Okay, yes. It seems that you and I are in agreement. Most of the progressive states are as you describe: relatively large populations of rich people, compared to the nation as a whole. Given how much I hear progressives ranting against the rich, “the one percent”, and so forth, it’s rather unexpected to see someone now saying that the blue states have lots of millionaires and implying that this is the result of progressive policies.
That, and you don’t mention poverty. California has the nation’s highest poverty rate, when cost of living is accounted for.
The majority of minimum wage earners are either under 25 or over 65, and the vast majority involve part-time jobs. 62 percent of minimum wage earners are enrolled in school. Nearly all minimum wage earners have housing and food to eat, often provided by other family members (parents or spouses). Only 2.9 percent of workers earn the minimum wage or less, and a significant portion of these work jobs where they earn tips. Minimum wage laws are irrelevant to most employers and employees, as even unskilled workers can easily make more than minimum wage if they dutifully show up for work and show even a modicum of diligence.
I think there are other threads on the minimum wage debate, but in your above statistics, you should note that it’s * Federal * minimum wage. Also, do the statistics include people earning five or ten cents an hour over minimum wage?
If minimum wage laws are irrelevant to most employers, why are people fighting the notion of raising minimum so fiercely? And why are you dismissive of people over 65 earning minimum wage? Do you think they’re working for fun?
I can’t even comprehend your arguments here. You picked out a list of some of the 13 or so most desirable states to live in, climate excluded, and then are wondering why rich people would choose to live and work there?
Your entire premise seems horribly flawed. It’s essentially “look at this list of quintessentially desirable places to live – why have their policies failed so dramatically?”
When did I say that I was wondering why rich people would choose to live there? I don’t recall saying any such thing.
I was wondering why progressives have the stated goal of reducing income inequality, yet in states like California and Massachusetts we see progressive policies and some the nation’s highest income inequality. I’m wondering why anyone would believe that these policies lower income inequality, rather than raising it.
I certainly don’t see those 13 states as being “quintessentially desirable”.
Minimum wage laws are irrelevant to most employers on a primary basis, as they don’t employ workers at minimum wage. But it’s still an important topic from an economic standpoint, as it is inflationary and adds pressure to increase wages for all workers. In short, minimum wage laws can be benign if they are lower than the natural cost of labor for given jobs in a given location, or they can be damaging to the economy. But they can never be beneficial.
Both of my kids, who are in college, make more than minimum wage and got raises because they show up for work and don’t goof off. I see the same with their friends who aren’t fuckoffs. I’m talking about dollars, but not tens of dollars. I’m still talking about menial, entry-level jobs, after all. And I live in a geographical area where wages are low, so I have to assume it’s easier to make significantly more where the cost of living is high.
Oh, by the way, you should look into the "Gini Coefficient"you cite as a measure of income inequality. Check out the section on limitations. You shouldn’t be reading all that much into a single number – it’s totally possibly for your “progressive states” to have a higher Gini number but a lower level of absolute poverty.
Or maybe I didn’t mention the bond issue because it’s so small that it’s barely worth mentioning. The state’s budget is almost $100 billion. Long term liabilities, as we’ve already seen, are over $1 trillion. How much of that goes to paying off the bond issue from the energy crisis? Given the answers, citing the energy crisis as a major cause of California’s current fiscal trouble just doesn’t hold water.
I’ve been away so let me sum up this thread since I last posted.
ITR Champion: Progressive states are bad because of reasons that I’ve cherrypicked out of all the data. This is because of policies pursued by Democrats even in states when Republicans have been in power. This has nothing to do with structural issues that are dependent on those states’ differences from other states. Any good things about those states can be handwaved away because they don’t support my argument. The advantages of those states over other states with less progressive policies is also to be ignored.
Everybody Else: The flaws in your argument are obvious.
ITR Champion: In rebuttal, let me say that Progressive states are bad because of reasons that I’ve cherrypicked out of all the data. This is because of policies pursued by Democrats even in states when Republicans have been in power. This has nothing to do with structural issues that are dependent on those states’ differences from other states. Any good things about those states can be handwaved away because they don’t support my argument. The advantages of those states over other states with less progressive policies is also to be ignored.
Under Pat Brown, we were probably at our most ‘liberal’, and the state did great, foremostly through really good quality, very affordable public education. We spent money no, and had great, infrastructure. Conservatives have damaged our state significantly, through the energy debacle, Arnold recalling a competent if unspectacular Governor by promising rebates on the car tax (in typical conservative economics, that was supposed to pay for itself, but left a gaping wound in the budget instead). The conservatives cried when we had a surplus “It’s your money!” rather than allowing the creation of a rainy day fund, so we weathered the recent recession much more poorly and had to cut public services, including my beloved education system, to the bone.
To sum up, things got much worse under two Repub governors, Reagan and Schwarzenegger. Things are trending much better now with Jerry Brown.
How to explain California’s budget problems? The most common response I hear is to ignore them. The second most common is to blame Arnold Schwarzenegger and his evil, conservative tax cuts. Of course Arnold didn’t recall Gov. Davis; the voters of California did that. And of course there were large Democratic majorities in both houses of the Legislature throughout his terms as governor, so no conservative legislation had any chance of getting passed. But let’s ignore those facts for the moment.
The problem with this explanation is that during Arnold’s term as governor, the state government’s revenues increased. They didn’t decrease. Even when we account for inflation and population growth, they increased. So Arnold’s evil tax cuts did not put “a gaping hole in the budget”. What put a gaping hole in the budget was that spending was increasing much faster than revenue was. (Cite, PDF warning)
"For Arnold Schwarzenegger, two very early decisions as governor helped force him into the budget box he found himself in Friday, where the only moves he dared make were, he said, personally painful. Those two fateful moves were:
First, cutting the vehicle license fee, or “car tax.” Ironically for Schwarzenegger, it counted as a spending increase, costing roughly $5 billion annually. That’s because local governments, not the state, had banked the VLF revenue, and Sacramento graciously reimbursed them for their loss.
Second, the new governor used his star power to persuade the Legislature — it wasn’t hard — and the voters to borrow $15 billion to pay not only for inherited debt, but the initial car tax cut and other daily expenses. The state still is paying off those bonds and the money’s long gone. The annual cost: $1.2 billion."
So we see the vehicle tax cut cost the State approximately**** $5 billion per year.****