A quarter-century ago, in a series of Sacramento Bee articles that later morphed into a book, I described how California was undergoing dramatic economic and social change and quoted from a paper co-written by University of California, Davis, economist Philip Martin about the state’s future to wit:
“… The possible emergence of a two-tier economy with Asians and non-Hispanic whites competing for high-status positions while Hispanics and blacks struggle to get the low-paying service jobs. … ”
The concept of a segmented, even segregated, California was somewhat revolutionary in the mid-1980s. After all, wasn’t California the embodiment of mobile egalitarianism?
Three economic booms and three busts later, with 11 million more people, largely because of heavy immigration and a high birth rate, California has clearly reached the highly stratified condition that Martin and others saw coming.
Roughly three-quarters of Californians may complain about traffic congestion and other hassles, but they’re still pretty much living the state’s fabled good life. For the other 25 percent or so, it’s another story.
Half of the latter are unemployed, or are living in families without working incomes, and most of the remainder can be categorized as either dropouts from the labor force or working in subsistence jobs below their capacities.
California, with about 12 percent of the nation’s population, has a third of its welfare recipients. Seven million people, nearly 20 percent of its residents, are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the program that provides medical care to the poor. At least a quarter, and perhaps a third, of the state’s ninth-graders are not making it through high school.
The most graphic statistical evidence of California’s two-tier economy, however, is found in a new study released by the United Ways of California. It found that 30 percent of California households lack enough income to cover “bare-bones living expenses.” That’s over twice the federal poverty rate because it includes factors such as transportation costs, child care and taxes that the feds exclude.
In some rural counties, the poverty index is well over 40 percent, but the most startling differences are found in breakdowns by ethnicity, gender, marital status and education.
The study found that 52 percent of Latino households (77 percent of Latina single mothers) fall below the income adequacy standard. More than two-thirds of households headed by those lacking high school diplomas fall into that category, as do 46 percent of foreign-born households.
In contrast, the poverty rate is just 18 percent for white households, 26 percent for Asians, and 12 percent for college graduates.
These are stark numbers, more typical of a highly stratified Third World country than legendary California, and we would be foolish to ignore their implications.
