Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshTriplett | Hacker News Reader

Here in Oregon we have less than half the taxes of California, and yet we have well-maintained roads (to the point of joking that the state flower is a traffic cone), and well-maintained everything else. And the state doesn't gripe about not having enough money nearly as often (and when they do it doesn't make the national news). The state even (by law) gives back any excess tax revenue they collect each year, though the state legislature puts a measure on every major ballot to try to prevent that (and it thankfully always fails).

I genuinely wonder what California has done so differently to end up doing so badly when they have twice as much tax revenue per person.

View on HN

California is too large a state to be well-governed. Because of its size, it requires a big budget to campaign. As a result, the public sector unions dominate state politics. Democrats have had the majority in both houses of the state congress for 40 of the last 42 years - that gives you an idea of how dynamic our politics are.

In good economic times the legislature hikes union benefits and in bad times taxes are hiked to pay for benefits which are no longer affordable. We just passed prop 30 to increase our income taxes to the highest in the nation and most of the money behind the proposition was from unions. The $4 billion in revenue from prop 30 earmarked for schools will barely cover the state's shortfall in its teacher pension fund. Not a dime will go towards actually making the schools better.

California has the trifecta of suck - high taxes, bad services, and big deficits. That's what a state looks like when the government exists to serve its unions and not the people.

Others have pointed out the proposition system. Propositions do tend to be somewhat spastic - voters seldom balk at spending money on boondoggles like the high speed train that is supposed to be finished any decade now. But I don't think it is a huge problem. The proposition is one of the only outlets for non-liberal policies in the state, so I think it gets more hate and blame than it deserves.

> California is too large a state to be well-governed. Because of its size, it requires a big budget to campaign. As a result, the public sector unions dominate state politics. Democrats have had the majority in both houses of the state congress for 40 of the last 42 years - that gives you an idea of how dynamic our politics are.

This isn't really true. California's cities have some serious issues around allowing growth and development, and the state as a whole has a major problem because of Prop 13. See here: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/05/should-w... for more, although there are many other issues.

These problems aren't inherent with size; they're self-created.

Californians pay more in federal taxes than the state receives in federal spending. This is also true of Oregon, but in California it's true to a much higher degree. So the state is essentially subsidizing the rest of the country and doesn't have enough left over for itself.

why is that?

The US political system gives disproportionate influence to people living in less populous states.

This would only be the determining factor if you believe that California on its own would not vote for the federal government providing support for the lowest income people.

The evidence seems to indicate that is not the case.

They wouldn't as much as they are forced to now, especially if they were an independent country (which is the only fair comparison).

There's also efficiencies of density that you just don't get in Mississippi, but that also pays off as a redistribution within states from cities to the suburbs and countryside.

Different states have different levels of economic development. Since all states share a common currency, it isn't possible for states like Mississippi to devalue their currency in order to be competitive with California. Large fiscal transfers between states are necessary to keep things balanced out.

Why don't they just sale their goods at lower prices? No need to fiddle with artificial (non-gold-backed) currencies.

A few reasons. Less populous states have proportionally more representation, since representatives are proportional to state population but every state gets two senators. Rural states are earlier in the presidential primary season (Iowa is the first), so they wind up getting more. And the less populous states tend to be poorer in general, so they have less to give and greater welfare need.

That sounds like the results of progressive taxation and federal welfare. California income is higher than the national average. Mississippi's is lower. So some federal tax dollars from California end up in Mississippi's medicaid fund.

But you can't blame all of California's suck on that. It is not exactly a low-tax state!

Only when you consider that California on the whole is a lot richer than most of the rest of the country.

Mississippi wouldn't be a low tax state if they were unable to tax Californians.

It's not true that those tax dollars are going to Mississippi's general fund. Rather, they are going to things like Medicaid and food stamps. Presumably the federal transfers equalize access to food and medicine across states, so they both start from the same place when they start levying state taxes to provide state services.

Small states can get lots of pork, too. Just look at what Byrd did for West Virginia.

that just sounds like an accounting trick. if Mississipi had higher revenue it could accomodate for more social services without the help of California.

i'm not very familiar with this stuff, but i believe states like California have better social safety nets than states like Mississipi. so different states don't even actually start from the same place

Much has been written about the dysfunction of California's government. I would summarize it as we have a direct participation system, in the form of propositions, that has limited what the government can do. Specifically, the voters have limited the amount of property taxes that can be raised, required a super majority of the legislature to raise any other taxes, and then gone ahead and proscribed what the legislature has to spend money on, either directly on things like education or indirectly on things like prisons when we pass laws like 3 strikes. Even when we raise additional taxes, as we just did with Prop 30, we specifically earmarked that money for education. All this leads to terrible roads.

Oregon has done exactly the same thing, though, and it hasn't caused the same problems. We have a balanced budget requirement, an annual cap on property tax increases, a requirement that the legislature can't pass taxes itself but has to put them as ballot measures, and a requirement that no new tax can pass at a special election (non-May non-November) without a 50% turnout (in response to too many ballot-stuffing special elections where all the special-interest groups remind their members to vote).

So, I remain curious about the root cause difference here.

I can't speak to Oregon, but in California the voters also specify the things the government has to spend on. We have legislature must spend on. For instance we require that some 60% of the budget go to education. The legislature only have control over something like 20%. Additionally, while this is probably only a small problem now, we will have pension / retiree health care issues.

Oregon is similar in that voters can specify things for the state to spend money on. However, I think the root of it is that California is a lot (more than 10x) bigger than Oregon. Any independent group that wants some money earmarked gets a much larger payoff in California than in Oregon. On the opposite side of the same coin, an overzealous reform group gets more bang for their buck getting a bill passed in California, too. Oregon has had its share of bad bills too, but as far as I understand it we just have far fewer than California.

I'm in New Zealand and interested in potentially moving to Portland one day. I'm aware that the city has a great reputation for arts and food (which is the appeal for me and my family) and personally prefer living in smaller cities. The regular folk music events, street markets and greenery all seem very appealing! Are there many job opportunities for software developers there however?

> Are there many job opportunities for software developers there however?

As a software developer there, I can unequivocally say "yes". That applies whether you prefer big companies, startups, or something inbetween.

And the rest of the reputation you mentioned is entirely deserved and accurate. (Also, if you prefer smaller cities, the surrounding area can easily accomodate, and the Portland area has a great light rail and public transit system to get you to and from downtown Portland.)

Feel free to contact me privately if you'd like to chat more about the area.

Move to Sydney instead.

Seriously.

Sydney is 10 times larger than Portland. Having lived in lots of different cities, large and small, I think 300-500k is the sweet spot for me. Any larger and I feel like you start suffering from quality of life issues - pollution, traffic, overcrowding, traveling distances, crime etc.

Sydney is choking from decades of mismanagement. Almost none of it is like the post cards.

The root cause is that Oregon is tiny.

You're not giving CA enough credit.

I dunno, the roads in eastern OR are pretty crappy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com