1. California passed a law that all trucks older than 10 years old had to have expensive modifications (I believe for pollution control). Well, the average age of trucks is 14 years. Surprisingly (not), trucks became in short supply in California.

2. They passed this law that Uber drivers were employees, not contractors. Surprisingly (until you think about it), this same law hit owner-operators of trucks. That confuses the legalities of hiring owner-operators, which is a fair number of trucks.

From what I heard, for both of these reasons, trucks and drivers are less available than they used to be in California.

Are you talking about AB 5? Because if so, it's nowhere near that simple.

"The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, after hearing the case, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing AB5 .....The court noted that carriers likely would have to reclassify all independent-contractor drivers as employees for all purposes to comply with the California labor law.... California officials and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters appealed the ruling to the 9th Circuit. The appeals court reversed the district court's order...."

I'm not a lawyer, but to a layman it looks like a legal fustercluck.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/...

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-p...

> industry experts said that some owner-operators sought work elsewhere. Some fleets, too, chose to stop doing business with owner-operators in California.

where "stop doing business" is a link to an article about people doing just that.

And the "exemption" you mention is a temporary injunction that may be lifted at any time, which is not conducive to a stable business relationship.

https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forc...

All the immigrants that were abused for the job are gone due to covid.

They might be right about the impact, they might not, it is a complicated system that is fudged up. I doubt there is a single cause. But, if you believe the OP, that lack of trucks is big part of the problem today, then the fact checkers are most likely wrong and should update.

From their own "fact check":

"Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports."

Their paragraph contradicts their own conclusion.

>Industry experts said the rules certainly impact the availability of drivers and trucks, but acknowledged that many other issues are impacting the movement of goods through U.S. ports.

Diversity levels at colleges were increasing under the non affirmative action.

Property tax cap keeps taxes reasonable and does not allow for straight up highway robbery.

Uber contractors were able to set their own hours and work when they wanted. Not having to listen to the man on when they wanted to turn on the work sign. I get it, there needs to be a balance, but think about the benefits these laws have had. The Uber situation was great for some, and bad for those who could not do maths.

Price controls always distort the market. Property tax cap simply gives earlier residents an advantage versus newer residents for a highly in demand land like California’s. It is a blatant wealth transfer from newer land owners to previous landowners. I guess there could be some benefits from that, but I am not convinced of the long term, societal benefits of it versus the drawbacks.

California would do well to discard more failed experiments, and get more creative.

The rest of the country would do well to stop thinking doing nothing ever is a good long-term plan.

Removing tipped wages

Allowing employees to sit while working

Paid sick leave and parental leave

Overtime after 8 hours in a day

Non compete ban

Legal cannabis

Assisted suicide

So maybe, just maybe, they know a good bit more than you are willing to give them credit for because you are unable to see reality through the haze of your politics.

They are #19 in standard of living. Seems fine.

"The only people allowed to live in the Vatican City are clergy (religious people) and the Swiss Guards who are the Police force of the country."