![]() Informing & Monitoring » Capitol Updates » Leg. Watch » Press Releases » Leg Vote Record » CA Cost Index » Features » Audio & Reports » Job Data » Calendar » Coalitions » Fed Update ![]() » Policy Objectives » Policy Principles Membership »Invest in CMTA »About Us »Yellow Pages »Questions? Conferences Oct. 21 California's Regulatory Landscape -- GETTING IT RIGHT Directories »CMTA Staff »Send us e-mail »Directions to CMTA »Rent Conference Room Services & Discounts »Group WC Program »Discount Programs »ETP Grassroots Activism Sign up to receive action alerts |
![]() California is still #1 ...Posted by Jack Stewart, President on May 11, 2010…..as the worst place in America to do business, a ranking it’s held since CEO magazine began surveying CEOs in 2005. Not only does California’s business climate rank worse than every other state, but California ranks far below the national average in every category tested, from taxes to regulations, to workplace quality to living environment. In only one sub-category, Arts & Culture (ranked lowest in importance to CEOs), California surpasses the national average.
In March, the AP Stress Index ranked all 3,086 counties in the U.S. on the impact of the current recession and potential recovery. Not a single California county made the top 20 list of least stressed counties, but 11 California counties we’re included in the 20 most stressed ranking.
Even more disturbing is a new ranking of the 2010 Best U.S. Cities for job growth by newgeography.com. The study ranks the nation’s 397 SMSAs (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) on current, mid-term and long-term employment growth rates. The only two California SMSAs to make the top 100 are Hanford-Corcoran and Medera-Chowchilla. The second rank of 100 SMSAs include El Centro and Bakersfield-Delano. The first large California city on the SMSA list is San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City ranked at 271. San Francisco (271) is followed by San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara-Carlsbad (297), San Diego-San Marcos (299), Sacramento-Roseville (322), Los Angeles-Long Beach (352), Santa Ana-Anaheim (353) and Riverside-San Bernardino (359).
Joel Kotkin opines on the findings in an article in Forbes Magazine titled The Worst Cities for Jobs. Kotkin writes, "And then there is California, which by all rights should be leading, not lagging, the current recovery. Statewide unemployment, already at 12.6%, has been rising while most states have experienced a slight drop. Silicon Valley companies, Hollywood and the basic agricultural base of the state remain world-beaters. But the problem lies largely in an extremely complex regulatory regime that leads companies to shift much of their new production and staffing to other states, as well as foreign countries. The constant prospect of a state bankruptcy, in large part due to soaring public employee pension obligations, does not do much to inspire confidence among either local entrepreneurs or investors."
Kotkin concludes, “Hopefully, this will be the year when Californians decide that it needs an economy that provides opportunities to people other than software billionaires, movie moguls and their servants. It will have to include much more than the endlessly hyped, highly subsidized 'green jobs.’ More than anything, it will take rolling back some of the draconian regulations – particularly around climate change legislation – that force companies, and jobs, to go to places that, while not as intrinsically attractive, are far friendlier to job creating businesses.” 1 comments | Post your comment Comments: 1 |
ITripMan
May 11, 2010 17:46:24How about including some information on the percent of the population that can reasonably be non-productive and a drag on the economy (ie, not making products, software, growing food, constructing, directing traffic, public safety, etc)? Knowledge is power: if we knew that, say, 70% or more of the population needs to be productive in order to provide a decent living and health care to the 30% who aren't (many in government; many lawyers; artists, entertainers, actors, etc -- those who need to either tax others, or sell non-essential things to others), then we could use such a metric to determine whether our state pensions, salaries, welfare, etc, for this class of people are sustainable. Alternately, if we found that we were way below the percent needed to create the wealth we need to fund infrastructure and social needs, then we could encourage high school students not to go into the non-productive segment, perhaps with dis-incentives, or caps on college enrollments for these programs. Thoughts?