California economic growth continues to refute right wing predictions

[Greg Davidson]

California's economy has surpassed that of the United Kingdom to become the world's fifth largest, according to new federal data made public Friday.

California's gross domestic product rose by $127 billion from 2016 to 2017, surpassing $2.7 trillion, the data said. Meanwhile, the U.K.'s economic output slightly shrank over that time when measured in U.S. dollars, due in part to exchange rate fluctuations.

The data demonstrate the sheer immensity of California's economy, home to nearly 40 million people, a thriving technology sector in Silicon Valley, the world's entertainment capital in Hollywood and the nation's salad bowl in the Central Valley agricultural heartland. It also reflects a substantial turnaround since the Great Recession.

All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California's higher GDP, said Irena Asmundson, chief economist at the California Department of Finance. Financial services and real estate led the pack at $26 billion in growth, followed by the information sector, which includes many technology companies, at $20 billion. Manufacturing was up $10 billion.

And my particular favorite part, because there were numerous predictions from right wingers that when California was governed by Democrats that the economy would get much worse. Now let's just remember that a Republican Governor took over from a Democrat in 2003, and then a Democrat took over for that Republican in 2011. So wouldn't it be surprising if the economic trends were exactly the opposite of the right wing predictions?

California last had the world's fifth largest economy in 2002 but fell as low as 10th in 2012 following the Great Recession. Since then, the most populous U.S. state has added 2 million jobs and grown its GDP by $700 billion.

California's economic output is now surpassed only by the total GDP of the United States, China, Japan and Germany. The state has 12% of the U.S. population but contributed 16% of the country's job growth between 2012 and 2017. Its share of the national economy also grew to 14.2% from 12.8% over that five-year period, according to state economists.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-economy-gdp-20180504-story.html

[Crunch]

Its going well there. So well that:

Census Bureau data show California lost just over 138,000 people to domestic migration in the 12 months ended in July 2017.

Or

But a recent report by the California Legislative Analyst’s office looking at domestic migration patterns shows that cracks continue to form in the state’s bright facade. Between 2007 and 2016, a million more people have left the state than have moved in from other states.

You always want to ignore the most important and telling statistic. If everything is so great, why are so many fleeing?

Another statistic you like to ignore:

California has the lowest bond rating of any state now and, according to a recent survey by Pew’s Center on the States, the worst credit rating record over the past 11 years.

Is that indicative of a fiscally sound economy? No, it’s not. We all know exactly what’s happening:

Texas, for instance, has boomed, becoming one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. It’s now home to 867,000 new residents from California, who arrived between 2010 and 2016.

Just living there sucks:

California has the worst quality of life of the 50 US states, according to a recent ranking by U.S. News & World Report.

That 1.3 trillion dollars worth of  debt and unfunded liabilities, yet another fact you routinely  ignore, is going to detonate.

Rearrange the deck chairs all you want.
 

[Greg Davidson]

Crunch, the key measures are that the California economy has grown far better under Democratic policies that don't gut social welfare programs than it has elsewhere in the country where Republicans insist they have to cut government spending to help the economy.

And so there is this cottage industry of making up doom and gloom articles about the California economy because it keeps refuting the right wing tropes. Despite all these news articles about people and companies always leaving, yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing. There's more state regulation under Democrats, but nevertheless the California economy continues to improve by more than other states. That's what it means when California goes from generating 12.8% of the US economy to 14.2%. That's what it means when California adds 2 million new jobs. Without cutting taxes for the rich and gutting government spending for everyone else.

[Gaoics79]

yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing

I don't know which of you is correct in the overall debate, but given that it would pretty much require a nuclear holocaust to make California not the country's most populous and economically powerful, I find your statement disingenuous in the extreme.

[Fenring]

yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing

I don't know which of you is correct in the overall debate, but given that it would pretty much require a nuclear holocaust to make California not the country's most populous and economically powerful, I find your statement disingenuous in the extreme.

I mean, it's a place with an amazing climate and big cities, with varied industry. That alone is a draw regardless of how it's being run. Places in the North-East suffer from having winter, which makes them unacceptable to some people, and other Southern states often have the disadvantage of either not having huge commercial industry, not having huge cities, or not having the physically inviting terrain and weather. I guess it's no surprise that Texas does well since they have some big cities and arguably a culture that appeals to many people, but other warm climate places are screwed in comparison to California. How could Arizona or New Mexico compete pound for pound? And I think locales like California also have a snowballing effect, wherein a corporate climate like Silicon Valley or Hollywood will result in solidified residency there for certain kinds of businesses that aren't really going to spread out evenly to other places over time. Similarly, you're not going to have some less populace state suddenly begin to compete with New York City for dominance in the financial sector; it's just not going to happen. So some places will automatically 'win' in certain categories regardless of who's governing, with the exception of if a long period of terrible governance drives business into the ground, or if the economy naturally shifts away from those sectors.

[Crunch]

Despite all these news articles about people and companies always leaving, yet somehow the state is still the country's most populous and economically powerful, and it keeps growing. There's more state regulation under Democrats, but nevertheless the California economy continues to improve by more than other states

California has the advantage of being very large, it has a huge buffer.

It can’t remain the most populous as its citizens flee. It can’t continue economic growth as its unfunded liabilities drain the system. If it’s so great why is it ranked dead last for quality of life?

Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states? Do you understand what that means? Does that indicate a strong economic state?  If it’s going so well, why is the credit rating declining? It’s such a great economy, shouldn’t credit be getting better?

For people that can afford 1200 square foot homes that cost $700,000 and want cheap immigrant labor to scrub their toilets, yeah, it’s a great place. It’s nice to be wealthy and create that permanent underclass to work for you so the lawn stays pristine. At least it is as long as “those people” know their place. Give it another decade or two and you’ll mostly have the very rich and the non-English speaking very poor with almost nothing in between. What is the usual outcome of those situations?

You want to bury your head in the sand, go ahead.

[TheDrake]

Californian flight - They are leaving because the economy is so good, perhaps?

Low-income folks moved out, high-income folks moved in
People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

California families with children under 18 years of age moved out in droves to states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California also lost a lot of people with a high school degree or some college education in this span.

On the flip side, California gained more adults between ages 26 and 35, many with bachelor’s or master’s degree — mostly from New York and from Illinois.

Show me a state that wouldn't like to make that swap.

Details

[Seriati]

Greg, not sure why you needed another thread on this when we already have two, is to escape some of the clear rebuttals and concerns expressed on the prior threads?   I'm happy for CA, hope they have enough success to buy themselves out from the fiscal mismanagement they've been running under for decades, however, I know what will really happen.  They'll spend the new money too and be even more exposed if there is another downturn.

I see little response here to the concerns expressed on the last thread that the California economy, that while talking a liberal game, really isn't one that actively seems to comport with liberal ideals.  It's got very high level of income stratification, and it's success seems to be heavily into for example the value of the stock market.  You may be right, or you may discover, much as Connecticut has, that rich people can move if they find the tax situation to overwhelm the benefits of the area for life. 

I also think TheDrake's post is incredibly telling.  Poor people pushed out and rich people moving in?  Isn't that the literal effect of policies designed to punish the poor.  Why exactly is CA unaffordable if it's really following the social policies of the left?  There should be no such poor flight if what you're claiming is true?  By the way TheDrake, in virtually every iteration of what you describe the left should be vociferously protesting a policy that forces the poor out of a region to make room for the wealthy, that's exactly when the left imposes rent control and forces housing projects and busing into neighborhoods.  Is that happening here?  Or are these, once again, policies that apply to other people?

Why is homelessness up?  Yes it's a consequence of rising incomes causing a rising cost of living, but literally it should be accounted for if CA were really living up to the economic ideals of the left.  Where are the taxes on the industries that are actually generating that income to pay for the harms to the little guys?  Is Hollywood paying it's "fair share"?  What about the tech moguls?

As I've asked from the first thread, why are you only looking at CA?  There are a plethora of states following the same policies and the opposite policies and not seeing the same results. 

[TheDrake]

I'm not going to make any claims about left/right, or California governance. I think we've done that to death. Just exploring the idea that net migration can be taken as a sign that a state is "doing bad". Especially when you look at the fact that it wasn't one million people moving out, but 6 million moving out and 5 million moving in.

[Wayward Son]

Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states? 

According to Ballotpedia and CA State Treasurer, Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement?

As I've asked from the first thread, why are you only looking at CA?

I believe Greg has answered that from the first thread.

It is because CA is held up by the Right as the shining example of the mismanagement of Liberal policies.

And how do they come to this startling conclusion?  By cherry-picking statistics that change by the month, telling half-truths about the reasons for those statistics, and just generally telling lies.  I'm sure it makes those in other states feel better about themselves, but it does not lead to any insight about what are the best economic practices.

And what happens when those statistics change?  Why, the Right changes the statistics it uses!  Suddenly it's not economic growth that proves California is going to fail; it's bond ratings.  It's not the income to debt ratio; it's immigration.  After all, there is always some statistic that proves CA is about to collapse.  When CA improves in one, they just find another.

And you yourself have proven what a silly game it is.  You keep telling Greg that the statistics he cites do not prove CA is doing better than the rest of the nation.  And you're right.  But conversely, you are also proving that those who criticize CA with statistics aren't proving anything, either.  That when they talk about how this or that "shows" that CA liberal governance is ruining the state, that it doesn't tell the whole story of all the factors that come into play to create these statistics.  So any conclusions made from these statistics is just a matter of faith, not facts.

You would think that the previous threads made this perfectly clear.  But there are some that still argue that factors that CA is headed on the road to ruin, even though those factors keep changing.  You can see it in this thread.  So Greg keeps bringing this up.

If you're tired of these threads, then find the telling factors that show CA is going downhill, and stick with those.  Or remind everyone on the thread that there are no factors that conclusively show which type of governance is best and ignore it.  But don't keep asking why Greg is only looking at CA.  It's because those who hate the liberally-inclined policies of CA keep criticizing it for bad reasons.

[Seriati]

No Wayward Son, I'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences, and I'm especially tired of that debate where people just jump in with an article that has a specific stat, even an aggregated stat, that appears favorable without considering it in context.

Every time there's a small shift one side or the other jumps in with it as if it's complete proof of concept.  The questions are still there, the illiberal things CA does (which are tied to its most profitable industries) haven't been addressed, why this is a better proxy than anyone of the other states still isn't addressed, nor has anything that makes CA unique (like, for example, that CA controls a huge chunk of the west coast with 2 of the 10 largest ports - and over 30 total ports, which generate free revenue off of development in other parts of the country). 

As far as I can tell, there isn't any explanation about how these policies are actually working to generate results, which is why the stats are random shots that seem favorable, rather than targeted at the specific things that are being favorably impacted. 

Might as well claim more PokeMon were caught last year thus "proving" growth.

[Greg Davidson]

iI'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences

Now I did present California data based on Governor and economic growth (relative to the rest of the United States) from 2002 to 2018. If 16 years is a short shift, what is your demarcation for longer term consequences.

In fact, I do keep bringing up the same case because if the conservative hypothesis that Democratic control of government hurts economic growth is inconsistent with the data when I bring it up in 2013 and 2015 and 2017 and 2018, then each few years of additional data more strongly refutes the hypothesis. And I did not originally pick California, but I am sticking with it to avoid cherrypicking.

And remember the underlying conservative principal is that we must cut government services worse for most people because it is necessary to promote additional economic growth that overall provides a net benefit to those people. If the data does not support that hypothesis, then you are saying that your political philosophy is to deprive people of services even if it does not bring economic benefits.

[TheDrake]

The problem with all these gyrations is that lacking any kind of controls and a proper study, we really can't say if California would be even more successful with austerity rules and service cuts. Same goes for Texas implementing rent control and a $15 minimum wage. It is entirely likely that non policy effects dominate any success or failure of government. Which is why debates continue to rage on about whether fdr accelerated or delayed recovery from the depression.

[Greg Davidson]

Ah, but in the event of a tie between maintaining services and cutting them, rule in favor of better services for people rather than worse. Cutting benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is cruel. And remember, the evidence (California) as selected not by me but by right wingers on this site, leans towards better outcomes with Democratic policies in place.

[TheDrake]

Ah, but in the event of a tie between maintaining services and cutting them, rule in favor of better services for people rather than worse.

All of which can be supported better with many studies, local and otherwise, than comparing State A with State B on broad metrics and no isolation of confounding factors like being host to entrenched tech and entertainment companies as well as major ports.

Cutting benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is cruel.

Adding benefits without evidence that it provides net improvement is wasteful.

[Seriati]

iI'm tired of people pretending short term shifts reflect materially about long term consequences

Now I did present California data based on Governor and economic growth (relative to the rest of the United States) from 2002 to 2018. If 16 years is a short shift, what is your demarcation for longer term consequences.

Maybe I was unclear, nothing about that trend line meaningful answers the questions about the consequences of the specific policies in question.  Which is why I went on to point out that you've never made any effort to explain how the policies you favor have caused rather than hindered the result.  It's why you don't want to look at other states where the same/similar policies have not caused the same results.  There's a lot of factors in play, but for some reason you only seem to want to make the case by implication.  Kind of like how a closet racist would quote race based crime statistics and let the implication be drawn by the reader.

And remember the underlying conservative principal is that we must cut government services worse for most people because it is necessary to promote additional economic growth that overall provides a net benefit to those people.   If the data does not support that hypothesis, then you are saying that your political philosophy is to deprive people of services even if it does not bring economic benefits.

My "conservative principal's handbook" must be missing the page with that strawman argument.

Nothing about what you are citing to really demonstrates that either.

[Greg Davidson]

All of which can be supported better with many studies, local and otherwise, than comparing State A with State B on broad metrics and no isolation of confounding factors like being host to entrenched tech and entertainment companies as well as major ports.

1. The relative advantages of California due to tech companies and ports are accounted for in the California analysis, as California has the same assets under both Republican and Democratic governments, but in contradiction to right wing assertions, California has performed relatively better under Democratic government.

2. More targeted (and analytically rigorous) studies would be better. But overall California economic performance is still better than the disconnected and cherry-picked anecdotes that are usually used by conservatives to make their dire predictions about California under Democratic leadership.

[Greg Davidson]

nothing about that trend line meaningful answers the questions about the consequences of the specific policies in question

It is a very frequent meme of conservatives that when Democrats control government, economic performance suffers. And California when it has a Democratic government is perhaps the most frequently raised example of this at the state level.

Forgive the limits of this line of thought, as I am only a part-time debunker, particularly where a real comprehensive debunking requires contrasting initial predictions and multiple years of demonstrating that the arguments/predictions of one side a re validated far more strongly than the arguments/predictions of the other.  Now I am off to work

[Crunch]

Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states? 

According to Ballotpedia and CA State Treasurer, Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement?

The answers to all ypur questions are in the provided links. Like Greg, you ignore them and just continue to repeat your questions as though that’s some kind of refutation.   

[Crunch]

Californian flight - They are leaving because the economy is so good, perhaps?

Low-income folks moved out, high-income folks moved in
People making $55,000 or less a year were mostly moving out of California between 2007 and 2016, the report found, while people making more than $200,000 a year moved in.

California families with children under 18 years of age moved out in droves to states like Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. California also lost a lot of people with a high school degree or some college education in this span.

On the flip side, California gained more adults between ages 26 and 35, many with bachelor’s or master’s degree — mostly from New York and from Illinois.

Show me a state that wouldn't like to make that swap.

Details

That swap is the destruction of the lower and middle class. It’s why California’s homeless problem is skyrocketing and tent cities growing.

What state wants that? Apparently, California.

[TheDrake]

There is no link that can exist that supports Cali as dead last for bond rating, and you never provided one Crunch. Of course, it hardly refutes the "Democrats bad" argument, as Illinois also is run by Democrats so pointing out this fact is really a quibble. And especially since Illinois keeps sending their Governors to prison.

Now one could make the effort to correlate bond rating with the party of the Governor and Legislature of each state and try to draw a conclusion. This still wouldn't establish cause and effect.

The conservative darling, Texas, by the way weighs in at #46 for quality of life from the same US News rankings. But I'm sure you knew that before using that as your metric of state governance, right Crunch?

Most of these arguments are more about values than outcome. You could come up with irrefutable proof that the policies of party A lead to better X than party B, and it still won't sway core beliefs about access to services, regulation, or other touchstones. Nobody pulls this kind of data saying "I wonder if..." but rather "How can I prove I'm right?"

[Wayward Son]

Why do you think California has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states?

Actually, why do you think CA has the lowest bond rating of all 50 states? 

According to Ballotpedia and CA State Treasurer, Illinois is currently at the bottom of the list.  And CA, while not great, seems to share their ranking with a few other states, depending on which bond rating service you look at.

So where did you get the impression that CA was at the bottom of the list?  And when was this?

And why don't you answer your own question of why CA is ranked dead last for quality of life?  The info is out there; it's easy to find.  I heard a summary of it on the radio.  Perhaps because you know the answer would undercut your thesis that it is because of liberal policies causing government mismanagement?

The answers to all your questions are in the provided links. Like Greg, you ignore them and just continue to repeat your questions as though that’s some kind of refutation.   

Oops.  Sorry.  My bad.  I missed your link on the bond ratings. 

However, it does bring up a salient question:  why do you think the bond rating for California from 2012 has any relevance to the current situation and discussion?

And regarding being dead last in quality of living, per your link:

The rankings considered two sets of metrics for each state:

1. Natural environment, comprising drinking-water quality, air quality, and pollution and industrial toxins.

2. Social environment, comprising community engagement, social support, and voter participation...

In other metrics, California didn't fare nearly as poorly. U.S. News & World Report deemed its economy the fourth best in the nation, and its business environment claimed the No. 1 spot. The state also ranked 11th in healthcare.

Which brings up the question of why California is worst in natural environment, water quality, etc.

It's probably because we have so many people wanting to live here.

California is mostly a relatively dry environment.  We import water from the Colorado river.  We move water from the northern part of the state for the southern.  We have dams all over the place to store it during the dry season, which is most of the time.  So water quality is hard to maintain.

Los Angeles is in a valley known for its inversion layer, that traps the smokes and gasses in the valley for long periods of time.  Air quality has always been an issue there.

We heavily rely on the automobile for transportation, which also hurts air quality.

These are all issues which have little to nothing to do with the politics of the state.  We would have the same issues if it were run by Conservative Republicans.

As far as the social environment--I suspect that's mainly due to overcrowding in the cities.  We're pretty much where New York City was a few decades ago and haven't adapted yet.  I would love to hear any ideas on how to improve it from anyone.

I would also like to ask what Conservative Republicans propose to do about improving the air and water quality and reducing the pollution?  All I ever hear about is de-regulation, which never worked in the past, and will doubtlessly do diddly now.  So how would Conservative Republican government help in improving CA ranking on the list?

However, they seem to have plenty of ideas about the economy and the business environment.

So, thank you for pointing out your links, which I somehow missed.  They do answer my questions.  And the answers are that your criticisms are based on out-dated data and not considering what the rankings really mean. 

[Pete at Home]

I  find Greg and Wayward's arguments here persuasive.  Does anyone on either side of the issue know of any writeup that addresses the policies that may have made this change?

[Crunch]

Every now and then, the mask sllips and you get a peak at the reality of a situation. Citizens for Cal3 spokeswoman Peggy Grande:

This is about people who want California to be fixed and saved and this is the way to do it,” Grande told Fox News. “We have crumbling infrastructure, dirty water and failing schools. In almost every statistic, 49 states are doing better.

San Francisco is on the front lines of the California experience:

The Investigate Unit spent three days assessing conditions on the streets of downtown San Francisco and discovered trash on each of the 153 blocks surveyed. While some streets were littered with items as small as a candy wrapper, the vast majority of trash found included large heaps of garbage, food, and discarded junk. The investigation also found 100 drug needles and more than 300 piles of feces throughout downtown

It’s in line with third world:

The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit surveyed a section of downtown San Francisco to determine the amount of feces, hypodermic needles, and garbage littering the heart of the city. The results reveal a disgusting and potentially deadly mix of contamination that experts now believe could exceed some of the dirtiest slums in the world.

Based on the findings of the Investigative Unit survey, Riley believes parts of the city may be even dirtier than slums in some developing countries.

“The contamination is … much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India,” he said

Sounds great!

Kim Davenport, A’nyla’s mother, often walks her daughter to the Compass preschool on Leavenworth Street in San Francisco. She said she often has to pull her daughter out of the way in order to keep her from stepping on needles and human waste. “I just had to do that this morning!”

2 and 3 year old children in San Francisco have to be educated on the dangers of touching the used needles that litter the ground. Not to mention the blanket of human feces that inspired an app to help track it.

Tent cities are developing:

But that varies greatly from place to place: In California, 68 percent of homeless people are unsheltered, compared to just 5 percent in New York.

Visitors to the West Coast may be shocked to find the tents that line cities from San Diego to Seattle

Google up California tent cities to see the full scale of the issue.

It’s no wonder people are fleeing the state.

[Greg Davidson]

So Crunch, let's play this game again - make a prediction for July 4th 2020 about economic growth or wages in California and some other Republican-dominated state such as Texas or Kansas. If you are right, California should be out-performed by one of these Republican states.

So make your prediction by how much economic growth should be higher in one of those states. And later we can come back and check.

[Crunch]

California continues to micromanage it’s citizens and make their lives miserable.  New laws taking effect on 2020 will limit water usage to 55 gallons per person, per day. In most of America, the average is 80-100 gallons per day.

The numbers:

• An 8-minute shower uses about 17 gallons of water
• A load of laundry uses about 40 gallons of water on older machines, modern ones can get you to 20 (theres a range here but 20 is a good average)
• A bathtub holds 80 to 100 gallons of water
• A dishwasher uses 6 gallons of water
• A toilet flush takes 1.6 gallons.

Californians now have the pleasure of doing some calculations every time they use the bathroom. Obviously, taking a bath will  no longer be legal in California. That’s pretty incredible.

My average day is my morning constitutional with a shower in the morning before work and another in the evening after I workout. I stay hydrated so I urinate probably 7 times a day. That puts me at about 47 gallons. That leaves me 8 gallons (and soon only 3 as the limit goes down). So washing my clothes is out unless I cut out a workout (or just stink). Hopefully I never get some virus or something that causes GI distress and I flush well above my norm - there’s no provision for illness.

Sounds like all of California will soon smell like a San Francisco street.

Not to worry, your pools anf fountains have exemptions so the 1% will still enjoy their lives.

[TheDrake]

(A) For indoor residential water use, 55 gallons per capita daily water use as a provisional standard. Upon completion of the department’s 2016 report to the Legislature pursuant to Section 10608.42, this standard may be adjusted by the Legislature by statute.

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that the urban water use targets described in paragraph (1) cumulatively result in a 20-percent reduction from the baseline daily per capita water use by December 31, 2020.

So the numbers came from 20% of current use, it can't be so dire. Plus, it can be adjusted.

They have to do something to avoid turning into Arrakis. Most of this can probably be accomplished by tearing out lawns and putting in other landscaping.

Out of curiosity, I looked up my last water bill and I'm pretty sure the meter is in tenths of gallons, I used 53.7 on my peak month with a much lower average. I'm going to skew high, because I live alone in a house and irrigate my lawn.

Now, if I were retired or worked from home, I'd use more. But understand the legislation doesn't cause the water police to come write you a ticket. It is a target placed on the suppliers.

Suppliers can use a variety of methods, subsidizing efficiency improvements, setting tiered pricing, or whatever else.

But go ahead and try and scare people from an ignorant caricature of what the legislation actually is. California just doesn't want to become the new Johannesburg, but I guess you call that bad government.

[Crunch]

If California wanted to avoid becoming a desert again, they could have built more water storage. But they won't do that. Instead, they opted for forcing citizens to adhere to restricted water usage. The amount you use will not be allowed in a few years - it goes down to 50 gallons.

The legislation is what it is, a 55 gallon per day limit. That's the fact, whether is scares you or not. Californians won't be able to take bath unless they want to pay extra, pay a fine, whatever the penalty is for taking a bath. It uses to much water. They will also need to invest in new appliances - older washing machines use 40 galls per wash. In a world where I am assured a one time fee of $10 for a ID guarantees people will be disenfranchised, I don't see how it's possible for the poor to shell out $500+ for new high efficiency washers.

California has solutions to their water problems that don't involve curtailing freedoms and turning the state into a third world country. That is bad government, the worst kind ... they do it for your own good.

[D.W.]

What scares me is the possibility they will construct a pipeline from the Great Lakes all the way across country to supply people who chose to live in dry arid areas. 

Bad enough we got Nestle pumping it up and bottling as fast as possible. 

[scifibum]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/

There's no penalty for individual consumers.

Not to mention 55 (or 50) gallons per day per person on average does not equate to being restricted to 55 gallons on a given day.

I've got 5 kids and a wife. Our household generates around 1.5 loads of laundry per day, and we've got lots of room for improvement there - we end up washing a lot of the kids' clothes after being worn once when they are probably good for a couple more days (particularly pants).  Some of them are small, so if we continue washing jeans after a single day our household might end up generating 2 or 2.5 loads of laundry per day when they get bigger. 

2.5 x 40 = 100. 
If we all take a 17 gallon shower 6 days a week and a 40 gallon bath once a week, the daily average for the household will be 142 gallons. 

So between (overly frequent) laundry and bathing we're at about 70% of a 50 gallon per person per day budget.  Add 5 flushes a day per person and we're up to 85%.  Leaving a pretty good margin for sink faucets and the ice maker, as far as I can tell. 

Scary.

[TheDrake]

Random comment:

We live in So Cal and are very aware of the water shortage. Even with all the rains from last winter, the drought is here to stay. We just installed artificial grass and drought tolerant plants in our beds; Best thing we ever did. The lawn looks fantastic and the plant beds have drip irrigation. They only need water 2 times per week.

O cruel tyranny! To be denied the fundamental freedom of bermuda grass!

So the better alternative is to build out giant reservoirs, towers, and the like? So California can raise taxes even higher, or borrow more in bonds? I'm sure you'd never criticize them for that...

Three years ago, during the depths of California’s historic drought, state voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 1, a $7.5 billion bond measure to pay for new water projects, including building more dams and reservoirs.

Hoping to get some of that money, water districts drew up plans and submitted lengthy applications for 11 projects, including two in the Bay Area and a massive new $5.1 billion lake in Colusa County known as Sites Reservoir.

But on Thursday, the staff of the California Water Commission, which must decide by July which water storage projects will receive bond money, raised major concerns. They announced that nearly half of the projects have no public benefits that meet the ballot measure’s rules for getting money, and the rest fall significantly short of providing as much benefit to the public as they would cost.

And then there's the fact that pretty much all of the cost feasible locations are already dammed up.

California is already dammed up. Over 55 years, California saw 800 new dams — more than one a month. The state has an inventory of close to 1,200 dams (plus another 200 under federal control) but no over-arching plan to maintain, monitor or remove them when they are past their engineered life span. The Oroville Dam spillway fracture, which forced the evacuation in February 2017 of nearly 200,000 people downstream, was a wake-up call.

Groundwater storage, storm water capture and recycled water are more efficient, less costly storage solutions that balance human and environmental needs, in part because the water can be stored closer to users.

Those solutions do exist, and I'm sure they'll be used as part of the overall strategy. As well as desalination, to the tune of at least a billion dollars.

This isn't the 1950s, as much as some people might want it to be. Non-invasive strategies aren't available any more.

But luckily they really don't have to worry, because according to you, Crunch, they'll all be fleeing the state in stark terror and the ones left can have 150 gallons apiece.

[TheDeamon]

If California wanted to avoid becoming a desert again, they could have built more water storage. But they won't do that. Instead, they opted for forcing citizens to adhere to restricted water usage.

Uh, they are building some more water storage using some more unique methods at that. They're also building some more
(highly controversial) water transportation systems to move it south.

The stuff doesn't get built overnight, and many Californians had to get had by the last shortage before approving the bond measures to build the stuff.

I suspect desalination and more water recycling is ultimately going to be the final fixes, but that tech isn't quite there yet. That and there is more than a bit of "ick factor" going on with recycled water which makes it a bit problematic at present as well.

[Crunch]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/

There's no penalty for individual consumers.

Not to mention 55 (or 50) gallons per day per person on average does not equate to being restricted to 55 gallons on a given day.

I've got 5 kids and a wife. Our household generates around 1.5 loads of laundry per day, and we've got lots of room for improvement there - we end up washing a lot of the kids' clothes after being worn once when they are probably good for a couple more days (particularly pants).  Some of them are small, so if we continue washing jeans after a single day our household might end up generating 2 or 2.5 loads of laundry per day when they get bigger. 

2.5 x 40 = 100. 
If we all take a 17 gallon shower 6 days a week and a 40 gallon bath once a week, the daily average for the household will be 142 gallons. 

So between (overly frequent) laundry and bathing we're at about 70% of a 50 gallon per person per day budget.  Add 5 flushes a day per person and we're up to 85%.  Leaving a pretty good margin for sink faucets and the ice maker, as far as I can tell. 

Scary.

Snopes, yeah, sure, whatever. I believe snopes about as much as infowars.

So the argument is that you use less than 50% of whate the average American household uses so the law is perfectly fine, zero impact in fact. First, I’d say check your usage calculations. The average American uses 80-100 gallons per day, the average family uses 300 gallons per day. With your family size, I’d be surprised you coukd come in at less than half the US average.

But let’s say you are, however unlikely,  the freakishly low water users you claim. Just because you are doesn’t mean the average is too. If you believe highway speeds should be limited to 35 mph and point out that you still get where you’re going, that doesn’t mean the law should limit it for everyone.

[Crunch]

But luckily they really don't have to worry, because according to you, Crunch, they'll all be fleeing the state in stark terror and the ones left can have 150 gallons apiece.

And... they are!

Californians Doing The Once-Unthinkable: Leaving California

Even the wealthy see the writing on the wall - Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike

More and more are leaving. All your sarcasm won’t change reality. Reasonable people don’t want to live in a third world dump where they have to carefully step around piles of human feces in the street and needles littering the sidewalk, growing tent cities and garbage strewn streets, where the state confiscates more and more of your money while telling you that you need to make the call between doing the laundry or taking a shower.

[TheDrake]

I don't have to read snopes, I read the bill, at least the parts that pertain to this 55 gallon limit. It clearly states that the utilities are responsible, not individuals. It also clearly states that this target is 20% below existing levels. So while your numbers may be correct for the average American, it clearly is not relevant to what californians might have to give up.

Your contempt is nauseating.

[Wayward Son]

I believe snopes about as much as infowars.

Which is about as much as we believe you. 

The average American uses 80-100 gallons per day, the average family uses 300 gallons per day. With your family size, I’d be surprised you coukd come in at less than half the US average.

My family of three comes out to about 50 gallons a day, although last month we somehow averaged about 70 gallons a day.    I suspect that the average amount of water used in desert communities is much less than the American average.  You should take that into consideration.

Also, you should learn more about the water situation in California before spouting off nonsense.  I recall hearing that San Diego would normally be able to support about 100,000 people on the natural water supplies, without dams or wells.  So we are already utilizing our water very efficiently, considering our current population.  And most of our water storage is in the snow pack of the Sierra Nevada mountains.  Snow pack that has been dwindling because of global warming.

Now you may not believe in AGW, and you may believe that there are tons of untapped water resources that we refuse to utilize.  You can also believe in unicorns and everything President Trump says, too.  But we live here, we know what we have and what we can do, and no amount of belief will change the facts.  We have a large population, we are losing our water resources, and we are going to have to learn to live with less in the future.  Because political posturing never has added a drop of rain, or a flake of snow.

[Greg Davidson]

A great deal of water is wasted due to riparian laws, which regulate property rights for water use from rivers for agricultural purposes.  These 19th century laws give certain property owners water rights in future years based on how much water they consume in the current year, and so greater efficiency is actually penalized. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/5-fixes-for-California-s-age-old-water-rights-6497184.php

[scifibum]

I don't have to read snopes, I read the bill, at least the parts that pertain to this 55 gallon limit. It clearly states that the utilities are responsible, not individuals. It also clearly states that this target is 20% below existing levels. So while your numbers may be correct for the average American, it clearly is not relevant to what californians might have to give up.

Your contempt is nauseating.

He's citing numbers that are overall domestic usage per person and household - including outdoor use. The 55/50 limit was interior household water usage.

Comparing snopes to infowars is irrational.

[Crunch]

California leads the nation in outmigration, and has experienced a domestic outmigration decline since 1991, according to the California Department of Finance.

According to a recent survey, 53 percent of all Californians, 63 percent of millennials, and 76 percent of residents in the Bay Area say they are seriously considering leaving the state.

California has recorded net domestic out-migration since at least 1991, according to state data, meaning it has lost more people to other states than it has brought in from them – nearly every year.

The question to ask, if everything is as great as you guys are telling us, why is more than half running for their lives? California, you tell us, is an economic and cultural success, a utopia. Except more than half want out, why?

Among those surveyed, 62 percent said homelessness is a very serious issue for California, with 62 percent saying the best days of living in California are behind them.

I go to California several times a year for business and can tell you than San Francisco has literally turned into a *censored*hole. Downtown is filled with crazies that defecate on the street. If you haven’t been there, it’s hard to explain the impact of a ranting crazy on nearly every corner and the city smelling like a roadside bathroom that’s backing up. You may think I’m exaggerating but I’m not.

According to SFGATE research, Californians have left the state to move to Texas or Colorado. Nearly all interviewed cited the high cost of living as the primary reason why they left.

Texas, everyone wants to come to Texas. Can’t say I blame them. We can afford a home, a decent car, and still have the money left over to enjoy our lives.

In December 2018, one of the most frequently searched questions on Google among Californians was, "Should I move out?"

It’s just so great there,why move?

Businesses have also left. Jamba Juice moved its headquarters from the Bay Area to Frisco, Texas. Chevron and the North Face also moved their headquarters out of state and downsized their offices. Companies relocating also explained why: relatively high taxes, burdensome regulations, and labor costs that could not keep pace with a high cost of living.

But it’s great in California, great!

[TheDrake]

There are so many problems with that analysis, I don't know where to begin.

First, San Francisco is not representative of whether California is a good place to live, no matter what is happening there. The same things aren't true of Mountain View, San Jose, Sacramento, San Mateo, or La Jolla to mention a few.

The reason people are leaving is because it is expensive. It is expensive because it has been overwhelmingly successful at creating high-end six figure jobs. This is forcing lots of people to leave as they can no longer afford to live in those areas.

Sacramento is growing by 1.4%
San Diego by 1.42%

California on the whole added people. It's only if you consider non-citizens to be non-people that you can start talking about "domestic out-migration", which skews things considerably. High tech attracts people from India, China, and all over the world - not to mention the entertainment industry.

But I don't expect any of that matters to you, because "Libruls Bad", right?

[Wayward Son]

The question to ask, if everything is as great as you guys are telling us, why is more than half running for their lives? California, you tell us, is an economic and cultural success, a utopia. Except more than half want out, why?

First off, you're the only one calling California a "utopia."  This is what is known as a "strawman."  California isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and no one I know claims that it is.

The reason why people want to leave California is because it is such a success.    Think back to basic economics.  What happens when there is a limited resource (great weather, plentiful jobs, developed infrastructure) which everybody wants?  The price of the resource goes up.  And--surprise!--as you mentioned yourself, this is the primary reason people want to leave.

It costs to live in a place that doesn't have crippling snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, lack of jobs, crummy universities, and such.  Real estate prices go sky-high.  Natural resources like water become strained.  These are what you expect from success.

And you have to deal with congested freeways, the ever-increasing wildfires (especially if you try to get away from the overcrowded cities), and the occasional killer earthquake.    But no one has a good plan on mitigating those problems.  (Raking the "forests" won't help. )

And having so many people with so much money, along with moderate weather, means that homeless can survive easier here than elsewhere.  So, yeah, we have a homeless problem, too.  But how would you suggest we solve that?  I'm sure, if Texas is willing, that California will happily send our homeless to you!  We'll even pay their way. 

I myself get mad that finding a better home will cost over half a million dollars.  That I have to go three miles out of my way to avoid traffic getting to work (something you can't even do in L.A.).  And that we have tent encampments around our downtown, and beggars at every other corner.

OTOH, I also get mad at this cold snap we've been dealing with lately.  Temperatures at night have been between 30-55 degree F for over a month now!  My hands start getting cold when I walk the dog in the morning!  And my heating bill has been like $90/month to keep the house warm!  It's miserable!  

I would love to have a California with reasonable housing prices and cost of living.  I would love a California where the freeways aren't congested during rush hour, or all-day and most of the weekend.  I would love a California where we don't have a homeless crisis.  But these are all the price of success.  We may be able to mitigate them, but we'll never solve them.

I expect that you'll start seeing these problems pretty soon in Texas, too, Crunch.

[Fenring]

The reason why people want to leave California is because it is such a success.    Think back to basic economics.  What happens when there is a limited resource (great weather, plentiful jobs, developed infrastructure) which everybody wants?  The price of the resource goes up.  And--surprise!--as you mentioned yourself, this is the primary reason people want to leave.

It costs to live in a place that doesn't have crippling snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, lack of jobs, crummy universities, and such.  Real estate prices go sky-high.  Natural resources like water become strained.  These are what you expect from success.

I don't know anything about California but it doesn't follow that increased real estate prices reflect successful local policies. Places like NYC, for instance, faced incredible inflation in real estate prices (and therefore rent) through the 90's and 2000's, to the point where many, many people born and raised in the city had to move out to Queens or Brooklyn to make do. And this in turn wasn't merely the result of some magic success in mayoral policy (although perhaps Giuliani had some hand in it) but also of massive foreign investment. And while one might want to suggest that any investment at all is a success, those living there would have something else to say about that kind of "success". The fact that people from countries who gained massive riches on the backs of veritable slave labor can buy up real estate in the U.S. and force out people who've lived there for their whole lives, doesn't to me translate as any kind of "success" vis a vis governing. All it means is that the rich can edge out the poor when the rich from around the world are looking for groovy places to spread out.

Now I'm not actually arguing that California's policies haven't been success; as I said I don't know. But it's a strawman in its own right to argue that increasing rent price that drives out the poor is a result of any kind of success locally. And much the same could be said of oil wealth in Texas, where access to a natural resource can hardly be said to qualify as good governance in and of itself.

[TheDrake]

Maybe instead of success, it would be better to say that it has great opportunity, as evidenced by the number skilled people who want to be there. It is causing really major problems as affordable housing pushes well past 90 minute commutes, depending on how far east someone in the east bay has to go.

I would say trading Jamba Juice for Apple, Samsung, SpaceX, Tesla, and others is probably a success.

The state's economy is not just big, but also booming -- growing faster than any nation. What's the secret?

This is from 2 years ago, but I don't think it has been very different over that period.

The high taxes and ubiquitous regulation critics cite when assailing Golden State government are proving no impediment to business and investment. They may even be a benefit, as public policy and people's preferences converge. Four of the world's 10 largest companies are based in California. Two of them -- Alphabet and Facebook -- were conceived in the past 18 years. San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the world's largest bank by market capitalization, routinely outperforms any of its peers from Wall Street.

The 482 companies in the Russell 3000, which are based in California, produced a total return of 144 percent during the past five years, easily beating the 114 percent return for non-California companies during the same period. Companies based in Texas, which perennially boasts that it is the best state for business with the lowest taxes and least regulation, returned 55 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

Clearly, there's a lot not to like. The poverty rate is higher than anywhere else. Housing is a critical problem.

[Fenring]

TheDrake,

I'm curious - as a thought experiment, would you have a positive, neutral, or negative reaction to state policies that had the following direct effects:

-Aggregate GDP increases
-95% of the fruits of the GDP gain go to the richest 1%, the rest trickle down into minimum wage employment
-Middle class jobs vanish in favor of either low-wage jobs, high-skill tech jobs, and lucrative professions for a few
-The size of the lower classes increases regularly, with the lowest of them edged out of housing and even out of the state
-Wealthy people move and invest there due to increased gentrification of certain areas, while other areas turn into ghettos

I'm not saying this *is* happening, but let's say it were: would you call this a win, neutral, or loss scenario? Certain types of metrics would perhaps hail this as a high employment situation, with GDP gains, and increased investment. Certain other metrics might measure it more on increasing wealth disparity, disposession of the poor, and the growing discontent with the class divide. Putting aside who is 'responsible' for this situation, what would be your objective evaluation of this situation if it were to occur?

[TheDrake]

It's a good question. A lot of what shapes my worldview is a purely economic way of looking at things. People should be mobile. For me, that's pretty much an axiom. Everyone should be moving to their best opportunity, which is why I like immigration, and dismiss people who are angered by gentrification.

If I were in SF Bay, and I was driving a truck or serving coffee, I too would be googling how to leave. Because that makes economic sense. Go to Texas, North Dakota, Nebraska. Wherever.

When enough of the people doing those jobs leave an, then ultimately they are going to have to raise wages without artificial price controls (minimum wages).

Eventually enough people leave that essential functions start to disappear or become hard to get. This can be countered by luring people back into the area with greater wages, greater support for zoning changes, invention of automation, or even public assistance.

I think your scenario happens because people are unwilling or unable to move in sufficient number to shift the levers. Sometimes this is for very legitimate reasons, like a sick family member or joint custody. Other times, its like the apocryphal slowly boiled frog. It's just a little bit harder and a little bit worse every year. Sometimes it is just because, gee, isn't Manhattan so much fun and exciting? Or a person's identity is wrapped up in where they are from, and city pride.

For a city to avoid your scenario without trying to change this basic human nature, you really have one lever. Try to discourage rich people from moving in, which naturally leads to more steeply progressive tax rates to fuel support for the displaced people in some form. They might also successfully accomplish this by not handing companies tax breaks - like NY did with Amazon, which would have had a good chance of creating this scenario and why there was public blowback.

A lot of this is also a city failing to meet the needs of their residents in an attempt to preserve what they see as they city's character, charm, whatever. Which is why Mountain View and Palo Alto are never going to have the high-rise apartments that they desperately could use, along with a more urban footprint to reduce traffic with live-work-shop developments like the Domain in Austin.

[TheDrake]

Commissioner Clark said he'd support heights up to seven stories, but "I think this is just over the top in terms of heights that are acceptable," echoing the sentiments of other commissioners. "This just doesn't seem like Mountain View."

[Crunch]

There are so many problems with that analysis, I don't know where to begin.

First, San Francisco is not representative of whether California is a good place to live, no matter what is happening there. The same things aren't true of Mountain View, San Jose, Sacramento, San Mateo, or La Jolla to mention a few.

The polling references all California not just San Francisco. It calls out the Bay Area as the worst but it’s all of California.

The reason people are leaving is because it is expensive. It is expensive because it has been overwhelmingly successful at creating high-end six figure jobs. This is forcing lots of people to leave as they can no longer afford to live in those areas.

So successful that even people on a high end six figure salaries can’t afford it. I have towonder at your definition of success. Getting rid of the undesirables. Is that why they’re so pro-illegal immigration? Gotta have some toilet scrubbers and lawn mowers!

California on the whole added people. It's only if you consider non-citizens to be non-people that you can start talking about "domestic out-migration", which skews things considerably. High tech attracts people from India, China, and all over the world - not to mention the entertainment industry.

But I don't expect any of that matters to you, because "Libruls Bad", right?

True, migrants are coming in at a rate to stabilize population. Still need those menial laborers, right? Getting people at the high end of the economic spectrum just perpetuates the “success”.

But let’s assume there’s some accuracy to what you say, why do more than half of Californians want out? Why is the equivalent of a medium size down bailing out every year? It’s just so successful that over half the citizens want to leave is absurd.

[Seriati]

I still think the focus on California is silly.  No state is a house to itself and as long as they are all part of the country they can and do make decisions that are to their own benefit and worse for the country (see the thread on NY and Amazon for a discussion about how the tax incentive game is worse for the country overall, even if its better for a locality). 

CA's policies are decisively about gaming the system.  They love to give big incentives to favored industries that the little folk end up paying for.  That's going to bring in big guys (like Hollywood and the Tech Industry) and its going to stick it to the little guys.  CA's used incentives to keep very rich people in the state who'd otherwise leave to places like FL with no income tax.  I've read more than once that CA's tax revenues are directly tied to the market simply because they have so many wealthy people who's income is completely market based.

It's really simple math.  If you run a high tax state and want high tax revenues, there is only one group of people that actually pay the taxes - the wealthy.  They pay the majority of the taxes in every state, sometimes 75% or more.  The left tells you that they hate income inequality and that their policies seek to end it, but it's a lie.  Their taxation policies only work if they have rich people in their state and their policies are designed to create and keep rich people (and who cares if it hurts the middle class, when you can throw crumbs to the poor to keep your voting block).  These policies and cronyism go hand and hand, and that's what you see if you look closely.

[Wayward Son]

Now I'm not actually arguing that California's policies haven't been success; as I said I don't know. But it's a strawman in its own right to argue that increasing rent price that drives out the poor is a result of any kind of success locally. And much the same could be said of oil wealth in Texas, where access to a natural resource can hardly be said to qualify as good governance in and of itself.

That very well may be true, Fenring.  Although basic economics indicates that increasing rents are indicative of higher desirability, that does not mean it is because of local policies.

But, if it is true, then the corollary is also true: that the increasing price of rents does not indicate the failure of policies, either.  So people being driven away by high rents doesn't mean the local policies are bad.

In fact, unless the rents are directly determined by governmental policies, there is no correlation at all.  Which means Crunch's premise, to which I was responding, is faulty.

[Seriati]

Wayward, an economic analysis doesn't end with stating a basic rule.  It then goes into questions of why.  It's not "desirability" its demand exceeding supply that raises rents.  Supply could be decreasing, or just not increasing as fast as demand. 

In the case of gentrification you often see massive policy driven manipulations in play.  You'll have rent control taking units out of the market, which drives prices for other units up and lowers quality in the rent control potions.  In a lot of CA cities you have serious zoning restrictions on free development of high density low cost housing, which artificially suppresses the desire to invest in supplying those markets.  You'll have decisions to take buildings "condo" that could have been rented.  Many of those cities have deliberately enacted policies to prevent there being adequate low cost housing, and they've all made efforts to ensure it's not sitting next to and in the same schools as the high cost residents they want to attract.

It's a fair criticism for CA specifically because of their claims about the social benefits of their policies.  If you stand on a soapbox and claim others don't care about poor people, but you do, then evidence your policies are hurting the poor is especially damning.