If LA or Bay didnt exist would CA still be the best state in country (live in, suburbs)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by That_One_Girl

Yes. I don't go to either of those cities too often. For me, the natural landscape, the weather, and the overall lifestyle make this the place I want to be.

I don't know if any state is "the best" however. That's obviously a matter of opinion.

Yes, for some 4 seasons is more important than 2 seasons. For others warmer water is better than the cold water in CA and for many a less crowded city is best. Desires vary, so no State is best for everyone, though I would definitely put CA near the top for most. As for LA and SF. Went to SF twice and LA a lot, but mainly for work. If they did not exist it would make no difference to me if I was living in CA.

[18Montclair]

Yeah the two metros that subsidize everywhere else in CA except San Diego-shut up you ungrateful Welfare queens.

[BB_210]

OP I agree, because of geographical luck. Being a coastal state, ports and trade are naturally ideal. Weather is nice and has above average sunny days. The state's large footprint has a lot of nature interest points (beaches, mountains, lakes, snow, desert). Has (or had) a lot of oil fields, with plenty of refineries to go with it, and plenty of terminals for oil and gas. Cheap labor, that sweet "5th economy" coin isn't going to average Joe's pocket. Plenty of AG in the vast land, which doesn't make sense being that this is a desert and we have a water shortages, but generates money (all about that 5th economy title, amirite).

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yeah the two metros that subsidize everywhere else in CA except San Diego-shut up you ungrateful Welfare queens.

You mean businesses and people vanish if you somehow dismantled LA and SF local governments? Okey, lol.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

It is very improbable that a state with the natural harbors, pleasant climate, and large geographical size of California wouldn't have developed any large metropolitan areas.

That would probably be because of much stronger Native American resistance to colonization, massively greater industrialization and immigration to Washington and Oregon, or the whole coast getting developed as resort towns or secluded low-density hamlets for the ultra-wealthy.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Beardown91737

careful not to turn the clock back to the dot-com bust

Yes California would be a great state with seashore, forest, desert, and mountains whether Los Angeles or San Fran existed. Arizona, Nevada, Utah and New Mexico do fine without a LA or SF, and those states don't even have coastline.

New Mexico isn’t exactly doing fine, and the other three wouldn’t be doing much of anything without their cities either.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Originally Posted by Radical347

New Mexico isn’t exactly doing fine, and the other three wouldn’t be doing much of anything without their cities either.

Take out Clark and Washoe Counties and Nevada's basically Wyoming.

[Mr. Boring]

You'd still have San Diego, Santa Barbara, Orange County, San Clemente, Ventura, Carlsbad, Carpenteria, Eureka, Pismo Beach, Santa Maria...and those are just on the coast most of which have jobs too.

Ya, I don't think I'd ever want to live in LA County again especially since there are jobs and nicer, newer homes in other safer, more civilized, cleaner cities.

[Leona Valley]

Originally Posted by capoeira

It would be about 1000% better without LA or SF! Especially without SF! That would move it up to about the 31st best state from its current rating of the 48th best state.

Get outta here. 2 states worse than Ca.? Name one!

[AlongTheI-5]

People hate California so much, we have the lowest population of all the states.