I, on the other hand, think that this is part of a trend.
Hotspots like California rarely stay on the very top for more than 3-4 decades. After that, a certain rot starts to set in and new players find it easier to pitch up their tent elsewhere, where NIMBYism isn't as strong, landlords are less extortionate and governments more friendly.
The problem with that logic is the streetlight fallacy. If you're predicting "rot" in the Bay Area, it's true, you can cite your "30-40" year timeframe and argue it's "due" or whatever.
But people have been predicting this kind of Downfall of California for essentially all of those four (more like five now) decades! And they were wrong every time.
So, are you correct now because you are predicting Californian Doom from proper first principles? Or are you, like all your forebears, constructing those principles to argue for the conclusion you want to see? I think simple numbers (from your own post!) give you at best a 2-3% chance of being right.
California is fine. You'll know it's lost when somewhere else is better.
California's neuralgic point is Silicon Valley. IMHO if SV corporations start moving out in larger numbers, that will be the definite indication that somewhere else is better.
It is my impression that cost of living in and around SV is absolutely crazy, even for FAANG employees.
> where NIMBYism isn't as strong, landlords are less extortionate and governments more friendly.
It's not like Texas is that much better in any of these aspects. NIMBYism is a huge problem in the Austin area, which is seeing massive increases in rents and inability to keep up with housing demand due to entrenched real estate ownership.
The rent problem extends to the commercial side as well, which has seen so many local businesses fold due to rent pressure.
And yes, the government is much more business-friendly in Texas than it is California from a financial perspective, but major failures to govern during situations like the "Winterpocalypse" this year raise serious questions about Texas' long-term business viability. Case in point: according to Texas' own energy grid operator, the state was less than 5 minutes away from total failure during the winter storm, which would have results in statewide power outages lasting on the order of months. Not days, not weeks... months. Imagine for a minute what that would have done to one of the largest economies in the country[0] had it actually happened.
I expect Tesla will generate all or most of its own electricity but your point is very well taken for industry in general. Texas generates more wind energy than any other state (and thus earns more money for that wind) but the governor hates wind and blamed it for the grid failures, which were clearly caused by other mechanisms. Texas government is extremely f'ed up right now.
> I expect Tesla will generate all or most of its own electricity
That's a moot point in a disaster scenario where the grid is down and traffic systems and utilities are disabled, etc. Tesla can't generate its own water, and that was one utility that was knocked out for much of Texas during the storm. There's a lot more that goes into keeping a manufacturing operation like that functional than just energy self-sufficiency.
Of course they could -- in theory they could drill a well and put in their own septic system. That's probably illegal in Austin proper but the Tesla facility is sufficiently far away that it might be legal there.
I agree that there is a trend away from California, doubt it is related to NIMBY-ism, governments. When Hewlett & Packard or Steve & Steve kicked off their businesses in the Bay Area it wasn't because government was friendly or NIMBY-ism was lacking.
Now it's simply too damn expensive to live in the Bay Area, too expensive therefore to hire.
That's the cost of success and why the 3 to 4 (5 to 7?) decade trend.
Austin will become too expensive and everyone will head to North Carolina (or wherever) in a few decades....
Well, NIMBYism is a function of population density and governments which want to attract tax dollars are less confrontational than those that are used to having a massive tax base.
Where I live, the regions that have less investment and fewer people fight over investments (including railways and roads), while the richer ones like Prague often find reasons why to slow down or even stop such developments.
But yeah, this awaits Texas too and 2050 will have a new champion. Perhaps North Carolina, who knows.
NIMBYism is more a factor of incentives. Because of prop 13 California gets a large portion of state revenue from income tax, Texas has no income tax and relies on their very high property tax. Texas government has a strong incentive to promote development because that increases their tax base. Compared to California, construction permitting is a rubber stamping process in Texas. Houston, the 5th largest city in the USA, doesn't even have zoning laws.
Hotspots like California rarely stay on the very top for more than 3-4 decades. After that, a certain rot starts to set in and new players find it easier to pitch up their tent elsewhere, where NIMBYism isn't as strong, landlords are less extortionate and governments more friendly.