Except California also has among the highest levels of income inequality and highest cost-of-living adjusted poverty rates in the entire country: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversatio...
It's not just about potentially different priorities about growth versus safety nets. It's also a question of whether you believe that you should double down on the policies that have made California and New York among the hardest places to live for the middle and lower middle class.
In places like California and York, so much money meant to go to "better safety nets and less inequality" actually goes to providing secure middle class lifestyles for college educated white people. California, for example, is drowning in teacher pension debt despite having some of the highest state taxes in the country. But over 60% of California teachers are white, in a state where just 23% of schoolchildren are white. So when people look at white-hispanic test score gaps (California having among the largest gaps in the country), and vote for more education funding, the actual impact on reducing inequity is extremely attenuated. Likewise, on housing policy, people act very concerned about it in New York and California, but how much money and legislative effort goes to actually providing housing for people who need it, versus paying salaries for college-educated administrators and bureaucrats, versus propping up housing prices in middle/upper middle class racially segregated neighborhoods?
I'll note that LA teachers are demanding that as a condition for schools reopening, charter schools be shut down: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-26/citing-c.... Charter schools are, of course, a policy that's supported by the majority of the black and hispanic people that actually have kids in the school districts. (White Democrats are the only group where a majority oppose charter schools and vouchers.) This is a really telling illustration of what the real priorities are.
If, for the taxes Californians and New Yorkers pay, they actually got a robust safety net, good schools, and good transit, I imagine that a lot fewer people would leave.
California is 47th.
Moving from Utah to California is moving from one of the worst states for equality to the best. There is no trade-off needed regarding inequality, and I doubt there is one needed for safety nets either, Utah is unsurprisingly progressive in that area.
See: Canada and Sweden, both of which have soundly demonstrated the combination of a safety net and growth over the last 40 years.
People with similar belief than you about "value" (really, only money) creation and regulations/taxes are going to other states.
This has nothing to do with being reasonable. Someone perfectly reasonable could think better safety nets and less inequality is a worthy trade-off for less growth.