Skip to content

Introcudtion

California is home to an estimated 2 to 3.1 million individuals who are undocumented immigrants, making up approximately 6% of the state’s total population. These workers, parents, children, and their family members – many of whom are US-born citizens – are deeply integrated in the state’s communities and vital to the state’s economy.

California’s undocumented workers are especially hard-hit by the economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis, and yet they are locked out of most of the federal and state public supports available to help workers and their families weather this pandemic. State leaders should prioritize supporting this essential group of Californians who are at severe risk of financial and health hardship but blocked from COVID-19 public relief efforts.

In this 5 Facts you will learn about:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Millions of California workers have lost jobs or seen their work hours significantly cut back as a result of the public health measures that state and local governments have put in place to slow the spread of COVID-19. While necessary to protect the state’s health care system and mitigate the spread of infection, these disruptions seriously threaten the economic stability of a significant share of California workers – and their families. Yet these disruptions do not affect all Californians equally, with a greater burden on California workers with less education, those who are immigrants, and California’s children and adults of color.

To understand who may be most affected, this piece examines the demographics of workers and the families of workers in California industries that are directly and immediately affected by the business slowdown and closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

In this fact sheet you will learn about:

  1. Who are the State’s Struggling Workers: Many Californians Face High Risk of Economic Devastation from the COVID-19 Business Slowdown
  2. Wage & Educational Disparities: Workers With Low Wages and Less Education Face High Risk of Losing Work
  3. Job Hits Worsen Racial Inequalities: Californians of Color and Their Children Are Particularly Vulnerable to Economic Instability
  4. Impossible Situation for Immigrants: California’s Immigrants Face Financial Crisis, With Millions Left out of Public Support
  5. Opportunities Now & Beyond: Policymakers Can Address Racial and Economic Inequities with COVID-19 Responses

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Too many families and individuals in all regions of California struggle to afford the costs of housing, child care, health care, food, and other basic necessities – with serious consequences for health and well-being that can also affect the broader community and economy. Many families that include immigrants face particular challenges to maintaining economic security, even in a strong economy, due to jobs with low wages, unstable work, and the “chilling effect” of recent anti-immigrant federal actions. An economic downturn would likely hit these families and their communities especially hard.

At the same time, refundable income tax credits are proven and powerful tools to boost economic security for families and individuals, and California policymakers have made significant state investments in the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit – the CalEITC – and new Young Child Tax Credit.

However, hundreds of thousands of immigrant families are currently excluded from the

CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit. State lawmakers can choose to include these Californians with a simple change to filing requirements for these tax credits. Doing so would boost economic security for families and individuals in every legislative district, while pumping millions of dollars into local economies throughout California.

Find our estimated economic benefit by each Senate and Assembly District in California below and the boost local economies would see if policymakers expanded the CalEITC and Young Child Tax Credit to all California who work and pay taxes.

California State Senate

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your state senate district. (Find your representative)

District   1 –  Sen.  Brian Dahle (R) District   21 –  Sen.  Scott Wilk (R)
District   2 –  Sen.  Mike McGuire (D) District   22 –  Sen.  Susan Rubio (D)
District   3 –  Sen.  Bill Dodd (D) District   23 –  Sen.  Mike Morrell (R)
District   4 –  Sen.  Jim Nielsen (R) District   24 –  Sen.  Maria Elena Durazo (D)
District   5 –  Sen.  Cathleen Galgiani (D) District   25 –  Sen.  Anthony Portantino (D) 
District   6 –  Sen.  Richard Pan (D) District   26 –  Sen.  Ben Allen (D)
District   7 –  Sen.  Steve Glazer (D) District   27 –  Sen.  Henry Stern (D)
District   8 –  Sen.  Andreas Borgeas (R) District   28 –  VACANT
District   9 –  Sen.  Nancy Skinner (D) District   29 –  Sen.  Ling Ling Chang (R) 
District   10 –  Sen.  Bob Wieckowski (D) District   30 –  Sen.  Holly Mitchell (D)
District   11 –  Sen.  Scott Wiener (D) District   31 –  Sen.  Richard Roth (D)
District   12 –  Sen.  Anna Caballero (D) District   32 –  Sen.  Bob Archuleta (D)
District   13 –  Sen.  Jerry Hill (D) District   33 –  Sen.  Lena Gonzalez (D)
District   14 –  Sen.  Melissa Hurtado (D) District   34 –  Sen.  Tom Umberg (D)
District   15 –  Sen.  Jim Beall (D) District   35 –  Sen.  Steven Bradford (D)
District   16 –  Sen.  Shannon Grove (R) District   36 –  Sen.  Patricia Bates (R)
District   17 –  Sen.  Bill Monning (D) District   37 –  Sen.  John Moorlach (R)
District   18 –  Sen.  Bob Hertzberg (D) District   38 –  Sen.  Brian Jones (R)
District   19 –  Sen.  Hannah-Beth Jackson (D) District   39 –  Sen.  Toni Atkins (D)
District   20 –  Sen.  Connie Leyva (D) District   40 –  Sen.  Ben Hueso (D)

California State Assembly

Click below to get the Fact Sheet for your state assembly district. (Find your representative)

District  1 –  Asm.  Megan Dahle (R) District  41 –  Asm.  Chris Holden (D)
District  2 –  Asm.  Jim Wood (D) District  42 –  Asm.  Chad Mayes (I)
District  3 –  Asm.  James Gallagher (R) District  43 –  Asm.  Laura Friedman (D)
District  4 –  Asm.  Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D) District  44 –  Asm.  Jacqui Irwin (D)
District  5 –  Asm.  Frank Bigelow (R) District  45 –  Asm.  Jesse Gabriel (D)
District  6 –  Asm.  Kevin Kiley (R) District  46 –  Asm.  Adrin Nazarian (D)
District  7 –  Asm.  Kevin McCarty (D) District  47 –  Asm.  Eloise Gomez Reyes (D)
District  8 –  Asm.  Ken Cooley (D) District  48 –  Asm.  Blanca Rubio (D)
District  9 –  Asm.  Jim Cooper (D) District  49 –  Asm.  Ed Chau (D)
District  10 –  Asm.  Marc Levine (D) District  50 –  Asm.  Richard Bloom (D)
District  11 –  Asm.  Jim Frazier (D) District  51 –  Asm.  Wendy Carrillo (D)
District  12 –  Asm.  Heath Flora (R) District  52 –  Asm.  Freddie Rodriguez (D)
District  13 –  Asm.  Susan Eggman (D) District  53 –  Asm.  Miguel Santiago (D)
District  14 –  Asm.  Tim Grayson (D) District  54 –  Asm.  Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D)
District  15 –  Asm.  Buffy Wicks (D) District  55 –  Asm.  Phillip Chen (R)
District  16 –  Asm.  Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D) District  56 –  Asm.  Eduardo Garcia (D)
District  17 –  Asm.  David Chiu (D) District  57 –  Asm.  Ian Calderon (D)
District  18 –  Asm.  Rob Bonta (D) District  58 –  Asm.  Cristina Garcia (D)
District  19 –  Asm.  Phil Ting (D) District  59 –  Asm.  Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D)
District  20 –  Asm.  Bill Quirk (D) District  60 –  Asm.  Sabrina Cervantes (D)
District  21 –  Asm.  Adam Gray (D) District  61 –  Asm.  Jose Medina (D)
District  22 –  Asm.  Kevin Mullin (D) District  62 –  Asm.  Autumn Burke (D)
District  23 –  Asm.  Jim Patterson (R) District  63 –  Asm.  Anthony Rendon (D)
District  24 –  Asm.  Marc Berman (D) District  64 –  Asm.  Mike Gipson (D)
District  25 –  Asm.  Kansen Chu (D) District  65 –  Asm.  Sharon Quirk-Silva (D)
District  26 –  Asm.  Devon Mathis (R) District  66 –  Asm.  Al Muratsuchi (D)
District  27 –  Asm.  Ash Kalra (D) District  67 –  Asm.  Melissa Melendez (R)
District  28 –  Asm.  Evan Low (D) District  68 –  Asm.  Steven Choi (R)
District  29 –  Asm.  Mark Stone (D) District  69 –  Asm.  Tom Daly (D)
District  30 –  Asm.  Robert Rivas (D) District  70 –  Asm.  Patrick O’Donnell (D)
District  31 –  Asm.  Joaquin Arambula (D) District  71 –  Asm.  Randy Voepel (R)
District  32 –  Asm.  Rudy Salas (D) District  72 –  Asm.  Tyler Diep (R)
District  33 –  Asm.  Jay Obernolte (R) District  73 –  Asm.  Bill Brough (R)
District  34 –  Asm.  Vince Fong (R) District  74 –  Asm.  Cottie Petrie-Norris (D)
District  35 –  Asm.  Jordan Cunningham (R) District  75 –  Asm.  Marie Waldron (R)
District  36 –  Asm.  Tom Lackey (R) District  76 –  Asm.  Tasha Boerner Horvath (D)
District  37 –  Asm.  Monique Limon (D) District  77 –  Asm.  Brian Maienschein (D)
District  38 –  Asm.  Christy Smith (D) District  78 –  Asm.  Todd Gloria (D)
District  39 –  Asm.  Luz Rivas (D) District  79 –  Asm.  Shirley Weber (D)
District  40 –  Asm.  James Ramos (D) District  80 –  Asm.  Lorena Gonzalez (D)

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

It has been over a decade since the Great Recession devastated our state’s economy, caused massive state budget shortfalls, and undercut the short- and long-term economic and social prospects for millions of Californians. As revenues fell, state policymakers balanced the budget, in part, by making drastic cuts to social safety net programs such as Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP), which helps to support more than 1 million seniors and people with disabilities with low incomes. California is now well into its economic recovery, and state policymakers have spent recent years preparing for another downturn by creating a healthy budget surplus. However, policymakers still have not yet reversed the cuts they made to SSI/SSP. This Issue Brief explores why SSI/SSP is such an important resource for Californians with low incomes, particularly older women and people of color, and why state policymakers should reinvest in the program that helps people be able to pay for their basic needs.

Download the charts:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants are a critical source of income for well over 1 million California seniors and people with disabilities who have low incomes and need help paying for basic necessities, such as housing. Grants are funded with both federal (SSI) and state (SSP) dollars. The maximum monthly grant for an individual is about $944, which consists of an SSI grant of $783 and an SSP grant of $160.72.

To help close budget shortfalls during the Great Recession, the state made deep cuts to the SSP portion, reducing it from $233 per month in early 2009 to $156.40 per month by mid-2011. State policymakers increased the SSP grant by $4.32 per month starting in January 2017. However, no additional state grant increases have been provided since then, and the Governor’s proposed 2020-21 state budget assumes the SSP portion will remain frozen for another year.

Because state cuts largely remain in place, SSI/SSP recipients have less money to meet their basic needs, including housing. This is particularly concerning in light of California’s high housing costs. In all 58 California counties, the “Fair Market Rent” (FMR) for a studio apartment exceeds 50% of the maximum SSI/SSP grant for an individual. Moreover, the studio FMR exceeds the entire grant in 22 counties. People are at greater risk of becoming homeless when housing costs account for more than half of household income.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

State policymakers have many opportunities to continue building the state’s fiscal health and invest in the people of California as they consider policy priorities for 2020-21 and beyond.  While California is a wealthy state home to many high-income households and businesses that have been able to greatly leverage resources and expand their wealth in the last several decades, millions more Californians live a different reality every day. Workers in low- and mid-wage jobs are unable to afford the high cost of living – from paying for housing and child care to stretching their paychecks at the end of the month to cover food and medical bills. This is true no matter what region Californians work in across the state and call home. For women, Californians of color, and immigrants the economic challenges and disparities are vast. The state is in danger of allowing millions of Californians to spend their lifetimes in financial distress.

California can do better for its people. The state’s policy choices can help more people earn adequate incomes, build wealth, and afford basic necessities that will allow them to live, learn, work, and age comfortably in their homes and communities. With renewed discussions about the state’s available resources, healthy reserves, and the need to plan for the future, this analysis provides five facts that show why state leaders should ensure that all Californians share in the state’s vast wealth.

1. Economic Inequality Has Worsened for Californians, Reinforcing Racial and Ethnic Disparities

In the last three decades, economic inequality in California has significantly increased as incomes have grown only for the highest-income families. This increase in inequality is especially dramatic when accounting for not just earnings from work, but also unearned investment income, such as capital gains, which mostly goes to families with the highest incomes.1 Specifically, the average adjusted gross income – income reported for tax purposes, including investment income – for the top 1% has more than doubled, increasing by 134% between 1987 and 2017, while average incomes for the bottom 80% of Californians have decreased, after accounting for inflation.

The yearly income for the average California household in the top 1% in 2017 was $2 million, while the average household in the middle quintile received just $41,000. This means that, on average, the top 1% brought home in one week what Californians in the middle quintile received in one year. Viewed another way, in 2017 alone, the top 1% of California households – totaling 168,000 households – collectively received over $340 billion.2 This is more than double California’s General Fund spending in the 2019-20 budget and more than 10 times the income needed to lift every Californian above the poverty line.3 This concentration of income at the top reinforces racial and ethnic disparities and prevents economic gains from being shared equitably as Black and Latinx Californians are underrepresented among the highest-income households due to legacies of racist policies and ongoing discrimination.4

2. Child Poverty Remains High, Especially for Black and Latinx Children

Child poverty is one of the most significant challenges facing Californians. Nearly 1 in 5 children in the state (19.8%) – 1.8 million in total – lived in a family that could not afford basic needs in 2018.5 The vast majority of these children live in working families, which means that their families’ economic challenges largely result from low pay, especially relative to high housing costs. Children of color, particularly Latinx and Black children, are far more likely to experience economic hardship in California. Nearly one-third of Latinx children (31%) and over one-quarter of Black children (26%) lived in poverty between 2013 and 2017 – more than twice the share of white children in poverty (12%). This substantial gap reflects a number of factors. For example, Latinx and Black Californians are more likely to be paid low wages and to experience financial strain due to high housing costs than white Californians. In addition, Latinx, Black and other Californians of color are less likely to own their homes and have other forms of wealth that help families weather financial setbacks.6

3. Workers’ Wages Remain Stagnant as Housing Costs Significantly Increase

Rising housing costs and stagnating wages are two key challenges Californians face each day as too many struggle to make ends meet. The high cost of housing in many parts of California is one of the primary drivers of California’s high poverty rate – ranked first among the 50 states – under the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for differences in the local cost of living. Unaffordable housing costs contribute to the homelessness crisis California faces, with over 150,000 homeless residents in 2019, the vast majority of them unsheltered .7 Housing affordability is a challenge Californians experience in all regions of the state, even in areas with lower housing costs, because incomes are also typically lower in these areas. Renters and households with the lowest incomes are hit the hardest. Specifically, more than half of California renter households and 8 in 10 households with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty line pay an unaffordable share of income toward housing.

Why is housing affordability particularly challenging for Californians with lower incomes? A key reason is that earnings for low- and mid-wage workers have not kept pace with rising housing costs. In the last decade alone, median household rent has increased by 16%, far outpacing the growth in annual earnings for the typical full-time worker, which grew by only about 2% during the same period, after accounting for inflation. In fact, wages for workers at the low end and middle of the wage scale have been largely stagnant across the past few decades, growing by just 1% and 4%, respectively, after adjusting for inflation. Californians of color are especially affected by these problematic wage trends, because they are disproportionately represented at the low end of the wage scale, typically earning less per hour than white workers. These simultaneous trends of rising housing costs and stagnant earnings for workers with low and middle incomes have triggered a crisis that calls for bold and immediate interventions.

4. Economic Insecurity Has Serious Consequences – But Policy Choices Can Make a Difference

What are the consequences when families and individuals find themselves unable to make ends meet? Californians struggling with economic insecurity face difficult decisions about which basic needs to cover and which to forego. For a single-parent family with two children in California, the average cost of a modest basic needs budget – including housing and utilities, child care, food, health care, transportation, taxes, and miscellaneous other necessary expenses – totals more than $65,000, with housing and child care making up more than half of the total budget. When families do not have enough resources to cover their basic costs, they may be forced to go without adequate food, leave health problems untreated, rely on unstable or unsafe child care, or even fall into homelessness. These experiences can have serious consequences for individuals’ health and for children’s long-term educational and economic outcomes. However, policy choices coupled with state investments can help more Californians achieve economic security, and many different policy approaches are available. Policies that increase incomes or make basic needs more affordable allow families and individuals to stretch their resources further and address their most pressing needs.

5. California Can Increase Revenue, Support Investments, and Share the State’s Prosperity

Supporting policy decisions and ongoing investments to ensure that all Californians share in the state’s prosperity requires a fair and stable revenue system. This is also necessary to protect Californians against hardships during economic downturns. California has the space to generate additional revenue, and policymakers can start by re-evaluating the state’s current system of “tax expenditures.”8 These are tax breaks for individuals and businesses that reduce revenues available to invest in the millions of Californians who face challenges, such as persistent poverty and housing cost increases that have far outpaced wage growth. California will lose an estimated $63 billion – more than 43% of the General Fund budget – to individual and business tax expenditures in the 2019-20 fiscal year. Many of the state’s most expensive tax expenditures primarily benefit higher-income households, exacerbating income and wealth inequality, while others – targeted to businesses – serve dubious purposes or are of questionable effectiveness. One consequence of business tax expenditures, combined with corporate tax rate cuts over past decades, is that the share of corporate income paid in state taxes has declined by more than half since the 1980s. Policymakers could make the tax system fairer and raise additional revenue to support investments that not only help Californians cover the costs of their basics needs but also help low- and middle-income households build their wealth. Achieving these priorities requires not just examining tax rates and exploring potential new sources of revenue, but also engaging in a comprehensive review of the state’s tax expenditures – and eliminating or restructuring those that are ineffective or inequitable.

Conclusion

Policymakers can make a commitment to all Californians: as the state looks to secure and build its wealth it can also seek policies that support children, families, and individuals struggling to afford the costs of living who are blocked from sharing in the state’s prosperity. By pursuing policies that prevent the concentration of wealth and income from being held amongst a few, state lawmakers can also address the structural racism that blocks Californians of color from expanding their incomes and wealth. California has the resources to do better for all its people.

1 Capital gains income is income earned when an asset, such as shares of stock or real estate, is sold for more than its purchase price.
2 Budget Center analysis of Franchise Tax Board data.
3 The poverty line calculation is based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure and comes from a Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey data.
4 Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, American Community Survey data.
5 This is based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which is more accurate than the official poverty measure in part because it takes into account California’s high housing costs.
6 Wealth is commonly measured in terms of net worth — the difference between gross assets and debt. Wealth provides families with financial security because the greater a family’s net worth, the more resources they have to weather costly unexpected events.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Secretary Carson Certifies Annual Data: Homeless Ticked Up in 2019, Driven by
Major Increases in California (December 20, 2019).
8 Tax expenditures are exceptions to “normal tax law” and include, but are not limited to, exemptions, deductions, exclusions, credits, deferrals, elections, and preferential tax rates. Unlike direct state spending, tax expenditures are not regularly debated or considered as part of the budget process, and can only be eliminated with a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!