In last night’s gubernatorial debate, Meg Whitman suggested—not for the first time—that Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) will hurt the 97 percent of California jobs that are not directly linked the to the “green economy.” There’s no right answer here, since we’re dealing with projections on future employment figures, but here’s what California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) had to say.
The LAO gives some fodder to Whitman by saying AB 32 could lead to short-term job losses.
The LAO is pretty equivocal, however, on AB32’s long-term impact on jobs.
The main takeaway: “[The LAO] believes that the aggregate net jobs impact [of AB 32] in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the programs phase in over time…In the longer term, its net effect on jobs—potentially either positive or negative—is unknown and will depend on a variety of factors. In a relative sense, however, its effect on jobs in both the near term and longer term will probably be modest in comparison to the overall size of the state’s economy.
There’s plenty of information out there from proponents and opponents of AB32, but the LAO’s analysis has the least partisanIn last night’s gubernatorial debate, Meg Whitman suggested—not for the first time—that Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) will hurt the 97 percent of California jobs that are not directly linked the to the “green economy.” There’s no right answer here, since we’re dealing with projections on future employment figures, but here’s what California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) had to say.
The LAO gives some fodder to Whitman by saying AB 32 could lead to short-term job losses.
The LAO is pretty equivocal, however, on AB32’s long-term impact on jobs.
The main takeaway: “[The LAO] believes that the aggregate net jobs impact [of AB 32] in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the programs phase in over time…In the longer term, its net effect on jobs—potentially either positive or negative—is unknown and will depend on a variety of factors. In a relative sense, however, its effect on jobs in both the near term and longer term will probably be modest in comparison to the overall size of the state’s economy.
There’s plenty of information out there from proponents and opponents of AB32, but the LAO’s analysis has the least partisan contamination. contamination.
In last night’s gubernatorial debate, Meg Whitman suggested—not for the first time—that Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) will hurt the 97 percent of California jobs that are not directly linked the to the “green economy.” There’s no right answer here, since we’re dealing with projections on future employment figures, but here’s what California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) had to say.
The LAO gives some fodder to Whitman by saying AB 32 could lead to short-term job losses. The LAO is pretty equivocal, however, on AB32’s long-term impact on jobs.
The main takeaway: “[The LAO] believes that the aggregate net jobs impact [of AB 32] in the near term is likely to be negative, even after recognizing that many of the programs phase in over time…In the longer term, its net effect on jobs—potentially either positive or negative—is unknown and will depend on a variety of factors. In a relative sense, however, its effect on jobs in both the near term and longer term will probably be modest in comparison to the overall size of the state’s economy.
There’s plenty of information out there from proponents and opponents of AB32, but the LAO’s analysis has the least partisan contamination.
