How California Cuts Greenhouse Gas Emissions - While Its Economy Grows (ca.gov) 197
In 2022 about 346,000 electric cars were reportedly sold in California. But the same year its greenhouse gas emissions dropped a whopping 9.3 million metric tons — the amount produced by 2.2 million gas-powered cars — lowering emissions 2.4% from the year before. "The biggest drop came from transportation, due largely to the increased use of renewable fuels," according to the state's Air Resources Board, touting a newly-released report. (And electricity sector emissions also fell by 2.6 million metric tons, or 4.1%, "even as electricity usage rose," according to The Hill — "a dichotomy that the regulators attributed to an increase in solar and wind power generation.")
So despite a growing economy, "the latest data underscores a continued trend of steady emissions decline..." according to a statement from the Board. "Between 2000 to 2022, emissions fell by 20% while California's gross domestic product increased by 78%, pointing to the effectiveness of the state's climate change and air quality programs." And the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per unit of economic output ("carbon intensity") has also dropped 55% in the last 20 years: [In 2022] the electricity sector had its lowest carbon intensity since 2000. Wind and solar now represent 30% of generation and in-state solar increased by 15% from 2021, driven by requirements under the state's Cap-and-Trade Program and Renewables Portfolio Standard. Furthermore, California increased its battery storage by 757% from 2019 through 2023, bolstering its renewable energy efforts. The storage capacity is enough to power 6.6 million homes for up to four hours.
Industrial emissions declined by 2%, also falling to the lowest level in 22 years. While refinery emissions remained essentially flat, emissions from oil and gas extraction declined, as did emissions from other fuel use, cement manufacturing, and cogeneration facilities. [The Hill says 2022's industrial emissions were 21.7% below year-2000 levels, according to the report.]
Livestock emissions, which are responsible for 70% of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions, peaked in 2012 and once again saw reductions in 2022. The decrease is driven by the use of methane digesters funded by the California Climate Investments and incentivized by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which capture emissions at the source and convert them to clean fuel.
Landfill methane emissions also continued to decline in 2022. This decline can be attributed in part to the state's efforts to reduce disposal of organic waste, as well as the California Landfill Methane Regulation, which requires landfill operators to monitor and capture emissions escaping from their facilities.
One local news site calls the drop in emissions "shocking," but adds that "the trend is expected to continue. In the second quarter of 2024, 118,181 zero-emission vehicles were purchased in the state, good for about one-quarter of all new car sales."
California governor Gavin Newsom said his state "is proving that climate action goes hand-in-hand with economic growth. We've slashed carbon pollution by a whopping 20% since the turn of the century all while building the world's fifth largest economy. Cleaner air, more good jobs — that's the California way."
So despite a growing economy, "the latest data underscores a continued trend of steady emissions decline..." according to a statement from the Board. "Between 2000 to 2022, emissions fell by 20% while California's gross domestic product increased by 78%, pointing to the effectiveness of the state's climate change and air quality programs." And the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per unit of economic output ("carbon intensity") has also dropped 55% in the last 20 years: [In 2022] the electricity sector had its lowest carbon intensity since 2000. Wind and solar now represent 30% of generation and in-state solar increased by 15% from 2021, driven by requirements under the state's Cap-and-Trade Program and Renewables Portfolio Standard. Furthermore, California increased its battery storage by 757% from 2019 through 2023, bolstering its renewable energy efforts. The storage capacity is enough to power 6.6 million homes for up to four hours.
Industrial emissions declined by 2%, also falling to the lowest level in 22 years. While refinery emissions remained essentially flat, emissions from oil and gas extraction declined, as did emissions from other fuel use, cement manufacturing, and cogeneration facilities. [The Hill says 2022's industrial emissions were 21.7% below year-2000 levels, according to the report.]
Livestock emissions, which are responsible for 70% of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions, peaked in 2012 and once again saw reductions in 2022. The decrease is driven by the use of methane digesters funded by the California Climate Investments and incentivized by the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which capture emissions at the source and convert them to clean fuel.
Landfill methane emissions also continued to decline in 2022. This decline can be attributed in part to the state's efforts to reduce disposal of organic waste, as well as the California Landfill Methane Regulation, which requires landfill operators to monitor and capture emissions escaping from their facilities.
One local news site calls the drop in emissions "shocking," but adds that "the trend is expected to continue. In the second quarter of 2024, 118,181 zero-emission vehicles were purchased in the state, good for about one-quarter of all new car sales."
California governor Gavin Newsom said his state "is proving that climate action goes hand-in-hand with economic growth. We've slashed carbon pollution by a whopping 20% since the turn of the century all while building the world's fifth largest economy. Cleaner air, more good jobs — that's the California way."
Here is how (Score:5, Informative)
In the most recent data, California experienced recessionary conditions in 2022 and the first half of 2023.
The state faces three overlapping challenges: rising unemployment, growing fiscal strains and population outflows.
So basically: significantly less people (almost 1M have net left the state in half a decade), less income (minimum wage increases caused effective wage loss for minimum wage earners), less economic activity across the board (over 350 large companies, including Fortune 1000), that is how California reduces its output of emissions. The rest shows that the 129 active dairy digesters are not enough to show a difference, they could convert all together process less than 100 pounds of methane a day (at a cost of $200M) and they convert it to⦠natural gas to burn, so you are taking methane and burning it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Here is how (Score:5, Informative)
Cessnas haven't changed much since the 1950s. The motors are fairly large, 5.2L but only puts out 150-200hp. This is because of the inefficiency. Most of the ones in the sky use a magneto/points rather than a modern ignition system. Even more ancient is how the air fuel ratio is adjusted by hand from the cockpit controls.
The majority of those "1950s technology" aircraft flying around up there aren't new build aircraft using 1950s technology but aircraft that are actually that damned old--the average age of the US GA fleet is +/- 50 years. Most small aircraft pilots would love to upgrade (though I'd say most would want to keep the magnetos and dual ignition) but the costs are prohibitive due to the regulatory regime and technology changes are, at best, difficult to achieve.
Re: (Score:2)
So that is a cool narrative you're pushing for half the summary, now how does that account for the increase in GDP - the other half of the summary?
Re: (Score:2)
For one of those, TX also had a negative quarter.
It's almost like maybe it has nothing to do with the narrative you're trying to spin.
Ultimately, while TX maintains a higher level of growth- it'll take it around 4 decades to catch up to CA in terms of per-capita GDP at the current rate of growth disparity.
It's further complicated by the fact that CA absolutely destroyed TX in post-COVID growth levels until 2022, so if you average
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/c... [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
significantly less people (almost 1M have net left the state in half a decade)
It's more like a few hundred thousand over a brief 3 year period (which is not that significant in a state that large) and in more recent news the outflow has stopped https://apnews.com/article/cal... [apnews.com] .
less income (minimum wage increases caused effective wage loss for minimum wage earners)
The minimum wage increase was so recent I very strongly doubt you have any real data to back this claim up. On a look myself I did find conservative news outlets pointing to lay offs at some fast food locations in California but given that fast food jobs have increased in number over all in the state https:// [ca.gov]
A stretch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Lol
I disagree with the story, therefor it is wrong
How is a story talking about decreasing pollution in a state that was famous for it's smog and bad air political?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean by that? Is there something wrong with this topic?
So far, this is one of my favorite Slashdot discussions in the last week. I'm only as far down as your comment, and I've watched people argue, citing statistics and studies, and philosophical arguments about: relative population changes in California versus Texas versus the world, the correlation or lack-thereof of population growth versus economic growth... I've learned the meaning of "border encounter" versus the number of people cross i
At what cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The numbers aren't as clear as you make them out to be. https://www.houstonchronicle.c... [houstonchronicle.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The study cited by the Chronicle is playing games with the numbers. Texas has a 6.25% state sales tax, with Houston adding another 2%. That is the *only* tax burden low-income people in Texas face, since they don't pay property taxes. How they get from 8.25% to the supposed 13%, I have no idea, the article doesn't say.
Re: (Score:2)
"California deficit spending"
Every state except Vermont requires their operating budget to be balanced.
Re: (Score:2)
is just housing and a bit of price gouging by Monopolies. All of which will get fixed soon enough by infrastructure spending and anti-trust law enforcement.
I know you're a Communist, but this is too rich. Tell us all how home prices in California are coming down via infrastructure spending and anti-trust actions? This ought to be good. Did you think there was a bunch of undeveloped land free from regulation to build on in California? That's laughable.
low interest rates will trigger a jobs boom that'll bring in tax dollars
California is currently dealing with a substantial state budget deficit, estimated to be between $38 billion and $68 billion for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Used car salesman Newsom initially pegged the deficit at $3
You can fix that with high speed rail (Score:2)
Honestly we should be building denser housing but nobody wants to do that. We are obsessed with picket fences and all that. But we need to build so we can build faster than the conglomerates can buy it all up and rent it back to us. If you dig into it you'll find that's what was keeping housing affordable throughout the '80s, '90s and 2000s. Housing prices ar
Half the growth of the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Nominal GDP in the US increased by 148% from 2000 to 2022
https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info]
Nominal GDP in California increased by 160% from 2000 to 2022
https://usafacts.org/metrics/g... [usafacts.org]
Re: Half the growth of the USA (Score:2)
Should really compare real to real, since inflation can affect different areas in different ways.
Re:Half the growth of the USA (Score:4, Informative)
You're not comparing the same thing. You're looking at "Real GDP change". For the USA that was $10.3tr to $25.7tr a 150% increase as you say.
From the same data source over the same timescale 2000 - 2022 here's the numbers for California: $1.69tr to $3.167tr a 187% increase.
This should come as no surprise as California has a huge impact on the GDP of the USA being by far the economically largest state. But it's the opposite of the point you're trying to make. California's GDP has outperformed that of the USA when you look at the same measurement from the same data source. Not completely sure what TFS was looking at, and I can't be arsed figuring it out.
Real Numbers (Score:3)
> 2000 to 2022
OK, factor out Big Tech which is their Saudi Arabia to get a normalized comparison to other states.
Now adjust for public debt and unfunded liabilities compared to other states.
Then add net positive or negative funds flow from the Federal government, including military operations, as compared to other states.
So, what do the numbers look like then? We should care if they're positive or negative so we can understand if their policies are broadly applicable. We just don't want to use cooked numbers that would make a corporate banker proud.
Re: Real Numbers (Score:2)
Ok, then you also gotta remove oil from Texas, agriculture from Nebraska, and finance from New York.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
why not do the math and show up everyone here instead of JAQing off
considering CA is the #1 state for manufacturing
it also is one of the states with the lowest percentage in terms of federal funds as percentage of budget (48/50)
you're trying to juice the numbers in every which way to make your point but even then it falls flat on its face
maybe california is actually a nice place... i know that flies in the face of 30 years of conservative agitprop but maybe theyve been lying to you?
Re: (Score:2)
California, so terrible to live in yet republicans want to build a wall to keep people out.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, factor out Big Tech which is their Saudi Arabia to get a normalized comparison to other states.
Why on earth would you cut part of California out of statistics about California? That's simply juicing the numbers so you can get the conclusion you want.
Sorry Gavin... (Score:2)
Correlation Causation.
What ALSO happened in that timeframe? COVID. With millions upon millions of people working from home and not driving or taking any form of transportation whatsoever into work.
Re: Sorry Gavin... (Score:2)
They picked about 20years of data. not 5 years of data. That most likely smoothen out the impact of covid.
But I suppose it would be good to have data from other states, the nation, and other country as points of comparison.
Reads like Newsom campaign release... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously. We've lost a million people since 2020, which I think might have something to do with the lowered CO2 emissions.
We also have the highest energy prices and the highest gasoline taxes which would encourage people to not do business here as much as possible.
We're at 262 g CO2 per kWh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And by the way... (Score:2)
The article says it went from 15% to 30% of renewables for electric generation in one year.
And for the rest... google "median priced of gasoline in california", and you get about $4.74.
Guess Newsome and Biden did that, lowered it from $7.
Re: And by the way... (Score:2)
did the median price of gas in CA ever reached $7?
Can't find median. But average never reached $7
Re: And by the way... (Score:2)
and i forgot the link: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov]
climate = poverty (Score:3)
California has the highest poverty rate in the country, when measured against local cost of living.
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:4, Informative)
The article is so focused on congratulating and giving credit to anything having to do with green energy, it ignores one very very obvious reason why emissions from vehicles fell - the massive increases in the cost of gas.
Most of the vehicle emissions are from commuting. They are not leisure trips that people are skipping.
Many places in CA saw gas costs in the $7 range.
False. A very few remote places in CA got fuel prices this high. Even here in Humboldt prices only got up to about $6/gallon, and we pay some of the highest fuel prices in the state.
If green energy was so amazing, then electricity would be cheaper
I see you're familiar with neither PGE or the CPUC.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I paid $7 in the peninsula and South Bay. Do you consider those remote and really far away from civilization?
All you're doing is capitalizing on a single poorly used word. You were in one of the most expensive places to live in California, everything is more expensive in places like that. Never the less the norm for the state was quite lower than that even at the highest average prices https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov] .
Maybe you should leave the pot capitol of the world and see what's happening outside your bubble.
Maybe you shouldnt visit one of the most expensive regions of a place and then assume everywhere is like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not consider other gas stations? Or do you only buy premium? Where in the heck did you see $7? Ok, I use mostly electric for driving so for awhile I wasn't filling up at all until the last 18 months or so, but I definitely was looking at the prices as I drove past.
There ARE huge differences in gasoline prices within a single area, even if you ignore the bargain brands, and I've seen a $0.50 difference just along my normal commute (which alternates between upscale and middling neighborhoods).
Aver
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to stipulate that $7/gal fuel was a thing. WAS a thing.
Did that stop anyone from driving to work that needed to drive to work?
Did that stop anyone from delivering anything that needed to be delivered?
Did that stop a single aircraft from flying it's planned flight?
No. People gripe about fuel prices, but they don't actually stop buying fuel because buying fuel is non-optional if you want to keep your job or business. This is why oil companies make record profits while everyone complains about fue
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Informative)
Completely false. Gas consumption in California in 2022 is virtually unchanged from 2021 despite being at record high prices. You're more than welcome to look at the raw data:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/h... [eia.gov] - which incidentally shows that no gasoline wasn't in the $7 range, it peaked at $6 and spent most of the year closer to $5
And here's a link showing gasoline consumption was within year to year variance post introduction of work from home due to covid: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data... [ca.gov]
People don't drive every day for shits and giggles. They do so to commute, and your boss doesn't give a shit if you pay $5 or $4 for gasoline. Cost of fuel does have a long term effect though, but it takes about 5+ years to show any meaningful impact in fuel consumption numbers, and ironically it is mostly driven by those people who can afford a new car and then make the conscious choice to buy something smaller and more fuel efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you hit the nail on the head there. The primary driver of reduced emissions is not EV's or lower VMT, its from using better mileage vehicles driven by the cost of gas. If you have a vehicle that uses 5 gallons of gas to go 100 miles (20 mpg) and you trade it for one what uses 2 gallons (50 mpg) you reduce emissions more than if you trade the vehicle that uses 2 gallons for one that doesn't use any.
We need to raise the cost of purchasing new low mileage vehicles instead of subsidizing the purchase o
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
GP and TFA use different time windows. TFA uses since 2001. GP used since 2021.
So the two could be true at the same time.
The link provided seem to show gas sales about 7% down since 2010.
Re: (Score:2)
Driving less is mostly the post-covid era; everyone is driving less if they can work from home. The gas prices aren't absurd, and in Silicon Valley it's cheaper than the rural Central Valley. It's not in the $7 range that I've seen, though posibly there are pockets where fuel delivery is difficult. I haven't seen anything pop over $5.50, and even that were the bigger brand name gas stations. Though to be fair, there's often a $0.20 difference between cash versus credit prices (which is way higher than t
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Informative)
It might also have to do with millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years too....to states with lower taxes
You mean like Texas? A friend of mine who moved there found his taxes were even higher than in California, now some years later he's moving to Oregon.
Re: (Score:2)
Property taxes in Texas can be a big shock. California has it's prop 13 tax rates, which prevent taxes from keeping up with cost of living so that city infrastructures that depend upon prop taxes can be hurting. So pay attention to the total tax bills when deciding to move.
Personally, my income in California is so much higher than it would be in Texas, that even paying extra income taxes I come out ahead. I could ask my boss to pay me less so that I'm in a lower tax bracket, but that's crazy talk! When _
Re: (Score:2)
Then your friend really isn't going to like the taxes in Oregon, specifically and especially if they move inside the city limits of Portland, and specifically in Multnomah County.
It's one of the highest tax burdens in the country [taxfoundation.org], beating New York and San Francisco.
Re: (Score:2)
"A friend of mine..."
Lame and factless. California has one of the highest total state and local tax burdens in the country, with an effective rate of 13.5% of income, placing it 5th overall. Their high tax burden includes significant income taxes (up to 13.3% for top earners), property taxes, and sales taxes.
On the other hand, Texas ranks much lower, with a total tax burden of 8.6%, which places it 45th among U.S. states. Texas benefits from having no state income tax, though it has higher property taxes and sales taxes. Despite that, the overall tax burden is much lower, factually.
So a retiree moving to TX gets the higher property and sales tax, amazing. Suckered by low overall property tax until the values went up because everyone else is moving there too, then the sad realization the actual rates are higher than CA, so... you do the math. Glad nobody fits in that bucket.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoop-di-fucking-do. And they get a lot for those tax dollars. While Texas... I lived in and around Ausin late 80's-early 90's. Roads started getting worse, and you notice their electric's not connected to any national grid?
What did you *think* taxes pay for, stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
The "80s and early 90s" are a long time ago. Texas today has significantly upgraded its road systems, spending $32 billion a year on road construction, just from TX DOT.
The fact that the Texas grid is not connected to other states actually makes the cost of electricity lower than many other states, with an average cost at 14 cents per kWh, while California's is more like 36 cents.
Re: (Score:2)
And the money the DO NOT SPEND on a) winterization and b) upgrading (or even maintenance)?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd rather have some blackouts every 150 years when we have such a severe ice storm (yeah, it's been 150 years since the last one that was that bad), than 36-cents per kWh electricity cost. That would turn a $250 summer electricity bill into $642. No thanks. I can afford a generator of my own pretty quickly at that rate.
Re: (Score:2)
up to 13.3% for top earners
Unsure why you'd even parade that number out.
That applies to people making $600k a year.
The median pays 9%.
For 0.1% families, CA is absolutely a very-high-tax-burden state.
For the median family, it's close to average for the US.
For the poor family, it's generally lower than TX and FL.
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot property taxes, dumbass.
Re: (Score:2)
Texas doesn't even have an income tax. You aren't telling the truth. Texas makes up for the lack of an income tax with higher-than-average property taxes but unless he owned a ton of acreage in TX after renting in CA then your story still doesn't hold up.
This is the story of every retiree moving from CA to TX to stretch out their retirement with "lower cost of living" property tax rates and suddenly increasing property values is a huge issue in TX right now. Everyone wants to come to TX and pull the ladder up behind them to cap property values, it's comical.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, Texas property tax rates average 1.6%, which is higher than California's 1.1%. https://smartasset.com/taxes/t... [smartasset.com].
But when you factor in the median home price in California of more than $900K, compared to $342K in Texas the math still works to a higher dollar amount of property taxes in California, than Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the snag; prop taxes can't rise to current rates unless the house changes owners. But in Texas the prop taxes can indeed rise every year, more than expected if the local property values start rising.
It's an old story, lots of California retirees went up to Oregon a few years back, paying top dollar for houses there, raising property values, raising property _prices_ as well, and the higher tax rates, and then suddenly everyone in Oregon was bitching about Californians ruining a good thing by move th
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
He has a normal size house, but with a pool. Guess Texas thinks going into water makes you a liberal and you should get charged more? Like burning people because they bathe so you think they're a Jew... Don't they still live in the middle ages? Make the middle ages great again?
Re: (Score:2)
Well the snag here is if the person moved while retiring. That means his _income_ taxes go way down in California even if he didn't move. This means property taxes in Texas could actually consume a much larger percentage of retiree income than the income taxes would have.
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As a California native, I think it's too crowded here. So please, I beg everyone, do NOT move here! If you live here and are disgruntled, then please move away! If you're here for college, then when you graduate get a job somewhere else! Please, just leave, so that the rest of us can enjoy the nice state without a lot of grumbling.
We especially don't like all those "It's a nice climate, but I miss having weather" types, ugh, that's subversive talk!
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, can you come up with a different explanation why CA has a huge U-Haul shortage other than the mass of people using them to move OUT of state and no one bringing them back into the state with move back to CA?
Poor people are being squeezed out, it's true. See my other comments about retirees discovering how Texas property tax rates work. Are the pieces fitting together yet? Some classic being poor is expensive action going on.
If you're working class having trouble making ends meet in CA, I really do hope TX gives you some breathing room, just saying there's plenty of low income retired folks that came before you shaking their fists at all the "California People" driving their property values/taxes up. Can't make
Re: (Score:2)
Popullation counts don't lie. So, maybe your alleged "U-Haul shortage" is people moving around *in-state*?
And Texas...if you get a woman pregnant, are you, personally, ready to pay support and medical for the nest 19 years? Or are you going to "illegally" sneak her out of state to get an abortion?
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No...it is U-Haul's leaving the states...hence, the state of CA not having enough of them anymore..they all left and never came back.
See an earlier post in this thread where I post links confirming this phenomena.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, can you come up with a different explanation why CA has a huge U-Haul shortage other than the mass of people using them to move OUT of state and no one bringing them back into the state with move back to CA?
No, but not being able to do that doesnt change the fact that California's total population is basically stagnant nowadays, not declining be millions https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net]. . A U-Haul shortage can be the result of all kinds of things, population numbers are pretty straight forward though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a single data point swimming in a sea of uncorrelated and unknown data.
U-haul is not the only moving company. Until you show a sector-wide trend, you're literally not playing with a full deck.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go...
SNOPES [snopes.com]
California Insider report [californiainsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume this is true for the sake of the argument.... Then the headline "...while its economy grows" would proof the liberal "axiom" wrong that economic growth can only come with population growth.
So one of this two has to be wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
... Then the headline "...while its economy grows" would proof the liberal "axiom" wrong that economic growth can only come with population growth.
There is no such axiom.
Re: (Score:2)
The why my parent mention " millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years" like it was a bad thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't make it up but noticed that is is an argument that is coming up in discussions - without proof that it is correct. Like an axiom. But that's why I put the quotes around it. My whole point was that it is most likely wrong. At least it clearly contradicts the statement of cayenne8.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.macrotrends.net/gl... [macrotrends.net]
The percentage decline isn't enough to account for these changes in emissions, unless it was a small number of mega-polluters moving their businesses elsewhere. In which case I feel sorry for the people they set up their new carbon factory next to.
Re: (Score:2)
...and recent report states that about 1M migrants on unemployment benefits in the state of California...
There is no such report.
(estimated between 10 and 20M migrants have crossed the border since Biden took office)
Here you take a deliberately false characterization widely used on the right [factcheck.org], "almost 10 million migrants have crossed into our country" (Tom Cotton on Fox News, see link), which is falsely implying that all "border encounters" (what the number actually counts) as people entering the country, then you double it just for that added bit of dishonesty.
Re: (Score:2)
They're 14% of the US economy and 11% of its population.
They're doing just fine.
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that the median household income in CA is $20k higher than TX, they're still doing better, even though they spend more money on toys.
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say PCE.
No, you didn't. Which is what makes what you DID say so misleading.
You said cost of living- the "cost of living" in CA is not $58k. The PCE is.
Cost of living is 58% higher than the national average and a higher percent of upper income people live in California.
Not relevant. We're comparing CA to TX, not "the national average".
In 2020 the mean household income was $35,000 higher than the median household income.
Not relevant.
It means rich people are skewing the results higher to make it look like the regular guy is making more.
No, it means the mean is skewed. That's why we use median.
This the case in TX as well. It's the case anywhere with billionaires.
The median household income in CA is ~$20k higher than in TX.
In terms of disposable income, a CA resident is 9th in the country. It's not bad.
TX? 21st.
At
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's you trying to tout California that I'm poking holes in.
Not very successfully.
A good a example is your disposable income stat. You want to tout that while saying the disparity between median and mean income is irrelevant. Just hand wave that away. It shows that most of that disposable income is being enjoyed by few but is being averaged out to make it look like everyone is sharing in the pie.
It's not hand-waved away because income disparity doesn't exist- it's hand-waved away because income disparity exists all over the place.
TX has a comparable GINI index to TX, which means the mean-median deviation is about the same between them. That's why it's irrelevant.
You are just trying to gaslight to make it look like California is doing great.
There's no gaslighting about it. CA is doing great. So are its people.
Look, we all know that it has an inordinate number of wealthy people and it makes the rest of the state look better
So does TX.
That's the point you keep on missing. All of your criticisms apply there too- so once you've canceled out both sides of the equation, y
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
That narrative does not seem to match the data from the california tax revenue information:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting... [ca.gov]
The number went down in 2021. But were flat otherwise.
Re:MILLIONS YOU SAY? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course fake news says millions of people have left California.
Back in the real world, the population of California grew is 2023. https://apnews.com/article/cal... [apnews.com]
Re:COST OF GAS (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: COST OF GAS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to claim this, you will need to explain why higher gas prices and this purported outflow of the population have not seen the economy shrink.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, it’s because it’s all lies. Got it. Brilliant and incredibly convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
It might also have to do with millions of people LEAVING California over the past few years too....to states with lower taxes and less onerous regulations.
If California's population really is declining, this is evidence against the other tale we are told by politicians, that a declining population always leads to a declining economy.
Population [Re:COST OF GAS] (Score:2)
... in much the same way that the world population has dipped a little in the last few years.
The world population has not dropped.
The rate of increase has slowed, but a slower increase is still an increase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Might I be able to ask the same question of you?
Re: (Score:3)
These numbers all sound courageous, magical and revolutionary. I wonder what the actual ones are.
On /. ?
Shirley U Jest