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.
One out of eight Americans is a Californian. Your produce aisle is full of the products of California fields. Your computer, or your phone, is running Californian software. Your movie theater plays California products. If you don't go to a movie theater, then maybe you watch movies at home on Netflix, another product of California. The fastest-growing automaker in America is a California company.
But we've got no influence . . .
The NYC mayor has a higher profile, but California is easily the most influential state with respect to American culture. I don't think the governor get much out of that though.
Our State government has tax, spending, and infrastructure policies that enabled the rise of Silicon Valley, the continued agricultural production in the Central and San Joaquin Valleys, even the continued presence of the movie industry. In the United States, there is an interplay between the public and private sectors.
Your state has one of the harshest climates for businesses in the nation. One of the highest taxed and most regulated states in the union.
I'm curious which people perceive to be more influential job? The Governor of California or the Mayor of NYC?
In theory, this should very easily be the governor of California. California is a much bigger place and on paper a governor has more formal legal power. But, the NYC mayor by virtue of being in NYC has a national/international profile that exceeds that of any other elected official (outside the president).
The major has direct operational control over lots of services that directly impact people the police, the fire, the schools, even the sanitation. The NYC mayor has lots of day-to-day control over NYC events that become major national news. The Ground Zero Mosque, Stop and Frisk, NYPD counter-terrorism operations, police shootings, managing Occupy Wall Street Protests, Parades, New Years Eve, etc.
By contrast, the California Governor is often hidden away in Sacramento Ca. While the state government has more formal authority than a city, it operates more in the shadows. It regulates a lot of what goes on in the state, but doesn't do as much day-to-day administering. Passing laws, drafting regulations, setting up funding formulas for things like School Aid, Medicaid and the Health Exchanges. These maybe more important in the grand scheme of things, but can make Governors a less visible presence.
Well, the nation has had a Former California Governor as President.
Can't say any Mayor from NYC, has even gotten close.
The states water policies are currently hindering the crop production and the movie industry is more and more moving out of state/county because of cheaper filming options, tech did as well in the early 2000's, but came back with a vengeance over the last half a decade propping up the states finances but some tech is leaving to other areas. Time will tell if the current tech boom will last longer than the last one (roughly a decade).
The crop production just might be hindered by our multi-year drought, but what do I know. The movie industry remains firmly centered on Los Angeles, though more filming is done on location, certainly. The tech rise in California dates back to the 50s, really (and arguably the 30s). There are, of course, periods of boom and bust, but California is the global tech capital, and has been for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
The NYC mayor has a higher profile, but California is easily the most influential state with respect to American culture. I don't think the governor get much out of that though.
I tend to think that one New York mayor, Giuliani, had an extremely high profile and was very influential. I think, however, that other New York mayors are outpaced by the influence of California governors (and typically their profile, as well). I am defining profile by public visibility and influence as "blazing the trail" with policies that are subsequently adopted elsewhere.
Arnold's cap-and-trade scheme was later debated elsewhere, including at the federal level. California's vehicle emissions standards not only have been adopted elsewhere, but are actually enshrined in federal law as an emissions standard that a state can adopt instead of the federal standard.
Earl Warren (yes, later Chief Justice Earl Warren) instituted a gas tax that funded roadway improvements, departing from the practice of other states, which used tolls and bonds for road improvements. The federal government later adopted the same system for interstate highway improvements.
Jerry Brown created incentives for rooftop solar panels in his first time around--well before any other state adopted such a program.
Gray Davis spearheaded an early and effective anti-smoking campaign. He also was one of the first governor's to sign into law legislation providing for domestic partnerships (just beat to the punch by Vermont).
Pete Wilson pushed for the passage of Prop. 187, which was the first state law to regulate immigration (it was found unconstitutional).
Reagan, as governor, signed into law the first "no-fault" divorce legislation in the nation.
These are just some of the "firsts," and there is also the matter of California's regulatory environment having a major impact on corporations worldwide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
Your state has one of the harshest climates for businesses in the nation. One of the highest taxed and most regulated states in the union.
Is that why we have the nation's largest economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Well, the nation has had a Former California Governor as President.
Can't say any Mayor from NYC, has even gotten close.
Indeed. And a former governor as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
Is that why we have the nation's largest economy?
.
As someone else already said, businesses and people are moving out of California to places like Colorado for instance, and destroying other states with their "progressive" ideas. See, they make a mess in their own state, get tired of living in the squalor that they have created for themselves, and move to other states, taking their big government ideals and voting habits with them.
Hmm.... I guess in that sense, California does have influence over other states politically.
As someone else already said, businesses and people are moving out of California to places like Colorado for instance, and destroying other states with their "progressive" ideas. See, they make a mess in their own state, get tired of living in the squalor that they have created for themselves, and move to other states, taking their big government ideals and voting habits with them.
Hmm.... I guess in that sense, California does have influence over other states politically.
Well, California's population is continuing to grow (18th highest population growth in the nation). As is its economy. While we have the nation's largest economy, we are growing at the 5th highest rate. Few companies are actually leaving California. There are certainly California companies opening satellite offices elsewhere, of course.
You can call California many things, but a state of squalor it is not.
I'm curious which people perceive to be more influential job? The Governor of California or the Mayor of NYC?
In theory, this should very easily be the governor of California. California is a much bigger place and on paper a governor has more formal legal power. But, the NYC mayor by virtue of being in NYC has a national/international profile that exceeds that of any other elected official (outside the president).
The major has direct operational control over lots of services that directly impact people the police, the fire, the schools, even the sanitation. The NYC mayor has lots of day-to-day control over NYC events that become major national news. The Ground Zero Mosque, Stop and Frisk, NYPD counter-terrorism operations, police shootings, managing Occupy Wall Street Protests, Parades, New Years Eve, etc.
By contrast, the California Governor is often hidden away in Sacramento Ca. While the state government has more formal authority than a city, it operates more in the shadows. It regulates a lot of what goes on in the state, but doesn't do as much day-to-day administering. Passing laws, drafting regulations, setting up funding formulas for things like School Aid, Medicaid and the Health Exchanges. These maybe more important in the grand scheme of things, but can make Governors a less visible presence.
Hands down the governor of California is more influential.
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.
