Time Magazine thought California was done in the 70s & again in the 90s (Los Angeles: 2009, apartment)

[user_id]

California did not fully recover from past episodes, in particular the problems in the 90's. Since the 90's its been one bubble after another and the bubbles have been rather destructive in many ways. As a result its going to be harder to solve the state's problems today than it would've if it was done in the 90's.

Also, the nation has changed a lot over the last 2 decades. There are more areas now that have reached a sort of "critical mass" of economic activity to make them good prospects for people looking to relocate. The country is also a lot more wired, which is allowing more and more people to live in lower cost communities while working the sorts of jobs you could only get if you say lived in the bay area.

So, will California recover or it will turn into Michigan? One only needs to travel to the rust-belt to see that cities/states raise and fall over time. I'm not really interested in making an investment in the state while I wait for the answer. There are many areas across that country that have better prospects.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by user_id

So, will California recover or it will turn into Michigan? One only needs to travel to the rust-belt to see that cities/states raise and fall over time.

If Michigan had a coast the size of CA and the weather of CA along with a more diversified ecomomic base like CA many more ppl from around the world would be living there today. And the whole rust belt event most likely would have never even occured. So this is like comparing apples and oranges IMO. The states have always been entirely different in almost every way.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

If Michigan had a coast the size of CA and the weather of CA along with a more diversified ecomomic base like CA many more ppl from around the world would be living there today.

You don't seem to get the point. Michigan or the rust-belt in general use to be the heart of American industry. California is no more diversified today than the rust-belt states where in the 1920's. The rust-belt declined for much more reasons than a change in industry. People could have just created new industry there, so why didn't they? Because the political and business environment sucked.

I don't know why people mention the coast and weather as if it matters. It does not. The weather and the coast do not pay your bills. At best, they will attract retirees to the state.

Anyhow, California can very well repeat the rust-belt experience. The coast and weather are not going to stop it. Once talent and businesses start to leave the state its over. There is good reason to believe both of these things are occurring.

[MtnSurfer]

Well,

We will agree to disagree then. I think the weather, the CA coast and the Sierra Mtns make a huge difference and are a big draw for many ppl of all ages from around the world. World class skiing, surfing, sailing, mountaineering, waterskiiing, etc... for most of the year attracts more than retirees if you have a chance to get out a take a look.

Manufacturing took a nose dive in the rust belt and thats too bad. But it is no different than the Timber industry of the PNW and other areas which where focused on 'one' form of industry primarily. CA is the US port of the West to the rest of the world, it has the best climate for agriculture in the nation, the entertainment industry, a huge tourist industry, and a greater diversity of culture and business than almost any other state in the nation and the largest economy.

So no, they are not even close when related in this way. But of course you are free to draw your own conclusions and move wherever you wish. Obviously many naysayers have and will continue to do so. I just don't buy any of it now, in the same way that I never have in the past. Its not a very convincing correlation IMO.

Derek

[user_id]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

We will agree to disagree then. I think the weather, the CA coast and the Sierra Mtns make a huge difference and are a big draw for many ppl of all ages from around the world. World class skiing, surfing, sailing, mountaineering, waterskiiing, etc...

Unless you are independently wealthy or retired then none of this matters if you can't support yourself. The issue is not that the whether the weather, coast, etc attracts people, its whether it attracts businesses.

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Manufacturing took a nose dive in the rust belt and thats too bad. But it is no different than the Timber industry of the PNW and other areas which where focused on 'one' form of industry primarily.

Manufacturing is not 'one form' of industry. Its a huge and diverse sector. Manufacturing was still strong when the rust-belt started to decline. It declined because there is a limit to what degree you can extract rents from businesses and residents to support the state!

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

CA is the US port of the West to the rest of the world, it has the best climate for agriculture in the nation, the entertainment industry, a huge tourist industry

The ports, tourism and agriculture are not going to support 30 million people. Everything else can leave the state. Even industries that California is strong in are starting to diversity out of the state.

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

and a greater diversity of culture and business than almost any other state in the nation and the largest economy.

Its the largest state, so naturally its going to have the largest economy. In terms of economic diversity, California is not particularly diverse. I don't know why people believe this. Southern California is very dependent on the film industry, central on farming and the north on technology. If either one of these left it would destroy the respective region.

I mean don't you find it at all odd that California is seeing one of the highest unemployment rates? That is not exactly a sign of health.

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

So no, they are not even close when related in this way.

The rust-belt offers a living example of how a once successful region can collapse. California does not differ greatly economically speaking from the rust-belt in the 1920's.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by user_id

You don't seem to get the point. Michigan or the rust-belt in general use to be the heart of American industry. California is no more diversified today than the rust-belt states where in the 1920's. The rust-belt declined for much more reasons than a change in industry. People could have just created new industry there, so why didn't they? Because the political and business environment sucked.

I do not discount the danger of Southern California turning into Michigan or Ohio with better weather. This is very much within the realm of possibility. However, this can be avoided with the proper leadership, which is going to come from outside of the politicians who represent Southern California. Not to mention the lack of water resources to support a large population having the potential to drag it down.

As for Northern California, barring some catastrophe - whether manmade like riots (if not for the King nastiness, SoCal would have recovered from the crises of the early '90s completely) or natural like a big earthquake - I don't see it ever losing its importance. NorCal did recover from the '90s OK, albeit real estate prices shooting up high did produce their own type of damage.

Anyhow, California can very well repeat the rust-belt experience. The coast and weather are not going to stop it. Once talent and businesses start to leave the state its over. There is good reason to believe both of these things are occurring.

In this case, a constitutional convention would remedy matters - presumably it would reorient the fiscal structure of CA to eliminate the state's dependence on high fees, high fines, and high sales tax, and would make CA a much friendlier place for small business.

However, without a constitutional convention the suffering will be prolonged and will hurt CA's competitiveness.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by majoun

In this case, a constitutional convention would remedy matters - presumably it would reorient the fiscal structure of CA to eliminate the state's dependence on high fees, high fines, and high sales tax, and would make CA a much friendlier place for small business.

Who's going to write the new constitution? The same idiots in government who got us where we are? I can only imaging the crazy nonsense they'd come up with if they got to rewrite the entire constitution at once.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by user_id

Unless you are independently wealthy or retired then none of this matters if you can't support yourself. The issue is not that the whether the weather, coast, etc attracts people, its whether it attracts businesses.

The majority of Californians are 'not' wealthy but have jobs and 'can' support themselves. They may not have a big house on a cheap piece of propert like many other parts of the nation. But that doesn't mean they are all begging in the streets either.

Some businesses will leave CA and already have in part. While others will rise and continue to grow. Of course the laws could be more business friendly. I am all for that. But if that was 'all' that mattered to business owners then they would have packed up and moved to the MidWest a long time ago where land is pennies on the dollar and labor is dirt cheap. Don't you think business owners care about lifestyle as well as their employees? Outdoor amentities and weather 'do' play a role in attracting and keeping talent. Not to mention a great pool of graduates from some excellent universities.

Manufacturing is not 'one form' of industry. Its a huge and diverse sector. Manufacturing was still strong when the rust-belt started to decline. It declined because there is a limit to what degree you can extract rents from businesses and residents to support the state!

Manufacturing, whether it be autos or rocking chairs, can and is being done cheaper and sometimes better overseas. Once the process is in place the machines just have to be run properly. And automation has made that easier. It is not rocket science and not very diverse.

I mean don't you find it at all odd that California is seeing one of the highest unemployment rates? That is not exactly a sign of health.

No, not really I mean it is simple economics and natural cycles which occur. CA has always been a state of extremes. RE rose too high too fast and now it is coming down more than other states. Many foreclosures occured because ppl were over extended, simple as that. Rediculous salaries were being paid at the peak of the boom. Now even Google and Ebay are tightening their belts and triming jobs during the recession. Nothing really new there.

As great as the rust belt was the area underestimated how world economics and manufacturing could play a role in their area. I don't see CA like this with any single large industry.

Derek

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Who's going to write the new constitution? The same idiots in government who got us where we are?

Presumably, most of them would not be involved, and the process would involve law professors, judges, and others from outside the legislature, with a disproportionate amount of independents and mavericks involved. The majority of the people in CA government prefer things as they are and would oppose a new constitution. The only reason why Newsom's latched on to the issue is because he thinks it would help his chances of becoming governor. Newsom doesn't have the intellectual capabilities to meaningfully participate in writing a new constitution (probably a good thing).

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by majoun

Presumably, most of them would not be involved, and the process would involve law professors, judges, and others from outside the legislature, with a disproportionate amount of independents and mavericks involved. The majority of the people in CA government prefer things as they are and would oppose a new constitution. The only reason why Newsom's latched on to the issue is because he thinks it would help his chances of becoming governor. Newsom doesn't have the intellectual capabilities to meaningfully participate in writing a new constitution (probably a good thing).

Then who picks the people who get to write it?