As a Californian I don't agree with the sentiment of this analysis. Sure, certain segments of the population here are doing well -- particularly, the well-off and those from out-of-state -- but if you were born and raised an average life here any time in the past 35 years, particularly on the coast, then your life is particularly tough in some areas: $1500 rents for a 1BR apartment, super-low wages, apathetic middle class, increasing traffic, now we have a homeless problem....
More succinctly I disagree with the authors' assertion that CA is doing fine "if you take out housing prices"
The housing in California is probably most expensive in the Bay Area. On the other hand, poverty is probably disproportionately concentrated in the Central Valley, where I expect housing is very cheap compared to the Bay Area. If you just look at average housing prices and average income levels, I think you may get a distorted view of the actual cost of living.
One of the best things I ever learned in school was from my German teacher in junior high school. I have no idea what we were talking about, but she said, "You can prove anything with statistics." I'm 41 years old and that has stuck with me all of these years.
Build more houses
Take a look at the recent affordable housing legislation passed in the state assembly and signed by the governor. Can you guess who opposes these measures?
Drum accuses Jackson of being a "scold." I accuse Drum of demonstrating why statistics are often considered the worst kind of lie.
Drum cites Census data to show that California has a low poverty rate, but does not explain that the Census methodology compares income against a uniform national poverty threshold that ignores California's higher costs of living.
Drum also quotes per-capita income figures without pointing out that they tell us nothing about the relative abundance of wealthy individuals and poor individuals.
Shame on Drum and shame on anyone who falls for his dishonest arguments. Jackson rightfully scolds California--not for its liberalism per se, but because its liberalism is ineffective. It simply does not achieve what its supporters intend or claim.
This article boils down to one point: that the basis of the LA Times article's claim is California's sky-high real estate prices. If it wasn't including house prices, poor Californians would be doing 'just fine.' That's like saying a laptop works perfectly fine if you ignore the fact the screen is busted.
Why shouldn't housing prices be looked at when determining how poor a population is? Obviously it's a significant component of cost of living, which directly impacts how much purchasing power individuals and families have.