What is success in your metric? are you just counting GDP of companies that happen to be located there? If so, that has very little relationship to how well the state is being run.

It’s very easy to make arguments that they are successful in spite of a terribly run state government and are being protected by federal laws keeping the loonies in check (interstate commerce clause, etc).

So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.

Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.

I'd go stronger still: the good things about any state has little to do with the governance.

Innovators, makers, risk-takers, etc., are who makes the good things happen. The very little needed is rule of law, and that's about it. Beyond that, it starts distorting society quickly: measures meant to help someone inevitably cost several someones else, and become weapons to beat down competitors.

> So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point.

No, I’m saying people who think the state is successful because of its state government and not because it’s a part of the US are out of touch. If California wasn’t part of the US, Silicon Valley would be a shadow of itself or wouldn’t exist at all.

It thrives on being the tech Mecca for the youth of the entire US to go to school there and get jobs there. If there were immigration barriers there, there would be significant incentive to just go to something in the US (nyc, Chicago, Miami, wherever). California had a massive GDP because that’s where US citizens are congregating to do business, not because California is good at making businesses go. Remove spigot of brain drain from the rest of country and cali would be fucked.

Secondarily, Silicon Valley wouldn’t have started at all without the funnel of money from the fed military, NASA, etc. But that’s not worth dwelling on if the scenario is California leaving now.

My overall point is that California has immense success due to reasons far outside of the control of its state government. The state has done very little to help the tech industry apart from maybe the ban on non-competes. When people start to credit the large GDP to the government, that’s some super scary shit that leads to ideas that will quickly kill the golden goose.

> but it's being run just fine

As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government.

Do you mean to say that the government was deeply underwater a few years ago? And the state marred by forest fires that it was frightening to see if it could ever come back ?

What are you getting at? Is a state government supposed to be profitable? LOL

> The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector.

Tesla received billions in subsidies from CA as an example.

Which it paid back in full + interest.

Here's an example, took the money and delivered mostly an infeasible version of battery swapping with probably their existing factory install tech lightly modified: https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600

I think California might have a better run government if it had an electable conservative party. The Republican Party is not that, being tied to the national Trump-Vance-Orbán axis. A center-right party could hold Democratic officers accountable but it’s not being offered and moderates gravitate to the electable Dem side. An independent California would largely fix that.

As a lifelong California Democrat, I realize that my party does not have all the answers. But the conservatives have all gone AWOL or gone batshit so we’re doing the best we can without the other half of the dialectic.

Pre-Trump Republicans had no problem absurdly mismanaging Kansas’ coffers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

I think the Republican Party’s positive reputation for handling the economy and running an efficient government is entirely unearned.

Closing down major parts of the government entirely (as Project 2025 proposes), making taxation more regressive, and offering fewer social services isn’t “efficiency.”

I don’t know if you know this but you’re already in the center-right party. The actual problem is that there’s no left of center party, as well as the general need for a number of aspects of our democracy to be reformed (like how it really doesn’t allow for more than two parties to exist, or how out of control campaign finance rules have become).

Democrats (especially in California) are somewhat to the right of socialist parties in Europe, and of course they’re neoliberal. But on most non-economic social issues, they’re quite far to the left compared to most European countries. So it really depends on what you consider more important to the left.

You could consider my definition of “left” and “right” to mean economic policy in this case.

Considering that the economy is supposedly to be the number one concern to most US voters, there really isn’t anything very far left available to vote for in that area.

California republicans are extremely moderate (or at least, there have been moderate candidates for governor of california almost every year), so I have no idea what you're talking about. The last GOP governor of California was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is a moderate republican by basically all standards.

Some of them are very moderate, some of them have become more radical. But all of them are tied to a national brand which is not particularly electable here. Christian populism cannot win a majority here, yet to secure the right of their party all of the Republican candidates must say they support Trump. The national party is an albatross around their necks.

>It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government.

Can you point to any place in the world that has an "awesome efficiently run" government?

Singapore, Dubai, Monaco..

We don't need to look at other countries, just look at other States. California is quite poorly run by the standards of other States. I'm a California native but I've lived in and worked with many other States. You don't realize how appallingly bad California government is until you have to work with their counterparts in other States.

It isn't a red versus blue thing, even grift-y one-party States like Washington are plainly better run than California.

Singapore...

It’s easy to disagree when you aren’t looking the grass that’s not so green on the other side.

California is run amazingly well compared to a significant number of states.

In this case the success is in spite of the governance rather than because of it.

The golden age of California was a long time ago.

California was extremely successful for quite some time. They benefited from a large population boom and lots of industry developed or moved there. And surprisingly they were a republican state from 1952 -> 1988.

LOL.

California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy.

If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.

Yeah it’s incredibly beautiful. People wish they could live there. And many large companies were built there in prior decades. This contradicts my comment how?

California is the most populous state in the US, larger than most European countries, it would be surprising if it didn't have a large GDP regardless of its economy. On a per capita basis, less populous tech-heavy States like Washington and Massachusetts have even higher GDP.

Undoubtedly, California has a stellar economy, but you see, states like Texas, which are objectively awful to live in (flat, no interesting geography in the most populated parts of the state, terrible weather, hurricanes, etc), are also similarly well positioned in the rankings of GDP.

If Texas were a country, it'd be the 8th largest economy in the world! This is a figure much less often cited. Texas has a smaller population 30 million v 38 million and is growing much faster in real terms (2.1% v 5.7%).

This is in spite of its objective awfulness. People are moving to Texas because of the economy. If Texas were in California's geographic position, one would imagine it to be an even more popular destination.

This isn't an endorsement of the Texan government, because there are many things I disagree with them on. But the idea that California's economy is singularly unique in the United States is silly. Many states with objectively worse attributes are faring just as well, and may even be poised to overtake california.

How embarassing would it be for Texas, a hot muggy swamp of a state with awful geography and terrible weather, to overtake beautiful California economically? To think people would actually eschew the ocean and the mediterranean climate and perfect weather to move to Texas simply because California mismanaged the state so much. This is the real risk.

Models show that by 2049, Texas will overtake california as the more populous and more economically productive state. Is that really the future you want? Is that the future California deserves? As a native Californian, I hope the state can turn itself around. It deserves to be a great state, but the path its on is one of decline.

One need just look at almost any metric. It's no just population or economy. Even by 'liberal' metrics, Texas is growing. For example, Texas has the largest growth rate in alternative energy sources: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-trumps-cal.... There's a very clear growth curve in Texas, while California's is much choppier and doesn't appear to be going in any particular direction. At some point Californians need to actually want to continue winning instead of resting on their laurels.

The state has one of the lowest literacy rates in the whole country (28%). To me, that implies they have some issue of governance.

Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy...

To be fair in the comparison, the literacy statistics for the whole of the US are pretty shocking from a European perspective.

The data you're showing doesn't appear to differentiate between "Can read English" and "Can read in some language". Big immigrant population, same with New York. Having grown up in California I can tell you that there aren't 28% of kids coming out of public school who can't read anything.

Edit to add: my own hometown had a lot of people who couldn't speak English. Lots of elderly mothers of Chinese immigrants whose adult children were in STEM and whose own kids were headed to uni. Not to say that's representative, but consider that a single percentage stat won't give you an accurate picture of what's going on.

Not being able to read English in the US is bad though. It makes you a very inefficient citizen even though you can get by. Being literate in Chinese and not being able to read or even speak English is far worse than an illiterate person that can speak English in day to day interactions.

which is why the statistics need to be careful annotated. lacking literacy at all is a different dimension than lacking fluency the national lingua franca

The US has no official language. There are fluency requirements for the naturalized citizenship test, but those can be waived with 20 years of permanent residency. Citizens are under no obligation to be efficient for the sake of the government.

Yes, there is no official language. There is also no official rule that you shouldn’t be an asshole to everyone you interact with.

It’s still easy to be a shitty member of a community without breaking any laws. I would never move to a country permanently regardless of official language status if I couldn’t speak the language required to ask where something is in the grocery store.

The California tech industry will solve any concerns with this, we'll have Babelfish soon enough.

Did you go to school in Oakland or Central Valley? That’s where most of the illiterate children are going to school. I’ve never heard of a Chinese student in the US growing up illiterate, even if their parents don’t know English at all.

South Bay. And I didn't specify but I meant that the people who immigrated from abroad were not English speakers - younger than 50 or so even if born abroad all seemed to be at least proficient in English.

We had lots of Hispanic kids but not many who were super super fresh to the country. I'm sure the central valley was a whole different ball game.

For any others reading this, the _illiteracy_ rate is 23.1% in California according to the parent's source. This is indeed the highest illiteracy rate in the US thought.

Having said that, I would have thought this was partially a measure of migration. Perhaps illegal migration?

The "medium to high English literacy skills" is the part that is important. If you can read and write Chinese and Spanish and French and Portuguese and Esperanto at a high level, but not English at a medium to high level, you are 'illiterate' in this stat.

Maybe there is something missing from your analysis? By most metrics the US compares quite favorably to Europe. When you see something that seems like an outlier, perhaps turn down the arrogance and try to understand what you might be overlooking.

I don't know what your source for "by most metrics" is?

As I understand it, the US is abysmal by many metrics (and also exceptional by others). E.g., murder rated and prison rates are exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe. Homelessness rates are exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe. Startup rates are (I believe) exceptionally high in the US compared to Europe.

There's a huge problem trying to do cross-jurisdiction statistical comparisons even in the best case. Taking literacy as the current example, what does it mean to be literate, and how do you ensure that the definition in the US is the same as the definition in the UK is the same as the definition in Germany? And that's before you get to confounding factors like migration and related non-English proficiency.

It's fun to poke at the US, I get it, but the numbers people love to quote online to win some kind of rhetorical battle frequently have little relationship to reality on the ground. I've done a lot of travel around the US and western Europe, and I see a lot of ups and downs everywhere. I don't see a lot of obvious wins, either, mostly just choices and trade-offs. The things I see in Europe that are obviously better almost 100% of the time are a byproduct of more efficient funding due to higher density. All kinds of things are doable in the UK, for example, which couldn't really happen in (for example) Oregon, even though they have roughly the same land area. Having 15x as many taxpayers helps.

The issue of governance is the massive hole in the US - Mexico border. Why California's government isn't joining the ranks of Texas, Arizona, etc, I cannot understand.

Source: my mom was an adult ESL / Language / Literacy teacher.

You're going to attribute even a small % of this to politicians rather than the actual innovators? Sure, then let's say they're responsible for some small % of its success. They're smart enough to not nuke their own economy.

California is the largest recipient of federal money.

https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-...

(I know by population it will be different, but the argument here is around 'one of the the biggest' which is not a per capita statement.)

> Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric

You can apply the same logic to USA.

USA is one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many countries that are far worse off in any key metric.

California is also the largest source of Federal revenue: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collectio...

As your link shows, a much smaller %age of CA government revenue comes from the federal government vs most other states; in that sense California is a net contributor rather than a net taker.

What is that by capita?

Gimmie that sweet SALT deduction back.

(It's not actually that high on my list.)

I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in mississippi

You say that, but being poor where everyone else is poor is generally better than being poor where you are surrounded by wealth.

So people are better off being poor in South America or North Africa, than being poor in the US or Europe?

Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people.

I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD.

I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.

how would you rank the states you have lived in by those metrics(social programming + doing good for the people)?

Only CA and WA stand out. The rest are awful. TX doesn’t even make the list.

High speed trains would do even more for California and would be the envy of the rest of the country.

Like most things, the facts bear out the exact opposite. The CA HSR has been such a complete failure that it’s probably set back rail a decade or more. The only saving grace is Florida’s privatized high speed rail, otherwise it would be a completely failed industry.

You're not disproving the OP's assertion. His claim was that HSR (with the implication that it was actually built and working properly) would be good for California and be the envy of the rest of the country, and that seems to be true. The problem is that California tried to do HSR and completely bungled it somehow. Well, of course a bungled project that never gets completed isn't a great thing, that should go without saying.

As for Florida's "HSR", it doesn't really qualify for the "HS" part. The fastest segment is only 200kph. At least it's built and working, which is nice and all, but it's not a real bullet train. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline)

Part of the problem is the transit activist's obsession with public transit instead of just transit. At this rate, Brightline will likely have an HSR in California before the government does. We need to make private transit great again, and California should lead the way. Transit is transit, whether it's funded by government or private interests.

Thank you.

I always think about this whenever someone says CA doesn't know what it's doing or it's being run wrong:

California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.

And Texas, which 10 million fewer people is the eighth largest economy in the world, and growing at more than double the speed of Californias. This accomplishment (which is something to be proud of) is not unique to California.

California is being terribly misgoverned, as you would expect in any single-party state. In some sense California has become like a petro-state afflicted by the resource curse: the tech industry throws off so much cash that the state runs reasonably well, not because of the government but in spite of it. We can afford to waste government resources on frivolous nonsense.

And this isn't a partisan dig at Democrats. If a Republicans controlled everything then the situation would be just as bad but in different ways.

California has unique geographic features that make it well positioned. It also has strategic geographic resources (like oil). This is like using Saudi Arabia as a standard of governance since they have greatly improved material conditions using oil money.

California does do several things very well. It also does several things poorly. Pointing out its current economic standing does not change that. The fallacy here is that we have to compare california against the best version of itself. Alaska is never going to be a California-level economy because the geography dictates that only a certain kind of person / company will set up there, for example. That doesn't mean the Alaskan government is necessarily bad. Every state has to work within its limits to achieve the best version of itself. Is california the best it could be? I think the answer is obviously no.