Michchamp is really getting drunk on putting words in peoples mouths then "winning" arguments with them about things they didn't say. who said it would be good for the country? I've simply pointed out that Bob is completely wrong about the fiscal strength of California. It's a mess, no matter how big their economy is or how many fortune 500 companies are HQ'd there. By the way, you do realize that probably all 51 of those companies do more business outside of California than in it and that if it were to secede, we would still trade a great deal with them, right? I mean, we'd probably be their biggest trading partner with a MUCH larger economy, manufacturing base, etc, etc. We might even have the upper hand in trade negotiations with them - imagine that! Now, that's not an endorsement for them to leave nor is it saying we'd be better off without them - just that, like with Brexit, it's not all doom and gloom like people who don't understand economics seem to think it is.
I think if they were to leave (I don't think they'll leave) they'd probably split into two or more sovereign states where producing California would leave urban California and LA and San Fran would be screwed or producing California would stay or rejoin the US and LA and San Fran would be screwed - something like that. Why would all those farmers and industrial interests leave so they could still be taxed to death to subsidize urban liberal utopias? Makes no sense.
As for them being a leader on law and labor relations, that's debatable, especially considering the trouble they're in due to the unsustainable defined benefit pension plans that are likely to bankrupt them. Who could have foreseen any problem with elected officials negotiating with employee voters over pay and benefits - oh yeah, everyone who isn't a naive fool. Even your boy FDR (possibly the worst president ever) saw the stupidity of allowing government employees to form unions.
