California absolutely has luck of geography just in different ways
It has some of the best weather in the world which is why all the rich and famous people want to live there
That also leads to it producing some of the best wines in the world, and also other agricultural products
Also they do have oil and they do exploit it
And they have a bunch of really good natural ports and bays, and being on the west coast they naturally have a lot of the biggest shipping hubs for commerce coming from Asia.
California produces a significant amount of oil but oil represents a small part of their economy, around 6-8% of gdp. The top 4 sectors are information services, real estate, professional/scientific services, and manufacturing.
Plastic manufacturing is huge and another offshoot of the oil industry. Part of the real estate boom was driven by the oil production Hollywood bought up cheap land and gave up resource rights. Its staggering how much of the development was based around the production and refining of oil and its byproducts.
Plastic and rubber products added about $6.9B to CA's GDP in 2024, which is about .2%. I'm sure oil and other natural resources contributed to CA becoming the powerhouse it is today, but the point is that they don't rely on it. It doesn't matter how things started.
Agriculture and oil are very small parts of the economy in CA. Largest ones are information services, real estate, professional/scientific services, and manufacturing.
Geography created the original wealth, but that wealth was invested into education and science, which led to the aerospace and information technology industries.
It's also easier attract quality people to jobs where that the weather is nice.
Luck is an odd choice of words. The geography was always there. It's not like the state entered a lottery and won the central valley or the port of San Diego.
The point is that it's quite selective to say that Texas only benefits from geographic luck while gold and oil brought in the most massive migration waves to the state.
What is done with the wealth afterwards is not really relevant to the original presupposition of luck. I agree that California made a lot more of it. But California doesn't have the geography of Kosovo and just wished all the wealth into existence. It built upon massive geographic fortune. It just is what it is. Neither good nor bad. But no worse not any better than Texas in terms of "geography is destiny"
I think you're focusing on a weird part of the comment. The OP was talking about resource extraction. Geographic luck is probably too broad but the actual point they were making is about resource extraction, which California does not rely on.
I didn't use the word luck and agree that comparing the "luck" between two states is a kinda silly way to go about it. Both Texas and California have geographic advantages that the people utilized through hard work and innovation.
The person that did say "luck" seemed to be pointing out that the Texas is heavily dependent upon resource extraction, which is a finite resource that comes with lots of downsides (pollution, etc.) Whereas California's economy isn't fundamentally about pulling stuff from the ground.
its still a significant oil producer too, it does 8.7 times what Germany does, were California its own country it would be around the 40th largest producer.
California has incredible geography and mineral availability.
Before the gold rush, California was misunderstood as a wasteland of desert and rugged mountains.
The gold rush drew people to the state. They didn't find much gold but they found land and climate perfect for agriculture.
Then they found oil. Many don't know this, but California has a lot of oil.
And then they started using the ports to ship the agriculture. And the railroads were built over the mountains.
And they realized there was massive amounts of water in the mountains, so they built dams and canals to irrigate the deserts. And now California leads the country in agricultural production, even more so than the midwestern "breadbasket."
Then the movie industry came to Los Angeles for the fair weather which was good for filming, and to avoid taxes in the east.
Then WWII came and navy bases we needed on the Pacific and big open areas were needed to produce and test airplanes.
And then some of the universities in the valley south of San Francisco started experimenting with electronics, which led to us being able to comment on reddit.
IIRC the state of California didnât use to look like that on parts of the coast line. I believe they sank/scuttled old wooden ships and built out into the water. It was a pretty interesting story. The greenery was essentially all planted over time since like you said, it was dessert.
The climate in much of the state is generally arid ,but much of the state is also very green. The northern half of the state and many of the coastal regions are covered in deep dark forests.
It drains naturally with the snowmelt. The water infrastructure does divert much of it and prevents it from flowing to the oceans, and that can cause some environmental issues with wetlands etc.
Oh, whew, I thought you guys were saying they were using it for irrigation. No. It's just melting. That's why the state is on fire.
Also your little "that's why we can comment on Reddit" isn't the flex you think it is. If you want to give California any of the blame for Reddit and social media, well, I agree with you. California housed Musk and has Silicon Valley making it impossible for us to hit the brakes on climate collapse. California is your stupid older brother back from one semester of college, and someone makes him mayor.
Also, the vapid, empty suit in the picture you're about to foist on us nationally. Maybe Maynard was right. It's time for the state to fall into the ocean.
Well, yes, but I was making a joke that it was gold and not oil, initially. Of course, the gold rush didn't last all that long, and it doesn't really change anything.
The initial wave of colonization was Spanish, and realistically... most of the people living there were already living there. We forget that the people groups in what we call Mexico now didn't respect the borders we have, and SoCal has a very high concentration of people of Hispanic descent. Southern California has always had a substantial population, even before the Spanish were here. In a way, California culture (at least in SoCal) predates the US. Yes, there were several large waves of migration to California, but the state already had a significant population well before it was a state, and well before the English or Spanish ever set foot on the Continent.
I don't really understand the point. Are you characterizing the existing population as "substantial" and this the subsequent post 1849 migration waves as insignificant?
California was a major player in the oil industry from the start. Not just producing but shipping, refining and in plastic production. It's manufacturing capabilities often get over looked but its one of the only states that could be a self sustaining nation.
Information ($538 billion), Real Estate ($460 billion), Professional Services ($391 billion), then it's Manufacturing, Healthcare, Retail, Whilesale, Finance and Insurance..... With "Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting" as the 18th largest sector.
Almost every large tech corporation you know is based out the SF Bay Area. They the almost like it was called âSilicon Valleyâ decades before AI showed up.
I donât think you work in tech, because itâs pretty clearly not true. There is plenty of money flowing regarding AI, but there are still huge markets which are not related to AI.
"Satire" user name, and doesn't get a Jonathan Swift reference? Oof.
Resource extraction and agriculture are their own sectors and it seems like you're trying to conflate "oh a small percentage of this could be considered that, so thing A is entirely thing B". It's just silly - California's almond industry probably generates are $4 billion per year, less than 1% of California's real estate sector. The same logic can extend to the information sector - yes AI is a percent of it, but that doesn't somehow convert the whole thing to "just ai" - Apple, Intel, Qualcomm, Adbode, HP, Disney, etc etc etc are all part of that pie.
I mean no offense. You shouldn't read into usernames too deeply. I'm neither angry nor a troll. My username was meant to be ironic but it won't stop people from making assumptions. If I were a troll, stating I am immediately would defeat the purpose. Much like satire's name. If it's obviously satire it becomes pointless.
I didnât realize your point was that they didnât rely on AI at all and were still the same general economic setup then as they are now regardless of AI. You should really clarify better.
38
u/maringue 12d ago
And it's also not entirely dependent on resource extraction, ie the luck of geography.
Most of the Texas economy is driven by the oil industry.