
Is California a Good Role Model? - ishikawa
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/opinion/california-economy-inequality-mobility.html
======
rayiner
Looking at total GSP makes no sense. California has the largest GSP, but it is
only #8 in GSP per capita. Also, when we compare countries, we usually compare
PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP per capita, not nominal GDP per capita.
California has a cost of living much higher than the national average.

If you look at real purchasing power, California ranks #37:
[http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-
for-t...](http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-taxes-
and-price-levels-may-change-our-perceptions-of-which-us-states-are-poor-or-
rich). The usual retort to attempts to adjust for cost of living is that
iPhones, Teslas, etc., cost the same anywhere in the country. This is where
inequality comes in--your average person spends most of their income on
purchases indexed to cost of living: rent, food, gas, child care, etc. If you
make $300,000, you'll have more disposable income in California than if you
made $200,000 in Minnesota even with the higher cost of living. If you make
$75,000 in California, you might be living very similarly to someone making
$50,000 in Minnesota.

Nor is California like say Germany or France, where substantially lower GDP
per capita and higher taxes (relative to the U.S.) is balanced by a robust
safety net and ample public services. California has among the worst public
schools in the country:
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geographic-
disparity-states-best-and-worst-schools/1079181001). Its public universities
are quite expensive. It doesn't have a leg up in healthcare like say
Massachusetts. Public transit is basically non-existent outside SF/LA. (To
compare: Dresden and Sacramento are about the same size; Dresden has an
extensive commuter rail system, and a tram system with 150 stops. Sacramento
has no commuter rail and a light-rail system with 50 stops.)

~~~
brookhaven_dude
Your purchasing power map is also misleading because it just compares how far
$100 will go in each state. Of course CA will appear to be worse. What this
misses is that CA salaries trend higher too. (But it's AEI, so kinda
expected).

~~~
mdorazio
Outside of the Bay Area (which accounts for maybe 18% of the population) they
really don't. Check out [1] and sort the table by median household income. You
have to go way down the list to get to a place outside the Bay. In fact,
California is ranked 10th for household income by state [2], after _Virginia_.
If you excluded the Bay Area bubble it would be much lower.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_counties...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_counties_by_per_capita_income)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income)

------
jdhn
>Depending on how you look at it, it’s one of the richest states or one of the
most unequal.

It can be both, you know.

~~~
Spooky23
That's a pretty obvious conclusion that modern commentators have a hard time
with. Folks go to great lengths to ignore stratified society.

In 2018 California, New York (ie. My grandma thought White Plains was some
frozen tundra near Niagara Falls) and even Massachusetts are examples of that.
Victorian England is another great example.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
So what's it like living in a less stratified society?

------
jedberg
> At the moment, the Democratic coalition in California is — relatively
> speaking — a smooth running machine.

I'm not so sure about that. If that were true, we wouldn't see so many vetoes
by the Democratic Governor of the laws passed by the Democratic legislature,
nor we would we see so many failed bills in the Legislature.

There is definitely a split in the party between those that are "almost
Republicans" and those that are "liberal Democrats". The Democrats have a
supermajority in both houses -- they should be able to pass anything with
ease.

But for example, they couldn't pass a new zoning law that would allow for a
ton of new housing, something we desperately need. If the party were running
smoothly, they would have been able to work out a new zoning bill that
everyone was happy with.

------
actuallyalys
I think Jonathan Rodden is right. People like to attribute economic results to
whoever's in charge, but a lot of it depends on factors that are either
outside of political control or only changeable through long-term policies.

~~~
hef19898
I think it's the latter. Which makes constant politics just so much more
important. And also democracies so fragile.

------
spenrose
Edsall, whose work I generally hold in high regard, does not address the
argument that the common cause of many of the problems is a regime which
prevents home building where the jobs are.

------
funkythings
No it's not.

\- Most unequal state in America

\- VERY high taxes (that are supposed to stop inequality, but it doesn't.
Surprise)

\- skyrocketing housing prices

\- Very illiberal mindset towards the first amendment, especially on college
campuses and in younger generations

\- Allows illegal citizens to vote

\- Very "shallow" show-off culture due to the show biz

~~~
zdw
What exactly is an "illegal citizen"?

~~~
st26
It sounds like the name of a B action movie.

------
rectang
I think you have to separate whether California is a good social and cultural
role model from whether it is a good economic role model.

Social liberals will naturally see inclusive (relative to the rest of the
country), majority-minority California as a success story. Cultural
conservatives will continue to regard it with distrust.

But the questions raised in this article are primarily economic, and I think
the point about inequality is particularly salient given which party holds
power.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
A handful of (mostly) coastal states manage to exempt themselves from
criticism for how their culture and government policy unnecessarily makes
being being less than wealthy a bigger pain in the butt than it needs to be by
saying "look, we have legal weed and easy to get abortions, look how great we
are!" and ignoring the economic reality that their government/society imposes
on people who are living paycheck to paycheck or worse.

I really don't like it. The issues that the upper classes in states like to
pat themselves on the back about are a lot farther down the hierarchy of needs
than being able to afford to register your vehicle.

It's not even a left or right thing, it's a whether or not people have to
spend time/money/effort jumping through hoops (thereby driving up the cost of
living) set up by the government thing.

States shouln't be measured by how nice it is to be "average" there, they
should be measured by how shitty it is or isn't if you're just scraping by.

------
unit91
Betteridge's law of headlines strikes again!

~~~
tome
tome's law strikes again!

"In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's
law is mentioned with probability 1."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17918772)

