Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Rob from the poor and give to the greedy

Here is the vision we see based upon Federal statistics and set against the averages for the State and Nation. Los Angeles is not doing so well.

Estimated population (2004) in Los Angeles County was 9,937,739. In 2000, 69.9 percent of the population 25 years or older residing in Los Angeles County completed a high school education. This percentage is much lower than the State or the Nation with 76.8 and 80.6 percent (respectively) graduating from high school.

In 1999, 17.9 percent of the population of Los Angeles County was below the poverty level. The State and the Nation as a whole faired better with only 14.2 percent for California and 12.4 nationwide.

In 2000, per capita personal income in Los Angeles County was $29,522, $32,149 for those living in California, and $29,469 nation wide.

Statistics from: http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/06/06037.html and http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/00000.html

Using these numbers, here is a way to consider how much the raises that Villaraigosa and the City Council gave to their strongest supporters, DWP and (possibly to) EAA.

Assuming a closed static system. If the population of Los Angeles County is 9,937,739 and per capita income is $29,522, then the total income for Los Angeles County amounted to $293,381,930,758. If 16,000 workers (8,000 DWP/IBEW workers and 8,000 LA/EAA workers) received 20 percent more than the average worker and then they received a 15 percent cost of living adjustment (COLA), their per capita income would increase to $39,855 totaling $637,675,200.

If we subtract that amount from the total Los Angeles County income ($293,381,930,758 - $637,675,200 = $292,744,255,558) and then divide that by the number of other (non-DWP/EAA) citizens, the adjusted per capita income has been reduced by $17 to $29,505.

Essentially what that means is that these little raises without any off-setting productivity increase or cost savings, cost each and every citizen in the County of Los Angeles about $17 (about three lunches). And frankly, as long as we have the high numbers in poverty and low numbers in education, I think the Mayor has made a big mistake.

We would have faired much better for us to each give $6 amounting to
$59,530,434 to the schools and to the Goodwill. Can you imagine how much $60 million could help? You'll notice that is only $12. $1 will go to the parking meter, $1 to the pan handler, and the rest will be lost in city administration and fees.


Anonymous karla said...

I'd skip the six bucks to the schools. The money is better spent with the panhandler. At least he is honest about wasting it.

8:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home