1. Best-selling authors of the decade (UK).
2. What are Californians getting for their state spending?
3. Young Ben Bernanke (photo).
4. Who really runs monetary policy these days?
5. Michael Mandel is blogging again.
6. Shifting the balance of power toward politicians.
My mother likes to mention the fact that social services jobs in Washington state generally pay less in 2009 than she was making in California in the late 90s. With my convincing, she’s finally come around to realizing that this is an indication that she was grossly overpaid in California, rather than that she is grossly underpaid in Washington.
re: California.
The ability to use “otiose” in an article is impressive.
I don’t disagree that California is terribly managed and is going downhill. However…
I was confused about this line:
Under the coming bailout, the new 49ers—Americans in the other 49 states, that is—will be extended the privilege of paying California’s taxes. At least they won’t have to put up with its public services.
Because a quick glance at The Tax Foundation’s comparison of federal outlays shows that California currently gets back $.78 on the dollar of what is sends to the government, the 43rd worst (2007 data was the most current I found on their web page):
http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html
Also I’m a little confused about why *changes* in population matter so much for the argument. By the “vote with your feet” hypothesis, changes in population should tell us about changes in quality; aggregate levels of population should tell us about quality levels. Right? So by that metric, California’s still doing OK.
On that subject, how about this:
While its share of the nation’s population has steadily increased, from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 7.9 percent in 2007, California’s has barely budged, from 12 percent to 12.1 percent.
So wait… California *increased* its share of the nation’s population over whatever cherry-picked time interval the author decided to highlight? That makes it, um, better than average.
Alex F: California’s population growth is entirely due to people moving there from other countries. The point remains that more people are moving from California to other states than vice versa, in stark contrast to California’s situation before the 1990s.
–California’s population growth is entirely due to people moving there from other countries. The point remains that more people are moving from California to other states than vice versa, in stark contrast to California’s situation before the 1990s.
-I don’t get it, so what?
The so what was actually not spelled out by Tiebout, but is important for both border states of Texas and California. The people moving in are illegal immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. They do not produce wealth. And in CA, they are not replacing the tax base of those moving out.
I agree the article was weak. I am still waiting to see the quantification of how much better Texas is in terms of startup growth. Austin can only do so much–then what? How much of the rest of Texas is creating companies? How much of the rest is relying on oil or other commodities?
The article was weak and not well supported. The Public Policy Institute of California looked at who was leaving CA and found that poor, who have lower tax burdens in CA, were more likely to leave. What is driving people to leave is housing costs not taxes. Aren’t property values the relevant measure of desirable a place is to live?
Also, CA is not a high tax state. It ranks 18th in taxes as a share of personal income, which is the relevant measure. The cost of living is higher in CA, so government services cost more.
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LeavingCAJTF.pdf
The wallet meter for books has its uses, especially for
publishers, but it has its limitations. It cannot,
for instance,account for the books which are not read
through, despite being owned.
The books which are both good (admittedly a slippery
category)and popular are among the classics.
Power shifting to politicians: So let me get this straight. Alex thinks that we should have a select class (newsmen) filtering what politicians are allowed to communicate to the people? Let me guess, he wants Dan Rather to filter G.W.Bush’s military record.
I don’t mind a newsman engaging in propaganda. Everyone has a version of the truth they believe, and newsmen have the same right as I to proclaim it. If they’ve managed a larger platform, goody for them. BUT–if I choose to aggregate my efforts via donations to some politician or special interest group, why should the newsman have an expectation to be able to come in and control the information spigot?
Looks like Matt doesn’t like the fact that a conservative is benefiting, to some degree, at this point.
And yes, I have a first-person view of just how aggressively newsmen have distorted events.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Lucy
http://dataentryjob-s.com
Comments on this entry are closed.