Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?

S

Sailor

Verified User
This is an Op Ed well worth the read. Direct and to the point, states its facts nicely. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

Here is one part that caught my eye. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls."
 
Sailor said:
This is an Op Ed well worth the read. Direct and to the point, states its facts nicely. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

Here is one part that caught my eye. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls."
Click to expand...

It is based upon "Supplemental Poverty levels" which takes into account cost of living expenses, given Calfornia's housing costs alone, or any expense State, the levels will be higher than say a State as Kansas, the poor guy in Calofornia would live comfortably in many other States
 
Sailor said:
This is an Op Ed well worth the read. Direct and to the point, states its facts nicely. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

Here is one part that caught my eye. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls."
Click to expand...

Indeed, it strayed far from original intentions of 'temporary' assistance. It has become a racket and a way to suppress people to believe they have no worth and should remain victims while the cruel "benefactors" get to look down at them from their high perches with their own good jobs and benefits.
 
Stretch said:
Indeed, it strayed far from original intentions of 'temporary' assistance. It has become a racket and a way to suppress people to believe they have no worth and should remain victims while the cruel "benefactors" get to look down at them from their high perches with their own good jobs and benefits.
Click to expand...

Yes. That seems to be a real problem all over this country, not just CA.
 
archives said:
It is based upon "Supplemental Poverty levels" which takes into account cost of living expenses, given Calfornia's housing costs alone, or any expense State, the levels will be higher than say a State as Kansas, the poor guy in Calofornia would live comfortably in many other States
Click to expand...

The whole story explains that quite nicely. It lays out all the causes.
 
archives said:
It is based upon "Supplemental Poverty levels" which takes into account cost of living expenses, given Calfornia's housing costs alone, or any expense State, the levels will be higher than say a State as Kansas, the poor guy in Calofornia would live comfortably in many other States
Click to expand...

Then I suggest that person move. Because he/she chooses to stay doesn't mean the taxpayers should offset their unwillingness to help their problem.
 
I wish all the mindless bs would stop. Even if some things are what people say, it's just pointless. What is their to gain, what can be solved? Nothing because it's only flexing notions of bias. It's sad, it's contemptuous, it's just bickering about one side being superior, and slandering the other. Solutions are rarely being sought, it's more trying to offload blame. Politics in this country has reached lows that are staggering, and vile. And rather than work at change, we just bicker about unimportant fit's of pride, and contempt, just like those in power want.
 
katzgar said:
it isnt, you like to lie
Click to expand...

LOL. Of course I disagree, and it is like him to troll. He didn't need California for an econ lesson, he need look no further than the bloated military budget.
But you don't hear that jerk Morwron/sailor saying the US military is making a mistake by not slashing its budget and growing its coffers
and competing to spend to justify its trillions, do we now.

He is right in part, it is thought by those who provide the $ that if you did not spend it in '17, you don't need it in '18, and so that impetus to spend unnecessarily
exists. But that is true across govt and I've seen its analogue in the private sector in analogous ways. It's not a philosophical problem or an error he is trolling,
its a problem of scale and accountability.

But he is way too stupid to debate this. He is a mere sailor, and harvester of sea insects, a deliverer of contraband, a scoundrel and clown.
 
Micawber said:
LOL. Of course I disagree, and it is like him to troll. He didn't need California for an econ lesson, he need look no further than the bloated military budget.
But you don't hear that jerk Morwron/sailor saying the US military is making a mistake by not slashing its budget and growing its coffers
and competing to spend to justify its trillions, do we now.

He is right in part, it is thought by those who provide the $ that if you did not spend it in '17, you don't need it in '18, and so that impetus to spend unnecessarily
exists. But that is true across govt and I've seen its analogue in the private sector in analogous ways. It's not a philosophical problem or an error he is trolling,
its a problem of scale and accountability.

But he is way too stupid to debate this. He is a mere sailor, and harvester of sea insects, a deliverer of contraband, a scoundrel and clown.
Click to expand...


yes, there is a sophisticated conversation here that neither he nor this board can handle.
 
Sailor said:
This is an Op Ed well worth the read. Direct and to the point, states its facts nicely. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html

Here is one part that caught my eye. "Self-interest in the social-services community may be at fault. As economist William A. Niskanen explained back in 1971, public agencies seek to maximize their budgets, through which they acquire increased power, status, comfort and security. To keep growing its budget, and hence its power, a welfare bureaucracy has an incentive to expand its “customer” base. With 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014, California has an enormous bureaucracy. Many work in social services, and many would lose their jobs if the typical welfare client were to move off the welfare rolls."
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for posting.... food for thought and discussion both. I think this has a lot to do with it:

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

"The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. "

Along with the pleasant climate, moving there to get freebies is attractive to those who don't want to work.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Interesting. Thanks for posting.... food for thought and discussion both. I think this has a lot to do with it:

"In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some states — principally Wisconsin, Michigan, and Virginia — initiated welfare reform, as did the federal government under President Clinton and a Republican Congress. Tied together by a common thread of strong work requirements, these overhauls were a big success: Welfare rolls plummeted and millions of former aid recipients entered the labor force.

"The state and local bureaucracies that implement California’s antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. "

Along with the pleasant climate, moving there to get freebies is attractive to those who don't want to work.
Click to expand...

For someone that doesn't want to work, I have no problem not wanting them to eat.
 
archives said:
It is based upon "Supplemental Poverty levels" which takes into account cost of living expenses, given Calfornia's housing costs alone, or any expense State, the levels will be higher than say a State as Kansas, the poor guy in Calofornia would live comfortably in many other States
Click to expand...

That's assuming you make the same amount of money elsewhere and for low income people that's no guarantee
 
Jade Dragon said:
I wish all the mindless bs would stop. Even if some things are what people say, it's just pointless. What is their to gain, what can be solved? Nothing because it's only flexing notions of bias. It's sad, it's contemptuous, it's just bickering about one side being superior, and slandering the other. Solutions are rarely being sought, it's more trying to offload blame. Politics in this country has reached lows that are staggering, and vile. And rather than work at change, we just bicker about unimportant fit's of pride, and contempt, just like those in power want.
Click to expand...

A-fucking-men! :hand:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top