California vs. Texas -- UCLA tries to put economic debate to rest (state, population)

[DynamoLA]

California vs. Texas (or cities in California vs. cities in Texas) seems to be a recurring debate in CD forums.

Here is some new insight from UCLA (I am assuming as a premier educational institute that there is some lack of bias):
------------------------------
Texas, the state with the most rapid population growth over the last decade is held up as the model for job diversion from the Golden State," he writes. Businesses accuse California of having high taxes, stringent environmental regulations and difficult permitting systems, and say that's driving start-ups to Texas.

But Nickelsburg says many of the accusations aren't accurate. As The Times reported last year, California's tax burden isn't actually that high and has been shrinking, and environmental regulation can be a good thing -- after all, even if one business wants to pollute rivers, most other businesses around it benefit from clean water.

As for bureaucracy driving businesses out of the state, Nickelsburg says that it appears that some businesses are more naturally suited to California, and are growing, while others are more naturally suited to Texas. Legislators should focus on making it easier for California-centric businesses to grow in the state.

To explain: Texas has relatively cheap land and lots of open space. California has expensive land and less space. So businesses that are likely to grow in California are those that don't need a lot of land but are what Nickelsburg calls "high value-added, labor-intensive production of goods and services."

Interesting story from the LA Times:
UCLA tries to put economic debate about California and Texas to rest | Money & Company | Los Angeles Times