In their eyes, the journalists should have been FT employees.
Uber and Lyft have the capital to fight it and it's not like other states don't exist. CA isn't worth it if they can't make money here. Would really make the new carpool lot they did for LAX a waste of money.
When they write laws like this they know that CA represents 10% of the population and more than 10% of the wealth of the nation. No company would pull out of CA like that and they know it.
This comment was typed on a keyboard manufactured with chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
While sitting in a chair manufactured with chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
At a computer manufactured with chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
And the cables supplying power to that computer were also manufactures with chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Off the top of my head I also have California to thank for leading the way on:
- Puppy mill bans
- Clean, smoke-free air at work and in bars & restaurants
- Tanning booth restrictions for minors
- Single-use plastic bag bans
- Gay conversion therapy bans
California was also the first state to label Roundup as a known carcinogen. Years before the landmark cancer judgment against Monsanto. So it seems Cal/EPA knows what they're talking about and is providing valuable information not just to their constituents but to the rest of the country as well.
Uber uses the tech startup strategy of funding aggressive growth with VC. This means operating at a loss as long as revenue and the customer base grows.
California is a very mature market for uber. There is little to no growth potential left there, and the government is about to increase the operating cost dramatically. It would make good business sense to pull out of that market.
What complicates matters is that Uber is based in San Fransisco. What kind of power does the state of CA have over companies based in CA but that don't operate in CA?
No offense, but that could only be written by a Californian.
I can think of automotive performance and firearm products that while legal in CA, the companies refuse to sell there on the extra regulatory or ideological grounds. I’m certain there are more examples.
There are definitely companies that don’t want to deal with California and willingly remove themselves.
Yes. Barrett (for one example) entirely pulled out of the state including sales to police. They left 10s of millions in sales.
For automotive performance, no one as large but I can tell you hundreds of millions don’t go to California because it isn’t worth the ridiculous rules CARB put in place and how one regulator will approve and the next will deny.