California has a strange relationship with business. Its lawmakers seem determined to make doing business more expensive, yet companies continue to operate there. Taxes rise, regulations accumulate, and new compliance requirements are added, but California remains home to some of the most successful companies in the world. That raises a question more interesting than whether California is “business friendly.” Why do businesses continue to stay—and how far can the state push them before they finally decide the benefits of California are no longer worth the cost?
Adam Smith understood part of the answer long before California became an economic powerhouse. In The Wealth of Nations, he explained that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. California offers businesses an enormous and highly-developed market. Its ports connect them to the world, its universities and industries provide specialized labor, and decades of accumulated capital and expertise create opportunities that aren’t easily duplicated elsewhere. Silicon Valley wasn’t built overnight, and neither were California’s entertainment, agriculture, and international trade networks. Those advantages help explain why businesses tolerate costs in California that they might never accept in a smaller or less developed market. But California shouldn’t mistake an advantage for immunity.
Some businesses have already decided those advantages are no longer enough. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas. Chevron—a company with roots in California stretching back more than a century—moved its headquarters to Houston. Oracle moved its headquarters from California to Austin. These aren’t struggling companies desperately searching for somewhere cheaper to survive. They are enormously successful businesses with the resources to operate almost anywhere. Their departures don’t prove that California’s economy is collapsing. They demonstrate something more important: even California’s considerable economic advantages have a price.
A business doesn’t have to leave California for California to lose. A company headquartered in Los Angeles can keep its offices there while building its next warehouse, factory, or distribution center in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas. No headline announces another company fleeing the state. The investment simply lands somewhere else. Multiply that decision across thousands of companies making thousands of quiet calls each year, and it may matter more than any single high-profile departure.
One bill now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk offers a good example of the direction California continues to take. AB 2599 would require certain large companies with sufficiently old corporate roots to search historical records for connections to slavery and report what they find to the state. Whatever one thinks of the goal, those records won’t search themselves. Someone has to locate them, attorneys have to determine what must be disclosed, and employees have to ensure the company complies. For a corporation with billions in revenue, that expense alone is unlikely to send it running for the Texas border. But that is precisely the point. If Newsom signs the bill, it becomes another requirement, another expense, and another reason for a business to consider making its next investment somewhere else.
California’s strength can mask this. Silicon Valley doesn’t vanish because of one more regulation, the ports don’t relocate to Nevada, and Hollywood isn’t rebuilt in Austin overnight. That durability can convince lawmakers businesses will tolerate almost anything. But Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee don’t need to match everything California offers—they only need to close the gap enough that lower costs start to win. Workforces can be trained, capital can move, and networks can form elsewhere. California didn’t earn a permanent lease on its advantages; it just got there first.
This helps explain why businesses haven’t abandoned California. Its markets, access to trade, skilled labor, capital, and generations of accumulated economic activity still provide enormous advantages. But those advantages shouldn’t be confused with permanence. Every new tax, mandate, and compliance requirement asks businesses to calculate once again whether California is worth the price. Some have already answered no. Others continue to stay. The question California’s lawmakers should be asking isn’t how much more businesses can afford to pay. It’s how many times they can raise the price of staying before more businesses decide to build their future somewhere else.
