People try and recreate Silicon Valley while arguing non competes must be enforced. As if the ideas must inherently be unrelated.
it's only odd if you think economic productivity is the sole determination of what makes a desirable place to live. regarding SF in particular, it's phenomenal what has been accomplished there, don't get me wrong. but this has to be weighed against the fact that a "starter home" costs $1mm, the rate of petty crime rivals that of the most dangerous cities in america, etc. it's not cognitive dissonance to acknowledge that, while great things have been accomplished, a lot of stupid mistakes have also been made.
and by the way, I don't think the ban on non-competes is usually what people are thinking of when they describe california as a mess.
Correction: SF has nation-leading levels of property crime, a leaderboard dominated by west coast cities. The US cities with highest violent crime rates have comparably low property crime. Which makes sense: Property crime is riskier in those places.
Antibusiness/antiemployer government intervention is the most commonly explicitly-cited thing, and pretty much every State law, rule, and regulation that favors employees or restricts employers is included in that basket.
The average house in Riverdale Chicago is worth less than the average car in Silicon Vally. People there make less money from armed robbery than someone can shoplift from a Silicon Valley Apple store. So shockingly with different risk/reward payoffs you get more property crime instead of armed robbery.
SF property crime: 57.01/1000
SF median home: $1,195,367
SF per-capita income: $64k
NYC property crime: 18.64/1000
NYC median home: $1,126,049
NYC per-capita income: $73k
Palo Alto property crime: 22.88/1000
Palo Alto median home: $2,363,833
Palo Alto per-capita income: $89k
Chicago property crime: 32.48/1000
Chicago median home: $272,043
Chicago per-capita income: $34k
So SF has worse property crime even though it is on-par or poorer than NYC and Palo Alto.
But, if you’re confusing the point, clearly median income isn’t the only factor. Palo Alto is 2,712.65/sq mi where San Francisco is 18,790.74/sq mi. It’s over the hump where you don’t get poor people begging etc. Similarly, manhattan effectively segregates the rich an poor in a way that San Francisco doesn’t, but wealth very much is a factor when comparing San Francisco to similar areas.
The only question people are left asking is if a CA transplant believes their different way of doing things is so much better then why did they leave and why don’t they go back.
I have a relative with an advanced degree in a state without labor laws who has to work 12 and 13 hour shifts with zero breaks standing up.