
California's job growth defies predictions after tax increases - MaysonL
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/20/6564879/states-job-growth-defies-predictions.html
======
cnst
Yes, there is still a net migration to California, and tax increases are
unlikely to just kill it, but it is also revealing how many bigger businesses
are relocating to elsewhere, like Texas or Tennessee.

Both Google and Apple has lots of HR people in Texas.

The Japanese auto manufacturers have since left SoCal, too:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-autos-toyota-
mo...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/28/us-autos-toyota-motor-
torrance-idUSBREA3R1EW20140428)

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-
sen...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2014/04/27/it-makes-sense-for-
toyota-to-leave-california-for-texas/)

"254 companies left California in 2011":

[http://www.ocregister.com/articles/moved-342887-companies-
te...](http://www.ocregister.com/articles/moved-342887-companies-texas.html)

The housing prices in the greater SF Bay Area are simply ridiculous (even in
the South Bay, where there's lots of empty or unused land, and East Bay, where
there are few high-paid job opportunities), the housing and land speculation
is quite out of hand.

~~~
jtzhou
Actually net migration is negative for California within the United States --
93,915 more people are leaving California for other US states than arriving
there. Now, immigration, generally from poor countries, is still flowing
through California but that does not mean that California is a more desirable
place to live or raise a family in the middle-class, compared to other U.S.
states. [http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/2010-census-
state-m...](http://www.governing.com/gov-data/census/2010-census-state-
migration-statistics.html)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
You mean the poor Chinese migrant worker who is making $250K a year? Oh, and
he can buy a house in some places for around $500-750K (assume east bay
somewhere), which is way cheaper than Shanghai/Beijing.

California is definitely desirable in terms of climate, quality of life, and
job opportunities (if in tech); whether you can afford to live there is
another matter.

~~~
jtzhou
Perhaps in the Bay Area, but California-wide most of the newcomers are not
highly paid skilled workers from China.

California is a wonderful state, but mostly for the rich or early arrivals.

------
cynicalkane
Headline should read "A single piece of uncontrolled data influenced by
numerous causes must mean what I think it means".

This article isn't information in the sense it doesn't tell us anything new
about the world except that one event happened to be in line with the author's
pre-existing opinion. Nobody seriously thinks that a tax increase, small
relative to the entire economy, can stand in the face of all the various
economic forces by itself.

~~~
steveax
I think you missed the point, ie: refuting the dire predictions of the anti-
tax crowd, none of which came to pass. This will no doubt fail to stop the
usual hue and cry in the future, as that particular demographic seems to be
evidence proof.

~~~
bjt
The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to
prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the
effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's small,
so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the total.

A good economist would try to hold more things constant to tease out whether
the effect exists. Maybe break down the job growth numbers by area of the
state (not all areas are in a tech boom, but all would face the same state tax
policy). Or break it down by industry (have non-tech companies lost jobs?). Or
break it down by size of company (since the opponents claimed that small
businesses would be particularly hard hit).

~~~
bsder
> The evidence given by the article (job growth numbers) is insufficient to
> prove whether the tax hike killed jobs or not. It's quite possible that the
> effect is negative, as claimed by taxpayers associations, but that it's
> small, so the larger positive effect of the current tech boom dominates the
> total.

Um, no, science doesn't work that way.

Anti-tax folks made predictions. Those predictions did not come to pass.
That's a negative result. The anti-tax predictions have been _falsified_ with
some level of confidence.

It is _NOT_ required for pro-tax position to be proven true in order for the
anti-tax position to be proven false.

Let's be clear. The anti-tax people did not make a prediction of "might be too
small to measure"; they made a prediction of _doomsday_ which has proven to be
false.

And, if your position is, this is sufficiently small that it got swamped, then
your anti-tax hypothesis is _STILL_ false.

Consequently, raising taxes is useful because A) the downsides appear quite
limited (too small to measure) and B) the upsides are quite significant.

~~~
nemothekid
>Um, no, science doesn't work that way.

I'm hard pressed to believe you can apply any sort of "science" to
macroeconomics - its way to hard too isolate a single variable.

------
javert
If you take 3% more away from a million+ earner, they don't spend less on
personal luxuries. They spend less on investment.

So that is 3% that is not being spent on expanding production. (i.e. "Making
the economic pie bigger.")

Yes, the government will spend the money somewhere else, but typically it will
go almost entirely to consumption, instead. That is redistributing the pie,
rather than growing it.

Note that growing the pie lowers the cost of things, so it inherently benefits
everyone. There is no such thing as growing the pie and only benefiting the
rich.

In fact, not growing the pie disproportionately hurts the less well off. While
the rich forego investments, the poor forego things that actually make their
lives better.

~~~
adamnemecek
Trickle down economics have been AFAIK demonstrated to be false. But that will
be hard to argue with someone who judging by his HN about section is an Ayn
Rand fan.

~~~
laughfactory
In Economics nothing is ever "demonstrated to be false." There are just
various schools of thoughts with their various detractors and supporters.
Sure, some of those schools of thought are more popular at one time or
another, but none are ever "demonstrated to be false." It is only in politics
and news that claims will be made to that effect. There is evidence to support
pretty much every school of thought, and evidence to contradict it. Liberals,
in particular, like to make this claim--but the jury is still out, and likely
will be for...well, ever.

~~~
adamnemecek
Ok, I guess I should have said 'have not been demonstrated to be true'. I'd
like to see some recent peer-reviewed study that has shown that trickle down
economics does work then. Of course it won't be conclusive.

------
tn13
I think the point being missed here is that without tax increases the job
growth could have been even more higher.

Also marginal tax increase is not going to reduce job marginally but it will
be a more drastic change down the line.

