I think we’re on the same page, at least.

The issue is, as you state it – the share of the budget going to education has declined. Education has also declined. Perhaps there’s a real, causal relationship there, and the real solution is to increase funding for education. I’m sure some PhDs could prove this with studies.

The population growth has been linear, so, the budget growth should have been pretty predictable. (BTW – I was looking at some other numbers starting around 1900. Even going back that far, we had rapid, yet linear growth.)

I agree that the Master Plan is obsolete. We need around six years of higher education covered by the state, not just four. We need better integration with K12. The times demand more education, with less debt.

Would anyone say otherwise? Does anyone think we need more debt and less education? Because, that’s where we’re headed – greater elitism in public education.

I don’t agree with the tax commissions and WSJs thesis that it’s a progressive income tax that’s CA’s main problem. We have a high sales tax, and a low property tax (and Prop 13), and neither are progressive. The WSJ just likes regressive taxes because their readership tend to be upper-middle-class and wealthy.

Then can think, wishfully, that the tax reform proposed is politically feasible, but it’s not. It looks like a big tax cut for millionaires, with a few crumbs for the middle class and poor.

They really have to come up with a different “deal”, where people will get increases in necessary services in exchange for what will amount to a big increase in expenses to the poor and middle class.

-“They are less likely to take work that pays less, or is a public good. This impedes innovation”.

–can you clarify “impedes innovation”?
–If I am following you correctly, the impedance would happen in the production of public goods not private goods right?

By public good, I mean something that’s of benefit to the general public. I do not mean something made by the government (though the government specializes in public goods). Google’s search is a public good. So is a bookstore, even if run for profit, if it’s run in a way that genuinely benefits the community.

I think that public goods, taken together, tend to be more innovative than private goods, taken together.

The innovations that public goods produce tend to be “rough” or unfinished, but there are a lot of them. They’re like experiements. The good ideas get smoothed over time.

Private goods are constrained by the need to turn a profit. So, companies tend to either integrate many innovations into finished products (or integrated services), or they tend to focus on a narrow innovation and mass-produce a single component or service (and sell to companies that make end products).

Nothing is entirely public or private. Things tend to be in-between in degrees, but government and universities tend to produce the public goods, and firms produce private goods.

To get back to the education issue — imagine that some college student figured out how to get us out of this economic mess. A girl or boy genius. I don’t mean they found a magic key, but that they created a very complex, but feasible way out, that would actually improve our society.

Would you rather that this person graduate with $200,000 in debt, or no debt at all?

Now, imagine that they’re looking for work. They go to the US government, maybe the CBO, and are offered a job at $40,000 a year. They go to one of the big banks, like JP Morgan, and are offered $70,000 a year. Neither increases the salary offer because they don’t realize this applicant is a genius — because the interviewers and lower level managers aren’t smart enough to know.

If this student is carrying heavy debts, they’re motivated to take the bank job, at least for a few years.

I tend to think that in the private system, the knowledge would often be “enclosed” and diverted to generate profit. This consumes money and time.

In the public system, the pressures to enclose would be less, and research papers or notes would, at least, be “out there”. People outside her/his office or social circle could find and become advocates for this person.

–Therefore private goods (ie; cars,computers,phones) innovation would advance relatively quicker no?

No. Advances in cars, computers, and phones have been painfully slow, impeded by market needs. Examples:

Cars need to run on gas to be compatible with gas stations.

Personal computers need to support the Intel instruction set, to run Windows.

New cell phone models are so expensive that they need subsidies – and getting revenues to cover the subsidy supposedly takes two years.

On the consumer front, things move slowly.

On the other side, on the patent front, things move a lot, lot faster.

And in the totally free front, it’s even faster.

The only thing with the public side is that these ideas aren’t integrated into products and services that are easy to purchase and use.

-“productivity increases by worker speedups rather than by developing new technologies”.
–quicker innovation would mean the development of new, and the improvement of existing technology right?

Yes.

Though, by technology I also mean better techniques as well as equipment. I misstated myself.

I made a mistaken assertion that I thought most of the productivity gains were just worker speedups. While I think work is being sped up – it appears that there actually haven’t been large productivity gains recently. There have been moderate (mostly) gains, year-over-year, according to the BLS. -1% to +5% depending on sector.

There were big quarter-to-quarter increases, but, that’s mostly due to seasonal increases.

I can’t tell where this modest productivity increase originates.

The reason why I assumed it was a speedup is because you can’t deploy technology/technique that quickly, and it tends to cost more than labor, at first, so unless you know you’ll make it back, you probably won’t buy it in this lousy economy. (And credit sucks right now.)

-see:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/23/nation/na-stimulus-landmarks23

Students should work to maintain an affordable education, but understand the cost to the state as a result of population growth that the Master Plan never anticipated. As well the CA Master Plan for education is obsolete and should be rethought if the state is to keep up with the needs of the population.

“CA’s growth has outpaced the nation’s. We’ve transitioned from a defense/war based economy to a tech/media economy. We have several key PacRim ports, so globalization hasn’t harmed CA that much.”
I agree that CA’s economy has grown and it may have outpaced the rest of the US, but its spending has also increased. It spends more now than it ever did during the 1970s, no matter how you look at it, as a percentage of revenue or total income adjusted for inflation. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/LAOMenus/lao_menu_economics.aspx From having years of surpass to resorting to borrowing and accounting tricks to balance the budget.

I don’t agree that California’s tech and media has replaced the defense industry in terms of job percentages. And per captia income adjusted for inflation has decreased since then although not significantly. But I would agree with your statement of the increased gap between the rich and the poor. (Stats were not easily accessible online, I’m sure I could look them up if I tried but that more work than I care to do)
I also would disagree with the impact on globalization on California, I would argue that it has scattered out manufacturing industries. (but again more work than I care to do to provide stats.)

“Meanwhile our population growth has been mostly linear.”
You are right that population growth has been linear, but it’s been a sharp upward linear growth line, from about 20 million in 1970 to 35 million in 2000 (http://www.censusscope.org/us/s6/chart_popl.html) and by 2010 we are probably looking at 40 million. So in the last 40 years the California’s population will have nearly doubled. Part of the issue is that although the state has increased spending on schools it that increase in spending doesn’t keep up with the growth of the population. So while spending on education may have increases to 160% of 1970s levels the population has roughly grown 200%. (http://www.lao.ca.gov/presentations/050400_budgets_taxes_spending/050400_budgets_taxes_spending_files/UCLA_May00.pdf )

So if ur still reading this despite all the lame stats, thank you. But to sum it up Cali spends more now overall per person than it did when in the 1970, but spends less on education. We spend more on other stuff, some good (social services) some bad (bureaucracy). Some of Cali’s budget problems also stem from its volatile tax structure http://www.cotce.ca.gov/ ; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574443413742032356.html the state has had problems before the housing bubble blew. But I don’t want to digress too much. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for an affordable higher education system, shit I’m a product of it. However, free higher education might as well ask for honest politicians. Students should work to maintain an affordable education, but understand that the cost to the state in terms of spending in growing much more than the Master Plan ever anticipated. The CA Master Plan for education is obsolete and should be rethought if the state is to keep up with the needs of the population.

but re;
“They are less likely to take work that pays less, or is a public good. This impedes innovation”.

-can you clarify “impedes innovation”?
-If I am following you correctly, the impedance would happen in the production of public goods not private goods right?

-Therefore private goods (ie; cars,computers,phones) innovation would advance relatively quicker no?

“productivity increases by worker speedups rather than by developing new technologies”.

-quicker innovation would mean the development of new, and the improvement of existing technology right?

Meanwhile our population growth has been mostly linear.

Our economy, in GDP, is around the same as France, and our population is half of France’s. France has free college.

I’m not certain, but I suspect that, per capita, in adjusted dollars, we’re wealthier than in the 1960s. Our per-capita income, however, never seems to keep up. Rather than perptuating a growing middle class, we’re becoming a “Tale of Two States” of rich and poor.

The shortfall in wages may contribute to budget shortfalls (and also high taxes). The current crisis is due to deflating the housing bubble, but longer-term, the money available to education has declined.

Cutting back on education funding is false economy. When more people are educated, the price of educated labor declines. That makes it more feasible to invest in “hi tech”, high-value ventures.

When students acquire debt to get an education, they are forced to fight for the highest-paid work. That means working for established companies or sectors (i.e. finance, defense, corporate law). They are less likely to take work that pays less, or is a public good. This impedes innovation.

Look at what we have. $99 jeans, and 99 cents stores. Inflationary pressures at the high end, due to growth in high-pay jobs, but deflationary pressure among the working class. And worse, you gain productivity increases by worker speedups rather than by developing new technologies.

anyway i’ll sum up my point. The expanded level of education that the college system is expected to provide is no longer inline with revenue that state receives. It is inaccurate to try to compare the 50’s or 60’s to the current situation. The college Master Plan should be revamped to provide a better education to its students. Not necessarily for free after all expecting a student to contribute a few thousand dollars for a degree that will yield them much more back is a good investment. It should also look into tiered pricing levels for students as well, as specializing colleges. Instead of half-assing two Arts Programs at Pomona and Fullerton. Provide one good program, where students can get the classes they need to graduate in four years instead of 6. Anyway thats my rant for now

I like that the protesters are demanding that the UC go back to the original master plan for higher education, which was to provide free education to all Californians. They aren’t asking for the impossible — they are telling them to go back to the original founding principles”

Actually it probably would be impossible The 50s and 60s were a gold era for California. Industry was booming and money was growing on trees. Currently revenue sources make giving all Californian a free education impossible. The University system has expanded academic fields dramatically over the last 40 years. Ethic studies classes were rare if at all existent. New technology has compounded the cost of education although improving it(computers cost more money over books.)In addition to the increase in California’s population. Plus most of us minorities would probably have not qualified to go to college. Our education would have ended with the trade that we were thought in high school.