Current Events > California's Left doubles down on the policies that made the state the poorest

(+) Yeah! (+)

divot1338 posted...

Personally, it seems to try and group too much information into one ranking to give accurate information.

oh okay, so why did you want to use the OPM to say California is awesome even though it suffers from the same problem?

divot1338 posted...

Because you cant equate what you get for housing in Mississippi versus California if all you do is count housing costs. The schools, jobs, everything is better in California. This number penalizes the state for the cost and ignores any of that.

It doesn't just count housing costs. It includes the cost of housing, among other variables, which are neglected by the official poverty measure.

divot1338 posted...

And Im sure you can give us a reason to use it over the more accurate and commonly referenced straight poverty rate. Other than you just want to to troll some libs.

What do you mean "more accurate"? Literally no one thinks the OPM is an accurate measure of poverty. It is commonly referenced because it is used to fund various different programs and to measure program eligibility. That doesn't make it more accurate.

There are lots of reasons to prefer the SPM.

https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/policy-brief/supplemental-poverty-measure-better-measure-poverty-america

The OPM is set based on average food costs, adjusted for inflation, from the 1950s.

Although Orshansky developed her measure of poverty based on the best data available at that time, the question is if it provides a clear picture of how economic, social, and policy changes affect economic need in the United States today. The official poverty rates may in fact lead us to believe that public spending on the poor had little effect (Blank, 2008, p. 238).
In the early 1990s, Congress commissioned a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to address key shortcomings of the official measure. In early 2010, the Obama administration adopted the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) that largely follows the methods recommended by the NAS Panel.
Following the Panels recommendations, the SPM defines poverty as the lack of economic resources for consumption of basic needs such as food, housing, clothing, and utilities (FCSU). To determine family resources, gross money income from private and public sources is supplemented with benefits such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and tax credits. Deducted from family income are medical out-of-pocket expenses including health insurance premiums, income and Social Security payroll taxes, child support payments, work-related expenses and child care costs.
Instead of using a food plan, the SPM poverty thresholds are based on expenditures on FCSU plus a small amount to allow for additional expenses. These thresholds are further adjusted for different family sizes and compositions, housing status, and geographic differences in housing costs (Short, 2012).

---

FrozenXylophone posted...

Has the highest poverty rate actually.

SuperShake666 posted...

We have a GDP higher than the entire UK, is TC from some alternate dimension?

So... a liberal utopia apparently has absurd wealth inequity.
Huh.

divot1338 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

creativerealms posted...

But California is one of the richest states.

Yes, but it consistently has the highest poverty rate if you use the Supplemental Poverty Measure, because the SPM includes things like housing costs in setting the poverty threshold

Consistently since 2011 when it was first used you mean.

The idea that Mississippi gets a bump up because of its low cost of living is questionable given that you still have to live in the most backwards state i. the country.

And to rank California lower because its expensive doesnt really pass the smell test when youre averaging such a huge population. Particularly when you get to live in a place with better everything than Mississippi.

What a bunch of bullshit.

The tech boom in California has brought hordes of high income people from around the world, creating the demand for housing. Not all of the homeless/low income here are drug addicts, they're people who were living here normally until they couldn't afford to.
California's income disparity is worse than mexicos.
---

Theres a reason the traditional ranking is still the official poverty measure used to allocate funds and services and SPM is literally supplemental.

They show information in different ways but there are serious questions as to whether the SPM results are valid.

As should be the case when someone tries to say that California has more poverty than Mississippi. That statement alone should raise questions as to its validity.
---

divot1338 posted...

Theres a reason the traditional ranking is still the official poverty measure used to allocate funds and services and SPM is literally supplemental.

Go ahead and explain that reason to me.

---

Californians aren't so much "poor" as they are house-poor. It's easy to move out of the state if you're already a homeowner but not so easy to move in.
---

Balrog0 posted...

divot1338 posted...

Theres a reason the traditional ranking is still the official poverty measure used to allocate funds and services and SPM is literally supplemental.

Go ahead and explain that reason to me.

Fortunately I dont need to explain again.

The Official Poverty Measure is the old version which says its Mississippi. You can explain why you think this other supplemental version is better if you want to keep insisting California is poorest. Even though it is not.
---

divot1338 posted...

Fortunately I dont need to explain.

Well, obviously not, you can claim anything you want without backing it up. It's a free country.

divot1338 posted...

The Official Poverty Measure is the old version which says its Mississippi. You can explain why you think this other supplemental version is better if you want to keep insisting California is poorest. Even though it is not.

I already did explain why it's better; because instead of basing poverty on inflation-adjusted food budgets from 55 years ago, it includes current-day measurements of other costs that are more important to family budgets today, like medical expenses, housing costs and utilities. It also includes after-tax transfers that are important if you want to look at what impact safety net programs have on poverty.

But this is a good example of someone sticking to a measurement they like for political reasons rather than factual reasons, which BTW is why the OPM hasn't changed (because it is a political issue about how money is allocated, not because there is an actual policy reason to prefer the OPM)

---

CA has the 5th largest economy in the world. I'll take my chances my in Cali over a shithole like Mississippi anyday of the week.

---

Balrog0 posted...

divot1338 posted...

Fortunately I dont need to explain.

Well, obviously not, you can claim anything you want without backing it up. It's a free country.

divot1338 posted...

The Official Poverty Measure is the old version which says its Mississippi. You can explain why you think this other supplemental version is better if you want to keep insisting California is poorest. Even though it is not.

I already did explain why it's better; because instead of basing poverty on inflation-adjusted food budgets from 55 years ago, it includes current-day measurements of other costs that are more important to family budgets today, like medical expenses, housing costs and utilities. It also includes after-tax transfers that are important if you want to look at what impact safety net programs have on poverty.

But this is a good example of someone sticking to a measurement they like for political reasons rather than factual reasons, which BTW is why the OPM hasn't changed (because it is a political issue about how money is allocated, not because there is an actual policy reason to prefer the OPM)

So youre saying its a conspiracy against your report.

Cool.
---

divot1338 posted...

So youre saying its a conspiracy against your report.

Cool.

Nope, not at all. Nice try, though.

---

California isnt poor.

The wealth is just safely nestled in the arms of the white liberal elitists who run it is all.

abolish landlords and we can finally enter a post-rent utopia
---

AlephZero posted...

abolish landlords and we can finally enter a post-rent utopia

Only if we can abolish police and let communities run their own unarmed community guard instead

so wait, we're saying that california's poverty rate is high because the influx of wealthy people is making housing too expensive, and OP is using that metric also?

that seems to be in strong opposition to his claim that rent controls and other attempts to make housing less expensive would make poverty worse
---

Sackgurl posted...

so wait, we're saying that california's poverty rate is high because the influx of wealthy people is making housing too expensive, and OP is using that metric also?

that seems to be in strong opposition to his claim that rent controls and other attempts to make housing less expensive would make poverty worse

He's saying that rent control will make the housing crisis worse, not better.

which is a contestable position, though as I indicated earlier it isn't just right wing economists that think this is true

---

Balrog0 posted...

divot1338 posted...

Fortunately I dont need to explain.

Well, obviously not, you can claim anything you want without backing it up. It's a free country.

divot1338 posted...

The Official Poverty Measure is the old version which says its Mississippi. You can explain why you think this other supplemental version is better if you want to keep insisting California is poorest. Even though it is not.

I already did explain why it's better; because instead of basing poverty on inflation-adjusted food budgets from 55 years ago, it includes current-day measurements of other costs that are more important to family budgets today, like medical expenses, housing costs and utilities. It also includes after-tax transfers that are important if you want to look at what impact safety net programs have on poverty.

But this is a good example of someone sticking to a measurement they like for political reasons rather than factual reasons, which BTW is why the OPM hasn't changed (because it is a political issue about how money is allocated, not because there is an actual policy reason to prefer the OPM)

I trust Balrog. He is in politics.

Spooking posted...

BTW, it isn't a housing issue

No I'm pretty sure a state attracting tons of people by creating tons of high paying jobs, and then not buiding any new housing is the definition of a housing issue.

Spooking posted...

A lot of them are fleeing to Austin, TX and bringing their terrible polices with them.

Rich people are moving to CA, not out of it.

scar the 1 posted...

Supposing you still want private actors to build and rent, I don't see why you couldn't compensate that disincentive with incentive for building new housing. Make the investment less painful to motivate the lower return.

Creating a regulation that would disincentivize new housing and then passing some kind of government handout to landlords to make up for that sounds like a right-wing parody of how government works. It's better to just not do the dumb thing in the first place.

Btw divot, the article saying California is #1 in poverty rate

Is a Californian newspaper.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-poverty-rate-20180913-htmlstory.html

Media bias checker gives them a good rating.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/san-diego-union-tribune/

But we are to believe they hate Cali and want to use a bad measure of poverty?
Spare me.

Cali makes the rest of the union appear as fools
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Id like to hear more suggestions for how to alleviate the housing and poverty problem in California.

Build more housing. It really is that simple. Two people looking for housing with one unit on the market gives landlords the advantage. One person looking for housing with two units on the market gives renters the advantage.

Again, while demand to live in CA is high, the supply is kept artificially low because of the terrible zoning laws in this country. There are tons of real estate developers eager to build new housing in the state and lots of places to develop, but they run into NIMBYism every single time. This is how hard it is to build something in this country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4" data-time="

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Build more housing. It really is that simple. Two people looking for housing with one unit on the market gives landlords the advantage. One person looking for housing with two units on the market gives renters the advantage.

Again, while demand to live in CA is high, the supply is kept artificially low because of the terrible zoning laws in this country. There are tons of real estate developers eager to build new housing in the state and lots of places to develop, but they run into NIMBYism every single time. This is how hard it is to build something in this country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4" data-time="

Even if you don't trust private housing developers, a better idea would be to build social housing or fully fund various low-income housing programs, etc through direct public investment and ownership. I feel like rent control is preferred politically because you can do it without a direct expenditure on the books.

---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

Id like to hear more suggestions for how to alleviate the housing and poverty problem in California.

Build more housing. It really is that simple. Two people looking for housing with one unit on the market gives landlords the advantage. One person looking for housing with two units on the market gives renters the advantage.

Again, while demand to live in CA is high, the supply is kept artificially low because of the terrible zoning laws in this country. There are tons of real estate developers eager to build new housing in the state and lots of places to develop, but they run into NIMBYism every single time. This is how hard it is to build something in this country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4" data-time="

It's the same problem in the UK. Excessive housing regulation leads to a developer shortage, so they try to regulate prices which leads to an even bigger shortage, and then when there are no homes to buy they just blame the rich.
---

it is interesting that in the area of healthcare we leaned fully on subsidies with minimal price controls and did the opposite with housing

neither seems to work very well on their own
---

Not really an expert on rent control, but it's always touted as a good idea in the bay. Never really thought about it halting production on new houses.

---

Slaya4 posted...

Not really an expert on rent control, but it's always touted as a good idea in the bay. Never really thought about it halting production on new houses.

It's an uncontroversial view in economics. Economists across the political spectrum largely agree that rent control does nothing but make housing shortages worse, increasing prices for everyone except the very small minority that live in the same place without moving for decades.
---

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Build more housing. It really is that simple.

How is this difficult for some people to understand? It's extremely basic.

Balrog0 posted...

Sackgurl posted...

so wait, we're saying that california's poverty rate is high because the influx of wealthy people is making housing too expensive, and OP is using that metric also?

that seems to be in strong opposition to his claim that rent controls and other attempts to make housing less expensive would make poverty worse

He's saying that rent control will make the housing crisis worse, not better.

which is a contestable position, though as I indicated earlier it isn't just right wing economists that think this is true

I mean I agree that rent control on its own would probably be pretty bad. Like any policy change, it needs to be coupled with other changes to even remotely make sure that the intended effect will take place. It's an incredibly complex system and anyone who believes you can tweak just one parameter and achieve a linear outcome seems naive in my eyes.
---

AlephZero posted...

abolish landlords and we can finally enter a post-rent utopia

That's a bad idea however, California needs to build affordable housing effective immediately.
---

I mean there's a pretty big difference between "this will do the opposite of what it is intended to do" and "this might not achieve its stated purpose"

---

the thing about rent control, why I say I'm agnostic about it despite the near unanimity among economists about it, is that it's actually really difficult to find an unbiased account of the research; Lindbeck is often called a leftist or socialist by american economists, but within the context of his country he seems to be pretty right leaning and has some explicit intellectual connections with Buchanan, who we would call a libertarian. And even the quote from Myrdal is only found cited by a piece from Sven Rydenfelt, who is an explicitly libertarian economist. The citation is for "Opening Address to the Council of International Building Research in Copenhagen," and I have no way of verifying its accuracy

other than that, its mostly industry white papers that I can find that give a 'good' literature review on the issue

when you start looking more deeply into it than the economics 101 textbooks, you find that modern day rent control policies are more accurately referred to as rent stabilization policies, and this calls into question the applicability of prior research, and that the impacts empirically are mixed

e.g.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99646/rent_control._what_does_the_research_tell_us_about_the_effectiveness_of_local_action_1.pdf

Although rent control has generally been found to have positive effects for residents in controlled units, these benefits may be offset by negative effects on the uncontrolled sector, which may see increased rents caused by constrained supply. Empirical work has found this effect at work in some locales with rent control. Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2018) find that San Franciscos 1994 rent control law was directly responsible for a 5.1 percent citywide rent increase from 1995 to 2012, adding up to an extra $2.9 billion cost shared by current and future San Francisco renters. This matches the $2.9 billion that tenants in rent-controlled units received in benefits from the policy, and the authors note that this is a trade-off between benefits accruing to current residents and costs accruing to future ones. Likewise, a study of New Yorks rent-control policy finds that it increased rent in the uncontrolled sector (Early 2000). However, two studies of a 1994 decontrol initiative in Cambridge, MA, find that rent control actually reduced rents in the uncontrolled sector (Autor, Palmer, and Pathak 2014; Sims 2007). Authors in these studies argue that this was caused by spillover effects: landlords of controlled units were less likely to pay for upkeep, causing nearby uncontrolled units to decrease in value. This meant that the benefits of lower rents (even for units in the uncontrolled sector) came at the cost of quality deterioration.

Of course, this last finding isn't outside the realm of possibility from the persepctive of the anti-rent control side. But I think it undercuts their overall argument, which is that rent control reduces supply and increases demand, which should crowd out the maintenance problem -- especially for units which are only nearby dilapidated units and not dilapidated themselves

Now all of this combined does lead me to be skeptical of rent control efforts and to think that there are better policies to address the issue. But its a topic in which I feel people have ceded to expert authority without actually delving into the research. I've gotten libertarian economists really mad at me just because I ask for a non-ideological literature review that shows how devastating rent control is and I've never really been given a satisfactory answer

---

Balrog0 posted...

I've gotten libertarian economists really mad at me just because I ask for a non-ideological literature review that shows how devastating rent control is and I've never really been given a satisfactory answer

All I can give you is that Cato thing, and it's pretty damn biased.

Questionmarktarius posted...

All I can give you is that Cato thing, and it's pretty damn biased.

I mean, it's probably fine! I like Cato. I also hate to sound like one of those people that go, oh a Fox news link, disregard it! I'm not trying to disregard it. It's just that I know enough about the think tank world to want a couple of independent verification before I'm totally on board, especially when very few of the pieces I encounter really specify what they mean by rent control (as distinguished from rent stabilization etc)

---

Balrog0 posted...

especially when very few of the pieces I encounter really specify what they mean by rent control (as distinguished from rent stabilization etc)

They're the same damn thing, as far as I can tell.
Rents still go up, but there's a mathematical limit as to how much. Incidentally, that de jure ceiling tends to become the de facto floor.

Questionmarktarius posted...

They're the same damn thing, as far as I can tell.
Rents still go up, but there's a mathematical limit as to how much. Incidentally, that de jure ceiling tends to become the de facto floor.

That's like saying usury laws are the same thing as banning lending entirely. Usury laws do have unintended consequences, but it's not the same thing as eliminating loans entirely

---

User Info: pls

Novice User
User Since: Oct 2017
Karma: 43
Active Posts: 33

---

The state with the most hypocrisy...

Washpo looking a lot like Cato for some reason:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/15/comeback-rent-control-just-time-make-housing-shortages-worse/

Declining housing stock is just one of the many potential costs of rent controls; others include a deteriorating housing stock as landlords stop investing in their properties, and higher rents. Yes, higher, because rent control creates a two-tier housing market. There are cheap, price-stabilized apartments that rarely turn over, because why would you give up such a great deal? Then there are the uncontrolled apartments, which everyone else in the city has to fight over, bidding up the price.

Oooo, and here's were the opposite of the intended effect happens:

Theres no means test for rent-stabilized housing, and while the average income of people in New Yorks rent-stabilized apartments is somewhat lower than that of people in market-rate housing, a recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal showed that the people getting the biggest benefit are white, affluent Manhattanites who presumably landed the apartments decades ago and held on while rents rose around them.