Update on Democratic California vs. Republican Texas

[Crunch]

Texas, the nation’s second most populous state, had the fastest growing economy in the nation in the first quarter of this year with its state GDP growing at a real annual rate of 3.9 percent, according to data released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

By contrast, California, the nation’s most populous state, ranked 42nd out of 50 states for first quarter economic growth, with its GDP growing at a real annual rate of just 0.1 percent.

[Greg Davidson]

A definite and real data point that bucks the trend of the past 5 years. Let's continue to see if that trend is sustained, or it's merely statistical volatility in one of the past 20 or so quarterly reports of economic growth.

[Seriati]

Don't know if these are accurate, but very easy to understand:

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/california/
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/texas/

[Greg Davidson]

Don't know if these are accurate, but very easy to understand

The data show that per capita GDP is growing by a slightly higher rate in California, and total GDP is growing slightly more in Texas due to higher growth in population (growth in more lower income people in Texas).

I can't vouch for the accuracy, I don't know the site

[Greg Davidson]

Here's a single odd case that does not prove anything, but runs counter to expectations.

Innovative product developed in California is thwarted by Texas bureaucracy:

You can't buy a Tesla in Texas, because of excessive Texas state regulations. This is noted in an article about the roll-out of the new Model 3: 
 

The roll-out comes just months after Tesla failed for the third time to dismantle regulations that prevent it from selling its vehicles directly to Texas drivers. The state has long outlawed that practice, requiring consumers to instead buy cars and trucks through franchised dealerships.

http://www.chron.com/business/retail/article/Tesla-to-begin-Model-3-sales-but-not-in-Texas-11642957.php

Single case, doesn't prove anything, but shows the world is sometimes more complex.

 
 

[TheDeamon]

Don't know if these are accurate, but very easy to understand

The data show that per capita GDP is growing by a slightly higher rate in California, and total GDP is growing slightly more in Texas due to higher growth in population (growth in more lower income people in Texas).

I can't vouch for the accuracy, I don't know the site

It is a bit more complex than that. But generally correct:

California's population growth over the past 5 years: +4.18%
California's GDP growth per capita over 5 years: +12.51%
California's real GDP growth(5 years): +17.21%

Keep in mind California also is home to Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and a substantial financial sector. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown by income brackets, I suspect much of the income growth happened in the $100k+/year demographic, while population growth happened elsewhere.

Texas' population growth over the past 5 years: +8.64%
Texas' GDP growth per capita over 5 years: +11.25%
Texas' real GDP growth(5 years): +20.87%

An income bracket breakdown would also be interesting for Texas, although it is fairly self-evident that yes, it appears that much of the growth happened in a lower income bracket. Except this also ignores things like purchasing power parity, and other factors as well.

That Texas boasted nearly double the population growth, and still managed to only be slightly behind California's per capita GDP growth number is rather spectacular IMO. Particularly so when you look at how closely matched(proportionally speaking) their growth numbers were in terms of simple GDP.

[Crunch]

While statistics tell a story, there is one number that demonstrates the overall story in the most definitive way: migration.

Texas has become the top destination for people moving from other states, according to a report from the Office of the State Demographer. Leading the way are Californians.

From 2005 to 2013, an estimated 5.9 million people moved to Texas, and 4.8 million of those came from one of the other 49 states.

Put another way: In that time period, Texas grew by an average of 345 people per day, accounting for people who moved here from other states and those who left Texas.

It’s a trend that’s similar among foreign-born migrants. In 2013, more foreign-born people came to the state after having first lived in California than any other state

Moving across town is one thing, across the country is a major displacement that's not taken lightly. We can look at any number we want but the reality is people see what Texas offers and want it and are willing to take the risk of such a move to get it. 

[Seriati]

Here's a single odd case that does not prove anything, but runs counter to expectations.

Innovative product developed in California is thwarted by Texas bureaucracy:

To be honest, I still think the whole TX v. CA angle is silly, but this is in particular not a good example.  Lot's of states have that issue.  It has to do with laws prohibiting car manufacturers from selling in state other than through in-state dealerships.  Whether you think those laws are about protecting the dealers, a possibility as it preserves their control of the relationship between the consumer and the manufacturer, or about protecting the consumers, by requiring that the party selling them an expensive machine and being responsible for repairs, replacement and warranty be someone that is part of their community and accessible, its not really accurate to paint this as TX bureaucracy issue.  CT for example, has the same kind of rules.

Tesla absolutely refuses to work through dealerships, or set up local repair facilities, either of which they could do, both of which are expensive.  Is it fair that Tesla will compete without doing so, against car brands that have been forced to set those facilities up?  What will it mean for consumers if every car brand sells direct, and takes out all those dealerships and licensed repair facilities?

[Crunch]

Many auto dealers in Texas have approached Tesla to sell cars for them and Tesla refuses. Still, around 5% of Tesla sales are in Texas (where the range limitations are especially relevant).  Spinning facts and selective reporting to portray a desired narrative is not much of a argument.

[Greg Davidson]

Seriati,

I am surprised to see you defending government regulation to limit the freedom of consumers and an upstart company to provide innovative services that their customers could freely choose - that seems inconsistent with your ideology on the same principles in many other contexts. Or are you not defending this?

I agree that in some circumstances government regulation of a free market is appropriate. This just happens to be an unusual case where the Republican state is insisting on regulating a business model that California does not.   

[Seriati]

Seriati,

I am surprised to see you defending government regulation to limit the freedom of consumers and an upstart company to provide innovative services that their customers could freely choose - that seems inconsistent with your ideology on the same principles in many other contexts. Or are you not defending this?

Didn't defend it.  Pointed out that its not a good example of what you claimed.

Also explained that its not as one sided as it appears.  Is it really as you say?  Is it really a "free" choice if every other car you can buy was forced to incorporate into its cost the entire system of paying for dealerships and service centers and Tesla is not?  Is it really anti-consumer to require that out of state car dealers have instate facilities that the government of the people they are selling to can regulate?

What happens if your Tesla breaks down?  They send a truck and ship it to CA and back for repairs?  Take it to a local repair shop and your warranty voids?   Not clear to me that you really are on the side of consumers.

I agree that in some circumstances government regulation of a free market is appropriate. This just happens to be an unusual case where the Republican state is insisting on regulating a business model that California does not.

Out of curiosity, how did you establish that these laws came from Republicans?  Like I said they exist in blue states too, did the Republicans sneak over there and implement them?  Given that they have one of two purposes (that I can see), one of which is consumer protection and the other of which is protection of local business and tax revenue against out of state competition, both of which are consistent with Democratic interests (not that they are necessarily opposed to Republicans), I find your assumption on this interesting.

This far more likely a local versus non-local issue than and R v. D.

[Crunch]

Well, say whatever you want but but al least Texas can keep the power on.during windy days.

[TheDrake]

Well, say whatever you want but but al least Texas can keep the power on.during windy days.

you don't say   

[Crunch]

And those are exactly the same situations. Right. Jesus, smh.

[TheDrake]

And those are exactly the same situations. Right. Jesus, smh.

I'm saying that criticizing a state for a natural disaster is nonsense.

[TheDrake]

Approximately forty of the 315 wildfires in PG&E's service area in 2017 and 2018 were allegedly caused by PG&E equipment.[107]

PG&E was on probation after being found criminally liable in the 2010 San Bruno fire.[108] Following that fire, a federally-appointed monitor initially focused on gas operations, but his scope expanded to include electricity distribution equipment following the fires in October 2017. A separate case involved allegations the utility falsified gas pipeline records between 2012 and 2017, and as of January 2019 was still being considered.[108]

PG&E, like two large Southern California utilities, is now required to submit an annual wildfire prevention plan. The California law judges who reviewed the plan submitted in February 2019 suggested more metrics and maintenance partnerships with local governments, but recommended approving the plan. They also recommended investigating whether disabling equipment that restarts power transmission could reduce the need for power shutoffs. PG&E has filed a motion which in May 2019 had not yet been ruled upon, to amend this plan to move some of the deadlines further out.[109]

Sounds like California is making the effort and PG&E aren't following through. The real beating is to the shareholders, at least financially, because the company favored short term EPS rather than investing in work to prevent billions of dollars paid for their part in causing wildfires in 2018.

[Crunch]

And those are exactly the same situations. Right. Jesus, smh.

I'm saying that criticizing a state for a natural disaster is nonsense.

You’re saying a branch falling on lines is exactly the same as voluntarily shutting off power to yes of thousands. They’re not even remotely the same. smh

[TheDrake]

You can smack your head all you like, in fact I encourage it.

How is it a "California" problem when PG&E is failing to do its job?

PG&E failed to trim ‘numerous trees’ near power lines in work to reduce fire risk, report says

In the first 53.5 miles of lines inspected, the monitor’s report said, PG&E appears to have missed 3,280 trees that should have been marked for trimming or removal.

PG&E said it provided training to its inspectors on April 1 after learning that they were not fully aware of the criteria for potentially risky trees. The monitor’s report said the training was “ineffective” and resulted in only a slight decline in the error rate.

The report also said the review of PG&E’s enhanced vegetation management unearthed “substantial record-keeping issues related to the Company’s pre-inspection and tree work processes.”

In a separate story:

"Trees are the single largest threat to service reliability, so utilities have plenty of incentive to be aggressive with vegetation management even without specific rules," Cieslewicz said.

The rules vary widely from state to state.

California has some of the toughest, fining utilities up to $20,000 per day when a tree touches a distribution line, Cieslewicz said.

So maybe there's a point that California is still not being aggressive enough in policing up PG&E.

[Crunch]

It’s the evil capitalist’s fault. Yeah, heard that one before.

[TheDrake]

It’s the evil capitalist’s fault. Yeah, heard that one before.

Scintillating rebuttal. Just brilliant.