Update on Democratic California vs. Republican Texas

[Greg Davidson]

Always love to add some data to an argument.  After many years of continued governance by a Democratic Governor and Legislature, California continues to experience strong job growth. Back in 2011 when Republicans on this site we arguing that California's Democratic government and the associated level of taxes and regulation would cause jobs to continue to depart the state. At the time, there already was a big gap with the California unemployment rate 4.2% higher than Texas http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/14725.html

If the right wing opinions were right, then the gap should have gotten worse. Instead...

"California piled on 19,300 jobs in March and its unemployment rate dropped to 4.9%, according to figures released Friday by the state’s Employment Development Department. That’s the first time since December 2006 that the jobless rate has fallen below 5%."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-march-20170421-htmlstory.html

Meanwhile Texas unemployment is now higher than that of California

While Texas' jobless rate has typically hovered at or near the national number, in March, the state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate ticked upward to 5 percent, while the U.S. rate declined to 4.5 percent.
Texas' unemployment was up from 4.6 percent in March of last year.

California, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate decline, from 5.6 percent in March 2016, to 4.9 percent last month.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/economy/2017/04/21/texas-unemployment-rate-ticks-upward-surpasses-californias

[TheDrake]

Correlation is not causation. You'd have to adjust for all other factors to "prove" that having a Democratic legislature generates more growth than a Republican one. I'm sure I could find two states that go the other way.

[Greg Davidson]

The thread originally emerged in direct response to predictions of conservative members of Ornery that California would do worse because of the Democratic control of the government. This test was selected 6 years ago based on the assertions of conservatives - not a cherry-picked example.

It certainly provides significant direct evidence countering the assertion of conservatives that higher taxes and more regulation have an adverse impact on employment.

[Pete at Home]

Only years ago conservatives were pointing to tx vs Ca to show superiority of conservative politics. Turnabout is fair play.  Greg, I think you'd get more traction if you linked the thread you speak of.  I remember the news discussion

[Greg Davidson]

I included the URL but could not remember how to directly link it more than that
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/14725.html; if you could do so I would appreciate it.

[TheDeamon]

Correlation is not causation. You'd have to adjust for all other factors to "prove" that having a Democratic legislature generates more growth than a Republican one. I'm sure I could find two states that go the other way.

The economic condition of the State of Texas is an unreliable barometer because of how large of a factor the energy(oil) sector is within its economic engine. Oil markets are still recovering from being deliberately depressed after OPEC attempted to run the fracking operations out of business, many of which were also happening in Texas, so Texas getting squeezed by that is hardly surprising.

In that respect, that Texas is even remotely comparable to California even with that going on says poor things about Cali.

edit: also the "Seasonal adjustments" once they go through their multiple iterations could axe some of Cali's numbers. They've had a lot of flooding, and an unusually large snowpack this year which is going to skew things. Even without the mega-project that trying to effect temporary repairs to the Oroville Dam's spillway by November is going to be. The winning bid for that rebuild was $271 Million by itself, that doesn't include the  bill for work already done, or any other "surprises" they have along the way, things like the spillway currently being used and likely to remain in use at around 35,000 CFS until near the end of May...

[Crunch]

Texas employment is directly tied to oil.  As oil has gone "bust" it's tempting to suddenly point to how great things are in California vs Texas and present it as the only metric by which to compare the states. It's a bit of a cherry pick and there's a lot more to this story.  For example:

According to figures released in 2014 by then-California controller, now State Treasurer, John Chiang, California’s unfunded public pension liabilities rose from $6.3 billion in 2003 to $241 billion in 2014. Yet that $241 billion figure, which represents 3,000% increase over a decade, doesn’t tell the whole story, as it assumes an optimistic nearly 8% return on pension investments. Economists and public finance experts point out that more realistic assumptions about rates of return put the state’s unfunded pension liabilities at nearly $1 trillion, or eight times the current general fund. That’s just the state’s unfunded pension liability.

The bill is coming due on this and all the other debts California has wracked up. How will it work out when the state defaults on these? It'll be some time before it hits that level but it clearly can't go this way forever. Of course, that's only one statistic as well but it shows how we can't simply pick one favorable stat and then make a sweeping generalization that supports our preferences.

That being said, people are voting on the winner of the Ca vs Tx debate in the most meaningful way possible:

During the last decade, over 225,000 people moved from California to Texas, bringing over $4.4 billion in income with them to the Lone Star State.

and

Net migration into the state has slowed to a trickle. During the last 11 years, California saw a net gain of 136,000 domestic and international migrants. During the prior 11 years, the state saw a net gain of more than 1 million. And from 1980 through 1990, net migration topped 3.5 million.

During the last 11 years, hundreds of thousands of California residents have left for places where it is cheaper to live, IRS data show. Immigration from Mexico, which previously drove much of California's growth, has slowed markedly. In both cases, population growth has shifted disproportionately to Texas.

Roughly a 90% drop in net migration over the last 11 years, that's just the exclamation point on an undeniable trend of the last 40 years.   When oil is down, California gets some advantages.  No doubt about that. But if California is so great and Texas so bad, why are so many fleeing California for Texas?  It appears that, when all factors are accounted for, people see Texas as a superior choice for a better life.

[Fenring]

It appears that, when all factors are accounted for, people see Texas as a superior choice for a better life.

Do you have any stats of the income or wealth levels of the people leaving California for Texas? It is an even cross-section, or is there a skew in one direction?

[TheDeamon]

It appears that, when all factors are accounted for, people see Texas as a superior choice for a better life.

Do you have any stats of the income or wealth levels of the people leaving California for Texas? It is an even cross-section, or is there a skew in one direction?

If my sister is any indication, as well as a number of other people I know who moved to Texas(not from Cali), the main draw is on lower-middle income earners, so it is mostly driven by the middle class. But as a growing middle class also consumes a lot of goods and services, that means it will likewise pull in a large number of people from the lower categories in order to fulfill those needs/wants.

This is largely due to the tech sector basically bifurcating itself. The "high paid"/"high priced" people live and work in Cali. Everyone else is getting outsourced either to facilities in "more affordable Texas"(both for the company itself, and the middle-income employees) or overseas as the case may be.

[Crunch]

It appears that, when all factors are accounted for, people see Texas as a superior choice for a better life.

Do you have any stats of the income or wealth levels of the people leaving California for Texas? It is an even cross-section, or is there a skew in one direction?

That's a good question but it's difficult to find such info that's very specific.  Based on my experience and knowledge of the area, it's a fairly even cross section migrating to the state as a whole.  However, it does break down regionally somewhat along income levels within Texas.  West Texas and the Pan Handle, where it's all about drilling and pumping the oil, tend to skew more blue collar.  Dallas and Austin skew heavily to white collar jobs that are quite high paying as companies relocate and Austin continues to grow its reputation as the "Silicon Hills".  Houston tends to be a mixture - it's a huge city with ports and oil related business but also a massive business center domestically as well as internationally.

The considerably lower cost of living in Texas likely is a key attractant to the lower income earners but the higher end earners I know were actually kind of giddy over it (especially housing) so it cuts both ways.  The low tax burden probably appeals to the higher income earners but it does benefit lower incomes as well.  It's really all over the demographic map as to who's moving to Texas.  We do have data out there that shows the loss to California's income base is measured in the billions as people leave the state, I think Nevada topped it at just over $5 billion with Texas a billion or so behind that. 

[LetterRip]

Crunch,

people move to places like Arizona, Montana, and Texas when they retire because the land is dirt cheap and they can get millions selling their California home, and get a 100-200k home in a retirement community with drastically lower cost of living.  So about half of that number of people going to Texas over the past decade are retirees looking for cheap cost of living.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-where-the-most-retirees-are-moving-and-why-2016-05-20?page=1

And the remainder are the impoverished, who can't afford to live in California,

About 2.5 million people living close to the official poverty line left California for other states from 2005 through 2015, while 1.7 million people at that income level moved in from other states – for a net loss of 800,000. During the same period, the state experienced a net gain of about 20,000 residents earning at least five times the poverty rate – or $100,000 for a family of three.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article136478098.html

[Crunch]

people move to places like Arizona, Montana, and Texas when they retire because the land is dirt cheap and they can get millions selling their California home, and get a 100-200k home in a retirement community with drastically lower cost of living.  So about half of that number of people going to Texas over the past decade are retirees looking for cheap cost of living.

From the link:

Austin is as attractive to retirees as it is to young people; the city ranked No. 10 among the top cities to which retirees relocated in 2014. Net migration of people over 60 moving to Texas that year: 7,417.

It's mixing state and city so let's look at state where they say 7,417 people over 60 moved to Texas - not just from California but all sources.  Let's assume the migration from 2005-2013 held stead and are comparable to 2014 are rin performance:

From 2005 to 2013, an estimated 5.9 million people moved to Texas, and 4.8 million of those came from one of the other 49 states.

Put another way: In that time period, Texas grew by an average of 345 people per day, accounting for people who moved here from other states and those who left Texas.

So 7,417 represents less than 6% of the migration from other states to Texas that are retirees.  I'm not sure where you're getting that half are retirees.

About 2.5 million people living close to the official poverty line left California for other states from 2005 through 2015, while 1.7 million people at that income level moved in from other states – for a net loss of 800,000. During the same period, the state experienced a net gain of about 20,000 residents earning at least five times the poverty rate – or $100,000 for a family of three.

California does indeed seem to be a place predominantly for the wealthy.  Working class families and middles class just can't make it under the California system, not like they can in other states.  A few extra high wage earners move in, but still billions of dollars move out.  Once again, the math tells a story that is not complimentary to California.

[TheDeamon]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-where-the-most-retirees-are-moving-and-why-2016-05-20?page=1

And the remainder are the impoverished, who can't afford to live in California,

About 2.5 million people living close to the official poverty line left California for other states from 2005 through 2015, while 1.7 million people at that income level moved in from other states – for a net loss of 800,000. During the same period, the state experienced a net gain of about 20,000 residents earning at least five times the poverty rate – or $100,000 for a family of three.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article136478098.html

Which goes back to

This is largely due to the tech sector basically bifurcating itself. The "high paid"/"high priced" people live and work in Cali. Everyone else is getting outsourced either to facilities in "more affordable Texas"(both for the company itself, and the middle-income employees) or overseas as the case may be.

California, and in particular in and around Silicon Valley, is quickly becoming a "presitge" location, if you want to live near certain areas, you either need to have been a "Nth Generation Local," living in near slum like conditions with multiple roommates in quarters that likely push the limits of both local zoning laws and the local fire code(hi Oakland!), or be working in a job that can easily easily justify a six digit income.

Businesses have a lot of more "mundane work" which can, and should be done, by people who don't warrant a 6 figure income. Which means if you're wanting your employees to live in humane conditions outside of the workplace, you will need to ensure their workplace is somewhere they can "comfortably afford" to live in. Which isn't California if you're in the mid to low range of the 5 digit income bracket.

Enter East Texas, which provides a (somewhat) comparable climate to California, proximity to a coast(for the beach goers), and multiple urban areas they can settle into which doesn't threaten to utterly destroy the budgets of "the 5 digit club." For the tech sector in particular this isn't a major imposition as they can teleconference for most things, and when that won't do, a (mostly) direct plane flight isn't going to be too much of an ordeal to arrange and experience, as you're not having to pull a trans-continental plane flight, unlike what you'd get if you went for the East Coast, which is already getting expensive, and also isn't particularly known for mild winters, even in many parts of the South East. Florida also strikes out because it already nearly rivals California for real estate prices, sometimes even exceeding it.

[Greg Davidson]

The improvement trend of California's economy relative to Texas has been consistent since each party took over their respective state in 2011, and for most of that time Texas was benefiting from a huge boom in the oil and gas sector, while California was suffering from the effects of the severe drought on our agricultural economy. 

And for all of you saying that in the long run the economy of California is destined to collapse, it's been 30-40 years of hearing those predictions...

[Crunch]

The improvement trend of California's economy relative to Texas has been consistent since each party took over their respective state in 2011, and for most of that time Texas was benefiting from a huge boom in the oil and gas sector, while California was suffering from the effects of the severe drought on our agricultural economy. 

Yes, that goes to the "cherry pick" of timing and specific stats.  Now that economic and climate conditions have reversed, California looks a little better and has achieved a bit of parity with Texas.  If oil goes back above $50/barrel, that could change quickly.

And for all of you saying that in the long run the economy of California is destined to collapse, it's been 30-40 years of hearing those predictions...

There has indeed been plenty of warning.  CalPERS currently stands at unfunded liability of $1.4 trillion—to go up $280 billion this year.  Already pension cuts are occurring but court rulings are (mostly? completely?) blocking those.  With the flight of billions in income to other states and pension projections requiring an 8% return on investment, these pensions as well as other retirement benefits are going to be what breaks California.  They'll either have to raise taxes and/or cut benefits or the system collapses.  Maybe not for a few years, California has a big economy and lots or resources.  But obviously it can't deliver on the promises its made without significant changes in a relatively near future.

[Wayward Son]

Now that economic and climate conditions have reversed, California looks a little better and has achieved a bit of parity with Texas.  If oil goes back above $50/barrel, that could change quickly.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "parity" here, Crunch.

While you have stated that California is losing "billions in income," that was mentioned in the original thread in 2015:

That $26 billion figure [of lost income to California] appears to be from the 10 year period from 2004 to 2013. That averages to $2.6 billion per year.

That's was a whopping 1.3 percent of California economy in 2013.

If this rate of $2.6 billion a year continues, Texas' economy will catch up with California's soon.

If you consider 130 years from now "soon."

Now things have doubtlessly changed some since 2015, but economically speaking, Texas is not even in the same league as California.  So it's not so much as California achieving parity with Texas, but Texas slowly, painfully trying to gain parity with California.

[Crunch]

Now that economic and climate conditions have reversed, California looks a little better and has achieved a bit of parity with Texas.  If oil goes back above $50/barrel, that could change quickly.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "parity" here, Crunch.

From the initial post:

While Texas' jobless rate has typically hovered at or near the national number, in March, the state's seasonally adjusted unemployment rate ticked upward to 5 percent, while the U.S. rate declined to 4.5 percent.
Texas' unemployment was up from 4.6 percent in March of last year.

California, meanwhile, has seen its jobless rate decline, from 5.6 percent in March 2016, to 4.9 percent last month.

4.9 vs 5.0.  A bit of parity.

While you have stated that California is losing "billions in income," that was mentioned in the original thread in 2015:

That $26 billion figure [of lost income to California] appears to be from the 10 year period from 2004 to 2013. That averages to $2.6 billion per year.

That's was a whopping 1.3 percent of California economy in 2013.

If this rate of $2.6 billion a year continues, Texas' economy will catch up with California's soon.

If you consider 130 years from now "soon."

Now things have doubtlessly changed some since 2015, but economically speaking, Texas is not even in the same league as California.  So it's not so much as California achieving parity with Texas, but Texas slowly, painfully trying to gain parity with California.

I have not seen the "original thread", I'm just working with this one.  But there is this:

According to IRS migration data, which uses individual income tax returns to record year-to-year address changes, over 250,000 California residents moved out of the state between 2013 and 2014, the latest period for which data was available. The tax returns reported more than $21 billion in adjusted gross income to the IRS.

That is a 1 year loss of $21 billion.  It's not just people either, companies a fleeing as well:

California’s costly tax and regulatory policies prompted more than 10,000 businesses to leave the state, reduce their operations or curtail plans to locate here between 2008 and 2015, according to a report from Spectrum Location Solutions.

California can go a long time with these types of losses, it's a big economy.  But with unfunded liabilities in the trillions, California is burning the candle at both ends.  I don't think it will take 130 years to catch up with California. 

[Crunch]

mentioned in the original thread in 2015

I just went and read that thread. LMAO, that was pretty funny, and informative. I nearly snorted up my drink on a couple of those posts.   

[Wayward Son]

4.9 vs 5.0.  A bit of parity.

Fair enough for that category.  Although unemployment does vary wildly even within a state.  (Some parts of California have 20% unemployment.  I think some central valley cities have 50%.)

That is a 1 year loss of $21 billion.

Except that is the gross income of those "fleeing."  An average of $81,000/year, which isn't too shabby.

But in 2015, California had a per capita income of $31,587.  With a population at that time of 39.14 million, that means the gross income of California's population was $1.236 trillion.

So by my calculations, that $21 billion is about 0.02 percent Californians' gross income.  IOW, we didn't even notice it.

California’s costly tax and regulatory policies prompted more than 10,000 businesses to leave the state, reduce their operations or curtail plans to locate here between 2008 and 2015, according to a report from Spectrum Location Solutions.

So tell me, how has that affected California's GDP?

California's budget is pretty much balanced, GDP continues to grow, and the GDP is about 50 percent larger than Texas'.  We aren't worried right now.

[Pete at Home]

Except that is the gross income of those "fleeing."  An average of $81,000/year, which isn't too shabby.

Your calculations assume that if I have an 81k job a year in 2015, then lose my job in January 2016, and move out to find another job in another state later in 2016 after 5 months trying to find a job in CA, my moving should be accounted to my own fickleness rather than to an economic downturn in the state?

[Crunch]

IOW, we didn't even notice it.

You're both from CA.  I get it now.

[Wayward Son]

There is some regional pride involved, but the main motivation is the persistent meme from the Right that California's economy is going to the dogs because of their liberal policies, as demonstrated by the fleeing people and industries.  This therefore proves that liberal policies destroy economies.

But, as Letterrip points out, this is a poor indicator of the effects of government policies.  Regional differences are too great a factor.  To compensate, the Right plays with the statistics, limiting the analysis to certain times when it appears to be true, making the problems sound worse than they are, and ignoring other comparisons (like Kansas).

A more skeptical examination of these claims is what we are mainly going for.

[Seriati]

I don't know what's really going on here, but this looks like a giant cherry pick.  CA had a great one year boost, and Texas one of the biggest losers of the year on jobs to even make it look like there is parity.  Interesting that Greg reappears after a one year change of this magnitude.  No cherry picking going on there.

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstch.htm

Anyone looked at the actual revenues and expenditures for the two states?  Be curious how much "growth" in each is tied into government funding and how much is actual growth.  It's already been pointed out that CA is going to explode with unfunded liabilities, which will only get worse if the Trump admin cuts off the tap.  I looked at their medical expenditures as well, and the best you can really say is its terrifyingly unsustainable. 

The policies on the left are going to occasionally imitate good results.  Heck, the promise of long term benefits that are funded "in the future" is practically the official play book, but what happens when that future arrives?

[TheDeamon]

There is some regional pride involved, but the main motivation is the persistent meme from the Right that California's economy is going to the dogs because of their liberal policies, as demonstrated by the fleeing people and industries.  This therefore proves that liberal policies destroy economies.

Particularly when "other factors" that may have little to nothing to do (directly) with actual regulation are what drove the business decisions resulting in said "flight."

A growing business deciding to build a multi-million dollar plant in another state because they offered either a tax write-off or tax exempt benefit that allowed them to come out a million dollars ahead vs the other offer isn't exactly a "regulatory failing," that was plain a simple bribery, just performed at a "non-personal" level(although the corporate decision makers will almost certainly see a percentage of it).

But bidding wars with tax payer money aside. Things that DO factor in:

1) Infrastructure,
1.a) Can the local power grid support what the business wants to do? (California has been hurting on this front for a while)
1.b) How "connected" is this location to transportation, either for movement of people(proximity to major airports, or direct access to several of them, not just one, is a major plus), or goods(freight)?

2) Regulatory environment relevant to the business being conducted, "cost of doing business" there vs elsewhere.

3) "Quality of life" for the skilled labor jobs.
3.a) Quality and condition of local schools.
3.b) Presence of other entertainment options in the community. Professional or College Sports? Museums? Theaters? Concert/performing arts venues and (regular concert) events? If you haven't had an "A" or "B" list performing artist stop by anywhere within 100 miles of your town in the past 20 years(while they were in their prime and still qualified as such), you're probably screwed.
3.c) Outdoor recreational opportunities in the area.
3.d) Cost of living. (Which can in turn loop back to the quality and condition of infrastructure, if quick/easy/reliable transportation can be had from a nearby low cost of living area, you're still golden, otherwise high costs of living presents problems.)

But, as Letterrip points out, this is a poor indicator of the effects of government policies.  Regional differences are too great a factor.  To compensate, the Right plays with the statistics, limiting the analysis to certain times when it appears to be true, making the problems sound worse than they are, and ignoring other comparisons (like Kansas).

Part of the problem is that in many cases, it is an apples and oranges comparison as well, and different parts of the nation are in various stages of either being apples or oranges. Policies that are good practices in regards to growing apples may be horrible when applied to oranges, and vice versa.

Republican policies in general, are good at generating growth in places where it may not happen otherwise, but the trade off is there often is little or no control to what is going on. So you get the infamous boom/bust cycle, and a lot of abuses often happen as a result of all stages of that cycle due to people who know how to take full advantage of each respective stage in that cycle.

Some Democratic policies are good at controlling growth (after a fashion) by pulling back the throttle (by means of regulation) and thus slowing growth so that things don't collapse into chaos. The "problem" with the Democratic approach when taken to an extreme, is it creates an "unnatural" environment, that is wildly distorted from what it would be otherwise, and that distortion makes it VERY difficult to determine what is going on using any kind of direct measurement. As we cannot (as of yet) be completely certain that what we're seeing is the market behaving "as a proper market" or if its the market behaving in reaction to a (government) distorted input into the system. 

California seems to be "doing okay" based on direct measurement, but other (state) markets seem to be doing better in general, even if they aren't doing so right now. (trend vs instant) California also does seem to be nearing the point of needing to "pay the piper" for many of the promises it's made in the past, much as the United States Government is looking to be in danger of as well.  Obviously, there are precedents for how a reckoning with the piper can be avoided, the US has done so in the past, but to do so, you have to grow you economy faster than your debt obligations grow.

While it's still possible, and even probable that the United States may be able to pull that off if it can get back on its historical track. The "trend" for California on the other hand says it's probably not going to be able to do so. Further compounding it for California is the matter that its "reckoning" will likely come long before the United States Government has its own meetup.

[Greg Davidson]

I don't know what's really going on here, but this looks like a giant cherry pick.  CA had a great one year boost, and Texas one of the biggest losers of the year on jobs to even make it look like there is parity.

I think you had it right with the first half of your first sentence.  I kept reappearing on the original thread, and the basic premise that California would trend worse once the Democrats were in charge has always been shown false by the data.  AT best, there were some times when the comparison was mixed, but the original theory that California would get worse than Texas because of Democratic leadership at the executive and legislative levels has been consistently wrong.

[Greg Davidson]

Republican policies in general, are good at generating growth in places where it may not happen otherwise, but the trade off is there often is little or no control to what is going on.

I understand that the first half of this sentence is taken as an article of faith by Republicans, but it's inconsistent with the evidence. Republican policies skew the distribution of wealth away from the majority of the population who therefore have relatively less money to spend (and consumer spending is 70% of the economy).  Less demand means that businesses are more cautious about expanding capacity which leads to relatively lower growth. 

[Fenring]

Republican policies skew the distribution of wealth away from the majority of the population who therefore have relatively less money to spend (and consumer spending is 70% of the economy).  Less demand means that businesses are more cautious about expanding capacity which leads to relatively lower growth.

Do you have significant data to show that this is not also true of Democrat governments? And while I'm sure the numbers might not be at parity even if it's true of both, my point is that I suspect the current trend of the killing of the middle class can't strictly be laid at the feet of the Republicans. The seeds for it began long ago, I think, and part of it is certainly related to Federal monetary policy and can't be blamed on local fiscal policy.

[Pete at Home]

Republican policies skew the distribution of wealth away from the majority of the population who therefore have relatively less money to spend (and consumer spending is 70% of the economy).  Less demand means that businesses are more cautious about expanding capacity which leads to relatively lower growth.

Do you have significant data to show that this is not also true of Democrat governments?

He said policies, not governments.  Republicans do what they do as a matter of policy.  Democrats do what Republicans do as a matter of politics.

[TheDeamon]

AT best, there were some times when the comparison was mixed, but the original theory that California would get worse than Texas because of Democratic leadership at the executive and legislative levels has been consistently wrong.

The "issue" with the "California is getting worse" assertion right now(and I generally agree with it), is that it's noise level right now. It's akin to a large animal that has been fatally wounded, it just doesn't know it yet, or a hemophiliac refusing to treat a cut.

It has started to "bleed out" but so far the body's been able to make up the difference through "metabolic means" so far, but "the wound hasn't closed" so its constantly having to do so. It has been able to keep up so far, but the system isn't going to be able to sustain that indefinitely, the wound is likely to grow if they're not careful, and eventually it won't be able to keep up with what's its losing.

[Wayward Son]

Which is fine, Daemon, as long as it is simply asserted as a matter of faith.  No one can dispute it.

Kind of like Kansas, which has been following Conservative policies and driving it's economy into the ground.  It is a perfect example of what would happen to the nation if everyone adopted said policies.

It's when people start citing the "noise level" to prove that California is "bleeding out" is when we should get skeptical.

Of course, at the rate California is currently (and has been) "bleeding out," you and I will die of old age way before it get anemic.

You just have to take it as a matter of faith that it must get worse in the future.

[Greg Davidson]

Study reveals Texas has highest maternal mortality rate in developed world

http://abc7news.com/health/study-texas-has-highest-maternal-mortality-rate-/2065650/

[Crunch]

I dont get posting just a link and scary headline, perhaps it feels good?  Theres a point?

Just a few years ago, it was California leading the nation in maternal mortality, now a study from a northern college says it's Texas. Are the definitions of maternal mortality the same in Texas as Italy?  Rte they even the same from 2008 to 2017?  Are there demographic reasons for the change? Perhaps some economic ones as Texas became very nearly  the sole jobs creator during a large part of the Obama economy?

Theres a hundred questions that shoukd be answered but we get scare tactics. I'm sorry, it's just not a very big deal when people snip things out of context to satisfy some personal needs.

[Greg Davidson]

Can you please provide a link to the study showing that California had the highest maternal mortality?

[TheDrake]

It's a giant reach to use that stat to support the thread's claim of "Texas Bad". I'd start with the fact that the sample size here is 700-800 women nationwide. Then there's reporting and classification, where the US in general has only recently starting tracking numbers relating to late and indirect linkage (within a full year after birth). Of course, these standards will vary, and one could make the claim that Texas just tracks outcomes better. Finally, they don't appear to have made an effort to normalize for secondary factors. Are there just more poor mothers in Texas? Or drug addicted ones? I'm not really willing to do all the research, but my opinion comes from CDC, WHO, and Scientific American, as well as skimming a lot of hand-wringing on the topic predicting that changes to national healthcare policy could cause this number to rise, without addressing that these numbers have risen during a period of increased access to healthcare.

[Seriati]

Do you a link to the actual study Greg?  I can't find anything but the synopsis.  What you can find on the topic, makes it clear that historical comparison is flawed because we did not record the data in a way that made accurate tracking possible. 

It looks like the author of your article was more interested in a political result (ie Texas' result must be because of the closer of abortion clinics, nevermind the timing not lining up - the trend change predates the closures).  They didn't really mention reasons why the rate has been going up nationally (assuming its not largely just better record keeping), nor that most researchers in this area acknowledge that such deaths are rare and subject to large variability year to year (meaning picking any two dates is always arbitrary).

[Greg Davidson]

Sorry, that link was not great, here is the actual paper http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Citation/2016/09000/Recent_Increases_in_the_U_S__Maternal_Mortality.6.aspx

RESULTS: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 2011–2012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported.

The study is interesting because it goes back close to the time when this Texas vs. California thread was initiated (and by the way, I did not initially raise this dichotomy, it was right-wing posters who were making predictions based on their thesis that Democratic control of California would make that state perform on a worsening trend)

There is a very plausible hypothesis that the huge cuts made by Republican legislators in 2011 that stripped funding from Planned Parenthood and other women’s health and family planning services led to an increase in maternal health, and that hypothesis is consistent with the number of maternal fatalities nearly doubling starting in 2011/2012 and staying that way through the end of the period studied (2014).

As for Drake's question about normalizing for secondary factors (more poor mothers in Texas, more drug addicted ones) that would only show up in the trend data if there were a sudden spike in the poverty or addiction of mothers in Texas around 2011, and while I don't think that is likely, it would be more evidence that runs against the hypothesis that a Republican-controlled state will fare better than a Democratic-controlled state.

[TheDrake]

As for Drake's question about normalizing for secondary factors (more poor mothers in Texas, more drug addicted ones) that would only show up in the trend data if there were a sudden spike in the poverty or addiction of mothers in Texas around 2011...

Good point. I still say the numbers are too small to draw policy conclusions in the way that people are using it. I would think many other indicators would be more meaningful, including health of the children themselves from 0-5 years, or number of birth complications.

Focusing on a mortality number limits the value of the collected data to address the question "how are healthcare outcomes being affected by policy?"

[Seriati]

Based on the study, I'd say kudos to CA, they seem to have implemented meaningful programs to reduce mortality. I find it depressing, that they did not adopt the US standard question (which is inexplicable), which means they can not be included in the US statistics reported internationally.

A word of caution on international comparisons, they seem to be based on death within 42 days of childbirth, where the US recommends tracking that but also deaths within a year related to childbirth (and there's even a stat, not in this study, for death by any cause within a year of childbirth).  You have to be certain when you look at what is being compared.   There are also a lot of countries that are filing this report that have questionable record keeping.   Just to give the example of this, if you read the study most of the states that were tracking this before the change to the death certificate saw a large increase after they changed to the new format, and they generally have very good records, imagine how it looks in other countries where they don't have the same kind of bureaucratic culture as we do.

On Texas, I think it's odd to draw a conclusion.  The author's of the study indicated that the result was so odd that it was unlikely to be  correct and needed further study.  It's certainly possible that its a direct result of anti-liberal changes they made, it's also possible its from something like increases in pregnancy among illegal immigrants, or the result of a recording improvement that was not immediately obvious to the authors.

On the whole, I don't think this adds much to the economic arguments about the merits of the two states.  It just shows that better hospital protocols can result in better outcomes. 

[TheDeamon]

Based on the study, I'd say kudos to CA, they seem to have implemented meaningful programs to reduce mortality. I find it depressing, that they did not adopt the US standard question (which is inexplicable), which means they can not be included in the US statistics reported internationally.

Of course, the best way to reduce the mortality rate of prospective mothers is to encourage them to not become mothers in the first place. XX% chance of "complications" during pregnancy which may endanger the mother? "We strongly urge you to abort this pregnancy, now."

Which is perhaps another significant contributor in the statistical difference between the two states. California wouldn't bat an eye at the abortion option, Texas is another matter.

Of course, this also raises the question, were women didn't carry their pregnancy to term(abortion/miscarriage) included in those statistics? Or did the lack of a live birth provide a way out of their being included in those tallies?

[Pete at Home]

Don't know, but I do know the national abortion stats in 2016 were the lowest in recorded history. (although bear in mind that abortion Recording
history started in 19670

[TheDeamon]

Don't know, but I do know the national abortion stats in 2016 were the lowest in recorded history. (although bear in mind that abortion Recording
history started in 1967

And actually birth control availability for young women in particular can be a factor on the mortality side, but would have to check the "teen mother" stats to compare against. Young teenagers tend to be a high risk pregnancy group specifically because their body hasn't fully matured yet, and that can cause a wide range of complications for both the mother and the baby. And if the mortality tracking on recent mothers is "a fairly recent" thing compared to other things, what could be seen is the result of  a spike in teen pregnancies in Texas.

[Pete at Home]

Don't know, but I do know the national abortion stats in 2016 were the lowest in recorded history. (although bear in mind that abortion Recording
history started in 1967

And actually birth control availability for young women in particular can be a factor on the mortality side, but would have to check the "teen mother" stats to compare against. Young teenagers tend to be a high risk pregnancy group specifically because their body hasn't fully matured yet, and that can cause a wide range of complications for both the mother and the baby. And if the mortality tracking on recent mothers is "a fairly recent" thing compared to other things, what could be seen is the result of  a spike in teen pregnancies in Texas.

I doubt that child mortality went up nationally during Obamacare.  (I can't get over the irony that Gun purchases certainly soared to historical levels under Obama, and dropped 35% under Trump. 

But perhaps the most ironic thing of all is that birth control availability seems to have NOT been the primary cause for the drop in teen births and abortions.  Apparently growing up with the availability of porn has caused an overall 20% drop in the frequency of teen sex.  A growing number of teens in fact say they find the very thought of conjugal relations nauseating.

Go figure.

[Seriati]

You should read the study.  Texas actually tracked mortality before the law change, and has pretty clear record of the mortality rate over the period in question.  The record showed it being largely stable until it hit a massive jump.  The authors expressly stated that it didn't look it could be correct and that it warranted additional study.  Conclusions about it are premature without knowing what it represents.

I mean, if it's limited to a single ethnic demographic that would key, if it correlates to anti-body resistant bacteria that could be key, if it's overwhelming poor mothers, teen mothers, illegal alien mothers, if it's highly concentrated in a single city (or under a single medical staff), all could lead to different conclusions about what is occurring.

[Pete at Home]

I meant in California.  I understood already that there was data that something happened in Texas.  But I hadn't heard of it replicating anywhere else.

[Seriati]

That was meant for The Deamon, not you.

Not clear if it was replicated anywhere else.  Only CA and TX had enough data to run them individually on a material basis.  If a state when from 1 to 2, it means less than going from 200 to 400.

[TheDeamon]

But perhaps the most ironic thing of all is that birth control availability seems to have NOT been the primary cause for the drop in teen births and abortions.  Apparently growing up with the availability of porn has caused an overall 20% drop in the frequency of teen sex.  A growing number of teens in fact say they find the very thought of conjugal relations nauseating.

Go figure.

Not to surprising if you looks at the limited number of studies involving naturist families. Remove the curiosity aspect of things, and the appeal goes way down. IIRC the claim is that a naturist(nudist) child will typically be about 1.5 years older than their peers before their first sexual experience with another partner.

Sometimes "daylight" is the best practice after all. Based on what results in many Marriage issues, a progression towards fewer sexual hangups is probably a good thing. But that's a slope we as a society are likely going to travel down kicking and screaming the whole way.

Just so long as it doesn't result in my finding couples humping each other in their front yard for all to see in another 30 to 40 years after I'm hopefully retired.

[TheDrake]

The future according to Robert Heinlein. 

[Pete at Home]

But perhaps the most ironic thing of all is that birth control availability seems to have NOT been the primary cause for the drop in teen births and abortions.  Apparently growing up with the availability of porn has caused an overall 20% drop in the frequency of teen sex.  A growing number of teens in fact say they find the very thought of conjugal relations nauseating.

Go figure.

Not to surprising if you looks at the limited number of studies involving naturist families. Remove the curiosity aspect of things, and the appeal goes way down. IIRC the claim is that a naturist(nudist) child will typically be about 1.5 years older than their peers before their first sexual experience with another partner.

Sometimes "daylight" is the best practice after all. Based on what results in many Marriage issues, a progression towards fewer sexual hangups is probably a good thing. But that's a slope we as a society are likely going to travel down kicking and screaming the whole way.

Just so long as it doesn't result in my finding couples humping each other in their front yard for all to see in another 30 to 40 years after I'm hopefully retired.

i totally agree with the principle of what you're saying and would be onboard with abolishing clothing as a matter of law except in cold weather (take that suicide bombers!) but I'm pretty sure repugnance to sex is tied the effect of kids seeing hardcore porn, not just nudity.  Particularly since the revulsion thing is highest in Japan where porn is hardest and most ubiquitous, and yet pure genital nudity remains pixilated.

[Crunch]

from IBD:

The basket of California state taxes -- sales, income and gasoline -- rates among the highest in the U.S. Yet California roads and K-12 education rank near the bottom.

After years of drought, California has not built a single new reservoir. Instead, scarce fresh aqueduct water is still being diverted to sea. Thousands of rural central California homes, in Dust Bowl fashion, have been abandoned due to a sinking aquifer and dry wells.

One in three American welfare recipients resides in California. Almost a quarter of the state population lives below or near the poverty line. Yet the state's gas and electricity prices are among the nation's highest.

One in four state residents was not born in the U.S. Current state-funded pension programs are not sustainable.

California depends on a tiny elite class for about half of its income tax revenue. Yet many of these wealthy taxpayers are fleeing the 40-million-person state, angry over paying 12% of their income for lousy public services.

Public health costs have soared as one-third of California residents admitted to state hospitals for any causes suffer from diabetes, a sometimes-lethal disease often predicated on poor diet, lack of exercise and excessive weight.

Nearly half of all traffic accidents in the Los Angeles area are classified as hit-and-run collisions.

Grass-roots voter pushbacks are seen as pointless. Progressive state and federal courts have overturned a multitude of reform measures of the last 20 years that had passed with ample majorities.

In impoverished central California towns such as Mendota, where thousands of acres were idled due to water cutoffs, once-busy farmworkers live in shacks. But even in opulent San Francisco, the sidewalks full of homeless people do not look much different.

One third of bay area residents say they want out as soon as possible.

[TheDeamon]

The future according to Robert Heinlein. 

Considering he was a nudist/naturist from what I understand, it's hardly surprising.

After all, one of the most common pieces of writing advice is to "write what you know."