Why Company Headquarters Are Leaving California in Unprecedented Numbers
Joseph Vranich and Lee E. Ohanian1
Economics Working Paper 21117
HOOVER INSTITUTION
434 GALVEZ MALL
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
STANFORD, CA 94305-6010
Revised September 14, 2022

This paper provides the most detailed and comprehensive data on relocations of California
business headquarters between 2018 and 2021. We document that these headquarter exits havemore than doubled in 2021. We discuss several economic factors that have led to thesedepartures by raising business costs, reducing productivity, and reducing profitability, including
tax policies, regulatory policies, labor costs, litigation costs, energy and utility costs, andconcerns about a declining quality of life within the state. Unless policy reforms reverse thiscourse, California will continue to lose businesses, both large established businesses, as well as
young, rapidly growing businesses, some of which will become the transformational giants of
tomorrow.
JEL Codes: R3, R5, L1
Rev. 2
The Hoover Institution Economics Working Paper Series allows authors to distribute research fordiscussion and comment among other researchers. Working papers reflect the views of theauthors and not the views of the Hoover Institution.
1

Joseph Vranich, President, Spectrum Location Solutions, Lee E. Ohanian, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution andDistinguished Professor of Economics, UCLA.

1

1.

Introduction

California is experiencing a substantial loss of company headquarters to other states. This paper
uses several data sources to provide the most detailed and systematic documentation of thecompanies that have relocated their headquarters out of California to other U.S. states between
2018 and 2021.
An earlier version of this paper examined only the first six months of 2021. This revision
includes all of 2021. We find that the number of companies relocating their headquarters out of
California in 2021 occurred at twice the rate of 2020. Our findings show that 352 companies
moved their headquarters to other states just in the period from January 1, 2018, throughDecember 31, 2021, based on either the date of the announcement or the date of documentation
with the state, whichever came first. Every month in 2021, twice as many companies relocatedtheir headquarters as in the prior year. The monthly average for 2021 also significantly exceeds
the monthly averages for 2018 and 2019. California lost both very large companies, including
eleven Fortune 1,000 companies between 2018-21, and small, rapidly growing companies withthe potential to become transformational. From this perspective, California is not only losing
current leading businesses, but potential future leading businesses as well.
We identify the California counties that lost headquarters facilities and the states to which
migrations occur. We present evidence on economic factors that in our view are contributing tothese losses, including high tax rates, punitive regulations, high labor costs, high utility andenergy costs, and high living costs, particularly the cost of housing affordability. We find that
California is either at the bottom of statewide rankings on these factors, or near the bottom ofthese rankings. California’s poor performance on these rankings dovetails with anecdotal
evidence from CEOs and other business leaders who find California’s business climate deficientcompared to other states.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents data on business relocations from
California, the California counties which have been hit the hardest, the primary destination states
for these relocations, and new capital facility spending projects. Section 3 presents someperspectives from business leaders on California’s business environment. Section 4 compares
California’s tax environment with other states. Section 5 discusses California’s litigation costs.
Section 6 discusses California business regulations. Section 7 summarizes California’s high laborcosts. Section 8 presents data on California business energy costs. Section 9 describes declines in
California’s quality of life. Section 10 describes tax incentives to draw businesses to California.
Section 11 analyzes why our data on California headquarter relocations substantially
undercounts these exits. Section 12 concludes. An Appendix follows the conclusion section.
2.

California’s Business Exits

This report focuses on California companies moving their headquarters to other states and thereasons why companies do so. These exits negatively impact the state and particularly the local
communities that lose these headquarters. Employees also leave, reducing demand within theirformer communities and reducing economic vibrancy. Jobs are not the only loss. There is also
the loss of corporate income tax revenues, business property taxes, rents to property owners,
payments to contractors, and fees to companies in the travel industry such as hotels and rental car
2companies. The departing organization often shifts its philanthropic contributions away from
non-profit organizations in their traditional location and to establishments in their new location.
California lost a total of 352 headquarters in the period January 1, 2018, through December 31,
2021, and the departures are accelerating as more relocation plans move to implementation. The
breakdown by year and monthly averages, shown in Table 1 indicates that the 2021 total of 153 –which average 12.8 per month – is more than double the 2020 full-year loss and significantly
above the 2018 and 2019 monthly averages. And as we describe in Section 11, our count isalmost certainly biased downwards significantly, because relatively small businesses – those that
do not attract media coverage or that are small enough to avoid filing compliance reports – areextremely difficult to detect.
Table 1: California Headquarters Losses from
Jan. 1, 2018 through Dec. 31, 2021
Year
2021
2020
2019
2018
Total All Years

Total
EventsMonthly
Average

153
75
78
46
352

12.8
6.3
6.5
3.8
7.3

One reason for the acceleration in business exits is that relocation planning often takes between
one and three years from the initiation of research to the announcement of the move. One
example is The Walt Disney Company announcing in July 2021 that it will relocate 2,000 jobs
(not the headquarters) from the Los Angeles area to Orlando, Florida, and indicated that planning
had begun in 2019. The move may not be completed until the end of 2022.1 The relocation isn’t
for headquarters, so the event is not reflected in the statistics of this report. Nonetheless, some
Disney headquarters jobs will move to Florida. Some headquarters operational jobs will also be
relocated to Canada because the Walt Disney Animation Studios division will move work fromits Burbank headquarters to a new studio in Vancouver, British Columbia.2 That partial
relocation also is excluded from this report.
A headquarters relocation that is included in this report is the National Hot Rod Association
which is leaving California after 12 years of study. The NHRA started considering moving its
headquarters to Indiana in 2009 and did not decide on this move until 2021.3
Some of the corporations relocating their headquarters are among the 1,000 largest businesses in
the country as ranked by Fortune magazine. A community landing a company headquarters canincrease economic activity significantly. As the Nashville Business Journal pointed out,
“Headquarters are especially prized economic development wins because such jobs typicallyfeature higher pay, and they inject a company’s decision-makers into the market, which can
impact everything from real estate purchases to philanthropy to support for public schools.”4
Table 2 reflects such activity for the Fortune 1000 list and the company’s 2022 rankings. Eleven
Fortune 1000 companies left California in the 2018-21 period.

3

Table 2: Fortune 1,000 Headquarters that Left California 2018-2021
Company
McKesson Corp.
Tesla
OracleHewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)
CBRE Group
Charles Schwab
KLA Corporation (HQ2)
Parsons
Kaiser Aluminum
NortonLifeLock / Symantec
Woodward Inc.

California Location
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
San Mateo > Redwood City
Santa Clara > San Jose
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Milpitas
Los Angeles > Pasadena
Orange County > Lake Forest
Santa Clara > Mountain View
Los Angeles > Duarte

Destination
Texas > Irving
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > Houston
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Westlake
Michigan > Ann Arbor
Virginia > Centreville
Tennessee > Franklin
Arizona > Tempe
Colorado > Fort Collins

2022
FortuneRanking
9
65
91
123
126
188
474
733
906
917
972

Summary of Losses by California County
Los Angeles and San Francisco counties have experienced the highest number of relocations.
This likely reflects the fact that headquarters are concentrated in those cities, and that thesecounties are reported by companies as having higher business costs.
Headquarters migrations out of Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties reflect high-techcompanies in the digital and social media world opting for less expensive locations not only tocontrol business costs but to recruit workers with the benefits of lower housing costs. The
counties with the most losses are shown in Table 3, below:

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

Table 3: Top Ten Losses by California County
Jan 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021
CountyTotal
Rank County
Los Angeles
80
7
San Mateo
San Francisco
52
8Sacramento
Orange39
9Riverside
Santa Clara
38
10
San Bernardino
San Diego
26
10
PlacerAlameda
23

Total
12
10
8
7
7

Destination States for California Headquarter Relocations
Texas has been the most frequent destination for California company relocations, as it has been
for at least a decade. Arizona and Nevada are also frequently near the top of the ranking, which
we believe partially reflect convenient airline schedules connecting with California’s largest
cities. Los Angeles is approximately a one-hour flight to Phoenix and Las Vegas, and San
Francisco is a short flight to Reno. Those convenient travel times influence corporate executives
and business owners to relocate to those communities. Tennessee and Florida are also becoming
frequent homes for relocating California businesses, as shown in Table 4, below.
4

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6

State
Texas
Tennessee
NevadaFloridaArizona
Colorado

Table 4: Top Ten States for California Relocations
Jan 1, 2018 through December 31, 2021
Known
Known
Rank State
Rank
Relocations
Relocations
132
7
North Carolina
13
10
31
8
7
10
Ohio
25
9
Georgia
51024
9Kentucky
510
21
9
Virginia
5
10
20

State
Indiana
MissouriMichigan
Arkansas
Utah

Known
Relocations
4
4
4
4
4

California Lags in Total New Capital Projects
An important indicator of geographic preferences for business capital investment for all types ofrelocated facilities and new facilities is found in Site Selection Magazine. The publication reports
the number of capital projects by state. The latest findings are for 2020. Their analysis covers all
facilities including factories, research and development units, data centers, call centers, backoffices, and distribution centers. The data is reported by total projects and the number of projects
per capita.
California should be among the states with the largest number of new capital projects, given it is
the nation’s third-largest state in land area, is the nation’s most populous (39.5 million per the2020 census), has an enormous geographic advantage in being home to ports positioned well forinternational shipments, and has considerable business-to-business and business-to-consumer
customer bases. Despite such assets, California ranks 16th, as shown in Table 5. Texas is theleader, as it has been for many years. Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Alabama, all of which aremuch smaller than California, rank higher in total new investment projects.
Table 5: New Project Rankings by Total Projects for 2020
Rank State
Projects
Rank State
Projects
Rank State
1
Texas
781
17
Missouri
96
34
Washington
2
Ohio
419
18
Michigan85
35
Nevada3
Georgia360
18
Tennessee
85
36Connecticut
4
Illinois329
20
Kansas70
37
Oregon5
North Carolina
194
21
Nebraska
59
38
Delaware6
Indiana189
22
Wisconsin
58
39
Idaho
7
Kentucky
152
23
Iowa
48
40
West Virginia
8
Virginia
136
23
Minnesota
48
41
Maine
9
Florida125
25
Massachusetts
47
42
Wyoming
10
Pennsylvania
123
26
Mississippi
46
43South Dakota
11
Alabama121
27
Maryland45
43
Montana12
Louisiana
116
28
New Jersey
39
45
New Hampshire
13
New York
111
29
Colorado
29
46
Hawaii
14
South Carolina
110
30
Oklahoma
24
47
Rhode Island
15
Arizona108
31
Arkansas
21
47
Vermont
16
California
103
31
Utah
21
47
North Dakota
Source: Site Selection Magazine
33
New Mexico
20
47
Alaska5

Projects
17
16
14
13
11
10
8
7
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2

California Significantly Lags in Per Capita Capital Projects
California’s ranking plummets to 46th (tied with North Dakota) when measured on a per-capita
basis. Table 6 shows these data.

Table 6: New Project Rankings Per Capita for 2020
ProRank State
jects
1
Ohio
419
2
Georgia360
3
Kentucky152
4
Nebraska
59
5
Indiana
189
6
Texas
781
7
Illinois329
8Louisiana
116
9Alabama
121
10
Kansas70
11South Carolina
110
12North Carolina
194
13
Virginia
136
14
Missouri96
15
Mississippi
46
16
Iowa
48
Source: Site Selection Magazine

3.

Per
Million
35.8
34.2
34.0
30.6
28.2
27.2
25.8
24.9
24.8
24.0
21.6
18.7
16.0
15.7
15.4
15.2

Rank

State

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32

ArizonaTennessee
DelawareWyoming
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Minnesota
Michigan
Maryland
Arkansas
Massachusetts
Utah
Oklahoma
FloridaNew YorkSouth Dakota

Projects
108
85
11
6
58
123
20
48
85
45
21
47
21
24
125
111
5

Per
Million
15.1
12.6
11.4
10.4
10.0
9.6
9.5
8.6
8.5
7.4
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.1
5.9
5.7
5.7

Rank

State

32
35
36
37
38
39
39
41
42
43
44
45
46
46
48
49
50

Idaho
NevadaMaine
Colorado
Montana
New Jersey
West Virginia
Connecticut
Vermont
OregonNew Hampshire
AlaskaNorth Dakota
California
Washington
Hawaii
Rhode Island

Projects
10
16
7
29
5
39
8
14
2
13
4
2
2
103
17
3
2

Independent Evaluations of California’s Business Environment

Understanding business relocations requires comparing the quality of state-level businessclimates, as businesses will move to the locations that are best for creating economic activity.
Several independent surveys have concluded that California’s business climate ranks poorly
compared to other states.
Chief Executive Magazine: California - The ‘Worst State for Business’
A key finding about how corporate leaders rank a state’s business climate is reflected in Chief
Executive magazine’s 2021 survey, “The Best and Worst States for Business,” which found a
growing number of CEOs were open to relocating as Covid-19 concerns dissipated. The
publication summarized the survey as follows:“Despite a global pandemic, near-economic collapse, civic unrest, just-plain-insane
election cycle and everything in between during this crazy Covid year, when it comes tothe places CEOs like to do business, the old saw is true: The more things change, themore they stay the same. For the 17th year in a row, Texas tops Chief Executive’s Bestand Worst States for Business list. Number two? Florida, once again. When it comes tothe three criteria CEOs tell us they value most in site selection – tax policy (37 percent
rank it first), regulatory climate (35 percent) and talent availability (25 percent) – Texas
6

Per
Million
5.7
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.4
3.9
3.2
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.1
1.9

and Florida outclass all comers. And once again—yawn—California, New York, Illinois
and Massachusetts pile up at the bottom of our rankings (based entirely on polling of thenation’s CEOs) where they have dwelt for most of the list’s existence. But while thenames at the top and the bottom remain unchanged, what has changed—dramatically—
are the stakes. . . . Forty-four percent of those we surveyed report that they’re “more open
than before to examining new locations” for their business, while 34 percent said they’re“considering shifting [or] opening significant operations [or] facilities in a new state.”5
The rankings are in Table 7, as follows:
Table 7: The 2021 Best & Worst States for Business
State
Rank State
Rank
Texas
17
Iowa
34
Florida18
Missouri35
Tennessee
19
Louisiana
36
North Carolina
20
Colorado
37
Indiana21
Idaho
38
South Carolina
22
Wisconsin
39
Ohio
23
Kentucky
40
Nevada24
New Hampshire
41
Georgia
25
Montana42
Arizona26
Nebraska
43
Utah
27
Kansas44
South Dakota
28
Oklahoma
45
Virginia
29
North Dakota
46
Delaware30
Alabama47
Michigan
31
Arkansas
48
Wyoming
32
Mississippi
49
33
Alaska50
Source: Chief Executive Magazine
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

State
West Virginia
New Mexico
Maine
Rhode Island
MarylandVermont
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
HawaiiConnecticut
OregonMassachusetts
Washington
New Jersey
Illinois
New York
California

California Policies Are Costly to Small Businesses
The judgment of Chief Executives is mirrored by owners of smaller businesses. For example,
Bing Energy CFO Dean Minardi said when announcing that the fuel-cell maker was relocatingfrom San Bernardino County to Tallahassee, Florida that “I just can’t imagine any corporation in
their right mind would decide to set up in California today.”6
The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) has examined how public
policies in the 50 states affect entrepreneurship, small business, and the economy. The
organization ranks the states according to 62 policy measures, including tax, regulatory, andgovernment spending provisions.
SBE Council President and CEO Karen Kerrigan said, “States that provide better businessenvironments and continuously improve their policy climates are in the best position to attract
new investment, entrepreneurs, and business relocation opportunities. People are also moving tothese low-cost, business-friendly states, which provides for a ready workforce.”7 While thefindings were published in 2019, it’s likely that during the COVID pandemic the states that had
an unfavorable business climate remained so while states with positive business environments
retained their status.
7

The most “entrepreneur-friendly” states are (1) Texas, (2) Nevada, and (3) Florida, while thethree most unfriendly are (48) Hawaii, (49) California, and (50) New Jersey, as shown in Table
8, below:
Table 8: The Small Business Policy Index State Rankings
Rank State
SBPI
Rank State
SBPI
Rank
1
Texas
45.79817
Mississippi
78.52234
2
Nevada49.100
18
North Dakota
79.15935
3
Florida49.92019
Missouri
79.93836
4South Dakota
51.61820
South Carolina
79.99837
5
Wyoming
56.09321
Oklahoma
80.653
38
6
Indiana
68.12922
Georgia
80.68939
7
Utah
71.002
23
Alaska82.87040
8Alabama
71.37824
New Mexico
84.23841
9Arizona
71.44925
Kansas
85.67342
10Washington
71.52726
Idaho
85.72043
11Tennessee
72.57027
New Hampshire
87.43644
12
Colorado
73.46928
Wisconsin
87.67545
13
Ohio
73.54329
Louisiana
89.04746
14
Michigan73.72830
Kentucky
89.05147
15
North Carolina
74.51731
West Virginia
89.32548
16
Virginia
75.88032
Montana
90.78549
Source: SBE Council
33
Delaware91.47250
SBPI: Small Business Policy Index Scores - the latest data available is for 2019

4.

State
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Arkansas
Nebraska
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Maryland
Maine
Iowa
OregonConnecticut
Vermont
Minnesota
New York
Hawaii
California
New Jersey

SBPI
94.30996.71698.069102.046
105.044106.290107.927
109.022112.303112.829113.830
119.403122.883
124.075129.044
143.165
146.270

California’s High Business and Personal Tax Laws

State Business & Individual Taxes
Joel Kotkin, Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University, pointed out that a
Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies survey found that voters increasingly identify theroot of California’s problems as excessive taxation and regulation. 81 percent of respondents said
state and local taxes are too high, with 48 percent saying taxes are ‘much too high.’ Voterswidely agreed (78 percent) that high taxes are driving people and businesses out of the state.”8
Taxes are a major factor in the cost of doing business. According to Jared Walczak and Janelle
Cammenga of the Tax Foundation, noting “Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes takea larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to consumers (through higher prices),
employees (through lower wages or fewer jobs), shareholders (through lower dividends or sharevalue), or some combination of the above. Thus, a state with lower tax costs will be more
attractive to business investment and more likely to experience economic growth.”9
The Tax Foundation’s 2022 State Business Tax Climate Index evaluates taxes in five categories
in calculating a state’s overall ranking, namely corporate taxes, individual income taxes, sales
taxes, property taxes, and unemployment insurance taxes. It’s rarely understood how thepersonal income tax component impacts business entities. A significant number of firms,
including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and LLCs, report their income through theindividual income tax code depending on the state.
8

California is ranked 48th, trailing New York and New Jersey. There is little evidence that
California’s position is likely to improve considering that higher taxes are often proposed within
the California state legislature. The Tax Climate Index rankings are shown in Table 9, below:
Table 9: 2022 State Business Tax Climate Index Ranks and Component Tax Ranks
Index
Index
Index
State
State
State
Rate
Rate
Rate
1
Wyoming
18
Kentucky35
Nebraska
2South Dakota
19
North Dakota
36
Illinois3
Alaska20
Colorado
37
Ohio
4
Florida21
West Virginia
38
Iowa
5
Montana22
Oregon39
Alabama6
New Hampshire
23
Arizona40
Rhode Island
7
Nevada24
Kansas41
Hawaii8Tennessee
25
Virginia
42
Louisiana
9
Indiana26
Oklahoma43
Vermont
10
Utah
27
Wisconsin
44
Arkansas
11
North Carolina
28
New Mexico
45
Minnesota
12
Michigan29
Pennsylvania
46
Maryland13
Missouri
30
Mississippi
47
Connecticut
14
Texas
31
South Carolina
48
Wash., DC *15
Washington
32
Georgia48
California
16
Delaware
33
Maine
49
New York
17
Idaho
34
Massachusetts
50
New Jersey
Source: Tax Foundation "2022 State Business Tax Climate Index." Note: A rank of 1 is best,
50 is worst. DC’s score and rank do not affect other states. The report shows tax systems as ofJuly 1, 2021 (the beginning of Fiscal Year 2022).

Californians Exiting the State
Households, as well as businesses, are also increasingly leaving the state. For the first time in its
171-year history, California lost a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives based on the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2020 population estimates. This stands in contrast to the fact that California
grew its Congressional delegation without interruption since it was admitted as a state in 1850.10
California’s net domestic migration has been declining significantly for years. The loss was
34,000 in 2012, rising to a loss of 277,000 in 2021. Wendell Cox and Joel Kotkin note “Over thelast 10 years, California lost more than 1.625 million net domestic migrants—more than the
population of Philadelphia. Altogether, 2.7 million more people—a population larger than thecities of San Francisco, San Diego and Anaheim combined—have moved to other states from
California than the other way around over the last 20 years, and immigration is no longer making
up the difference.”
Population losses continue based on trends over the 15 months from the 2020 Census (April 1,
2020) to the updated report released on July 1, 2021. Then, at the metropolitan level, two in
California are among those experiencing the largest recent population losses. New York suffered
the biggest decline in population (372,000) while the other two were Los Angeles (204,000) and
San Francisco (126,000).119

Arthur Laffer observed that “Governor Gavin Newsom has yet to make policy changes
significant enough to reverse California’s looming economic decline. The state has seen net
outmigration of nearly 1 million residents over the past decade, with former Californians citing
high taxes as a common reason for leaving the state.”12
In considering personal income taxes, Dan Walters noted that “California is a high-tax state —relative not only to what’s happening elsewhere but to our own economy. But how high is noteasy to figure out because we not only pay a lot of taxes that are obvious, such as those on
income, retail sales and automotive fuel, but many that are virtually hidden. Nor is there any
central repository of data on taxes, because they are levied by thousands of state and local
government entities and often commingled with fees for particular services.”13
California’s tax burden becomes comparatively worse when evaluating recent tax changes at thestate level. In 2021, the 11 states shown in Table 10 enacted laws to reduce their income taxes,
with most reducing individual tax rates and five reducing corporate income taxes: Arizona,
Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma andWisconsin. The Table shows that tax revenue rose in all these states. We do not conclude that the
tax rates were the cause of higher revenue, but it is interesting that revenues did increase despite
lower tax rates.
Table 10: 2019-2021 Tax Revenue
Growth in States that Cut Tax Rates
Arizona
+21%
Idaho
+35%
Iowa
+13%
Louisiana+6%
Missouri+17%
Montana+19%
Nebraska+23%
New Hampshire
+11%
Ohio
+13%
Oklahoma+5%
Wisconsin+9%
Sources: Tax Foundation and staterevenue agencies. Several states had data
only through May, not June (end of
fiscal year); in such cases eleven-month
figures were used for both fiscal years
for comparability.

Tax reduction measures continued in 2022 as Kentucky and Mississippi took steps to eliminate
the income tax while Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah are seeking to reduce income
taxes. Tennessee is considering tax relief for employers.14 It is typical for tax-abatement
advocates to cite the need to treat businesses fairly to boost their economic competitiveness.
Threats to California Real Estate Tax Protections
Rapid tax increases in the 1970s led Californians to approve real estate tax limitations through“Proposition 13”, which limits the property tax rate to 1 percent, with only a few exceptions.
Also, the provision limits annual increases to no more than 2 percent, except when properties are10reassessed to current market value only upon a change in ownership or completion of new
construction.15
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) discusses the tax issues that brought about
Proposition 13 as follows:
Prior to Proposition 13, property taxes were out of control. The tax rate throughout
California averaged almost 3 percent of market value, and there were no limits on
increases either for the tax rate or property value assessments. Some properties werereassessed 50 percent to 100 percent higher in just one year, so their owners’ tax bills
skyrocketed. . . . In one year in Los Angeles County alone, 400,000 people had not paid
their property tax because they didn’t have the money, running the risk of being forcedout of their homes. Elderly people were among the hardest hit. Many had paid off theirmortgages yet faced losing their homes because they couldn’t afford property taxes. . . .
Howard Jarvis gathered more than 1.5 million signatures to qualify a statewide initiativethat would finally end excessive taxation and protect the security of home ownership –Proposition 13. An overwhelming majority of Californian voters – almost 66% – voted
for Proposition 13 because they knew that the initiative would finally take power awayfrom the tax collectors and give it back to the taxpayers. And once Howard Jarvis and his
Tax Revolt passed Proposition 13, property tax rates finally became predictable,
manageable, and fair.16
There are frequent threats against Proposition 13’s tax base protections. The most recent was in
2020, with Proposition 15, which would have repealed Proposition 13 protections for businessproperty. It became known as the “split roll” proposal for the way it would increase taxes oncommercial and industrial properties while continuing to protect residential properties. The
increase in business property taxes would have been phased in beginning in fiscal year 20222023. Despite the Proposition continuing tax protection for residential land, some viewed
Proposition 15 as opening the door to future residential property tax hikes. Jon Coupal, HJTA’s
President: “Prop. 15 is a direct threat to homeowners. Supporters of the tax hike openly admitted
that this is merely the first step in completely dismantling Prop. 13.”17. Voters defeated that
initiative by 52-to-48 percent, but we believe that modifying Proposition 13 will continue to arisein the state, given just how much revenue is at stake.
5.

California’s Uncompetitive Litigation Environment

The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) has called California a “legal hellhole”, where
lawsuit abuse against businesses is widespread. In addressing the findings in its 2020/2021“Judicial Hellholes” Report, the organization said, “In a year when many states saw a significant
decrease in litigation, California plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to target businesses, while thelegislature and judiciary pursued innovative new ways to expand liability. Businesses, small andlarge, are struggling to stay afloat, yet California’s leadership failed to ease unjust liability
burdens and further stacked the deck against their survival.”18
For several years, ATRF identified California as the worst or among the worst of the nation’s
systems. They found California’s civil court system to be high-risk for businesses when it comes11

to employee lawsuits – and where the likelihood of catastrophic verdicts is higher than in otherstates.
The organization states that plaintiffs’ lawyers take advantage of unique California laws such as
the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) and the California Consumer Protection Act. Small
business continues to be targeted by Americans with Disability Act lawsuit abuse. Arbitration isunder attack and employers face burdensome employment law liability. ATRF’s latest reportstates that in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic:
Almost 60 percent of Californians believe that lawmakers are not doing enough tocombat lawsuit abuse. Excessive tort costs in California lead to an annual estimated $15.1
billion lost in direct costs and 242,761 jobs according to The Perryman Group. This
amounts to each Californian paying a $594.74 “tort tax.” California’s improvement fromholding the worst state ranking to being third from the bottom is not indicative of an
improvement in the state’s civil justice system but rather results from the rapid
deterioration occurring in Pennsylvania and New York City.19
California competes with New York for the most “no-injury” consumer class actions targetingthe food and beverage industry. These are lawsuits that often claim that some aspect of a
product’s packaging or marketing misleads consumers, even though these claims may have little
if any objective factual basis.
California’s ‘Sue Your Boss’ Law
At one time, if an employee had a grievance against their employer, a review process wasavailable through the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).20 But
lawyers prefer to sue under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) because by doing so theycan earn much larger fees.
PAGA – often referred to as the “Sue Your Boss” law – authorizes aggrieved employees to filelawsuits to recover civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and even the Stateof California for Labor Code violations.21 The law allows employees to essentially step into theshoes of a state enforcement agency for allegedly aggrieved employees and their coworkers.
PAGA allows employees to sue for almost every Labor Code violation, not just serious
violations or those dealing with health and safety, which is why a PAGA claim (for a filing feeof only $75) can be much more harmful to an employer than a regular Labor Code violation;
lawsuits filed under PAGA allow employees to litigate virtually any infraction of California’s
1,050-page labor law digest.
Since PAGA gives workers such wide latitude, including allowing their attorneys to recover 100
percent of their fees, extensive lawsuits – threatened or real – hit companies hard in California.
Under PAGA, employers can be fined and be subject to litigation for a mistake on a paycheck
stub.
PAGA imposes monetary fines on employers for each violation of nearly every single Labor
Code provision. If the code fails to provide for a penalty, PAGA imposes its own fines on the12employer. The costs to businesses because of PAGA have grown from $4.5 million in its
inception year of 2004 to an estimate of $40 million in the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the most recent
available estimate.
Tom Manzo, President of Timely Industries, learned that the company was being sued by an
employee for wage and hour violations. The company was concerned it might have to spend aminimum of $200,000 in attorney fees and over one million dollars on settling a Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) lawsuit. Manzo summarized the concerns employers have with that law:
“Created in the beginning to aid employees in 2004 it has turned into a money-making
machine for unscrupulous attorneys. We have ambulance chasers that are chasing
companies and cashing in on the Golden Ticket daily. It is shameful how our State andGovernment allow such atrocities. Attorneys from Beverly Hills are walking away withhundreds of thousands of dollars. The employees they are allegedly protecting are losing
their jobs after such an assault due to layoffs or company closures.”22
We are unaware of any evidence that this law will be diminished in scope or eliminated. In July
2021, the California Law Revision Commission was asked whether it intends to recommend theabolition of PAGA, and if so, when. The response from Brian Hebert, the commission’s
executive director, was that “We do not have statutory authority to do so.”23 It is unlikely thelegislature will provide such authority considering the strong support for PAGA from organizedlabor and attorneys represented by the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO,24 Consumer
Attorneys of California,25 the UCLA Labor Law Center,26 the California Employment Lawyers
Association,27 and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.28
Covid-19 did not slow PAGA lawsuits, as explained by the California Business and Industrial
Alliance:
Even though the Covid-19 pandemic shut down California, trial attorneys didn’t take abreak. Since March [through October 2020], more than 3,000 Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) lawsuits have been filed....Who’s profiting from these ludicrous lawsuits?
It’s not the employees, that’s for sure. A recent $675,000 PAGA settlement delivered 93
percent of the money directly to the pockets of Lawyers for Justice, one of the state’s
most prolific PAGA mills. Just $10k went to the lead employee on the complaint, and ameasly $33 was paid to each of the other employees.29
California’s litigation climate imposes higher costs on businesses with no attendant benefits andis almost certainly contributing to business relocation.
6.

California’s Regulatory Climate

According to the Mercatus Center, California is the most highly regulated state in the country,with over 395,000 pages of regulations. The challenges that businesses have in complying withthese regulations are compounded because they must also deal with 518 state agencies, boards,
and commissions.30

13

California’s regulations create an equal set of challenges for any company when it comes tobroad areas such as wages, employment discrimination, tax regulations and state standards forcertain professionals. However, major differences affect companies with manufacturing facilities
as regulatory costs can be enormous because a factory, food processing facility, or warehousewill have many “non-exempt” (hourly) employees. That translates to an intensive application of
California’s labor laws and opens the company to multiple class action lawsuits. Adding to theburden, manufacturers have specialized regulations depending upon what is being produced –auto parts, furniture, food or beverages, textiles, petroleum products, drugs, electronics, machine
tools, packaging, containers – et al.
The costs to manufacturers for implanting systems per regulations – and to stay in compliancethrough follow-up certifications and payment of fees – are higher in California than in otherstates. Moreover, competitors in some other countries enjoy reduced costs because of weaker or
non-existent regulations regarding labor, product liability, manufacturing defects, consumer
warnings, requirements to reformulate products, and unique rules for containers, packaging,water rationing, recycling and pollution.
Manufacturers have been encouraged to look to the future and “develop a long-term compliancestrategy that prepares and anticipates future regulatory requirements and ensures there are no
disruptions to their sales pipelines and market share.”31 Unfortunately, it is difficult to anticipate
future regulatory requirements in California.
Paycheck Stub Regulations
One example of how California severely regulates business is that a company can suffer alawsuit as well as a fine from the state of California for an inconsequential mistake on apaycheck stub, The check could be issued in the proper amount, given to the employee on time,and clear the bank without failure, all of which is irrelevant if the stub fails to meet the state’s
requirements.
According to attorney Melissa C. Marsh, California law requires specific pieces of information
to be included on every payroll paystub or wage statement for each employee. Failure to comply
with the law “is not only a misdemeanor but also carries a civil penalty of $50 for the first
violation and $100 per pay period for each subsequent violation up to a total of $4,000 per
employee.” Individually, the claim may not seem large, but if a plaintiff’s attorney brings a
PAGA claim on behalf of all prior employees, the civil penalties assessed can be substantial.
Attorney Marsh clarified that “case law states that partial or even substantial compliance is not a
defense.” One wage statement violation involved the identification of the employer as “Summit,”
when the employer’s full name was “Summit Logistics, Inc.” Even a failure to include theemployer’s complete address on the pay stub is considered grounds for litigation.32
Regarding the impact of relocating a business, Kimberly Davis of Quest Site Solutions writes:
States vary significantly in terms of corporate regulations. While the desire to relocate toa state with less stringent corporate regulations is not a new motive for a headquarters
project, the weight placed on this factor has increased significantly [in 2021]. Among the14myriad of business climate factors that come into play, state regulations around board
diversity is the latest differentiator that is causing some companies to consider acorporate move. As these new regulations begin to be implemented, this trend is likely tocontinue.33
California Ranks Low in ‘Economic Freedom’ Rankings
Economic Freedom is an important concept for economists and has implications for the ability ofa business to grow and prosper. Economic freedom refers to the quality of government
institutions that permit businesses and households to own property, to have that property
protected, to freely make decisions, and participate in open and competitive marketplaces.
For 30 years, the Fraser Institute has measured how state policies are supportive of economic
freedom and the ability of individuals to act in the economic sphere free of undue restrictions.
Their report, “The Economic Freedom of North America,” employs 10 variables for state
governments in areas such as taxes, labor market freedom, legal systems and property rights, top
marginal income, payroll tax rates, government spending, and business regulations. Federal-levelfactors are included, which help capture restrictions on economic freedom that are difficult tomeasure exclusively at the state and municipal and local levels.34
The findings in its November 2020 report show that the most economically free state is New
Hampshire, followed by Florida, Virginia, Texas, and Tennessee. California ranks 47th, as shownin Table 11, below:
Table 11: Summary of the Ratings of U.S. States for Economic Freedom
State
Score
Rank State
Score
Rank State
New Hampshire
7.84
17
Wyoming
6.72
34
Illinois
Florida7.73
18
Massachusetts
6.69
35
Ohio
Virginia
7.62
19
Wisconsin
6.58
36
Alabama
Texas
7.61
20
Arizona
6.57
37
Maine
Tennessee
7.55
20
Maryland
6.57
38
DelawareSouth Dakota
7.28
22
Nevada6.54
39
KentuckyGeorgia
7.27
23
Colorado
6.49
40
Minnesota
Indiana
7.08
24
Pennsylvania
6.48
41
Mississippi
Oklahoma
7.05
25
Connecticut
6.45
42
New Mexico
Idaho
7.04
26
Louisiana
6.41
43
Rhode Island
North Carolina
6.95
27
Montana
6.29
44
OregonMissouri
6.92
28
Iowa
6.23
45
HawaiiNorth Dakota
6.88
29
Arkansas
6.14
46
Vermont
Kansas6.86
30South Carolina
6.11
47
California
Nebraska
6.75
31
Michigan
6.00
48
AlaskaUtah
6.73
32
New Jersey
5.99
49West Virginia
33
Washington
5.97
50
New York
Source: “Economic Freedom of North America 2020,” The Fraser Institute
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Score
5.96
5.75
5.71
5.58
5.51
5.45
5.44
5.38
5.37
5.23
5.17
5.12
5.08
4.71
4.67
4.50
4.25

California’s Costly Permitting Process
Obtaining permits from state, regional, and local agencies in California is expensive and timeconsuming reflecting a confusing process with bureaucratic delays.
15

For example, consider the length of time required for one Carls’ Jr. fast-food restaurant to obtaina building permit in Los Angeles after signing a lease. It takes 60 days in Texas, 63 in Shanghai,and 125 in Novosibirsk, Russia. In Los Angeles, it’s 285. “I can open up a restaurant faster on
Karl Marx Prospect in Siberia than on Carl Karcher Boulevard in California,” said former CEO
Andy Puzder of CKE Restaurants.35 The company moved its headquarters from Carpinteria in
Santa Barbara County to Franklin, Tennessee, near Nashville.36
Permitting difficulties aren’t limited to the state’s large cities.
In San Clemente, California, a company applied for a permit to build a walkway between twobuildings to allow forklift drivers to avoid driving through an alleyway. Separate owners of thetwo leased buildings agreed to the walkway – which the tenant would pay for. The permit for a
simple operational and safety improvement was denied. “Why should we stay here?” asked acompany vice president, saying “It was one more thing that turned us sour on California.”37
Eventually, the firm moved its entire facility, headquarters and warehouse to Florida and nolonger has a presence in California.
While cataloging California’s many state and local permitting and licensing requirements isbeyond the scope of this paper, we note that the requirements range from “Air Permits,”“Furniture or Bedding Manufacturer’s License,” “Importer’s License,” “Industrial Activities
Storm Water General Permit,” “Medical Device Manufacturing License,” “Building andConstruction Permit,” “Burglar Alarm Permit,” “Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit,”“Public Health Operating License/Permit,” “Underground Storage Tank Permit,” among others.38
Each one represents a cost to businesses.
Forming a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) within California requires an $800 fee and anannual renewal fee of at least $800 for the life of the company. LLC formation and renewal fees
are lower in every other state. In the states that are in the top five for attracting California
companies the initial filing fees are as follows: (1) Texas $300, (2) Tennessee $300, (3) Nevada$425, (4) Florida $125, and (5) Arizona $50.39
Amazon recently canceled two significant planned facilities in California simply because ofdifficulties they had in obtaining building permits. The company announced in 2020 that itplanned to invest $15 million in a facility located in Sonoma County, but exited the site in 2022
after struggling to obtain the necessary county permits.40 Also, in 2022, Amazon canceled theopening of a 143,000-square-foot delivery station in Oceanside after it failed to obtain a permit.41
California company competitors, particularly in foreign nations, are largely free of such
regulations and are thus able to undercut American companies’ prices for products and services,
further eroding our competitiveness and as well as job opportunities.
7.

California Labor Costs

Labor costs are high in California, which partially reflects the fact that California’s cost of living
is so high. A high cost of living means employees will move unless their paychecks compensate
them at least in part for higher living costs.
16

For an employer, California labor costs are higher than elsewhere when comparisons are made ofcharges that include not only wages and salaries but employer-paid statutory benefits and fringe
benefits. Statutory benefits include medical, dental and vision plans; payroll-based taxes;
disability and life insurance policies; workers’ compensation insurance; and paid time off.
Fringe benefits include a variety of payments that include retirement plans, tuition assistance,
flexible medical or child-care spending accounts, time off beyond what is statutorily required,provision of an automobile, and non-production bonuses (bonuses not tied to performance).
Labor costs as a percentage of location-sensitive factors depend upon the types and numbers ofjobs being relocated, how many employees at their existing compensation will be relocatedversus the number of new employees brought aboard at a lower rate and the statutory
requirements of the new location.
Table 12 below reflects the findings of a relocation study performed by Spectrum Location
Solutions for a company based in the Los Angeles metropolitan area that wanted to move a
portion of its headquarters jobs to communities in other states. Doing so would reduce costs,
bolster continued growth, and create backup redundancies should a natural disaster or criminal
act disrupt the Los Angeles operation. The identities of the Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA)
are absent from the table out of respect for the sensitivities of the economic development
agencies that assisted in providing data. Note that each of the eight areas studied offered labor
cost savings over the Los Angeles MSA.
Table 12: Ten-Year Average Labor Costs - Location Sensitive(USD $000)

MSA

MSA #1MSA #2
MSA #3
MSA #4
MSA #5
MSA #6
MSA #7
MSA #8

Salaryand
Wages

Statutory
Plans

Other
Benefits

Total
Labor

Cost
Savings
Over
L.A.
MSA

$5,923$6,035$6,173$6,236$6,352$6,270$6,348$6,460

$484
$501
$502
$489
$510
$572
$510
$517

$1,739$1,679$1,667$1,734$1,715$1,744$1,782$1,797$8,146$8,215$8,342$8,459$8,577$8,586$8,640$8,774

23.2%
22.5%
21.3%
20.2%
19.1%
19.0%
18.5%
17.2%

In light of the above, it might be assumed that the company – whose identity remains
confidential for nondisclosure purposes– would locate its first out-of-state facility in MSA #1,
which offered the greatest labor savings. However, the first new facility was placed in a
suburban location in MSA #4 because of the relationships the company has with corporations inthat area while still allowing considerable savings. The high-growth company is likely to place
its second new facility in MSA #1 and the third may be in MSA #3. No location in California
was considered for an expanded facility or added jobs. Eventually, in a likely three-to-five-yeartime frame, the company will relocate its headquarters out of Los Angeles. While the ultimate
location is unclear, the decision has been made that costly West Coast metropolitan areas will not
be considered.
17

California’s Overtime Law Burdens Employers & Employees
The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay non-exempt employees
overtime pay at one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.42
However, California’s overtime law requires that non-exempt employees must receive one andone-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 8 hours in any workday and over
40 hours in the workweek. Eight hours of labor constitutes a day’s work, and employment
beyond eight hours in any workday requires the employee to be compensated for the overtime.43
Labor unions in California are sufficiently influential that all efforts to modify the overtime law
to conform to the Federal standard have failed, despite how it is costly for the obvious reason
that any employee working four 10-hour days requires the employer to pay 8 hours of overtime.
The company is disadvantaged in facing competitors in other states that are free of such arequirement and especially handicapped by foreign-based competitors who have no overtime
regulations and pay lower wages.
The stipulation is unpopular with employees who increasingly desire a four-day workweek, suchas those in two-income households who share child-care or elder-care responsibilities. For many
years the provision has motivated companies to exit the state. Gary Sutton stated that he waschairman of Knight Protective Industries when it was bought by Protection One in 1996. theoperation moved to Oregon, where four-day work weeks were permitted by the state and as
employees wanted [emphasis added].”44
Andrew Puzder of CKE Restaurants says that California employers must pay general managers
overtime if they spend 50 percent of their time on non-managerial tasks like working the register
if they’re short-staffed, “which is what we pay and bonus them to do in just about every otherstate.” Since California managers were filing class-action lawsuits against the company for not
being paid overtime, “every retailer in the state has now taken their general managers and madethem hourly employees.” The managers disliked the change “because they worked all theircareers to get off the base to become managers” and paying themselves overtime could hurt theirrestaurants’ bottom lines and chances of a bonus.45 Mr. Puzder adds that the company must fire
managers in California who don’t report their work hours because they present a legal risk. He
tells the fired managers to “go to Tennessee or Texas, where we’ll rehire them [emphasis added]
and they’ll learn entrepreneurial skills.”46
Workers’ Compensation Costs
Businesses have long been concerned with California’s high worker compensation costs. To
assess these costs across states, we use data compiled by the Oregon Department of Consumer
and Business Services, which has produced a national study of workers’ compensation ratesbiennially since 1986.
The study issues an interstate comparison of premium rates and is based on methods that put
states’ workers’ compensation rates on a comparable basis using a constant set of risk
classifications. Also, it relies on classification codes from the National Council on Compensation
Insurance (NCCI), which is used in most states.
18

The states that do not use the NCCI classification system are also included in the study byrelying on analogous classes to the NCCI classes, making it possible to compare these states withthe states served by NCCI.47 When it comes to these costs, California ranks at No. 47, as shownin Table 13, below:

Table 13: Average Workers’ Compensation Costs for 2020 by State
Rank

State

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
16

North Dakota
Arkansas
IndianaWest Virginia
Utah
Texas
OregonArizona
NevadaTennessee
Ohio
KansasKentucky
MarylandMichigan
Massachusetts

Index
Rate
$0.67
$0.72
$0.77
$0.79
$0.85
$0.98
$1.00
$1.05
$1.07
$1.09
$1.11
$1.12
$1.13
$1.14
$1.14
$1.17

Rank

State

17
Mississippi
18
Colorado
19
Virginia
20
North Carolina
21
Alabama
22
New Mexico
23
New Hampshire
24
Florida25
Nebraska
25
Wyoming
27
Illinois
28South Dakota
29
Washington
30
Iowa
31
Pennsylvania
32
Idaho
32
South Carolina
Source: Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services

8.

Index
Rate
$1.20
$1.25
$1.28
$1.31
$1.33
$1.34
$1.37
$1.41
$1.44
$1.44
$1.46
$1.48
$1.53
$1.54
$1.55
$1.56
$1.56

Rank

State

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Minnesota
Maine
Georgia
MissouriOklahoma
Montana
Wisconsin
Alaska
Rhode Island
Louisiana
DelawareConnecticut
Hawaii
California
Vermont
New York
New Jersey

Index
Rate
$1.61
$1.62
$1.64
$1.65
$1.66
$1.69
$1.74
$1.86
$1.93
$1.95
$1.97
$1.99
$2.08
$2.16
$2.21
$2.23
$2.52

California’s Business Energy Costs

The U.S. Energy Information Administration ranks California’s average energy costs forcommercial establishments per kilowatt-hour (kWh) at 48th, with only Alaska, Massachusetts andHawaii being more expensive, as shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Average Price of Electricity by State to Ultimate Customers -- Commercial
Rank
1
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

State
Texas
Idaho
Utah
North Carolina
MissouriNebraska
NevadaVirginia
North Dakota
OklahomaWyoming
Arkansas
Iowa

Rate
7.8
7.8
7.83
7.92
8.4
8.42
8.52
8.56
8.77
8.78
9.03
9.11
9.15

January 2022 (Cents per Kilowatt-hour)
Rank
State
Rate
West Virginia
9.63
17
Ohio
9.75
19
Illinois
9.83
20
Delaware9.83
20
Arizona
9.99
22Montana
10.09
23
New Mexico
10.31
24
Colorado
10.5
25
Kansas
10.56
26
Florida10.73
27
Louisiana
10.77
28
Georgia
10.93
29South Carolina
11.02
30

19

Rank
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

State
Tennessee
MarylandIndiana
Michigan
Alabama
New Jersey
Maine
New York
Vermont
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Connecticut
California

Rate
11.46
11.71
11.82
12.33
12.47
13.32
14.05
16.58
16.97
17.54
17.7
17.79
18.58

14
15
16
17

OregonWashington
South Dakota
Pennsylvania

9.27
9.41
9.62
9.63

31
32
32
34

Minnesota
Wisconsin
KentuckyMississippi

11.03
11.31
11.31
11.34

48
49
50

AlaskaMassachusetts
Hawaii

19.06
19.59
36.29

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861M (formerly EIA-826), Monthly Electric Power
Industry Report. U.S. Energy Information Administration, January, 2022, Table 5.6.A. Average Price ofElectricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector. Note: Utilities and energy service providers may classify
commercial and industrial customers based on either NAICS codes or demands or usage falling within specified
limits by rate schedule. Totals may not equal the sum of components because of independent rounding.

Companies relocating their headquarters also are cognizant of electrical rates for industrial
facilities because headquarters and manufacturing plants sometimes move in unison. Hence,industrial rates can influence a headquarters location decision. California ranks 44th, as shown in
Table 15.

Table 15: Average Price of Electricity by State to Ultimate Customers – Industrial
Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
9
9
9
12
13
14
15
16
17

State
North Carolina
Idaho
Washington
Texas
Utah
OregonIowa
MontanaWest Virginia
Oklahoma
NevadaNew Mexico
Tennessee
Arkansas
Wyoming
Arizona
Mississippi

Rate
5.32
5.46
5.59
5.72
5.88
5.89
6.05
6.05
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.17
6.28
6.31
6.34
6.5
6.54

January 2022 (Cents per Kilowatt-hour)
Rank
State
Rate
Nebraska
6.59
18
Louisiana
6.59
18
Alabama
6.69
20
Georgia
6.75
21
Kentucky
6.88
22South Carolina
6.91
23
North
Dakota6.93
24
Missouri
6.98
25
Ohio
7.01
26
Virginia
7.19
27
Pennsylvania
7.52
28
New York
7.55
29
Illinois
7.76
30
Indiana
7.82
31
Wisconsin
7.84
32
Kansas7.87
33
South Dakota
7.95
34

Rank

35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

State
Michigan
Colorado
FloridaMinnesota
DelawareMarylandMaine
New Jersey
Vermont
California
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Alaska
Rhode Island
Hawaii

Rate
7.99
8.27
8.34
8.44
8.65
9.43
11.07
12.22
12.39
13.83
14.67
16
17.49
17.8
18.6
32.14

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-861M (formerly EIA-826), Monthly Electric Power
Industry Report. U.S. Energy Information Administration, January, 2022, Table 5.6.A. Average Price of Electricity
to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector. Note: Utilities and energy service providers may classify commercial
and industrial customers based on either NAICS codes or demands or usage falling within specified limits byrate schedule. Totals may not equal the sum of components because of independent rounding.

Utility Rate Increases on the Horizon
California electricity customers are likely to see significant energy cost increases in the future.
All three of the state’s investor-owned utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California
Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric – have raised rates within the last year and have moreplanned increases. PG&E's new rate plan effective March 1, 2022 raised monthly electricity rates
by more than 9 percent for the average residential customer, 10 percent for small businesses, andlarger increases for industrial facilities, for an average increase of 12.69% across PG&E’s entire
20

customer base.48 The California Public Utilities Commission reports that PG&E is proposing a
22 percent rate hike from 2023 to 2026 in addition to a 22 percent rate hike already planned for2022.49
Southern California Edison in April 2020 increased its rates by approximately 7 percent overall.
In 2021, SCE requested an additional residential rate increase of 14 percent, while commercial
rates are estimated to rise between 9 and 11 percent.50 It is plausible to expect rates to also surge
higher for electricity from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power as well as San Diego
Gas and Electric as California continues to reduce its electrical generating capacity.
Despite rising prices and power shortages, California is planning to dismantle severalhydroelectric dams in the northern part of the state and preserve environmental rules that make itnearly impossible to build new power plants – even the least harmful natural gas facilities, whichemit less than half as much carbon as coal.
As California faced a record heat wave and the potential of power outages in September 2022,
Gov. Newsom signed into law a measure to allow California’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon,
to stay open past 2025 – its long-anticipated closure date – and will remain operating until 2030
at the latest. It is the state's last operating nuclear plant and accounts for approximately 8.5% of
all power generated in the state. While that is a sensible measure to take during a critical time, it
falls short of a comprehensive plan to provide adequate power to California over the upcoming
decades, particularly in light of California’s recent decision to ban sales of new gasoline poweredcars in 2035.51
Overall, California’s long-standing production-limiting actions, including more reliance on lessreliable solar and wind energy, mean an increasing amount of electricity must be imported fromother states at considerable cost. Moreover, California has become increasingly dependent on
foreign energy, which raises potential risks related to geopolitical issues. Since 1985, California
has reduced its oil production by 60 percent but has seen only a modest decrease in demand of
4.4 percent.52 California’s dependency on crude oil imports from foreign countries increased
from 5 percent in 1992 to 58 percent today, as reflected in a recent chart issued by the California
Energy Commission, shown below.53
Figure 1: Crude Oil Supply Sources to California Refineries

21

9.

Quality of Life in California

A recent UCSD survey shows respondents indicating that out-of-state job prospects, cost ofliving, housing, overall quality of life, taxes, schools, and the quality of government services, themajority would be better outside of California. This includes roughly 2/3 believing their overall
quality of life would be better out of California, 62 percent believing schools and government
would be better, and 85 percent believing housing costs and other living costs would be better
outside of California. These detailed answers dovetail with the statistics and facts about
California’s cost of living, housing, school quality, quality of governance, and job
opportunities.54
Last year, Texas gained the largest number of residents, nearly 374,000, according to U.S.
Census Bureau 2020 population estimates.55 A major reason in our view is that the quality of life
in Texas has now surpassed California’s, as is now true in many other states. Even California’s
mild weather and natural beauty aren’t enough to stem the increasing outflow of businesses andtheir employees.
When considering quality-of-life factors, numerous considerations come into play including
individual income tax rates, cost of living and housing affordability. Purely local factors are
excluded from this study because conditions vary greatly among counties and municipalities –
namely quality of schools, commuting times, recreational opportunities, social and religiousorganizations and crime rates.
Unaffordable Housing
One reason for the low quality-of-life ranking is unaffordable housing. One newspaper headline
read, “One symptom of California’s housing crisis? State agency says someone making $200K
deserves house-buying help.”56 That headline appeared three years ago, and the situation has
markedly worsened.
A Census Bureau survey issued in December 2020 asked people who relocated what the main
reason was for their decision, and the most choices in 2019-2020, ranked according to22

popularity, were (1) “wanted newer/better/larger house or apartment,” followed by (2) “new job
or job transfer,” (3) “to establish own household,” (4) “other family reason,” (5) “wanted to own
home, not rent,” and (6) “wanted cheaper housing.”57 While Covid-19 influenced some of thefactors, it’s nonetheless true that such motivations appeared long before the pandemic.
When comparing markets, affordability requires consideration of both house prices and incomes.
The Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey of 2022 sheds light on the topic byexamining the “Median Multiple,” which is the median house price divided by the medianhousehold income of the same area. The process brings about a reliable, easily understood, andessential indicator for measuring residential markets. The methodology underpins the work ofWendell Cox of Demographia and his housing studies issued over the last 18 years. The MedianMultiple indicator is particularly useful to measure middle-income housing affordability and thus
excludes the influence of higher income and luxury housing.
The 2022 edition rates affordability for the third quarter of 2021. Among its findings are that theyear 2021involved material setbacks, mostly due to the impact of Covid-19, which Cox defines
as The Pandemic Demand Shock: “There has been an unprecedented deterioration in housing
affordability during the pandemic. The number of severely unaffordable markets rose 60% in
2021 compared to 2019, the last pre-pandemic year.”58
Housing costs continued to rise in 2022 as the supply of homes for sale continued to fall. That
inventory at the end of January slid to the lowest level on record since the National Associationof Realtors began tracking total existing-home inventory in 1999. In February, 2022, the typical
U.S. home is worth $331,533, a worrying 32.4 percent increase from February 2020. In the past
year alone, the typical home value rose 20.3 percent.59Also, by March, 2022 mortgage rates wererising sharply,60 another challenge for buyers in all markets.
Virtually all of the markets with severely unaffordable housing have urban containment policies
that strictly restrict building on urban peripheries. Since California shows no signs of easing suchanti-suburban policies, house prices will certainly continue to escalate in the state. That ishappening as median prices have increased in the short time since the Demographia study wasissued. For example, in mid-July, 2021, a newspaper headline said, “‘It’s crazy’: LA County
home sales soar 69%; median rises to $790,000.” The story added, “At $680,000, the region’s
median home price was up $125,000 in the 12 months ending in June, the second-biggest yearover-year gain in CoreLogic records.”61
Despite recent increases, the Demographia study is worth examining. Middle-income housing
affordability is rated in four categories, ranging from the most affordable (“Affordable”) to theleast affordable (“Severely unaffordable”), as indicated in Table 16, below:
Table 16: Demographia Housing Affordability 2022
Ratings
Housing Affordability Rating
Median Multiple
Affordable
3.0 and under
Moderately Unaffordable
3.1 to 4.0
Seriously Unaffordable
4.1 to 5.0
Severely Unaffordable
5.1 & OverMedian multiple: Median house price divided bymedian household income23

Of the 56 metropolitan areas studied in the United States, the most severely unaffordable areas
include 7 in California with Fresno being the “least of the worst,” followed by Sacramento,
Riverside-San Bernardino, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco with San Jose holding thehighest-cost ranking, as shown in Table 17.62

Rank

Table 17: U.S. Housing Markets Most Affordable to Least Affordable
Median Multiple (MM) Based on Median House Price/Median Household Income for Q3 2021
Metropolitan Market
MM
Rank
Metropolitan Market
MM
Rank
Metropolitan Market

1
Pittsburgh, PA
2.7
20
Atlanta, GA
2
Oklahoma City, OK
3.3
20
Chicago, IL-IN-WI
2
Rochester, NY
3.3
20
Houston, TX
4
St. Louis,, MO-IL
3.6
23
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
5
Cleveland, OH
3.7
24
Birmingham, AL
6
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
3.8
25
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
7
Buffalo, NY
3.9
25
San Antonio, TX
8Kansas City, MO-KS
4
27
New Orleans. LA
8Louisville, KY-IN
4
28
Nashville, TN
8
Tulsa, OK428
Raleigh, NC
11
Detroit, MI
4.1
30
Jacksonville, FL
11Hartford, CT
4.1
30
Milwaukee, WI
13
Grand Rapids, MI
4.2
32Richmond, VA
13
Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC
4.2
32
Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV
15
Columbus, OH
4.3
34Charlotte, NC-SC
15
Indianapolis. IN
4.3
35
Orlando, FL
15
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI
4.3
35
Providence, RI-MA
18
Baltimore, MD
4.4
35
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL
18
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD
4.4
38
Tucson, AZ
Source: Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey of 2022

4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
5
5
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.5
5.9
5.9
5.9
6

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Austin, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Phoenix, AZ
Fresno, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Sacramento, CA
Boston, MA-NH
Portland, OR-WA
New York, NY-NJ-PA
Denver, CORiverside-San Bernardino, CA
Seattle, WA
Miami, FL
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Francisco, CA
Honolulu, HI
San Jose, CA

Cost of Living – Regional Price Parities
A reliable way of identifying the relative cost of living between locations is to compare their
Regional Price Parities (RPP). The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis defines RPPs as ameasurement of the differences in price levels across states and metropolitan areas for a given
year and are expressed as a percentage of the overall national price level.63
In short, RPP is a weighted average of the price level of goods and services for the average
consumer in one geographic region compared to all other regions in the nation. Hence, the RPP
for California at 110.4 means that prices in the state average are 10.4 percent higher than the
U.S. average. It is likely that California’s cost disadvantage is understated because in the 20202022 period the State has had higher cost increases for housing, utilities and gasoline than otherstates have experienced.
When a company is considering competing sites in California and another state to locate afacility – and is concerned about the cost-of-living for employees – the RPP difference would
lend weight to opting for a less-expensive state. Also relevant is that employees in a high-coststate expect higher compensation from employers.
24

MM
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.7
7
7
7.1
7.2
7.4
7.5
8.1
10.1
10.7
11.8
12
12.6

The RPPs cover all consumption goods and services, including rents. California’s ranking at No.
48 means that the cost of living is higher only in New Jersey and Hawaii, as shown in Table 18,
below:
Table 18: Regional Price Parities by State
Rank
Rank
U.S. = 100
U.S. = 100
U.S. = 100
1
1735
Mississippi
87.8
Montana
92.4
Illinois
100.5
2
19
36
West Virginia
88.0
Indiana
92.5
Florida
100.7
3
19
37
Arkansas
89.2
Missouri
92.5
Virginia
101.0
4
21
38
Alabama
89.3
Louisiana
92.7
Rhode Island
101.8
5
22
39
Kentucky89.8
Nebraska
92.9
Oregon
102.6
6
23
40
Iowa
91.0
Wisconsin
93.2
Colorado
102.9
7
24
41
Idaho
91.2
Michigan
94.0
Alaska
103.2
8
25
42
Oklahoma
91.3
Georgia
94.5
Connecticut
103.4
9
26
43
South Dakota
91.5
Utah
95.3
New Hampshire
103.7
10
27
44
New Mexico
91.6
Maine
96.8
Maryland
106.5
10
28
45
South Carolina
91.6
Nevada97.1
Massachusetts
107.4
12
29
Ohio
91.7
Pennsylvania
97.6
45
Washington
107.4
13
30
47
North Carolina
91.8
Delaware
97.9
New York
110.2
14
31
North Dakota
92.0
Minnesota
98.6
48
California
110.4
15
32
Tennessee
92.2
Arizona
99.1
49
New Jersey
111.2
16
Wyoming
92.3
33
Vermont
99.3
50
Hawaii112.0
17Kansas
92.4
34
Texas
99.5
Latest available data from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, updated on Dec. 15, 2020,
which is for 2019.
Rank

Economic Outlook
To determine economic outlooks, a helpful analysis is the Economic Outlook Ranking by theAmerican Legislative Exchange Council. The forecast is based on a state’s standing in 15 policy
variables and how each is influenced by lawmakers. A key observation is that “Generally, statesthat spend less – especially on income transfer programs – and states that tax less – particularly
on productive activities such as working or investing – experience higher growth rates than statesthat tax and spend more.”64 California ranks No. 48, as shown in Table 19.

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Table 19: State Outlook Economic Rankings 2022
State
Rank
State
Rank
17
34
Utah
Michigan
18
35
North Carolina
New Hampshire
19
36
ArizonaOhio
20
37
OklahomaLouisiana
21
38
Idaho
Alaska22
39
NevadaColorado
23
40
Indiana
Alabama24
41
FloridaVirginia
25
42
North Dakota
West Virginia
26
43
Wyoming
South Carolina
27
44
Texas
Mississippi

25

State
KentuckyConnecticut
NebraskaPennsylvania
New Mexico
Washington
Rhode Island
OregonMaryland
Hawaii
Maine

12
13
14
15
16

28
Kansas29
Missouri
30
Delaware31
Montana
32
Iowa
33
Massachusetts
Source: Rich States Poor States, 2022 Edition

10.

South Dakota
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Georgia
Arkansas

45
46
47
48
49
50

Illinois
Minnesota
Vermont
California
New Jersey
New York

California Spends Heavily On Temporary Incentives Instead of Reforming Taxes

Two divergent views are clearly illustrated by examining statements from California and Ohioelected officials.
In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom told those attending the Bay Area Council’s 2021 PacificSummit that “We need to step up our game – time to be more damn competitive.” The legislative
package that followed his statement showed that an increase in economic incentives – some of
dubious value to taxpayers – will demonstrate how the state will be more aggressive in fighting
the overtures companies are receiving from other states.65
In Ohio, Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said in July 2021 that “Fifteen years ago we began reforming our
tax plan – we eliminated the corporate franchise tax … eliminated the death tax — we went froma high-tax state to a lower-tax state. We absolutely do see it as a time to compete. Capital will
ultimately go where it can be the most appreciated.”66
Ohio has a more rational approach to offering incentives through lower costs because capitalindeed goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated. Indeed, Ohio is gaining
popularity as the place where more companies call home. As noted elsewhere in this report, otherstates have joined Ohio in lowering taxes.
California’s Generous and Growing Economic Incentives
Gov. Newsom’s strategy is not to reduce taxes but to increase incentives offered to companies,
thus increasing taxpayer burdens. The public and the media were surprised in mid-July, 2021
when news broke that California leaders inserted nearly $280 million into the state budget tobenefit the construction of a new A’s baseball stadium in Oakland. According to Politico, whichused the phrase “secret budget item” in its headline, “Gov. Gavin Newsom and state lawmakers
quietly approved the funds weeks ago, and the money has stayed under the radar ahead of apivotal Oakland City Council vote on the stadium’s future – a decision that the A’s and Major
League Baseball insist could determine whether the team remains after 53 years in the city.”67
While California politicians are generous with taxpayers’ dollars to help the Oakland As, they domore than that by annually approving generous economic incentives to lure companies to thestate or retain existing companies. Remarkably, they do so while sometimes suggesting that otherstates are being “unfair” by offering economic incentives to lure companies to their locations.
Yet California itself offers a plethora of economic incentives to a wide scope of industries. In
June 2021, an economic development representative for Sacramento boasted, “No other state canmatch our demand, talent and financial incentives [emphasis added].”68 Perhaps the state’s most26

well-known program is the California Competes Tax Credit (CCTC), an income tax credit
available to businesses that want to locate in California or remain in the state. Tax credit
agreements are negotiated by the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development(GO-Biz). The incentives are comprehensive in that they are available for many industries
including advanced manufacturing, agricultural, biotech, energy, and environment, film andtelevision, food processors, manufacturing and transportation:69 Since the start of the Newsom
Administration in January 2019, GO-Biz awarded 147 businesses a total of $593,844,974 in
California Competes Tax Credits.70
Overall, during the nearly 17-month period leading up to November 4, 2021, the state has
granted $437 million in tax credits, as shown in Table 20 – an average of approximately $25.7
million per month. Only credits worth $1 million or more are calculated; the number would besubstantially higher if smaller credits were included.71
Table 20: California Tax-Credit Incentive Awards by Company
Approved June 18, 2020 to Nov. 4, 2021
Name($ Millions)
Name
Microsoft Corp.
$35.0
Infinity Energy, Inc.
Relativity Space, Inc.
$30.0
Polypeptide Laboratories, Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corp.
$29.8
Fortress North America, Inc.
Stripe, Inc.
$28.5
Ernie Ball, Inc.
Better Holdco, Inc.
$25.0
BFTV LLC
EnerVenue$25.0
Kubota Tractor Corp.
CIVIC Financial Services LLC
Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc.
$25.0
VinFast Dealer S.F. #1 LLC$20.5
Azoff Music Company LLC
Cue Health, Inc.
$20.0
AgLand Renewables LLC
Cepheid$20.0
Braze, Inc.
NBCUniversal LLC$20.0
Juvo Plus, Inc.
Atieva USA, Inc.
$18.0
Sazerac Company, Inc.
L3 Applied Technologies, Inc.
MP Materials Corp.
$14.8
Zoom Video$12.5
Piercan USA, Inc.
In-N-Out Burgers$7.0
Openpath Security, Inc.
HCL America, Inc.
FUJIFILM Irvine Scientific Inc$7.0
CVB, Inc.
$6.5
AS America, Inc.
American Honda Finance Corp.
$5.2
indieDwell So. California, Inc.
Ampere Computing LLC$5.0
Sierra Agra USA LLC
Better Nutritionals LLC$5.0
J. Harris Ind. Water Treatment
BW Industries, Inc.
$5.0
Swift Media Entertainment, Inc.
CTC Global Corp.
$5.0
Creative Packaging Co.
The Pape Group, Inc.
Goldpoint Homes LLC$5.0
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc.
$3.6
Advantest Test Solutions, Inc.
EnergySource Minerals LLC$3.5
RDM Industries, Inc.
Nongshim Holdings USA, Inc.
$3.5
Steeped, Inc.
ByFusion Global, Inc.
5th Axis, Inc$3.5
Cokeva, Inc.
Diamond Wipes International, Inc.
$3.2
Nurix Therapeutics, Inc$3.0
Total for $1 million-plus grants
Source: California Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz)

27($ Millions)
$2.5
$2.5
$2.4
$2.0
$2.0
$2.0
$1.8
$1.8
$1.7
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.5
$1.4
$1.4
$1.2
$1.2
$1.2
$1.2
$1.1
$1.1
$1.1
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
$1.0
$437.0California’s tax-credit incentives program has also operated under previous Governors. To
illustrate, Table 21 provides a small sampling of recipients in 2018 during Gov. Jerry Brown’s
Administration.
Table 21: Sample Prior-Year California Tax-Credit Incentive Awards($($
Company Name
Company Name
Millions)
Millions)
Dreamworks Animation LLC$10.0 California Natural Products$2.0
Katerra, Inc.
$10.0 Information Gov. Solutions LLC$1.5
US Foods, Inc.
$7.0 Lance Camper Mfg. Corp.
$1.5
MightyHive, Inc.
$5.7 Our Babylon LLC$1.5
Niantic, Inc.
$3.0 Chawk Technology Intl., Inc.
$1.2
Argo AI LLC$2.2 AirMap, Inc.
$1.0
Ontic Engineering & Manufacturing$2.0 Conduent Commercial Sol.
$1.0
Source: “California Competes Tax Credit Program,” GO-BIZ, June 18, 2018 -- a small sample of priorawards by Gov. Jerry Brown.

Summary of California’s Numerous Economic Incentives
Besides Tax Credits, other California incentives include Tax Exemptions, Bonds, Research
Credits, Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Manufacturing, Advanced Transportation Tax
Exemption, Loans and Utility Discounts. The sponsoring agencies are the California Air
Resources Board, California Employment Training Panel, California Energy Commission,
California Film Commission, Department of General Services, Employment Development
Department, and Franchise Tax Board.
California’s Explosion of Economic Incentives in 2021
All of that has been insufficient to stem business flight. Gov. Newsom’s “step up our game”
comment reflects increasing the economic incentives being offered to companies despite thestate’s aforementioned generous and widespread incentives. The legislature passed and Gov.
Newsom signed in July 2021 a bill that establishes a new incentive – the California Competes
Grant Program. The grants are tied to job creation in a program authorized to last until Jan. 1,
2030.72 Its initial funding is $150 million,73 which is likely to grow based on experience withincentive programs.
Additionally, a budget plan was to add $30 million to the state’s film and television tax credits
program, 74 to boost the existing $330 million in tax credits to $360 million annually.75 Even
those amounts weren’t enough for the legislature, which in July 2021 added $90 million for eachof the next two fiscal years, meaning that the program will have $420 million available in 202122 and 2022-23. It also creates a $150 million fund to encourage the development of soundstages for streaming productions. The state Legislative Analyst’s Office, “determined that about
one-third of the projects receiving a credit probably would have been made in California
irrespective of receiving a credit.”76
All are part of a program that comprises an unprecedented 43 grant or incentive programs.77 Not
all are designed for businesses; some are for an array of recipients including community and arts
groups and non-profit organizations. All of that and more is part of headline-grabbing legislation28

– considering the nature of the spending and the overall $100 billion price tag – that Gov.
Newsom signed into law.78 The overall California budget for 2021-2022 totaled $262.6 billion.79
Los Angeles Incentives
County and municipal government economic incentives are prolific throughout California. For
example, within the County of Los Angeles, 88 cities and the county offer a plethora ofincentives, which vary by jurisdiction, such as New Business Tax Holiday, Utility Infrastructure
Loan Program, Use Tax Rebate, Solar Incentive, Partial Retail Sales Tax Return, R&D Incentive,
Access to Tax-Exempt Private Activity Bonds, New Employment Tax Credit, Fee Waivers and
Low Interest loans80
The City of Los Angeles provides enormous support to the film industry, offering reduced tax
rates for productions, special tax breaks for creative talent, free filming at city facilities, andstreamlined road closure procedures.81
San Francisco Incentives
San Francisco provided Twitter an exceptionally generous incentive to remain in the city, onethat the Securities and Exchange Commission estimated could be valued at $56 million. The
move came after Twitter stated it would relocate because of a payroll tax. The company said
with plans to double its staff, it couldn’t justify the cost. San Francisco waived the payroll tax for
all new jobs Twitter creates for six years.82
Orange County Incentives
An incentive resulted in a reduced tax income for Anaheim as the Walt Disney Co. completed an
expansion of its theme park in 2017 – but only after receiving city council approval for a 30-year
ban on a ticket tax. The arrangement extended a ban on ticket taxes that started in 1996 and had
been set to expire in 2016.83
Without incentives being offered by California and its local jurisdictions, the occurrences ofCalifornia headquarters departures would likely be significantly higher than what is reflected inthis study.
Companies Move to States Without Incentives Being Available
Motivations to invest outside of California virtually always exist before potential incentives areunderstood. Deciphering incentives for a company is a significant undertaking considering thatstatutes, policies, and application procedures vary widely among the 3,141 counties and county
equivalents in the 50 States and the District of Columbia.84
The availability of economic incentives is sometimes irrelevant to a company’s location
decision. It has been the experience of Spectrum Location Solutions that economic incentives
rank lower than the area’s tax and regulatory framework, workforce costs and availability,
accessibility to major highways, and lifestyle factors.

29

Quality-of-life factors have become increasingly important considering the effects on theworkplace because of Covid-19. Companies are doing more than offering healthy work
environments that include expanded office layouts. There also is an increase in open-minded
policies for remote employees, and those workers are intensifying their analysis of lifestylefactors in distant and out-of-state communities.
California companies have relocated completely or launched an expansion elsewhere without
seeking incentives. In many instances, companies with 50 or fewer jobs won’t qualify forincentives (depending upon compensation levels). A Los Angeles company recently relocated 42
positions to an out-of-state location85 and did so without receiving a single incentive.
Examples of companies that invested in other locations for facilities (not just headquarters)
without the benefit of economic incentives are shown below. The following list is only asampling of such relocations:
•
•
•
•

11.

C&S Propeller relocated its headquarters from Los Angeles to Fort Worth, Texas,
without any economic incentives.86
Cinépolis USA relocated its headquarters from Los Angeles to Addison, near Dallas. The
company did not receive any economic incentives for the move but rather chose Addison
based on its amenities.87
ZipRecruiter selected Tempe, Arizona to expand instead of Santa Monica. Tempe didn’t
provide any incentives to the company.88
Capstak considered San Francisco for its headquarters, but selected Reno, which was a“no-brainer.” “We have not asked for any incentives nor have we received any,” cofounder Michael Schnabel said.89
Why Headquarters Departures Are Substantially Underreported

The report is based on out-of-state headquarters relocations predominately by large and midsized companies because of their high profiles or whose moves receive media attention because
they are publicly held companies required to issue “material disclosures” to shareholders and the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Privately held companies and smaller companies are in abetter position to avoid publicity about a relocation, resulting in little public awareness ofcompanies that comprise the biggest single category of relocations.
It is certain that other headquarters relocations have occurred in the study period but have yet to
be discovered. Experience shows that some will become public knowledge in the future,sometimes several years later. Therefore, California’s headquarters losses are understated in thisreport. Moreover, no Spectrum Location Solutions clients are included in the calculations for thisreport because of non-disclosure agreements.
Here is an example of how one prominent company’s headquarters quietly left California:
Thomas Brothers Maps was a legacy and respected California institution. The company
produced high-quality, detailed maps that covered the state’s cities long before online maps
arrived. It was founded in Oakland in 1915, moved to Los Angeles in the 1940s and relocated to
Irvine in 1980.90 After Rand McNally acquired the company it began transferring work to
Skokie, Illinois and Bangalore, India. The headcount went from 200 people to about 20 at thetime the headquarters closed.
30

Despite a high profile, the company’s headquarters disappeared from Irvine in 2010 with no
public notice – that is until someone tipped off the news media about the main office being
empty and available for leasing. That led to the Orange County Register publishing a story about
the company’s departure – the only article ever to appear anywhere in the state.91 Without thatphone alert, the event would probably still be unknown today.
This illustrates how smaller companies – which comprise the biggest single category of
relocations – can move their headquarters out of California so quietly and skillfully that the event
can remain unknown by the news media and the public.
12.

Summary and Conclusion

This paper has documented California business headquarters relocations from January 1, 2018
through Dec. 31, 2021. The data presented here show that headquarter relocations areaccelerating substantially, with no sign of reversing course, reflecting a California businessenvironment that ranks near the bottom of all U.S. states in many dimensions, including taxes,
regulations, litigation costs, labor costs, energy and utility costs, and employee cost of living.
These trends have been going on for years, yet political leaders have not shown they are willingto make changes to improve California’s business climate. Dale Buss is a writer for Chief
Executive magazine and an astute observer of business conditions among the states. In mid-2020,he observed that “As long as California can count on spectacular growth from tech companies in
Silicon Valley and movie studios in Hollywood, don’t expect the state to reverse any of its
attitudes and policies that chase many companies away.”92
Warnings about California’s deteriorating business environment have been issued for years. A
decade ago, the Orange County Register observed: “Quite clearly, the exodus of businesses out
of California continues. It makes sense for companies to reduce their California footprintconsidering the ample supply of attractive, lower-cost alternative locations. Unless California
reduces its hostility toward business, we will see more commercial enterprises seeking friendlier
locations in which to relocate entirely or at least place facilities there that used to be locatedhere.”93
Later, when Toyota Motor Corp. began relocating its Torrance headquarters to Plano, Texas,
Gov. Brown revealed his aloofness towards business challenges by saying, “We’ve got a few
problems, we have lots of little burdens and regulations and taxes, but smart people figure out
how to make it.”94 The Wall Street Journal responded: “California’s problem is that smart people
have figured out they can make it better elsewhere.”95
Gov. Newsom recently dismissed claims that California is unfriendly to business by pointing to“all the new billionaires” created by initial public offerings and noting that its richest people are“doing pretty damn well.” He said that in early 2021, despite evidence of company exits and thereasons they cite for their moves. He doubled down by saying, “For those who have counted
California out, eat your heart out.” His statement should not be surprising because back in July
2011 he released a plan to “jumpstart economic development” that included consolidating thestate’s efforts, re-establishing a presence in China, and removing numerous onerous regulations
31

and misaligned policies. Such steps were taken to varying degrees but failed to stop businessmigrations out of the state.96
In a prescient commentary published more than six years ago, Chapman University’s Joel Kotkin
wrote:
Here’s the bitter reality for business in much of California: there’s no cavalry riding to
rescue you from the state’s regulatory and tax vise. The voters in California have spoken,
and with a definitive, distinctive twist, turned against any suggestion of reform andconfirmed the continued domination of the state by public employee unions,environmental activists and their crony capitalist allies. You are on your own, Southern
California businesses, and can count on very little help, and, likely, much mischief, from
Sacramento and various lower orders of government.97
Also, people are joining companies in leaving California. Most recently, David L. Bahnsen, a
Newport Beach-based financial advisor, author, and observer of California trends, addressed the“basic facts” of the state’s people exodus, writing:
A lack of cultural cohesion is not just “not a problem” for many on the left, but an
explicit aim. California is a mess economically, fiscally, socially, educationally, andculturally, but in each category there exist sufficient can-kicking options, or at least prima
facie “spin” opportunities, to soften the realities of what is taking place in the GoldenState. But there is one basic, objective reality that is impossible to spin away – people areleaving in droves.98
The data reported here highlight why California has been losing businesses and people. We see
little evidence that policies will be reformed to address these declines, and that the more likely
prediction is that California’s business environment will continue to worsen.

32Appendix A: Company Headquarters that Left California Jan 1, 2018 through Dec. 31,
2021
Company Headquarters that Left California from Jan 1, 2018 through Dec. 31, 2021
Company
California Location
Destination Location
240 Tech LLC (HQ2)
Orange County > Santa Ana
Texas > Cedar Park
4M Analytics (U-turn from Calif.)
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
Texas > Austin
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
8VC
Texas > Austin
Aatonomy
San Francisco > San Francisco
Texas > Houston
Abyss Creations
San Diego > San Marcos
Nevada > Las Vegas
Academy of Country Music
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Tennessee > Nashville
Advanex Americas
Orange County > Cypress
Tennessee > White House
Advocado (U-turn from Calif.)
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Missouri > St. LouisAECOM
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Texas > Dallas
AEND Industries
Orange County > Huntington Beach
Texas > Hutto
Aercap U.S. Global Aviation LLC
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Florida > Miami
Aerojet-Rocketdyne Def. Unit
Sacramento > Sacramento
Alabama > Huntsville
Aeromax Industries, Inc.
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Texas > Fort WorthAerospace & Marine International
Oklahoma > Norman
Santa Clara > San Jose
AeroVironment, Inc.
Ventura > Simi Valley
Virginia > Arlington
AFC Finishing Systems
Butte > Oroville
Idaho > Weiser
Aging 2.0
San Francisco > San Francisco
Kentucky > Louisville
AHV Communities
Orange County > Costa Mesa
Texas > San Antonio
Airbrake Technologies
San Francisco > San Francisco
Texas > Austin
Albany Farms
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
South Dakota > Belle Fourche
Alfresco Software Inc.
San Mateo > San Mateo
Massachusetts > Wellesley
Align Technology
Santa Clara > San Jose
Arizona > Tempe
Alpha Paw LLC
San Francisco > San Francisco
Texas > Austin
Alpine Electronics
Los Angeles > TorranceMichigan > Auburn Hills
Alto Pharmacy (HQ2)San Francisco > San Francisco
Colorado > Denver
Amazing Magnets
Orange County > Anaheim
Texas > Round RockAmerican Metal Bearing Co.
Orange County > Garden Grove
Florida > Freeport
American Technology Network (ATN)San Mateo > South San Francisco
Florida > Doral
Andamiro USA Corp.
Los Angeles > Gardena
Texas > Irving
Anomalie
San Francisco > San Francisco
Arizona > Scottsdale
Anpac Bio-Medical
Sacramento > Sacramento
Pennsylvania > Philadelphia
Aqua Metals, Inc.
Alameda > Alameda
Nevada > Reno
Arctic Wolf Networks Inc.
Santa Clara > Sunnyvale
Minnesota > Eden Prairie
Arcturus Aerospace
Ventura > Oxnard
Arkansas > Little Rock
Artificial Intelligence Tech. (AITX)
Orange County > Irvine
Michigan > Ferndale
ASGN Inc.
Los Angeles > Calabasas
Virginia > Henrico County
Assertio Therapeutics fka Depomed
Alameda > Newark
Illinois > Lake Forest
Astronics Test Systems
Orange > Irvine
Florida > Orlando
Astura Medical
San Diego > Carlsbad
Texas > Irving
AtScaleSan Mateo > San Mateo
Massachusetts > Boston
Aurora (combined two HQs)
Pennsylvania > Pittsburgh
Santa Clara > Mountain View
Aviat Networks Inc.
Santa Clara > Milpitas
Texas > Austin
Axiom Memory Solutions, Inc.
Orange County > Irvine
Texas > Austin
Barrys fka Barry's Bootcamp
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Florida > Miami
Baswood Inc.
Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara
Texas > Allen
Bechtel GroupSan Francisco > San Francisco
Virginia > Reston
Bedrock Capital Partners LLC
San Francisco > San Francisco
Texas > Austin
Bedrock Sandals
Contra Costa > RichmondMontana > Missoula
BH North America
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Missouri > St. Charles

33

BiolqBlue Box Air LLC
Blue Buffalo (U-Turn)
Bold Patriot Brewing Co.
Bonelli Doors + Windows
BroadSpot Imaging Corp.
Cade Medical
Callaway / Jack Wolfskin
Cangshan Cutlery
Canoo
Caring.com
CBRE Group
Charles Schwab
Chip 1 Exchange
Chubbies Shorts Co.
Cicero InstituteCirca of America
CKE (Carl's Jr.)
CloudBees
CodeBoxx
CognitoCohesity
Colony Capital
Conner Logistics
CORE Group
Core-Mark Holding Co.
Coyni (GreenBox spinoff)
CP Technologies
Crossfit LLC
Crowdpurr
Cryoport, Inc.
DailyWireDARVIS
Dasan Zhone Solutions (DZS)
DealerSocket
Dear Media LLC
Digital Pharmacist
Digital Realty Trust Inc.
DIQ SEO
Directive
DJO Global
Dole Food Co.
Eagle Creek
Edelbrock Group
Educational Media Foundation / Air1
EnerBlu Inc.
Energy Service Experts
Envirotech Vehicles
Extreme Networks
F45 Training Holdings Inc.
FaceFirst Inc.
Family Stations, Inc.
Fantic USA
FileTrail
Finical, Inc.
First Foundation (bank)Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara
Los Angeles > Gardena
Several California Communities
Riverside > Norco
San Francisco > San Francisco
Alameda > EmeryvilleRiverside > Temecula
San Diego > Carlsbad
San Bernardino > Chino
Los Angeles > Torrance
San Mateo > San Mateo
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
Orange County > Lake Forest
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Barbara > Carpinteria
Santa Clara > San Jose
Marin > Sausalito
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
Los Angeles > Westlake Village
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Fresno > Fresno
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
San Diego > San Diego
Santa Cruz > Scotts Valley
Los Angeles > West Covina
Orange County > Irvine
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
Alameda > Oakland
Orange County > San Clemente
Los Angeles > West Hollywood
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco(Silicon Valley > Unknown)
Orange County > Irvine
San Diego > Carlsbad
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Diego > Vista
Los Angeles > Torrance
Placer > Rocklin
Riverside > Riverside
San Francisco > San FranciscoRiverside > Corona
Santa Clara > San Jose
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Alameda > Oakland
Marin > Sausalito
Santa Clara > San Jose
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Orange County > Irvine

34

Georgia > Atlanta
Texas > Dallas
Arizona > Goodyear
Tennessee > NashvilleArizona > Mesa
New Mexico > Albuquerque
Arizona > Phoenix
Utah > Salt Lake City
Texas > Leander
Texas > Justin
North Carolina > Charlotte
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Westlake
Texas > Fort WorthTexas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Georgia > Atlanta
Tennessee > Franklin
North Carolina > Raleigh
Florida > St. Petersburg
Oregon > Sisters
Texas > Dallas
Florida > Boca Raton
Kentucky > Somerset
Texas > Austin
Texas > Westlake
Florida >Miami
Arizona > PrescottColorado > Boulder
Ohio > Dayton
Tennessee > Brentwood
Tennessee > Nashville
Tennessee > Nashville
Texas > Plano
Texas > Irving
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > LewisvilleNorth Carolina > Charlotte
Colorado > Denver
Mississippi > Olive Branch
Tennessee > Nashville
Kentucky > Lexington
Texas > Houston
Arkansas > Osceola
North Carolina > Morrisville
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Tennessee > Nashville
Colorado > Denver
Texas > Austin
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Dallas

Flannery Trim
Flatirons Solutions
Flexible Funding
FlexMet fka Calif. Precision Products
Fox Factory Holding Corp.
Ganymede Games
GemCap
GetSalesGilad&Gilad
GlobalFoundries Inc.
GoCheck Kids
Gold Alliance
Gordon Ramsey North America
Green Dot
Green Zero Energy
Grinds LLC
GrowthPlug
Guardian Bikes
GuineaDad
Gutterglove Inc.
H.E.R.O.S. Inc.
Hall technologies
Hangar Technology
Happy Joe Coffee
Haptx fka Axon VR
Harmonate
Harmony Outreach Inc.
Harrow Health
Healthpeak
Helicopter Engine Repair Overhaul
Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE)
HomeLight
Homestory Doors
HST Pathways
Huckleberry Insurance
Hyperion Technologies, Inc.
iFly.vc
IGM Biosciences HQ of Biz Units
Immortals Company
Incora fka Wesco
IT Avalon
JC Ford Co.
JetSuite Inc.
JobviteJoe Rogan Experience
JRS Company
Juul Labs
Kaiser Aluminum Corp.
Keen Horse Training
Kettle & Fire
Kimwoven
Kitsbow
KLA
Krave Jerky
KVP International Inc.
Lada Cube

Los Angeles > San Fernando
Orange County > Irvine
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Santa Cruz > Scotts Valley
Alameda > Alameda
Los Angeles > Malibu
San Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Santa Clara > Santa Clara
San Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Pasadena(U-turn from Calif.)
Alameda > Oakland
Santa Clara > San Jose
Orange County > Irvine
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Placer > Roseville
Los Angeles > Santa Clarita
Orange County > Tustin
Los Angeles > Santa Monica
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo
Santa Clara > San Jose
Riverside > Temecula
San Diego > San Diego
Orange County > Irvine
Los Angeles > Valencia
Santa Clara > San JoseSan Francisco > San Francisco
Placer > Lincoln
Contra Costa > Lafayette
San Francisco > San Francisco
Orange County > Orange
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Mountain View
Los Angeles > Culver City
Los Angeles > Valencia
Contra Costa > Brentwood
Orange County > La Habra
Orange County > Irvine
San Mateo > San Mateo
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Covina
San Francisco > San Francisco
Orange County > Lake Forest
Los Angeles > Arcadia
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Sonoma > Santa Rosa
Santa Clara > Milpitas
Sonoma > Sonoma
San Bernardino > Chino
Shasta > Redding

35

Texas > Fort WorthColorado > Boulder
Texas > Fort WorthTennessee > Franklin
Georgia > Gainesville
New Mexico > Las Cruces
Texas > San Antonio
Texas > Austin
Texas > Georgetown
New York > Malta
Tennessee > Nashville
Nevada > Reno
Texas > Irving
Texas > Austin
Ohio > Dayton
Indiana > Westfield
Oregon > Beaverton
Texas > Austin
Nevada > North Las Vegas
Tennessee > Franklin
Arizona > Chandler
Texas > Coppell
Texas > Austin
Arizona > Phoenix
Washington > RedmondTexas > Austin
Tennessee > Mount Juliet
Tennessee > Nashville
Colorado > Denver
Arizona > Chandler
Texas > Houston
Arizona > Scottsdale
Nevada > Reno
Tennessee > Nashville
New York > New York
Ohio > Columbus
Texas > Austin
Pennsylvanie > Doylestown
Michigan > Detroit
Texas > Fort WorthNevada > Reno
Tennessee > Columbia
Texas > Dallas
Indiana > Indianapolis
Texas > Austin
Texas > Hutto
Washington, DC
Tennessee > Franklin
Texas > Burleson
Texas > Austin
Oklahoma > Tulsa
North Carolina > Old Fort
Michigan > Ann Arbor
Texas > Austin
Texas > McKinney
Colorado > Grand Junction

LalamoveLanding Platform LLC
Lehr Automotive
Lion Real Estate Group
Localwise
Lockheed Martin FBM
Lottery.com (AutoLotto)
Luminar Technologies, Inc.
Maddox Defense
Made in Space (aka Redwire)
Markaaz Inc.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc
Mary's Gone Crackers
Master Manufacturing Group
Maxar Technologies
McKesson Corp.
MD7, LLC
MedeAnalytics
Mercer Global Advisors Inc.
Merrick Engineering Inc.
Michael Angelo's Gourmet Foods
Misfits Gaming Group
Mithril Capital Management
Mitsubishi Motors N.A., Inc.
Montrose Environmental Group
Moov Technologies
Mrs. Grossman's
Musk Foundation
Mutual UFO Network (MUFON)
Narrow Path Advisors
National E&S Insurance Brokers, Inc.
National Hot Rod Association
Nature of Wildlife
Nestle USA
Nexen
NinjaRMM LLV
Nissei America
No Restrictions Entertainment
NobelBiz, Inc.
Noodoe EV
North Face (VF Corp.)
NortonLifeLock / Symantec
NuZee, Inc.
O.W. Lee
Ocean Aero, Inc.
OKIN BPSOld Gringo Boots
Opicity Inc.
OPSWAT
Optimal Elite Management LLC
Optym
OracleOrangeGrid
Orbit Fab
Orca Capital
OriginClear Inc.

(U-turn from Calif.)
San Francisco > San Francisco
Sacramento > Sacramento
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Alameda > Oakland
Santa Clara > Sunnyvale
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Palo AltoSan Diego > San Diego
Santa Clara > Mountain View
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Yolo > Davis
Butte > Chico
Sacramento > Rancho Cordova
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Alameda > Emeryville
Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara
Riverside > Corona
Alameda > Berkeley
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
Orange County > Cypress
Orange County > Irvine
San Francisco > San Francisco
Sonoma > Petaluma
San Mateo > Menlo Park
Orange County > Irvine
Nev. County > Grass Valley
Los Angeles > Palmdale
Los Angeles > Glendora
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Glendale
Los Angeles > Diamond Bar
San Francisco > San Francisco
Orange County > Anaheim
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Diego > Carlsbad
Orange County > Irvine
Alameda > Alameda
Santa Clara > Mountain View
San Diego > Vista
San Bernardino > Ontario
San Diego > San Diego
Santa Clara > Mountain View
San Diego > San Diego
Santa Clara > Santa Clara
San Francisco > San Francisco
Ventura > Oxnard(U-turn from Calif.)
San Mateo > Redwood City
Orange County > Brea
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Los Angeles > Los Angeles

36

Texas > Richardson
Alabama > Birmingham
Nevada > Reno
Texas > Dallas
Colorado > Denver
Florida > Titusville
Texas > Bee Cave
Florida > Orlando
Texas > Houston
Florida > Jacksonville
Texas > Austin
North Carolina > Raleigh
Nevada > Reno
Tennessee > Dayton
Colorado > Westminster
Texas > Irving
Texas > Allen
Texas > Richardson
Colorado > Denver
Texas > Waco
Texas > Round Rock
Florida > Boca Raton
Texas > Austin
Tennessee > Franklin
Arkansas > North Little RockArizona > Tempe
Utah > Kanab
Texas > Austin
Ohio > Cincinnati
Arkansas > Gravette
Nevada > Reno
Indiana > Indianapolis
Arizona > Cornville
Virginia > Arlington
Ohio > Richfield
Texas > Austin
Texas > San Antonio
South Carolina > Greenville
Wyoming > Cheyenne
Texas > Houston
Colorado > Denver
Arizona > Tempe
Texas > Plano
Texas > Comfort
Mississippi > Gulfport
Texas > San Antonio
Texas > Fort WorthTexas > Austin
Florida > Tampa
Texas > Grand Prairie
Texas > Cypress Waters
Texas > Austin
Texas > Flower Mound
Colorado > Denver
Florida > Miami
Texas > McKinney

Outdoorsy
Ovation Fertility Transitions
Oxeia Biopharmaceuticals
Pabst Brewing Co.
Pacific Farms
Palantir Technologies
Panic Plastics
Panoramic Doors
Parsons Co.
PAS MRO
PayCertify sub. of ProfitPay
PerceptIn
Phosphorus Cybersecurity
Picsart
Pilot.com
Pinpoint
Pipe Technologies
Plumas Bancorp
PolarOnyx
Precision Medical
Precision Swiss Products
Premier Displays & Exhibits Inc.
Prenexus HealthPrepaid2CashPrice Pump Co.
Promises Behavioral HealthPropeller Aero (U-turn from Calif.)
PteroDynamics (R&D HQ)
Puroast Coffee Co. Inc.
Q CorpQQE Summit LLC
Quality Custom Distribution
QuestionPro
Quetico, LLC
RaceChipRaiders (NFL)Real Estate Exchange (REX)
Red 6
Regent Properties HQ2Regroup Mass Notification
Resonant
ReTech Systems LLC
Revance Therapeutics Inc.
Review Wave
rfXcelRiceBran Technologies
Riders ShareRJR Technologies
Rooster Teeth
Saleen Performance Parts
SaRA Health
Science 37, Inc.
Scollar
Scorpion
Shelter Distilling
ShiftPixy Inc.

San Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Diego > San Diego
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Alameda > Oakland
Santa Clara > Palo AltoSan Bernardino > Upland
San Diego > Oceanside
Los Angeles > Pasadena
Orange County > Irvine
Santa Clara > San Jose
Santa Clara > Santa Clara
San Diego > Carlsbad
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Mountain View
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Plumas > Quincy
Santa Clara > San Jose
Placer > Rocklin
Santa Clara > Milpitas
Orange County > Cypress
Imperial > Brawley
San Francisco > San Francisco
Sonoma > Sonoma
Los Angeles > Long Beach
Unknown > Unknown
Ventura > Ventura
Yolo > Woodland
Ventura > Camarillo
Alameda > Newark
Orange County > Irvine
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Bernardino > Chino
Orange County > Brea
Alameda > Alameda
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Santa Monica
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Barbara > Santa Barbara
Mendocino > Ukiah
Alameda > Newark
Orange County > Irvine
Contra Costa > San Ramon
Sacramento > Sacramento
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Alameda > Oakland
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Riverside > Corona
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Los Angeles > Culver City
Sonoma > Santa Rosa
Los Angeles > Santa Clarita
Mono > Mammoth Lakes
Orange County > Irvine

37

Texas > Austin
Tennessee > Nashville
Massachusetts > Boston
Texas > San Antonio
Nevada > Reno
Colorado > DenverIdaho > Payette
Texas > Fort WorthVirginia > Centreville
Oklahoma > Bristow
Nevada > Reno
Indiana > Fishers
Tennessee > Nashville
Florida > Miami Beach
Tennessee > Nashville
Texas > Austin
Florida > Miami
Nevada > Reno
North Carolina > Chapel Hill
Texas > Carrollton
North Carolina > Leland
Nevada > Las Vegas
Arizona > Gilbert
Alabama > Birmingham
Idaho > Caldwell
Tennessee > Brentwood
Colorado > Denver
Colorado > Colorado Springs
North Carolina > High Point
Nevada > Las Vegas
Ohio > Dayton
Texas > Frisco
Texas > Austin
Arizona > Goodyear
Florida > Fort Walton Beach
Nevada > Henderson
Texas > Austin
Florida > Miami
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Austin
New York > Buffalo
Tennessee > Nashville
Texas > McKinney
Nevada > Reno
Texas > Houston
Texas > Austin
Arizona > Phoenix
Texas > Austin
Texas > Round Rock
Missouri > Kansas City
North Carolina > Morrisville
Missouri > Kansas City
Utah > Salt Lake City
Colorado > Montrose
Florida > MiamiShmoop University, Inc.
ShutterFly, Inc. (HQ2)
SignEasy
Silao Tortillera Inc.
Slice of Sauce
SlumberYard.com
Slync.io
Smart Wires Inc.
SmartAction
SmartDraw Software
Smartrise Engineering
Smarty-Pits
SnapDNA
Snowflake
Solvd Health
Sonim Technologies Inc.
Sovos Brands
Space Channel Inc.
Space Channel Inc.
Spectrum Labs
Spruce Power LLC
StacheStarbrook Modular
StemExpress
Strategic Information Group
Sunhaven Home
SureClinicalSuzuki Marine USA
Synergy Blue
Tachyum
Tailift Material Handling USA
TaniumTaskUsTCS Healthcare Technologies
Tech21Tesla
The Daily Wire
The Glock Store - HQ + Manu.
The Icee Co.
The Rubin Report
theBalm
Therabody (HQ2)
TOCA Social sub. Of TOCA Football
Truebill
TV4 Entertainment
U.S. Pulmonary Hypertension
Universal Electronics, Inc.
Unstoppable Domaines
Upstart Network Inc. (HQ2)
UroDev Medical
Varo Money Inc.
Veridia Diagonostics
Viavi Solutions
Vio Security
Violin Systems
Walker & Co.

Santa Clara > Mountain View
San Mateo > Redwood CitySan Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > City of Industry
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Placer > Rocklin
San Francisco > San Francisco
Alameda > Union City
Los Angeles > El Segundo
San Diego > SanDiego
Sacramento > Sacramento
Kern > Tehachapi
Santa Clara > Mountain View
San Mateo > San Mateo
San Diego > Carlsbad
San Mateo > San Mateo
Alameda > Berkeley
Orange County > Anaheim
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
Marin > Larkspur
Sacramento > Sacramento
San Diego > Encinitas
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Sacramento > Rancho Cordova
Orange County > Brea
Riverside > Palm Desert
Santa Clara > San JoseSan Bernardino > Ontario
Alameda > Emeryville
Los Angeles > Santa Monica
Placer > AuburnSanta Clara > San Jose
Santa Clara > Palo Alto
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
San Diego > San Diego
San Bernardino > Ontario
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Alameda > Alameda
Los Angeles > Los Angeles
Orange County > Costa Mesa
San Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > Venice
San Mateo > South San Francisco
Orange County > Santa Ana
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Mateo > San Carlos
Orange County > San Clemente
San Francisco > San Francisco
Alameda > Alameda
Santa Clara > San Jose
Los Angeles > Woodland Hills
Santa Clara > San Jose
Santa Clara > Palo Alto

38

Arizona > Scottsdale
Minnesota > Eden Prairie
Texas > Dallas
Arizona > Tucson
Texas > Austin
Nevada > Reno
Texas > Dallas
North Carolina > Durham
Texas > Fort WorthTexas > Houston
Texas > Irving
Oregon > Bend
Colorado > BroomfieldMontana > Bozeman
Illinois > Chicago
Texas > Austin
Kentucky > Louisville
Texas > San Antonio
Texas > Brownsville
Florida > Miami
Texas > Houston
Tennessee > Nashville
Nevada > Reno
Nevada > Reno
South Carolina > Rock Hill
Texas > Houston
Nevada > Reno
Florida > Tampa
Nevada > Las Vegas
Nevada > Henderson
Texas > Houston
Washington > Kirkland
Texas > New Braunfels
North Carolina > Wilmington
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Tennessee > Nashville
Tennessee > Nashville
Tennessee > La Verne
Florida > Miami ???
Nevada > Reno
Texas > Dallas
Texas > Dallas
Maryland > Silver Spring
Florida > Orlando
New Jersey > TitusvilleArizona > Scottsdale
Nevada > Reno
Ohio > Columbus
Minnesota > Edina
Utah > Salt Lake City
Texas > Round RockArizona > Chandler
Texas > Irving
Colorado > Colorado Springs
Georgia > Atlanta

Waterlogic USA, Inc.
Weatherby Inc.
Wedgewood LLC
Weiss Watch Co.
Wild Earth
Wiley X
William Glen Inc.
Win-Win Co,
Wonolo (HQ2)
Woodward Inc.
Xcelaero Inc.
XoJet Aviation
Yamaha Motor Corp.
Yeezy
Yogo
Yoshi
Zeiss Vision CareZoho, Inc.
Zoosk
Zovio, Inc.
Zox LLCZP Better Together
ZVRS & Purple Comm.

Contra Costa > Concord
San Luis Obispo > Paso Robles
Los Angeles > Redondo Beach
Los Angeles > Torrance
Alameda > Berkeley
Alameda > Livermore
Sacramento > Sacramento
Alameda > Oakland
San Francisco > San Francisco
Los Angeles > Duarte
San Luis Obispo > San Luis Obispo
Sacramento > Sacramento
Orange County > Cypress
Los Angeles > Calabasas
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Alameda > Pleasanton
San Francisco > San Francisco
San Diego > San Diego
Los Angeles > Agoura Hills
Placer > Rocklin
Del Norte > Rockland

39

Texas > Grapevine
Wyoming > Sheridan
Texas > Farmers Branch
Tennessee > NashvilleNorth Carolina > Durham
Texas > Frisco
Texas > Weatherford
Texas > Houston
Tennessee > Nashville
Colorado > Fort Collins
Louisiana > Baton Rouge
Florida > Fort Lauderdale
Georgia > Marietta
Wyoming > Cody
Nevada > Sparks
Tennessee > Nashville
Kentucky > Hebron
Texas > Austin
Germany > Berlin
Arizona > Chandler
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin
Texas > Austin

Endnotes
1

Jack Witthaus and Richard Bilbao, “Breaking: Disney confirms plans to build campus in Lake Nona and relocate 2,000 jobs here,”
Orlando Business Journal, July 15, 2021 https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/jul/15/disney-moving-2000-jobs-florida/
2
Rebekah Barton, "Disney Moves More Ops Out of California With NEW Vancouver Studio," Inside the Magic, Aug. 4, 2021
https://insidethemagic.net/2021/08/new-disney-animation-studio-vancouver-rwb1/
3"After Many Years, NHRA Finally Decides to Move Headquarters Out of California," Spectrum Location Solutions blog, August 8, 2021
https://spectrumlocationsolutions.com/2021/08/08/after-many-years-nhra-finally-decides-to-move-headquarters-out-of-california/
4
Joel Stinnett, “Exclusive: HST Pathways moving headquarters from California to Nashville,” Nashville Business Journal, May 4, 2021
https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2021/05/04/hst-pathways-moving-headquarters-to-nashville.html
5“Up For Grabs: The Best & Worst States For Business 2021,” Chief Executive, April 28, 2021 https://chiefexecutive.net/up-for-grabs-thebest-worst-states-for-business
6
Neil Nisperos, “Firm ditches Chino,” Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Feb. 20, 2011
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_17447183?source=rss#ixzz1Ei7JK6Uz
7“SMALL BUSINESS POLICY INDEX 2019: RANKING THE STATES ON POLICY MEASURES AND COSTS IMPACTING
SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 23rd Annual Edition,” Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, May 2019https://sbecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/SBPI2019-Report.pdf
8
Joel Kotkin, “Sacramento vs. the Economy,” National Review, April 19, 2021
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/04/19/the-california-economy-vs-sacramento/ He is the presidential fellow in Urban
Futures at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., and executive director of the Urban Reform Institute.
9
Jared Walczak, Janelle Cammenga, “2021 State Business Tax Climate Index,” The Tax Foundation,
https://files.taxfoundation.org/20201026112452/2021-State-Business-Tax-Climate-Index1.pdf
10"The Admission of California into the Union," U. S. House of Representatives, History, Art & Archives, undated (accessed March 18,2022) https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-admission-of-California-into-the-Union/
11
Wendell Cox, "Census 2021 Estimates: Increased Dispersion, NewGeography, March 25, 2022
https://www.newgeography.com/content/007395-census-2021-estimates-increased-dispersion
12
Dr. Arthur B. Laffer, Donna Arduin, Stephen Moore, Jonathan Williams, “2020 The Laffer-ALEC Report on Economic Freedom,
Grading America’s 50 Governors,” released Oct. 20, 2020 https://www.alec.org/publication/laffer-alec-report-on-economic-freedomgrading-americas-50-governors/
13“Dan Walters: Don’t tax you; don’t tax me,” Napa Valley Register, Feb. 7, 2019https://napavalleyregister.com/news/opinion/editorial/dan-walters-don-t-tax-you-don-t-tax-me/article_b8de95d7-1192-5af7-b7573fe658f7599e.html
14
Patrick Gleason, "Tennessee Lawmakers Introduce Another Reform Likely To Be Viewed As A Model For Other States To Follow,"
Forbes.com, Feb. 25, 2022 https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2022/02/25/tennessee-lawmakers-introduce-another-reform-likelyto-be-viewed-as-a-model-for-other-states-to-follow/?sh=1c383a7e4e26
15“California Property Tax - An Overview,” Summarized, California State Board of Equalization, Dec. 2018https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf
16“Q: Why was Proposition 13 supported by such a large majority of voters?” Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, undated (accessed
Jan. 20, 2021) https://www.hjta.org/faq/
17“PROP 15 INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCALGOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT,” Official Voter Information Guide for California General Election November 3, 2020,
undated (accessed June 20, 2021) https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/15/arguments-rebuttals.htm
18“Judicial Hellholes 2020/2021,” American Tort Reform Foundation, undated, https://www.judicialhellholes.org/hellhole/20202021/california/
19“Judicial Hellholes 2020/2021,” American Tort Reform Foundation, undated, https://www.judicialhellholes.org/hellhole/20202021/california/
20“The California Labor & Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) is an executive branch agency that provides leadership to protect
and improve the well-being of California’s current and future workforce. LWDA oversees seven major departments, boards, and panels
that serve California businesses and workers,” LWDA, undated (accessed July 15, 2021) https://www.labor.ca.gov/
21“PRIVATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ACT (PAGA),” PAGA Scam, undated (accessed June 4, 2021)
http://www.pagascam.com/whatispaga.html
22“Champions of Change,” PAGA website, undated (accessed Oct. 30, 2017) http://www.pagascam.com/change.html
23
The question was asked in an email from Spectrum Location Solutions to the California Law Revision Commission on July 14, 2021 andthe Commission’s executive director responded on the same day.
24
Deborah Lockridge, “California’s AB5: What Now for Truck Owner-Operators in the State?” HDT Truckinginfo, Dec. 31, 2019https://www.truckinginfo.com/347712/californias-ab5-takes-effect-what-now-for-truck-owner-operators-in-the-state
25“PAGA,” Consumer Attorneys of California, undated (accessed July 15, 2021) https://www.caoc.org/?pg=PAGA
26“California’s Hero Labor Law: The Private Attorneys General Act Fights Wage Theft and Recovers Millions from Lawbreaking
Corporations,” UCLA Labor Center, undated (accessed July 15, 2021) https://www.labor.ucla.edu/publication/paga/

40

27

“The Ins and Outs of Litigating a Representative Action Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA),” California Employment
Lawyers Association, Jan. 22, 2015 https://cela.org/index.cfm?pg=semwebCatalog&panel=showSWOD&seminarid=5929
28“LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY,” “A Track Record of Success,” California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, undated (accessed July
15, 2021) https://www.crlaf.org/copy-of-labor-employment
29
Tom Manzo, “COVID-19 Doesn’t Slow PAGA Lawsuits,” Fox & Hounds Daily, Sept. 4, 2020
https://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2020/09/covid-19-doesnt-slow-paga-lawsuits
30“How many agencies does one state need?” Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association, undated (accessed June 4, 2021)
https://www.svtaxpayers.org/california-state-agencies-list#:~:text=How%20many%20agencies%20does%20one,the%20golden%20state....
31
Maureen Gorsen, "California Begins Regulations on Manufacturing Lifecycle of Products," IndustryWeek, April 4, 2014
https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/regulations/article/21962583/california-begins-regulations-on-manufacturing-lifecycle-ofproducts
32
Melissa C. Marsh, “Violating California’s Paycheck Stub Laws Can Lead To Large Civil Penalties,” Updated February 2016 (accessed
June 5, 2021) https://www.yourlegalcorner.com/articles.asp?cat=emp&id=158
33
Kim Davis, “Risks vs Rewards When Considering Corporate Headquarters Relocation,” Expansion Solutions Magazine, March 29, 2021
https://www.expansionsolutionsmagazine.com/considering-corporate-headquarters-relocation/
34
Dean Stansel, Josė Torra, Fred McMahon, “Economic Freedom of North America 2020,” Fraser Institute, Nov. 17, 2020
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-north-america-2020
35
Allysia Finley, “Andy Puzder: Of Burgers, Bikinis and ObamaCare,” Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2013
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323528404578455253398197208
36
Eric Snyder, “Here’s how much Hardee’s parent company is investing in its Franklin HQ,” Nashville Business Journal, April 27, 2016
http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2016/04/27/heres-how-much-hardees-parent-company-is-investing.html
37
The owner of this company wishes to remain anonymous.
38
One website that lists permit requirements is the Search Function, GO-Biz website, undated (accessed Sept. 23, 2018)
http://www.calgold.ca.gov/Results.aspx?location=299&businessTypes=69,35,63,54,49,50,65,56,55&greenBusiness=False&levelOfGovern
mentFilter=31
39
Matt Horwitz, "LLC Annual Fees by State," LLC University, Updated July 21, 2022 (accessed Sept. 10, 2022)
https://www.llcuniversity.com/llc-annual-fees-by-state/ Note: As a response to Covid-19 and business bankruptcies and closings, California
has eliminated fees to create or renew LLCs until June 2023.
40

Sarah Klearman, "Sonoma County industrial facility hits the market after Amazon pullback," San Francisco Business
Times, Sept. 8, 2022 https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2022/09/08/victory-station-sonoma-amazonindustrial.html
41"Amazon.com cuts two planned distribution centers in SoCal," TheRealDeal, Aug. 22, 2002 (accessed Sept. 10, 2022)
https://therealdeal.com/la/2022/08/22/amazon-com-cuts-two-planned-distribution-centers-in-socal/
42“FLSA Overtime Calculator Advisor for Nonexempt Employees,” U.S. Dept. of Labor, undated (accessed June 5, 2021)
https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/otcalculator.htm
43“Overtime,” California Dept. of Industrial Relations, undated (accessed June 5, 2021) https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_overtime.htm
44
Gary Sutton, “Why California Is Bad For Innovation,” Forbes, Aug. 5, 2009 http://www.forbes.com/2009/08/05/california-innovationsutton-intelligent-technology-california.html
45
Allysia Finley, “Andy Puzder: Of Burgers, Bikinis and ObamaCare,” Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2013 (accessed June 5, 2021)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323528404578455253398197208
46
Allysia Finley, “Andy Puzder: Of Burgers, Bikinis and ObamaCare,” Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2013 (accessed June 5, 2021)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323528404578455253398197208
47“Workers’ compensation comparison across the states,” Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, January 2021
https://www.oregon.gov/dcbs/reports/compensation/Pages/wc-across-states.aspx and “2020 Oregon Workers’ Compensation Premium Rate
Ranking Summary,” January 2021 https://www.oregon.gov/dcbs/reports/Documents/general/prem-sum/20-2082.pdf
48"PG&E Is Raising Electric Rates On March 1. Here's How Much More It Will Cost.," Daily Energy News,https://dailyenergynews.com/2022/02/13/pge-is-raising-electric-rates-on-march-1-heres-how-much-more-it-will-cost/Feb. 13, 2022
49
"Another Major Rate Hike Proposed For PG&E Customers," Good Day Sacramento, March 10, 2022
https://gooddaysacramento.cbslocal.com/2022/03/10/pge-proposes-another-rate-hike/
50
Emily Langenbahn, “Southern California Edison Rate Increases For 2021,” renova.energy, Oct. 26, 2020
https://www.renovaenergy.com/energy-insights/articles/southern-california-edison-rate-increases-for-2021/
51
Maggie Angst, Stephen Hobbs, "Newsom signs bill that could keep Diablo Canyon nuclear plant open past closure date," The
Sacramento Bee, Sept. 2, 2022 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/newsom-signs-bill-that-could-keep-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-openpast-closure-date/ar-AA11pM2F
52"California Governor Says Foreign Oil Imports Fill Gap Created By Green Energy," Western Wire, Sept. 29, 2020
https://www.westernwire.net/california-governor-says-foreign-oil-imports-fill-gap-created-by-green-energy/
53
Source: California Energy Commission, imports through end of 2021, accessed March 30, 2022
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/californias-petroleum-market/oil-supply-sources-california-refineries
54
Lee Ohanian, “While Survey Shows Californians Would Prefer Life Elsewhere, Media Report California Doing Just Fine,” Hoover
Institution, July 13, 2021 https://www.hoover.org/research/while-survey-shows-californians-would-prefer-life-elsewhere-media-reportcalifornia-doing

41

55

Bethany Blankley, “Texas, with no income tax, is the fastest growing state in the U.S.,” The Center Square Jan 19, 2021
https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/texas-with-no-income-tax-is-the-fastest-growing-state-in-the-u-s/article_d9f5fb2a-5a95-11eb-a33c9716e1682530.html
56
Matt Levin, “A Symptom Of California’s Housing Crisis? One State Agency Says Someone Making $200K A Year Deserves Help
Buying A House,” CapRadio, June 14, 2018 https://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/06/14/a-symptom-of-californias-housing-crisis-onestate-agency-says-someone-making-200k-a-year-deserves-help-buying-a-house/
57
Tom, Ozimek, “Taxpayers Fleeing California Take $8.8 Billion In Gross Income to Other States,” The Epoch Times, June 4, 2021
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_breakingnews/taxpayers-fleeing-california-take-8-8-billion-in-gross-income-to-otherstates_3844818.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email2&utm_campaign=breaking-2021-06-043&mktids=77310ceea8eaa4ed9987724ef5e51fdc&est=St%2FzqTIAV7hJ8DZtbWagmllm9mEzYuX%2BIp%2BAClyNiDiU6AoFfi3KarA
Z%2BHmO%2FUoM
58
Wendell Cox, “DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 2022 EDITION,” Urban Reform Institute and theFrontier Centre for Public Policy, March 2022, p.2, https://fcpp.org/wp-content/uploads/Demographia-International-Housing-Affordability2022-EditionCORR.pdf Note: The ratio has been widely used by the World Bank, the United Nations, the Organization for International
Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University.
59
Alicia Adamczyk, "More awful news for homebuyers: Mortgage rates just made the biggest jump this century," Fortune, March 25, 2022
https://fortune.com/2022/03/25/mortgage-rates-just-made-biggest-jump-this-century/
60
Nicole Friedman, "Home-Price Growth Accelerated in January," Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2022
https://www.wsj.com/articles/home-price-growth-accelerated-in-january-11648558827
61
Jeff Collins, “‘It’s crazy’: LA County home sales soar 69%; median rises to $790,000,” Los Angeles Daily News, July 20, 2021
https://www.dailynews.com/2021/07/20/southern-california-home-prices-set-fifth-straight-record-as-sales-soar/
62
Wendell Cox, “DEMOGRAPHIA INTERNATIONAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 2022 EDITION” Urban Reform Institute and theFrontier Centre for Public Policy
63
The BEA explains: “The RPPs use only price and expenditure-related survey data that are collected by U.S. federal agencies. These
include the BLS’ CPI price survey and the Census Bureau’s ACS housing survey. The former was not designed for place-to-placecomparisons and does not fully represent smaller geographic units. We therefore use a five-year rolling average of the CPI price data tosmooth out inconsistencies that arise when there are items that are sparsely surveyed on a regular basis in the smaller geographies. The
Census’ ACS data contains detailed geographic information on the cost of rental housing, but limited information on owner-occupied
housing values. In this case, we use annual data, but only the price level for renters, not for owners. We impute owner-occupied rent
expenditures - by combining the BLS housing estimates of owner-equivalent rents with the ACS data.” Source: “Real Personal Income andRegional Price Parities July 2016,” Methodologies, BEA,
https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/methodologies/RPP2016_methodology.pdf
64Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, Jonathan Williams, “ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index,” “Rich States Poor States,”
15th Edition, American Legislative Exchange Council, April 18, 2022 https://alec.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022-15th-RSPS-StatePages_V3_Final_R1.pdf
65Mark Calvey, “California governor on the exodus: ‘We need to step up our game,’“ San Francisco Business Times, June 22, 2021
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2021/06/22/california-governor-on-the-exodus-we-need-to-ste.html
66
Brittany De Lea, “Ohio prepared to ‘compete’ for business investment, jobs as it slashes tax rates,” Fox Business News, July 13, 2021
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/ohio-compete-business-investment-tax-rates
67
Debra Kahn, Politico, “A $280M handout for baseball? Secret California budget item might juice Oakland project,” Politico, July 19,
2021 https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2021/07/19/a-280m-handout-for-baseball-secret-california-budget-item-might-juiceoakland-project-1388708
68
Barry Broome, President & CEO of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council in a June 26, 2021 email to Spectrum Location Solutions.
69“Incentives by Industry,” California Business Portal, GO-Biz, undated (accessed July 3, 2021)
http://businessportal.ca.gov/incentives/incentives-by-industry/70"California Awards $150 million in Tax Credits Projected to Create More Than 7,600 Jobs," press release from Governor’s Office ofBusiness and Economic Development (GO-Biz), Nov. 4, 2021 https://business.ca.gov/california-awards-150-million-in-tax-creditsprojected-to-create-more-than-7600-jobs/ and California Awards $71.1 million in Tax Credits Projected to Create More Than 5,200 Jobs,”
press release from GO-Biz, June 17, 2021 https://business.ca.gov/california-awards-71-1-million-in-tax-credits-projected-to-create-morethan-5200-jobs/
71“California Competes Tax Credit Program Committee Meeting,” California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development,
meetings of:June 17, 2021: https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CCTC-Meeting-Approval-Notice-6-17-21.pdf
April 22, 2021: https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/CCTC-Meeting-Approval-Notice-4-22-21.pdf
Nov. 5, 2020: https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CCTC-Meeting-Approval-Notice-11-5-20-.pdf
June 18, 2020: https://static.business.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CCTC-Meeting-Approval-Notice-6-18-20.pdf
72
Chris Micheli, Calif. Economic Development Budget Trailer Bill Establishes ‘California Competes Grant Program,’“ California Globe,
July 13, 2021 https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/calif-economic-development-budget-trailer-bill-establishes-california-competes-grantprogram/73
Emily Hamann, “California budget includes $10 billion in small business Covid-19 grants and tax relief,” Sacramento Business Journal,
Jul 14, 2021 https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2021/07/14/california-budget-small-business-grants-tax-relief.html

42

74

Ted Johnson, “California Lawmakers Pass Big Boost To State Film And TV Production Tax Credit – Update,” Deadline, July 15, 2021
https://deadline.com/2021/07/california-film-and-tv-tax-credit-1234793612/
75“California Awards $71.1 million in Tax Credits Projected to Create More Than 5,200 Jobs,” press release from Governor’s Office ofBusiness and Economic Development (GO-Biz), June 17, 2021 https://business.ca.gov/california-awards-71-1-million-in-tax-creditsprojected-to-create-more-than-5200-jobs/
76
Ted Johnson, “California Lawmakers Pass Big Boost To State Film And TV Production Tax Credit – Update,” Deadline, July 15, 2021
https://deadline.com/2021/07/california-film-and-tv-tax-credit-1234793612/
77
California Legislative Information Bill Text, Published July 13, 2021, July 12, 2021
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB151
78
Fontana, “California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs $100 billion budget package,” California News Times, undated (accessed July 21, 2021)
https://californianewstimes.com/california-gov-gavin-newsom-signs-100-billion-budget-package/437611/
79
Evan,Symon, "CA Legislature Passes $262.6 Billion 2021-2022 State Budget," California Globe, June 29, 2021
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/ca-legislature-passes-262-6-billion-2021-2022-state-budget/80“2016/2017 BUSINESS INCENTIVES AND RESOURCES GUIDE,” Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. (undated but
listed as “new” when accessed July 5, 2021) https://laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2016-17-LAEDC-Business-Guide-fullsm.pdf
81“Film Industry Incentives,” Los Angeles Office of Citywide Filming, Department of Public Works, webpage, undated (accessed July 5,2021) https://dpw.lacity.org/commissioners-boardroom/office-citywide-filming
82
Katy Steinmetz, “What The Twitter Tax Break Means For San Francisco,” Time, Feb. 28, 2014
http://nation.time.com/2014/02/28/twitter-tax-break-san-francisco/83
Art Marroquin, “Disneyland expansion expected to kick in by end of 2017 on its $1 billion committed for new attractions,” Orange
County Register, July 8, 2015 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/disney-670933-anaheim-city.html
84
The 3,141 counties and county equivalents in the U.S. are categorized as follows: 3,007 entities named “County”; 16 Boroughs in
Alaska; 11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State); 64 Parishes in Louisiana; 42 Independent Cities (1in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia); 1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia. Source:“How many counties are there in the United States?” U.S. Geological Survey, undated (accessed July 3, 2021)
https://www.usgs.gov/media/audio/how-many-counties-are-there-united-states
85
A Non-Disclosure Agreement between the company and Spectrum Location Solutions prohibits identifying the firm.
86
Candace Carlisle, “California loses another aviation company to North Texas,” Dallas Business Journal, May 25, 2016
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2016/05/25/california-loses-another-aviation-company-to-north.html
87
Danielle Abril, “Cinépolis USA Moves HQ from California to Addison,” D Magazine, July 1, 2016
http://realestate.dmagazine.com/2016/07/cinepolis-usa-moves-hq-from-california-to-addison/
88
Angela Gonzales, “ZipRecruiter plans to hire upwards of 300 at new Tempe office,” Phoenix Business Journal, April 4, 2016
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2016/04/ziprecruiter-plans-to-hire-upwards-of-300-at-new.html
89
Jason Hidalgo, “Tech company Capstak picks Reno for HQ, hiring 100,” Reno Gazette Journal, Sept. 20, 2016
http://www.rgj.com/story/money/business/2016/09/19/tech-company-capstak-picks-reno-corporate-hq-hiring-100/90514420/
90“History of Thomas Bros. Maps and the Making of the Thomas Guide,” Map Books 4 U, undated (accessed Sept. 14, 2015)
http://www.mapbooks4u.com/page/371456/
91
Mary Ann Milbourn, “Did an O.C. map company sneak out of town?” Orange County Register, Sept. 16, 2010
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/strong-547125-href-target.html;
92
Dale Buss, “Best & Worst States: California At The Bottom—Again”, Chief Executive, June 2, 2020 https://chiefexecutive.net/bestworst-states-california-at-the-bottom-again/
93
Jan Norman, “‘Leaving Cal.’ list grows to 144 firms,” Orange County Register, Sept. 23, 2010https://www.ocregister.com/2010/09/23/leaving-cal-list-grows-to-144-firms/
94“Jerry Brown’s ‘Little Burdens,’” Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2014
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579536282205834054
95“Toyota Escapes to Texas,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2014
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533794175451998
96
Adam Weintraub, “Lt. gov. releases plan to revive Calif. economy, Associated Press, July 29, 2011https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-lt-gov-releases-plan-to-revive-calif-economy-2011jul29-story.html
97
Joel Kotkin, “Socal business needs to go small or go home,” Orange County Register, Nov. 16, 2014
https://www.ocregister.com/2014/11/16/joel-kotkin-socal-business-needs-to-go-small-or-go-home/98
David L. Bahnsen, “The Great California Exodus,” National Review, April 1, 2021
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2021/04/19/the-great-california-exodus/#slide-1

43