3 ms·

> Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years. It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was.

> Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years. It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was. Part of the reason you're now seeing other cities blossom in importance in film has to do with weather no longer being as important. What continues to be important that preserves Hollywood is the concentration of talent, which itself still has as its root the great weather that helped the industry establish itself there in the first place. While the weather may no longer be as important, it's the "natural resource" that made the region the epicenter of film in the first place. > Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move? I mentioned this exactly in the comment you're replying to and you ignored it. There was exactly one thing California got right and that is not enforcing non-compete agreements. This is why Fairchild Semiconductor spawned an entire industry and why companies like DEC around Route 128 did not. > Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world. Agree. But government has absolutely nothing to do with that. The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.

georgeecollins 6y ago
Sorry about missing your point about non-competes. You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. >> The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards. The Government is a reflection of the people. California has a more liberal government than some states because the voters are more liberal-- in general-- particularly socially. I am fifth generation, and lots of my relatives are very conservative but still pretty accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles. There's clearly some downside to that liberalism. You can see how countries in Europe struggle with having the taxes, the protections, and a healthy economy. But California tends to pull toward that model and other states pull to other models. Those other models also have downsides.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government. I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive. We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well-meaning but counterproductive policies.

georgeecollins 6y ago

Sorry about missing your point about non-competes. You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. >> The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards. The Government is a reflection of the people. California has a more liberal government than some states because the voters are more liberal-- in general-- particularly socially. I am fifth generation, and lots of my relatives are very conservative but still pretty accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles. There's clearly some downside to that liberalism. You can see how countries in Europe struggle with having the taxes, the protections, and a healthy economy. But California tends to pull toward that model and other states pull to other models. Those other models also have downsides.

malandrew 6y ago
> You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it. Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government. I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive. We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well-meaning but counterproductive policies.