6 ms·

You guys ever wonder why they don't choose California? These factories have huge environmental impacts that California is not okay with. These factories produce

You guys ever wonder why they don't choose California? These factories have huge environmental impacts that California is not okay with. These factories produce massive amounts of waste that cannot be recycled. This is also very likely to be the same exact reason as to why these talks didn't go so well in Europe. Arizona like Texas is more business friendly at the expense of not looking out for the well being of people who live in these locations. Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs. It's a strange balancing act that has a lot of potential for being over corrected for. Industry brings business and economic growth but ruins the environment and has harms the people living in the area. The insidious thing is environmental costs are paid for much much later. The consequences of being way to business friendly in these places may only be apparent a decade from now just like how the price of being too business unfriendly is now very apparent in California.

epistasis 5y ago
I don't really like the euphemism of "business friendly" when it means "companies don't have to pay for their externalities." California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas. The externalities are not minor either, there are 23 superfund sites in Santa Clara county from Silicon Valley's early years, where they did not bother to properly dispose of waste: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silicon-valley-full-superfund-sites/598531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic...
- neonological 5y ago
  >California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas. I don't know if you've been following the news lately of a bunch of companies moving OUT of California to Texas. One of these people is Elon Musk. And guess what? I have a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE I'm not saying California is wrong. Far from it. They're right. These laws are made to protect the people. Like you said, it's not minor at all. I never said it was minor. However ANY state can decide that economic growth is more important than environmental safety and short term health of its' citizens and make a strategic move to make it's own location much more attractive to business. So the costs aren't clear. Do we want an economic wasteland or an environmental wasteland? This is my point. California is not dead yet, but the trends have been pointing in this direction for years.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks). But these problems are because of its extreme prosperity and economic potential, not because there is any risk of that economic powerhouse stopping. The news reports are anecdotal, Musk is keeping California business but expanding production throughout the country, just as Tesla was before. Companies that are leaving are those that are less innovative and have fallen from the top of the value chain. They can no longer benefit from the extremely productive environment, but can scrape by with lower costs, such as Oracle. There's no need to sacrifice California's environment to continue to be an absolutely massive economic powerhouse. But we may need to sacrifice some of our bad ideas about land.
    - atweiden 5y ago
      > The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks). The wild housing market is 90% of the inequality. The other 90% can be summed up by this 1994 article in the New York Times [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligence-and-who-has-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligenc... [1]: https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligence-and-who-has-it.html https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-...
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      > The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. At one time people would have said the same about the Rust Belt. Times change.
      - epistasis 5y ago
        Yes, I agree with this. I should have added the qualifier "soon" to my prediction of California's future.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- seiferteric 5y ago
  Not sure the California of today is comparable to CA of decades ago when these superfund sites were mostly created. That being said we don't need any more thanks.
- burlesona 5y ago
  Having started and operated small businesses in California, North Carolina, and Texas, my experience was that California was by far more onerous and expensive than the other two (which were about the same).
  - epistasis 5y ago
    This is a definition of "business friendly" that I can support!
chrisco255 5y ago
If Texas is so bad then why are so many Californians moving here? It's not because they were unemployed in California.
- neonological 5y ago
  Let me make it clear. I never said Texas is bad. The other guy who replied to me thought I was saying California was bad. I'm giving an unbiased view. Both are bad, and both are good at the same time. I'm saying the pros and cons are not clear. California laws favor the people at the expense of business. So business leaves and people follow. Texas favors business at the expense of the people. Businesses chase profit at expense of the people, however profit is paid for from people themselves so usually when businesses harm people it's insidious and subtle and doesn't become apparent until years later. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and the whole pain killer scandal are primary examples. The harm these companies did to people were not apparent until much much later. What will happen in Texas is that the harm done to people by unregulated businesses will not be apparent until many years later. At that time regulations will slowly build up as people protest and demand the government to protect the people. This is what happened in California.... history repeating itself. It might take a decade or your entire lifetime for this change to occur and become fully realized. Meanwhile people will be harmed while California becomes more and more like Michigan.
  - rconti 5y ago
    Right; the folly is folks who say "place X has awful politics and stupid people and place Y is much better". No, place X has the same people with the same human impulses as place Y. They simply have different circumstances and different experiences at different times.
  - samatman 5y ago
    I don't think this framing is useful at all. People want to work a job and keep as much of the income as possible. They want to found businesses and make money. They also don't want poison in their water supply, or any of the numerous externalities which industry is in the habit of creating. Texas and California strike a very different balance in that landscape. The net result of which is that people are leaving California, and people are moving to Texas. Characterizing that as "California favors people and Texas favors business" is kinda weird, don't you think? Looks like Texas favors both, right at the moment.
oogabooga123 5y ago
> Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs. This isn’t “ironically”, this is literally the primary argument in favor of this policy angle.
- neonological 5y ago
  The entire purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. People choosing to give up this protection is the irony. For example. Tobacco kills people. Government looks out for the interests of the people and regulates Big Tobacco. So Big Tobacco moves to a place where it is unregulated and free to distribute tobacco even to minors. People "IRONICALLY" against their own self interest follow the company because of jobs and money. The above is just an example made really obvious. For semiconductors it's not so obvious. What exactly is the harm? It's not so evident, you need to do research to find out.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Nanny states are far worse than tobacco.
    - 29athrowaway 5y ago
      Before "nanny state" regulations, food used to be sold in a decomposed or rotten state, it was exposed to all sorts of contamination and merchants mixed it with all sorts of non-food such as wood. Having weird digestive illnesses was very common back in the day, as well as dying from them. Before "nanny state" regulations, you would work as much as your employer wanted you to work, you had no sick days, no vacation, no parental leave, no anything. Kids used to work in factories. If a woman got pregnant she would get fired from her job. If you got injured or sick at work then you would get fired as well. Before "nanny state" regulations, medications were usually snake oil. The market was full of elixirs and magical tonics for well-being that were ultimately a scam. Before "nanny state" regulations, you were free to dump any chemical you wanted anywhere you wanted. You were free to experiment with any animal you wanted in any way you wanted without any ethical or humane consideration whatsoever. You were free to scam any investor you wanted in any way you wanted... and you get the idea. Restaurant with rats? that was perfectly too. "Nanny state" is one of the most profoundly idiotic terms ever coined. Some regulations can be annoying, but clearly we are better off now than 100 years ago.
ahartmetz 5y ago
There is a lot of locally available know-how in Europe to handle ugly process chemicals cleanly - existing semiconductor fabs and chemicals factories (an important industry - BASF Ludwigshafen is the biggest chemicals complex in the world) are managing fine. I guess the problem is taxes, slow permissions bureaucracy (including environmental aspects), and lack of subsidies as discussed in other threads. Delays are probably most expensive due to the need to put the billions of capital to work while revenue per wafer is high.
kristofferR 5y ago
CNBC did a great little mini-documentary about Arizona tech yesterday [1], and one of the covered aspects were the insane water demands that comes from fabs. Arizona doesn't exactly have an abundance of water, they're already depleting aquafers, before the fabs have begun operation (a typical fab uses 2-4 million gallons of water per day). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjsLXvyXH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjsLXvyXH8
- nr2x 5y ago
  CNBC has been producing some really good content, very pleased the YT algo served it up for me.

epistasis 5y ago

I don't really like the euphemism of "business friendly" when it means "companies don't have to pay for their externalities." California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas. The externalities are not minor either, there are 23 superfund sites in Santa Clara county from Silicon Valley's early years, where they did not bother to properly dispose of waste: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silicon-valley-full-superfund-sites/598531/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic...

neonological 5y ago
>California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas. I don't know if you've been following the news lately of a bunch of companies moving OUT of California to Texas. One of these people is Elon Musk. And guess what? I have a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE I'm not saying California is wrong. Far from it. They're right. These laws are made to protect the people. Like you said, it's not minor at all. I never said it was minor. However ANY state can decide that economic growth is more important than environmental safety and short term health of its' citizens and make a strategic move to make it's own location much more attractive to business. So the costs aren't clear. Do we want an economic wasteland or an environmental wasteland? This is my point. California is not dead yet, but the trends have been pointing in this direction for years.
- epistasis 5y ago
  The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks). But these problems are because of its extreme prosperity and economic potential, not because there is any risk of that economic powerhouse stopping. The news reports are anecdotal, Musk is keeping California business but expanding production throughout the country, just as Tesla was before. Companies that are leaving are those that are less innovative and have fallen from the top of the value chain. They can no longer benefit from the extremely productive environment, but can scrape by with lower costs, such as Oracle. There's no need to sacrifice California's environment to continue to be an absolutely massive economic powerhouse. But we may need to sacrifice some of our bad ideas about land.
  - atweiden 5y ago
    > The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks). The wild housing market is 90% of the inequality. The other 90% can be summed up by this 1994 article in the New York Times [1]. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligence-and-who-has-it.html https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligenc... [1]: https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligence-and-who-has-it.html https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-...
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. At one time people would have said the same about the Rust Belt. Times change.
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Yes, I agree with this. I should have added the qualifier "soon" to my prediction of California's future.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
seiferteric 5y ago
Not sure the California of today is comparable to CA of decades ago when these superfund sites were mostly created. That being said we don't need any more thanks.
burlesona 5y ago
Having started and operated small businesses in California, North Carolina, and Texas, my experience was that California was by far more onerous and expensive than the other two (which were about the same).
- epistasis 5y ago
  This is a definition of "business friendly" that I can support!

chrisco255 5y ago

If Texas is so bad then why are so many Californians moving here? It's not because they were unemployed in California.

neonological 5y ago
Let me make it clear. I never said Texas is bad. The other guy who replied to me thought I was saying California was bad. I'm giving an unbiased view. Both are bad, and both are good at the same time. I'm saying the pros and cons are not clear. California laws favor the people at the expense of business. So business leaves and people follow. Texas favors business at the expense of the people. Businesses chase profit at expense of the people, however profit is paid for from people themselves so usually when businesses harm people it's insidious and subtle and doesn't become apparent until years later. Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and the whole pain killer scandal are primary examples. The harm these companies did to people were not apparent until much much later. What will happen in Texas is that the harm done to people by unregulated businesses will not be apparent until many years later. At that time regulations will slowly build up as people protest and demand the government to protect the people. This is what happened in California.... history repeating itself. It might take a decade or your entire lifetime for this change to occur and become fully realized. Meanwhile people will be harmed while California becomes more and more like Michigan.
- rconti 5y ago
  Right; the folly is folks who say "place X has awful politics and stupid people and place Y is much better". No, place X has the same people with the same human impulses as place Y. They simply have different circumstances and different experiences at different times.
- samatman 5y ago
  I don't think this framing is useful at all. People want to work a job and keep as much of the income as possible. They want to found businesses and make money. They also don't want poison in their water supply, or any of the numerous externalities which industry is in the habit of creating. Texas and California strike a very different balance in that landscape. The net result of which is that people are leaving California, and people are moving to Texas. Characterizing that as "California favors people and Texas favors business" is kinda weird, don't you think? Looks like Texas favors both, right at the moment.

oogabooga123 5y ago

> Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs. This isn’t “ironically”, this is literally the primary argument in favor of this policy angle.

neonological 5y ago
The entire purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. People choosing to give up this protection is the irony. For example. Tobacco kills people. Government looks out for the interests of the people and regulates Big Tobacco. So Big Tobacco moves to a place where it is unregulated and free to distribute tobacco even to minors. People "IRONICALLY" against their own self interest follow the company because of jobs and money. The above is just an example made really obvious. For semiconductors it's not so obvious. What exactly is the harm? It's not so evident, you need to do research to find out.
- nradov 5y ago
  Nanny states are far worse than tobacco.
  - 29athrowaway 5y ago
    Before "nanny state" regulations, food used to be sold in a decomposed or rotten state, it was exposed to all sorts of contamination and merchants mixed it with all sorts of non-food such as wood. Having weird digestive illnesses was very common back in the day, as well as dying from them. Before "nanny state" regulations, you would work as much as your employer wanted you to work, you had no sick days, no vacation, no parental leave, no anything. Kids used to work in factories. If a woman got pregnant she would get fired from her job. If you got injured or sick at work then you would get fired as well. Before "nanny state" regulations, medications were usually snake oil. The market was full of elixirs and magical tonics for well-being that were ultimately a scam. Before "nanny state" regulations, you were free to dump any chemical you wanted anywhere you wanted. You were free to experiment with any animal you wanted in any way you wanted without any ethical or humane consideration whatsoever. You were free to scam any investor you wanted in any way you wanted... and you get the idea. Restaurant with rats? that was perfectly too. "Nanny state" is one of the most profoundly idiotic terms ever coined. Some regulations can be annoying, but clearly we are better off now than 100 years ago.

ahartmetz 5y ago

There is a lot of locally available know-how in Europe to handle ugly process chemicals cleanly - existing semiconductor fabs and chemicals factories (an important industry - BASF Ludwigshafen is the biggest chemicals complex in the world) are managing fine. I guess the problem is taxes, slow permissions bureaucracy (including environmental aspects), and lack of subsidies as discussed in other threads. Delays are probably most expensive due to the need to put the billions of capital to work while revenue per wafer is high.

kristofferR 5y ago

CNBC did a great little mini-documentary about Arizona tech yesterday [1], and one of the covered aspects were the insane water demands that comes from fabs. Arizona doesn't exactly have an abundance of water, they're already depleting aquafers, before the fabs have begun operation (a typical fab uses 2-4 million gallons of water per day). [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjsLXvyXH8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCjsLXvyXH8

nr2x 5y ago
CNBC has been producing some really good content, very pleased the YT algo served it up for me.