Um, so he admits the 2011 plan for economic recovery was his plan, and the result is a California with massive income inequality.
" When I was sworn in as Lieutenant Governor in January 2011, California was in the throes of the deepest recession in our lifetime. On day one, I got to work bringing together economists, business leaders, labor leaders and local officials resulting in “ California’s Economic Growth and Competitiveness Agenda” , the first statewide economic development plan in over a decade."
“But for too many, our economic recovery has become a spectator sport. California is both the richest and poorest state. Eight million Californians find themselves below the poverty line. Nearly two million children — one in five — live in poverty. We’re witnessing staggering levels of income and wealth inequality.”
“Consider this: In 1990, the revenues of Detroit’s Big Three automakers totaled $250 billion while employing 1.2 million people, according to a McKinsey Global Institute study. By comparison, Silicon Valley’s top three companies in 2014 had almost the same revenues before adjusting for inflation — $247 billion — but with 137,000 employees, they required a workforce just one-tenth the size.”
No wonder investors love tech and the employees can have such high pay.
Come on, Gavin, how about abolishing rent control in the state of Cali for your first act??? You’re a businessman who sees the issues and causes. Do it. I dare you…
California is just ahead of the national curve. What the CA Republicans found out about Prop 187 20 odd years ago, the national GOP is just toying with right now.
The nation will be ready for President Hair in 2032.
Massive rich/poor gap comes about because the rich in CA, think highly skilled workers in tech, are so valuable they make so much more money than everyone else.
Winners-take-all in tech also apply to income to a certain extent. So yes, it’s been the future for a while now.
You don’t see the irony that the most liberal places experience the largest growth in the rich/poor gap? The places with the policies that are supposed to prevent it actually make it grow. Meanwhile, places like Texas with polices that are supposed to benefit the rich while hurting the poor actually have a much smaller rich/poor gap. If we measure by actual results, one would reach the conclusion that people concerned about rich/poor gap should be more Texas and less like California.
CA shoots itself in the foot with its housing policy. But other than that, the rich/poor gap is a natural outcome of rising wealth. It’s standard economics rising income => rising inequality. I bet Texas’s Gini coefficient also rose over time. But because it has less of the high income industry like tech it’s not as rich so tend to be less unequal.
I wasn’t talking about policies in this thread. My observation is just that CA leads the nation in all sorts of ways, and demographics and therefore politics is one of them. Don’t forget the Reagan revolution started with Nixon and Reagan in CA before it spread out to the rest of the nation. CA GOP tempted with fate in Prop 187 and has forever been in exile since. Same thing will happen to the national GOP.
“ However, a 2018 study questioned the conventional wisdom that Proposition 187 led to an abrupt realignment in Latino voters’ political preferences.[31]
Conservative group Eagle Forum instead argues that immigration, whether legal or not, made California’s electorate more liberal.[32]Fred Bauer of National Review **concurs, adding that Democrats have usually controlled both branches of the California state legislature since the 1960s and that the Democratic Party has had consistently strong support among both white and Hispanic voters in California.[**33] Bill Whalen, a former aide to Wilson, in an article for Forbes , noted that Proposition 187 was popular among voters and that Republican struggles in California are partly due to women gradually moving away from the party for other reasons, particularly reproductive rights.[34] Whalen also cited Schwarzenegger’s reelection as governor in 2006, in which he won 39% of the votes cast by Latinos, as evidence that Proposition 187 did not harm Republicans’ chances of being elected in California.[34] Writing after Schwarzenegger’s 2003 recall election victory, Debra J. Saunders of The Weekly Standard noted that he won the election despite voting for Proposition 187, which other publications had claimed would seriously jeopardize his bid.[35]”
We now have that experiment again on the national scale. Let’s see if Trump and GOP’s anti-immigrant stand will cost them anything in the coming years. My bet is that it will.
I agree CA GOP’s problems was not just because of Prop 187. But Prop 187 completely poisoned their brand in the eyes of non-whites, to such a degree whatever policy they proposed it’s an automatic “No”.
Prop 187 was declared unconstitutional because immigration is federal policy and it’s outside California’s authority. Not sure whether state specific immigration policy today has the same issue.
In 1994, California was the harshest against illegal immigration. Today we are the most liberal.
It’ll take a few years for the constitutional legal case to reach the final conclusion.
Democrats were anti illegal immigration a few years ago. I posted how in 2013 Schumer was agaisnt illegwl immigration and cosponsored a bill with funding for a fence. He even said it would make the country more secure. There’s an older video of Feinstein calling for a more secure border and quoting how much illegals cost California tax payers. It’s pretty sad that democrats are now willing to screw citizens to buy future votes. Even sadder is they’ve convinced a majority of California citizens to go along with it.
I wonder how many illegals need to kill a cop before democrats care. They’ve arrested 7 accomplices for the last one, and all 7 are here illegally. Not a word about it from Harris, Pelosi, or Feinstein. Oh, but Harris made some anti police tweets. I forget in California illegals are the heroes and cops are the villains. We should just route 911 calls to illegals then.
Yeah, that’s a great idea only the data says you’re wrong. I’m sure a human that can sneak in illegally could never figure out how to sneak in guns illegally. They’d simply not have guns because of the law. Sort of like they’d never enter the country illegaly or kill someone.
