7 ms·

This is no way to run a state. The Democrat-dominated legislature passes everything that comes before it (and rejects anything that the GOP touches, in committe

This is no way to run a state. The Democrat-dominated legislature passes everything that comes before it (and rejects anything that the GOP touches, in committee) and then the Governor needs to veto the looniest 20% of them to keep us from falling into total chaos. This AI bill was far from the worst one. "Vote out the legislators!" but for who... the Republican party? And we don't even get a choice on the general ballot most of the time, thanks to "Open Primaries". It's good that Newsom is wise enough to muddle through, but this is an awful system. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-gov-newsom-is-vetoing-1-of-every-5-bills-heres-why/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/california-gov-ne...

thinkingtoilet 2y ago
If California was it's own country, it would be one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric.
- dragonwriter 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in mississippi
    - moomoo11 2y ago
      Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people. I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD. I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.
      - chirau 2y ago
        how would you rank the states you have lived in by those metrics(social programming + doing good for the people)?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        moomoo11 2y ago
        Only CA and WA stand out. The rest are awful. TX doesn’t even make the list.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      You say that, but being poor where everyone else is poor is generally better than being poor where you are surrounded by wealth.
      - phatfish 2y ago
        So people are better off being poor in South America or North Africa, than being poor in the US or Europe?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - hiddencost 2y ago
    Gimmie that sweet SALT deduction back. (It's not actually that high on my list.)
- toephu2 2y ago
  > but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government.
  - WWLink 2y ago
    What are you getting at? Is a state government supposed to be profitable? LOL
  - nashashmi 2y ago
    Do you mean to say that the government was deeply underwater a few years ago? And the state marred by forest fires that it was frightening to see if it could ever come back ?
  - cma 2y ago
    > The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. Tesla received billions in subsidies from CA as an example.
    - toephu2 2y ago
      Which it paid back in full + interest.
      - cma 2y ago
        Here's an example, took the money and delivered mostly an infeasible version of battery swapping with probably their existing factory install tech lightly modified: https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600 https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600
  - labster 2y ago
    I think California might have a better run government if it had an electable conservative party. The Republican Party is not that, being tied to the national Trump-Vance-Orbán axis. A center-right party could hold Democratic officers accountable but it’s not being offered and moderates gravitate to the electable Dem side. An independent California would largely fix that. As a lifelong California Democrat, I realize that my party does not have all the answers. But the conservatives have all gone AWOL or gone batshit so we’re doing the best we can without the other half of the dialectic.
- ken47 2y ago
  You're going to attribute even a small % of this to politicians rather than the actual innovators? Sure, then let's say they're responsible for some small % of its success. They're smart enough to not nuke their own economy.
- LeroyRaz 2y ago
  The state has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the whole country (28%). To me, that implies they have some issue of governance. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy... To be fair in the comparison, the literacy statistics for the whole of the US are pretty shocking from a European perspective.
  - hydrox24 2y ago
    For any others reading this, the _illiteracy_ rate is 23.1% in California according to the parent's source. This is indeed the highest illiteracy rate in the US thought. Having said that, I would have thought this was partially a measure of migration. Perhaps illegal migration?
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      The "medium to high English literacy skills" is the part that is important. If you can read and write Chinese and Spanish and French and Portuguese and Esperanto at a high level, but not English at a medium to high level, you are 'illiterate' in this stat.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - 0_____0 2y ago
    The data you're showing doesn't appear to differentiate between "Can read English" and "Can read in some language". Big immigrant population, same with New York. Having grown up in California I can tell you that there aren't 28% of kids coming out of public school who can't read anything. Edit to add: my own hometown had a lot of people who couldn't speak English. Lots of elderly mothers of Chinese immigrants whose adult children were in STEM and whose own kids were headed to uni. Not to say that's representative, but consider that a single percentage stat won't give you an accurate picture of what's going on.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  California is the largest recipient of federal money. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-... (I know by population it will be different, but the argument here is around 'one of the the biggest' which is not a per capita statement.) > Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric You can apply the same logic to USA. USA is one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many countries that are far worse off in any key metric.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    California is also the largest source of Federal revenue: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collections-by-type-of-tax-and-state-irs-data-book-table-5 https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collectio... As your link shows, a much smaller %age of CA government revenue comes from the federal government vs most other states; in that sense California is a net contributor rather than a net taker.
    - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
      What is that by capita?
- kortilla 2y ago
  What is success in your metric? are you just counting GDP of companies that happen to be located there? If so, that has very little relationship to how well the state is being run. It’s very easy to make arguments that they are successful in spite of a terribly run state government and are being protected by federal laws keeping the loonies in check (interstate commerce clause, etc).
  - peter422 2y ago
    So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point. Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.
    - strawhatguy 2y ago
      I'd go stronger still: the good things about any state has little to do with the governance. Innovators, makers, risk-takers, etc., are who makes the good things happen. The very little needed is rule of law, and that's about it. Beyond that, it starts distorting society quickly: measures meant to help someone inevitably cost several someones else, and become weapons to beat down competitors.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      > So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point. No, I’m saying people who think the state is successful because of its state government and not because it’s a part of the US are out of touch. If California wasn’t part of the US, Silicon Valley would be a shadow of itself or wouldn’t exist at all. It thrives on being the tech Mecca for the youth of the entire US to go to school there and get jobs there. If there were immigration barriers there, there would be significant incentive to just go to something in the US (nyc, Chicago, Miami, wherever). California had a massive GDP because that’s where US citizens are congregating to do business, not because California is good at making businesses go. Remove spigot of brain drain from the rest of country and cali would be fucked. Secondarily, Silicon Valley wouldn’t have started at all without the funnel of money from the fed military, NASA, etc. But that’s not worth dwelling on if the scenario is California leaving now. My overall point is that California has immense success due to reasons far outside of the control of its state government. The state has done very little to help the tech industry apart from maybe the ban on non-competes. When people start to credit the large GDP to the government, that’s some super scary shit that leads to ideas that will quickly kill the golden goose.
- tightbookkeeper 2y ago
  In this case the success is in spite of the governance rather than because of it. The golden age of California was a long time ago.
  - dmix 2y ago
    California was extremely successful for quite some time. They benefited from a large population boom and lots of industry developed or moved there. And surprisingly they were a republican state from 1952 -> 1988.
  - aagha 2y ago
    LOL. California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.
    - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
      Yeah it’s incredibly beautiful. People wish they could live there. And many large companies were built there in prior decades. This contradicts my comment how?
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
      California is the most populous state in the US, larger than most European countries, it would be surprising if it didn't have a large GDP regardless of its economy. On a per capita basis, less populous tech-heavy States like Washington and Massachusetts have even higher GDP.
    - anon291 2y ago
      Undoubtedly, California has a stellar economy, but you see, states like Texas, which are objectively awful to live in (flat, no interesting geography in the most populated parts of the state, terrible weather, hurricanes, etc), are also similarly well positioned in the rankings of GDP. If Texas were a country, it'd be the 8th largest economy in the world! This is a figure much less often cited. Texas has a smaller population 30 million v 38 million and is growing much faster in real terms (2.1% v 5.7%). This is in spite of its objective awfulness. People are moving to Texas because of the economy. If Texas were in California's geographic position, one would imagine it to be an even more popular destination. This isn't an endorsement of the Texan government, because there are many things I disagree with them on. But the idea that California's economy is singularly unique in the United States is silly. Many states with objectively worse attributes are faring just as well, and may even be poised to overtake california. How embarassing would it be for Texas, a hot muggy swamp of a state with awful geography and terrible weather, to overtake beautiful California economically? To think people would actually eschew the ocean and the mediterranean climate and perfect weather to move to Texas simply because California mismanaged the state so much. This is the real risk. Models show that by 2049, Texas will overtake california as the more populous and more economically productive state. Is that really the future you want? Is that the future California deserves? As a native Californian, I hope the state can turn itself around. It deserves to be a great state, but the path its on is one of decline. One need just look at almost any metric. It's no just population or economy. Even by 'liberal' metrics, Texas is growing. For example, Texas has the largest growth rate in alternative energy sources: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-trumps-california-key-us-energy-transition-driver-2023-05-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-trumps-cal.... There's a very clear growth curve in Texas, while California's is much choppier and doesn't appear to be going in any particular direction. At some point Californians need to actually want to continue winning instead of resting on their laurels.
- hbarka 2y ago
  High speed trains would do even more for California and would be the envy of the rest of the country.
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    Like most things, the facts bear out the exact opposite. The CA HSR has been such a complete failure that it’s probably set back rail a decade or more. The only saving grace is Florida’s privatized high speed rail, otherwise it would be a completely failed industry.
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      You're not disproving the OP's assertion. His claim was that HSR (with the implication that it was actually built and working properly) would be good for California and be the envy of the rest of the country, and that seems to be true. The problem is that California tried to do HSR and completely bungled it somehow. Well, of course a bungled project that never gets completed isn't a great thing, that should go without saying. As for Florida's "HSR", it doesn't really qualify for the "HS" part. The fastest segment is only 200kph. At least it's built and working, which is nice and all, but it's not a real bullet train. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline)
    - anon291 2y ago
      Part of the problem is the transit activist's obsession with public transit instead of just transit. At this rate, Brightline will likely have an HSR in California before the government does. We need to make private transit great again, and California should lead the way. Transit is transit, whether it's funded by government or private interests.
- aagha 2y ago
  Thank you. I always think about this whenever someone says CA doesn't know what it's doing or it's being run wrong: California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.
  - anon291 2y ago
    And Texas, which 10 million fewer people is the eighth largest economy in the world, and growing at more than double the speed of Californias. This accomplishment (which is something to be proud of) is not unique to California.
- nradov 2y ago
  California is being terribly misgoverned, as you would expect in any single-party state. In some sense California has become like a petro-state afflicted by the resource curse: the tech industry throws off so much cash that the state runs reasonably well, not because of the government but in spite of it. We can afford to waste government resources on frivolous nonsense. And this isn't a partisan dig at Democrats. If a Republicans controlled everything then the situation would be just as bad but in different ways.
- anon291 2y ago
  California has unique geographic features that make it well positioned. It also has strategic geographic resources (like oil). This is like using Saudi Arabia as a standard of governance since they have greatly improved material conditions using oil money. California does do several things very well. It also does several things poorly. Pointing out its current economic standing does not change that. The fallacy here is that we have to compare california against the best version of itself. Alaska is never going to be a California-level economy because the geography dictates that only a certain kind of person / company will set up there, for example. That doesn't mean the Alaskan government is necessarily bad. Every state has to work within its limits to achieve the best version of itself. Is california the best it could be? I think the answer is obviously no.
dyauspitr 2y ago
Compared to whom? What is this hypothetical well run state. Because it’s hard to talk shit against the state that has the 8th largest economy on the world nation state economy ranking.
dredmorbius 2y ago
Thankfully there are no such similarly single-party states elsewhere in the Union dominated by another party, and if they were, their executives would similarly veto the most inane legislation passed. </s>
rootusrootus 2y ago
The subtle rebranding of Democratic party to democrat party is a pretty strong tell for highly partisan perspective. How does California compare with similarly large Republican-dominated states? Anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of really bad legislation originating from any legislature that has no meaningful opposition.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  It's such a long-running thing that it's hard to gauge whether it's deliberate or just loose usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    It's rather decidedly a dog whistle presently.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - jimmygrapes 2y ago
    The party isn't doing much lately to encourage the actual democracy part of the name, other than whining about national popular vote every 4 years knowing full well that's now how that process works.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      The Democratic Party has some warts, this is for sure, and they have a lot they could be doing to improve participation and input from the rank-and-file. However, attempting to subvert an election by any means possible is not yet one of those warts. This is emphatically not a case where "both sides suck equally."
      - stufffer 2y ago
dehrmann 2y ago
Not sure of Newsom is actually wise enough or if his presidential ambitions moderate his policies.
- ravenstine 2y ago
  It could be presidential ambitions, though I suspect his recent policies have been merely a way of not giving conservatives more ammo leading up to the 2024 election. The way he's been behaving recently is in stark contrast to pretty much everything he's done during and before his governorship. I don't think it's because he's suddenly any wiser.
  - jart 2y ago
    Newsom was a successful entrepreneur in the 1990s who built wineries. That alone would make him popular with conservative voters nationwide. What did Newsom do before that you thought would alienate them? Being pro-gay and pro-drug before it was cool? Come on. The way I see it, if Newsom was nuts enough to run for president, then he could unite left and right in a way that has not happened in a very long time.
    - kanwisher 2y ago
      No one even slightly right would vote for him, he is the poster child of the homeless industrial complex, being anti business and generally promoting social policies only the most fringe left wingers are excited about

thinkingtoilet 2y ago

If California was it's own country, it would be one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric.

dragonwriter 2y ago
[flagged]
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  I'd much rather be poor in California than poor in mississippi
  - moomoo11 2y ago
    Yep. As someone who moved to California I honestly can’t imagine living anywhere else. This state has so much good social programming and tries to do good for its people. It also helps that most Californians are awesome people. I’ve been in TX (hard nope), NY, NJ, VA, DC, OH, WA, OR, and MD. I would honestly never move out of California there’s no better place I can think of.
    - chirau 2y ago
      how would you rank the states you have lived in by those metrics(social programming + doing good for the people)?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - moomoo11 2y ago
        Only CA and WA stand out. The rest are awful. TX doesn’t even make the list.
  - Workaccount2 2y ago
    You say that, but being poor where everyone else is poor is generally better than being poor where you are surrounded by wealth.
    - phatfish 2y ago
      So people are better off being poor in South America or North Africa, than being poor in the US or Europe?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- hiddencost 2y ago
  Gimmie that sweet SALT deduction back. (It's not actually that high on my list.)
toephu2 2y ago
> but it's being run just fine As a Californian I have to disagree. The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. The only reason California would be the 4th/5th largest economy in the world is because of the the tech industry and other industries that are in California (Hollywood, agriculture, etc). It's not because we have some awesome efficiently run state government.
- WWLink 2y ago
  What are you getting at? Is a state government supposed to be profitable? LOL
- nashashmi 2y ago
  Do you mean to say that the government was deeply underwater a few years ago? And the state marred by forest fires that it was frightening to see if it could ever come back ?
- cma 2y ago
  > The only reason you think it's being run just fine is because of the success of the private sector. Tesla received billions in subsidies from CA as an example.
  - toephu2 2y ago
    Which it paid back in full + interest.
    - cma 2y ago
      Here's an example, took the money and delivered mostly an infeasible version of battery swapping with probably their existing factory install tech lightly modified: https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600 https://centerforjobs.org/?p=4600
- labster 2y ago
  I think California might have a better run government if it had an electable conservative party. The Republican Party is not that, being tied to the national Trump-Vance-Orbán axis. A center-right party could hold Democratic officers accountable but it’s not being offered and moderates gravitate to the electable Dem side. An independent California would largely fix that. As a lifelong California Democrat, I realize that my party does not have all the answers. But the conservatives have all gone AWOL or gone batshit so we’re doing the best we can without the other half of the dialectic.
ken47 2y ago
You're going to attribute even a small % of this to politicians rather than the actual innovators? Sure, then let's say they're responsible for some small % of its success. They're smart enough to not nuke their own economy.
LeroyRaz 2y ago
The state has one of the highest illiteracy rates in the whole country (28%). To me, that implies they have some issue of governance. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy-rates-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/us-literacy... To be fair in the comparison, the literacy statistics for the whole of the US are pretty shocking from a European perspective.
- hydrox24 2y ago
  For any others reading this, the _illiteracy_ rate is 23.1% in California according to the parent's source. This is indeed the highest illiteracy rate in the US thought. Having said that, I would have thought this was partially a measure of migration. Perhaps illegal migration?
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    The "medium to high English literacy skills" is the part that is important. If you can read and write Chinese and Spanish and French and Portuguese and Esperanto at a high level, but not English at a medium to high level, you are 'illiterate' in this stat.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- 0_____0 2y ago
  The data you're showing doesn't appear to differentiate between "Can read English" and "Can read in some language". Big immigrant population, same with New York. Having grown up in California I can tell you that there aren't 28% of kids coming out of public school who can't read anything. Edit to add: my own hometown had a lot of people who couldn't speak English. Lots of elderly mothers of Chinese immigrants whose adult children were in STEM and whose own kids were headed to uni. Not to say that's representative, but consider that a single percentage stat won't give you an accurate picture of what's going on.
cscurmudgeon 2y ago
California is the largest recipient of federal money. https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-federal-aid/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-rely-the-most-on-... (I know by population it will be different, but the argument here is around 'one of the the biggest' which is not a per capita statement.) > Objectively, there are many states that are far worse off in any key metric You can apply the same logic to USA. USA is one of the biggest most successful countries in the world. Like every where else it has it's problems but it's being run just fine. Objectively, there are many countries that are far worse off in any key metric.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  California is also the largest source of Federal revenue: https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collections-by-type-of-tax-and-state-irs-data-book-table-5 https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-gross-collectio... As your link shows, a much smaller %age of CA government revenue comes from the federal government vs most other states; in that sense California is a net contributor rather than a net taker.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    What is that by capita?
kortilla 2y ago
What is success in your metric? are you just counting GDP of companies that happen to be located there? If so, that has very little relationship to how well the state is being run. It’s very easy to make arguments that they are successful in spite of a terribly run state government and are being protected by federal laws keeping the loonies in check (interstate commerce clause, etc).
- peter422 2y ago
  So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point. Also, I'd argue that if you broke down the contributions to the state's rules and regulations from the local governments, the ballot initiatives and the state government, the state government is creating the most benefit and least harm of the 3.
  - strawhatguy 2y ago
    I'd go stronger still: the good things about any state has little to do with the governance. Innovators, makers, risk-takers, etc., are who makes the good things happen. The very little needed is rule of law, and that's about it. Beyond that, it starts distorting society quickly: measures meant to help someone inevitably cost several someones else, and become weapons to beat down competitors.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    > So your argument is that the good things about the state have nothing to do with the governance, but all the bad things do? Just want to make sure I get your point. No, I’m saying people who think the state is successful because of its state government and not because it’s a part of the US are out of touch. If California wasn’t part of the US, Silicon Valley would be a shadow of itself or wouldn’t exist at all. It thrives on being the tech Mecca for the youth of the entire US to go to school there and get jobs there. If there were immigration barriers there, there would be significant incentive to just go to something in the US (nyc, Chicago, Miami, wherever). California had a massive GDP because that’s where US citizens are congregating to do business, not because California is good at making businesses go. Remove spigot of brain drain from the rest of country and cali would be fucked. Secondarily, Silicon Valley wouldn’t have started at all without the funnel of money from the fed military, NASA, etc. But that’s not worth dwelling on if the scenario is California leaving now. My overall point is that California has immense success due to reasons far outside of the control of its state government. The state has done very little to help the tech industry apart from maybe the ban on non-competes. When people start to credit the large GDP to the government, that’s some super scary shit that leads to ideas that will quickly kill the golden goose.
tightbookkeeper 2y ago
In this case the success is in spite of the governance rather than because of it. The golden age of California was a long time ago.
- dmix 2y ago
  California was extremely successful for quite some time. They benefited from a large population boom and lots of industry developed or moved there. And surprisingly they were a republican state from 1952 -> 1988.
- aagha 2y ago
  LOL. California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.
  - tightbookkeeper 2y ago
    Yeah it’s incredibly beautiful. People wish they could live there. And many large companies were built there in prior decades. This contradicts my comment how?
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    California is the most populous state in the US, larger than most European countries, it would be surprising if it didn't have a large GDP regardless of its economy. On a per capita basis, less populous tech-heavy States like Washington and Massachusetts have even higher GDP.
  - anon291 2y ago
    Undoubtedly, California has a stellar economy, but you see, states like Texas, which are objectively awful to live in (flat, no interesting geography in the most populated parts of the state, terrible weather, hurricanes, etc), are also similarly well positioned in the rankings of GDP. If Texas were a country, it'd be the 8th largest economy in the world! This is a figure much less often cited. Texas has a smaller population 30 million v 38 million and is growing much faster in real terms (2.1% v 5.7%). This is in spite of its objective awfulness. People are moving to Texas because of the economy. If Texas were in California's geographic position, one would imagine it to be an even more popular destination. This isn't an endorsement of the Texan government, because there are many things I disagree with them on. But the idea that California's economy is singularly unique in the United States is silly. Many states with objectively worse attributes are faring just as well, and may even be poised to overtake california. How embarassing would it be for Texas, a hot muggy swamp of a state with awful geography and terrible weather, to overtake beautiful California economically? To think people would actually eschew the ocean and the mediterranean climate and perfect weather to move to Texas simply because California mismanaged the state so much. This is the real risk. Models show that by 2049, Texas will overtake california as the more populous and more economically productive state. Is that really the future you want? Is that the future California deserves? As a native Californian, I hope the state can turn itself around. It deserves to be a great state, but the path its on is one of decline. One need just look at almost any metric. It's no just population or economy. Even by 'liberal' metrics, Texas is growing. For example, Texas has the largest growth rate in alternative energy sources: https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-trumps-california-key-us-energy-transition-driver-2023-05-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/texas-trumps-cal.... There's a very clear growth curve in Texas, while California's is much choppier and doesn't appear to be going in any particular direction. At some point Californians need to actually want to continue winning instead of resting on their laurels.
hbarka 2y ago
High speed trains would do even more for California and would be the envy of the rest of the country.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  Like most things, the facts bear out the exact opposite. The CA HSR has been such a complete failure that it’s probably set back rail a decade or more. The only saving grace is Florida’s privatized high speed rail, otherwise it would be a completely failed industry.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    You're not disproving the OP's assertion. His claim was that HSR (with the implication that it was actually built and working properly) would be good for California and be the envy of the rest of the country, and that seems to be true. The problem is that California tried to do HSR and completely bungled it somehow. Well, of course a bungled project that never gets completed isn't a great thing, that should go without saying. As for Florida's "HSR", it doesn't really qualify for the "HS" part. The fastest segment is only 200kph. At least it's built and working, which is nice and all, but it's not a real bullet train. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline)
  - anon291 2y ago
    Part of the problem is the transit activist's obsession with public transit instead of just transit. At this rate, Brightline will likely have an HSR in California before the government does. We need to make private transit great again, and California should lead the way. Transit is transit, whether it's funded by government or private interests.
aagha 2y ago
Thank you. I always think about this whenever someone says CA doesn't know what it's doing or it's being run wrong: California's GDP in 2023 was $3.8T, representing 14% of the total U.S. economy. If California were a country, it would be the 5th largest economy in the world and more productive than India and the United Kingdom.
- anon291 2y ago
  And Texas, which 10 million fewer people is the eighth largest economy in the world, and growing at more than double the speed of Californias. This accomplishment (which is something to be proud of) is not unique to California.
nradov 2y ago
California is being terribly misgoverned, as you would expect in any single-party state. In some sense California has become like a petro-state afflicted by the resource curse: the tech industry throws off so much cash that the state runs reasonably well, not because of the government but in spite of it. We can afford to waste government resources on frivolous nonsense. And this isn't a partisan dig at Democrats. If a Republicans controlled everything then the situation would be just as bad but in different ways.
anon291 2y ago
California has unique geographic features that make it well positioned. It also has strategic geographic resources (like oil). This is like using Saudi Arabia as a standard of governance since they have greatly improved material conditions using oil money. California does do several things very well. It also does several things poorly. Pointing out its current economic standing does not change that. The fallacy here is that we have to compare california against the best version of itself. Alaska is never going to be a California-level economy because the geography dictates that only a certain kind of person / company will set up there, for example. That doesn't mean the Alaskan government is necessarily bad. Every state has to work within its limits to achieve the best version of itself. Is california the best it could be? I think the answer is obviously no.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Compared to whom? What is this hypothetical well run state. Because it’s hard to talk shit against the state that has the 8th largest economy on the world nation state economy ranking.

dredmorbius 2y ago

Thankfully there are no such similarly single-party states elsewhere in the Union dominated by another party, and if they were, their executives would similarly veto the most inane legislation passed. </s>

rootusrootus 2y ago

The subtle rebranding of Democratic party to democrat party is a pretty strong tell for highly partisan perspective. How does California compare with similarly large Republican-dominated states? Anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of really bad legislation originating from any legislature that has no meaningful opposition.

anigbrowl 2y ago
It's such a long-running thing that it's hard to gauge whether it's deliberate or just loose usage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  It's rather decidedly a dog whistle presently.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- jimmygrapes 2y ago
  The party isn't doing much lately to encourage the actual democracy part of the name, other than whining about national popular vote every 4 years knowing full well that's now how that process works.
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    The Democratic Party has some warts, this is for sure, and they have a lot they could be doing to improve participation and input from the rank-and-file. However, attempting to subvert an election by any means possible is not yet one of those warts. This is emphatically not a case where "both sides suck equally."
    - stufffer 2y ago

dehrmann 2y ago

Not sure of Newsom is actually wise enough or if his presidential ambitions moderate his policies.

ravenstine 2y ago
It could be presidential ambitions, though I suspect his recent policies have been merely a way of not giving conservatives more ammo leading up to the 2024 election. The way he's been behaving recently is in stark contrast to pretty much everything he's done during and before his governorship. I don't think it's because he's suddenly any wiser.
- jart 2y ago
  Newsom was a successful entrepreneur in the 1990s who built wineries. That alone would make him popular with conservative voters nationwide. What did Newsom do before that you thought would alienate them? Being pro-gay and pro-drug before it was cool? Come on. The way I see it, if Newsom was nuts enough to run for president, then he could unite left and right in a way that has not happened in a very long time.
  - kanwisher 2y ago
    No one even slightly right would vote for him, he is the poster child of the homeless industrial complex, being anti business and generally promoting social policies only the most fringe left wingers are excited about