2015 April 05 Sunday
An Upside To California's Drought For Liberal Upper Class

So the Gray Lady has noticed that lack of water could become a limit to California's population growth. I say to upper class liberals: thank nature for this gift.

As part the Mainstream Media's plan to black-out discussion of immigration (the plebs can not be trusted to reach politically correct conclusions) the New York Times makes no mention of how California came to have almost 40 million people. The MSM propaganda managers do not want us to think about that. The drought will help the liberal upper class deal with this problem without having to think about it.

Given how California came to have so many people (a large fraction of which are low earners) and what higher water prices will do to the state's demographics is a nature-imposed limit to growth really a bad think for the liberal upper classes in California? Think about how this will play out. If fewer houses get built then houses will cost more. So lower classes will have a harder time affording housing in California and some of them will leave. The liberal upper classes will then have to pay less to subsidize zero (and negative) marginal productivity workers (or, rather, non-workers). The net taxpayers in California will therefore be relieved of some of their burdens while other states will absorb the low skilled overflow.

Granted, fruits and vegetables will cost more. But that seems like a small price to pay. The net benefits will be quite large - again for those who remain who own homes or who pay rent that is a small fraction of their income.

In order for the drought to benefit the liberal upper class it has to cut into housing construction. The extent to which that will happens depends on how far the water supply drops and how much desalinization costs. Doubling the cost of residential water will not cut demand much because it does not cost much to begin with. But the political response to the drought (done by governments after all) might be done in a way that prevents water prices to increase much. There might just be many forced conservation measures (ban lawn watering, force installation of more efficient toilets, and the like). Can this reduce water usage per person enough to allow housing construction?

If you follow the California drought take note for each policy response whether it will tend to place limits on housing growth. The policy responses that limit housing construction will work to the advantage of California's liberal upper class.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2015 April 05 09:54 AM 

Dain said at April 5, 2015 12:29 PM:

Jerry Brown appears to be taking the route that would result in less housing construction. I'm no policy expert but it seems his tackling urban use more than agricultural water use would result in what you describe.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright