California: 51st of 50 for business, Venuezela of North America (Los Angeles: bankrupt, inspection)

[hsw]

High cost places like CA make sense for highly profitable industries w/high-wage jobs that need to be in desirable locales to attract workers like engineers or financiers who want to live/work nr PaloAlto amongst like-minded folks (and maximal career opportunities)

All jobs aren't created equal, nor are all workers or industries...for most, suburban Dallas or Houston are arguably far more efficient places for business than anywhere in rest of US

Low-income places like SF's EastBay or LA/SD region struggle with few high-wage jobs or major corporate HQs, yet high COL and taxes of CA

But no one is forced to live or work anywhere or in a specific industry/job...it's a free country...and people and jobs keep moving and are continually created/destroyed in any dynamic economy

[californio sur]

It's really quite simple. People can live in Texas where there are few employee safeguards\ anti-union mentality\ few if any regulations on air or water quality\ pro-capitalist-anti-worker policies\ Republicans & Bible-belt types. Or pay to live in California; we are the polar opposite of Texas and the South. It really is a simple choice & why Republicans do so poorly in California.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by californio sur

It's really quite simple. People can live in Texas where there are few employee safeguards\ anti-union mentality\ few if any regulations on air or water quality\ pro-capitalist-anti-worker policies\ Republicans & Bible-belt types. Or pay to live in California; we are the polar opposite of Texas and the South. It really is a simple choice & why Republicans do so poorly in California.

It is never quite as simple as you think.

Yes Texas is generally anti-union.

That does not mean it is anti-worker. Unions are not so clearly pro-worker as you think. When a union acts to protect jobs at all cost - as the UAW has for decades, it inhibits the ability of a business to adapt to change. When unions fail to understand that they often demand things that only benefit them - they are a negative.

Unions are almost like a Prop 13 for employment. They preserve jobs that should be allowed to go away. They inhibit the movement of wages with the economy. And the reduce the supply of jobs. Most unions also value seniority over productivity and quality - which rewards the wrong thing.

Texas has room for improvement on environmental issues. But I think it is interesting that even though Texas is the nation's #1 energy producer, it does not dominate the American Lung Association's 2010 list of "Most polluted cities." That honor goes to California. 12 CA cities land on the 25 most polluted cities ranked by ozone. 11 CA cities land on the top 25 polluted cities for short term particle pollution. Texas on the other hand only puts 2 cities on the ozone list and zero on the particle list.

Most Polluted Cities - American Lung Association (http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html - broken link)

As for worker safety - if you look at OSHA data, it appears that CA has about the same amount of incidents/cases per capita as Texas.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr087ca.pdf

Texas DOES have more worker fatalities per capita.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by californio sur

It's really quite simple. People can live in Texas where there are few employee safeguards\ anti-union mentality\ few if any regulations on air or water quality\ pro-capitalist-anti-worker policies\ Republicans & Bible-belt types. Or pay to live in California; we are the polar opposite of Texas and the South. It really is a simple choice & why Republicans do so poorly in California.

5 of the last 8 Governors of California ran as Republican...

Doesn't seem the Republicans have done all that poorly.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by hsw

Low-income places like SF's EastBay or LA/SD region struggle with few high-wage jobs or major corporate HQs, yet high COL and taxes of CA

Two of the top 5 Highest Median Income California Counties are in the SF's East Bay


Median Income
1 Marin $118,704
2 San Mateo $100,165
3 Santa Clara $100,077
4 Contra Costa $90,956
5 Alameda $88,138

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Two of the top 5 Highest Median Income California Counties are in the SF's East Bay


Median Income
1 Marin $118,704
2 San Mateo $100,165
3 Santa Clara $100,077
4 Contra Costa $90,956
5 Alameda $88,138

hsw's perception of the East Bay is very strange.

LOL

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

It is never quite as simple as you think.

Yes Texas is generally anti-union.

That does not mean it is anti-worker. Unions are not so clearly pro-worker as you think. When a union acts to protect jobs at all cost - as the UAW has for decades, it inhibits the ability of a business to adapt to change. When unions fail to understand that they often demand things that only benefit them - they are a negative.

Unions are almost like a Prop 13 for employment. They preserve jobs that should be allowed to go away. They inhibit the movement of wages with the economy. And the reduce the supply of jobs. Most unions also value seniority over productivity and quality - which rewards the wrong thing.

Texas has room for improvement on environmental issues. But I think it is interesting that even though Texas is the nation's #1 energy producer, it does not dominate the American Lung Association's 2010 list of "Most polluted cities." That honor goes to California. 12 CA cities land on the 25 most polluted cities ranked by ozone. 11 CA cities land on the top 25 polluted cities for short term particle pollution. Texas on the other hand only puts 2 cities on the ozone list and zero on the particle list.

Most Polluted Cities - American Lung Association (http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html - broken link)

As for worker safety - if you look at OSHA data, it appears that CA has about the same amount of incidents/cases per capita as Texas.

http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/osh/os/pr087ca.pdf

Texas DOES have more worker fatalities per capita.

Granted, California is environmentally progressive because it has to be. Even though the onshore wind brings clean air in from the Pacific, the mountains block or funnel the flow into basins\ valleys. Autos\ factories\ low air inversions\ wind speed mixture create smog. The Bay Areas pollution eventually ends up in the San Joaquin valley & now cities like Fresno & Bakersfield have the worst air quality in the nation aside from metro LA. Texas does not have these geographic barriers and Houston is totally flat with regular rainfall throughout the year. Yet Houston, at times is even worse than Los Angeles. Why? And why does Texas allow it? There's a fundamental difference in a "Red" state mindset which basically surrenders all responsibility for the problems and solving the problems. California goes to the other extreme by sometimes over-solving the problems [ie recent bans on student consumption of Gatorade until after school\ legislation forbidding anyone under the age of 18 to get tattoos\ piercings & require minors to wear helmets when skying or snowboarding].

[Wonderful Jellal]

I'm french and before I dreamed to live in California, it's a very beautiful state.But finally I will choose Texas (I chose 1 year ago) because I want a business friendly state.I think Texas is the California of the 21th century.

[californio sur]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

5 of the last 8 Governors of California ran as Republican...

Doesn't seem the Republicans have done all that poorly.

California Republicans are mostly sane. That makes a huge difference. To win statewide office in California, a Republican has to acknowledge the priorities that includes the environment. This may not sit well with their political party but the only way a governor can be successful in California. The kind of Texas nonsense of interjecting "creationism" into school books and neo-confederate calls by the governor to succeed from the U.S. is dismissed as ignorance. Schwarenegger was the GOP poster boy until he became governor and had to make tough decisions.

[CamaroGuy]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

I'm french and before I dreamed to live in California, it's a very beautiful state.But finally I will choose Texas (I chose 1 year ago) because I want a business friendly state.I think Texas is the California of the 21th century.

I think you're right!