For decades the population of California was growing faster than Texas. It roared passed the population of Texas in 1934 and never looked back.
But by 1992 that trend had changed. Here’s the comparative figures in millions:
STATE 1992 2014 Difference
California 30.97 38.80 7.83 million growth
Texas 17.76 26.96 9.20 million growth
The difference is even more dramatic when one looks at the PERCENTAGE of growth in that time frame:
California 25.3%
Texas 51.8% — over TWICE the growth rate of California
The difference in growth is found in the “net domestic migration” — the movement among states. Since 1992 CA has lost a NET of 3.8 million people to other states. I say again — NET. Meantime Texas has been annually receiving thousands of economic refugees from other states — notably California.
California still grew because of three other factors:
1. Births
2. INTERNATIONAL migration — legal and illegal
3. People live longer
Comments 8
Some good news about California:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-12/best-state-for-business-yes-california?utm_source=Voice+of+San+Diego+Master+List&utm_campaign=5
Author
I LOVE the title of this “thoughtful” piece on the liberal Bloomberg website — “Best State for Business? Yes, California.” Ya gotta admire the chutzpah in posting such nonsense.
The “study” results are skewed by our state’s highly successful big tech companies, which ARE doing great — they dominate California’s S&P 500 performance. But the rest of the CA economy (and businesses) are not doing nearly as well.
Here’s just a few objective measures of how business friendly CA is:
From 2007 through 2010, 10,763 manufacturing facilities were built or expanded across the country — but only 176 of those were in CA. So with roughly 12% of the nation’s population, CA got 1.6% of the built or expanded manufacturing facilities. Stated differently, adjusted for population, the other 49 states averaged 8.4 times more manufacturing growth than did California.
http://www.cmta.net/20110303mfgFacilities07to10.pdf — prepared by California Manufacturers and Technology Association
In 2012, our supply of California businesses shrunk 5.2%. In ONE year. NOTE: That’s a NET figure – 5.2% fewer businesses in CA in 2012 than were here in 2011. Indeed, in 2012, CA lost businesses at a 67.7% higher rate than the 2nd worst state!
http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2013/07/in-2012-ca-lost-businesses-at-677.html
The top U.S. CEO’s surveyed rank California “the worst state in which to do business” for the 10th straight year (May, 2014).
http://chiefexecutive.net/best-worst-states-for-business-2014#ranking
—
But who knows? Maybe this article will reverse the flow of businesses leaving California, or expanding outside the Golden State. Even better, maybe now CEO’s in other states will see the error in their thinking about CA, and start moving their businesses to California.
Yeah, that could happen. Any day now . . . .
The “study” was not about the business climate of California as much as a report on companies domiciled in California. Chevron producing more oil in the Neutral Zone between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait or CBRE increasing their presence in Europe has nothing to do with any increases or decrease in jobs in the east bay and downtown L.A. In reality, that article said a whole lot of nothing. That was exemplified by the use of the term “clean tech”. I have no idea what “clean tech” is, and neither does anyone else but the author, as without a standard definition of what it means, anyone can apply that term to anything they want.
The “study” also repeats the falsehood that California is improving because of the decline in the unemployment rate, t mentioning that the unemployment numbers are almost as shady as FIFA. They don’t mention and the media that cheers the decline never mentions that the decline is because of people stop looking for jobs and the ending of unemployment benefits. Most important, it doesn’t take into account people looking to enter the workforce but unable to find jobs. Another problem is that it treats all jobs the same. A part-time job at McDonalds is treated the same as an accountant.
All the author has proved, between the propaganda, is that it’s been good to own stocks in companies like Apple or Facebook, however employees of Toyota and Farmer Bros. in Torrance (moving to Plano and Texas or Oklahoma) things aren’t looking so rosy.
The study simply says that the publicly traded companies that call California home have provided better returns for investors than companies from any other state. That is good news for California. How good can certainly be debated, but what is not debateable is that Richard Rider would have posted the article if it was Texas’ companies that had the best returns. Similarly, if California had shown greater population gains than Texas, Mr. Rider would have claimed that California was getting too crowded.
Author
Come on HP, read the Bloomberg article carefully. It does NOT say that “publicly traded companies that call CA home have provided better returns . . .” Yet again we see you trying to misrepresent what is presented.
It says that California S&P 500 companies outperformed the S&P 500 average. And they did — almost all of them in tech and science fields. Good for them!
But you well know that there are MANY more CA public companies than just the 50 or so CA “S&P 500” corporations. And there are many, MANY more businesses NOT publicly traded.
This S&P 500 subset hardly qualifies as representative of the business experience in this state. And you know it. Why discredit yourself with such “sloppy” analysis (I’m SURE it wasn’t intentional!)?
Richard,
I stand corrected. How about this?
Since January 2011, California domiciled companies that are traded as part of the S&P 500 (in other words, the companies that most who own individual stocks or stock-based mutual funds invest in) have provided better returns for investors than similarly traded companies from any other state. In fact, over the past four years, California companies exceeded the S&P index by more than 23% and had returns over 150% better than those of companies domiciled in the state of Texas.
Does that work better for you?
Actually, your more accurate summary DOES work better. Thanks. It’s an honest summation — of S&P company comparisons.
No one doubts that our big CA tech companies (the relatively few who survived and thrived) have done spectacularly well compared to other big companies. Of course, much of their more recent success comes from them being astute enough to expand outside California — and even outside the nation.
Apple, for instance. I hear they’ve accumulated quite a few bucks overseas in more business friendly locales.
Yet because these tech companies are still DOMICILED in California, ALL that economic success is ascribed to these “California” companies.
But I’m being churlish. We DO have some great companies here in CA, and thank goodness their well-paying HQ’s are still here. And their innovation still centers in the CA brain works of these corporations. Too bad we can’t all work for Google ET AL.
BTW, the tech companies hire relatively few blacks and Hispanics in CA, even though they have informal affirmative action initiatives. They just find better talent among the whites and especially the Asians.
Meanwhile industries that offer good jobs for all — especially for our state — or out of business. Too bad for these minorities — liberals don’t care.
OOOPS!! The end of my last comment was inadvertently partially deleted — by me (a.k.a. TwinkleFingers). Let me see if I can reconstruct it:
Meanwhile industries that offer good jobs for all — especially for blacks and Hispanics (think manufacturing) find CA incredibly hostile. Many have moved out of our state — or out of business. Too bad for these minorities — liberals don’t care.