TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

You guys ever wonder why they don't choose California? These factories have huge environmental impacts that California is not okay with. These factories produce massive amounts of waste that cannot be recycled. This is also very likely to be the same exact reason as to why these talks didn't go so well in Europe.

Arizona like Texas is more business friendly at the expense of not looking out for the well being of people who live in these locations. Ironically, right now by being more business friendly more people want to move to places like Arizona or Texas for jobs.

It's a strange balancing act that has a lot of potential for being over corrected for. Industry brings business and economic growth but ruins the environment and has harms the people living in the area. The insidious thing is environmental costs are paid for much much later.

The consequences of being way to business friendly in these places may only be apparent a decade from now just like how the price of being too business unfriendly is now very apparent in California.

I don't really like the euphemism of "business friendly" when it means "companies don't have to pay for their externalities."

California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas.

The externalities are not minor either, there are 23 superfund sites in Santa Clara county from Silicon Valley's early years, where they did not bother to properly dispose of waste:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/09/silic...

>California is extremely entrepreneur-friendly, and have absolutely massive amounts of business compare to Arizona or Texas.

I don't know if you've been following the news lately of a bunch of companies moving OUT of California to Texas. One of these people is Elon Musk. And guess what? I have a source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez90rXhMWjE

I'm not saying California is wrong. Far from it. They're right. These laws are made to protect the people. Like you said, it's not minor at all. I never said it was minor.

However ANY state can decide that economic growth is more important than environmental safety and short term health of its' citizens and make a strategic move to make it's own location much more attractive to business.

So the costs aren't clear. Do we want an economic wasteland or an environmental wasteland? This is my point. California is not dead yet, but the trends have been pointing in this direction for years.

The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous. It does have its problems: costs are high and there's extreme inequality (because of the nation's worst land taxation and land use policies combined, read your Henry George folks).

But these problems are because of its extreme prosperity and economic potential, not because there is any risk of that economic powerhouse stopping.

The news reports are anecdotal, Musk is keeping California business but expanding production throughout the country, just as Tesla was before.

Companies that are leaving are those that are less innovative and have fallen from the top of the value chain. They can no longer benefit from the extremely productive environment, but can scrape by with lower costs, such as Oracle.

There's no need to sacrifice California's environment to continue to be an absolutely massive economic powerhouse. But we may need to sacrifice some of our bad ideas about land.

> The idea that California could become an economic wasteland is absolutely preposterous.

At one time people would have said the same about the Rust Belt.

Times change.

Yes, I agree with this. I should have added the qualifier "soon" to my prediction of California's future.

No. Detroit became a wasteland well within our lifetimes. Whether this happens for California soon or not soon is well outside the realm of "preposterous." Your post is not just off by a word, it is entirely off.

I think that our fundamental disagreement comes down to whether California is currently in that downturn. I would say no, and if I understand your position, you would say yes. Is that a fair assessment?

No it is not. Why don't you read my posts again.

California is currently trending downward in certain metrics related to economics but this is entirely different from being in an "economic downturn."

California going into an economic downturn in the future is a 100 percent possibility. CA and the entire united States goes through economic downturns about roughly every decade and this has been going on for centuries. The economy is proovably cyclical.

Either way what Im saying is that the current metrics of migration show that California MAY become an economic waste land like Detroit. This is much worse than a economic downturn. Keyword: may, meaning not outside the realm of fantasy and also not a guarantee, but very very possible.

What is absolutely clear though is that if these metrics of negative brain drain continues then absolutely CA will become an economic wasteland.

I have a feeling that further discussion will not be productive, as your other posts do not contain hints of what you say in this comment, and this comment is a big change in what you were saying before in comments.

I'm not sure why California's in-migration of the highly educated with high incomes, and out-migration of less educated folks counts as a brain drain. I'm not sure why you insist on an economic downturn in California in several comments, but now say that's not the case.

Just letting you know why I'm stopping interaction.

You know what would be productive? Statistical numbers. You cannot deny the productiveness of real factual numbers.

The brain drain consists of measurable negative population growth. More people moving out then people coming in, in aggregate. Additionally the real numbers show that California natives are the ones that are mostly leaving.

This. Is. A. Statistical. Number.

If negative population continues by raw logic after the population is small enough, California or any state would indeed become an economic wasteland. There is no opinion here. This is fundamental fact.

You're stopping this interaction as the discussion increases in productivity while I start citing more and more real numbers and real sources and undeniable logic that you are finding harder and harder to twist to fit your world view.

I think the reality of what's going on here is that the discussion is becoming too productive. It is an exposing a world view you are too biased to accept.

I know this is not worth revising, but you didn't cite any statistics.

California is not losing population, it's just growing slower than the rest of the country. There is no "brain drain," as those moving in have higher education than those leaving. International immigration, in particular, is making up for the domestic net out-migration:

https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265

You haven't cited a single number, or a single fact. You accuse me of bias, but shift your phrasing and points on nearly every comment. Your only support is a YouTube video that is heavy on propaganda techniques but says nothing of substance for the first third.

You need to read what I said. What I said is this. California is displaying downward trends.

If the population growth is trending downward that means the growth of intelligent people should also by logic be trending downwards. This is 100 percent brain drain.

Let me explain it to you so you can understand. If this trend continues it will eventually become net population decrease. Which means a net loss of intelligent people.

I haven't shifted points. You think I'm shifting points because you are misinterpreting everything I say and I am re clarifying it for you so your brain can comprehend. But your brain is registering this as me shifting topics.

Literally read the thread. You asked me if I'm debating if California is in an economic downturn... And if you look at the entire damn thread... I never said California was in an economic downturn. You assumed this is what I'm saying because you're the one with bias here. I corrected your mistake.

You want citations for things that have been Frontline news and evident for every normal person living in this state? The initial YouTube video was CNBC, which you disregarded as bad because of "YouTube". So I guess journalism in the form of a video is illegitimate for you... I guess written articles are more factual for some illogical reason? Fine. Here you go.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-04-27/...

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/californ...

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/california-populat...

https://www.ppic.org/blog/californias-stalled-population-gro...

https://abc7.com/california-population-decline-congressional...

https://qz.com/1599150/californias-population-could-start-sh...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/31/why-calif...

https://www.kqed.org/news/11872755/california-reports-first-...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-to-l...

Now I could cite the raw statistics these articles derive their info from. But I felt legitimate news organizations are enough and easier then a raw statistical paper. Let's not get overly pedantic. Do you really want to argue against sfchronicle, quartz, CNBC and the Washington post? I hope to God you're not that type of person.

I also hope this was "productive" for you. My definition of productive means imparting new knowledge onto someone less knowledgeable than me. But for some people "productive" means not admitting when they are wrong, refusing to look at raw evidence, and running away from a discussion where they are incorrect.

Yeah you can leave this conversation if you feel it isn't "productive." Go. Leave.