While I respect where you are coming from, the data doesn't match your perceptions. California's governance is exceptional despite the corruption. Here's some data,
- One of the best ways to match models to reality is to see if they have predictive power, for some time now people have predicted that California is doomed, see, “California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms,” https://apnews.com/article/48a9ce5ad7494d22ec0c42ac46ae9baf , but the surplus that year was a $75 B.
- Since 2006, California has cut the rate maternal mortality and women dying in childbirth by 65%, the national maternal mortality rate has increased by 50% to 70%. The impact this one data point has on people's lives cannot be overstated. More women are dying in the States at a rate 6x that of Nordic states and 3x that of Canada, and it's a trend that's increasing for most of the US. Except California. This data is from 2018, but the graph is simply staggering, https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/05/propublica-mortali... and https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220510134152-hponly20...
- Despite the reduction due to the pandemic, California has the longest lifespan in the US for men. If you are born in California, as a man, you will live to 78.4 years on average as compared to 71.7 years (and falling) in West Virginia, 76 years in Texas, 72.6 years in Kentucky, and 75.7 years in Texas.
- California has the highest rate of income growth in all of the US. Even when compared to Texas. Here's a comparison of the two states,
Despite a slight decline in population, California's per capita income grew at a significantly greater rate than Texas,
"Between 2000 and 2020, California’s PCI was significantly greater than both Texas and the U.S. as a whole (BEA, 2021). Both disparities grew substantially from 2015 to 2020. For example, while California’s per capita income was 20 percent higher than Texas’ in 2015, this gap surged to 30 percent just 5 years later. And this was not simply a COVID-induced phenomenon, as the rising disparity was apparent in 2019 even before the pandemic."
Between the two states, the government invests substantially more on the public in California, even when adjusting for state revenue,
"A large part of this difference between California and Texas, however, is driven by differences between the two states in GDP per capita, which is 22 percent higher in California ($79,405) than in Texas ($65,077) (BEA, 2020). Even adjusting for this, state and local governments loom much larger in California, with their spending representing 20.3 percent of the state’s GDP versus just 15.4 percent in Texas. By this metric California’s public sector is about one-third larger than in Texas, implying that the greater per capita GDP in California explains almost half of its higher state and local spending."
From the data the study concludes that this spending leads to, "it appears higher government spending in California leads to stronger student performance, better environmental and health outcomes, and safer neighborhoods than in a small government state such as Texas"
- We can contrast California against states like Kansas, where they've implemented low taxes and cut public spending as a part of the "Kansas Experiment", the state has gone almost bankrupt and there has been no subsequent increase in GDP growth. The experiment is widely regarded as a failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
Swinging from a 54B deficit to a 75B surplus then holding that surplus
during a period of record inflation is the absolute definition of
inefficient and wasteful.
A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested
it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they
just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality
review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint
of recent government efficiency to be found here.
What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of
citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas?
Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due
to this?
We can contrast California to states like Idaho, which spend 2/3 of what
California spends per student and yet gets far better outcomes than
California does. California has the lowest rate of education attainment
out of any state in the country.
The infrastructure is crumbling. New projects are consumed by consultant
driven graft. Sacramento is generally paralyzed by special interests. The
complete lack of action on homelessness is tragic for the absolute volume
of human life just discarded on the side of the road. Gas prices are absolutely
ridiculous and the state is hoarding tax dollars during grotesque inflation.
8 years ago.. I would have agreed, California may have been a little shabby, but
it was still on a great track. Today I have far less faith in the state, particularly
considering the Governor appears to be desirous of a presidential campaign and
the state is about to be used as a prop in his endeavors.
I am unsure if you've read my comment carefully, but the expectation was a $54B deficit. What they got was a $72B surplus.
> A single doctor at a single hospital developed this theory and then tested it. There is a foundation which is partly funded by the state, but they just promulgate the ideas... it's up to the hospitals to do the mortality review and apply what they've learned there. There's really no fingerprint of recent government efficiency to be found here.
I don't understand. Can you please provide citations for what you're trying to say?
> CMQCC was founded in 2006 at Stanford University School of Medicine together with the State of California in response to rising maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Since CMQCC’s inception, California has seen maternal mortality decline by 65 percent between 2006 to 2016, while the national maternal mortality rate continued to rise.
If you read through the links, you'll see that the Californian Government has made substantial investments in maternal mortality and perinatal care which has resulted in this staggering decline. The resources of the state were mobilized with the help of the best evidence backed medicine to save lives. That's a great outcome!
> What connection is there between government efficiency and life span of citizens? This is a minefield of variables.
It's not about efficiency as much as it is about policy. No large organization is efficient; rather they ought to be measured by their effectiveness.
Investment in hospitals, clinics and public health. Reductions in environmental emissions (air pollution dramatically reduces lifespans). Expansion of coverage programs like medicaid via systems like medi-cal; https://www.medi-cal.ca.gov/ Ensuring access to clean drinking water, adequate sanitation - https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/23/9379451... . Preventing dumping of toxic waste. Public vaccination programs. And the many, many other levers governments can pull to ensure that people live longer and are healthier.
> Aren't minimum wages significantly different between California and Texas? Wasn't this phased in around that time? How much of this increase is due to this?
In the comment, the study compares California and Texas between 2000 to 2020.
I am not a specialist on the rest, and do not have the data on hand, but just a note, American infrastructure is crumbling in general due to a receding of the state from infrastructure investments.
Could you please provide a citation and explanation for your Idaho comment?
> There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
> If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.
I lived in California for years before I moved to London 3 years ago. I agree that California does a lot of things better than some states and there's an element of "you get what you pay for." But I think that doesn't let California off the hook for the value they return on the money they collect.
Between federal tax, state tax, social security and all the zany other taxes (CA SDI, etc), the tax rate you pay in California is very close to what you pay in the UK or a lot of other European countries. If you own a home, add in yearly property tax which is similar to what you'd pay in UK council tax.
But in London, you get 100% free healthcare (including all medications at a nominal fee), fantastic public transit, weekly trash/recycling pick-up from your local council, extensive council housing to actually house low-income people, etc. The same money is getting more done. I'm not claiming it's perfect or can't be improved, but the services you get for paying roughly the same tax rate are significantly higher (and the same applies in many other cities in Europe).
I think a lot of people in the US don't realize that CA taxes are essentially at the same level as many countries in Europe. So I have at least a little sympathy for people who throw their hands up and move to a low tax, low service state like Texas when they feel like they aren't getting a European level of services for a European level of taxes.
I think some of the inefficiency in California stems from the proposition system where large pots of money are allocated to seemingly good causes but it ties the hands of government who are trying to manage the overall budget efficiently. The amount of propositions included in every voting cycle is comical and in my opinion it is just shifting the work of detailed governance onto the general public who has neither the time nor the expertise to decide on a lot of the issues presented at the level of detail required.
This should be higher up. California’s policies have shown incredible public benefit. As much of the USA has been sliding back on important metrics, California’s progressive politics have pulled it forward. This makes conservatives very mad and they will do everything to discredit it, including trying to spin the budget surplus as a terrible thing, despite them not long ago (15 years ago?) spinning our budget deficit as precisely the same sign of bloated and wasteful mismanagement. This shows they aren’t arguing in good faith.
- One of the best ways to match models to reality is to see if they have predictive power, for some time now people have predicted that California is doomed, see, “California doom: Staggering $54 billion deficit looms,” https://apnews.com/article/48a9ce5ad7494d22ec0c42ac46ae9baf , but the surplus that year was a $75 B.
- Since 2006, California has cut the rate maternal mortality and women dying in childbirth by 65%, the national maternal mortality rate has increased by 50% to 70%. The impact this one data point has on people's lives cannot be overstated. More women are dying in the States at a rate 6x that of Nordic states and 3x that of Canada, and it's a trend that's increasing for most of the US. Except California. This data is from 2018, but the graph is simply staggering, https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2017/05/propublica-mortali... and https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/220510134152-hponly20...
- Despite the reduction due to the pandemic, California has the longest lifespan in the US for men. If you are born in California, as a man, you will live to 78.4 years on average as compared to 71.7 years (and falling) in West Virginia, 76 years in Texas, 72.6 years in Kentucky, and 75.7 years in Texas.
On average, you will live 6+ to 3+ years longer than most US States if you're born in California. The same is true for women. Data, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-1-508.pdf
This is roughly the same amount you would get from an intervention such as lifelong/prolonged caloric restriction, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014770/
- Between 2015 and 2019, California's economy grew at a rate of 22%. For comparison, China was 26%. Germany, 15%. Japan, 16%. In December of 2021, California added 42% of all jobs in the US. Nearly half of all new jobs in the country for that month were created in California. Alone. https://mehabe.com/2021/06/14/among-the-five-largest-economi... | https://www.gov.ca.gov/2022/03/11/californias-economic-recov...
- California has the highest rate of income growth in all of the US. Even when compared to Texas. Here's a comparison of the two states,
Despite a slight decline in population, California's per capita income grew at a significantly greater rate than Texas,
"Between 2000 and 2020, California’s PCI was significantly greater than both Texas and the U.S. as a whole (BEA, 2021). Both disparities grew substantially from 2015 to 2020. For example, while California’s per capita income was 20 percent higher than Texas’ in 2015, this gap surged to 30 percent just 5 years later. And this was not simply a COVID-induced phenomenon, as the rising disparity was apparent in 2019 even before the pandemic."
Between the two states, the government invests substantially more on the public in California, even when adjusting for state revenue,
"A large part of this difference between California and Texas, however, is driven by differences between the two states in GDP per capita, which is 22 percent higher in California ($79,405) than in Texas ($65,077) (BEA, 2020). Even adjusting for this, state and local governments loom much larger in California, with their spending representing 20.3 percent of the state’s GDP versus just 15.4 percent in Texas. By this metric California’s public sector is about one-third larger than in Texas, implying that the greater per capita GDP in California explains almost half of its higher state and local spending."
From the data the study concludes that this spending leads to, "it appears higher government spending in California leads to stronger student performance, better environmental and health outcomes, and safer neighborhoods than in a small government state such as Texas"
Full study, https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tale-tw...
- We can contrast California against states like Kansas, where they've implemented low taxes and cut public spending as a part of the "Kansas Experiment", the state has gone almost bankrupt and there has been no subsequent increase in GDP growth. The experiment is widely regarded as a failure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
There are areas where California doesn't do well, such as homelessness, but by every conceivably metric, California has exceeded other US states. Surely some of this has to do with governance.
If I was to sum up my position here, it's this. You get what you pay for.