Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On the flip side you have numerous nation-state (or failed nations) that are smaller than California that ARE ungovernable. See also: former Yugoslavia/the situation in the Balkans, Italy (sorta), Greece (sorta), numerous African states, etc.

California has a couple issues at work (demographics, regional politics, and various legal issues within the state and the state government) which, individually, might not be a hindrance to governance, but as a collective whole is proving to be a recipe for disaster. It probably isn't truly ungovernable, its just ungovernable as it is now, and my guess is that for the problems to be resolved would require basically a complete restructuring of the states constitution and government. My guess is that the chances of THAT occurring are actually lower than the chances of California splitting, and also probably more expensive.

As for the rich parts ditching the rest, I don't think so...

"Silicon Valley" (name needs to go) would definitely be composed of the wealthiest parts of the state, but both West California and South California would have their own fair share of Californias wealth (by virtue of LA/Santa Barbara and San Diego/OC respectively).

Central California would certainly still be economically viable, although that would depend on the border division (the video shows a different one from the image at the bottom). If its as per the video, then Central California would also have Edwards Air Force Base which, while not necessarily a large base, is a MAJOR base in terms of the amount of federal dollars that gets pumped in there, as well as being an important element in the aerospace industry, so I would say that while Central Cali wouldn't necessarily have the wealth of the previous 3, it would still be decently well to do.

North California I think would be in a pretty good spot, Sacremento is behind LA, San Fran, and San Diego for wealth and size in Cali, and the Central Valley is one of the worlds most productive agricultural areas.

The only area that I think wouldn't necessarily be economically viable is "Jefferson", but wouldn't you know it the northern counties have been trying to split with Cali for years (in fact, iirc, 3 of them actually voted to split within the past decade or two).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Topologically speaking the UK is much larger than California because you have to include the tunnel to the centre of the Earth that the Queen uses to visit her lizard people legions.

You mean the one to France?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

chaos0xomega wrote:

The only area that I think wouldn't necessarily be economically viable is "Jefferson", but wouldn't you know it the northern counties have been trying to split with Cali for years (in fact, iirc, 3 of them actually voted to split within the past decade or two).

One word: Marijuana. The country's best gets grown here.

 Lint wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

The only area that I think wouldn't necessarily be economically viable is "Jefferson", but wouldn't you know it the northern counties have been trying to split with Cali for years (in fact, iirc, 3 of them actually voted to split within the past decade or two).

One word: Marijuana. The country's best gets grown here.

I feel like this should be a Throwdown-Style TV show between Cali and Colorado.

Well, if Jefferson legalizes it, and a few other states legalize it... preferably adjoining states, they might have a viable economic export...

The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

Actually, I suppose that would make Jefferson economically viable as a water exporter

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Topologically speaking the UK is much larger than California because you have to include the tunnel to the centre of the Earth that the Queen uses to visit her lizard people legions.

You mean the one to France?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

A big factor in deciding new state lines would be "who gets the kids?". San Bernardino and Riverside counties are extremely low income compared to their neighbors South of Los Angeles. Orange County for example would not want to take on that financial burden when it's in as comparatively decent shape as it is. At the same time, different counties provide different services to each other. If either Orange County or Los Angeles are separated from the Inland Empire(S.B. and Riverside counties) then now the tens of thousands of people who commute from the I.E. are working across state lines, creating all manner of tax issues.

I agree that the state is far too influential on the federal gov. We have 55 electoral votes, more than any other state by a significant amount, and we do not have the option to split them. We are also(iirc) the single largest economic force statewise, and the most populated state by a large margin. We have 38mil people, TX has 26, and the closest after that is NY with 19.

I would imagine that restructuring our internal management would be the superior option, as clearly our current system doesn't work. TX on the other hand has the closest thing to our conditions in terms of population and economy(as well as land mass) and they seem to have a system that works for them, so perhaps CA should look to TX for help in that regard.

One thing I think a lot of people don't realize is just how disparate CA is with internal economics. We have $8 min wage state wide, but in some areas the low end rent for a 1bed apartment is over $1000/mo. In most states it is cheaper to buy than to rent, but in CA that is rarely the case. In my city, a CHEAP house is 500k, which on average amounts to $3000/mo for a mortgage, plus any HOA fees and property taxes(and we have a lot of HOAs out here). In that same city rent for a 3bed unit is about $2000/mo with no HOA fees or property taxes.

So how do people work min wage jobs in my town? They have to commute from lower rent areas, or(which is insanely common in CA, even if some may take offense to the stereotype) they cramp their apartment or rented house to double the legal limit(which is 2 per room plus 1). So in a 2 bed apartment it's not uncommon to have 8 or 9 people living with 3 total incomes at min wage or close to it. They can't afford to commute from too far away, because gas now costs on average $3.75/gal and rent doesn't get really cheaper until you are at least 40 miles away. And most min wage jobs here are part time.

California is a very broken place, considering how economically successful it appears. Breaking up the band to start 6 solo projects will end up like 'N Sync: 1 state will be wildly successful while the others fade away into obscurity.

California definitely should be split up. 6 states is too many IMO. 2-3 would be sufficient.

The state has too many divergent geographic, economic, and political differences to function adequately.

Personally, I'd split California as such. From Sacramento and San Jose north into Northern California. From the I15/Grapevine/Santa Barbara south into Southern California. and everything in between into Central California.

Sadly it will never happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

You say that like its a bad thing

If you knew my history with LA, you'd know I'm not thinking of that as a bad thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:
California definitely should be split up. 6 states is too many IMO. 2-3 would be sufficient.

The state has too many divergent geographic, economic, and political differences to function adequately.

Personally, I'd split California as such. From Sacramento and San Jose north into Northern California. From the I15/Grapevine/Santa Barbara south into Southern California. and everything in between into Central California.

Sadly it will never happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

You say that like its a bad thing

Politically and economically Orange County and Los Angeles County are worlds apart.

I'm pretty sure most Californians would rather cut their state off from the country and sink into the ocean than admit that they needed to get help from Texas...

We would welcome Californiashire back into the Empire if you Americans can't handle ruling things

 Frazzled wrote:
The californias can't split up. If so, the "poor areas" keep most of the water and Southern California ceases to exist in about 37 minutes, returning to the godforsaken desert from whence it came.

You almost make that sound like a bad thing

Edit; beaten to the punch

Won't happen. The different areas of the state are to dependent on each other. Frazzled pointed it out in jest but seriously SoCal ceases to exist without the water it brings down from the north. Ergo, it'll never split. They just need to figure out how to run the darn thing...

 Hulksmash wrote:
Won't happen. The different areas of the state are to dependent on each other. Frazzled pointed it out in jest but seriously SoCal ceases to exist without the water it brings down from the north. Ergo, it'll never split. They just need to figure out how to run the darn thing...

Actually, we get a lot of water from other states as it is. Maybe LA would actually pay prices equal to what water in a desert costs

They've been tossing around the idea of splitting Cali into two or three states since I was a baby. Nothing came from those proposals and nothing will come from this. California has too much to lose by carving itself up.

 Breotan wrote:
They've been tossing around the idea of splitting Cali into two or three states since I was a baby. Nothing came from those proposals and nothing will come from this. California has too much to lose by carving itself up.

Adding onto this, the state is a huge chunk of votes for the Democrats. I can't imagine they would be eager to allow the state to split whatsoever, especially if it's in a way that parts of the state might have a chance of going red.

We have more than oil in North Dakota. We have wind too. And subzero temperatures for 75 days a year.

Oh, and we know what your up to South Dakota, knock it off.

Edit: Too, to, I'm an idiot.

One of the dumbest ideas ever. Obviously made up for reasons of selfish interests and political gain. Would never work.