Viewing blog posts written by Jack Stewart

California is still #1 ...

Posted by Jack Stewart, on May 11, 2010

… 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.

This is not new information, every few weeks we see a new poll or survey ranking California’s business climate at or near the bottom.  Texas, on the other hand, has consistently been ranked as the best place to do business by CEO magazine.  One CEO’s comment was particularly revealing, “Texas is pro-business with reasonable regulations while California is anti-business with anti-business regulations.”  That’s quite a reputation for a state that desperately needs a surging economy to make up a $20 billion general fund budget deficit, close a $500 billion public pension fund deficit, reduce a 12.6% unemployment rate and deal with a persistent $6 billion annual fund imbalance.

Well, if the state is doing badly, surely there must be positive signs of economic recovery in some of California’s world class cities and counties. Not so fast.  While much of the nation is beginning to show signs of recovery, California is still trying to find the bottom.  Two recent reports shed light on the economic growth potential for California’s regional economies.

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  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


May 11, 2010 5:46 pm

How 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?

Post a comment:

E-mail address: required, but will be kept private

Name or nickname: will display on page

Post your comment here:

This helps us eliminate spam.

Copyright © 2020, California Manufacturers & Technology Association. All rights reserved.