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.
Have you considered that perhaps it is the US federal government which is the poorly run one and the impediment to the states being able to get things done?
Let's look at some basic facts:
In terms of population California, Washington and Oregon would have 51 million people. That's more than Spain but a bit fewer than UK, France or Italy.
The GDP of those three states is about $3,800,000 million which would place it just behind Germany for the 5th largest economy in the World. What industries would that new country be lacking? It would have the four most highly valued companies in the world to begin with with Facebook picking up 6th place.
I'm pretty sure that economically the Pacific states would do just fine on their own.
California has a lot of cleaning up to do, to survive on its own. Land isn't cleared, hence devastating fires, a couple seasons each year. No help from FEMA if a large earthquake hits...not just California, but the expected earthquake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Google it, if you think it's not a possibility. These states would never be able to survive without help, if something devastating occurred.
This is a hilarious thread. I personally could care less if they ever tried to break off on their own. But it's funny picturing and imagining the result.
This is a hilarious thread. I personally could care less if they ever tried to break off on their own. But it's funny picturing and imagining the result.
California has a lot of cleaning up to do, to survive on its own. Land isn't cleared, hence devastating fires, a couple seasons each year. No help from FEMA if a large earthquake hits...not just California, but the expected earthquake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Google it, if you think it's not a possibility. These states would never be able to survive without help, if something devastating occurred.
I think it's possible for the west coast states to survive on their own in the event of a natural disaster such as an earthquake, plenty of other countries have lived though them such as Japan and Chile and they are still around. It's all about how the money is managed, and the smaller the country the easier it is to manage. That being said I would still prefer for the west coast to remain as part of the US.
California has a lot of cleaning up to do, to survive on its own. Land isn't cleared, hence devastating fires, a couple seasons each year. No help from FEMA if a large earthquake hits...not just California, but the expected earthquake in the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Google it, if you think it's not a possibility. These states would never be able to survive without help, if something devastating occurred.
FEMA did such a fantastic job in New Orleans after Katrina, Homeland, Florida after Andrew and Puerto Rico after Maria
I am from Portland, went to college in Seattle and am very familiar with the Cascadia Subduction Zone. Local authorities are slowly but surely upgrading infrastructure but also there the Federal Government is a major impediment in terms of infrastructure funding.
Here in Southern Oregon, most of the people pushing the "51st State of Jefferson" (parts of Northern California and Southern Oregon) are, these days, sovereign citizen/3% types with whom I have zero interest in joining.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
Moderator for: Oregon (and subforums), Auto Racing.
When you signed up for an account, you agreed to abide by the site's TOS and rules. You really should look through them.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
City-Data FAQ: //www.city-data.com/forum/faq/
Silly thread. I suggest that those who are so unhappy living here, obeying our laws and therefore enjoying our freedoms, find another place in the world that's more suitable. It's a free country and no one is keeping you here.
I would not want them to be an independent nation and it is mainly because of California. The separate nation would not be able to handle the problems California and the West Coast has. California is overpopulated, then you have the combination of the West Coast population too. The West Coast has a skyrocketing cost of living, more homeless people, more California wildfires, and a lack of water. They need help from the rest of the US in terms of economy and water supply.
Have you considered that perhaps it is the US federal government which is the poorly run one and the impediment to the states being able to get things done?
Let's look at some basic facts:
In terms of population California, Washington and Oregon would have 51 million people. That's more than Spain but a bit fewer than UK, France or Italy.
The GDP of those three states is about $3,800,000 million which would place it just behind Germany for the 5th largest economy in the World. What industries would that new country be lacking? It would have the four most highly valued companies in the world to begin with with Facebook picking up 6th place.
I'm pretty sure that economically the Pacific states would do just fine on their own.
It's not just about the GDP; removal from the United States means removal of hundreds of thousands of federal jobs currently provided and funded by the federal government. It means that all those companies operating in the West have to figure out how to act as an international company with the rest of the country and the cost/legal complications that will create. You would also see a huge chunk of that GDP disappear as several federal programs, loans, grants, and more get cut.
You also have to form or think of some kind of defensive strategy since the military would no longer operate within the newly formed country. In California alone that means losing millions involved including family members, contract workers, office personal and many more.
It's not as easy as simply declaring ourselves free and going about business as usual. Every state is intertwined with the federal government and each other. Many people residing in the western states are able to do so only because businesses can operate and work freely across state lines versus the complications of working across borders.
Personally I also think it's a slippery slope to even consider splintering off from the nation. Not only would it create greater tension between states; pretty soon the entire country would become divided. Then your only a sneeze away from civil war and absolute no good could come from that. We need to appreciate the diversity and freedom we have to live in a country where if you truly don't like the state your in you have 49 other completely different states without feeling the need to demand dramatic and bloody change.
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.
