The devil is in the details. It is important to understand the methodologies employed in determining the validity of any statistics. In addition, when certain metrics are left out, such as crime statistics or climate considerations, one can paint an inaccurate picture of living conditions in an area and resident motivations to stay there. Futhermore, one has to watch certain metrics that may have subjective interpretation. It is critical that certain standards are agreed to before presenting statistics as facts.
Another factor to consider is how to account for commuting in statistics. Do the most productive people live in the suberbs? Also, much is made by the Left on how “prosperous” California is. However, I wonder if Right is just carrying a greater than usual share of burden in California versus other states.
Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Texas have been the main beneficiaries of California’s bad regulatory and tax environment. There have been lots of new business startups in these state, including technology and supporting industries. I would like to see relative employment growth statistics in these states versus California.
Louisianna, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina are secondary beneficiaries to California’s anti-business environment. For example, large shipping companies find it cheaper to deliver Asian goods in these secondary state ports than California in spite of the many additional miles and days it takes versus delivering in California. California’s CARB rules prevent ships from idling to provide power. Instead, these shiiping companies have to pay seven figure fees to use onshore services.
California is becoming a great test case for Leftist policies being at odds with sound governance.