[prostoalex]

The definition of rich is "having a great deal of money or assets", California's tight budget doesn't leave much room for a large reserve - what comes in gets spent the same year, and it's always a mystery whether or not the state will be solvent next year.

[crdoconnor]

Thank prop 13 for that.

[prostoalex]

Or high-speed rail. Or unreasonable pension obligations.

[crdoconnor]

Just prop 13. If a less well off Europe can handle all 3 so can the richest state in the richest country.

[prostoalex]

While statutory property tax increases are exclusive to California, homeless populations are not.

[crdoconnor]

Being so spectacularly wealthy and having such a large homelessness problem at the same time is unique to California though.

Hence "wealth distribution" problem, not "not having enough wealth" problem.

[prostoalex]

Again, what number are you looking at to call California wealthy? California state budget revenues are $4,366 per capita, which is fairly low-end. North Dakota, Wyoming, Washington, Kentucky, Minnesota and Oregon are all in solid five digits a head. California's is richer than Georgia's $2,320 per capita for sure, but if it were a person in a company of 49 other friends, it would be a low-income friend always trying to borrow money.