If you look at real purchasing power, California ranks #37: http://www.aei.org/publication/adjusting-state-incomes-for-t.... The usual retort to attempts to adjust for cost of living is that iPhones, Teslas, etc., cost the same anywhere in the country. This is where inequality comes in--your average person spends most of their income on purchases indexed to cost of living: rent, food, gas, child care, etc. If you make $300,000, you'll have more disposable income in California than if you made $200,000 in Minnesota even with the higher cost of living. If you make $75,000 in California, you might be living very similarly to someone making $50,000 in Minnesota.
Nor is California like say Germany or France, where substantially lower GDP per capita and higher taxes (relative to the U.S.) is balanced by a robust safety net and ample public services. California has among the worst public schools in the country: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/02/08/geog.... Its public universities are quite expensive. It doesn't have a leg up in healthcare like say Massachusetts. Public transit is basically non-existent outside SF/LA. (To compare: Dresden and Sacramento are about the same size; Dresden has an extensive commuter rail system, and a tram system with 150 stops. Sacramento has no commuter rail and a light-rail system with 50 stops.)
It's true the public schools are lackluster, but I'm not sure the same is true of public universities and healthcare. California universities have a great reputation and student debt is relatively low . Uninsured rates aren't Massachusetts-low, but their health outcomes are comparable or better . California has made headlines for being one of the few states to lower mortality. 
That's not PPP. It's a measure created by the Tax Foundation think tank and published by AEI, both of which obviously have an ideological agenda. Their results seem questionable to me: New York is in the bottom half, and Oregon and Hawaii are below impoverished Mississippi.
I'd prefer to use numbers from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Here  is a table of results pretty much straight from there. (You can find the simple methodology if you scroll down.) According to that data, California's per-capita income rank actually goes up when you take cost of living into account.
Note that your reference has California at #25 for personal income, and #21 adjusted for cost of living. That seems odd...
It can be both, you know.
In 2018 California, New York (ie. My grandma thought White Plains was some frozen tundra near Niagara Falls) and even Massachusetts are examples of that. Victorian England is another great example.
I'm not so sure about that. If that were true, we wouldn't see so many vetoes by the Democratic Governor of the laws passed by the Democratic legislature, nor we would we see so many failed bills in the Legislature.
There is definitely a split in the party between those that are "almost Republicans" and those that are "liberal Democrats". The Democrats have a supermajority in both houses -- they should be able to pass anything with ease.
But for example, they couldn't pass a new zoning law that would allow for a ton of new housing, something we desperately need. If the party were running smoothly, they would have been able to work out a new zoning bill that everyone was happy with.
- Most unequal state in America
- VERY high taxes (that are supposed to stop inequality, but it doesn't. Surprise)
- skyrocketing housing prices
- Very illiberal mindset towards the first amendment, especially on college campuses and in younger generations
- Allows illegal citizens to vote
- Very "shallow" show-off culture due to the show biz
And free speech goes both ways, just saying.
Disclaimer: I'm not from the US, so some insight into how free speech is looked at in the US would really be appreciated.
Look at what's happening at college campuses. Students and administrators are openly against free speech, because it "harms minorities"
At the same time, it is important to note that Devin Nunes, the congressman who runs the House Intelligence Committee, and a Republican, is from California. Thus, it can't be completely true that California is a monoculture.
Just for my understanding, it is more about the venue of where conservative commentators are allowed to speak and less about the fact that they speak in General? If it is that it seems to be kind of abusive of the First, trying to use to gain admission to every conceivable place for a Rally or talk.
Making this issue a conservative vs liberal issue is dishonest and doesn't get us anywhere
This is not about conservatives, it hits everyone, ESPECIALLY LEFT WINGERS: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/po...
This isn't justified. There's a lot of inequality in California, but given the makeup of the state, it seems reasonably likely that it would be even worse if the state were more hands-off.
> Allows illegal citizens to vote
This is not even a little bit true. You should really vet your sources of information more carefully.
Social liberals will naturally see inclusive (relative to the rest of the country), majority-minority California as a success story. Cultural conservatives will continue to regard it with distrust.
But the questions raised in this article are primarily economic, and I think the point about inequality is particularly salient given which party holds power.
I really don't like it. The issues that the upper classes in states like to pat themselves on the back about are a lot farther down the hierarchy of needs than being able to afford to register your vehicle.
It's not even a left or right thing, it's a whether or not people have to spend time/money/effort jumping through hoops (thereby driving up the cost of living) set up by the government thing.
States shouln't be measured by how nice it is to be "average" there, they should be measured by how shitty it is or isn't if you're just scraping by.
"In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's law is mentioned with probability 1."