Economy – Page 8 – Public Policy Institute of California

Video: A Conversation with Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

As part of our Speaker Series on California’s Future, PPIC is inviting elected leaders across the political spectrum to participate in public conversations. The purpose is to give Californians a better understanding of how our leaders are addressing the challenges facing our state.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and PPIC president Mark Baldassare had a wide-ranging conversation in San Francisco on Wednesday. They focused on the relationship between California and the federal government in a number of areas, including economic and tax policy, immigration, health care, and environmental issues.

Not surprisingly, Pelosi’s take on the state-federal relationship differs from that of her Republican counterpart, Kevin McCarthy, who fielded virtually the same questions from Baldassare in mid-August. In her view, this is an unusual time: “We haven’t had a time where the president has so targeted a state, in tax policy, environmental policy, trade policy.” Californians need to know about the statewide impact of these policies, and their elected leaders need to “try to work as much as possible in a bipartisan way to withstand that.”

She criticized the new federal tax law for significantly increasing the national debt without promoting growth. In fact, she continued, one of the best ways to promote economic growth is to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Asked what this would look like, she cited the bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed several years ago as one possible model. She deplored the current “uncivilized, inhumane” policy of separating families at the border. But she argued that while Trump-era ICE policies need to be changed, abolishing ICE is “not the answer.”

Pelosi, who played a major role in the passage of the Affordable Care Act, described health care reform as a “pillar of health and economic security for America’s working families.” She also characterized health care as a major issue in the November midterm elections. “The cost of health care is a very major issue in people’s lives, so we want to work in a bipartisan way, wherever possible, to reduce those costs.”

While she is concerned that Congress is not doing enough to ensure the integrity of the midterm elections, Pelosi is excited about the number of women who are running. “When I went to Congress, there were 12 Democratic and 11 Republican women.” Now, she added, “the majority of the people in our caucus are women, people of color, LGBTQ [. . .] and we want more!”

Why does she want to be Speaker? The short answer: “None of us is indispensable, but I think I’m probably the best person for the job.”

Video: A Conversation with Congressman Kevin McCarthy

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and PPIC president Mark Baldassare had a wide-ranging conversation in Sacramento last week. They focused on the relationship between California and the federal government in several areas, including tax reform, immigration, health care, water policy, wildfire management, and fuel emissions standards.

When asked about the impact of the recently passed federal tax law on Californians, he emphasized the bigger economic picture. The focus, he said, should be on the overall Republican agenda and whether it inspires optimism about the future: “Do you feel better off? How many quarters of economic growth have you had?”

McCarthy criticized the state’s leadership for its “backwards thinking” on the gas tax and other issues, and its oppositional stance to the Trump administration. He also talked about the need for bipartisan compromise in Congress. “I try to work with everybody,” he said, citing the work he did with Senator Feinstein to pass “the first major piece of water legislation in quite some time.” He returned to this theme after the conversation was briefly interrupted by a pro-DACA demonstration, asking why we can’t “sit down and communicate with one another” and decrying “elected officials who stand up and say ‘Divide us, not unite us’.”

Nonetheless, he seemed confident about finding ways to address major issues. About immigration policy, he said “I think we’re going to solve this problem” in the next congressional session. Asked about the 2020 Census, he said that Congress is making sure there will be an accurate count. “It is a big job,” he added, “and this is always the big fear before a census—are we prepared for it?”

Finally, when asked why he wants to become Speaker of the House, he said, “I want to make sure a Republican can be Speaker,” so that the party can continue to enact its agenda. He went on to describe the electoral landscape leading up to the November midterms, offering up a key takeaway: “This will be the year of the woman.”

Geographic Variation in Poverty across California

Each year, when we update the data on poverty in California, we remark on how widely poverty rates vary across counties. In Los Angeles County, 24.3% of residents are poor, compared with just 11.8% of those in El Dorado County, according to the California Poverty Measure (CPM). The CPM is a collaboration between PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality that adjusts for regional housing costs and incorporates resources from major social safety net programs.

Our new interactive maps highlight the dramatic variation in poverty across counties and US congressional, state senate, and state assembly districts. Overall, the maps show high rates of poverty in coastal and southern California, and lower rates in the northern and Sierra regions. This pattern is driven by a variety of factors: poor families in coastal, urban regions can earn relatively higher incomes, but this is often outweighed by high costs of living and reduced eligibility for safety net programs. In contrast, high poverty rates inland and along the north coast are driven by low incomes and limited employment—despite substantial poverty reduction by the social safety net.

These maps allow leaders from counties—where social safety net programs are often implemented—and legislative bodies—where program funding is allocated—to learn more about poverty and the impact of the safety net in their region.

Legislative districts see even greater disparities in poverty than counties do. Across assembly districts, for example, poverty rates differ by more than 30 percentage points, ranging from 7.8% in Assembly District 16 (Baker, R) in eastern Contra Costa County to 40.7% in Assembly District 59 (Jones-Sawyer, D) in central Los Angeles. This range reflects differences in the number of counties and assembly districts, as well as the size of their populations. California has 80 assembly districts with roughly equal populations, so they represent more slices of the state—especially in urban, densely populated counties.

Comparing counties and legislative districts draws attention to the ways that boundaries can bring forth or obscure populations. In the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside) in southeastern California, county and state senate district lines show poverty rates below the state average of 19.8% from 2014–16, ranging from 18.2% to 18.9%. But state assembly and US congressional districts in that area have high poverty rates, ranging from 20.5% to 22.7%—and are adjacent to districts with much less poverty.

The maps provide a rich resource for learning about the geographic variation of poverty in California. Since the factors driving poverty vary across the state, effective approaches for reducing poverty may vary too, as our previous research on child poverty has shown. For additional detail, the maps allow users to download estimates on the impact of major social safety net programs on poverty in different regions.

Video: 2020 Census: Why Is the Citizenship Question Such a Big Deal?

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. The stakes are huge for California—and 2020 is fast approaching.

In this video, PPIC research fellow Eric McGhee discusses the controversial addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. View more videos in this series.

2020 Census: Where Are California’s Hard-to-Count Communities?

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. The stakes are huge for California, and 2020 is fast approaching. This series of blog posts takes a detailed look at California communities that may be at risk of being undercounted.

PPIC’s new interactive maps are an important tool for Californians working to ensure an accurate census count. They highlight hard-to-count communities across the state, providing an overall assessment of how hard an area will be to count and pinpointing reasons why certain areas may be hard to reach.

The overall assessment is based on an area’s “low response score,” a measure developed by the Census Bureau using historical trends. This score (what we call the “predicted nonresponse rate”) helps visualize a community’s vulnerability to being omitted from the census. However, it doesn’t capture all areas that will be hard to count in 2020, and it doesn’t indicate the underlying reasons why a community might be hard to count. PPIC’s new maps expand our understanding of hard-to-count communities in several ways.

As shown in the graphic below, the maps provide information for multiple geographies. First, you can select whether you want to see data by county, congressional district, state assembly district, or state senate district. Then, you can examine data for those broad regions or for individual census tracts. Zooming in allows you to identify which census tracts have the highest predicted nonresponse rates in a particular region.

In addition, by selecting different categories, you can get a sense of why these areas might be hard to count:

Does the area have high shares of people that are typically undercounted? Certain racial/ethnic groups—African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans—and young children are historically undercounted in the census. Counties in the San Joaquin Valley and southern parts of California tend to have higher shares of these vulnerable populations.
Does the area have many noncitizens? The census is supposed to count all residents, but noncitizens may be less likely to respond in 2020 due to the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about privacy and deportation. Monterey County on the central coast has the highest share of noncitizens (22%), followed by Santa Clara County (18%) and Los Angeles County (17%).
Does the area have a lot of renters, overcrowded housing, and other factors that can make it hard for the Census Bureau to locate residents? To examine this issue, we created a housing score using data on renters and mobile homes. Seventeen counties in various regions of the state have scores indicating they may face particular challenges counting residents due to their housing conditions.
Does the area seem to have adequate internet access? The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a departure from its usual practice. We provide data on residential high-speed internet connections—a measure created by the Federal Communications Commission that does not include mobile data plans—as a proxy for service coverage. Rural areas are less likely to have residential high-speed internet access.

Overall, the maps show there are hard-to-count communities across the entire state—and regions have different risk factors for being undercounted. In addition, communities may be hard to count for multiple reasons: for example, low-income populations are more likely to live in hard-to-find housing like garages and trailers, and they are also less likely to have reliable internet access.

We hope these maps help local leaders determine the likelihood that their communities might not be accurately counted and provide guidance on targeting outreach efforts. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in specific regions of the state.

Video: Californians and the Environment

With the November election less than four months away, Democrat Gavin Newsom leads Republican John Cox by 24 points in the governor’s race—and nearly all likely voters see the candidates’ positions on environmental issues as important. In the US Senate race, Dianne Feinstein continues to lead fellow Democrat Kevin de León by double digits. These and other key findings in the July PPIC Statewide Survey were presented by researcher Alyssa Dykman at a Sacramento briefing last week.

Californians are much more likely than adults nationwide to say that global warming is extremely or very important to them personally. A majority of likely voters see global warming as a very serious threat to California’s economy and quality of life, and a solid majority say that the effects of global warming have already begun. This may help explain why most Californians are in favor of the state making its own policies to address climate change.

Other survey highlights:

Approval ratings for the president and Congress—both overall and on environmental issues—remain far lower than those for the governor and state legislature.
There are wide partisan differences in views on climate change and what the state should do about it.
Likely voters see drought and water supply as the top environmental issue facing the state; a majority support a water bond on the November ballot.
A majority of likely voters favor higher emissions standards for automobiles as well as state laws that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in other areas.

Video: 2020 Census: What’s at Stake for California?

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. The stakes are huge for California—the state stands to lose political representation and federal funding if there is a significant undercount—and 2020 is fast approaching. At a time when straightforward facts are in short supply, PPIC is providing essential, objective information about the importance of an accurate census count in California.

In this video, PPIC research director Sarah Bohn explains why the census is of particular importance to the Golden State this time around.

How Changes in Immigration Affect California’s Workforce

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Immigrants are essential to California’s workforce. In the past two decades, as labor market needs have shifted, the composition of recent immigrants (those arriving in the last five years) has changed dramatically. Today, recent immigrants to California are much more likely to hold a bachelor’s or more advanced degree than in the past—and in fact are now more likely than US-born Californians to do so.

While the number of recent immigrants to California fell by 24% between 2000 and 2016, the number of highly educated immigrants rose by 41%. In 2016, about half of recent immigrants held at least a bachelor’s degree. Highly educated immigrants work in every major industry in the state and comprise about 30% of the highly educated workforce.

These changes in educational attainment coincide with other shifts in immigration patterns. A large portion of the decline in immigration to California can be attributed to the falling numbers of immigrants arriving from Mexico. In 2000, over half a million recent immigrants came from Mexico. By 2016, that number fell by more than 70% to less than 150,000 people.

Now, China has slightly edged out Mexico as the leading country of origin, and these top two countries are followed by India, the Philippines, and Vietnam. Immigrants from China and India tend to be highly educated: in 2016, 47% of recent immigrants from China—and around 80% of recent immigrants from India—had at least a bachelor’s degree. The interactive below allows you to further explore changes in education levels over time among recent immigrants overall and from these five countries.

The sharp increase in highly educated immigrants and the decline in less-educated immigrants reflect the changing labor market in California. Unemployment rates for workers with at least a bachelor’s degree (3.3%) are about half those of less-educated workers (6.5%). With California expected to face a shortfall of 1.1 million college graduates by 2030, highly educated immigrants are a key component to helping the state address the workforce skills gap.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

How the Census Affects State Finances

The US Constitution requires a decennial census for the purposes of determining how many seats each state will have in the House of Representatives. Just as critical, a number of federal programs rely on census data to calculate the share of federal dollars distributed to each state. In the case of California, the census-connected funds are big money. Undercounting Californians in the upcoming census could have significant fiscal consequences for the state.

Federal dollars account for more than one-third all state spending (including the general fund, special funds, and bonds). This translates into more than $100 billion in state spending derived from the federal government.

Not all federal programs rely on the census to determine the distribution of dollars, but the vast majority are connected to it in some way. One study estimates that 132 federal programs rely on census data to distribute more than $675 billion. Another estimates the share of census-related funding for the largest programs for each state. For California, that amount was $77 billion, or more than 80 percent of the federal funds the state received in 2015 (the most recent estimate available).

Given the dollars at stake, getting an accurate count of California’s residents is critical—but could be a challenge since large segments of California’s population are historically difficult to count.

But population counts alone do not determine funding, so it is difficult to precisely forecast the impact of an undercount. Compounding the difficulty, the way federal programs use census data to allocate dollars varies, and in some cases, involves other factors such as the relative wealth of the state. For example, a significant share of census-related dollars are determined by a specific federal reimbursement rate. Because California already receives the minimum rate, an undercount would not reduce the amount of federal dollars that the state can count on.

Finally, the use of the census to distribute dollars is, in some cases, a zero-sum-game. For California to avoid “losing” relative to other states, it needs to count as well, or better, than the rest of the country. Other large states—notably Texas and Florida—face similar challenges.

California’s creation of a state committee to ensure an accurate count—along with funding to support such efforts—are crucial to a successful outcome. In fact, a relatively modest investment has the potential to provide enormous returns to the state.