Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just picking up an oil rig and moving it around the world is not an easy task. If they find success elsewhere, why would they come back?
Because resources are limited, and many own to state-owned oil companies, so oil companies don't have the choice, they come back.
US haters, don't be so sad
The fact that California remains locked in such a pronounced slump compared to its economically and demographically similar cousin to the southeast has been pounced upon with biblical zeal by conservative commentators who claim the state's woes are a direct result of its liberalism and sloth. But, in truth, California's industrial mix and its history of voter empowerment may have done more than glad-handing liberalism to bring low the nation's largest economy -- one that, in better times, brought the world the popsicle, the hula hoop, the "slimsuit" swimsuit, and the fortune cookie.
1. Diversity of jobs - accountants over homebuilders.
The chief reason California remains mired in a recession that Texas almost skirted is fairly obvious. Its major industries were more directly tied to the causes of the recession, resulting in steeper job loss when the recession hit. "California experienced a more acute housing bubble than most states, including Texas," says Professor Jerry Nickelsburg, who runs the UCLA Anderson Forecast, noting that California lost more jobs than many other states because it was the center of the sub-prime mortgage finance industry, and housing was a major employer. He adds that California was also hit harder than most by the slowdown in Asia, which meant that fewer manufacturing goods were being moved to and from its important ports.
By comparison, housing was a relatively unimportant factor in job growth in Texas as the recession hit, with most new jobs being created in diverse professional fields, such as accountancy, law and security services. The more diverse Texas economy also benefited from its interaction with the oil and natural gas industry, which are an important part of the tax base, says Professor Steven Craig of the University of Houston Economics Department.
This left the two states with starkly different unemployment pictures. While Texas recently reported that more than 8% of its citizens were unemployed, California's unemployment rate remains greater than 12%.
A higher rate of unemployment is the deciding factor in determining the depth of any state's fiscal crisis. As Professor Robert Inman, of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, found in his recent study (http://www.nber.org/papers/w16086.pdf - broken link) of the issue, "the states' fiscal crises of 2009 do not appear to be linked to any obvious structural or institutional failures in state finances. It's the economy."
2. It pays to be friendly to business owners. But low-tax, small-government advocates may have a point in terms of what could prevent a more robust recovery in California. Businesses perceived California's tax and regulatory structure as so unwelcoming that the state ranked last in Chief Executive magazine's 2010 survey of the best places to conduct business, calling it "the Venezuela of North America." Texas, in contrast, ranked first.
It is easy to see why. Professor Bill Watkins, who heads the Center for Economic Research and Forecasting at California Lutheran University notes that, unlike California, Texas has no personal income tax, personal capital gains tax or corporate income tax. "This is in huge contrast to California's tax structure," he says, adding that, overall, Texans also just pay less taxes of any stripe.
The union situation in Texas is also far different. While only about 6% of workers in Texas are covered by unions, the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the figure at more than 18% in California. Texas also has a lower minimum wage and lower land prices.
Such progressive taxes and safety nets can be good from a social perspective. "School districts are hurting" in Texas, says Professor Bernard Weinstein, an economist with the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University. "As a result of Texas' perennial fiscal austerity, the state has dropped from about 30th in per student spending a decade ago to 42nd today." SAT scores in the state have declined over the last few years and the state ranked 34th among the 52 states and jurisdictions graded on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) last year.
Also, lax regulation can create other costs. The Texas Railroad Commission -- the state body that regulates the oil and gas industry -- is now reviewing its own rules regarding off-shore drilling following BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which occurred in federal waters. Besides the ecological damage and the impact on other gulf industries, Professor Craig says that the halt in Gulf drilling is also having a deleterious effect on the Texas economy.
3. Taxing sales instead of income distorts the economy less and allows for more flexibility.
California's focus on progressively taxing income and profits instead of consumption has helped to exasperate the pain of California's state budget shortfalls. Unlike sales taxes, which contribute mightily to Texas's annual budget, taxes on income and capital are extremely volatile, closely tracking the country's economic swings and often overshooting them. That creates two big problems: It makes it difficult to plan correctly when faced with long-term spending needs, and, in boom times, it makes it hard for legislators to deny unsustainable spending increases desired by voters.
It's a problem California has known about for quite awhile. Back in 2005, the California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) struggled with the issue, describing how a 20% upswing in annual revenues through fiscal 2000, turned into a 17% drop in 2002. "These fluctuations have been considerably more pronounced than the volatility in California's overall economy, and more substantial than the revenue fluctuations experienced in other states," the LAO authors wrote, saying this "volatility has contributed to major problems for state policymakers attempting to manage and balance California's state government budget."
4. Power of the people can backfire.
But that volatility, and the deficits it creates, could possibly be tackled if it wasn't for the empowerment of California's voters who gained a major taste of victory in the Proposition 13 tax revolt back in 1978, and never looked back. Since then, California voters on both ends of the political spectrum have used their clout to approved scores of initiatives. They have enacted term limits, raised the minimum wage, moved to protect wildlife and acted to foster English as the state's official language. Most importantly, from an economic point of view, voters have often chosen to impose tax and spending limits on the one hand, while enforcing minimum spending requirements on the other. As the Los Angeles Times' editorial page wrote at the end of July, "California voted itself into its current budget crisis by adopting ballot measures that demand more from government while limiting its ability to do its work."
That's a big difference from the Lone Star State, where just about the only political consensus for budget cuts needs to come from three politicians sitting around a table. With the blessing of the lieutenant-governor and the speaker of the Texas House, Republican Governor Rick Perry recently pulled out the carving knife to tackle a projected two-year budget shortfall of $18 billion, demanding 10% cuts across the board.Meanwhile, back in California, a frustrated Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has installed a budget delay counter outside his office, griping that the state's own annual $19 billion budget impasse is costing about $52 million a day, and there is no end in sight.
Because resources are limited, and many own to state-owned oil companies, so oil companies don't have the choice, they come back.
US haters, don't be so sad
State owned companies normally own the "production" but do not have the drilling technology to access the resource so they still hire private companies.
In other words, no they don't have to come back. There is plenty of opportunity world wide.
While Texas has a better economy then California, its lack of social foresight is appalling as the article states. Education is still the best, long term economic driver out there and Texas is missing the ball (I understand the "immigrant" arguement but it still needs a major overhaul).
For this reason I would avoid both states and rather live in say Colorado, Massachutes, Virgina, or North Carolina (if I had an open choice between states) where the business climate is good AND they are attempting to make education a key focus.
While Texas has a better economy then California, its lack of social foresight is appalling as the article states. Education is still the best, long term economic driver out there and Texas is missing the ball (I understand the "immigrant" arguement but it still needs a major overhaul).
For this reason I would avoid both states and rather live in say Colorado, Massachutes, Virgina, or North Carolina (if I had an open choice between states) where the business climate is good AND they are attempting to make education a key focus.
I think it depends more on which school district you are in. There are plenty of great school districts in Texas!
While Texas has a better economy then California, its lack of social foresight is appalling as the article states. Education is still the best, long term economic driver out there and Texas is missing the ball (I understand the "immigrant" arguement but it still needs a major overhaul).
For this reason I would avoid both states and rather live in say Colorado, Massachutes, Virgina, or North Carolina (if I had an open choice between states) where the business climate is good AND they are attempting to make education a key focus.
While Texas has a better economy then California, its lack of social foresight is appalling as the article states. Education is still the best, long term economic driver out there and Texas is missing the ball (I understand the "immigrant" arguement but it still needs a major overhaul).
For this reason I would avoid both states and rather live in say Colorado, Massachutes, Virgina, or North Carolina (if I had an open choice between states) where the business climate is good AND they are attempting to make education a key focus.
It's useless if these students go to other states like Texas after their studies
And about these oil companies, they will come back, it's just temporary.Next year = business as usual
I think it depends more on which school district you are in. There are plenty of great school districts in Texas!
But more "not so good" than good -- let alone "great.".
Education for the masses is not a priority in Texas.
Which, by the way -- is good for businesses that may like to exploit a labor force.
Last edited by Philip T; 07-13-2010 at 07:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
