CAPITOL JOURNAL - Jobs as lifestyle-killers: When growth isn't free

Fine. How is this deficit-plagued state going to pay for the jobs?

Yes, of course, they're private-enterprise jobs, not government.

But who's going to pay for the roads and transit to get these people to work? To educate their kids? To provide police protection?

And as we've been uncomfortably reminded, somebody will have to foot the bill for fighting any fires that threaten these workers' homes. Especially when houses keep being built snug up against tinder-dry chaparral or in forests.

Who's going to pay? All of us taxpayers.

Not the new employees by themselves, contrary to chamber spin. Nor the employers, even if their profits do rise with growth.

There is no economy in numbers because of an exploding population. No discount for volume. This is not like widget-making.

There's a premium to be paid for living in California, and it keeps rising -- that is, if we want to maintain any semblance of the lifestyle that drew many millions here in the first place.

The more people, the more pricey California gets. Land costs rise as demand increases, this temporary housing slump aside. Transportation costs escalate with longer commutes, regardless of a few hybrids. Student fees at crowded state university campuses are rising faster than the national average and many times faster than inflation. And beyond all that, state spending also keeps climbing disproportionately.

Excuse me if you've read this here before, but it bears repeating: In 1950, when California's population was about 11 million, state spending per $100 of personal income was roughly $5, according to the Department of Finance. In 1975, when there were about 22 million of us, state spending amounted to $7.50 per $100 of personal income. In the last fiscal year, with around 38 million Californians, Sacramento spent $9.60.

There are at least two partial explanations unrelated to growth: State spending increased when Medi-Cal -- healthcare for the poor -- was introduced in the mid-1960s, and it went up again in the late 1970s when Proposition 13 shifted much of local government's funding burden from the local property tax to the state treasury.