# Why haven't progressive ideas in California and elsewhere produced better results? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779 "2014-02-07T18:42:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/21 "2014-02-08T00:02:52Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So what are the results? Not terribly by good, by the measures that progressives themselves often mention. When states are ranked [by income inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient), four of the seven most unequal are progressive states; none of the seven most equal are. In [unemployment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate), progressive states take three of the highest seven and only one of the lowest seven. And in poverty, [California ranks dead last](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21590933-americas-biggest-state-has-americas-biggest-poverty-problem-not-so-golden), once cost of living is accounted for. [Illegal drug use](http://www.businessinsider.com/15-maps-that-show-how-americans-use-drugs-2013-9) tends towards the high side. > > This is not to say that there may not be other measures by which those same states do quite well. But it should call into question the premise that progressive policies produce the results that progressives think they will. Take income inequality: everyone from the President on down tells us that high minimum wage, taxes on the rich, and strong unions will reduce income inequality. States like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California have those things, and have some of the highest income inequality in the country. As the Economist article mentions, California is driving away the middle class while attracting the rich and the poor. If you’re a hard-working middle class person, California offers you high taxes, high cost of living, heavy regulations, lousy schools, an overbearing nanny state, and every reason to believe that these problems will only get worse. It only makes sense to live in California if you’re either too rich to worry about work and taxes or too poor to worry about work and taxes. This is not something I can back up with statistics and I am just intuiting this, but progressive states are states where rich people congregate or are created. Not only that but the large cities in progressive states (NY, CA, HI, etc) have such a high cost of living only people earning a minimum of 100k a year can live there comfortably. So cause and effect are not the same thing. Rich people move to California or New York, or they are created there. Add in all the minorities living in the poor parts, and all the upper class parts where only those making 6 figures can live well and income inequality will be high. Large cities in blue states have huge talent pools that attract and create wealth. Yes housing is unaffordable in large cities in blue states, but there is a reason for that. Those areas offer career and culture opportunities not found in most other places. The best colleges in the US are on the west coast and the northeast. The hubs of innovation that make the world a better place come from those areas. There are cultural and artistic opportunities there not available elsewhere so naturally more people want to live there which drives up housing costs. FWIW, I spent some time in a large city in California. You have to have a roommate and no kids to live on 30-50k a year, but it can be done. Contrast that with Mississippi where no billionaires live, no one needs 6 figures to live well, no wealthy empires are created, etc. Illegal drug use is not a proxy for anything. The idea that we should be unhappy about that is not something I agree with. If people want to use drugs responsibly (which most drug users are) that is up to them. Divorce is lower in blue states, but so what? It doesn’t prove or disprove anything. My thread was more about social reform (and health reform) anyway. I’m disappointed my thread got so few replies and this already has 20. Vermont’s health reform will result in a system 20-30% cheaper than health care systems in other states. That is something to be repeated in other blue states, in the hope it will eventually lead to national reform. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/22 "2014-02-08T00:36:26Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A progressive tax system is one where the rich pay a higher rate than the poor. In California, the top income tax rate is 13.3% and the bottom is 1.0%. That’s a spread of 12.3% between the richest and poorest tax payers, which is by far the largest spread in the nation. ([Cite](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=406)) It is true that in property taxes, California’s system is not progressive, but the huge bite taken out of the rich makes up for it. California had one of [the nation’s highest tax burdens](http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/28/state-taxes-states-highest-lowest/1654071/) even before the recent tax hike; Prop 13 did not keep taxes low. You’re forgetting (or perhaps deliberately ignoring) all the other taxes (sales taxes, excise taxes, user taxes) that Californian’s pay. When you include all of those, California doesn’t have a progressive tax system. The data [here](http://cbp.org/pdfs/2010/100412_pp_who_pays_taxes.pdf) is from 2010, and shows clearly that for a long time, California hasn’t had a progressive tax system. The system has become more progressive recently because of a proposition which allowed for increased taxes on the rich (although not as progressive as it could be, since the state and many localities hiked sales taxes during the recession). California has long been plagued by a variety of conservative/blue-dog/neoliberal policies, such as Proposition 13, electricity deregulation (which ended up busting the budget), mortgage deregulation and the recent mortgage settlement, and various laws that make it extremely difficult to increase taxes or balance the budget. All of that has started to change recently, but California hasn’t been doing progressive policy for the past 30 years. Check back in 5 years before telling us how progressivism has failed in California. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Dumpster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Desert\_Dumpster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Dumpster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/23 "2014-02-08T00:46:39Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Uh, no. As I’ve already clearly explained, progressives starting with the President advance policies by saying that they will address income inequality. Measuring whether a certain policy actually decreases income inequality in states where it’s been tried therefore lets us know whether such policies will achieve their goals. > Mighty convenient if the policies generally fail statistically. > > If progressivism did that, it would decrease income inequality, not increase it. But the evidence suggests the opposite: that progressive policies push some middle class people towards poverty, thus increasing income inequality. What I said (you need to read more carefully) that the goal of progressivism WAS NOT TO MAKE EVERYONE EQUAL in an economic sense. Of course, the goal of reducing income inequality is not the same thing as that. Whether the policies “generally fail statistically” is very much an open and somewhat dubious premise, even if you, in your ideological fog, treat it as a given. And I reiterate my point, which was not made for 'convenience" as you so sneeringly imply, that progressive policies reduce human suffering, a quantity that can’t be accurately measured. I’ll show you how moving some people out of poverty can increase income inequality. Population X of poor people were all equal to each other. Progressive policies enable some portion of those people to move into an income bracket that is higher than poverty. Fewer people inhabit that higher bracket, however, so they have moved from a more populated class to a less populated class. Therefore, inequality has increased; the population that has ascended is now equal to fewer people than before–as is the population that did not ascend. QED. I don’t expect that any of this will convince you, as your thought process seems to be confined to chanting over and over the shibboleth of “progressive policies backfiring.” Seems to me to be a poorly constructed justification for your not wanting to hand over your tax money just so the “undeserving” can have food or medical care. Sure, I understand greed and lack of compassion. Just don’t dress them up in a shiny costume and call them something else. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/24 "2014-02-08T01:13:41Z")
I did find this map of states by per-capita GSP (from 2010). Perhaps someone can find a more recent chart where we can examine the figures in more detail? I don’t have time to look. > **[File:US GDP per capita by state 2010 (current dollars).svg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_per_capita_by_state_2010_(current_dollars).svg)** > > Original file ‎(SVG file, nominally 512 × 240 pixels, file size: 64 KB) > Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time. > You cannot overwrite this file. The following page uses this file: It looks like DE has the highest (probably because most corporations locate there), followed by AK and WY (probably because of natural resources). But California seems to rank pretty highly, and the lowest states are mostly “red” states (New Mexico seems to be the exception, but I don’t know anything about their state politics, so I don’t know how progressive they are). Seems to me a lot of blue states are doing pretty well comparatively. ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/25 "2014-02-08T01:48:28Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The energy deregulation that California voters approved in the mid 90’s was certainly a disaster for the state. However, Enron went belly-up in 2002 and the energy crisis ended about the same time. California’s looming obligations–almost certainly in excess of 1.0 trillion among state and local governments–[does not result from that](http://californiapublicpolicycenter.org/calculating-californias-total-state-and-local-government-debt/). It results from massive spending on all kinds of things, but pay and benefits to public employees forms the biggest chunk. Okay, but if you’re keeping score, right wing policy has damaged California as well. It doesn’t necessarily produce the results it promises either. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/26 "2014-02-08T02:18:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why haven’t progressive ideas in California and elsewhere produced better results? While it could be the “progressive” idea itself that’s faulty what ultimately causes problems is, IMO, twofold. First, any jackass can get elected and vote anything into law. Second, the same jackass who didn’t have the skills to create good legislation doesn’t have the skills to monitor it. This creates a ripe situation for bad returns on investment. Eventually a municipality gets into deficit spending and borrows money. Instead of public money going directly into a project it’s used to pay interest on debt. New legislation increases that debt and a greater percentage of taxes goes towards debt. Lather rinse repeat until bankrupt. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/27 "2014-02-08T07:53:08Z")
This is why the phenomenon of white flight (or more accurately middle-class flight) is so terrible in its consequences: it devestates public schools by removing a leavening element (especially if the children of the wealthy and professional classes segregate themselves in private/charter schools), exacerbates income inequality, and encourages unsustainable development as these middle-class folk tend to move into exurbs around sprawling cities such as Phoenix or Dallas or Las Vegas. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what can be done to correct this trends besides perhaps abolishing state taxation entirely as many mammon-driven individuals will go for these awful places with little cultural development and lots of endless malls simply for the sake of a slightly lower tax rate and a few hundred more square feet in their homes. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2014, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/28 "2014-02-08T07:54:12Z")
Statistics! How should we compare states? I think it’s obvious that two of the best single measures might be [median household income, and mean per capita income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income). Let’s look at how the 13 victim states singled out by OP rank in both of those categories. 10 12 California 4 3 Connecticut 9 13 Delaware 8 14 Hawaii 18 15 Illinois 1 1 Maryland 5 4 Massachusetts 11 11 Minnesota 16 7 New York 29 23 Oregon 17 16 Rhode Island 19 19 Vermont 12 10 Washington Twelve of the 13 victims of progressive thought rank in the top half of 50 states for median household income. In fact, OP’s list is rather a roll of honor, with 8 of the Top 12 on his list! Only Oregon at #29 is in the bottom half. Thirteen of the 13 deluded states who elect policy makers who want to damage their economies rank in the top half of 50 states for mean per capita income. None of them rank in the bottom half. How do we account for this? Are the coddled rich of California suckling at the teat of hard-working Alabamans? No. Do they get their wealth from exporting marijuana to the family-values patriots of Tennessee? I’m not sure, but I don’t think marijuana sales make their way into Census Bureau income data. Maybe the high-earning households in these states vote “blue” because they desperately want the government to steal their money and waste it, but the Democratic state governments are so incompetent that can’t even do that! Can you help us with this, **Champion**? Why are the states with the stupidest voters doing so well? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/29 "2014-02-09T02:53:06Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Statistics! How should we compare states? I think it’s obvious that two of the best single measures might be [median household income, and mean per capita income](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income). I don’t think that’s obvious at all. At the very least, we also need to account for cost of living in the various states. As the Economist article that I linked to shows, when we look at cost of living, poverty in California rises dramatically because the cost of living there is so high. [This article in Time](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2154995,00.html) also discusses the matter, showing that when one looks at cost of living, places like Texas end up looking much better. Given the high cost of living in New York and other such places, I’m guessing that the same phenomenon is true there as well: take that into account, and the average person there no longer looks so wealthy. The other important point is the one I’ve already made. When I listen to progressives, starting with the President, I hear endless talk about how bad income inequality is. And I hear certain prescriptions: high minimum wage, unionization, taxing the rich, &c… &c… So it’s logical to ask whether or not these prescriptions actually cure the disease of income inequality. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/30 "2014-02-09T03:58:06Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > So you’ll have to justify your claim that reducing income inequality is a historical progressive goal, rather than, for example, just trying to truncate the lower end of the bell curve. Here’s President Obama today: “Because while our economy has been growing for four years, and those at the top are doing better than ever, average wages have barely budged. Too many Americans are working harder than ever just to get by, let alone get ahead – and that’s been true since long before the recession hit. We’ve got to reverse those trends. We’ve got to build an economy that works for everyone, not just a fortunate few. And the opportunity agenda I laid out last week will help us do that.” And describing his agenda: “Number one: more new jobs.” So Obama has said, in as many words, that the goals of his policies are more jobs and economic gains for everyone rather than just the rich. This has nothing to do with historical goals. I’m discussing the goals that progressives, starting with the President, are specifically saying that they’re pursuing right now. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/31 "2014-02-09T04:54:40Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The other important point is the one I’ve already made. When I listen to progressives, starting with the President, I hear endless talk about how bad income inequality is. And I hear certain prescriptions: high minimum wage, unionization, taxing the rich, &c… &c… So it’s logical to ask whether or not these prescriptions actually cure the disease of income inequality. The fact that blue states like NY, CA or the northeast have higher income inequality is because as you and I and others have said, because there are more rich people in those states, more poor people, more upper class and upper middle class and fewer lower middle class. > **[Top states for millionaires per capita](https://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/15/top-states-for-millionaires-per-capita.html)** > > Virginia may be for lovers, but Maryland is for millionaires. Maryland has more millionaires per capita than any other state in the nation, according to new research. Of the top 10 states for millionaires (no idea why they consider DC a state), 7 are blue states, one is purple, one is red and the last is DC (which is more blue than Vermont). Vermont is a progressive state that does not have a large city with high cost of living, tech/cultural centers, a large underclass, etc. Their gini coefficient is in the lower half of the US’s. > **[List of U.S. states and territories by income inequality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient)** > > The United States has the greatest income disparity among developed nations. However, the inequality indicators vary considerably from state to state. States that have a high concentration of skilled jobs, implement regressive tax policies, or have weaker worker protections in general tend to have greater income inequalities. As of 2019, the highest inequality may be observed in Puerto Rico, around the New York City and Washington, D.C. metropolitan areas, across much of the Southern United St The fact that there is more income inequality in places with high costs of living and tech/culture centers that attract and create wealthy people doesn’t do anything to disprove the concepts that unions, social programs, higher minimum wage or progressive taxes would reduce income inequality. The issues are unrelated. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/32 "2014-02-09T05:26:18Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Here’s President Obama today: “Because while our economy has been growing for four years, and those at the top are doing better than ever, average wages have barely budged. Too many Americans are working harder than ever just to get by, let alone get ahead – and that’s been true since long before the recession hit. We’ve got to reverse those trends. We’ve got to build an economy that works for everyone, not just a fortunate few. And the opportunity agenda I laid out last week will help us do that.” And describing his agenda: “Number one: more new jobs.” So Obama has said, in as many words, that the goals of his policies are more jobs and economic gains for everyone rather than just the rich. This has nothing to do with historical goals. I’m discussing the goals that progressives, starting with the President, are specifically saying that they’re pursuing right now. A few thoughts: 1. That’s the president speaking today. If old policies did not achieve new objectives, that doesn’t mean they failed. Compare old polices with the goals that were current when those policies were enacted. If you want to measure how well new policies meet current objectives, you’re going to have to wait. 2. Income inequality is not the only measure of success. By several other standards, progressive states are doing quite well. 3. The states do not exist in a vacuum. The effects of federal policies (tax rates, etc.) and competition between states (such as luring companies to relocate) make it hard to isolate the causes of a single state’s performance. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/33 "2014-02-09T08:37:02Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The energy deregulation that California voters approved in the mid 90’s was certainly a disaster for the state. However, Enron went belly-up in 2002 and the energy crisis ended about the same time. I don’t have a lot of time here, but this is one other thing where you either don’t know what you are talking about or being intentionally misleading. In order to plug the budget hole caused by the deregulation crisis, we did a $15 billion bond issue which was estimated at the time to take between 9 and 15 years to pay off. I’m not sure if it’s been paid off (I’ll have to go look), but the fact that you don’t even know about the bond issue is a pretty clear indication that you have no idea what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/34 "2014-02-09T14:55:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > And describing his agenda: “Number one: more new jobs.” So Obama has said, in as many words, that the goals of his policies are more jobs and economic gains for everyone rather than just the rich. This has nothing to do with historical goals. I’m discussing the goals that progressives, starting with the President, are specifically saying that they’re pursuing right now. And how’s this a progressive agenda? Wasn’t the largely Republican Congress supposed to have a laser-like focus on jobs? You know, in those spare minutes between shutting down the government and voting against health care for millions? I’m pretty sure that if the Republicans stood up on their hind legs and said, in front of cameras, “We don’t want more jobs and economic gains for anyone except the rich.”, things would not go as well for them. Granted, the current Republican policies do guarantee that this is happening, but if they ever said it aloud, it would go over like a 47% lead balloon. So ostensibly, jobs and economic growth for everyone is a bi-partisan platform. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/35 "2014-02-09T15:16:02Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > If old policies did not achieve new objectives, that doesn’t mean they failed. I am surprised it took so long for someone to make this point. This is the critical objection to the original post. I will offer another: the effects of state policies cannot be a perfect predictor of the effect of federal policies because _people and corporations can move._ Progressive policies might result in greater income inequality in a state because rich people like living in progressive states for the cultural benefits and poor people for the social services (no, this is not offered as an in depth analysis). Similar federal policies might not have the same result because people are less likely to leave the country. Federal policies which do not support the accumulation of vast wealth would have a different effect that state polices. Furthermore, I would like the OPs evaluation of the [2013 State Health Rankings](http://www.americashealthrankings.org/rankings), which I think are a better indication of the effect of **state** policies. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/36 "2014-02-09T18:33:43Z")
> [@j666](#): > > I will offer another: the effects of state policies cannot be a perfect predictor of the effect of federal policies because _people and corporations can move._ This is the important thing - if a given policy makes it easier for inhabitant of a state to move out of poverty and into the middle class, that fact alone will attract more poor people from out-of-state, which will keep the raw numbers of poor v. middle class v. rich weighted towards the poor end of the scale, even while the policies are being wildly effective in helping class mobility and closing the income gap. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/37 "2014-02-10T19:12:36Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 1. That’s the president speaking today. If old policies did not achieve new objectives, that doesn’t mean they failed. Compare old polices with the goals that were current when those policies were enacted. If you want to measure how well new policies meet current objectives, you’re going to have to wait. Now we don’t. Consider a higher minimum wage, which the Democrats are demanding at the national level right now. They say that it will address income inequality. States like California and Massachusetts have high minimum wages. If a higher minimum wage addresses income inequality, then income inequality should be low in California and Massachusetts and other states with high minimum wages. Instead, income inequality is higher in those states than elsewhere. Was tackling income inequality not a goal when California and Massachusetts set their minimum wages? If so, what was their goal. ---
**Author:** ![Finagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b19c9b/32.png) [@Finagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Finagle)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/38 "2014-02-10T20:59:36Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Was tackling income inequality not a goal when California and Massachusetts set their minimum wages? If so, what was their goal. Making sure that people earning minimum wage could eat and afford housing? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/39 "2014-02-10T21:15:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Well, when I listen to the President and his allies, I hear them saying things like “income inequality is the defining issue of our time”, and also asserting that measures such as higher minimum wage and increases in transfer payments will address this issue. They also talk a lot of unemployment and promise that their measures will “create jobs”. So based on that, the claim seems to be that such measures will actually reduce income inequality and reduce unemployment. > > If the actual argument is that minimum wage and increased welfare payments won’t reduce income inequality or unemployment, but rather should be sought as ends in their own right, that would be avery different argument than what I’m actually hearing from Democratic leaders. What makes you think there’s any need to choose? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779/40 "2014-02-10T21:18:28Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The OP in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=715042) wanted to discuss what progressive ideas could be implemented by states, but not how progressive ideas already implemented have worked out. Hence I offer this new thread to discuss that issue. > > Which states are progressive? Rather than just listing “blue states”, many of which have Republican governors or legislatures, it seems better to look at states that currently vote for Democrats at all (or almost all) levels: President, Senate, most of their Congressional delegation, governor, and legislature. This, then, is a good list of progressive states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. Broadly speaking, this list of states has policies that would be recognized as progressive: high taxes, especially on the rich; powerful public-sector unions; high minimum wage; and so forth. There are exceptions–Washington state has no income tax, for instance–but generally it seems fair to call these states the progressive ones. > > So what are the results? Not terribly by good, by the measures that progressives themselves often mention. When states are ranked [by income inequality](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient), four of the seven most unequal are progressive states; none of the seven most equal are. In [unemployment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate), progressive states take three of the highest seven and only one of the lowest seven. And in poverty, [California ranks dead last](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21590933-americas-biggest-state-has-americas-biggest-poverty-problem-not-so-golden), once cost of living is accounted for. [Illegal drug use](http://www.businessinsider.com/15-maps-that-show-how-americans-use-drugs-2013-9) tends towards the high side. > > This is not to say that there may not be other measures by which those same states do quite well. But it should call into question the premise that progressive policies produce the results that progressives think they will. Take income inequality: everyone from the President on down tells us that high minimum wage, taxes on the rich, and strong unions will reduce income inequality. States like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California have those things, and have some of the highest income inequality in the country. As the Economist article mentions, California is driving away the middle class while attracting the rich and the poor. If you’re a hard-working middle class person, California offers you high taxes, high cost of living, heavy regulations, lousy schools, an overbearing nanny state, and every reason to believe that these problems will only get worse. It only makes sense to live in California if you’re either too rich to worry about work and taxes or too poor to worry about work and taxes. Is this a matter of some [concern](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=713380) to you? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-havent-progressive-ideas-in-california-and-elsewhere-produced-better-results/680779.md?page=3)