New Geography

Tag: San Francisco

  • California: Club Med Meets Third World?

    On March 25th, the Bureau of Labor statistics released a report that showed that California jobs had increased by 96,000 in February.  The state’s cheerleaders jumped into action. Never mind that the state still has a 12.2 percent unemployment rate, and part of the decline from 12.4 percent is because just under 32,000 discouraged workers left California’s labor force in February. 

    Unfortunately, the cheerleaders are likely to once again be disappointed.  It is unwise to build a case on one data point.  Data are volatile and subject to all sorts of technical issues.  For example, the estimate of California’s job growth is seasonally adjusted data and subject to revision.

    More importantly, even if California did see 96,000 new jobs in February, that pace is unlikely to be maintained.  California’s economy is just too burdened by the State’s DURT: Delay, Uncertainty, Regulation, and Taxes.  Instead of enjoying the truly vibrant recovery one would expect given its climate, location, natural resources, university network, workforce, and natural and manmade amenities, California’s economy will grow far below its potential, burdened by its DURT. 

    People often ask me to identify the most important impediment to California’s economic growth, but there isn’t just one.  Every business is different.  One may be most impacted by regulation, another by taxes.  Instead, it is the total cost of the DURT.

    Taxes are certainly one component of DURT.  The Tax Foundation ranked California 49th in business taxes and Kiplinger ranks California worst in retiree’s taxes, which serves as a good proxy for individual tax burdens.  No doubt, California’s taxes are high, but that alone wouldn’t be too big a problem.  People happily pay to live in California.  Higher taxes and home costs are just the beginning.

    California is in its own class when it comes to regulation; nothing is unimaginable in a state where bulk of the executive leadership comes from the San Francisco-Oakland area.  Today, there are two regulations that are particularly hurting California’s economy, AB32 and SB375.  AB32 is California’s attempt to unilaterally solve the planet’s global warming problem.  It will have serious implications, all of them detrimental to economic activity.  SB375 attempts to advance its global warming  goals through regional planning mandates.  Here’s a sympathetic analysis of SB375 from a smart guy.

    Those are just the most onerous regulations.  California has thousands of regulations and more come daily.  California had 725 new laws come into effect on January 1, 2011, and the state has over 500 constitutional amendments, averaging over four new constitutional amendments a year.

    Which brings us to uncertainty.

    Uncertainty about the future regulatory environment is detrimental to economic activity.  It is extraordinarily difficult to plan when the regulatory environment is in such a state of flux, and nothing is unimaginable.

    Regulatory uncertainty is far from California’s only source of uncertainty.  California’s local governments are notoriously fickle, particularly in the generally affluent coastal areas.  I know of one project that spent four years in planning, only to be denied by the City Council, even though the project was supported by the planning department.  That’s just expensive.  Developers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on architects, engineers, and planning consultants while jumping through the hoops set up by the planning department, neighborhood groups, environmentalists, and other special interest groups.

    This type of story is all too common in Coastal California.  Some California communities, such as Santa Monica, require that prior to building a new house, you must use two by fours, string, and flags to provide the outline of the proposed structure for up to 90 days.  This is to facilitate neighbor complaints before the project is built.

    The previous story also relates to delay.  Delay in California is legendary, a result of regulatory hurdles, demand for studies, and legal action.  California newspapers often describe projects as controversial, but this is redundant.  Every project is controversial in California. 

    Want to rebuild an aging bridge?  Someone will sue you and claim the old bridge is a historical landmark.  Want to put in a solar farm?  Someone will sue you because the land is home to endangered rats, turtles, salamanders, toads, fairy shrimp, or something.  Endangered species are everywhere in California.  Want to put a condominium project in a depressed part of town?  Someone will sue you because it doesn’t match the neighborhood.  Want to build a house?  Someone will sue you because it will block their view.

    All these things and more happen in California.  It’s no surprise that businesses find California a very challenging place to be profitable.  California’s markets are huge.  No doubt about it.  So, some business will operate in the state.  California’s location on the Pacific Rim and it ports also compel some business to be in California, even if costs are high.  California is a fantastic place to live.  So, people who can afford to will live here.  Some business owners will locate businesses where the owner wants to live.  But, most businesses are too competitive to give up profits to live in California.  Many keep their headquarter s here while shipping their new jobs to other states, or abroad.

    Even so, California is unlikely to become Detroit.  It, sadly, is also unlikely to achieve its potential or regain its previous economic vigor.  The cost of California DURT is just too high.  Instead, the place will become increasingly divided.  Coastal regions, for the foreseeable future, will become even more affluent, heavily white and increasingly Asian.  Hosts of unseen, less fortunate people support them, often commuting from more hardscrabble interior locations.

    Considerable poverty will coexist uncomfortably in California’s coastal paradise.  Working class families already crowd into housing units designed for one family, and this will likely only get worse. 

    What Coastal California won’t have is much of a middle class.  Lack of opportunity and high housing costs makes the most pleasant parts of California an unattractive place for people who define quality of life by opportunity and affordable housing, young families.  Domestic migration is likely to continue to be negative.

    For its part, inland California is already depressed, 27 counties have unemployment rates over 15 percent.  Eight have unemployment rates above 20 percent.  Even during the boom, many of California’s inland areas had extraordinarily high unemployment rates.  Central California’s poverty and blight will only get worse.

    All this is courtesy of expensive California DURT.  Because of it, California’s economy will lag.  More importantly, California seems to be morphing into almost a Hollywood caricature.  The self-absorbed hedonistic wealthy live side by side with the poor, like  a combination of a Club Med and Leisure Village in a third-world country.

    Bill Watkins is a professor at California Lutheran University and runs the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting, which can be found at clucerf.org.

    Photo by chavez25

  • Perspectives on Urban Cores and Suburbs

    Our virtually instant analysis of 2000 census trends in metropolitan areas has the generated wide interest. The principal purpose is to chronicle the change in metropolitan area population and the extent to which that change occurred in the urban core as opposed to suburban areas.

    From a policy perspective, this is especially timely because of the recurring report that suburbanites have been moving to the urban core over the last decade. We have dealt with this issue extensively, noting the lack of data for any such interpretation. As of this writing, with data for more than half of the major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population) in, there remains virtually no evidence that people are "moving back to the city" (actually, most suburban growth came from outside metropolitan areas, not from the "cities").

    The Policy Context: Urban Cores and Suburbs

    This discussion is not new, and generally pits anti-automobile interests – including much of the urban planning community – who favor the urban development patterns of prewar America (generally the urban planning community) against those who would prefer allowing people to make their own choices about where they live or work..

    Over the past 60 or more years, the data indicates that consumers have nearly exclusively chosen less dense and more suburban areas. This is not to suggest, however that many of us, including this author, automatically favor suburbs over urban cores. Indeed, I have enjoyed years of alternating between living in suburban America and the urban core of the (inner) ville de Paris (arrondissements I, II, V, VII and XI). But if you have a taste for urban living, that does not mean high-density cities are inherently superior to suburban living. People, after all, have different preferences.

    Urban areas include both urban cores and suburbs. The delineation of urban cores and suburbs is subjective. There was for example a time – say around 1820 – when development to the north of New York’s Houston Street would have been considered suburban. More than two thirds of the present ville de Paris was suburban before the city limits were expanded in the 1860s. Now, no one would consider, for example, Washington Square or Herald Square to be suburban and the suburbs of Paris now extended to more than 80 times the land area of the 1860s ville de Paris.

    One overlooked way to approach the current debate would be to look not at municipal boundaries but forms of development. Around 1950 we began the breakneck expansion of automobile oriented suburbanization which had proceeded more modestly for two or more decades before.

    The Urban Core:

    This analysis defines the urban core consistent with the criteria of the US Bureau of the Census in 1950. Metropolitan areas are organized around urban areas (urbanized areas). We use the "central cities" of the core urban areas in 1950 as the urban core in the analysis. Those portions outside the 1950 urban core are thus considered suburban. Where an urban area did not exist in 1950 (such as in Las Vegas and Tucson), the urban core is the central city of the urban area when it was first established.

    No existing specification of the urban core is ideal, though the present one is appropriate for the policy purpose stated above. Clearly, the urban core would be far better defined at the census tract or even census block level based upon the characteristics of an urban core. This would include factors such as high residential population density, high transit usage, walkability and a high percentage of multiple unit residential buildings.

    Such an ideal definition of the urban core cannot be measured with municipal boundaries. Yet, municipal boundaries have routinely been used by researchers to delineate the urban core, not least because the data is readily available. However there three notable difficulties with the use of municipal boundaries to define the urban core.

    First; some areas with urban core characteristics are outside the core municipalities. As The Infrastructurist notes, municipalities like Jersey City or Hoboken have the characteristics of urban cores. However, since they are not a part of the core municipality (city of New York), they are classified as suburbs in our analysis. It is well to remember that both Hoboken and Jersey City represented suburban development, during their period of greatest growth, before 1930.

    Second, other areas with postwar suburban characteristics are inside the core municipalities. For example, Richmond County (Staten Island), a part of the city of New York is principally suburban. Much of it was developed well after 1950 and consists largely of single family homes. The median construction date of owner occupied housing in Staten Island is 1970, which compares to 1965 in adjacent Middlesex County, New Jersey. It is newer than in Morris County New Jersey (1965), much of which is outside the urban area (all median house construction years from the 2000 census). Major portions of core municipalities such as Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Portland, Seattle, Denver and others are also postwar suburban.

    Third, in a number of core municipalities, there is little, if any urban core, at least from a residential perspective. For example, one would be hard-pressed to identify an urban core in municipalities such as Phoenix or San Jose (despite the fact that the San Jose urban area is more dense than New York urban area). In metropolitan areas such as these, it might be preferable to define virtually all growth as suburban, though our analysis still defines these municipalities as the urban core.

    Based upon the early results from the census it seems that if the more ideal census tract-based urban core definition were used, the urban cores would be shown to be capturing an even smaller share of growth, while suburban areas would be capturing more. But this analysis will have to wait until all the numbers are in.

    Historical Core Municipality

    The term "historical core municipality" is used to denote the urban cores using municipal boundaries.  The term "city" is avoided because of its multiple definitions. Cities can be municipalities (such as in the city of New York), urban areas (such as the New York urban area), metropolitan areas (such as the New York metropolitan area) or multi-county regions or prefectures of countries like China (such as Wuhan or Shenyang).

    This lack of clarity can be routinely seen in media reports that indiscriminately (and without comprehension) make comparisons between cities, using differing definitions. This can even extend even to more technical literature (see pages 12-14 of Urban Transportation Policy Requires Factual Foundations).

    Principal Cities: Starting in 2003, the Census Bureau substituted the term "principal city" for the previous "central city" term. The use of principal city designations and the largest municipality as the principal name of a metropolitan area are appropriate for the purposes intended by the Census Bureau.

    In its State of Metropolitan America, the Brookings Institution uses up to the three largest principal cities (which it calls "primary cities") and consider other parts of metropolitan areas as suburbs.

    Neither approach, however, is appropriate in analyzing postwar suburbanization. Any municipality in a metropolitan area with more than 250,000 population is considered a principal city, regardless of its urban form. Any municipality with more than 50,000 population but which also has more jobs than resident workers is also a principal city, regardless of its actual on the ground reality.

    This leads to a situation in which, for example, Los Angeles has 26 principal cities. Any postwar urban form definition would classify nearly all as suburban (and much of the historical core municipality of Los Angeles, notably the San Fernando Valley, itself is suburban). For example, the suburban city of Cerritos is a principal city, yet was largely filled by dairy farms well into the 1950s and was called Dairy Valley.

    Other principal cities hardly existed in 1950. Virginia Beach has become the largest municipality in its metropolitan area, having displaced Norfolk. Yet, in 1950 Virginia Beach had a population of only 5,400, well below the 50,000 threshold that was required of central cities (smaller than Ponchatoula, Louisiana, doubtless an unfamiliar municipality to most readers). Arlington, Texas, the third municipality in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington metropolitan area, had a population of 7,700 in 1950, again well below the central city threshold. Arlington is not an urban core, it is a suburban jurisdiction.

    Virginia Beach is a good example of a suburban area that has become the largest municipality in a metropolitan area. Its greater size, however, does not make Virginia Beach the urban core. Otherwise, Contra Costa County in California could, by consolidating with its constituent municipalities (God forbid), replace San Francisco as the metropolitan area’s urban core.

    Perhaps the ultimate example of the problem of principal cities being confused with urban cores is Hemet, California, a principal city of the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area that is, in fact an exurb and not in the primary urban area.

    Toward the Future

    An eventual more precise analysis of urban cores and suburban trends will be welcome. Yet, as our analysis of trends in New Jersey indicated, even the growth in more urban core oriented municipalities was minuscule compared to the state’s suburban growth. Further, much of the urban core growth in the nation came from areas that, although formally located within “city limits” actually were on the suburban fringe. This was true, for example, in Kansas City, Oklahoma City and even Portland.  This suggests that the small share of growth reported in urban cores would be even less if it were based on census tract data; and suburbanization, as a way of life, may indeed be even more prevalent than this year’s numbers suggest. 

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

    Photo by urbanfeel

  • California’s Demographic Dilemma: A Class And Culture Clash

    The newly released Census reports reveal that California faces a profound gap between the cities where people are moving to and the cities that hold all the political power. It is a tale that divides the state between its coastal metropolitan regions that dominate the state’s politics — particularly the San Francisco Bay Area, but also Los Angeles — and its still-growing, largely powerless interior regions.

    Indeed, the “progressives” of the coast are fundamentally anti-growth, less concerned with promoting broad-based economic growth — despite 12.5% statewide unemployment — than in preserving the privileges of their sponsors among public sector unions and generally affluent environmentalists. This could breed a big conflict between the coastal idealists and the working class and increasingly Latino residents in the more hardscrabble interior, whose economic realities are largely ignored by the state’s government.

    The Census shows that the Bay Area and Los Angeles are growing at their slowest rate in over 160 years under American rule. Between 2000 and 2010 Los Angeles gained less population than in any decade since the 1890s. Its growth rate was slower than metropolitan Chicago, St. Louis and virtually every region that has reported to date, with the exception of New Orleans.

    This reflects not only the poor economy of the past few years, but also a widely cited drop-off in foreign immigration and continued massive outmigration of residents to other states. One reason for this mass exodus may be soaring house prices — largely the product of strong regulatory restraints — which appear to have contributed to slowing population growth after 2003.

    Yet not all of California is stagnating demographically. The state’s interior region — what I call “The Third California” — is growing steadily. While  Orange County, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and the Silicon Valley increased their population by only 6% or less over the last decade, inland areas such as Riverside-San Bernardino, Sacramento and the Central Valley saw growth of 20% or more. Overall, the interior counties together gained 2 million residents , roughly twice as many as the combined coastal metropolitan areas.

    The reasons for this growth are not difficult to comprehend. In boom times and hard times, housing prices in the coastal regions tend to equal as much as seven or eight times a median family income. The prices in the interior can be three times or less.

    In addition, during the past two decades, the interior region enjoyed fairly strong economic growth. Pro-business county governments promoted the expansion not only of housing, which boosted construction, but of basic industries such as food processing, manufacturing and warehousing. According to economist John Husing, the Inland Empire alone accounted for over 40% of the state’s total job growth.

    Today, in the wake of the collapsed housing bubble, these interior counties are reeling, with double-digit unemployment (in some cases reaching closer to 20%) and what appear to be diminishing prospects. Five of the nation’s 10 metro areas for foreclosures are located in California’s interior.

    Under normal circumstances, lower housing prices and business costs would lead — as in past recessions — to a spate of new economic growth, but this the radical turn in California government could keep these areas permanently poor.

    Essentially, the Third California has become hostage to the coastal cities and their increasingly bizarre economic policies. Under first Arnold Schwarzenegger and now Jerry Brown, California has embraced a series of radical environmental edicts that spell disaster for the more blue-collar interior. These include dodgy land use policies designed to combat “climate change” but essentially seek to steer middle- and working-class Californians out of their cherished suburban homes and into densely packed urban apartment complexes.

    The last election confirmed the Bay Area’s ascendency in Sacramento. Gov. Jerry Brown was previously mayor of Oakland (a city that actually lost population this decade), while the lieutenant governor, former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, and the new attorney general, Kamala Harris, are from the city by the Bay.  The San Francisco area’s population may be about the same as the Inland Empire’s, but its political perspective now dominates the state.

    Husing describes San Francisco as “a bastion of elitist thinking” due to a large “trustifarian” class who have turned the city into favorite spot for green and fashionably “progressive” think tanks. This thinking is increasingly influential as well in a rapidly changing Silicon Valley. In the past the Valley was a manufacturing powerhouse and had to worry about such things as energy prices, water availability and regulatory relief. But the increasingly dominant information companies such as Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and their wannabes are widely unconnected to industrial production in the region. To be sure, they have created a financial bubble in the area that has made some fantastically rich, but according to researcher Tamara Carleton they have contributed very little in new net job creation, particularly for blue-collar or middle-class workers.

    There’s a bit of a snob factor here. Fashionable urbanistas extol San Francisco as a role model for the nation. The City, as they call it, has adopted the lead on everything from getting rid of plastic bags and Happy Meals is now considering a ban on circumcision. When it comes to everything from gay rights to bike lanes, no place is more consciously “progressive” than San Francisco. So why should that charmed city care about what happens to farmworkers or construction laborers in not-so-pretty Fresno?

    Class and occupational profile also has much to do with this gap between the Californias. Husing notes that the Bay Area has far more people with college degrees  (42%) than either Southern California (30%) or the Central Valley (where the percentage is even lower). Green policies that impact blue-collar workers — restraining the growth of the LA port complex, restricting new single-family home construction or cutting off water supplies to farmers — mean little distress for the heavily white, aging and affluent Bay Area ruling circles.

    But such moves could have a devastating impact on the increasingly Latino, younger and less well-educated populace of the interior. Outside of the oft-promised green jobs — which Husing calls “more propaganda than economics” — it is these less privileged residents’ employment that is most likely to be exported to other states and countries, places where broad-based economic growth is still considered a worthy thing.  “By our ferocious concentration on the environment, we have created a huge issue of social justice,” Husing points out. “We are telling blue collar workers we don’t want you to have a job.”

    This all presages what could be the greatest issue facing California — and much of the country — in the decades to come. In places where San Francisco-like fantasy politics preside, expect to witness a growing class and ethnic divide, with consequences that could prove catastrophic to the future of our increasingly diverse society.

    This piece originally appeared at Forbes.com

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo by wstera2

  • Bay Area Growth Slowing

    New 2010 Census data indicates that the two major metropolitan areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco and San Jose, have settled into a pattern of slow growth.

    San Francisco: The San Francisco metropolitan area grew 5.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, a more than one-half drop from the 1990 to 2000 rate of 11.9 percent, from 4,124,000 to 4,335,000, for a gain of 211,000. Only in one decade (1970 to 1980) have the five counties of the metropolitan area gained at such a slow percentage rate.

    The historical core municipalities of San Francisco and Oakland gained 20,000 residents, from 1,176,000 to 1,196,000. San Francisco reached a population of 805,000, up from 777,000 in 2000. As in the case of both the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County, the State Department of Finance estimate (857,000) was well above the Census Bureau population count (We had previously questioned the aggressive population projections released by the State Department of Finance in an Orange County Register op-ed,  60 Million Californians: Don’t Bet on It). Even with this increase, however, the city of San Francisco remains below its population peak of 827,000, recorded in a 1945 special census, according to the Census Bureau.

    The city of Oakland declined in population from 399,000 to 391,000. The historical core municipalities grew 1.7 percent, compared to the 6.5 percent growth rate of the suburbs. The historical core municipalities captured nine percent of the metropolitan area growth, with 91 percent of the growth going to the suburbs. The State Department of Finance estimate, at 430,000, was more than 10 percent above the actual Census Bureau count. The city of Oakland also reached its population peak of 401,000 in a 1945 special census.

    While San Francisco remains the second largest metropolitan area in the state (after Los Angeles), this distinction could soon be lost. Riverside-San Bernardino registered a population of 4,225,000 and at growth rates of the last decade, would pass San Francisco by 2012.

    San Jose: The San Jose metropolitan area grew 5.8 percent between 2000 and 2010, from 1,736,000 to 1,837,000. The historical core municipality of San Jose rose 5.0 percent, from 901,000 in 2000 to 946,000 in 2010. San Jose captured 44 percent of the metropolitan area growth, the highest figure among the reporting metropolitan areas except for the largely suburban historic municipality of Oklahoma City (47 percent). The State Department of Finance had estimated the city of San Jose population at 1,023,000 in 2010, indicating that its growth estimate for the decade was more than 2.5 times the increase indicated in the census count.

    The suburbs of the San Jose metropolitan area grew 6.7 percent and accounted for 56 percent of the population growth.

  • The State of Silicon Valley

    Every year, the top officials, policy wonks, and business managers convene at the annual State of the Valley conference to discuss and debate the health of the region. Over a thousand attendees trekked to San Jose, Calif., on Feb. 18 for the release of this year’s report. Published since 1995 by Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network and distributed for free, the new 2011 Index of Silicon Valley reported bleak indicators and a gloomy outlook.

    The event provided Valley insiders a moment to reflect on the economic storm, and the mood was darkly optimistic. A persistent phrase tossed out was the “new normal,” old Wall Street jargon describing a repressed economic environment. Growth is too slow to bring down the unemployment rate, and government intervenes to save a struggling private sector.

    Tally of the Valley

    Certainly Silicon Valley has had its share of troubles suffering from poor state finances and severe global competition. Unemployment has hit nearly 10 percent, higher than when the recession started. The region’s population of three million, comprised of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, has continued to drop as talent leaves for opportunity in cheaper pastures. Foreign immigration, considered a critical factor in the region’s entrepreneurship, dropped by 40 percent to its lowest level in the last decade since 2009 and stayed flat through 2010.

    Adding to the woe, Silicon Valley towns are facing budget shortfalls and downsizing their public services. San Jose faces a 10th straight year of red ink, adding up to a gap of $110 million in the next fiscal year. Caltrain plans to close up to 16 stations to survive a record $30.3 million deficit – about one-third of the commuter rail’s operating budget.

    Education has also taken a big hit. The California college system is wheezing from tremendous budget cuts, calculated at $1.4 billion across the state, which hit all three levels of tertiary education. Foothill-De Anza Community College, one of the largest community college districts in the U.S., confronts roughly $10.9 million in cuts on top of drastic budget slashes from previous years.

    Further, the local housing market remains stagnant, and 2010 marked, due in part to a tough regulatory environment, the third consecutive year that Silicon Valley was the least affordable California region for first-time home buyers.

    In the Eye of the Beholder

    It’s a dismal state of affairs if you ask the local old guard. Judy Estrin, former chief technology officer of Cisco Systems, grumbled that one problem was outsourcing. Too many startups were adopting the practice in her view, and she told the audience, “Don’t automatically go to China.”

    Others were concerned that jobs were being shipped simply to towns east across the bay. Much ballyhooed and well-subsidized sectors, such as cleantech, would not produce enough jobs to be economically meaningful in the recovery. Attendees were fearful that the Valley has lost its edge.

    If those who know Silicon Valley best are somewhat pessimistic, the Valley looks golden for many looking from the outside. The day before the conference, President Obama sought money and advice from the Valley’s tech elite, including Steve Jobs of Apple and Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook. Obama’s agenda was to push innovation, and aside from escaping the U.S. capital now and then, it is tellingly that he turned first to Silicon Valley.

    The Valley has also inspired other city governments. New York City – which once boasted its own “Silicon Alley” was winning over the Valley’s decidedly suburban model – recently asked Stanford University to help train its urban talent. As one local reporter put it gleefully, New York is “hoping to replicate our Apple in The Big Apple”.

    Although financial analysts once considered Apple washed up as a stock less than 10 years ago, the technology company is now lauded for transforming the mobile and entertainment industry and turning Silicon Valley into a mobile mecca. Goaded by Apple, mobile manufacturing giant Sony Ericsson is shifting all its product development from Sweden to Silicon Valley. Nokia, the world’s largest mobile phone maker, is also reportedly considering plans to relocate its executives to the Valley.

    Growing Regional Value, Not Growth

    The prevailing question remains: how will Silicon Valley sustain its lead in innovation. For some the response is to either raise taxes or cut public services as a matter of survival. At the State of the Valley conference, the overriding call to action was to unite 110 local governments through centralized regional leadership. However, the notion of a regional governing body had been introduced before in the 1990s and failed instantly in California state legislation.

    So what might the future hold? Last year’s report card aside, financial analysts are cheery about the Valley’s prospects. Silicon Valley Bank’s Financial Group reports that technology spending is expected to grow by more than five percent in 2011. The majority of their clients finished 2010 in better financial shape than the prior year, and median revenues for all early and growth stage technology clients grew 50 percent from the year before.

    The IPO market has woken from its slumber. Seven tech IPOs have already occurred this year, raising $700 million in total, with an average return of 26.5%, according to research firm Renaissance Capital. Even the international press is writing about the next boom being led by Silicon Valley.

    For all the money being generated, Silicon Valley is not producing more jobs in the local economy. Many startups look to Facebook as a leader in the social media space. Its user base of 600 million has generated a massive population that dwarfs that of the U.S. Yet the company has only about 2000 employees. Facebook presents a conundrum. Is it an innovative global leader that has mastered the art of efficient scaling that is the beginning of a new era in Silicon Valley, or has Facebook become the antithesis of economic growth for the U.S. administration?

    Similar to Facebook, Apple is also spurning growth – at least as defined by the conventional measure of new jobs. The company has redefined the tech industry by creating new technologies and new solutions, but not necessarily creating new growth for the region directly. While Apple employs just 30,000 people, the subcontractor that actually assembles its products employs over a million workers, all in China. Developers for Apple’s software applications and hardware accessories are scattered around the world. Instead, Apple has fostered an ecosystem whose heart resides in Silicon Valley.

    Silicon Valley is changing perceptions and practices once again. Like the proverbial cat with nine lives, Silicon Valley has at least several more transformations ahead.

    Tamara Carleton, Ph.D., is a Fellow at the Foundation for Enterprise Development. Her research studies the organizational processes and structures that enable radical technological innovation.

  • More Cap and Trade Delays in California

    The California Air Resources Board had good intentions when it developed a cap-and-trade plan to meet greenhouse gas standards, but according to a San Francisco Superior Court Judge, the Board made a few mistakes that will delay their efforts. The Air Resources Board is acting in response to AB32, California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which calls for the reduction of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

    They are being sued by a team of environmental groups, represented by the San Francisco’s Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment, who disapprove of the Board’s inadequate analysis of alternatives to cap and trade. Not only that, but Judge Ernest Goldsmith found that the Board’s “analysis provides no evidence to support its chosen approach.” These issues are becoming commonplace in California these days, as they echo the criticisms of California’s High Speed Rail Authority’s quick decisions in building new rail lines.

    The California Air Resources Board will not be able to move forward until it complies with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, which Governor Reagan enacted to make sure agencies in California both determined and prevented the environmental consequences of their projects. The environmental groups who raised this lawsuit, who would be disappointed if AB32 were to be delayed or abolished, want to assure that any environmental legislation would not hurt disadvantage communities in the state. Therefore, they are willing to wait for the Air Resources Board to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and explore the possibilities beyond cap-and-trade.

    Acting too quickly without fully exploring all options has become a theme in California politics, mainly because the state is in such a rush to meet deadlines outlined in the legislation or that dictate the disbursement of federal funds. This haste to develop may ultimately hinder new projects since the public will be extra vigilant in making sure agencies find solutions that support their well-being.

  • Regional Exchange Rates: The Cost of Living in US Metropolitan Areas

    International travelers and expatriates have long known that currency exchange rates are not reliable indicators of purchasing power. For example, a traveler to France or Germany will notice that the dollar equivalent in Euros cannot buy as much as at home. Conversely, the traveler to China will note that the dollar equivalent in Yuan will buy more.

    Economists have attempted to solve this problem by developing "purchasing power parities," which are used to estimate currency conversion rates that equalize values based upon prices (Note 1). This helps establish the real value of money in a particular place.

    When people move from one region of the United States to another they can encounter a similar phenomenon. For example, a dollar is not worth as much in San Jose as it is in St. Louis. Research by the US Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), for example, found that in 2006 a dollar purchased roughly 35 cents less in San Jose than in St. Louis. BEA researchers estimated "regional price parities" for states and the District of Columbia and for all of the nation’s metropolitan areas (Note 2). Regional price parities can be thought of as the equivalent of regional (state or metropolitan area) exchange rates. This research was covered in previous newgeography.com articles by Eamon Moynihan and this author.

    This article uses Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics metropolitan area consumer price indexes to estimate the 2009 cost of living and per capita personal income adjusted for the cost of living.

    Cost of Living: At the regional level (See Census Region Map, Figure 1), there are substantial differences in the cost of living (Figure 2). The lowest cost of living is in the Midwest, at 4.8 percent below the nation. The South has the second lowest cost of living at 3.9 percent above the national level. The West is the most expensive area, 13.5 percent above the national cost-of-living, while the Northeast’s cost-of-living stands 11.3 percent above the national rate.

    The cost of living in the South may seem higher than expected. But if the higher cost metropolitan areas of Washington, Baltimore and Miami are excluded, the cost of living in the South falls to 1.5 percent below the national rate. If the California metropolitan areas are excluded from the West, the cost of living still remains 4.0 percent above the national rate.

    Per Capita Income: The highest unadjusted per capita incomes are in the Northeast, followed by the West, the South and the Midwest. Yet when metropolitan area exchange rates are taken into consideration, the order changes significantly. The Northeast remains the most affluent, and the Midwest moves from last place to second place. The South is in third place, the same as its income rating, while the West falls from second place to fourth place (Figure 3).

    Cost of Living: Variations in the cost of living, which is reflected by the metropolitan area exchange rates, remains similar in 2009 to the 2006 rankings.

    The Top Ten: The lowest costs of living were in (Table 1):

    1. St. Louis, where $0.891 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    2. Kansas City, where $0.903 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    3. Cleveland, where $0.921 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    4. Pittsburgh, where $0.941 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    5. Cincinnati, where $0.944 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.

    Rounding out the most affordable 10 are two metropolitan areas in the South (Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth), two in the Midwest (Detroit and Milwaukee) and one in the West (Denver). No Northeastern metropolitan area was ranked in the top 10.

    Table 1
    Estimated Cost of Living: 2009
    Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 with Local CPIs
    Rank Metropolitan Area
    Metropolitan Exchange Rate: to Purchase $1.00 at National Average
    Compared to Lowest Cost of Living
    1
    		 St. Louis, MO-IL
    $0.891
    0%
    2
    		 Kansas City, MO-KS
    $0.903
    1%
    3
    		 Cleveland, OH
    $0.921
    3%
    4
    		 Pittsburgh. PA
    $0.941
    6%
    5
    		 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
    $0.944
    6%
    6
    		 Atlanta. GA
    $0.958
    8%
    7
    		 Detroit. MI
    $0.959
    8%
    8
    		 Milwaukee. WI
    $0.959
    8%
    9
    		 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
    $0.976
    10%
    10
    		 Denver, CO
    $0.996
    12%
    11
    		 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
    $1.000
    12%
    12
    		 Houston, TX
    $1.000
    12%
    13
    		 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
    $1.006
    13%
    14
    		 Phoenix, AZ
    $1.011
    14%
    15
    		 Portland, OR-WA
    $1.034
    16%
    16
    		 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
    $1.041
    17%
    17
    		 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
    $1.054
    18%
    18
    		 Baltimore, MD
    $1.068
    20%
    19
    		 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
    $1.078
    21%
    20
    		 Miami-West Palm Beach, FL
    $1.085
    22%
    21
    		 Seattle, WA
    $1.120
    26%
    22
    		 San Diego, CA
    $1.151
    29%
    23
    		 Boston, MA
    $1.175
    32%
    24
    		 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
    $1.181
    33%
    25
    		 Los Angeles, CA
    $1.222
    37%
    26
    		 San Francisco-Oakland, CA
    $1.258
    41%
    27
    		 New York, NY-NJ-PA
    $1.281
    44%
    28
    		 San Jose, CA
    $1.343
    51%
    Estimated from BEA 2006 data, adjusted by local Consumer Price Index for 2006-2009

     

    The Bottom Ten: The most expensive metropolitan areas were:

    28. San Jose, where $1.343 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    27. New York, where $1.281 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    26. San Francisco, where $1.268 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    25. Los Angeles, where $1.222 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.
    24. Washington, where $1.181 purchased $1.00 in value at the national average.

    The bottom ten also included three metropolitan areas in the West (Riverside-San Bernardino, San Diego and Seattle), one in the Northeast (Boston) and one in the South (Miami). There were no Midwestern metropolitan areas in the bottom 10.

    Per Capita Income: Per capita income in 2009 was then adjusted for the cost of living.

    Top Ten:Washington has the highest per capita income, adjusted for the cost of living, at $47,800. San Francisco placed second at $47,500. Denver ranked third at $46,200, while the cost-of-living adjusted income in Minneapolis-St. Paul was $45,800 and $45,700 in Boston. The top 10 also included two Midwestern metropolitan areas (St. Louis and Kansas City), two from the Northeast (Baltimore and Pittsburgh) and one from the West (Seattle).

    Bottom Ten: The least affluent metropolitan area was Riverside-San Bernardino, with a per capita income of $27,800. Phoenix was second least affluent at $33,900 while Los Angeles was third least affluent at $35,000. The fourth least affluent metropolitan area was Tampa-St. Petersburg at $36,600 and the fifth least affluent metropolitan area was Portland at $37,400. The bottom 10 also included two metropolitan areas from the South (Atlanta and Miami), two from the Midwest (Cincinnati and Detroit) and one from the West (San Diego).

    The cost of living adjusted income data includes surprises. New York, commonly considered a particularly affluent metropolitan area, ranked 17th in cost-of-living adjusted income, and below such seemingly unlikely metropolitan areas as Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Cleveland, St. Louis and Milwaukee. These metropolitan areas also ranked above San Jose, which ranked first in unadjusted income in 2000, but now ranks 16th in cost of living adjusted income (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Personal Income Per Capita Adjusted for  the Cost of Liviing
    Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 with Local CPIs
    Rank (Cost of Living Adjusted)
    Rank (Unadjusted Income)
    		 Metropolitan Area
    Per Capita Income 2009: Adjusted for Cost of Living
    Per Capita Income 2009: Unadjusted
    1
    2
    		 Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
    $47,780
    $56,442
    2
    1
    		 San Francisco-Oakland, CA
    $47,462
    $59,696
    3
    8
    		 Denver, CO
    $46,172
    $45,982
    4
    9
    		 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
    $45,772
    $45,750
    5
    4
    		 Boston, MA
    $45,707
    $53,713
    6
    18
    		 St. Louis, MO-IL
    $45,288
    $40,342
    7
    7
    		 Baltimore, MD
    $44,908
    $47,962
    8
    15
    		 Pittsburgh. PA
    $44,848
    $42,216
    9
    19
    		 Kansas City, MO-KS
    $43,862
    $39,619
    10
    6
    		 Seattle, WA
    $43,730
    $48,976
    11
    13
    		 Houston, TX
    $43,581
    $43,568
    12
    16
    		 Milwaukee. WI
    $43,477
    $41,696
    13
    11
    		 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
    $43,247
    $45,565
    14
    21
    		 Cleveland, OH
    $42,734
    $39,348
    15
    12
    		 Chicago, IL-IN-WI
    $41,990
    $43,727
    16
    3
    		 San Jose, CA
    $41,255
    $55,404
    17
    5
    		 New York, NY-NJ-PA
    $40,893
    $52,375
    18
    20
    		 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
    $40,494
    $39,514
    19
    23
    		 Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
    $40,437
    $38,168
    20
    10
    		 San Diego, CA
    $39,647
    $45,630
    21
    24
    		 Detroit. MI
    $39,147
    $37,541
    22
    17
    		 Miami-West Palm Beach, FL
    $38,124
    $41,352
    23
    26
    		 Atlanta. GA
    $38,081
    $36,482
    24
    22
    		 Portland, OR-WA
    $37,446
    $38,728
    25
    25
    		 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
    $36,561
    $36,780
    26
    14
    		 Los Angeles, CA
    $35,045
    $42,818
    27
    27
    		 Phoenix, AZ
    $33,897
    $34,282
    28
    28
    		 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA
    $27,767
    $29,930
    Estimated from BEA 2009 income data and 2006 regional price parity data, adjusted by local Consumer Price Index for 2006-2009

     

    Some expensive metropolitan areas such as Washington, San Francisco and Boston ranked at or near the top, but their cost-of-living adjusted incomes were considerably less than the unadjusted incomes. On average, it took $1.20 to purchase $1.00 of value at national rates in these three metropolitan areas. Washington’s unadjusted per capita income was 40 percent ($16,100) higher than that of St. Louis, however when the cost of living is factored in, Washington’s advantage drops to 6 percent ($2,500).

    Caveats: The analysis above does not consider cost-of-living differentials within metropolitan areas. For example, data from the ACCRA cost of living index indicates generally higher prices in the cores of the largest metropolitan areas, such as New York (especially Manhattan), Chicago and San Francisco. Further, these data make no adjustment for relative levels of taxation. A cost of living analysis using disposable income would produce different results, dropping higher taxed metropolitan areas to lower rankings and raising lower taxed metropolitan areas higher.

    Cost of Living Differences: Will They Continue? The spread in cost-of-living between metropolitan areas have been driven wider over the last decade by the relative escalation of house prices in some metropolitan areas in the West, Florida and the Northeast. Whether these shifts in cost of living will be reflected in migration patterns will be one of the things to look for in the new Census.

    ———

    Note 1: Purchasing power parity data is published by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

    Note 2: The BEA research applied regional price parity factors only to employee compensation and excluded other income. It is possible that, had the analysis been expanded to these other forms of income, the differences in cost of living would have been greater.

    Photo: Rosslyn, VA business district, Washington (by author)

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

  • Personal Income in the 2000s: Top and Bottom Ten Metropolitan Areas

    The first decade of the new millennium was particularly hard on the US economy. First, there was the recession that followed the attacks of 9/11. That was followed by the housing bust and the resulting Great Financial Crisis, which was the most severe economic decline since the Great Depression.

    Per capita personal incomes in America’s major metropolitan areas vary widely. Moreover, the changes in per capita incomes from 2000 to 2009 have also varied. The differences are particularly obvious when average incomes are adjusted for metropolitan area Consumer Price Indexes. The US Bureau of Labor statistics produces a Consumer Price Index for nearly 30 metropolitan areas. Among these, 28 metropolitan areas are covered by these local Consumer Price Indexes.

    While overall national inflation was approximately 25 percent between 2000 and 2009, the metropolitan area inflation indexes ranged from 16 percent in Phoenix to more than 32 percent in San Diego. Five additional metropolitan areas had 2000 to 2009 inflation of more than 30 percent, including Los Angeles, Riverside-San Bernardino, Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg and San Diego. Four metropolitan areas experienced inflation of less than 20 percent, including Atlanta, Detroit and Cleveland and Phoenix.

    Overall, the 28 metropolitan areas covered by metropolitan inflation indexes averaged a per capita income decrease of 0.1 percent, after adjustment for inflation. Increases were achieved in 18 metropolitan areas, while decreases occurred in 10. The overall average declines occurred because the steepest loss (19 percent in San Jose), was far outside the plus 10 percent to minus 8 percent range of the other 27 metropolitan areas (Table).

    Metropolitan Area: Per Capita Income
    Metropolitan Areas Covered by Metropolitan Consumer Price Indexes
    Inflation Adjusted
    Rank Metropolitan Area
    2000 in 2009$
    2009
    Change
    1 Baltimore
    $    43,729
    $    47,962
    9.7%
    2 Pittsburgh
    $    39,024
    $    42,216
    8.2%
    3 Washington
    $    53,753
    $    56,442
    5.0%
    4 Philadelphia
    $    43,572
    $    45,565
    4.6%
    5 St. Louis
    $    38,636
    $    40,342
    4.4%
    6 Milwaukee
    $    40,028
    $    41,696
    4.2%
    7 Los Angeles
    $    41,382
    $    42,818
    3.5%
    8 Houston
    $    42,232
    $    43,568
    3.2%
    9 Cleveland
    $    38,396
    $    39,348
    2.5%
    10 Chicago
    $    42,761
    $    43,727
    2.3%
    11 Phoenix
    $    33,594
    $    34,282
    2.0%
    12 San Diego
    $    44,812
    $    45,630
    1.8%
    13 Kansas City
    $    39,020
    $    39,619
    1.5%
    14 New York
    $    51,638
    $    52,375
    1.4%
    15 Cincinnati
    $    37,852
    $    38,168
    0.8%
    16 Seattle
    $    48,651
    $    48,976
    0.7%
    17 Boston
    $    53,396
    $    53,713
    0.6%
    18 Minneapolis-St. Paul
    $    45,690
    $    45,750
    0.1%
    19 Denver
    $    46,205
    $    45,982
    -0.5%
    20 Miami-West Pallm Beach
    $    41,937
    $    41,352
    -1.4%
    21 Riverside-San Bernardino
    $    30,600
    $    29,930
    -2.2%
    22 Portland
    $    39,703
    $    38,728
    -2.5%
    23 Tampa-St. Petersburg
    $    38,048
    $    36,780
    -3.3%
    24 San Francico
    $    61,831
    $    59,696
    -3.5%
    25 Dallas-Fort Worth
    $    41,575
    $    39,514
    -5.0%
    26 Detroit
    $    40,412
    $    37,541
    -7.1%
    27 Atlanta
    $    39,775
    $    36,482
    -8.3%
    28 San Jose
    $    68,185
    $    55,404
    -18.7%
    Unweighted Average
    $    43,801
    $    43,700
    -0.2%

    The Top Ten: The strongest per capita personal income growth between 2000 and 2009 was in Baltimore, which had an inflation adjusted increase of 9.7 percent. This strong performance is not surprising due to Baltimore’s proximity to Washington and the federal government’s high paying jobs. It also receives spillover lucrative employment from federal contracts to health, defense and security companies. In fact, Baltimore did better than Washington. Washington, which extends from the District of Columbia and into Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia. Not that DC did badly; it boasted the third highest income growth, and 5.0 percent.

    However, perhaps the biggest surprise is the metropolitan area that slipped into the number two position between Baltimore and Washington. The Pittsburgh metropolitan area, which may have faced the most severe economic challenges of any major metropolitan area over the past 40 years, achieved per capita personal income growth of 8.2 percent. The Pittsburgh gain is all the more significant in view of the local financing difficulties which placed the city of Pittsburgh in the near equivalent of bankruptcy under Pennsylvania’s Act 47. However, as is the case in on number of metropolitan areas, the central city has become much less dominant and no longer seals the fate of the larger metropolitan area. Today, the city of Pittsburgh accounts for only 15 percent of the metropolitan area population.

    Philadelphia, the other long troubled region across the state, constitutes another surprise. Philadelphia placed fourth in per capita income growth at 4.6 percent only slightly behind Washington. The Philadelphia metropolitan area borders on that of Baltimore, stretching from Pennsylvania into New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland. Together with Washington and Baltimore, Philadelphia anchors the northern end of a corridor of comparative prosperity.

    Four of the next six positions are occupied by Midwest metropolitan areas. This may be unexpected because of the significant job losses sustained in this area since 2000. St. Louis, which stretches from Missouri into Illinois, ranked fifth in per capita income growth, at 4.4 percent. Milwaukee ranked sixth in its per capita income growth at 4.2 percent. Cleveland ranked ninth with per capita income growth of 2.5 percent, while Chicago placed 10th, with a gain of 2.3 percent in per capita personal income.

    Los Angeles was the only metropolitan area in the West to place in the top 10 in per capita income growth. Los Angeles ranked seventh growth of 3.5 percent. Houston replaced eighth with personal income growth of 3.2 percent.

    Overall, the East and Midwest captured six of the top ten income positions, while the South and West occupied four of the top ten positions.

    The Bottom 10: If the top 10 contained surprises, the bottom 10 could be even more surprising. Last place (28th) was occupied by San Jose, which experienced a stunning 18.7 percent decline in per capita inflation adjusted income between 2000 and 2009. This income loss is more than double that of the second-worst performing metropolitan area and more than triples that of all but two other metropolitan areas.

    The second worst position (27th) also contained a surprise, in Atlanta, which has enjoyed decades of unbridled growth. Yet, Atlanta experienced a per capita income loss of 8.3 percent. There was no surprise in the third to the last ranking (26th) of Detroit, with its automobile industry employment losses and the physical deterioration of its central city, which may be unprecedented in modern peace-time. Per capita incomes declined 7.1 percent in Detroit.

    Dallas-Fort Worth, which has also experienced strong growth in the past, posted a surprising fourth worst, with a per capita income decline of 5.0 percent. San Francisco, which has now replaced San Jose as the metropolitan area with the highest per capita income, ranked fifth worst and experienced a decline of 3.5 percent.

    All of the remaining bottom 10 positions were occupied by metropolitan areas that have developed a reputation for strong growth. Tampa St. Petersburg ranked 6th worst, with a per capita income loss of 3.3 percent. Portland (Oregon) ranked 7th worst with a personal income loss of 2.5 percent. Riverside San Bernardino, with the lowest per capita income ranking out of the 28 metropolitan areas, ranked 8th worst with a per capita income drop of 2.2 percent.

    The Miami (to West Palm Beach) metropolitan area ranked 9th in personal income growth with a loss of 1.4 percent from 2000 to 2009, while Denver topped out the bottom 10, ranking, with a per capita income loss of 0.5 percent

    Overall, the South and the West captured nine of the bottom ten positions, while only one Midwestern metropolitan area, Detroit, broke into the bottom ten.

    Of course, the 2000s certainly were an unusual time. But it does suggest that the dogma about the geography of regional prosperity needs to be challenged and perhaps thoroughly revised.

    Photo: Pittsburgh: Second Fastest Growing Income per Capita 2000-2009 (photo by author)

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life”

  • California’s Third Brown Era

    Jerry Brown’s no-frills inauguration today as California governor will make headlines, but the meager celebration also marks the restoration of one of the country’s most illustrious political families. Save the Kennedys of Massachusetts no clan has dominated the political life of a major state in modern times than the Browns of California. A member of this old California Irish clan has been in statewide office for most of the past half century; by the end of Jerry Brown’s new term, his third, the family will have inhabited the California chief executive office for a remarkable two full decades since 1958.

    Brown, at 72 the oldest governor in state history, may well determine the final legacy of this remarkable family. His biggest challenge will be to reverse the state’s long-term secular decline — a stark contrast to the heady days of the first Brown era, presided over by paterfamilias Edmund “Pat” Brown.

    Pat Brown was a committed progressive who actually believed in both social and economic progress. He did not focus on re-distributing wealth or expanding bureaucratic controls; his priority was to use government to help generate greater opportunities for Californians.

    Under Pat roughly 20% of the state budget was devoted to capital outlays. He expanded wealth creating infrastructure such as freeways and the State Water Project, which created vast expanses of new, highly fertile farmland. He also increased the state’s parklands so that middle-class Californians could enjoy the state’s unmatched natural beauty.

    Pat, as historian Kevin Starr notes, also transformed California into “a mecca for education.” Inexpensive and quality training — from the elite university to the extensive network of community colleges — fostered high-tech industries across the state. Under Pat Brown, California’s share of the nation’s employment rose from some 8% to 10% as its GDP swelled by a similar percent.

    Pat, not surprisingly, remains an iconic figure for many older Californians. What ended his career was not so much his embrace of big government — although its growing scope and cost concerned many voters  – but backlash against the 1964 “free speech” riots at Berkeley and the far deadlier civil unrest in Watts the following year.  Running as the candidate of law and order, as well as fiscal conservatism, Ronald Reagan in 1966 defeated Brown’s bid for a third term.

    Yet so great was the reservoir of affection for the Pat Brown that in 1974 the voters elected his 36-year-old son as Reagan’s successor. As the late Joe Cerrell, a key operative for both Browns, put it: “If he had run as Edmund G. Green, he wouldn’t have bet on his running in the top 14.”

    Jerry Brown turned out to be of a very different political hue than his father. Sometimes he sounded more anti-government even than Reagan. He disdained his father’s traditional focus on   infrastructure spending and instead preached about amore environmentally friendly “era of limits.”  Brown cut the percentage of spending on such capital improvements from roughly 10% of state spending under Reagan to barely 5%, where it remains mired today.

    Arguably Brown’s biggest mistake was signing legislation in 1978 that allowed collective bargaining for public employee unions. This opened the door for a power grab that eventually drove the state toward semi-permanent penury. Brown’s early embrace of environmentalism also set a pattern of state green engineering that, although clearly avant garde , also tipped the state’s competitive edge.

    Brown, however, also showed a pragmatic side.   Although initially opposed to Howard Jarvis’ 1978 Proposition 13 limits on property taxes, he later embraced it  so enthusiastically that the casual voter might have mistaken him for its author. In his second term Brown also evolved into an avid cheerleader for the state’s burgeoning high-tech industry.

    He also had good fortune to govern California at a time when surging Japanese investment, the high tech boom and, perhaps most important of all, the military buildup accelerated by the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan generated a remarkable economic boom. Between 1976 and 1980 aerospace and electronics-related employment jumped by a third. California’s share of the nation’s GDP, population and jobs rose steadily, while job growth surpassed the national average.

    The third Brown era, sadly, starts with far less favorable prospects. The state’s share of the nation’s economy and employment has been shrinking for at least a decade. Per capita income has fallen in comparison with the national average by nearly 20%. Once the nation’s high tech wunderkind, California’s share of new high-tech jobs has fallen to a fraction of the national average, while other states, notably Texas, Virginia, Utah and Washington have surged ahead.

    Things have been toughest on the state’s working class. Despite an ever-expanding welfare state, California’s 36 million people suffer a rate of poverty at least one-third higher than the national average when adjusted for cost of living.  Unemployment now is higher than any major state outside Michigan.

    Meanwhile, even as state social spending has surged, reminders of the heroic period — from the state system of higher education to the power, water and freeway systems — have fallen into disrepair. The state’s finances are in even worse shape. Under the feckless Arnold Schwarzenegger, state debt jumped from $34 billion to $88 billion. California now spends twice as much on servicing its interest (more than $6 billion annually) than on the University of California.

    Brown himself recently conceded that the state budget deficit may widen to $28 billion over the next 18 months while the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office predicts that $20 billion deficits are likely to persist at least through 2016. Not surprisingly, once golden California suffers consistently near the worst debt rating of any state. And things are not likely to turn around quickly: State and local tax revenues in the third quarter of last year rose a paltry 0.6% compared with a 5.2 % gain nationwide.

    Brown’s proven taste for austerity could make him far more effective at addressing the state fiscal crisis than the clueless Terminator. His biggest problem on fiscal matters, one close advisor confided, may lie with his own Democrats in the legislature, many of whom are little more than satraps of the public employee interests.

    Brown’s support for the state’s increasingly draconian green polices may prove more problematic.  As Attorney General, Brown played the bully in enforcing radical green measures that seek to limit developments — industrial and residential — suspected of creating greenhouses gases. Brown suggested during the campaign that such policies would help create an estimated 500,000 green jobs, but few outside the environmental lobby take this seriously. Brownsupporter Tom Hayden points out that these jobs can only be created by higher energy prices and considerable tax increases — not exactly the elixir for an already weak economy.

    More troubling still, Brown, the Democratic leadership and their media supporters continue to deny that “progressive” policies have created  ”a hostile business climate.” Until they wake up to the reality of the state’s dire economic situation, little in the way of serious reform can be expected.

    To succeed, Brown must move beyond delusions and rediscover the pro-business pragmatism that characterized his second gubernatorial term. If not, we can expect the final obliteration of Pat Brown’s great  legacy of pro-growth progressivism, in no small part due to the misjudgments of his son and heir.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

    Photo by Thomas Hawk

  • If California Is Doing So Great, Why Are So Many Leaving?

    Superficially at least, California’s problems are well known. Are they well understood? Apparently not.

    About a year ago Time ran an article, “Why California is Still America’s future,” touting California’s future, a future that includes gold-rush-like prosperity in an environmentally pure little piece of heaven, brought to us by “public-sector foresight.”

    More recently, Brett Arends’ piece at Market Watch, “The Truth About California,” is more of the same. California’s governor elect, Jerry Brown, liked this piece so much that he tweeted a link to it.

    The optimist’s argument about California’s future ultimately hinges on the creativity of the state’s vaunted tech sector, in large part driven by regulation promulgated by an enlightened political class and funded by a powerful venture capital sector.

    No fundamentalist evangelical speaks with more conviction or faith than a California cheerleader expounding on the economic benefits of environmental purity brought about by command and control regulation.

    The more honest cheerleaders acknowledge that California has challenges, including persistent budget problems. Arends denies even the existence of a budget problem, demanding “Er, no, actually. It’s your assertion. You do the math.” Let me help you, Brett. The non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office has done the math. You can find it here. They expect budget shortfalls in excess of $20 billion a year throughout their forecast horizon. This is on annual revenues of less than $100 billion.

    Last week the numbers got even worse, as the Governor-elect, Jerry Brown, acknowledged. The deficit may now be as much as $28 billion this year, and over $20 billion for the foreseeable future. This is more than a nuisance. There’s a reason, after all, why California has among the worst credit ratings of any state.

    Most people outside of California haven’t drank from this vat of the economic equivalent of LSD-laced Kool-Aid. People know that a state is in trouble when it has persistent intractable budget deficits, chronic domestic net out-migration, and 30 percent higher unemployment than the national average. Indeed, California’s joblessness, chronic budget deficits, governors, and credit rating have made the state the butt of jokes worldwide.

    How bad are things in California? California’s domestic migration has been negative every year since at least 1990. In fact, since 1990, according to the U.S. Census, 3,642,490 people, net, have left California. If they were in one city, it would be the third largest city in America, with a population 800,000 more than Chicago and within 200,000 of Los Angeles’ population.

    We’re seeing a reversal of the depression-era migration from the Dust Bowl to California. While California has seen 3.6 million people leave, Texas has received over 1.4 million domestic migrants. Even Oklahoma and Arkansas have had net-positive domestic migration trends from California.

    Those ultimate canaries in the coal mine, illegal immigrants, recognize California’s problems. Twenty years ago, about half of all United States illegal immigrants went to California. Today, that’s down to about one in four.

    The result of these migration trends is that California’s share of the United States population has been declining.

    What do these migrants see that so many of California’s political class do not see? They see a lack of opportunity. California’s share of United States jobs and output has declined since 1990, and its unemployment rate has remained persistently above the United States Average, only approaching the average during the housing boom.

    California’s unemployment is particularly troubling. As of October 2010, only two states, Nevada at 14.2 percent and Michigan at 12.8 percent, had higher unemployment rates than California’s 12.4 percent. California’s unemployment problem is particularly severe in its more rural counties. Twenty-five of California’s 58 counties have unemployment rates higher than Nevada’s:



    These unemployment rates approach depression levels. Some will excuse many of them because they are in agricultural areas, but many assert that low Midwest unemployment rates are due to a booming agricultural sector. Which one is it?

    California’s unemployment problems are not limited to rural and agricultural areas. Most of Riverside County’s population is very urban, yet the County’s unemployment rate is 14.87 percent. On December 7th, the Wall Street Journal listed the unemployment rates for 49 of America’s largest urban regions. California had six of the 19 metro areas with double-digit unemployment. These include such major cities San Diego, San Jose, and Los Angeles.

    Just as rural areas are not California’s only depressed areas, agriculture is not California’s only ailing sector. From 2000 to 2009, the only California sectors to gain jobs were government, education and health services, and leisure and hospitality.

    California’s cheerleaders claim that the state’s future is assured by a vibrant tech sector, but the data do not support that assertion. North Dakota’s Praxis Strategy Group has performed analysis by job skills. They compare Scientific, Technical, Engineering, and Math (STEM) jobs across states. Their analysis shows that California is the Nation’s ninth worst state in creating STEM jobs in post dot-com-bust years. It has produced far fewer new tech jobs than Texas, and far less on average, than the country over the past decade:



    In this respect, California’s precipitous decline is really quite shocking. In just a couple of decades, California has gone from being America’s economic star, a destination for ambitious people from around the world and abundant with opportunity, to home of some of America’s most distressed communities. It has been a man-made, slow motion tragedy perpetuated by a political class that is largely deluded.

    The cheerleader’s faith in command and control regulation and environmental purity is so strong they cannot see anything that contradicts that faith.

    But that faith is misplaced. Joel Kotkin, Zina Klapper, and I performed an extensive review of the economic impacts of one of California’s most important greenhouse gas regulation, AB 32, and found that command and control regulation in general and AB 32 in particular is inefficient, cost jobs, and depress economic activity. California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office agrees, as evidenced by this report.

    More depressing still are the growing ranks of what could be called “the resigned”. They simply have given up. These include a business leadership that is more interested in survival and accommodation than pushing an agenda for growth. Easier to get along here, and expand jobs and opportunities elsewhere, whether in other states or overseas.

    Yet ultimately California’s future is what Californians make of it. No place on Earth has more natural amenities or a more benevolent climate. No place has a location more amenable to prosperity, located between thriving Pacific Rim economies and the entire North American market. No place has more economic potential.

    But unless policy is changed, California’s future is dismal, with the specter of stubbornly high unemployment, limited opportunity, and the continued exodus of the middle class. California’s political class needs first to confront reality before we can hope to avoid a dismal future.

    Bill Watkins is a professor at California Lutheran University and runs the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting, which can be found at clucerf.org.

    Photo by Stuck in Customs