Talk:Economy of California

message: Article seems kind of biased & makes vague generalizations. I didn't finish reading because of that.
The first line with "dominant force" needs elaboration, but it's not really appropriate language anyway. It ties to the GSP which is 17% of the U.S. GDP, while only having 12% of the population. One could also go on that despite that, Californians have slightly less than the U.S. average to spend on retail(read that from Cal. Dept. of Finance). That would be due to, mainly, the high cost of housing.
*AGREED: This is inappropriate language. I already omitted the second sentence. We should just scrap the rest. I suggest we write a proper introduction from repurposing parts of existing subsections, such as "Gross domestic product (GDP)," "Economic regions," and "Sectors." This also will force us to retool the article's content. Caspcasp (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: I didn't feel like logging in, so I'm stating it here. Check the history if you need to, but all I did was condense that unbearably huge long sentence and partitioned it into four bullets. 66.31.138.50 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited the "Regions" section 

message: Please expand the housing section (particularly the housing bubble section).
How bout something like this. If California was an Independant nation, it would need an intervention from the World Bank or IMF. Sure its conjecture, but so is "If California was". The word "If" implies conjecture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.193 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Housing

message: How is it true: 
1. Agriculture is no. 1 sector in CA generating about $27bn revenue.
2. Exports of computer electronics is about $40bn. 
aren't these 2 statements contradictory?  
if one reviews BEA and CA government sites for statistics, it's easy to verify that agriculture is by no means the largest sector of CA economy.
*AGREED! Let's see, the $27 billion quote for the agriculture industry is a TINY chunk less than 2% of the CA gross state product. The Intel Corporation alone, which actually employs more workers in Oregon and Arizona than California had nearly $40 billion in revenue last year.  I'm fairly certain there are California industries larger than agriculture IF the $27 billion quote is correct.  Agriculture products are very simple and cheap and thus require massive volume to actually add to a large revenue number.  I'm SURE many areas of the service industry (restaurants, retail) have much larger revenue than $27 billion.  And if there are less than 50 industries defined, then LOGICALLY at least one of them must be more than 2% of California's GDP and thus larger than agriculture...
**Of course, you can always arbitrarily define "industries" to all be very specific (like computer/electronics industry is split into integrated circuits, database software, optical storage, mainframes, etc all as separate industries) while leaving agriculture (including crops, livestock, genetics, etc) as one massive catch-all industry and that may win the crown by cheating... -Rory77 12:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  economy of CA / agriculture 

message: "Harvesting of marijuana continues to account for over $1 billion each year, making it the number-one cash crop in the number-one agricultural region in the US." --California: The Rough Guide. (2003) Rough Guides.  p. 803. 
One of dozens of sources.  Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis production 

message: The line: "In 2008, when measured as a percentage of GDP, California had the 6th highest tax burden of the fifty states. [17]" should be removed. For one thing, the source of the material is the Tax Foundation originally, and should be referenced to them. Secondly, The US Government Census figures would be more appropriate to use for a number of reasons: They are more objective, they use a standardized accounting method, and the Tax Foundation is an advocacy group whose figures are problematic or questionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdruid (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tax Burden 

message: I added this, but someone erased it, claiming it was crystal balling. I disagree with the claim that it was crystal balling, because the info is about the past, not the future:
A May 3, 2009 opinion column by George Will in the Washington Post stated, "If, since 1990, state spending increases had been held to the inflation rate plus population growth, the state would have a $15 billion surplus instead of a $42 billion budget deficit..."[40]
Grundle2600 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an arbitrary, non-noteworthy, statistical observation.  Although George Will has many interesting things to say, the fact that he did so in this case is itself anything remarkable either.  Wikidemon (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See also a discussion on the same material at Talk:California#Budget deficit.   Will Beback  talk   20:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Budget deficit

message: something seems to have killed 20+ references from this page; only 1 end note appears. 
Vynce (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: references

message: You folks above certainly seem to have at least some level of education about economics in general and the economy of california in particular. Why don't you get together and write an article about it? At the moment, what is on here seems to compose chiefly of two carefully constructed sections a) how 'big' california would be if it were an independent country, which really merits little more than a sentence, and b) two long lists of the richest and poorest towns in california, which is pretty much entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand: the structure and function of the californian economy. I would like to know why, for example, if the state has the 6th highest tax burden of any state, it is nonetheless the case that 60% of its tax revenue comes from capital gains on the wealthiest 3%. etc. There is nothing here. This article is almost useless, and at a time when the subject is one of the most important in the encyclopedia Duracell (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Well

message: including an alteration to the one at the top of this talk page. This is one of the most important topics on the PLANET in July 2009, and I certainly think wikipedia project California should regard it as a top importance article. It is certainly more important  than the top importance rated article  Lake Tahoe Duracell (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: added various tags

message: :File:Woodruff Paddy Fields.jpg is a great image (not mine), but there is no detailed section or article about california agriculture. thats really strange. its a major part of the california economy. I dont think this image fits here very well, but maybe we can create a stub on california agriculture?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: image needs an article

message: What is the encyclopedic usefulness of table comparing a State o other countries. It is a table more appropriate for a trivia book or something like that. Also, it is original research as the table (and data about California) is not found in the source. Chico Venancio (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefullness / Orignal research of table 

message: The text below has been added and reverted.  That means that it should be brought here for discussion.  Please do not add the text to the article until there has been a discussion and a consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As another note, the table really needs to be cited, such figures need to be justified. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with the world (2011) 

message: Where's the discussion of the defense industry, or the wine business? This seems to be a very thin article!. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Economy of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150524004143/http://www.dof.ca.gov:80/html/fs_data/fs_home.htm to http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/Fs_home.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130521215728/http://www.lao.ca.gov/PubDetails.aspx?id=1206 to http://www.lao.ca.gov/PubDetails.aspx?id=1206
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130522003532/http://www.lao.ca.gov/PubDetails.aspx?id=1203 to http://www.lao.ca.gov/PubDetails.aspx?id=1203
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What percent of the economy in CA does tourism comprise?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Economy of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527094654/http://www.ca.gov/About/Government/Local/counties.html to http://www.ca.gov/About/Government/Local/counties.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120428195928/http://www.ca.gov:80/About/Government/Local/cities.html to http://www.ca.gov/About/Government/Local/cities.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Need an up to date statistics on percentages of water used in California, particularly by agricultural sectors. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article has any statistics about water use in California, much less up-to-date ones.  We could easily find and add them, but we would have to decide whether water devoted to environmental purposes is "used".  My understanding is that, of water actually used by people, 80% is used for agriculture and 20% is used for everything else, but half the water is "used" by the environment, and people may have strong opinions about whether that half should be included or not.  AgnosticAphid talk 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should probably use whatever definitions used in California water law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: In Colorado, where Prior-appropriation water rights apply, certain environmental uses are considered beneficial uses, for example, maintaining stream flow. I think you are using "use" to mean a use recognized under state law. In general, water law is state law. California has a mixed system which recognized some riparian rights. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally feel like it would be silly to include the "use" of water by the environment, because this article is focused on the economy of California, not California's water supply, and so it seems like the only relevant water is the water actually used by people for economically productive purposes.  You can read more about the disputes over these figures here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Uses_of_water .  Basically I feel like what is relevant for the purposes of this article is that agriculture uses 4x as much water as everything else combined; for the economy of california, who really cares what portion of the water flows into the ocean, whether or not that water could be recovered, and to what extent that un-diverted water improves water quality for the water that is diverted?  AgnosticAphid talk 23:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Water use by agriculture

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://cab.cati.csufresno.edu/PDF/Mason_Role-of-Air-Cargo-2007.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101060949/http://chautauqua.ny.us/departments/tax/Pages/PropertyTaxStateRank.htm to http://chautauqua.ny.us/departments/tax/Pages/PropertyTaxStateRank.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914195910/http://www.dof.ca.gov/DOF.asp to http://www.dof.ca.gov/DOF.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050622233946/http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/Data_home.htm to http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/FS_DATA/LatestEconData/Data_home.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050803075714/http://www.visitcalifornia.com/state/tourism/tour_homepage.jsp to http://www.visitcalifornia.com/state/tourism/tour_homepage.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I noticed the "Top 30 publicly traded companies in California for 2017" table needs to be fixed. One of the companies is listed twice, which made me review the sourced article. I was going to update it myself but then was thrown off when I noticed Google wasn't actually listed in the original source unless I missed it. I'll come back to this but thought I'd put it here in case anyone wants to tackle it before I get to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffsurf (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was introduced by this 09:48, 19 April 2018 edit by , which updated the list from 2011 to 2017. We're probably due for another update. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 30 companies list 

message: This claims California's GSP of $3.37 T puts it ahead of Germany, and then links to Germany having a GDP of $4.03 T? 81.107.39.90 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  California 4th largest economy ahead of Germany doesn't make sense? 

message: Gdp per capita link [2] leads to a page that doesn't mention total GDP or populatin 176.72.99.240 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gdp 

message: If California has a gdp of 3.89 trillion in 2024, then it is ahead of the UK, but not India. India's GDP is 4.11 trillion in 2024 (https://cleartax.in/s/world-gdp-ranking-list).
I think we are comparing California's 2024 numbers with India's 2021 data. 71.127.215.194 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2024 ranking  

message: California has a GRDP, not a GDP since it's not a country. Also, it does not make any sense to compare different economies in nominal prices because this value reflects prices for electricity, haircuts, bread, etc, which are times higher in California (and the USA as a whole) than in other countries. Simply because you have higher prices does not mean your economy is larger. Since the USA has had chronical trade deficits for decades, the idea that the USA produces a lot of competitive goods and services is obviously false. 94.102.49.189 (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong terms and wrong comparison