

------
Mankhool
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-
extr...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/america-extreme-
poverty-un-special-rapporteur)

>41 million people who officially live in poverty.

Of those, nine million have zero cash income

------
unabridged
The homelessness problem is one the most straight forward social problems that
can be solved, unlike nebulous goals like decreasing crime, improving health,
creating jobs, etc. Literally all it takes is building more places to live.
The resources and land exist, the only thing standing in the way is political
will.

------
SubiculumCode
There are at least two Californias. 1. LA and Bay areas. 2.The Central Valley.
One is rich. The other is poor.

I grew up in the central valley. The central valley is agriculture, and is
disproportionately populated by generally hard working migrants (or 2nd/3rd
generations thereof) of Mexico. They pick our fruit and our vegetables, but
they are dirt poor. I grew up along side them, land of dirt and chicken coops.
They were my neighbors and my friends.

------
branchless
Progress and Poverty: An Inquiry in the Cause of Industrial Depressions and of
Increase of Want with Increase of Wealth... The Remedy by Henry George.

[https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-
Depressio...](https://www.amazon.com/Progress-Poverty-Industrial-Depressions-
Increase/dp/0911312587)

Yet vanishingly few on hacker news wants to tax land, not labour.

------
lifeformed
By all other poverty metrics California is doing okay, I think it's the high
housing prices that skew this particular measurement.

~~~
jeffbax
I think you should take a look at their looming pension crisis... California
is already taxed to hell, and their balance sheet is not something to be
optimistic about.

------
waxwander
Ummm... LA has more homeless people than any other city because of the
weather. NYC winters kill. LA's outdoors are basically like the indoors most
other places. No mosquitoes. Only rare rain. 70 degrees most of the time.

Much of California's poor are created elsewhere and they move to California.
It's easier to be homeless in California than most other places.

~~~
tabtab
Indeed that may be a big factor. A better study of who, where, and why is
needed to understand the bigger picture. It's premature to fill in details
with the typical partisan angles.

------
IronWolve
There's videos of the long line of tents in orange county making the rounds on
social media today. With 1/3rd of the welfare recipients live in California,
seems to be a pretty big issue thats not being addressed.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-
WtQ8E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkli-WtQ8E)

------
ljsocal
Factual counter arguments here: [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2018/01/california-is-...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-
drum/2018/01/california-is-doing-fine-thank-you-very-much/)

~~~
dragonwriter
Drum does rebut the causal argument in the LA Times Op-Ed (which is pure
ideological dogma detached from facts; the claim that “Democrats have long
been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no political
price” is particularly amusing, given that ignores that until recently
California has (whoever held the majority, with or without also holding the
governor's mansion) had an effective minority-party veto via the 2/3
requirement to pass a budget (and still has a 2/3 requirement to pass new
taxes through the legislature) which has prevented anyone from being free to
impose any ideology other than one of government inaction-responsiveness.

OTOH, California is not doing okay; Drum provides no reason to disregard the
SPM, but even if you do, being just a bit worse than middle of the road by the
federal poverty line while being 8th in per capita GDP is, by itself, an
alarming number that shows that the _aggregate_ wealth in California is a
rising tide they is absolutely _not_ lifting all boats. But to Drum it's
somehow “just fine”.

------
jacksmith21006
Appears that this article is not true according to another article titled

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010)
California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...

------
megaman22
Interesting to see how differently this does today, with an editorialized
title, vs the actual title that was submitted a day or two ago and insta-
flagged.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16148447)

~~~
sageabilly
Yeah, this is some serious political opinion masquerading as journalism:

Original Title: _Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?_

 _With a permanent majority in the state Senate and the Assembly, a prolonged
dominance in the executive branch and a weak opposition, California Democrats
have long been free to indulge blue-state ideology while paying little or no
political price. The state’s poverty problem is unlikely to improve while
policymakers remain unwilling to unleash the engines of economic prosperity
that drove California to its golden years._

~~~
masterleep
The article is an op-ed.

------
purplezooey
Good points in this article. Prop 13 and land use regulation here is out of
control. It's at the point where the government should be buying neighborhoods
at market rate and selling to developers who will build at a high density.

------
rdtsc
Interesting, saw this article yesterday and it was flagged and gone within
minutes. I understand there are some silly and wrong assumptions in it, but is
it really that offending and off-topic to be flagged?

Could easily just make a comment saying "This is wrong and here is why..."

~~~
jacksmith21006
Well looking at this it appears it was a very misleading op ed piece.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16154010)
California does not have the highest poverty rate in the USA ...

