Friday, October 15th, 2010

Replay: What’s Killing California?

California has a case of the same disease that felled the Rust Belt. Will the patient survive?

California Failin’

The troubles of California, and their causes, are a widely discussed topic these days. America’s most populated state by far, its successes and failures always loom large in the national consciousness. In the last year we’ve seen the state face a massive $42 billion budget deficit and the humiliation of having to issue IOU’s as payments. Its pensions are radically underfunded and there are other long term structural budgetary problems. Parts of the state were ground zero for the housing collapse and among the highest foreclosure zones in the country. Unemployment, high everywhere, is particularly so in parts of California. California, the place people once moved to, is now the place the move from, as the state is experiencing net domestic out-migration, leading to the prospect of losing a representative in Congress for the first time in its history. A complicated political system has led to decision making paralysis. Even disasters like wildfires have been played up.

There are no end to explanations for this which, unsurprisingly, tend to follow people’s political beliefs. To those on the right, California is the ultimate blue state, with high taxes, an anti-business mindset, and environmental and other regulations designed to send people and businesses fleeing for the exits. To those on the left, California’s problems are the comeuppance for decades of unchecked sprawl, the ultimate car culture, and runaway exploitation of resources. Whatever your particular policy pet peeve, California must be it.

But is this really the case?

The real problem could be much more simple and yet much more terrifying in its implications. California has simply now outgrown its youth and is now well into its middle age. Like the Rust Belt before it, California is now old. As with people as they age, “chronic lifestyle diseases” hit places too. These are: unfunded liabilities, the end of growth economics, and institutional rigidity, each of which builds on the one before it.

Unfunded Liabilities

I’ve long noted that places have an incredible tendency to accumulate unfunded liabilities, most of them of the “off balance sheet” variety. The temptation to defer problems into the future is simply too great for most governments to resist, hence structural imbalances build up over time. The sources of these liabilities are many, but here are some key ones:

  • Deferred Infrastructure Investment. As populations and development grow, infrastructure is built with a lag and generally there is a lack of funds for completion. As a result, cities and states end up with deficient infrastructure for their size, leading to all sorts of problems such as traffic and transit congestion. Clearly, California is suffering here.
  • Infrastructure Maintenance. Similarly, cities build some infrastructure, then “sweat the assets” as long as possible. Infrastructure is often not well-maintained, and the periodic capital refresh unbudgeted. Condo associations do reserve studies and set aside funds to meet future capital needs such as roof replacements to avoid painfully huge special assessments, but government do not. I have yet to see any city or state that even has a schedule of major assets and infrastructure with needed maintenance and replacement timeframes, much less funding for any it. California’s Golden Age infrastructure is now aging, and it is facing repair bills merely to maintain what it has.
  • Underfunded Pensions. Politicians love to sweeten public sector pensions. This buys both labor peace and a powerful political constituency. These are seldom funded at adequate levels – and with the rapid growth in life extending technology, it’s questionable whether any level of funding is sufficient – leading to major problems downstream. California’s pensions are unfunded by upwards of $300 billion.
  • Other Redevelopment Costs. When ever homes and buildings are shiny and new, things are great. But what happens when your building stock gets old like in Rust Belt inner cities, and often no longer meet the functional and technical demands of the modern day, such as sizes, layouts, energy efficiency, etc.?

Add this all up, and it’s a huge bill that eventually comes due. The most important thing to understand about this is that the bill attaches to the territory, not to the people. So residents and businesses can avoid paying up simply by leaving for another jurisdiction. It’s like being able to run up a huge credit card bill in someone else’s name, then skip town.

This ability to run up massive deferred and unfunded liabilities, then leave, sticking other people with the bill, is one of the most powerful forces driving greenfield development. Even if there weren’t a drop of subsidies to, say, suburban expansion, the financial incentive to escape the huge liabilities of central cities and older suburbs is a key incentive on its own.

This why I’ve said it is critical to find ways to prevent governments from accumulating these liabilities in the first place.

The End of Growth Economics

Look at companies and industries. There is a standard growth curve to them. They start out in incubation and infancy, then, if successful, on to growth, then finally to maturity and decline. Why would we think that what is true for firms would be different for places? Why would we think that cities or states are immune from the forces of creative destruction? The answer is, they aren’t.

Having done consulting in the retail industry for some years, I often observed the growth curves played out in companies. Category killers came along and grew and grew and grew, seemingly as unstoppable juggernauts. But eventually, they hit the end of their growth phase, and had to endure a period of wandering in the wilderness. The reasons for this are varied – market saturation and consequent over expansion, changes in the marketplace, insufficient infrastructure and operational disciplines, more nimble competitors – but we’ve seen it played out before our eyes in America. Think McDonald’s, Home Depot, and the Gap.

The logic and economics of high growth are fundamentally different from that of operating a more or less steady state or low growth business. In the growth phase, everything is oriented towards expansion, mostly building more infrastructure to keep up with it. Also, scale economics are in your favor. With more people, for example, you are spreading fixed costs across more bodies and more buildings, so you can spend more money and tax less per capita all the same time. Your brand value is expanding with size, etc. That’s all great if you can pull it off.

But when something causes growth to take a hit – maybe accumulated liabilities, resource exhaustion, jurisdictional limits, etc – the equation changes radically. You can no longer rely on growth to provide unit cost efficiency. You have to start thinking like an operator. That is an extremely difficult mindset shift and requires a totally different set of skills. From what I’ve seen, companies have an extremely difficult time doing this. They generally have to struggle for some time, usually bring in new leadership, and undergo painful structuring. Many of them never really recover. But some do. I think of McDonald’s, which stopped relying on store growth to fuel its engine, but now relies on product innovation (Angus burgers, coffee, salads, etc) and operational effectiveness.

California, for whatever reason, stopped growing. The trends in domestic out migration make this very clear. The fact that total population has not declined doesn’t matter. Most Rust Belt states never actually physically lost population. Their growth simply slowed to a crawl. And it was the most entrepreneurial and high skill classes that fled. In California that his been somewhat masked by outsized productivity in the technology sector and international immigration, but the overall trend is clear. California now has to think like an operator. Welcome to the world of legacy. California is now a gigantic “brownfield”.

As California struggles with this transition, the scale economics start to go in reverse. As people and businesses leave, the unit cost of all those unfunded liabilities looms large. Just as growth begets growth, decline begets decline. If you are young and ambitious, why stay in California and pay off all those pensions? All things being equal, it is much better to leave for a more greenfield location, where you can benefit from running up the credit card, not paying off someone else’s bill. If not arrested, decline eventually reaches a tipping point, as we’ve seen in so many Rust Belt cities.

Institutional Rigidity

The third symptom of civic aging is a creeping institutional rigidity that makes change difficult. In established, mature places, there many, many powerful institutions and interest groups. These can often be forces for good, but too often become barriers to change or getting things done. What’s more, these institutions were typically created in the past to meet the perceived challenges of that time and age, but survive today in a world that is very different. As most institutions are never sunset, and new ones form over time, there is a gradual accumulation of friction over time. Eventually, the gears and seize up.

These institutions can take many forms. Constitutions and political structures, non-profits, clubs and social networks, various trade-offs and political accommodations and deals from over the years, power structures, corruption, local business practices, unions, recipients of government funding, taxpayer or other advocacy groups, political party organizations, business groups, etc. Much is made of California’s many times amended constitution as a barrier to change, but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

As decline sets in, a toxic dynamic takes hold. In a growth mode, it is very easy for everyone to hold hands and sing kum-bah-ya. It’s comparatively easy to cut deals to divide the fruits of prosperity. In decline, those deals come back to haunt. The status quo is failing, but people are still profiting from it. Even in Detroit, America’s ultimate failed city, so many people and groups benefit from the current system that there is complete paralysis. No one wants to give up an inch of hard won gains, especially since in a dismal region there’s little hope of replicating that privileged position or income. Hard times promote solidarity, some say. But the reality is that hard times also often produce selfishness and civic dysfunction as well as people cling desperately to what they have instead of looking boldly forward to the future.

I’ve seen this shift happen in a few cities. Where once civic boosters dreamed of glory and invested their own money into the city, now they focus on what they can get out of it. So too in California. Everyone knows the Titanic has hit the iceberg, but they are determined to loot as many state rooms as they can before shoving the women and children out of the way and commandeering the life boats.

This institutional rigidity is another force driving people to greenfield locations. It’s a global phenomenon. Consider this Newsweek coverage of a study of Chinese industry that notes much lower levels of corruption and better governance in new cities than old.

An intriguing pattern is that governance is best in coastal cities that had very little industry when reform began in 1978. Shenzhen now has the highest per capita GDP in China. The same holds in Jiangmen, Dongguan, Suzhou–all were industrial backwaters in 1978, and responded to China’s opening by creating good environments for private investment and learning from outsiders. Cities that already had industry tended to protect what they had and reform less aggressively.

Jim Russell hypothesizes that this effect of frontier geography explains a lot of the success of the Sunbelt, which industrialized late.

Cities such as Austin, TX and Charlotte, NC have offered a frontier opportunity akin to the one observed in the boomtowns of China. On the other hand, Pittsburgh stagnates. Governmental reform is key for attracting investment and stimulating growth. This is unlikely to happen in Western Pennsylvania, leaving this region at the rear of economic globalization.

For Pittsburgh, substitute California and you’ve got a pretty good picture.

Writers like Joel Kotkin like to reminisce about the Golden Age of California, and the leadership of that age from enlightened members of both parties like Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan. But you can never go home again. That letter jacket from your high school glory days might still fit, but you’re never going back to the state finals. Brown and Reagan were products of their era – an era that no longer exists. While they might be better executives than Gray Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, even if you assume they could get elected today – unlikely – I doubt they’d prove much more effective.

It’s been said that China will get old before it gets rich. Well, California got rich first – but it still got old. Not old demographically, but old civically. The polity of California is now well into middle age. As with people, places that reach that point experience a mid-life crisis as they look back longingly at the optimism, energy, flexibility, dynamism, and endless capacity for reinvention of youth. That’s often a bitter pill to swallow.

Can California Recover?

Can California pull out of this? It’s hard to point to a lot of examples that offer hope. But California has a lot going for it. It’s got the stunning climate and physical geography. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles remain powerful. In addition to the technology and film industries, California also has a robust agricultural sector, an entrepreneurial immigrant base, as well as an American hub for contemporary art and other creative fields besides the movie business. So there’s a lot of assets to build on.

The challenge is that these existing strengths are part of the institutional rigidity. Another way to say “build on assets” is “defend the past”. Other than the its physical setting, the assets of California only exist because previous generations didn’t build on assets. If they did, Silicon Valley would still be orchards, not the powerhouse of the global technology industry. If a city or state is failing to create new industries, it has economically stagnated, no matter how prosperous it might be or appear for a time.

Looking at the Rust Belt, we do see that tier one global cities have managed to renew their cores. Chicago, New York, and Boston have glittering city centers and a migration back to the city of upscale residents. This is a far cry from the sour days of the 70’s. But if you look beyond those zones, you see places with surprisingly unimpressive metro area statistics in many regards. And the states they are in look at lot like, well, California. A handful of metro thriving cores can’t energize an entire state or even metro area. Places like New York and Illinois have major structural challenges of their own. And California has already followed this program, with booming regions that are among globalization’s winners, with many larger areas of losers. Of course the alternative is worse – look at Michigan, with the same failures and no global city to even partially make up for it.

The global city phenomenon perhaps illustrates the way. Cities that have experienced that boom like to pat themselves on the back. Indeed, there has been some good leadership along the way. But when something happens in most similarly situated cities, you have to look first to a common force acting on them. Chicago, New York, London, etc. all had their own Rust Belt eras and suffered in the 70’s and 80’s. Starting in the 90’s a large number of what we now call global cities had urban core booms. As Saskia Sassen noted, the new networked global economy requires new financial and producer services, that tend to be concentrated in global cities. In effect, the global city is an emergent property of the globalized economy, just like the company town was in a previous era. I noted previously with regards to Chicago that it was the artifact, not the architect.

To me that shows that a state like California needs to look at and understand the macrotrends affecting it and the world, and figure out how to position itself to profit from them. One area it is trying to do so is in the “green economy”. I’ve got a few problems with “green jobs”. The first is that the entire concept of a green economy is a transitory one. Likely in a decade or so it will be gone. There will no longer be green industry, but only industry – it will all be green. This immediately prompts the question of whether, since we’re not going a very good job of competing in traditional industry, we’ll do any better in green industry. Indeed, China and others are already making a move here.

The other aspect of this is the huge gamble California is placing on the environmental trend. That is, it has imposed the strictest environmental controls in the world. There is no doubt this is one factor causing a lot of short term pain. But the state hopes that in the long term this will attract talent and, what’s more, position it for future success because other states will be forced into the same painful restructuring for environmental issues in the future and California will be ahead of the game. California’s ultimate goal here is clearly to push to federalize its policies to prevent any other states from not following its lead and producing a differentiated product. Because international migration is so much more difficult than domestic, this would, in theory, eventually help staunch the flow of people out of the state. Other states no doubt realize this and will resist the push at the federal level. It remains to be seen how this turns out on many fronts.

Other than that, it is difficult to identify a strategy California has other than more of the same. While the green realm might be a good place for California to put some chips, I don’t think piling everything on one square is a good idea, so new ideas are clearly needed.

And these economic strategies will only be ultimately a success to the extent that they enable California to reach an equilibrium and either successfully make the transition to an operator, or somehow reignite growth.

I would suggest that California and other maturing jurisdictions should look to partner with academics in our economics departments, and especially our schools of business, who have studied industry growth and maturity curves, and how to manage that transition over time, strategically and operationally.

Has the United States Reached Maturity?

Given the problems of California and the current Great Recession and associated talk of American decline, it’s worth asking the question: has the United States matured? That is, are the life cycle forces that are hurting California now affecting America as a whole?

Let’s consider our three harbingers: unfunded liabilities, the end of growth, and institutional rigidity. Clearly, we’ve racked up huge unfunded liabilities, just like every industrialized nation. I believe we are projecting a deficit of $1.8 trillion this year alone and that doesn’t even count off balance sheet problems like social security and medicare. So a definite check mark in that box.

As far as institutional rigidity, clearly we observe some. There is no doubt that it has gotten harder to do things in America and that one of the key advantages of China is its greenfield location and lack of this cruft, not just its low labor costs. Regulatory arbitrage, for example, can be a powerful motivator. Still, I haven’t observed a ridiculous amount of change here in my lifetime. At the federal level, it has always been hard to do things in America, by design. I do argue that in some areas we’ve turned the dial too far. In a country that desperately needs to make transportation investments, it shouldn’t take a decade to get approval to build a new transit line, for example. But on the whole the United States still feels like a fairly dynamic society to me.

Which brings us to growth. Clearly we have been in a major recession. The question is whether our best days are behind us. I say clearly No here. America is demographically healthy. Compared to Europe we have comparatively high birth rates, more or less replacement rate, in our native born population. This shows a society with confidence in the future. Also, people from around the world are still voting with their feet to come here. And I believe we’ll get back on economic track eventually.

But this is where the warnings signs should be looked for. If growth dries up, I believe the institutional rigidity will enter that toxic cycle and we could be in trouble. Keep an eye on immigration. When people stop wanting to come here – because they don’t want to pay taxes merely to pay off yesterday’s unfunded liabilities, because they think there are better opportunities elsewhere, or whatever – and especially if Americans start leaving in any material numbers, we’ll know we have a major problem on our hands.

Obviously no one can predict the future, but I remain bullish on America.

This post originally ran on October 8, 2009.

13 Comments
Topics: Demographic Analysis, Economic Development, Public Policy, Strategic Planning
Cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco

13 Responses to “Replay: What’s Killing California?”

  1. Danny says:

    Excellent post. As a Born-and-Raised-Californian, I can definitely relate. Even more so because I am an entrepreneur faced with the task of business relocation. I am dying to take my business to California with me, but everything you have just mentioned is pushing me away.

    I fully believe that California can recover…but it has to have courage. Californians have to be brave enough to break down some institutionalized barriers, and they have to learn how to make smart investments that include legitimate plans for future maintenance.

    And just because I can’t separate politics, I also believe they have to be brave enough to elect people that aren’t from the extremes. Consider the senate race for example: Californians are choosing between someone who has a 0% rating from the NFIB (0%!!!), and a terrible big business exec that ran her company into the ground, layed off thousands, and gave herself million dollar bonuses for doing it. Californians need to learn that there is a lot of intelligent nuance in between the extremes.

  2. Tim Martin says:

    This is a very interesting article but I must take issue with your paragraph about the “environmental trend.” You make it seem like this is some conspiracy to saddle the rest of the country with needless burdensome rules and then to somehow take advantage of this. Or as a fad? California despite all of it’s structural flaws you outlined has been wise enough to start tackling a problem that will benefit the next generations. The fact that many other states have refused to take similar steps is sad. Maybe the economics won’t work out and it will end up costing us a little more money but I suspect it will still be cheaper than moving Los Angeles and San Francisco if sea level rises.

  3. Ed says:

    Not all government regulation is bad. Sometimes effective governmental regulation is a source for new competitive advantages. This is especially true for environmental regulation in California. Since 1973, per capita energy usage in California has basically been flat, while it went up by more than 50% in the rest of the country. These results have been attributed to the “Rosenfeld Effect” basically the success of Art Rosenfeld’s work at the California Energy Commission where he pushed energy efficiency regulations in the building code to increase insulation, pushed new standards to lower electricity usage in appliances etc. In short California has some regulatory competence in environmental regulation.

    http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/images/Rosenfeld.jpg

    http://www.centredaily.com/2010/01/11/1721386/art-rosenfeld-the-godfather-of.html

    http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Lab-Rosenfeld-wins-Fermi.html

    Land grant universities, the building of the Continental railroad, the adoption of free public education for all citizens, Darpa’s involvement in the Darpanet that later became the internet. In each case successful government policy is what later fertilized the creation of new growth industries for this country. This is essentially what California wants to do for green energy.

    Incomes are rising in all of the BRIC countries. As these countries get wealthy enough for their populations to afford cars, they will buy them and global energy usage will increase dramatically putting pressure on energy prices. This is what was driving energy price increases before the housing bust. As countries start to recover from the housing bust, this is what will cause energy prices to go up again.

    California’s energy regulations are all about getting ahead of the curve here to create that new market in California and to ensure that the high value green energy jobs end up in California. Then when the rest of the country and world starts to respond to higher energy prices, California firms are positioned to sell them technologies to mitigate the impacts.

    Stuff like what Craig Venter is talking about here.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575103191809632222.html

    Its these type of high R&D, high skill jobs that California wants to capture. If the environmental legislation happens to clean the air in the Los Angeles basin and spurs the creation of more walkable urban spaces making that area a more attractive place to live, well that is good too.

    Look at per capita energy consumption. If energy prices double again, which regions do you think will have the most difficult time responding to the next energy shock? California has the 5th lowest per capita energy consumption. The average resident of Indiana uses almost twice as much.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use_per_cap.pdf

    Since 1970, while the City of Detroit was shrinking, for the most part the metro area of Detroit continued to grow. The same was true for a lot of the other cities and regions of the midwest. The cities of Kansas City, St Louis and Cleveland shrank, but there metro areas maintained or grew there populations.

    If you look at the consequences of most environmental regulation, its generally about redirecting investment inward, not outward. Residents of the Loop use less energy than people living in the suburbs and the farms.

    If you look at the midwest, it should have a huge comparable advantage in smart growth. It still has lots of neighborhoods built in grids before WW2 suitable for transit. It has lot of land zoned for mixture of uses. Planners in Portland, Seattle and San Diego are all trying to create urban fabric that resembles what the midwest already has but just under-utilizes.

    What I don’t understand is why aren’t civic leaders in the midwest pushing a green agenda if for no other reason than to revitalize there urban cores?

    Wendell Cox’s primary argument again instituting an urban growth boundary is that is pushes up housing prices in the places that have them like Portland and SF. But in a City like Detroit or Buffalo isn’t that exactly what these regions need to insure there older housing stock is maintained?

  4. Dan says:

    Really an excellent post, probably the best short piece on the cycles of public institutions I have read. And as you note, these cycles happen at all levels. In Washington, the DC Metro has had many difficulties with transitioning from a “grow the system” mindset to one that embraces maintenance and safety, a necessary transition as equipment gets older and starts to fail. But it is still the best subway system in America, and is trying to change. Hopefully California will do likewise, and I think that their efforts toward green energy are a step in that direction. And you can never discount the appeal of climate and geography.

  5. Thanks for the comments.

    Firstly, I never said that environmental regulation was a source of California’s decline. It is not one of my three factors. I’m simply saying that while good things might come of it, you can’t hang your hat on this to save the state. There’s got to be more to it than that.

  6. Mauricio L says:

    I really agree that this is an excellent post, one of your best. A lot to think about. It’d be nice to study Europe as a case of post growth economics: there growth isn’t as dramatic as China or the sunbelt and environmental laws and infrastructure are first rate. Europe ages but has also seen significant immigration since the 60s. City cores are ancient but thriving. Standard of living is very high. My first impression is that Europe bet on livability and sustainability (like California, Oregon and Washington state are trying) and has spared what happened to the rust belt. they never let their cities and regions die (except in britain…). They ended up revitalizing their cities and have the densest network of global cities. They value culture and have a system set up via the EU to spread the wealth around from region to region so that the tide lifts all boats. Their citizens on average are more educated. They are a more mature society which is used to taking the longer view. Perhaps that is what California is becoming, but doesn’t have the rest of America to help. Here in the US we cannibalize each other and end up with rapidly dying and rapidly growing areas.

  7. Wad says:

    As a Californian, I’d like to say that I can have an explanation as to what the cause or causes are that are killing the state.

    It is really hard to pin down.

    Is it high costs? Yes. Is it high taxes? Yes.

    So the solution would be to go in the opposite direction and focus on policies to make the cost of living (independent of taxes) in California low, or just cut taxes?

    The answer to those questions: It’s not that easy.

    For all of California’s brilliance, we still haven’t figured out the solution to get Bay Area or Southern California living standards at Central Valley or Mojave Desert prices.

    As for the taxes, cutting them is not automatically good for their own sake. Cutting taxes is not a free lunch. Downscaling a government service has costs of its own, just as demolishing a vacant building costs money and doesn’t result in a refund of the original input amount. Plus, there’s a chance that any tax cut will be offset by California’s already high costs growing higher.

    I do have a theory on what has kept much of California so dynamic despite its market and tax disadvantages.

    California’s motto is “Eureka” (I have found it.) A more apt motto is “Why the hell not?”

    What California has been exceptionally good at doing is trying our hand at stupid, waste-of-time endeavors and turning them into blockbuster successes.

    Southern California, once a prodigious agricultural growing region, uprooted its fertile soil to replace it with an urban land form we now know as sprawl. “We’ll starve and run out of water.” Southern Californians said “Why the hell not?” It turned out that we traded agriculture for comparatively higher-value industrial production — the kind that gave birth to a web of interconnected businesses — we were able to buy food, and per-capita water usage was lower than agricultural demands even with an influx of people.

    Both the Bay Area and Southern California invested heavily in seaports in the hopes of bolstering state-made exports. “California doesn’t make enough goods for other places to buy.” Californians said “Why the hell not?” and for a while it did help our exports. Over time, economic values became higher and our goods became more expensive. It turned out that our seaports became useful for importing goods, and this has helped us gain higher-value logistics knowledge that’s becoming ever more vital.

    California saw that the automobile was going to be a big deal and became one of the early adopters of the limited-access highway system. “We have trains and planes to go long distances and roads already connect our homes to our job sites.” California said “Why the hell not?” Our highways helped gain access to jobs and recreational opportunities, and added tremendous value to homes and land, and California also became the nation’s — and one of the world’s biggest car markets. Our love for automobiles has also tipped the hands of carmakers to make cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.

    Some farmers in San Francisco’s northern hinterlands figured the land and climate was ideal for growing grapes and making wine. “But the people who drink wine can have the world’s finest from France, Italy or Germany. Average Americans are too thrifty or ‘upright’ to be caught drinking wine, namely a cheaply made version. You have to be insane to think people will want to choose Napa Valley over Bordeaux.” The growers said “Why the hell not? There’s bound to be a market for our wines locally or within the state.” We now how this turned out, and the world has more wine than ever primarily because every winemaking region on the globe thinks it will be the next Napa Valley.

    California’s boldest “Why the hell not?” moment came when taxpayers were asked to approve a Master Plan for Higher Education. California dared itself to build a statewide network of four-year schools from the Oregon to the Mexican border to guarantee that any California student who got at least a B average in primary school a college education. California then complemented the universities with more than 100 community colleges to give any adult who wanted one a college education.

    This was a hard sell in its time. The main criticisms were that the state essentially creating a mass market for college degrees would debase the value of a college education. It would drive out private institutions of learning like Stanford and USC. It would also be very expensive to provide this education, and furthermore, it would only turn out students with no jobs waiting for them.

    The California model of public education may have given taxpayers the best public investment ever. The higher education system brought in jobs and then some. It has raised the standards of living for millions of Californians. The value of a college degree had not been debased, and the research output has proven to be top-notch academically.

    This “Why the hell not?” spirit of California has imposed the biggest burdens on California, but it has also enriched millions not only in state, but around the world.

  8. Thanks again for the comments.

    Mauricio, I don’t think Europe is quite as successful as you make it appear to be. They are suffering many stresses in their system as a result of their growth issue. But they’ve definition had a lot of good points and done some things right. One of them is that when they spend a lot of money on government, in general they expect quality services out of it.

    The US by contrast has two parties that by their nature deliver poor services. The Democrats seem to be principally about redistribution and spending to reward their constituencies such as public employee unions without regard to whether or not what is delivered is any good. The Republicans don’t believe in government doing anything and in fact would like to see it fail so they can say “I told you so.” Unsurprisingly, we often end up with expensive gov’t that doesn’t work well.

  9. George Mattei says:

    Aaron:

    Excellent post. It really summarizes what happens to places once the boom is over. I think that Florida may be in the same boat to some degree, perhaps a bit behind, but catching up nevertheless.

    I keep telling people that point to Atlanta and Charlotte as “the way to do things in the Midwest” to wait 50 years and see how those places are doing. It’s easy to be sucessful when everything is new.

  10. George, Atlanta’s already showing signs of stress.

  11. Wad says:

    Aaron, I’ve made the same observation about public services in the U.S. I’ve called it “the failure consensus”.

    Unfortunately, it has only ended up frustrating the efforts of the reinventing government efforts under the Clinton administration. People within the governments identified processes to cut costs further and to deliver services better. Yet it encountered hostility from Congress, because it alienated one party’s constituency and it threatened to smash the other’s racquet.

  12. Mauricio L says:

    Aaron,
    Aaron, thanks for responding. I never meant to state that Europe is all dandy: rather the opposite, that despite their stresses (ie. negative pop growth, high cost entitlements for an aging population, etc) their response to them has been much better than in the US. That comes from, as you say, better use of public resources, but fundamentally from an understanding that you can’t have a thriving, cohesive whole (europe and the nations within it), with failing regions. Thus the importance in policies that lift all boats. Here, incredibly, despite all of us being Americans, there is no consensus to help ailing urban cores (which are full of minorities and vote heavily democratic, etc) and even rural areas.

  13. Wanderer says:

    As a Californian, I don’t feel like I’m in a dying state. First off, I’m not sure why you think growth has ended in California. Every year this decade the state has added 300,000-600,000 people. That’s a relatively sustainable growth rate of (now) about 1% per year, not the frantic growth that led to mass suburban sprawl.

    This may sound chauvinistic or boosterish, but I think California is trying to tackle the problems that the federal government won’t. The state has a bill and a process underway to do our part to combat climate change, and we just handily voted down an effort to subvert it. Maybe someday the green economy will come standard as you say, but for the moment it is an identifiable set of sectors that California is aggressively going after. The national government seems content to buy solar panels from China. I would agree that more attention from local government and regional bodies to manufacturing overall would be a good idea. Turning an old GM plant into a Tesla plant is a good example.

    I don’t see cities and regions getting locked into sectors. I see Silicon Valley furiously trying not only to get into the green economy, but into biotech as well. Los Angeles has never been dominated by a single sector, the prominence of movies notwithstanding (there are some towns in Southeast LA County that do seem like the Rustbelt, not that usual in urban California).

    The point on infrastructure needing renewal is well-taken, but I think the picture is more mixed than you give credit for. In Los Angeles, for example, voters have taxed themselves to add transit, rebuild libraries, build schools, and add police stations.

    The educational system is where the real problems are–we’re currently 49th in per capita spending on K-12 schools, just ahead of Missisippi. I know that inputs don’t equal outputs, but when your inputs are that low, you don’t get good outputs (and you get large class sizes, which are demonstrably inferior). Some communities have stepped up the plate and are spending local money for school capital and/or operating expense, but a lot of cities (like impoverished Central Valley cities) haven’t or can’t. Meanwhile the community colleges are jammed with people trying to learn marketable skills, they’re having to turn people away. The community colleges are the largest section of higher education, but they always lose out to the University of California and Cal State at budget time.

    In terms of institutional sclerosis, we just voted to allow the legislature to pass a budget by majority vote, instead of 2/3. Imagine! A lot more is needed, but that rule alone caused huge problems.

    It took a lot of work to build the infrastructure that California has–Governor Pat Brown had to work the higher education plan very carefully through the legislature. There are places in the state that need help–particularly the auto-dependent outer suburbs of the major cities, which are now suffering high rates of foreclosure. Hopefully, we’ll be able to bring 21st Century infrastructure, like the statewide high speed rail, to fruition. California’s newness is our most cherished tradition and we’ve got to get over that, but we don’t have to be finished if we make smart choices.

The Urban State of Mind: Meditations on the City is the first Urbanophile e-book, featuring provocative essays on the key issues facing our cities, including innovation, talent attraction and brain drain, global soft power, sustainability, economic development, and localism. Included are 28 carefully curated essays out of nearly 1,200 posts in the first seven years of the Urbanophile, plus 9 original pieces. It's great for anyone who cares about our cities.

About the Urbanophile

about

Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century.

Full Bio

Contact

Please email before connecting with me on LinkedIn if we don't already know each other.

 

Copyright © 2006-2014 Urbanophile, LLC, All Rights Reserved - Click here for copyright information and disclosures