California as Alt-America
9th January 2017
Joel Kotkin makes some observations.
In 1949 the historian Carey McWilliams defined California as the “the Great Exception” — a place so different from the rest of America as to seem almost a separate country. In the ensuing half-century, the Golden State became not so much exceptional but predictive of the rest of the nation: California’s approaches to public education, the environment, politics, community-building and lifestyle often became national standards, and even normative.
More’s the pity.
Ironically, the state’s policies, which place strong controls on development, road construction, and energy production and usage, are somewhat symbolic; by dint largely of its mild climate, the state is already far more energy efficient than the rest of the country. But to achieve its ambitious new goals, most serious observers suggest, the state would lose at least 100,000 jobs and further boost energy prices — which disproportionately affect the poorer residents who predominate in the state’s beleaguered, and less temperate, interior.
The impact of these policies would be far-reaching. They have already reduced outside investment in manufacturing to minuscule levels and could cost California households an average of $3,000 annually. Such economic realities no longer influence many California policymakers but they could prove a boon to other states, notably Texas, Arizona and Nevada, which make a sport of hunting down California employers.
Eventually Caliornia will find out what failed states such as those in Eastern Europe found out before them: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
According to the most recent Social Science Research Council report, the state overall suffers the greatest levels of income inequality in the nation; the Public Policy Institute places the gap well over 10 percent higher than the national average.
Isn’t it funny that the most Democrat places in the country — New York, California — are also the poster children for ‘income inequality’? I wonder why that is? Hmm, let me think….