3 ms·

California rated worst for business by Chief Executive Mag; Texas was the best

4 points by skmurphy 16y ago

skmurphy 16y ago
Opening paragraphs: In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as "the most spectacular and most diversified American state...so ripe, golden." Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. Chief Exec Mag Rankings: Top 5: TX, NC, TN, VA, NV Bottom 5: MA, NJ, MI, NY, CA
- _delirium 16y ago
  Though I don't disagree with all of that, "its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average" is an odd statistic to cite in a pro-Texas article, since Texas's poverty rate is even higher (TX 17%, CA 16%, national average 14%).
  - skmurphy 16y ago
    I don't think it's a pro Texas article. I think it's a well documented lament of the decline CA business environment. Since many on HN are situated in CA their startups are likely to be impacted by many of the trends cited.
  - hga 16y ago
    It's not odd nor is a comparison with Texas necessary if the #1 question is "Why is the 'Golden State' doing so badly?" Plus we understand why a lot of Texas has been historically poor; the question of why California has gotten a lot worse is probably more interesting. (I'm not sure how much worse, how or when, my Google fu wasn't good enough in 1-2 minutes to find anything beyond "In 1969, California's poverty rate was more than three points below the rest of the nation (9.1 percent compared to 12.5 percent)" in the summary of this: www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/cali-j13.shtml.)

4 points by skmurphy 16y ago

Opening paragraphs: In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as "the most spectacular and most diversified American state...so ripe, golden." Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the country’s most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. Chief Exec Mag Rankings: Top 5: TX, NC, TN, VA, NV Bottom 5: MA, NJ, MI, NY, CA

_delirium 16y ago
Though I don't disagree with all of that, "its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average" is an odd statistic to cite in a pro-Texas article, since Texas's poverty rate is even higher (TX 17%, CA 16%, national average 14%).
- skmurphy 16y ago
  I don't think it's a pro Texas article. I think it's a well documented lament of the decline CA business environment. Since many on HN are situated in CA their startups are likely to be impacted by many of the trends cited.
- hga 16y ago
  It's not odd nor is a comparison with Texas necessary if the #1 question is "Why is the 'Golden State' doing so badly?" Plus we understand why a lot of Texas has been historically poor; the question of why California has gotten a lot worse is probably more interesting. (I'm not sure how much worse, how or when, my Google fu wasn't good enough in 1-2 minutes to find anything beyond "In 1969, California's poverty rate was more than three points below the rest of the nation (9.1 percent compared to 12.5 percent)" in the summary of this: www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/cali-j13.shtml.)