HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

>California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas.

I don't know if you've been following the news lately of a bunch of companies moving OUT of California to Texas. One of these people is Elon Musk. And guess what? I have a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE

I'm not saying California is wrong. Far from it. They're right. These laws are made to protect the people. Like you said, it's not minor at all. I never said it was minor.

However ANY state can decide that economic growth is more important than environmental safety and short term health of its' citizens and make a strategic move to make it's own location much more attractive to business.

So the costs aren't clear. Do we want an economic wasteland or an environmental wasteland? This is my point. California is not dead yet, but the trends have been pointing in this direction for years.

⬐ scsilver

California is one of the most economically richest places on earth, and I only say that from the point of view of a world traveler and without bias.

⬐ neonological

What I don't understand is how you think world traveler gives any credit or support for your stance. First the stronger point is made through evidence and the weaker point is made through reputation. Second of all, a "world traveler" is not really much of a reputable status that lends any additional weight to your thesis.

California is rich. But California is trending down economically. This has been increasing for a decade and accelerated due to covid. Here's the point of view from an economist without bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2IVj_T6y84

⬐ epistasis

> But California is trending down economically. This has been increasing for a decade and accelerated due to covid.

Is there some sort of higher-information content article or video you can post than that YouTube video? It's a slow roll out of rather basic history with some unsubstantiated claims thrown in in the first 6 minutes, and I'm not going to waste any more time on that.

Particularly when it's talking about an "economic downturn" without stating any support for that. I know this video was made 7 months ago, and that sort of unsubstantiated claim gained lots of traction with right-wingers, but it was a completely false rumor. California's economy is killing it, and our largely income-tax-based government is swimming in an unprecedented surplus because of how incredibly resilient California was when other areas were hurting.

That leads to the second egregious unsupported claim in the first few minutes: "California was particularly hard hit by the globally economic downturn"--no it wasn't and that was a preposterous statement to make, even 7 months ago, California was doing great and there was absolutely no reason to think it was doing worse.

California is not a perfect paradise; we are weirdly focused on keeping people out of the state, which means that people without land or without high incomes are continuously forced out. But the economic engine continues on as we do this.

⬐ neonological

Why don't you watch that video again with less biased eyes. The video never ever even mentioned California was in an economic downturn. It said California was going through economic turbulence and called it a bump in the road in the first few minutes.

I recommend you watch that video despite it's length. It's much more digestible then raw statistical data and scientific papers. The YouTuber is an economist and his views are spot on. Specifically the part on hotel California is very very accurate.

The guy even mentions that CA has one of the largest economies in the world if it was classified as a country, so he's not actually attacking your team here.

You keep making the same mistake on thinking that the video and I are making the claim that California is in an economic downturn. Nobody ever said California is in an economic downturn. If anything California could be in an economic bubble. Keyword: could.

California is not a perfect paradise. That would be a delusional view. We can agree that California is definitely a successful economy. To think that successful economies are infallible would be an equally delusional view.

I also suggest you try to get away from this team California mentality. You may live in the state you may love the state you may have been born in the state like I was. But your analysis of what's happening must remain impartial. That means analyzing the possibility of economic apocalypse rather then closing all YouTube videos that even mention anything negative about California.

⬐ None

None

⬐ scsilver

Because there are things that you actually have to see and experience to compare, you can't just look at data. I think we are also getting hung up on the definition of rich, I am using it i. The sense of deep diversity and complexity, considering the natural and human built ecosystems.

Even if thats on a downward trend, most regions still fail to hold a candle to that. And for sure not in the other economic capitals of the world.

⬐ epistasis

The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks).

But these problems are because of its extreme prosperity and economic potential, not because there is any risk of that economic powerhouse stopping.

The news reports are anecdotal, Musk is keeping California business but expanding production throughout the country, just as Tesla was before.

Companies that are leaving are those that are less innovative and have fallen from the top of the value chain. They can no longer benefit from the extremely productive environment, but can scrape by with lower costs, such as Oracle.

There's no need to sacrifice California's environment to continue to be an absolutely massive economic powerhouse. But we may need to sacrifice some of our bad ideas about land.

⬐ Turing_Machine

> The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous.

At one time people would have said the same about the Rust Belt.

Times change.

⬐ epistasis

Yes, I agree with this. I should have added the qualifier "soon" to my prediction of California's future.

⬐ neonological

No. Detroit became a wasteland well within our lifetimes. Whether this happens for California soon or not soon is well outside the realm of "preposterous." Your post is not just off by a word, it is entirely off.

⬐ epistasis

I think that our fundamental disagreement comes down to whether California is currently in that downturn. I would say no, and if I understand your position, you would say yes. Is that a fair assessment?

⬐ neonological

No it is not. Why don't you read my posts again.

California is currently trending downward in certain metrics related to economics but this is entirely different from being in an "economic downturn."

California going into an economic downturn in the future is a 100 percent possibility. CA and the entire united States goes through economic downturns about roughly every decade and this has been going on for centuries. The economy is proovably cyclical.

Either way what Im saying is that the current metrics of migration show that California MAY become an economic waste land like Detroit. This is much worse than a economic downturn. Keyword: may, meaning not outside the realm of fantasy and also not a guarantee, but very very possible.

What is absolutely clear though is that if these metrics of negative brain drain continues then absolutely CA will become an economic wasteland.

⬐ epistasis

I have a feeling that further discussion will not be productive, as your other posts do not contain hints of what you say in this comment, and this comment is a big change in what you were saying before in comments.

I'm not sure why California's in-migration of the highly educated with high incomes, and out-migration of less educated folks counts as a brain drain. I'm not sure why you insist on an economic downturn in California in several comments, but now say that's not the case.

Just letting you know why I'm stopping interaction.

⬐ neonological

You know what would be productive? Statistical numbers. You cannot deny the productiveness of real factual numbers.

The brain drain consists of measurable negative population growth. More people moving out then people coming in, in aggregate. Additionally the real numbers show that California natives are the ones that are mostly leaving.

This. Is. A. Statistical. Number.

If negative population continues by raw logic after the population is small enough, California or any state would indeed become an economic wasteland. There is no opinion here. This is fundamental fact.

You're stopping this interaction as the discussion increases in productivity while I start citing more and more real numbers and real sources and undeniable logic that you are finding harder and harder to twist to fit your world view.

I think the reality of what's going on here is that the discussion is becoming too productive. It is an exposing a world view you are too biased to accept.

⬐ epistasis

I know this is not worth revising, but you didn't cite any statistics.

California is not losing population, it's just growing slower than the rest of the country. There is no "brain drain," as those moving in have higher education than those leaving. International immigration, in particular, is making up for the domestic net out-migration:

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

You haven't cited a single number, or a single fact. You accuse me of bias, but shift your phrasing and points on nearly every comment. Your only support is a YouTube video that is heavy on propaganda techniques but says nothing of substance for the first third.

⬐ neonological

You need to read what I said. What I said is this. California is displaying downward trends.

If the population growth is trending downward that means the growth of intelligent people should also by logic be trending downwards. This is 100 percent brain drain.

Let me explain it to you so you can understand. If this trend continues it will eventually become net population decrease. Which means a net loss of intelligent people.

I haven't shifted points. You think I'm shifting points because you are misinterpreting everything I say and I am re clarifying it for you so your brain can comprehend. But your brain is registering this as me shifting topics.

Literally read the thread. You asked me if I'm debating if California is in an economic downturn... And if you look at the entire damn thread... I never said California was in an economic downturn. You assumed this is what I'm saying because you're the one with bias here. I corrected your mistake.

You want citations for things that have been Frontline news and evident for every normal person living in this state? The initial YouTube video was CNBC, which you disregarded as bad because of "YouTube". So I guess journalism in the form of a video is illegitimate for you... I guess written articles are more factual for some illogical reason? Fine. Here you go.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-27/...

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/californ...

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/california-populat...

https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-stalled-population-gro...

https://abc7.com/california-population-decline-congressional...

https://qz.com/1599150/californias-population-could-start-sh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/31/why-calif...

https://www.kqed.org/news/11872755/california-reports-first-...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-to-l...

Now I could cite the raw statistics these articles derive their info from. But I felt legitimate news organizations are enough and easier then a raw statistical paper. Let's not get overly pedantic. Do you really want to argue against sfchronicle, quartz, CNBC and the Washington post? I hope to God you're not that type of person.

I also hope this was "productive" for you. My definition of productive means imparting new knowledge onto someone less knowledgeable than me. But for some people "productive" means not admitting when they are wrong, refusing to look at raw evidence, and running away from a discussion where they are incorrect.

Yeah you can leave this conversation if you feel it isn't "productive." Go. Leave.

⬐ dragonwriter

> If the population growth is trending downward that means the growth of intelligent people should also by logic be trending downwards.

Since when is the simplest possible example of the fallacy of division the same thing as “logic”?

For illustration, for a long time California’s net domestic outmigration has been composed of relatively high income domestic inmigration and slightly larger, lower-income domestic outmigration.

So (before considering the effects of natural population change and international migration), the population waa going down, but the population at the upper end of the income spectrum was actually increasing.

This would be consistent with (given the known correlation of income with IQ) high-IQ gain with net population decrease. The correlation is loose enough, and there’s enough other moving pieces of population dynamics, that it is consistent with other possibilities as well, but the point is you can’t generally conclude anything about change in a subgroup population from change in the larger group population.

⬐ neonological

>Since when is the simplest possible example of the fallacy of division the same thing as “logic”?

Without any additional information the assumption that entropy rules the day is "logically" reasonable. Meaning that if out migration and in migration is random the proportion of High IQ people moving out and in will be random and on par with population proportions.

Trust in entropy and probability is a completely reasonable and logical assumption to make. In fact, our entire scientific establishment is built on these axioms. To assume a random correlation exists out of nowhere is the unreasonable claim. Don't twist words and make it sound illogical. It is illogical to think otherwise without presenting new evidence and a new claim.

So what you did here is introduce a new claim. You say there is a mechanism effecting natural entropy and that more intelligent people could be migrating in. This is not an illogical claim, but it is an extraordinary one.

If you were to make such an extraordinary claim. You need to provide equally extraordinary evidence as this trend isn't on the front page of every news organization.

So you say more higher income people tend to migrate into California and lower income people tend to migrate out. Do you have a source? Additionally I would like to know whether the standard deviation between the correlation of income and IQ fits with the incomes of people migrating out and into California. That would be strong evidence for "Brain Gain" if the trends show more intelligent people migrating in.

At this point I acknowledge your claim as a possibility. But the evidence you present (essentially no evidence, just a claim that evidence exists) makes it fuzzy enough that it is equally likely that natural entropy takes precedence here. There is also a lot of anecdotal/qualitative evidence working against your claim including coworkers who are moving out, more and more tech companies offering remote options and such and such.

It looks to me that you aren't really making a claim but your just being pedantic towards my "logic." I can slightly acknowledge the possibility there isn't Brain drain here, but let's be real. Until there's a study specifically targeting this theory it's just a random shot in the dark.

⬐ epistasis

Bottom charts here are what you are asking for:

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

For the record, this is why it's bad to bad arguments off of YouRube videos. Video good at convincing people of things, whether it contains actual data or not.

⬐ neonological

Relevant on the front page of HN: https://sfciti.org/sf-tech-exodus/

⬐ epistasis

This is about people leaving SF, not about leaving the state.

⬐ atweiden

> The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks).

The wild housing market is 90% of the inequality. The other 90% can be summed up by this 1994 article in the New York Times [1].

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/16/books/what-is-intelligenc...

[1]: https://www.nytimes3xbfgragh.onion/1994/10/16/books/what-is-...

⬐ JPKab

Curious to hear what current California residents think about this video. My suspicion is many will view it as dramatically overblown.

Another question for residents of CA:

As a resident of Colorado, I've been very happy with my governor (Jared Polis) and his decisions with the pandemic. He was early to implement a mask mandate, and has been super collaborative with businesses in soliciting ideas to best walk a middle ground between allowing businesses to remain open and also containing the virus and ensuring businesses aren't acting as vectors of spread.

How do you rate your governor's handling of it? Legitimately curious. (I really don't care about the optics, like "so and so went to this fancy restaurant", just more of a resident's viewpoint on whether the state government is being smart or not.)

⬐ gnusty_gnurc

ineffective government

⬐ yuppie_scum

High COL and taxes (saved you a click)