THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Opinion: Demography underlies big issues in California


image_pdfimage_print

By Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee

The legislative session that reconvened this month faces no shortage of big issues, but underlying all of them is demographic change that is dramatically altering the face of California.

New data frame the change:

• Recent reports from the U.S. Census Bureau and the state Department of Finance agree that our historically high population growth has dropped to under 1 percent a year, a third of what it was in the 1980s.

• The slowdown stems from a virtual halt to foreign migration, a net outflow to other states and a rapidly decreasing birthrate – factors which, if continued, could see California’s population start to decline in a few years.

• A new study by the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health says that due to the declining migration and birthrates, the number of California children under 10 years old dropped by nearly 200,000 between 2000 and 2010 and is expected to decline by another 100,000 during the current decade.

“These trends are not yet widely recognized, but they should be a wake-up call for policymakers,” said report author Dowell Myers, a USC demographer.

“We will be increasingly dependent economically and socially on a smaller number of children. They are more important to the state’s future success than ever before.”

• Latinos now constitute more than half of the state’s children, and both the Packard Foundation and the Center for the Next Generation, in another new report, raise the specter of increasing child poverty. In fact, a recent Census Bureau study, measuring poverty by a new method, says California has the nation’s highest rate.

“We can’t honestly separate our state’s economic future from current poverty rates among our kids,” Ann O’Leary, co-author of the latter report, said. “Our ability to thrive as the world’s ninth-largest economy depends on having an educated, healthy and stable next generation of workers. We’re headed in the opposite direction.”

• Meanwhile, the state’s white population is declining (it will drop below 40 percent this year) and aging rapidly as the baby-boom generation moves from middle age (the youngest boomers are nearly 50) into retirement (the oldest will turn 67 this year).

• These California trends emulate states in the Northeast and upper Midwest, such as New York and Michigan, more than they do those in the South and Southwest. While California’s under-10 population was declining by nearly 200,000 between 2000 and 2010, for instance, Texas was adding nearly 600,000.

Gov. Jerry Brown understands that California is being buffeted by a demographic storm and reflects that knowledge in his new budget. “This is an aging society, and inequality is growing,” he said.

But do others in the Capitol grasp the stark challenge it presents?

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (6)
  1. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    California and the USA are gone as we knew them. How do you like them apples?

  2. Rick says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    More like changing. Those that adapt survive and thrive, those that do not die (metaphorically of course). I believe in adapting and not whining. Rick

  3. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Of course it is changing but is it better or worse? We are richer than ever, have IPods, great electronics, bigger houses, incredible cars and yet by most social metrics (I hate that word) we are crumbling. Troubled children on Prozac, ADAH, out of wedlock births, broken families, government welfare, no room in univerities, more people locked up and in the penal system, more people in front of their tv’s watching football than in pews on Sunday and so forth.
    This is a world where you can still succeed as you say, but is it better?

  4. Rick says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Joe, Ask a person of color would they want to be living a 100 years ago or today. Clearly today, life is not perfect, nor has it ever been, but it is better. Ask most professional women. In 1970 while attending college, I saw job adds listed as jobs for women and jobs for men. Oh, the highest paying jobs were for men. Also sexual harassment in the work place was common, less so today.

    As a 59 yr old white male who is well educated, and doing well. Life is good and condition compared to the 1950s is actually better for most. So things are changing – generally for the better. But change is uneven. Rick

  5. Joe Doaks says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Rick, ask any person if they would rather be alive today or 100 years ago?

  6. Rick says - Posted: January 15, 2013

    Joe, a number of my friends have contemplated this question over the last 42 plus years ago (I encountered this question first in high school in a history class). Over the years the overwhelming response has been, now is better then yesteryear. I have heard more than one radio talk show host use this to fill an hour of air. In my experience, this has been consistently true even over the last 40 years. Virtually 100% positive response for today over yesteryear by people of color and women. Even other older white males I have talked too about this admit today is better then yesteryear. My dad died 19 years ago at 63 years old, and he clearly believed the 1990’s were better then the 1950s and 1960s (he served in Korea). But, I have always been a glass half full kind of guy and I live each day as it will be my last – I like Apolo Ohno’s book Zero Regrets: Be Greater than Yesterday. Rick