Companies Leaving California in Record Numbers
Orange County Register -- "In 2011, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state, 26% more than in 2010, according to Irvine business consultant Joe Vranich who has been tracking these departures since 2009.
The pace is accelerating, Vranich said. An average of 4.9 businesses left California each week of 2011, compared to 3.9 per week (202 total) in 2010 and one a week (51 total) in 2009. In what he calls "disinvestment events," Vranich counts companies that move jobs, facilities or headquarters out of California and "in carefully selected instances, companies making major capital investments in plants elsewhere that in the past would have been built in California," Vranich said.
For all California departures, the top destinations were Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and a tie for Utah and Florida, Vranich said."
MP: All of the top destination states are right-t0-work states, except Colorado. California has the second highest state unemployment rate in the country at 11.2%, almost three full percent above the 8.3% national jobless rate.
23 Comments:
Kinda obvious -- but it is nice to see a graph
i am pleased to have been a part of the 2011 number.
we left in the first week of january.
i sure do not miss paying california taxes.
We moved our business unit's servers from Redwood Shores to Utah last year. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/04/29/oracle-resumes-300-million-utah-project/
what changed in 2010?
Many middle class workers, including entrepreneurs, moved from California to Colorado starting around 1990.
Along with stronger U.S. disinflationary growth, that began to accelerate in 1995 and remained strong through 2007, the Colorado economy boomed.
The Denver Tech Center added and expanded about a hundred tech campuses, impressive new malls, and upper income housing tracts replaced empty fields all the way to the mountains in the west and Castle Rock in the south.
Denver, around 10 miles north, built three new pro sports stadiums, a new convention center, a huge central library, renovated the entire lower downtown (that looks like the 1920s when it was new), repaved the streets and rebuilt the sidewalks, built an international airport, a light rail system, etc.
However, the U.S. disinflationary boom from 1982-07 created many new businesses and communities throughout the country, including in new cities in California.
I am in California too. The taxes are absurd.
But I wonder, though. Many parts of the state seem to still be doing very well.
And new wealth, whether from tech (Apple, Facebook), or from the eventual drilling of the Monterey Shale, will keep the state going.
It appears the parasites can never fully kill the host, when it comes to California. The depth and breadth of wealth are just too deep.
"what changed in 2010?...
Gov. Moonbat was elected...
Spreadsheet Exercise
Go to Table E States with statistically significant employment changes from December 2010 to December 2011 at the bls.
Copy the data and past it into a spreadsheet.
Go to the list of the Best/Worst States for business.
Create a new column in the spreadsheet and insert the business friendliness rank of each state.
Sort the spreadsheet by the business friendliness rank.
Separate the data into two groups with group 1 having a business friendly rank of 1-25 and group 2 having a rank of 26-50.
Note the following:
California has the largest absolute increase in jobs.
In both absolute and percentage terms the “business friendly” (rank 1-25) states produced fewer jobs than the “business unfriendly” (rank 26-50) states.
Conclusion:
The business friendly ranking is an instrument of political propaganda rather than a policy guideline for serious people seeking to solve problems.
Do not count California out just yet.
Cherrypicking data to fit personal bias leads to wrong conclusions.
California has the largest absolute increase in jobs.
that's a misleading way to look at it.
they also have, by far, the largest population.
at 11.1%, california has the highest unemployment rate of any us state other than nevada.
your analysis of california seems to be flawed as it does not adjust for size and for the actual % of unemployed.
to expect a state the size of utah, with 2.8 million people to create as many jobs as california which has 38 million people is absurd.
to be per capita equivalent, CA needs to create 13.5 jobs for every one in utah.
the fact that they have no done so is why they have 11.1% unemployment vs 6.0% in utah.
also note:
if we're going to use your metrics, then california has BY FAR the most unemployed of any states.
they have more than twice as many unemployed as texas and more than the 20 smallest states combined.
your "job creation" metrics are just a function of size.
California has become a state where much of the middle class moved out, while the rich and poor stayed or moved in.
Small Business Survival Index 2010 Ranks State Policy Climates for Entrepreneurship
The Top 10 states are:
1) South Dakota
2) Nevada
3) Texas
4) Wyoming
5) Washington
6) Florida
7) Alabama
8) South Carolina
9) Ohio
10) Colorado
The Bottom 10 are:
42) Minnesota
43) Massachusetts
44) Hawaii
45) Rhode Island
46) Maine
47) Vermont
48) California
49) New York
50) New Jersey
51) District of Columbia
The "Small Business Survival Index" is the most comprehensive measure of which states are truly friendly to small business.
A society unfriendly to small business is a society not worth living in.
That said, Silicon Valley startups are 'small businesses', of which a small fraction do well.
Too bad that California never gets its fiscal reckoning since Silicon Valley keep generating enough output, despite onerous regulations and taxes, to keep the parasites going.
We always hear about employee rights, and rightly so. But we never hear about employer rights. What rights do employers have?
Since employers are people (and as Romney pointed out, Corporations are made up of people), employers should have the same rights as employees, but they also have property and contract rights.
The fed government is constantly eroding the rights of employers - the latest example is requiring employers to provide health care insurance coverage, which specifies what type of coverage must be provided (including free birth control). So imagine you "own" a business, and the government tells you that you must provide your employees with xyz. At some point, you have to ask in what way do you "own" the business?
I think things are ripe for arguing that the federal government is involved in regulatory takings - in other words, using eminent domain to take the property of companies. The constitution requires that if the fed government takes your property, they have to pay you for it.
California is a particularly egregious example of a state government taking away the rights and property of employers. As a result, employers don't want to be there.
San Francisco, which has a small population compared to other major U.S. cities (150,000 less than San Jose California), has lots of tourists, which helps prop-up its economy.
Top 10 – The Most Visited US Cities in 2007
10. Boston, Massachusetts (721,000 Arrivals)
9. Chicago, Illinois (721,000 Arrivals)
8. Washington D.C., District of Columbia (901,000 Arrivals)
7. Las Vegas, Nevada (1.3 Million Arrivals)
6. Honolulu, Hawaii (1.6 Million Arrivals)
5. San Francisco, California (1.6 Million Arrivals)
4. Orlando, Florida (1.8 Million Arrivals)
3. Miami, Florida (2.2 Million Arrivals)
2. Los Angeles, California (2.2 Million Arrivals)
1. New York City, New York (4 Million Arrivals)
California still has many engines of profit. Silicon Valley, agriculture, Hollywood, tourism, and now the Monterey Shale.
This is why the lefty parasites are not being delivered swift justice. All that wealth keeps the parasites going forever.
James: "Cherrypicking data to fit personal bias leads to wrong conclusions."
LOL
I'll say!
What exactly is the link you have found between "business friendly" and lower job growth?
Is every correlation meaningful in some way just because it exists??
"Too bad that California never gets its fiscal reckoning since Silicon Valley keep generating enough output, despite onerous regulations and taxes, to keep the parasites going."
give ti a little more time. the valley is not nearly so vibrant (nor unique) as it was and nearly half of SV start ups were founded by immigrants and current visa rules are wrecking that.
there are lots of new, lower cost tech centers in the US. none have the size, depth, or cache of SV yet, but they are gaining ground and the companies that succeed are looking to relocate in many cases. paying 11.7% on top of your cap gains is just not attractive.
Without excessive regulations, taxes, fees, fines, fares, tolls, etc., living standards would be higher, including through lower prices and higher real wages.
"Cherrypicking data to fit personal bias leads to wrong conclusions"...
Well james no one is cherry picking the California tax system or the inane laws...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
marmico-
you need to be very careful using that kind of data.
"ceo of a consultancy" often counts as a new establishment in tech heavy CA, but not in ND.
the actual employment numbers show a very different picture than the one you paint.
employment change from 12/10 to 12/11:
ca: 13.935 to 14.199 = +1.9% unemployment? 11.1%
tx: 10.444 to 10.649 = +1.9%
unemployment? 7.8%
nd: 382 to 404 = +5.7%
unemployment? 3.3%
so, they added far more jobs in ND as a % and have an unemployment rate 70% lower than CA, yet you try to paint them as having negative employment prospects?
if you want clueless propaganda, look at your own numbers.
nd is doing FAR better than CA.
Apple to build $304 million campus in Texas, add 3,600 jobs.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82812J20120309
Yo, Marko,
It is funny that all you people out there grousing about govt requiring health coverage to include birth control medication (which, by the way, is often prescribed for things other than reproduction) are the VERY SAME ONES SUPPORTING THE GOVT CONTROL OF relationships between same sex couples or with women's right to choose or even the right of individuals to acquire toys for their own pleasure and use in the privacy of their own homes! (See state laws regarding this in AL, TX, etc.)
Talk about inconsistent. You hate govt interference UNLESS it SUITS YOUR NARROWMINDED IDEAS, then you are ALL FOR IT!!!! The more government control, the better then, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home