News that Rancho Santa Fe and other wealthy enclaves with reputations as water hogs will get hit with the maximum 36 percent reductions hasn’t appeared to reduce the anti-elite anger. Now along comes a New York Times story that explicitly frames the issue in Occupy vs. 1 percent terms.

COMPTON, Calif. — Alysia Thomas, a stay-at-home mother in this working-class city, tells her children to skip a bath on days when they do not play outside; that holds down the water bill. Lillian Barrera, a housekeeper who travels 25 miles to clean homes in Beverly Hills, serves dinner to her family on paper plates for much the same reason. In the fourth year of a severe drought, conservation is a fine thing, but in this Southern California community, saving water means saving money.

The challenge of California’s drought is starkly different in Cowan Heights, a lush oasis of wealth and comfort 30 miles east of here. That is where Peter L. Himber, a pediatric neurologist, has decided to stop watering the gently sloping hillside that he spent $100,000 to turn into a green California paradise, seeding it with a carpet of rich native grass and installing a sprinkler system fit for a golf course. But that is also where homeowners like John Sears, a retired food-company executive, bristle with defiance at the prospect of mandatory cuts in water use. …

David L. Feldman, who studies water policy at the University of California, Irvine, said a big risk for state water regulators would be if the public concluded that water-conservation policies were “falling disproportionately on those who are less able to meet those goals.”

But what the NYT story doesn’t capture is that the water issue appears to have more potential to have genuine populist consequences than Occupy, which never became a true mass movement. The more Californians are reminded that rich estates use more water on their lawns every day than do entire apartment buildings, the more irate they’re likely to be. That includes the middle-class families that the Times’ story didn’t cover.

Look for lawmakers with populist streaks to start proposing related legislation any day now.

“When you set aside the class-warfare rhetoric that Democrats so enjoy, the drivers of income inequality are plain. The first is rarely acknowledged. It’s the increasing tendency of highly educated professionals to marry each other. Doctors used to marry nurses. Now they marry other doctors, concentrating family wealth.

“The second is that the modern economy places an ever-higher premium on job skills, and yet we don’t have a public education system that responds to this fact. In 2013, how is it possible that a year or more of computer science isn’t a universal high school graduation requirement?

“It’s not just information-technology jobs going unfilled because of a mismatch between what schools teach and what employers need. In many skilled-job categories — welders, critical-care nurses, electrical linemen, special-education teachers, geotechnical engineers, respiratory therapists — unemployment is practically zero.

“So long as we have an absurdly complex tax code in which the amount that the very wealthy pay depends on the skill of their tax attorneys, the Occupy argument that the U.S. is rigged to help the rich will resonate with some. But this doesn’t address the disconnect between what our schools teach and what our economy needs.”

Liberal think tank: Higher job skills more rewarded than ever

Now the most venerable liberal think tank of all — the Brookings Institution, the one a Nixon aide wanted to firebomb — has released a study of big-city income inequality that makes some of the same points. This is from the L.A. Times’ write-up of the study:

“Los Angeles has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the nation, but that’s due in part to a relatively strong local economy that’s stoking the fortunes of higher-income people, according to a new study.

“Of the 50 largest U.S. cities, L.A. has the ninth-highest level of income disparity, according to the analysis by Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. …

“Inequality has become a flash point nationwide as the wealth of top earners surges while the middle and lower classes grapple with stubborn income stagnation. Politicians have clashed loudly on what’s driving the dichotomy, and what steps, if any, should be taken to reverse it.

“The study found, however, that rising inequality may simply be an unavoidable byproduct of robust local economies that plump the incomes of coveted workers.

“Fast-growing industries with highly paid employees — such as technology, finance and entertainment — tend to cluster in large metropolitan areas, said Alan Berube, a Brookings researcher who specializes in inequality. And the ongoing gentrification of many cities, such as in downtown Los Angeles, is drawing wealthier people.

“At the same time, big cities also draw large numbers of low-income people seeking lower-skilled jobs.”

Needed: a much smarter and more focused education system

Joel Kotkin, the shrewd Los Angeles Democratic futurist, points to the best approach to income inequality in his piece last week in New Geography:

“A pro-growth program today could take several forms that defy the narrow logic of both left and right. We can encourage the growth of high-wage, blue-collar industries such as construction, energy and manufacturing. We can also reform taxes so that the burdens fall less on employers and employees, as opposed to those who simply profit from asset inflation. And rather than impose huge tuitions on students who might not  finish with a degree that offers employment opportunities, let’s place new emphasis on practical skills training for both the new generation and those being left behind in this ‘recovery.'”

The problem facing this approach in California, alas, is that the state’s education status quo has fierce guardians. They don’t want sweeping change because it would cost many CTA and CFT members their jobs.

And given that the CTA and CFT are by far the most powerful forces in the state, this is an immense problem for those who want to do something more constructive about income inequality than tampering at the margins with pseudo-solutions like raising the minimum wage.

A new study undercuts Occupy-style rhetoric and adds nuance to a key public-policy debate.

A massive statistical analysis of upward and downward economic mobility in the United States that is getting big play on The New York Times website is loaded with fodder for interesting comments about American life. Here are the key conclusions drawn by David Leonhardt, the NYT’s often-excellent economics columnist/reporter:

“The study — based on millions of anonymous earnings records and being released this week by a team of top academic economists — is the first with enough data to compare upward mobility across metropolitan areas. These comparisons provide some of the most powerful evidence so far about the factors that seem to drive people’s chances of rising beyond the station of their birth, including education, family structure and the economic layout of metropolitan areas.

“Climbing the income ladder occurs less often in the Southeast and industrial Midwest, the data shows, with the odds notably low in Atlanta, Charlotte, Memphis, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus. By contrast, some of the highest rates occur in the Northeast, Great Plains and West, including in New York, Boston, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Seattle and large swaths of California and Minnesota.”

Not just Silicon Valley — San Diego, Sacramento and L.A., too

But Leonhardt doesn’t make enough of California’s singularity in this latter category. Included in the NYT package is a chart showing the likeliness of sharp upward economic mobility by city. The chances of a child who grew up in the bottom fifth of family income (less than $25,000 a year) ending up in the top fifth of family income (more than $107,000 a year) are better in California than anywhere in the U.S. Here are the Top 10 cities for sharp upward mobility:

1. San Jose

2. San Francisco

3. Seattle

4. San Diego

5. Pittsburgh

6. Sacramento

7. Boston

8. New York

9. Los Angeles

10. Washington D.C.

Six of the top nine cities are in California. In every one, at least one in 10 really poor kids ends up in the top fifth of income.

That certainly counters the Occupy-style rhetoric one encounters in the Golden State’s faculty  lounges and, too often, in newsrooms.

The value of impulse control — and the rise of ‘assortative mating’

But then the whole debate over income inequality in the U.S. has always been full of straw men, vapid class warfare and extreme rhetoric. The most significant gap in the U.S. isn’t between the wealthiest 1 percent and everyone else. As Charles Murray has documented, it’s between the 30 percent of people who tend to get married, avoid getting in trouble, value education and who have impulse control and the 70 percent of people who are less likely to have consistently positive habits and behavior.

There’s also assortative mating. The doctor no longer marries the nurse, the lawyer no longer marries the secretary. The doctor marries another doctor, the lawyer another lawyer, etc. Here’s a snippet of  The Economist’s excellent 2011 take on the rise of the “cognitive elite,” changing marriage patterns and other underemphasized facts about U.S. life.

“’Assortative mating’ further entrenches inequality. Highly educated men are much more likely to marry highly educated women than they were a generation ago. In 1970 only 9% of those with bachelors’ degrees in America were women, so the vast majority of men with such degrees married women who lacked them. Now the numbers are roughly even (in fact women are earning more degrees) and people tend to pair up with mates of a similar educational background.”

This is a profoundly important finding that shows more than anything else why Murray’s 30-70 gap is what matters, not the Occupy palaver. But it’s not nearly as good TV as saying the richest of the rich are out to subvert 99 percent of Americans for their own benefit.

]]> https://calwatchdog.com/2013/07/25/ca-residents-most-likely-to-go-from-poor-to-rich/feed/ 8 46581 https://calwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/live-like-youre-a-liberal/ https://calwatchdog.com/2012/03/20/live-like-youre-a-liberal/#comments Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:43:17 +0000 http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=27021 MARCH 20, 2012

Songs and books have been written about the importance of living every day as if it will be your last. While a seemingly noble concept, living out each day indulging in special moments and treats instead of addressing responsibilities could be seen as a little self-indulgent.

However, living as a liberal would be much more accepted and easier, far more self-satisfying and approved by the mass media.

Being a conservative in California is just too much work.

But before I fully tap into my inner liberal, I will need to practice dropping the f-bomb in casual conversation more frequently, brush up on making stinging personal attacks against people I dislike or disagree with and watch more vile television programs like “Two and a Half Men.”

Living like a liberal is going to be easy and fun, but the To-Do list is long.

It’s Time To Demand A Free Education

Because California needs one more smarmy, liberal lawyer, I plan on signing up for law school. To pay for tuition and books, as well as my considerable personal expenses while I attend, I will need massive student loans and all of the Cal-Grants I can get my hands on.

In order to qualify for the grants, I will have to dump my husband and quit my job. Life will be more enjoyable going to school instead of working, while maintaining a well-deserved and very active social life. The divorce will help seal the necessary indigence requirement for loan and grant qualification, since I am not considered part of a protected minority class.

Meet Your New Neighborhood Nanny

Because I know what’s best for all of my neighbors, friends and family, I will practice being everyone’s neighborhood nanny, beginning with turning in all of the fireplace-users and water violators in my neighborhood.

Next, I will lead the fight for water meter installation on every home in the city, usage limiters on the heating and air conditioning systems in each of the 6,000 homes in my neighborhood, as well as the requisite solar systems on the rooftops, and home water storage and recycling systems.

Every neighbor should be composting, as well.

While I will work to make sure that tiny, white twinkle lights are still allowed on homes during the generic winter holiday, no Nativity scenes, plastic Santas or Frostys will be allowed.

This neighborhood nanny will work to ban all political signs from neighbors’ lawns, because isn’t everyone who matters already liberal?

It’s All About ‘Green’

I will buy a Chevy Volt — no, I’ll buy a Tesla. I am worth the best. I will just add the $109,000 onto my student loans. The carbon offset credits from the purchase should cover me until 2050.

I will shame my “ex-husband” into dumping his SUV. He can drive a Prius like everyone else in the neighborhood.

The Journalist In Me

I will subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post, and start out every day listening to NPR for daily liberal talking points, and voting tips.

I will no longer need to do my own research on important economic trends, energy independence, social issues or global warming.  Like all other liberals, I will be able to get up every morning and get my fill of liberal politics fed to me as I eat my daily ration of organic multi-grain cereal with pesticide-free banana slices.

Tapping My Inner Vegan

Since I am already a vegetarian, it’s time to force my righteously healthy eating habits on everyone I encounter. It is not enough to make a scene in a restaurant when demanding special preparation of my food orders, it’s time to demand that restaurants feed everyone the way I eat.

Dreamy Social Issues

As a soon-to-be-liberal-lawyer-in-training, I plan on practicing manipulation of the law, and will demand that the government take care of everyone who wants or needs all social services.

The environment — especially the coast — will take precedence over the people of California.  We must save the ocean, save the whales, save the spotted owl, save the desert tortoise, save the Delta Smelt, save the Redwoods and Sequoias and save Malibu and Carmel while we’re at it.

Animals and prisoners have rights too. And state employees deserve their own Bill of Rights.

The Occupier In Me

Note to self: Meet up with local Occupiers to protest for a free education, free healthcare coverage, a free home, free transportation and free coffee from Starbuck’s.

Removal of the Conservative Outer Layer

The need to liberate my stodgy, conservative self is overpowering. I vow to give away my sensible dresses and slacks in exchange for more grungy, man-of-the-people clothes. Then I will stop wearing makeup, nail polish and hair products that are tested on laboratory animals. I will replace my fascist gold earrings with grommets. I’ll pierce my nose, lip, and cheek and get a sleeve of tattoos on my left arm … because I am left-handed.

The best part of this fashion change is that I won’t have to do laundry as frequently, and jewelry changes will be nil.

Liberal Mom Redux

I am going to need to talk my son into quitting the Navy. I don’t know how a kid who attended Montessori School in kindergarten found his way into the Navy.

I must have fed him too much meat when he was a child.

Rebirth As A Feminist

Becoming a card-carrying feminist should be the most fun part of being liberal: 1) Always play the victim; 2) Attack conservative women for their lofty morals and disciplined work ethic; 3) Be mean to other women; 4) Be meaner to men; 5) Hate myself for having a uterus; 6) Turn my boy children into wimps; 7) Replace husband with a girlfriend.

Tax The Rich

As an angry, activist, feminist lawyer, I will pursue changes to the tax code requiring the 1 percenters to pay more than their fair share of taxes. The rich have been enjoying their money for too long, and need to spread some of that love around.

Crass Is Cool

Lastly, I am going to contact talk radio hosts across America, and convince them to become comedians — or at least call themselves comedians. Once everyone knows they are comedians, they can say anything they want — crass, gross, disgusting, distasteful and vulgar things — and get away with it. They wouldn’t even have to be funny.

As a liberal, I’ll be able to talk like a sailor anywhere I want. I might even start watching Bill Maher without recoiling in disgust.

Rebirth as a liberal is going to be fun and easier. And maybe, just maybe, some of my old friends and dinner party acquaintances will start talking to me again. Sometimes I miss being part of the über-popular crowd.

— Katy Grimes