2 ms·
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 di
by 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.