First of all, California's economy is not going to be eclipsed by another state's any time soon. I know, the article doesn't explicitly talk GDP but hear me out

First of all, California's economy is not going to be eclipsed by another state's any time soon. I know, the article doesn't explicitly talk GDP but hear me out... 2010 California GDP per capita $51,914 2010 Texas GDP per capita $45,940 2010 California GDP $1,936,400,000,000 (#1 in the nation, 13.34% of total US GDP) 2010 Texas GDP $1,207,432,000,000 (#2 in the nation, 7.95% of total US GDP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP Although the exodus does signal a change, it's not going to affect California's economy as much as, say, Gov. Brown's policies. Perhaps the wsj author knows this? He might be attempting to bias Gov. Brown's policies with this posturing... Secondly, I don't believe an exodus of the middle class means anything! Take either the cynical view that they couldn't influence politics anyway. Or take the generous view that they were happy with politics but couldn't afford to stay. If the middle class gets up in arms about politics, you _hear_ about it. Admittedly, as a rule the middle class is pretty content. Choosing to move out-of-state is more about employment opportunities, life events, or even random whims before politics enters the equation (for the middle class; I wish I had a solid source to provide actual poll data on that). Finally, rent prices in the Bay Area might be an important discussion to have. So, how about some concrete historical data, a google maps mashup, or even plain old advertising (i.e. come live in Atherton, our rent went down last year! Note: I don't actually live in Atherton, that's a joke.) If your job is in Manhattan Beach, the same data for that area is probably available, but the LA and Bay Area housing economies are pretty much independent.