« Productivity – A new perspective | Main | Ruminations - 8mar13 (updated 11mar13) »

08 March 2013


Brad Croul

The population of California was 5,667,251 in 1930. In 1940, the population was 6,907,387. In 2000, the population was 33,871,653. In 2010, the population was 37,253,956. Going from 34 million to 37 million is not a decrease of 3 million.

The, hackneyed, “3.4 million Californians left the state” seems to be a little bit of right wing propaganda.

Additionally, those 30 million newcomers to California that arrived since 1940 have not lessened the burden on our environment and infrastructure and schools.

If everyone was working and paying their fair share of taxes, we would be able to spread the load of maintaining our roads, schools, etc.

Close to home, we are getting a new 4 lane highway coming up from Auburn. Someone has to pay for it.

Russ Steele


All vehicle owners, who buy fuel, will be paying for the new highway 49, with the highway fuel tax, that is unless the politician do not raid the transportation account to balance the state budget like they have in the past. Those hybrid drivers and EV owner are getting a free ride, while the carbon fuel owner are paying the full bill.

Russ Steele

Brad, you might want to rethink the school impact issue. Here is something to mull over from Joel Kotkin, who is a Democrat.

Southern California, where immigration has dropped by roughly a third over the past decade, has shared in this decline.

All three major regions of greater Los Angeles – the San Bernardino-Riverside area, Orange and Los Angeles counties – have seen a sharp drop in their percentages of children. Only the Inland Empire remains still relatively youthful overall, with some 26 percent of its population under 15, well above the national average. In contrast, Los Angeles and Orange counties experienced a 15.6 decline in under-15 population, highest among the nation's metropolitan areas. Meanwhile, the over 60 population grew by 21 percent.

One clear indicator can be seen in our declining school populations. Despite massive expenditures for new construction, over the past decade the Los Angeles Unified School District has seen enrollment drop by 7.5 percent. In that period, the student count fell by over 50,000, the largest numerical drop in the nation.

What is leading to this exodus of families? Sacramento politicians and their media enablers blame insufficient investment in education or simply national aging trends as the root causes. But then, why are other states, including our key competitors, gaining families and children?

Sacramento lawmakers of both parties share some responsibility. The dominant progressives' regulatory and tax agenda continues to reduce economic prospects for younger Californians, leading many young families to exit the state. In contrast, older Anglos, the bulwark of the now largely irrelevant GOP, are committed to massive property tax breaks because of Proposition 13. Add good weather and the general inertia of age, and it's not surprising that families might flee as seniors stay.

Other factors work against parents, prospective or otherwise. The knee-jerk progressive response to our demographic problems usually entails more money be sent to the schools.
More here: http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00699-california-becoming-less-family-friendly

The burden on schools is declining as young families leave the state. Schools are being closed up and down the state as the under 15 population continues to decline.

George Rebane

BradC 740pm - You miss the point, this piece deals with middle and lower class exodus. The "rightwing propaganda" is endemic in Census Bureau data.


Brad... More business and people are LEAVING than coming to Ca.
You can look back in time all you like. Count all the cars you care too.
People are still heading outa' here. I know many that have, I know many that have plans too. And just maybe in a few years you may add me to the list.
Thank the Lord Ca. hasn't imposed a "flee tax" yet.
What would it take to convince you? The state stopping you at the state line to see if you moving out and taking their self imposed cut of your belongings?

N.Y. Made the same fateful mistake by imposing huge taxes on "the rich".
So,, "the rich" LEFT.

Joe Koyote

Considering that WSJ is owned by former Australian Rupert Murdoch and The Economist is basically a British publication, I am not sure how scared we should be that they are watching us. With a few exceptions in the area of social issues (they believe in taking action about climate change and gay rights), the Economist is basically a shill for global corporations. And, of course, we all know how "fair and balanced" and lawful Murdoch's enterprises are.

Steve Enos

George, here's a good piece on municipal bankruptcy as a tool to address unfunded pension costs and some other issues. It's worth the read:


George Rebane

SteveE 1103am - Looking forward to reading it, but their server is not doing well. Thanks.

JoeK 919am - Wow, it's as if I never posted my 854am - ignore the message, excoriate the messengers. Here's another recent acknowledgement from that rightwing rag LA Times commenting on the city's upcoming election. "However, neither (candidate) has outlined detailed financial plans to address chronic spending problems that have pushed the city toward insolvency, including rising employee pension costs."

All together now - spread legs, bend over, reinsert head where the sun doesn't shine.

Brad Croul

George, yes, there is evidence that poorer, undereducated folks who are more likely to be on public assistance did move out of California,

"Californians leaving the state are more likely than those who stay to be unemployed, to be less educated, to live in poverty, and to receive public assistance. In contrast, newcomers moving to California tend to have higher incomes and more education and are less likely to live in poverty or receive public assistance."


However, that does not explain the census data. For example, take the following illustration,


which says that there are 329,000 people in California with a net worth of over $2 Million. They represent your uber-riche. Now, subtract the uber-riche figure from the 3+ million people that moved here between 2000 and 2010. Of that 2.6 million, some of those numbers must represent middle class, lower middle class, poor, and upper middle class who moved into California.

This article says that, "An estimated 1.8 million Americans had a net worth of at least $2 million"

We know from the preceding illustration that not all of those 1.8 rich folks moved to California.

George Rebane

BradC 658pm - I think that the Census Bureau numbers as reported by the WSJ et al do speak for themselves. Today to argue that it is easier for the middle class to afford California is really beyond the pale. But I do understand that those who voted for the politicians who brought all this about must stand their ground, else the admitted burden would be unconscionable - a sort of a 'post ballot stress disorder' would set in.

Todd Juvinall

I find it fascinating that the left, those self proclaimed protectors of the poor and defenders of the defenseless thrash those same people with high gasoline prices and high food prices. Also, the left has foisted all those rules and regulations on the homes these poor slobs need and price them out o them as well. So the protectors of the poor and middle class have screwed their own and have no qualms about any of that hypocrisy. The sad thing for the country and the state though is those poor and middle class continue to vote their own destruction into power every chance they get. I think GOD has played a interesting game.

Steve Enos

George, here's a small part of the story I linked to above... some interesting stuff to consider regarding pension obligations and renegotiating labor contracts and municipalities using bankruptcy as a reset tool.

"But the landscape may be changing. Since Vallejo, other cities have used bankruptcy filings to help restructure burdensome debts, overhaul pension obligations and renegotiate labor contracts. A handful of California cities are now using bankruptcy to take on that state’s goliath pension system; the outcomes of those cases could spread far beyond California, changing the way other municipalities view bankruptcy. Filing for Chapter 9 will almost certainly remain a decision of last resort, but the stigma may not be what it once was. There’s a growing sense among some leaders that municipal bankruptcy -- unthinkable just a few years ago -- may be a valuable tool in a city’s financial toolbox.

A big part of the shift has to do with pensions. Employee pensions and other retiree benefits aren’t the only cause of municipal distress, but they’re a major factor. Cities’ obligations to retired employees are gobbling up a larger and larger share of local budgets. In San Jose, Calif., for example, the city’s pension payments jumped from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million in 2012, roughly 27 percent of that city’s general fund budget. But tinkering with those obligations can be next to impossible. Fiscally distressed cities have sought relief by raising taxes and cutting services, but they often hit a brick wall when it comes to contract adjustments. And even in cases where they can negotiate a new labor agreement, existing pension agreements have legally been untouchable."

Brad Croul

George, who do you assume is arguing it is easier to afford California? Affordability aside, in the last two decades, 7 million have moved TO California; or to look at it another way, 10.5 million have moved TO California and 3.5 million have moved OUT of California. You could call it supply and demand. Yes, it costs more to live here. But, what is the alternative: Pittsburg, Detroit; or if that is too "colorful", the lily white, American Redoubt?

The fact is, we are a mobile society. People are always looking for a better life. People have come to California for centuries, and some have left.

George Rebane

BradC 812am - Yes Brad, California was built by people moving here because they saw opportunity - the (lower?) middle-class Rebanes were part of the great inflow in the fifties. Today such people are looking elsewhere, and those already here are net emigrating. And the message is in the net change in the demographic.

California may already be a 'barbell' state with a big hump of the poor (one out three welfare recipients live in California), and the well-heeled who can either avoid the taxes or afford them. According to a century of progressive literature, a barbell is not a desired shape of the demographic, and yet it is exactly the Left's policies that exacerbate this condition. The tipping point is passed, the voters will not give up their government tit.

It seems that either you don't accept this reality, or are sanguine with it.

Joe Koyote

According to an article on SACBEE.com there are actually fewer Californians leaving for Texas now than a few years ago. In 2006 around 85,000 Californians left for Texas compared to only 57,000 in 2011, which when combined with folks from Texas leaving for CA makes the net migration to Texas at 21,000 in 2011 as compared to 36,000 in 2006. The main reason for leaving then was not jobs but affordable housing and the unwillingness to take on a subprime loan. Now that housing prices have come down fewer people are leaving for the browner pastures of polluted land called Texas. It is true that unemployment is lower in Texas but the number of migrants is still insignificant. Your migration theory is talking about .056 of one percent of the population, so, it seems, once again, George, you are making a mountain out of a molehill just to make an obscure partisan political stab about evil Democrats that holds no water. Get real please.

George Rebane

JoeK 842am - This humorous dialogue continues. Joe, it's not a "theory" and most certainly it is not mine. Were you wider read, you would know that. But I am glad that at least on RR you are exposed to such ideas and goings on. But not to worry, you are not alone in such perceptions, and in a way I take pride in that.

Joe Koyote

I enjoy the dialogue as I hope you do, keeps the mind active as long as we both realize that pruning the grapes is more important.


Nope! the exodus continues, despite what some people think.
I know of several from right around here that have given Ca.
the finger and have headed North and East. I know even more
that are getting ready to do the same. As soon as they retire
from their current jobs,, Seeya'!
Good thing Ca. hasn't imposed an exit tax. (yet)
Ca. is SOO hurting for money, they are resorting to
extortion. Just ask any company that's based outside the state
that does a little business inside the state.
If they send a "rep" to somewhere inside Ca., and that person
doses business for as little as 8 hr.s inside the state, that company is surely to receive a tax bill. ( and they pay it, because it's cheaper than fighting it)

Bill Tozer

Figured out how Obama is going to stop the flight from California:


George Rebane

BillT 805am - My question is why all these hotshot media organizations are so late in waking up to this DHS acquisition program.

Ben Emery

Actually George in their very predictable way the Democrats have made themselves less than super majority. I told my wife the D's would do this directly following the November election. The D's cannot have a black and white or a transparent opposition two party system in place because their rhetoric that gives the illusion of a two party system will be blown up.

A perfect example of this happening was Health Care For All SB 810. Twice it passed the both chambers in CA legislature with a R governor. Same numbers virtually same legislature Health Care For All SB 810 came two votes short when Jerry Brown (D) was governor. Four D's abstained from voting and two D's voted "No".

California Democrats lose supermajority in state Senate

Ben Emery

I guess I should finish the thought if it isn't obvious enough. We have a duopoly single party system that represent the same interest, wealthy and big business due to the dependence of needing huge sums of money to compete in elections.

Brad Croul

George, you can rejoice in the fact that, "Californians leaving the state are more likely than those who stay to be unemployed, to be less educated, to live in poverty, and to receive public assistance.

I wonder how many of the 3.4 million who left California were of Hispanic origins that came up through our southern border, stayed here for a few years, then moved on?

George Rebane

BradC 1132am - Your point is well taken. But their leaving (i.e. transiting) just exacerbates the problems with California's economy - the state is acting like a conduit for illegal aliens who don't even stay to fill the jobs Americans refuse to do.

Do you (anyone?) have an idea why the Left, that claims to care so much for 'living wages' and 'income equality', does not promote sealing the border so as to foster the natural rise of farm and service labor wages in order to attract our lower class (and young) Americans into those positions. Instead, they do all the unnatural things like fostering illegals, increasing welfare transfer payments, and mandating minimum wages. Why not enforce our immigration/border laws and let the market handle labor costs? (I and my friends had no problem being farm hands and stoop labor in the fields under a very hot and humid Indiana sun.)

earlcrabb 921am - Bob, methinks that you could have had first class services for your parents if the government had let you spend that $10K/mo.

Russ Steele


Closing the border would cut off the supply of dependent voters. The Democrats to survive need a underclass of dependent voters, voters they can count onto keep them in power.

Ben Emery

I promote sealing the borders all the time. Just not in a way that uses lethal force. We don't need more guns, border patrol, or even a fence. What we need to assure undocumented immigrants don't become illegal immigrants is to have extremely strict laws on employment and to enforce those laws on employers. Put a few CEO's in prison, especially those from the Hospitality Industry and the migration slows down to a crawl. No jobs no migration. Whose is going to risk their lives and leave their homes to come to a country that has no jobs for them to live on? I take Cesar Chavez position on immigration.

This is where the R's and D's are caught in a catch 22.

D's used to support labor but no longer so the influx of immigrants coming in to the US flooding the labor pool driving wages down doesn't concern them any longer. So they do nothing about it.

R's love the powerless workforce and using the issue as a wedge issue but as more undocumented/ illegal immigrants reside within US borders the issue hurts the R's but they will cater to big business bottom lines and turn the other way allowing huge numbers to pour into the US. So they do nothing about it.

George Rebane

RussS 1220pm - you weren't supposed to give away the answer ;-)

BenE 1224pm - your comment does not comport with the reality of human nature that I have observed in my long years - you clearly have seen something different. Both of your solutions and interpretations are autocratic and dysfunctional. Punishing American job creators instead enforcing the lawful (constitutional) maintenance of America border security is the most cynical promotion of "sealing the borders" that I have heard. It only illuminates the chasm between the country's poles.

Ben Emery

When are you going to open your eyes to reality. The job creators are workers who have decent wages that equate to demand. Drop their wages and the demand either goes away as we are seeing in our current economic situation or credit/ debt is the only way that can fuel the economy. Nobody hires people for the sake of hiring someone. They hire people because there is a demand for more of a specific service or product. Nothing more. We had high volume in the summers at our restaurant so our numbers went from around 5 employees during winters to 15/ 20 employees during summers. It is a simple concept.

The solution of walls, fences, guns and more armed patrols sounds a bit to much like the 30's in Europe or Germany specifically.

This is definitely one of your blind spots. Once again you promote authoritarianism of big government on the powerless instead of holding those accountable that exploit the powerless. You seem to relish in the use of force on those who do not have the means to defend themselves. Hammer the poor because they cannot use the judicial system or any governmental system to hold those accountable that have substantial means. Leave those alone with great means to defend themselves because that can get ugly and is harder to convict.

Noam Chomsky on a talk on Market Discipline (Global Capitalism and Its Discontents)

"Market Discipline is perfect for poor people in El Salvador or working mothers in the slums, they have to learn responsibility but not the rich and powerful, they have to be protected. That is the truth about neo-liberalism. It's double edged and that goes back hundreds of years. That is a good part of the reason why the third world being the third world and the first world being the first world. If you go back two hundreds years ago and they weren't very different. They diverged enormously and there are many reasons for that but one substantial part of the reason is the third world had market discipline rammed down their throats by force. Where as the first world England, US, Germany, Japan, without exception every developed countries had a powerful state initiative that protected and developed the economy and that continues right to this moment. That is whats called markets, they are designed in particular ways." He finishes the talk about international markets and how some states or more equal than others. The G-7 when this talk took place but now we are at G-20.

George Rebane

BenE 125pm - I think we already established that we experience two widely separate realities on almost every aspect of society, economics, and human nature.

Ben Emery

Yep, you are in favor of authoritarian style power structure and I am for the people governing themselves through a democratic republic.

Russ Steele

Here is a thought, there could be some unintended consequences of open borders for the Democrats:

HOW THE DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT could hurt Democrats, too. “It’s assumed that, as the United States becomes increasingly non-white, white Democrats will continue to support the party. But a substantial amount of social-science evidence suggests a different conclusion: As the United States becomes more racially and ethnically diverse, liberal whites might start leaning Republican.” If that happens, it will be because of the surprisingly common anti-white racism emanating from so many Democratic operatives and pundits. Given that whites are still a very substantial majority, such a shift would be devastating for the Democrats. If they can’t carry 30-40% of whites, they can’t win.

Love the shallow thinking on the left, they never consider the unintended consequences.

Russ Steele

CA leaders still attacking businesses, jobs

Katy Grimes Writing at CalWatchDog:

“It’s little wonder that most Silicon Valley CEOs say they won’t expand in California because of high taxes and burdensome regulation. Intel long ago moved its plants to Nevada, and Cisco, Google and others have relocated their server farms to places like Utah, Arizona and Oregon. California still ranks first in technology, agriculture and entertainment, but even this advantage in time can be undermined.”

Read the rest HERE: http://www.calwatchdog.com/2013/03/11/ca-leaders-still-attacking-businesses-jobs/

Katy concludes: “The sucking sound continues as frustrated businesses leave state for friendlier climes,” Chief Executive magazine said.
“The people whose wallets will be drained in the new war on ‘the rich’ are high-earning, but hardly plutocratic professionals like engineers, doctors, lawyers, small business owners and the like,” Kotkin said. “Once seen as the bastion of the middle class, and exemplars of upward mobility, these people are emerging as the modern day ‘kulaks,’ the affluent peasants ruthlessly targeted by Stalin in the early 1930s.”

Kotkin added: “The ironic geography of the Democratic drive can be seen most clearly by examining the  distribution of the classes now targeted by the coming purge.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad