Why companies born, raised in California are leaving state
Tribune News Service
Last month, billionaire In-N-Out owner Lynsi Snyder announced her move from California to Tennessee, where she plans to open new restaurants and continue raising her family. It's a dramatic shift for the leader of the beloved West Coast brand, which has become the latest company to signal its dissatisfaction with California in recent years. And she didn't mince words in explaining her decision. 'There's a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here,' Snyder said during a recent appearance on the 'Relatable' podcast, hosted by conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey.
In-N-Out's headquarters will remain in California, but the company is consolidating its operations in the state and opening a regional headquarters in Franklin, Tenn. Other high-profile companies have more formally exited the state. Tesla moved its headquarters out of Palo Alto in 2021, the same year that financial services firm Charles Schwab relocated from San Francisco to north Texas. Elon Musk moved the head offices of his other companies — SpaceX and X — to Texas last year, as did Chevron, the oil giant that was started in California. The departures have contributed to a narrative pushed by some media and politicians that the state's economy is in trouble and is unfriendly to businesses.
Conservative commentator and Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Hilton, who announced his bid for California governor this year, recently wrote on social media that the state has the 'highest rate of poverty, highest housing costs' and the 'most hostile business environment in the country.' Experts and economists interviewed by The Times paint a more nuanced picture. Although California's steep taxes and stringent environmental regulations have pushed some firms to leave, the state remains the fourth- largest economy in the world, boasts a diverse pool of talent and is a hub of technological innovation, they said.
'The popular media narratives have characterized California as one-dimensional,' said William Riggs, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Management. 'We continue to be a magnet for investment in tech, biotech, entertainment and green energy, as well as being an agricultural hotbed for the planet.' The artificial intelligence boom has new companies flocking to Silicon Valley, Riggs said, leading to the highest rate of corporate office leases in San Francisco since before the COVID-19 pandemic. The corporate departures, although generating significant media attention, represent adjustments to California's$4.1-trillion economy rather than signs of systemic decline.
'It's being overhyped,' Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics said of the purported mass exodus of companies. 'California is a big, competitive economy. We've got lots of great stuff here.' To be sure, the state is facing some serious challenges that could threaten its competitive perch if they are not addressed. In fact, California has been losing more companies than it's been gaining since 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The net out-migration of firms from California peaked in 2022 at 741 firms, after economic disruptions and strict regulations related to the pandemic. In 2023, the net out-migration was 533, meaning that 533 more companies left the state than entered. California has ranked among the top three states with the highest rates of firm out-migration since 2015.
One persistent complaint: Corporate executives have cited California's tax burden as a driver of their decisions to relocate. The state taxes its highest earners at 13.3% on their regular income, and unlike most states, applies the same rate to profits from the sale of investments or business assets. Joe Lonsdale, the Palantir co-founder who moved his venture capital firm, 8VC, from the Bay Area to Austin, Texas, in 2020, partly framed his decision around California's high taxes. 'I could either put that money toward things that are fixing the world, or give it to the California state government,' he said.
Companies also face California's complex regulatory environment, with authorities governing matters including environmental standards and workplace safety. Many businesses must navigate multiple layers of licensing, labor and compliance requirements. 'When businesses complain about dealing with regulations in California, they're not kidding,' said Kevin Klowden, executive director of the Milken Institute. 'There are lots of overlapping authorities and a lot of businesses find it really hard to operate.' Before fast-food chain Carl's Jr. announced it was relocating its California headquarters to Tennessee in 2016, then-Chief Executive Andrew Puzder said it takes about five times as long to open a new location in California than it would in Texas or other states.
According to Klowden, states including Florida and Texas attempt to attract businesses from California with lower tax rates, fewer regulations and other incentives. In June of this year, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott awarded hair-care brand John Paul Mitchell Systems $640,000 in grant funds to support the company's expansion into Dallas County. 'Texas is the headquarters of headquarters,' Abbott bragged at the time. In 2021, Florida topped the list of states with the highest net firm migration, followed by North Carolina, Nevada and Texas. When firms move their headquarters out of California, it doesn't mean they're eliminating all business operations in the state, said Thornberg, a founding partner of Beacon Economics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Once again, politicians are choosing their voters
Maresa Strano, Tribune News Service Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast. In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they're ready to 'fight fire with fire' with their own partisan gerrymanders. It's a tempting strategy. But gerrymanders for a good short-term cause are still unfair to voters, and this tit-for-tat constitutional hardball is just another stop on the longer road to democratic collapse. If party leaders insist on running from competition, then it's time for voters to run toward it. And in many states, the best tool available to do that is the citizen-led ballot initiative — a way for ordinary people to demand fair representation when legislators won't deliver it. Ballot initiatives allow voters to bypass gridlocked and unresponsive legislatures and change the rules of the game directly. In states that allow them, citizens have enacted reforms that legislators refused to touch: Michigan's citizen-led independent redistricting commission cleaned up partisan gerrymandering; Maine's switch to ranked-choice voting elevated and protected moderates like Rep. Jared Golden and Sen. Susan Collins; Arizona's public campaign financing system increased competitiveness. These reforms didn't come from the top down; they were bottom-up demands for a democracy that works. Initiatives work. They help realign public policy with the public interest where the gaps are largest and make elected officials more accountable. And when they're used to fix the deeper structural problems — like single-member districts, winner-takes-all elections — they can even make themselves less necessary over time. That's why we need them now. So we won't need them as much in the future. Unfortunately, not everyone has access to statewide ballot initiatives. Only about half of the US states allow citizens to place new laws on the ballot. The rest — including Texas — leave voters in a Catch-22: They need structural reform to make government responsive, but can't get reform because government isn't responsive. Right now, voters in states that have a statewide initiative process but haven't yet adopted independent redistricting commissions should start organising for that — or, even better, for multi-member state legislative districts elected via proportional representation, which would make gerrymandering obsolete. Voters in places like Nevada, Missouri, and Florida don't need to wait for their state legislatures, the courts, or Congress to upgrade their systems. By contrast, Texas's roughly 19 million registered voters currently have no pathway to change that that doesn't begin inside the statehouse. And polling suggests Texans aren't thrilled with the status quo. A recent survey found that 63 percent of Texas voters view the redistricting push as unnecessary. Another Texas poll from 2010 found 68% support for adopting a statewide initiative process. Several bills to create one in Texas have been introduced in recent years. For now, though, the people's hands are tied. Creating a new ballot initiative process is no easy task. It bumps into the Catch-22 as before. In every state without ballot initiatives, creating a process for them requires a constitutional amendment, which, absent a constitutional convention, must be initiated by the legislature. However, there's a difference between political reform groups asking lawmakers to vote to create an independent commission and a large, broad-based coalition asking them to give the public a new way to propose ideas in the future. That second ask — about democratic process, not specific policy outcomes — might be harder to reject without political consequences. We've been here before. Between 1898 and 1920, amid corruption, inequality, and political capture, 21 states enshrined initiative systems into their constitutions. Many lawmakers supported the change not out of principle, but because they saw the writing on the wall. Ballot initiatives aren't perfect. They can be expensive, distorted by special interests, or weaponized to harm vulnerable communities. But in moments of democratic backsliding, they're one of the only tools voters have to rebalance the system and reclaim their power. Let's use and expand their use now — strategically and responsibly — so we can build a democracy that no longer needs them.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
Lawfully present immigrants help stabilise ACA plans
Bernard J. Wolfson, Tribune News Service If you want to create a perfect storm at Covered California and other Affordable Care Act marketplaces, all you have to do is make enrolment more time-consuming, ratchet up the toll on consumers' pocketbooks, and terminate financial aid for some of the youngest and healthiest enrollees. And presto: You've got people dropping coverage; rising costs; and a smaller, sicker group of enrollees, which translates to higher premiums. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have just checked that achievement off their list. They have done it with the sprawling tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed on July 4 and a related set of new regulations released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will govern how the ACA marketplaces are run. Among the many provisions, there's this: Large numbers of lawfully present immigrants currently enrolled in Obamacare health plans will lose their subsidies and be forced to pay full fare or drop their coverage. Wait. What? I understand that proponents of the new policies think the government spends too much on taxpayer subsidies, especially those who believe the ACA marketplaces are rife with fraud. It makes sense that they would support toughening enrolment and eligibility procedures and even slashing subsidies. But taking coverage away from people who live here legally is not health care policy. It's an echo of the federal immigration raids in Los Angeles and elsewhere. 'It's creating a very hostile environment for them, especially after having to leave their countries because of some very traumatic experiences,' says Arturo Vargas Bustamante, a professor of health policy and management at UCLA's Fielding School of Public Health. 'For those who believe health care is a human right, this is like excluding that population from something that should be a given.' In Covered California, 112,600 immigrants, or nearly 6% of total enrollees, stand to lose their federal tax subsidies when the policy takes effect in 2027, according to data provided by the exchange. In the Massachusetts and Maryland marketplaces, the figure is closer to 14%, according to their directors, Audrey Morse Gasteier and Michele Eberle, respectively. It's not clear exactly how much financial aid those immigrants currently receive in ACA marketplaces. But in Covered California, for example, the average for all subsidised enrollees is $561 per month, which covers 80% of the $698 average monthly premium per person. And immigrants, who tend to have lower-than-average incomes, are likely to get more of a subsidy. The immigrants who will lose their subsidies include victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, as well as refugees with asylum or with some temporary protected status. And 'Dreamers' will no longer be eligible for ACA marketplace health plans because they will not be considered lawfully present. Immigrants who are not in the country legally cannot get coverage through Covered California or most other ACA marketplaces. The nearly 540,000 Dreamers in the United States arrived in the US as kids without immigration papers and were granted temporary legal status by President Barack Obama in 2012. Of those, an estimated 11,000 have ACA health plans and would lose them, including 2,300 in Covered California. Supporters of the policy changes enshrined in the CMS rule and budget law think it's high time to rein in what they say are abuses in the system that started under the Biden administration with expanded tax credits and overly flexible enrollment policies. 'It's about making Obamacare lawful and implementing it as drafted rather than what Biden turned it into, which was a fraud and a waste-infused programme,' says Brian Blase, president of Arlington, Virginia-based Paragon Health Institute, which produces policy papers with a free-market bent and influenced the Republican-driven policies. But Blase doesn't have much to say about the termination of Obamacare subsidies for lawfully present immigrants. He says Paragon has not focused much on that subject. Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, expects most immigrants who lose subsidies will discontinue their enrolment. 'If you look at where those populations fall on the income scale, the vast majority are not going to be able to afford the full cost of the premium to stay covered,' she says. Apart from the human hardship cited by Bustamante, the exodus of immigrants could compromise the financial stability of coverage for the rest of Covered California's 1.9 million enrollees. That's because immigrants tend to be younger than the average enrollee and use fewer medical resources, thus helping offset the costs of older and sicker people who are more expensive to cover. Covered California data shows that immigrant enrollees targeted by the new federal policies pose significantly lower medical risk than US citizens. And a significantly higher percentage of immigrants in the exchange are ages 26 to 44, while 55- to 64-year-olds make up a smaller percentage. Still, it would be manageable if immigrants were the only younger people to leave the exchange. But that is unlikely to be the case. More red tape and higher out-of-pocket costs — especially if enhanced tax credits disappear — could lead a lot of young people to think twice about health insurance. The covid-era enhanced tax credits, which have more than doubled ACA marketplace enrollment since their advent in 2021, are set to expire at the end of December without congressional action. And, so far, Republicans in Congress do not seem inclined to renew them. Ending them would reverse much of that enrollment gain by jacking up the amount consumers would have to spend on premiums out of their own pockets by an average of 66% at Covered California and more than 75% nationally. And an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that a consequent exodus of younger, healthier people from the marketplaces would lead to even greater costs over time. Enhanced tax credits aside, consumers face additional hurdles: The annual enrolment period for Covered California and other marketplaces will be shorter than it is now. Special enrolment periods for people with the lowest incomes will be effectively eliminated. So will automatic renewals, which have greatly simplified the process for a majority of enrollees at Covered California and some other marketplaces. Enrollees will no longer be able to start subsidised coverage, as they can now, before all their information is fully verified. 'Who are the people who are going to decide to go through hours and hours of onerous paperwork?' says Morse Gasteier. 'They're people who have chronic conditions. They have health care issues they need to manage. The folks we would expect not to wade through all that red tape would be the younger, healthier folks.' California and 20 other states this month challenged some of that red tape in a federal lawsuit to stop provisions of the CMS rule that erect 'unreasonable barriers to coverage.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said he and his fellow attorneys general hoped for a court ruling before the rule takes effect on Aug.25. 'The Trump administration claims that their final rule will prevent fraud,' Bonta said. 'It's obvious what this is really about. It's yet another political move to punish vulnerable communities by removing access to vital care and gutting the Affordable Care Act.'
Sharjah 24
a day ago
- Sharjah 24
Bitcoin hits record high above $124,000
The cryptocurrency rose above its previous July record, briefly exceeding $124,500 before retreating. US stocks ended higher Wednesday, with the S&P 500 index and the tech-heavy Nasdaq reaching new heights this week, contributing to the cryptocurrency's rise. Bitcoin's value has recently soared, fuelled by US regulatory changes under US President Donald Trump, a strong backer of the crypto sector. Its price has also been boosted by large holders of cryptocurrency, referred to as "whales". "The crypto market is enjoying a period of highly favorable fundamentals," said Samer Hasn, senior market analyst at "President Donald Trump has moved to end restrictions that previously prevented banks from doing business with companies flagged for reputational risk concerns, a category in which crypto firms were often unfairly placed," he added. Trump may also be inclined to "accelerate the integration of cryptocurrencies into the national financial system and lift additional restrictions, given his and his family's growing involvement in the sector", Hasn said. Trump's media group and Tesla, the electric carmaker owned by tech billionaire Elon Musk, are among an increasing number of companies buying huge amounts of bitcoin.
