5 ms·

The gist seems to be that despite numerous stories predicting its demise, California: - is wealthy and talented - has more (people, VC, etc.) than it did in 1

by webXL 16y ago

The gist seems to be that despite numerous stories predicting its demise, California: - is wealthy and talented - has more (people, VC, etc.) than it did in 1999 - has been funding the rest of the country in federal transfers (he calls them bailouts, therefore you can't complain if CA asks for one) - has a small budget deficit relative to its budget It leaves out $138B of unfunded liabilities for state employees until the end, and ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state, a growing number of people leaving the state (I'm one of them), and its awful credit rating. Unfortunately if I owe the bank money, I can't tell them how good of an investment I was up until 2008 and expect them to give me a pass. I need to figure out a way to come up with the money. California doesn't appear to be serious about that.

Locke1689 16y ago
and ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state Explain this to me. It seems obvious that companies would open datacenters outside of just California. What would be more obvious to me would be placing them close to 1) backbone hubs and 2) cheap electrical power.
- webXL 16y ago
  Well that's fine, but don't tout that your state is an engine of economic growth when the companies you mention decide to "offshore" major chunks of their operations. Figure out a way to keep them in state, or generate some kind of equivalent growth, maybe even outside silicon valley.
  - sagarm 16y ago
    > don't tout that your state is an engine of economic growth when the companies you mention decide to "offshore" major chunks of their operations You're clearly implying here that Californian companies are placing datacenters outside California because of state policies, which is simply incorrect. While it makes sense to put one datacenter somewhere in the vicinity of California, datacenters should be geographically distributed. It's also common to place datacenters near rivers for cheap cooling, but good sites are relatively rare. Now consider competitive bidding from cities, cheap power, and wanting to locate datacenters near users. Basically, state policies have a relatively small impact.
    - webXL 16y ago
      I conceded that point about the datacenters, but we both know that a lot of tech companies in California offshore their manufacturing, call centers, etc. Get some of that to stay with state policies. Reason has some more evidence why the article is bunk: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/is-californias-decline-just-mo http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/is-californias-decline-jus...
sabat 16y ago
Well, wait -- ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state The bulk of Facebook's employees don't work in datacenters, and (as another poster noted), big companies do this for redundancy and to reduce latency -- not because of some ill will against the state. a growing number of people leaving the state (I'm one of them) Sounds anecdotal to me, and I've noticed nothing but a surge of out-of-state license plates in the past few months -- but given a population of some 40 million, I don't think a "growing number" of people leaving is a huge problem. It's the economy, not strictly the population number. California doesn't appear to be serious about [owing money]. No more or less than any other state.
- webXL 16y ago
  Sounds anecdotal to me More people leave California than arrive: http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-09-05/finance/24551853_1_manufacturer-moves-headquarters-move-firm http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-09-05/finance/24551853_1... My main point was that while silicon valley might be booming, the rest of the state isn't. The article doesn't address that fact.
aidenn0 16y ago
"It leaves out $138B of unfunded liabilities for state employees until the end, and ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state, a growing number of people leaving the state (I'm one of them), and its awful credit rating." From the article: "But how big are these costs in California? The non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office in Sacramento estimates there’s a $136 billion gap in the state pension and benefits system. It may work out to more or less. But that’s the actuarial figure at the moment."
- webXL 16y ago
  I said "until the end". If you only read 80% of the article, you would think CA was an oasis of economic growth with a model government. If I were trying to persuade people that things aren't so bad in CA, I would start with the most glaring problem and perhaps offer reasons why it isn't a problem, or state how the problem will be overcome. Sure that $136B gap is only 1/7 of the CA GDP, but a lot of that GDP is being siphoned by the Fed's gap, too.

by webXL 16y ago

Locke1689 16y ago

and ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state Explain this to me. It seems obvious that companies would open datacenters outside of just California. What would be more obvious to me would be placing them close to 1) backbone hubs and 2) cheap electrical power.

webXL 16y ago
Well that's fine, but don't tout that your state is an engine of economic growth when the companies you mention decide to "offshore" major chunks of their operations. Figure out a way to keep them in state, or generate some kind of equivalent growth, maybe even outside silicon valley.
- sagarm 16y ago
  > don't tout that your state is an engine of economic growth when the companies you mention decide to "offshore" major chunks of their operations You're clearly implying here that Californian companies are placing datacenters outside California because of state policies, which is simply incorrect. While it makes sense to put one datacenter somewhere in the vicinity of California, datacenters should be geographically distributed. It's also common to place datacenters near rivers for cheap cooling, but good sites are relatively rare. Now consider competitive bidding from cities, cheap power, and wanting to locate datacenters near users. Basically, state policies have a relatively small impact.
  - webXL 16y ago
    I conceded that point about the datacenters, but we both know that a lot of tech companies in California offshore their manufacturing, call centers, etc. Get some of that to stay with state policies. Reason has some more evidence why the article is bunk: http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/is-californias-decline-just-mo http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/29/is-californias-decline-jus...

sabat 16y ago

Well, wait -- ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state The bulk of Facebook's employees don't work in datacenters, and (as another poster noted), big companies do this for redundancy and to reduce latency -- not because of some ill will against the state. a growing number of people leaving the state (I'm one of them) Sounds anecdotal to me, and I've noticed nothing but a surge of out-of-state license plates in the past few months -- but given a population of some 40 million, I don't think a "growing number" of people leaving is a huge problem. It's the economy, not strictly the population number. California doesn't appear to be serious about [owing money]. No more or less than any other state.

webXL 16y ago
Sounds anecdotal to me More people leave California than arrive: http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-09-05/finance/24551853_1_manufacturer-moves-headquarters-move-firm http://articles.ocregister.com/2010-09-05/finance/24551853_1... My main point was that while silicon valley might be booming, the rest of the state isn't. The article doesn't address that fact.

aidenn0 16y ago

"It leaves out $138B of unfunded liabilities for state employees until the end, and ignores companies like Facebook opening datacenters out of state, a growing number of people leaving the state (I'm one of them), and its awful credit rating." From the article: "But how big are these costs in California? The non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office in Sacramento estimates there’s a $136 billion gap in the state pension and benefits system. It may work out to more or less. But that’s the actuarial figure at the moment."

webXL 16y ago
I said "until the end". If you only read 80% of the article, you would think CA was an oasis of economic growth with a model government. If I were trying to persuade people that things aren't so bad in CA, I would start with the most glaring problem and perhaps offer reasons why it isn't a problem, or state how the problem will be overcome. Sure that $136B gap is only 1/7 of the CA GDP, but a lot of that GDP is being siphoned by the Fed's gap, too.