This Could Be the Start of Something Big: Looking for the New America

This Could Be the Start of Something Big: Looking for the New America Manuel Pastor January 2011 La Conyuntura vs. the Long-run We tend to think about short-term politics and economics... 1

La Conyuntura vs. the Long-run We tend to think about short-term politics and economics... La Conyuntura vs. the Long-run We tend to think about short-term politics and economics...... But we better look longterm as well. If we do, three trends demographic change, economic transition, and shifting nature of leadership stand out as key 2

Change is Gonna Come... Leading the U.S. in Demographic Change California's Changing Demographics, 1980-2000 100% 90% 80% 5.3% 19.4% 9.2% 26.0% 11.3% 70% 7.5% 32.6% 60% 7.0% 50% 6.5% 40% 30% 20% 67.1% 57.2% 47.1% 10% 0% 1980 1990 2000 Anglo African American Latino Asian Pacific Other 3

Immigration as a Factor Immigrants are: One in three L.A. County residents 46 percent of the LA County workforce And currently... Children of immigrants are 64 percent of all LA County children Of the children of immigrant parents, nearly ninety percent are US citizens Source: PERE analysis of 2006 ACS data 4

Foreign Born Population by Census Tract Ancestry & Migration Migrated Over 30 Years Ago Los Angeles County Chinese, 5.0% Filipino, 4.8% Other, 3.3% Korean, 3.2% Western European, 9.7% Other Latin American, 11.6% Salvadoran, 3.1% Other Eastern European, 2.9% Guatemalan, 1.8% Japanese, 1.7% Other, 8.5% Armenian, 1.5% Other Asian, 1.4% Asian Indian, 1.0% Other Middle Eastern, 1.0% Vietnamese, 0.9% Mexican, 44.6% Iranian, 0.9% African, 0.6% Russian, 0.6% Taiwanese, 0.4% South Asian, 0.2% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data 5

Ancestry & Migration Korean, 6.0% Migrated within the Last 10 Years Los Angeles County Guatemalan, 5.3% Salvadoran, 4.8% Armenian, 3.4% Chinese, 7.1% Other, 3.3% Western European, 2.7% Asian Indian, 2.5% Japanese, 2.1% Other Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 7.1% African, 1.6% Iranian, 1.4% Other, 14.0% Other Latin Other Eastern American, 9.5% European, 1.4% Other Middle Eastern, 1.3% Vietnamese, 1.2% Russian, 1.2% Mexican, 36.3% Taiwanese, 1.0% South Asian, 0.9% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data Ancestry & Migration Korean, 6.0% Migrated within the Last 10 Years Los Angeles County Guatemalan, 5.3% Salvadoran, 4.8% Armenian, 3.4% Other, 3.3% Filipino, 7.1% Chinese, 7.1% Western European, 2.7% Asian Indian, 2.5% Japanese, 2.1% Other Asian, 1.9% African, 1.6% Iranian, 1.4% Other, 14.0% Other Latin Other Eastern American, 9.5% European, 1.4% Other Middle Eastern, 1.3% Vietnamese, 1.2% Russian, 1.2% Mexican, 36.3% Taiwanese, 1.0% South Asian, 0.9% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data 6

Ancestry & Migration Chinese, 7.1% Migrated within the Last 10 Years Los Angeles County Guatemalan, 5.3% Korean, 6.0% Salvadoran, 4.8% Armenian, 3.4% Other, 3.3% Western European, 2.7% Asian Indian, 2.5% Japanese, 2.1% Other Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 7.1% African, 1.6% Iranian, 1.4% Other, 14.0% Other Latin Other Eastern American, 9.5% European, 1.4% Other Middle Eastern, 1.3% Vietnamese, 1.2% Russian, 1.2% Mexican, 36.3% Taiwanese, 1.0% South Asian, 0.9% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data Ancestry & Migration Migrated within the Last 10 Years Los Angeles County Korean, 6.0% Guatemalan, 5.3% Salvadoran, 4.8% Armenian, 3.4% Chinese, 7.1% Other, 3.3% Western European, 2.7% Asian Indian, 2.5% Japanese, 2.1% Other Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 7.1% African, 1.6% Iranian, 1.4% Other, 14.0% Other Latin Other Eastern American, 9.5% European, 1.4% Other Middle Eastern, 1.3% Vietnamese, 1.2% Russian, 1.2% Mexican, 36.3% Taiwanese, 1.0% South Asian, 0.9% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data 7

Ancestry & Migration Korean, 6.0% Migrated within the Last 10 Years Los Angeles County Guatemalan, 5.3% Salvadoran, 4.8% Armenian, 3.4% Chinese, 7.1% Other, 3.3% Western European, 2.7% Asian Indian, 2.5% Japanese, 2.1% Other Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 7.1% African, 1.6% Iranian, 1.4% Other, 14.0% Other Latin Other Eastern American, 9.5% European, 1.4% Other Middle Eastern, 1.3% Vietnamese, 1.2% Russian, 1.2% Mexican, 36.3% Taiwanese, 1.0% South Asian, 0.9% Source: PERE analysis of 2005 and 2006 ACS data South Central Area: Overview Los Angeles Glendale South Central Montebello Inglewood Compton County Boundaries Los Angeles City Boundaries South Central Area Boundaries Long Beach Santa Ana N d:/data/gisca/scag_js_02.apr - field: 2000 counties - view: South Central - layout: SouthCentral_overview Scale equals: 1 to 450,000 8

South Central High School Demographics 1981-1982 School Year 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 7% 10% 7% 31% 42% 99% 91% 90% 98% 93% 68% 57% Other Latino African American Crenshaw Washington Prep Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts Fremont South Central High School Demographics 2004-2005 School Year 1% 1% 30% 44% 63% 92% 80% 80% 88% 70% 55% 37% Other Latino African American 7% 20% 20% 12% Crenshaw Washington Prep Jefferson Jordan Locke Manual Arts Fremont 9

San Diego San Diego 10

San Diego San Diego 11

San Diego San Diego 12

California Looking Forward, 2000-2050 California Demographic Projections, California Department of Finance 100% 90% 80% 6.5% 6.7% 6.7% 6.6% 6.5% 6.4% 11.0% 12.0% 12.7% 12.8% 12.5% 12.1% Multirace American Indian Percen nt of Total Population 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 32.6% 47.1% 38.7% 39.2% 43.0% 33.7% 46.8% 29.5% 50.4% 53.6% 26.1% 23.3% Black Pacific Islander Asian Hispanic White 0% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year California Looking Forward, 2000-2050 California Demographic Projections, California Department of Finance 60,000,000 Multirace 50,000,000 American Indian Total Population 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 Black Pacific Islander Asian 10,000,000 Hispanic White 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year 13

14

15

16

100% The Future is Now... Ethnic Composition by Age for California, 2008 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Other or Mixed Race Asian Pacific Latino African American Non Hispanic White 0% 0 18 18 39 40 64 >65 The Future is Now... 17

As Is the Underinvestment... 250 Demographics and State Capital Spending Adjusted for Income capita nding capital outlays adjusted for per c e (100 = average of U.S. states) Per capita state spen income 200 150 100 50 0 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% percent age/ethnic difference Demography and Economic Inclusion Dramatic crack in the economy, with significant policy attention to the Great Recession With skyrocketing unemployment, foreclosures and budget issues, the shortterm focus makes sense But looking long-term, another set of worries emerges around the distribution of opportunity 18

The Challenge of Inequality... 25% Income Distribution in the U.S., 1917 2007 20% percent of income 15% 10% Top 1% (incomes above $398,900 in 2007) 5% Top 5 1% (incomes between $155,400 and $398,900) Top 10 5% (incomes between $109,600 and $155,400) 0% 1917 1920 1923 1926 1929 1932 1935 1938 1941 1944 1947 1950 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 Source: Emmanuel Saez, Striking It Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States (Update : August 5, 2009). The Challenge of Inequality... $90,000 Figure 3 1. U.S. Resident Median Family Income 1947 2007 (in 2007 Dollars) $80,000000 $70,000 Asian and Pacific Islander $60,000 Non-Hispanic White $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 White Latino $20,000 Black $10,000 $0 1947 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 19

Putting It Together Unequal Deregulated Disconnected So the new story emerging in our book: equity is key to growth What s the Evidence? Utilizing weighted regression approach to 341 metro areas in the U.S. 1990-2000 Per capita income as a function of: (+)regional education (-) manufacturing concentration (+)central city presence (-) previous income (?)region of U.S. (-) measure of inequity, including ratio of city to suburb poverty, concentration of poverty, income distribution, black-white segregation 20

And From the Federal Reserve Federal Reserve of Cleveland studies almost 120 mid-size regions, looking for factors that predict regional prosperity Usual suspects: skilled workforce, quality of life, industrial decline Unusual suspects: income inequality, racial exclusion, concentration of poverty and they re highly significant It s a Broader Story Underinvestment in each other makes us less competitive as a nation Social tensions over who Social tensions over who will gain and who will lose make us less likely to cohere on what we need to do to thrive 21

And a Broader Conversation We set out in the book to generate a catalog of best practices for combining equity & economic growth But when we talked to leaders, the conversation was not about zoning regs, tax-sharing, or policy per se Instead, it was about reframing a local and national conversation about social equity and who we are as a people, a region, a country Starting at Home... Metros offer new scale for doing well and doing good, fusing competitive- ness and inclusion Configuration of metropolitan space and opportunity has become center from racial justice to spatial justice Metros offer new opportunities to bridge difference face-to-face, raceto-race, space-to-space 22

Leadership and Governance Need to rethink our cherished beliefs Need to think about inside and outside skills and strategies Need to innovate not just for efficiency but for effectiveness Need to govern not manage & lead by example not position How Do We Lead in These Times? Understanding the distinction between diversity and justice 23

How Do We Lead in These Times? Understanding the distinction between diversity and justice Understanding the importance of policy, advocacy and organizing How Do We Lead in These Times? Understanding the distinction between diversity and justice Understanding the importance of policy, advocacy and organizing Understanding the need for unexpected alliances, and new collaborations Understanding that collaboration and conflict can go together 24

Can We Meet Our Challenges? Can We Meet Our Challenges? 25