"The Golden State Isn't Worth It"

[John_Mace]

@Giraffe

I very highly doubt that if people are moving away from California, it’s because of the relatively high state taxes. I’m guessing it’s because the desirable parts of the state are ridiculously expensive, particularly during the housing boom, and the rest, well, who wouldn’t want to live somewhere other than inland Southern California / Bakersfield?

Yes, it’s a lot more complicated than higher income taxes, but if companies are moving out of the state, then people will follow them to get the jobs. We have essentially zero semiconductor manufacturing in the Bay Area now, and fortunately we have a great start-up culture that generates new products and services. Still, companies like Intel long ago learned that expansion had to take place in states like Oregon and Arizona.

[Giraffe]

@John_Mace

Yes, it’s a lot more complicated than higher income taxes, but if companies are moving out of the state, then people will follow them to get the jobs. We have essentially zero semiconductor manufacturing in the Bay Area now, and fortunately we have a great start-up culture that generates new products and services. Still, companies like Intel long ago learned that expansion had to take place in states like Oregon and Arizona.

True, but I’m not sure how much of a role taxes (at the relative level of CA vs. TX) play compared with basic cost of living. I’d imagine high real estate and salary costs are far greater motivators to move semiconductor manufacturing to Portland and Austin than state tax rates.

And, despite being one of the most expensive places in the country to live and do business, the Bay Area’s unemployment rate has actually been far better than the rest of the state. (At least according to a San Jose Mercury News article I read a few weeks back – I’ll try to find a cite online with actual numbers.) I think the Silicon Valley start up culture is a pretty powerful motivator – you can’t just pick up and move to Wyoming and get the employees and cross pollination of ideas that you get here.

[brickbacon]

@Sam_Stone

Again, the fact that there is a correlation as strong as it is doesn’t prove anything, but it does suggest that it’s worthwhile digging into the issue to determine the reasons why.

It’s not a correlation, it’s an unsubstantiated factoid. Or, did I miss the regressions and statistical analyses the op-ed author ran to test how the two variables interact.

@Sam_Stone

I beleive the proper metric IS internal migration, as it’s a choice Americans are making between one place and another.

Why? Why is the choice an American makes to move from one place to another any more important than the one an immigrant makes? Or the decision an American makes to stay in the same place to have a family (affecting the rate of natural increase)? It’s disingenuous to state that only the choices one group makes actually matters.

@Sam_Stone

Adding external migration just confuses the issue, because the motivations of foreigners when choosing a state are almost certainly different than those of Americans.

Probably, but does that mean they care less about taxes or big government? More importantly, their motivations are probably as varied as the motivations of Americans.

@Sam_Stone

Furthermore, I made it clear in the OP that I was talking about internal migration, not gross population shifts.

And yet you said the following later on:

@Sam_Stone

Regardless of the specific details, don’t you think it’s telling that California has a net outflux of people, while Texas has a net influx? And that the same pattern holds almost perfectly for 35 other states at the highest and lowest levels of government size, with only three exceptions?

This is false. First, California did not have a net outflux of people. Second, 17+17 is 34 (meaning there are 32 other states), and there are 4 exceptions rather than 3. Additionally, as a point of clarification, only 2 states shrunk during the period we are looking at, and neither is typically known to have a “big government”. Again, the problem is that you cherry pick data to satisfy your preconceived notions.

[DanBlather]

@Giraffe

True, but I’m not sure how much of a role taxes (at the relative level of CA vs. TX) play compared with basic cost of living. I’d imagine high real estate and salary costs are far greater motivators to move semiconductor manufacturing to Portland and Austin than state tax rates.

And the cost of electricity and other utilities, zoning and environmental laws, the quality of schools to attract good workers, the availability of skilled workers, access to airports, highways, and rail, and lots of other factors.

Google put a data center in Oregon because we have cheap electricity and water can be pulled from the Columbia river to provide cooling.

[Knorf]

@RickJay

This is one of those statements that doesn’t really mean anything, because you’re describing two places or enormous size and diversity where “living in” can mean one of 10,000 different arrangements. There are a lot of places in California that suck pretty bad and a lot of places in Texas that are lovely places to live and (gasp) even quite liberal, and vice-versa.

Well, obviously.

Overall, I’d rather live in California than Texas, given a reasonable choice. Capisce?

[Knorf]

@Sam_Stone

But a pretty damned strong correlation, don’t you think? And it holds across numerous states, in all areas of the country. This isn’t one or two samples.

Too many variables, too small sample size. There is not a valid correlation to be found here.