I mean it guess they’re not banning books or switching to school vouchers but I’m pretty sure low income households are doing just as bad if not worse over there
Aren’t they, like, tearing down homeless encampments on a monthly basis?
Guess you have been living under a rock. Strong economy AND strong worker protections, lots of unions, high minimum wage, robust anti-discrimination laws, there’s countless things that make life in California better for low income households.
Lol, those are bellwether economic statistics for any state, it’s not ‘cherry picking’.
Capital D democrats love California because it’s a democratic stronghold and a testing ground for all kinds of liberal policy, but it’s also dominated by capital interests. In terms of GDP it represents 1/6th of the entire US economy.
It’s one of the clearest examples of liberalism’s relationship with capital. Most socialists would not look fondly on California governance.
We both know you hate California because all you ever do is attack Democrats. There are dozens of “bellwether economic indicators” and California is doing excellent on most of them. Of course you’d pick a couple of bad ones because you have an agenda.
Well I do attack democrats an awful lot, but not because they’re any kind of model of leftist governance
Those are the metrics any leftist would be interested in with any highly developed state or economy. How distributed is the wealth? Are low-earners able to afford a comparative standard of living? Do they have economic and employment mobility? ect. They look to answer the question, “to what degree is the working class subject to coercive capitalist conditions?”
Other economic metrics are weighted toward assessing the performance of capital, and are far less relevant to the questions leftists care about answering.
I mean it guess they’re not banning books or switching to school vouchers but I’m pretty sure low income households are doing just as bad if not worse over there
Aren’t they, like, tearing down homeless encampments on a monthly basis?
edit: spelling
Guess you have been living under a rock. Strong economy AND strong worker protections, lots of unions, high minimum wage, robust anti-discrimination laws, there’s countless things that make life in California better for low income households.
Erm, i guess ill take your word for it
Unemployment
Gini coefficient
Home price to median income
Gee, I can’t imagine what motivation you would have to cherry pick stats to try and make California look bad
Lol, those are bellwether economic statistics for any state, it’s not ‘cherry picking’.
Capital D democrats love California because it’s a democratic stronghold and a testing ground for all kinds of liberal policy, but it’s also dominated by capital interests. In terms of GDP it represents 1/6th of the entire US economy.
It’s one of the clearest examples of liberalism’s relationship with capital. Most socialists would not look fondly on California governance.
Uh huh
We both know you hate California because all you ever do is attack Democrats. There are dozens of “bellwether economic indicators” and California is doing excellent on most of them. Of course you’d pick a couple of bad ones because you have an agenda.
Well I do attack democrats an awful lot, but not because they’re any kind of model of leftist governance
Those are the metrics any leftist would be interested in with any highly developed state or economy. How distributed is the wealth? Are low-earners able to afford a comparative standard of living? Do they have economic and employment mobility? ect. They look to answer the question, “to what degree is the working class subject to coercive capitalist conditions?”
Other economic metrics are weighted toward assessing the performance of capital, and are far less relevant to the questions leftists care about answering.
That’s a particularly sad and flimsy justification for cherry picking.
Maybe we just don’t share the same political goals, then.