Closed for business? The anti-business mythology of the Golden State (for sale, transfer)

[french paris]

Closed for business? The anti-business mythology of the Golden State | first tuesday journal online

[Captain Obvious]

It doesn't really help when the article doesn't link the study that it is based on or that it was written in 2009.

Furthermore, I have no idea what consumer and business amenities are and yet they are key compenents to California being attractive to businesses.

I am by no means a California sucks and is doomed sort of person, but that article isn't really convincing.

[randian]

The article and study basically seems to assume that high taxes and stiff regulation = amenities. Having lived in California, Texas, and Florida, I can assure you that actual day to day living was little different, but California imposed a much higher tax and regulatory burden than the other two. You didn't get anything for your taxes, other than astonishingly ungrateful and demanding public employees.

[mateo45]

Dunno about any specifically "hostile to business" practices, but I'd agree that there's generally a "culture" of anal-retentive bureaucrats in Cali, who often seem to feel "entitled" to treat the population they're paid to serve, with arrogance and disdain. And naturally everyone can point to local "urban legends" of examples where they've run amok.

But the fact is that every state has its share of bureaucracy and bureaucratic excess. So not to pick on "Liberals", but I suspect that part of the blame here can be attributed to an "image" that much of Cali's "trendsetting" legislation in the particularly "sensitive" environmental and energy arenas, is often enforced with a "heavy hand", and usually by said "anal-retentive bureacrats".

[.highnlite]

California imposed a much higher tax

Yep, 2% more than Texas

[ZhugeLiang]

Even if you meant sales tax, you're still off. And there's no income tax.

[OC Investor2]

I'll judge the business climate on the words & deeds of all the business people I know - many of which are leaving CA or growing their businesses elsewhere - over that of CA realtor looking to skew a slice of a Federal Reserve study so they can overstate the realestate markets prospects for their "clients".

[Hemlock140]

Having lived 40 years in CA and almost 20 in WA, I see similarities in the two states, with CA more so than WA. That is, companies wanting to make money will move there because of the wealth and population, there is an opportunity for sales. On the other hand, companies doing manufacturing
or services are likely to stay away or leave, because the high cost of living
means high labor costs and building costs, they can make a lot more profit elsewhere. The major exception is high tech which requires a specific workforce that has tended to gravitate to the west coast, and is for the most part unwilling to accept transfers to less expensive parts of the country. That has resulted in some outsourcing to other countries, but the
main management and development staff remains in Silicone Valley and Seattle.

[randian]

Originally Posted by bisjoe

That has resulted in some outsourcing to other countries, but the main management and development staff remains in Silicone Valley and Seattle.

Some outsourcing? Silicon Valley used to be a manufacturing center for the goods designed there. Now pretty much all of it moved to other states or offshore. That needn't have happened. When you see billion dollar data centers being built in North Carolina and billion dollar fabs being built in Arizona, you know something's wrong with California.

[randian]

Originally Posted by mateo45

who often seem to feel "entitled" to treat the population they're paid to serve with arrogance and disdain.

Why shouldn't they? Civil service rules effectively entitle them to act that way, it's not as if a civil service worker can be fired or demoted for treating the taxpaying public like trash.

In the early 20th century we (meaning the US, not just California) were suckered into thinking that a "professional civil service" would be better for us. Ha! Under the patronage system, when the new guy got elected he'd fire a bunch of people. That meant that you had to treat the public right, because if you didn't your boss would be ousted in the next election and you'd lose your job. Under the "professional civil service" system elections mean nothing, so government can't help but get progressively worse.