3 ms·

> And they say California is anti-business. (which it is.) If you break up the US states as countries, California is the world's 4th largest economy. source:

by cowpig 2y ago

> And they say California is anti-business. (which it is.) If you break up the US states as countries, California is the world's 4th largest economy. source: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/16/california-remains-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/ https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/16/california-remains-the-wor...

fragmede 2y ago
That's despite how hard it is to start a business there, not because of it. Try and start a factory and see how far you get before regulations and environmental studies bankrupt you. Try building anything and die on the permitting table, or skip the permits and try and bribe the regulatory commision. Either way that's overhead. The Bay Area's housing crisis is a problem of its own making. NIMBYs everywhere. They even tried to develop Solano county and got shit all over. It could be a global industrial epicenter like Shenzhen, except for that one tree frog. Businesses are moving to Austin and elsewhere because of how hard it is to do business in California. Whatever you think of Elon, he moved a shitton of Tesla jobs out of state because of the obstacles in creating them.
- cowpig 2y ago
  Is it possible that "speed of opening a factory" is not equivalent to "best conditions for businesses in general"
  - fragmede 2y ago
    businesses operate on money, and time is money, so speed of opening a factory is very much about the best condition for business. It's not the only one, mind you, but if it costs an extra million dollars in lost revenue to start a business because the permitting process took an extra year, then why would you not start the business somewhere else that didn't cost you that extra million?
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Speed of opening a factory is one of many conditions required for business. There are many factors and different businesses have different needs, so anyone who claims one is most important is wrong. For a lot of them speed of opening a factory is important, for others it doesn't matter.
  - floatrock 2y ago
    Woah now Mr. Europe. That sounds dangerously close to favoring human dignity over maximizing shareholder value. We don't do that here in these parts.
palata 2y ago
What are they waiting for? They can unilaterally leave the union, right?
- vel0city 2y ago
  No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
  - palata 2y ago
    > In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. How does it work? Doesn't it mean that if a state seceded now, the Supreme Court may still decide that it is constitutional? Genuinely interested.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      The full quote: When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 A state cannot itself just decide to leave. It has to be allowed to go or successfully fight its way out of it. The secessionists' revolution failed; thus they were never not a part of the US. So, I guess they could unilaterally leave, assuming they win their revolutionary war. But otherwise no, they can't unilaterally leave without the rest of the union agreeing to it somehow. The governor can't just sign a piece of paper and say California is now its own country separate from the United States and have that take effect from the perspective of the federal government. California would still be legally considered a State in the United States.

by cowpig 2y ago

fragmede 2y ago

That's despite how hard it is to start a business there, not because of it. Try and start a factory and see how far you get before regulations and environmental studies bankrupt you. Try building anything and die on the permitting table, or skip the permits and try and bribe the regulatory commision. Either way that's overhead. The Bay Area's housing crisis is a problem of its own making. NIMBYs everywhere. They even tried to develop Solano county and got shit all over. It could be a global industrial epicenter like Shenzhen, except for that one tree frog. Businesses are moving to Austin and elsewhere because of how hard it is to do business in California. Whatever you think of Elon, he moved a shitton of Tesla jobs out of state because of the obstacles in creating them.

cowpig 2y ago
Is it possible that "speed of opening a factory" is not equivalent to "best conditions for businesses in general"
- fragmede 2y ago
  businesses operate on money, and time is money, so speed of opening a factory is very much about the best condition for business. It's not the only one, mind you, but if it costs an extra million dollars in lost revenue to start a business because the permitting process took an extra year, then why would you not start the business somewhere else that didn't cost you that extra million?
- bluGill 2y ago
  Speed of opening a factory is one of many conditions required for business. There are many factors and different businesses have different needs, so anyone who claims one is most important is wrong. For a lot of them speed of opening a factory is important, for others it doesn't matter.
- floatrock 2y ago
  Woah now Mr. Europe. That sounds dangerously close to favoring human dignity over maximizing shareholder value. We don't do that here in these parts.

palata 2y ago

What are they waiting for? They can unilaterally leave the union, right?

vel0city 2y ago
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
- palata 2y ago
  > In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. How does it work? Doesn't it mean that if a state seceded now, the Supreme Court may still decide that it is constitutional? Genuinely interested.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    The full quote: When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. - Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 A state cannot itself just decide to leave. It has to be allowed to go or successfully fight its way out of it. The secessionists' revolution failed; thus they were never not a part of the US. So, I guess they could unilaterally leave, assuming they win their revolutionary war. But otherwise no, they can't unilaterally leave without the rest of the union agreeing to it somehow. The governor can't just sign a piece of paper and say California is now its own country separate from the United States and have that take effect from the perspective of the federal government. California would still be legally considered a State in the United States.