"I pointed out that California collects a larger percentage of its citizens’ income than all but five other states (10.5 percent; source). Shouldn’t it be possible to run the state on 10.5 percent of income?
Despite the fact that all of my interlocutors had university educations, sometimes including PhDs, all were so deeply invested in the idea that their insolvent state government is starved for revenue that they were unable to parse the information."
Perhaps they were just stunned that someone with a PhD doesn't know that income tax isn't the whole story?
Texas population: 24.3 million (July, 2008; source: US Census)
TX Revenue per capita: $3209.88
"Conservative" Texas takes in almost a thousand bucks more per person in taxes and fees than does "liberal" California.
UPDATE: I made a mistake. The numbers for Texas are reported on a biennial basis, whereas for California, they're reported on an annual basis. See my reply to cwan below for details. When you get the annual numbers from the Texas budget summary, they appear to take in about 32% less per capita than California.
I'm afraid you are incorrect. The link you put for California is just the general fund, which does not include special funds, bond funds, or federal funds like the Texas one does. After you add those in, California's count is $208 billion in 2008-2009. See this for more: http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/docu...
Edit: I should say though, right on for pointing out the material issue. You got the meat of it right in that it's overall spending that matters, not just income tax. You "showed your work" correctly, you just plugged in the wrong numbers. That means you get an 8/10 from me.
Edit2: I read the parent's post too quickly in my haste to make a point. However, neither of us considered the contribution of local taxes, as discussed below. I believe that that definitively answers the question of which state spends more per capita.
And after you add them in for Texas, it's $158 billion. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Additionally, timr was correct to restrict his numbers to state tax revenue, which is the total under discussion.
If you do the math, it comes out to $6,500 per person in Teaxs, and $5,600 per person in California. So even considering the other sources of revenue (though it makes no sense to do so in this context), timr's point is still correct.
You're right, I misread the parent's post. It's unclear to me at this point whether the sums actually account for the same basket of incomes, but even if they do you have to admit that after this adjustment timr's point is about 50% less correct than it was before.
Yes, there's a problem with my original post; no, it's not related to federal transfers -- it's correct to exclude them from the calculation. The problem is that Texas (bizarrely) allocates its budget on a biennial basis. I didn't read the documents closely enough, and had assumed that 2009-2010 meant fiscal 2009-2010. Oops.
From the same Texas source, table A-12, the estimated total state revenue is $39.3 Bn for fiscal 2009. Thus, the per-capita revenue numbers for fiscal 2009 would be $1,617.30, versus $2,391 for California. So, I'm wrong. Texas takes in about 32% less per capita than California.
It's not that bizarre they budget biennially -- when you consider that the Texas legislature is part-time, and meets only every other year.
Given the eternal train-wreck that is California budgeting -- even in good years, they just give away the store in future obligations (like public pensions) that make the bad years twice as bad -- fewer, longer budgets might be a good idea here as well.
AFAIK, the biggest problem with California budgeting is the initiative-driven pre-allocation of huge amounts of money that would otherwise be discretionary income. Pensions may play a part, but not nearly to the extent claimed by certain partisan interest groups.
You're right that I'm wrong, but you're wrong about the reason. Federal contributions and local taxes have nothing to do with it -- the Texas budget is calculated on a biennial basis, whereas the California budget is calculated on an annual basis.
That doesn't address his point: "Shouldn’t it be possible to run the state on 10.5 percent of income?". I think it most certainly should.
As a human being I'm responsible for managing my own budget: if I spend more than I earn, I suffer the consequences. Government, including California's, doesn't seem to view reducing outgoings as a possibility, and thus is obsessed with increasing incomings. One of its approaches to doing so has been to maintain a high tax rate.
Aren't they required by the California constitution to maintain certain percentages of spending for education? Among other things?
You have to weigh reduced spending with the consequences of that, and sometimes maybe running a deficit is better.
That's not to paint too rosy a picture- California is doing plenty of absurd things with its money, but much of that is mandated by the propositions, not a choice by the legislature (Three strikes means more, unavoidable, prison expenses, the high speed rail bond fiasco, the extravagant research bonds that inevitably get approved and squandered).
I could be reading this wrong but I believe the California figure is for a single year (fiscal year 2009-2010) while the Texas figure covers two years (the 2008-2009 biennial).
As one small point, Greenspun waxes eloquent about the "big government" stupidity of the Berkeley Tool Lending Library.
Well, what is the Berkeley Tool Lending Library? It's a couple of sheds and some low-hours guys there taking care of the equipment. We got wheelbarrows, we got various small power tools, we got rotor tillers, we got tree pruning equipment, some ladders, etc. Lots of people benefit but, by eye, I'd say the main beneficiaries are homeowners who otherwise would have to buy under-used equipment from Home Depot or hire a contractor. The budget is freaking small. The social benefits (including bottom-line contribution to the local economy) is freaking huge. He's talking through his hat on that point, at the very least.
What happens when someone gets injured or killed because he or she was improperly using a tool from the tool lending library? What if the low-hours guys you mentioned were cutting corners on the tools' upkeep? Or is this really an issue?
I don't think that Philip is opposed to the idea of a tool lending library, he is merely questioning why the City of Berkeley needs to be running it. Why can't a group of citizens form a cooperative to do this, instead of involving the city government?
A cooperative is a group of people united voluntarily. A city is not voluntary (yeah, you can move. but it's not always possible or convenient until we have seasteading).
City residence IS voluntary. Very much unlike country citizenship, which, for practical purposes is involuntary for the vast majority of (non-European) people.
Almost every legal adult who lives in a city chose to live there. Yeah, choices have practical constraints, and yeah, it can be difficult to change once you've committed. But that's true of almost any complex product available on the free market (CRM systems, a university education, database software, operating system software, etc.).
There is a huge difference. If I decide to withhold my dues to a coop I belong to, the worst that they can do is not renew my membership. If I own a house in Cooperative of Berkeley, as you put it, and I decide that I no longer want to pay my dues (property taxes), they'll take away my house and might even have me prosecuted for tax evasion.
rglovejoy asks: "What happens when someone gets injured or killed because he or she was improperly using a tool from the tool lending library? What if the low-hours guys you mentioned were cutting corners on the tools' upkeep? Or is this really an issue?"
It's not really an issue because the guys that work there are highly competent. Informally, you can ask them for advice about hard projects. Maintaining the tools, they do a fine job. Liability to the city, I don't recall whether I had to sign a disclaimer or not when I first went there. I don't think so but I could be mis-remembering. At any rate, they are quite conservative and careful in their tool management.
Also, regarding: "Why can't a group of citizens form a cooperative to do this, instead of involving the city government?"
Well, we certainly could. Actually, we do! You should see our neighborhood-based disaster-prep system. It has miles to go before I feel like I can laugh at the next big earthquake but it is quite impressive. We've sheds and caches all over the place. And in many neighborhoods, there are less formal tool sharing arrangements. The Tool Lending Library fills a nice niche within that arrangement and is, as another commenter pointed out, a "citizen coop" in the sense of being "voter approved".
Honestly, there is plenty to kvetch about about Berkeley and East Bay politics but the tool lending library is just not on that list.
Municipalities are probably the best form of government. They're small and in touch with their constituents. And they generally have to support themselves. Why should they have to provide hard data to people who don't actually live within their boundaries (presumably you don't)? Especially when the primary usage of that data is going to be to support some ideology that none of their residents would agree with.
You don't have to provide it, but if there are benefits, you may be able to support this in some way. If you can support it, then you may be able to persuade others into following course. Your response seems overly defensive, considering what the GP was actually asking.
"Municipalities are probably the best form of government".
Unfortunately municipalities are arguably the most corrupt form of government, the major sins being nepotism and crony favoritism.
If all that TSA social network analysis software used (largely unsuccessfully) to locate criminals and terrorists was instead applied to _any_ large US city's municipal employee and political system a major scandal would result and heads would roll.
some low-hours guys there taking care of the equipment
Come on, this is Berkeley we're talking about. These are municipal employees who, in return for their clockpunching, are likely going to have gold-plated pensions in 30 years, paid for by citizens of Berkeley and California who never needed a rotor tiller in their entire life.
I might sound like a crazy Republican for saying that. OK, let's go to the City of Berkeley website and pick a low-status occupation. Hmm, I like Parking Meter Maintenance Worker, that sounds roughly comparable.
Salary: $49,464.00 - $52,464.00 Annually (Patrick notes: where did I go wrong!)
Pension: "City employees are included in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Retirement formula is 2.7% at age 55. The City pays both the employer and employee’s share (8%) of the retirement contribution."
Now, you use that retirement formula to look up their salary at retirement based on years of service. Here's the chart:
If after thirty years of doing the important work of keeping parking meters operating you desire to rest your laurels and retire from civic service, you can then draw 81% of your salary in your last year (including any overtime pay worked) FOR LIFE.
[Edited to add:
DOH! I erred in my supposition that Tool Lending Specialists make about as much as Parking Meter Maintenance Workers! My apologies, Tool Lending Specialists! I should have noted that your salary goes up to SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.
You're trying to say that your fellow citizens who have a job should get less than a living wage?
What would would you do with the extra few bucks that comes back if their salaries fall? Buy another chocolate bar or something? Fuck me. You're arguing against helping another human being out by giving them a good salary. You want to give them a shitty salary and them have them "leech" off of you through welfare or other shit?
I think you need to make a choice between having political articles (which this is, essentially) and polite, rational discussions. I have seen very few examples of both coexisting for long on the internet. They're not that bad here, yet, but how long will it be?
It's a diary entry by somebody with political opinions, not a political article.
The difference is that nobody is espousing a certain point of view, trying to convince me to do something-or-another, telling me how one party is good/bad, telling me how some policy is great or awful, or convincing me that some political change must take place.
Keep up the crusade against political articles if you must, but let's not throw away the fact that normal people have opinions, okay? I like people with opinions, even those I don't agree with.
Everyone has opinions on politics, and the internet is full of people expressing them. There are relatively fewer sites with people expressing their opinions on startups and hacking.
If he's not 'espousing a certain point of view', I have some Paul Krugman columns to sell you;-)
My fellow citizens include a lot of people who a) make less than the guy who watches a toolshed and b) will have most of their wages confiscated to pay him for having watched a toolshed forty years ago.
Personally, I wish the government would do away with the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time, a.k.a Social Security, and simply have some required retirement contribution (401k is still ok after the crash, no?), but until they do, what do you think this guy should be getting for his retirement? Surely you aren't of the opinion that one should trade the majority of their young waking life for money to have a decent standard of living, and then the moment they are finally freed from having to "earn" a living they immediately must ratchet back their standard of living to poverty levels?
Surely you aren't of the opinion that one should trade the majority of their young waking life for money to have a decent standard of living, and then the moment they are finally freed from having to "earn" a living they immediately must ratchet back their standard of living to poverty levels?
Absolutely. Excepting, of course, the expedients of planning for your own future instead of relying on the government, saving and the miracle of compound interest.
Absolutely you are of that opinion? People should slave away their youth dreaming of the day they can retire and when that day comes they can't do anything because they're living on a fraction of what they had before? That sounds like an absolutely awful life.
As I said, I would like to see SS go away in favor of just mandating that people invest in some fund that is heavily regulated (regulating the risk, to minimize the risk of people losing their retirement money), but savings must be mandated in some form. If you don't then people simply wont do it. Then you're left with the choice of just saying "I told you so" while you watch them starve to death, or financially supporting them. Both of those are very bad options.
It sounds like you think that, absent government intervention, after receiving a $50K salary for 30 years, it is an inevitable outcome that a Berkeley resident working as a tool lender will live the rest of his non-working life in poverty.
You are right that some people will choose to live as grasshoppers and not ants. But it hardly seems reasonable that society's empathy for their lack of planning should extend to assuring them the retirement of their dreams rather than a minimal one.
It's not inevitable for everyone, just the majority. And guess what: you will support them one way or another. Either by providing a retirement they can live on or by paying for their housing/food stamps.
You could try making household economics an education focus, but countries with a much higher average IQ still have Social Security-like systems, so it seems that people simply wont do this for themselves, on average.
Why must a tool lending specialist live in Berkeley? Many people (like myself) live in one (cheap) city and work in another. $50k/year is probably plenty in Oakland (which, if I recall correctly, is adjacent to Berkeley).
Incidentally, most people who retire at age 50 will face a lower standard of living than if they worked until age 65. Not "Tool Lending Specialists", however, who get to retire after 30 years of service (rather than the typical 45).
A tool library is an intriguing, possibly beneficial idea. But whether it's actually worth what's spent depends on facts not in evidence: how many people use it, how efficiently is it run, what's the cost of the next-best-alternative, do wealthy homeowners need the subsidy? Anything well-intentioned looks good in a vacuum; it's the tradeoffs that matter.
Given the way municipally-originated projects are run, I doubt a rigorous cost-benefit analysis has been applied. If it were a privately-run tool rental facility, and it survived its startup period, I'd have more confidence that it was earning its keep: willing customers would be paying its costs plus enough profit to keep the owners interested.
Municipal projects can survive for years based on little more than "sounds nice", "employs some people/friends", or even ego-stroking "how Berkeley can we be?"
Re "A tool library is an intriguing, possibly beneficial idea. But whether it's actually worth what's spent depends on facts not in evidence: how many people use it, how efficiently is it run, what's the cost of the next-best-alternative, do wealthy homeowners need the subsidy? Anything well-intentioned looks good in a vacuum; it's the tradeoffs that matter."
It's quite often busy. I don't think I've been there once without having to stand in line. I see their (inventory tagged) tools quite often.
By eye, it's run damn efficiently. Really, it's sheds. There are some sharpening stones on motors so when you check in a tool that needs sharpening, they wipe it down (if you didn't) and give it quick once over (if needed). It's in the back yard of a branch library that would otherwise be given over to maybe 3-5 parking spaces. It appears to have damn little administrative or operational overhead. Honestly, it looks like a gem.
"Given the way municipally-originated projects are run, I doubt a rigorous cost-benefit analysis has been applied. "
In this case, the benefits are very widely appreciated and the costs are so low that a "rigorous" cost-benefit analysis could easily double or triple the budget.
Their big "wastage"? Their big "perk"? Their biggest aggregious waste of taxpayer money? That would appear to be the candy bowl they sometimes have out so that patrons can grab a cheap mint or cherry sucker during their visit. Or, for all I know, maybe the people who work their fund that out of pocket.
"I'd have more confidence that it was earning its keep: willing customers would be paying its costs plus enough profit to keep the owners interested."*
I loan my personal tools to neighbors when the need arises. I'm very pleased when they come back on-time, cleaned, and not damaged. I don't expect to make a profit on a bike stand or a shovel or the exotic wrench - I'm quite happy to see those things get use rather than sitting on a shelf.
Similarly, the tool-lending library sure looks to run on the (damn) cheap. It's one of those things that "just plain works" around Berkeley. (Another that "just plain works" is our one funky playground where, yes, parents have to sign some paper before their kids are admitted but once admitted, kids as young as you can imagine are allowed to use tools, including power tools, and get to constantly rebuild the playground. Here: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2009/12/29/adventure-playground-... )
"Municipal projects can survive for years based on little more than "sounds nice", "employs some people/friends", or even ego-stroking "how Berkeley can we be?"
About Berkeley's poverty rate, it doesn't seem like he considered that just like rich people can move to other states, poor people can move too. Maybe the poverty rate of Berkeley is high precisely because it's better to be poor in Berkeley than in Oakland or Emeryville? When a city cuts down on social services, they are just externalizing the costs onto neighboring communities.
I know that Santa Cruz was trying to get rid of its reputation as "a good place to be homeless in" exactly because homeless people from all over the Bay Area came there.
This is exactly why the population of homeless people is so high. It's always high near a university, and it's especially high in a city where the homeless are borderline actively encouraged - the city even fought the university on tearing down a park to build more student housing (note: university owns the land) because too many people were living in it.
Anyone who has lived in Berkeley/Oakland (right next to each other, for those that don't know) for any length of time will know what you say is completely true. Berkeley is far friendlier to homeless people.
I've always thought Greenspun's articles were interesting and well written, so I'm disappointed to see such a transparently ideological and sarcastic article.
True, I subscribe to his blog and it's about 40% sarcastic ideology, 30% aviation, and 30% commentary and book reviews. Usually only articles from the 3rd category get posted here.
The argument is that the mismanaged spending and high taxation rate are actually pernicious to the community's welfare, this isn't just a matter of cynical reflex saying "look at those do-gooders thinking they're making a difference".
But the argument hints that they are missing the big picture by, as you claim, 'mismanaged spending and [a] high taxation rate'. My point is that it's better to miss the big picture while helping people, than to miss the big picture while criticizing people.
Greenspun visits Berkeley for maybe 3 or 4 days and he's now quite sure that people there have it wrong? He mentions Prop 13 in passing, as something that everyone in the East Bay keeps on talking about. Some might argue it's a much bigger issue than he realizes. Far from over-taxation being a problem, it would be that California has not taxed based on real property values for decades. I.e., Greenspun has side-stepped a large problem in the bigger picture by being hyper-critical.
Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I was just getting a little tired of Greenspun's hints that there is a problem with being naive about 'doing good' -- as you mention (quite well said, that is sort of how I read Greenspun's attitude). My point was to hint that there is also a problem in taking one's 'cynical reflex' too seriously.
After all, these actions, at a certain level, are really kind of similar movements. Hyper-taxation and hyper-criticism both attempt to optimize at the wrong time, too impatiently. However, in the former case, at least someone gets helped (though arguably by being critical Greenspun is helping eventually). At any rate, I don't think what he says is completely incorrect. There's just a flip side to it. E.g., in any sufficiently large Lisp program, a lot of time is spent in FFI.
I think it's clear that the problem with California is not the taxation rate (which after all at 10.5% is not much higher than the national average of 9.7% and ranks only 6th) but rather that the entire state government is incredibly broken.
A big portion of the state's revenues are constitutionally mandated to go to certain programs via the ridiculously easy referendum process.
Meanwhile, Proposition 13 requires a 2/3rds majority vote to pass any sort of budget, and a hardened radical element in the Assembly would rather see the state go down in flames than raise taxes (even when coupled with spending cuts).
I think the very short term limits (3 terms) for assembly members feeds this tendency because they don't have enough time to get good at legislating and compromising before being kicked out of office.
At the same time the (vast majority) Democrats in the assembly don't want massive spending cuts -- but you must admit they have the majority! A 2/3rd requirement to pass a budget is incredibly undemocratic.
The result is unrestricted borrowing and inevitable collapse.
That is an interesting question, but I don't think it is the right one. California can innovate and do better. Where there is waste it may be worth eliminating, even if it is a below average amount of waste.
If you are talking about federal taxes, then the answer is certainly yes. Californian's pay a lot more in federal taxes than they receive in services from the federal government relative to other states. This may be related to the fact that they have less federal senate votes per resident than most states.
Does incarcerating someone count as a service? California has a large prison population. I would argue that significantly as a result of federal drug policies.
The article was pretty light on the detail of where the money goes.
Philip is so right. The Bay area stinks. Every body should move to Texas or to Boston where life is so much better. Real estate prices are way too high. The politics here are way to liberal. The government is way out of touch with what's realistic. The whole state is going to collapse any day underneath its own weight.
Move over Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. The right has a new hero and it's ... Phil Greenspun? Who knew!?
Now Phil is surely much smarter than I. No argument there. I would never have the confidence to go to Harvard and try to straighten out the PhDs there about how Massachusetts should be run. They would call me names like Carpetbagger and such.
Where does Phil get his 10.5% tax rate number? From the Tax Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation. Where do they get their numbers? It's vague. Does it include sales tax and workman's comp etc.? The same foundation complains about California Corporate tax burden being the highest in the nation at an outrageous 8.3%. Hmmm. 8.3 < 10.5. And don't give me any of that trickle down baloney about not taxing corporations.
Pensions are a great boogie man of the right wing. They cost so much. It's much cheaper to stop paying those folks. If they haven't amassed fortune enough to retire using that huge 40k salary by now, tough luck.
I had better stop now before I get all worked up. After all I'm just a dumb old computer programmer who doesn't know much about economics. Phil's a s m a r t old computer programmer ...
Sigh. I'm actually a bit of a fan of Phil's. It's just that the harsh conservative position is hard for an unemployed 50+ programmer to swallow these days. I don't have a "fat" pension. When I go for interviews I rarely see anyone over 40. Good luck to you all, and don't look down on us "over the hill" workers. Just look away.
"None could accept the idea that their state had a spending problem rather than a revenue problem"
"For roughly 60 years, Berkeley has offered more services to its residents than virtually any other city in the U.S."
This should point out to him his mistake, I would think. He is assuming that the correct answer is to lower taxes (or keep them the same) and spend less. But this isn't a correct (or wrong) answer, it is one option. Maybe people in California would rather pay higher taxes and get more services. It works pretty well for a lot of European countries.
74 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadDespite the fact that all of my interlocutors had university educations, sometimes including PhDs, all were so deeply invested in the idea that their insolvent state government is starved for revenue that they were unable to parse the information."
Perhaps they were just stunned that someone with a PhD doesn't know that income tax isn't the whole story?
California state revenue, 2009: $88 Billion (source: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pd..., chart SUM-01)
California population: 36.8 million (July, 2008; source: US Census)
CA Revenue per capita: $2391.30
Texas state revenue, 2009: $78 Billion (source: http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/taxbud/bre2008/BRE_2008-09.pdf, page 3)
Texas population: 24.3 million (July, 2008; source: US Census)
TX Revenue per capita: $3209.88
"Conservative" Texas takes in almost a thousand bucks more per person in taxes and fees than does "liberal" California.
UPDATE: I made a mistake. The numbers for Texas are reported on a biennial basis, whereas for California, they're reported on an annual basis. See my reply to cwan below for details. When you get the annual numbers from the Texas budget summary, they appear to take in about 32% less per capita than California.
Edit: I should say though, right on for pointing out the material issue. You got the meat of it right in that it's overall spending that matters, not just income tax. You "showed your work" correctly, you just plugged in the wrong numbers. That means you get an 8/10 from me.
Edit2: I read the parent's post too quickly in my haste to make a point. However, neither of us considered the contribution of local taxes, as discussed below. I believe that that definitively answers the question of which state spends more per capita.
Additionally, timr was correct to restrict his numbers to state tax revenue, which is the total under discussion.
If you do the math, it comes out to $6,500 per person in Teaxs, and $5,600 per person in California. So even considering the other sources of revenue (though it makes no sense to do so in this context), timr's point is still correct.
and here (Texas State Per Capita Revenue numbers) 2010E - State: $2980; State+Local: $7041 http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/TX_per_capita_revenue.htm...
These tie better back to the US Census numbers (which are only as at 2004 but are on an apples-apples basis): http://www.census.gov/govs/state/04rank.html
The problem is that states do not report revenues in the same ways and some are clearly more creative than others.
From the same Texas source, table A-12, the estimated total state revenue is $39.3 Bn for fiscal 2009. Thus, the per-capita revenue numbers for fiscal 2009 would be $1,617.30, versus $2,391 for California. So, I'm wrong. Texas takes in about 32% less per capita than California.
Given the eternal train-wreck that is California budgeting -- even in good years, they just give away the store in future obligations (like public pensions) that make the bad years twice as bad -- fewer, longer budgets might be a good idea here as well.
As a human being I'm responsible for managing my own budget: if I spend more than I earn, I suffer the consequences. Government, including California's, doesn't seem to view reducing outgoings as a possibility, and thus is obsessed with increasing incomings. One of its approaches to doing so has been to maintain a high tax rate.
You have to weigh reduced spending with the consequences of that, and sometimes maybe running a deficit is better.
That's not to paint too rosy a picture- California is doing plenty of absurd things with its money, but much of that is mandated by the propositions, not a choice by the legislature (Three strikes means more, unavoidable, prison expenses, the high speed rail bond fiasco, the extravagant research bonds that inevitably get approved and squandered).
That's slightly higher than the per-year figure in the original comment:
I don't think he's correct.
Shows California State's per capita consumption/expense at $6,397.23 / $5,686.48
For Texas State it's $4,030.37 / $3,441.53
Granted, it's 2004 numbers but at least it's more certain the numbers are being compared on the same basis.
Well, what is the Berkeley Tool Lending Library? It's a couple of sheds and some low-hours guys there taking care of the equipment. We got wheelbarrows, we got various small power tools, we got rotor tillers, we got tree pruning equipment, some ladders, etc. Lots of people benefit but, by eye, I'd say the main beneficiaries are homeowners who otherwise would have to buy under-used equipment from Home Depot or hire a contractor. The budget is freaking small. The social benefits (including bottom-line contribution to the local economy) is freaking huge. He's talking through his hat on that point, at the very least.
I don't think that Philip is opposed to the idea of a tool lending library, he is merely questioning why the City of Berkeley needs to be running it. Why can't a group of citizens form a cooperative to do this, instead of involving the city government?
It's not really an issue because the guys that work there are highly competent. Informally, you can ask them for advice about hard projects. Maintaining the tools, they do a fine job. Liability to the city, I don't recall whether I had to sign a disclaimer or not when I first went there. I don't think so but I could be mis-remembering. At any rate, they are quite conservative and careful in their tool management.
Also, regarding: "Why can't a group of citizens form a cooperative to do this, instead of involving the city government?"
Well, we certainly could. Actually, we do! You should see our neighborhood-based disaster-prep system. It has miles to go before I feel like I can laugh at the next big earthquake but it is quite impressive. We've sheds and caches all over the place. And in many neighborhoods, there are less formal tool sharing arrangements. The Tool Lending Library fills a nice niche within that arrangement and is, as another commenter pointed out, a "citizen coop" in the sense of being "voter approved".
Honestly, there is plenty to kvetch about about Berkeley and East Bay politics but the tool lending library is just not on that list.
Most American municipalities get by without such services.
Perhaps the way to persuade them is by providing hard data to support your cliam about social benefits.
dasht owes us hard data if he wants to be taken seriously.
Saying "The social benefit of X is freaking huge," with no support, is just a way of making "I really like X" sound more important.
Unfortunately municipalities are arguably the most corrupt form of government, the major sins being nepotism and crony favoritism.
If all that TSA social network analysis software used (largely unsuccessfully) to locate criminals and terrorists was instead applied to _any_ large US city's municipal employee and political system a major scandal would result and heads would roll.
I'm always impressed at the variety of tools Home Depot rents.
Come on, this is Berkeley we're talking about. These are municipal employees who, in return for their clockpunching, are likely going to have gold-plated pensions in 30 years, paid for by citizens of Berkeley and California who never needed a rotor tiller in their entire life.
I might sound like a crazy Republican for saying that. OK, let's go to the City of Berkeley website and pick a low-status occupation. Hmm, I like Parking Meter Maintenance Worker, that sounds roughly comparable.
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/berkeley/default.cfm?action...
Salary: $49,464.00 - $52,464.00 Annually (Patrick notes: where did I go wrong!)
Pension: "City employees are included in the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Retirement formula is 2.7% at age 55. The City pays both the employer and employee’s share (8%) of the retirement contribution."
Now, you use that retirement formula to look up their salary at retirement based on years of service. Here's the chart:
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/member/retirement/service...
If after thirty years of doing the important work of keeping parking meters operating you desire to rest your laurels and retire from civic service, you can then draw 81% of your salary in your last year (including any overtime pay worked) FOR LIFE.
[Edited to add:
DOH! I erred in my supposition that Tool Lending Specialists make about as much as Parking Meter Maintenance Workers! My apologies, Tool Lending Specialists! I should have noted that your salary goes up to SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.
http://agency.governmentjobs.com/berkeley/default.cfm?action...
]
What would would you do with the extra few bucks that comes back if their salaries fall? Buy another chocolate bar or something? Fuck me. You're arguing against helping another human being out by giving them a good salary. You want to give them a shitty salary and them have them "leech" off of you through welfare or other shit?
At least I hope.
The difference is that nobody is espousing a certain point of view, trying to convince me to do something-or-another, telling me how one party is good/bad, telling me how some policy is great or awful, or convincing me that some political change must take place.
Keep up the crusade against political articles if you must, but let's not throw away the fact that normal people have opinions, okay? I like people with opinions, even those I don't agree with.
If he's not 'espousing a certain point of view', I have some Paul Krugman columns to sell you;-)
Personally, I wish the government would do away with the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time, a.k.a Social Security, and simply have some required retirement contribution (401k is still ok after the crash, no?), but until they do, what do you think this guy should be getting for his retirement? Surely you aren't of the opinion that one should trade the majority of their young waking life for money to have a decent standard of living, and then the moment they are finally freed from having to "earn" a living they immediately must ratchet back their standard of living to poverty levels?
Absolutely. Excepting, of course, the expedients of planning for your own future instead of relying on the government, saving and the miracle of compound interest.
As I said, I would like to see SS go away in favor of just mandating that people invest in some fund that is heavily regulated (regulating the risk, to minimize the risk of people losing their retirement money), but savings must be mandated in some form. If you don't then people simply wont do it. Then you're left with the choice of just saying "I told you so" while you watch them starve to death, or financially supporting them. Both of those are very bad options.
You are right that some people will choose to live as grasshoppers and not ants. But it hardly seems reasonable that society's empathy for their lack of planning should extend to assuring them the retirement of their dreams rather than a minimal one.
You could try making household economics an education focus, but countries with a much higher average IQ still have Social Security-like systems, so it seems that people simply wont do this for themselves, on average.
Incidentally, most people who retire at age 50 will face a lower standard of living than if they worked until age 65. Not "Tool Lending Specialists", however, who get to retire after 30 years of service (rather than the typical 45).
Given the way municipally-originated projects are run, I doubt a rigorous cost-benefit analysis has been applied. If it were a privately-run tool rental facility, and it survived its startup period, I'd have more confidence that it was earning its keep: willing customers would be paying its costs plus enough profit to keep the owners interested.
Municipal projects can survive for years based on little more than "sounds nice", "employs some people/friends", or even ego-stroking "how Berkeley can we be?"
It's quite often busy. I don't think I've been there once without having to stand in line. I see their (inventory tagged) tools quite often.
By eye, it's run damn efficiently. Really, it's sheds. There are some sharpening stones on motors so when you check in a tool that needs sharpening, they wipe it down (if you didn't) and give it quick once over (if needed). It's in the back yard of a branch library that would otherwise be given over to maybe 3-5 parking spaces. It appears to have damn little administrative or operational overhead. Honestly, it looks like a gem.
"Given the way municipally-originated projects are run, I doubt a rigorous cost-benefit analysis has been applied. "
In this case, the benefits are very widely appreciated and the costs are so low that a "rigorous" cost-benefit analysis could easily double or triple the budget.
Their big "wastage"? Their big "perk"? Their biggest aggregious waste of taxpayer money? That would appear to be the candy bowl they sometimes have out so that patrons can grab a cheap mint or cherry sucker during their visit. Or, for all I know, maybe the people who work their fund that out of pocket.
"I'd have more confidence that it was earning its keep: willing customers would be paying its costs plus enough profit to keep the owners interested."*
I loan my personal tools to neighbors when the need arises. I'm very pleased when they come back on-time, cleaned, and not damaged. I don't expect to make a profit on a bike stand or a shovel or the exotic wrench - I'm quite happy to see those things get use rather than sitting on a shelf.
Similarly, the tool-lending library sure looks to run on the (damn) cheap. It's one of those things that "just plain works" around Berkeley. (Another that "just plain works" is our one funky playground where, yes, parents have to sign some paper before their kids are admitted but once admitted, kids as young as you can imagine are allowed to use tools, including power tools, and get to constantly rebuild the playground. Here: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2009/12/29/adventure-playground-... )
"Municipal projects can survive for years based on little more than "sounds nice", "employs some people/friends", or even ego-stroking "how Berkeley can we be?"
Yes, they can, but if I could take you on a walking tour of the place, you'd believe that the Tool Lending Library is just obviously sane. Best I can do on this here interweb thingie is: http://www.yelp.com/biz/berkeley-public-library-tool-lending...
I know that Santa Cruz was trying to get rid of its reputation as "a good place to be homeless in" exactly because homeless people from all over the Bay Area came there.
Greenspun visits Berkeley for maybe 3 or 4 days and he's now quite sure that people there have it wrong? He mentions Prop 13 in passing, as something that everyone in the East Bay keeps on talking about. Some might argue it's a much bigger issue than he realizes. Far from over-taxation being a problem, it would be that California has not taxed based on real property values for decades. I.e., Greenspun has side-stepped a large problem in the bigger picture by being hyper-critical.
Perhaps I'm overreacting, but I was just getting a little tired of Greenspun's hints that there is a problem with being naive about 'doing good' -- as you mention (quite well said, that is sort of how I read Greenspun's attitude). My point was to hint that there is also a problem in taking one's 'cynical reflex' too seriously.
After all, these actions, at a certain level, are really kind of similar movements. Hyper-taxation and hyper-criticism both attempt to optimize at the wrong time, too impatiently. However, in the former case, at least someone gets helped (though arguably by being critical Greenspun is helping eventually). At any rate, I don't think what he says is completely incorrect. There's just a flip side to it. E.g., in any sufficiently large Lisp program, a lot of time is spent in FFI.
A big portion of the state's revenues are constitutionally mandated to go to certain programs via the ridiculously easy referendum process.
Meanwhile, Proposition 13 requires a 2/3rds majority vote to pass any sort of budget, and a hardened radical element in the Assembly would rather see the state go down in flames than raise taxes (even when coupled with spending cuts).
I think the very short term limits (3 terms) for assembly members feeds this tendency because they don't have enough time to get good at legislating and compromising before being kicked out of office.
At the same time the (vast majority) Democrats in the assembly don't want massive spending cuts -- but you must admit they have the majority! A 2/3rd requirement to pass a budget is incredibly undemocratic.
The result is unrestricted borrowing and inevitable collapse.
If you are talking about federal taxes, then the answer is certainly yes. Californian's pay a lot more in federal taxes than they receive in services from the federal government relative to other states. This may be related to the fact that they have less federal senate votes per resident than most states.
Does incarcerating someone count as a service? California has a large prison population. I would argue that significantly as a result of federal drug policies.
The article was pretty light on the detail of where the money goes.
</looks through San Jose real estate listings>
Now Phil is surely much smarter than I. No argument there. I would never have the confidence to go to Harvard and try to straighten out the PhDs there about how Massachusetts should be run. They would call me names like Carpetbagger and such.
Where does Phil get his 10.5% tax rate number? From the Tax Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Foundation. Where do they get their numbers? It's vague. Does it include sales tax and workman's comp etc.? The same foundation complains about California Corporate tax burden being the highest in the nation at an outrageous 8.3%. Hmmm. 8.3 < 10.5. And don't give me any of that trickle down baloney about not taxing corporations.
Pensions are a great boogie man of the right wing. They cost so much. It's much cheaper to stop paying those folks. If they haven't amassed fortune enough to retire using that huge 40k salary by now, tough luck.
I had better stop now before I get all worked up. After all I'm just a dumb old computer programmer who doesn't know much about economics. Phil's a s m a r t old computer programmer ...
Sigh. I'm actually a bit of a fan of Phil's. It's just that the harsh conservative position is hard for an unemployed 50+ programmer to swallow these days. I don't have a "fat" pension. When I go for interviews I rarely see anyone over 40. Good luck to you all, and don't look down on us "over the hill" workers. Just look away.
"For roughly 60 years, Berkeley has offered more services to its residents than virtually any other city in the U.S."
This should point out to him his mistake, I would think. He is assuming that the correct answer is to lower taxes (or keep them the same) and spend less. But this isn't a correct (or wrong) answer, it is one option. Maybe people in California would rather pay higher taxes and get more services. It works pretty well for a lot of European countries.