back
75 comments
>With 395,608 regulatory restrictions, California is the most heavily regulated state in the nation, according to the report. On average, states have 135,000 regulatory restrictions in administrative rules, with California's regulations more than doubling the national average.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-11-03/...

I wonder how many they've added in 5 years. Do all these laws improve peoples lives?

Well despite all that regulation, they're an economic powerhouse, they must be doing something right. CA is far from perfect but at least they occasionally aspire to do something for the benefit of their citizens - not something I can say for my 'least regulated' state that mostly just saps money from the federal government.
N=1 but I make a good amount of money and left California for a zero tax state.

I feel like the quality of life is similar between the two. I don't feel like I was getting anything for the 13%+ extra taxes I was paying in California.

Nearly every California program has a huge amount of wastage. Take:

- High speed rail - 10x the cost of comparable European programs, still haven't built anything. Deadlocked by regulation, lawsuits, and poor planning.

- Or all the fraud in the hospice program, unchecked for years until some YouTuber just... went up to one and made a video.

- Or spending over $1M/homeless on housing the homeless and not being able to do so.

California is a lot of talk (regulations, state programs, taxes) coupled with extremely poor execution.

I moved out of CA and overall, I myself get more for my money. All of those taxes didn't benefit me.

And just like you describe, it would've been ok if all of the tax money went to the people it was meant to be, but unfortunately CA is built upon n number of middle man companies who each take something off the top.

> I don't feel like I was getting anything for the 13%+ extra taxes I was paying in California.

Some people might argue that it's not meant to be about what you personally get back. Social contract and all that...

I get your other points but this part was phrased in an unfortunate way.

Of course you expect to get something back. Cleaner streets, better public transit, fewer homeless, less crime, etc.

For example, I would be happy paying those 13% taxes in Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore! (Some even have lower taxes.) But I felt that money was being totally wasted in California.

I genuinely think CA is something like <10% as efficient with tax money as these countries, and it's largely because certain groups take it as a personal attack when you imply tax inefficiency is a problem.

Just because I'm buying something for someone other then myself it doesn't follow that I don't care how the money is spent. If my tax dollars are wasted it's no comfort to tell myself that the money would have been spent by someone else for someone else in any case.
The tax you pay isn't about you, frankly. Health insurance would be a socialist policy if administered by the government.
> left California for a zero tax state.

Where, pray tell, is this state with zero taxes? Próspera?

Despite all their problems, Detroit was an economic powerhouse. Motor city was a world class city, and they bid to host the Olympics eight times between 1944 and 1972. Detroit was far from perfect, but it seems like eventually their bad choices caught up with them. Detroit is no longer the world class city or economic powerhouse it once was.
They're sitting at the centre of a web of software services that coordinate some unreasonable amount of the internet. They've definitely done something right, California might be hosting one of the most impressive economic clusters outside of China.

But that doesn't tell us much about the relationship between that thing and their regulations. The regulations might be supporting the thing, or the thing might be so successful that the damage being done by the regulations becomes tolerable. It's entirely plausible that if other states attempted that level of regulation they'd crumple like tissue paper because they don't have the economic power of California's IT sector to balance out the excess demands being placed on businesses.

"Past performance is no indicator of future success."

They did something right fifty years ago. Now? No. They're doing nearly everything wrong.

Top-two elections coupled with rigged ballots so voters can't really choose, and no one can prove anything (and it's against the law to try). Government program after government program that fails to solve basic problems because the money seems to up and disappear, and when the public calls for an audit the person doing the stealing gets to say "No."

187,084 homeless in California in 2024. 181,934 homeless in California in 2025 after 2024 spending of more than $2.5 billion (with a B) on homeless programs. They would have done better if they had just given every homeless person $13,363. It's the same expenditure.

Instead they spent $485,437 per person helped (5,150). The median household income in California in 2024 was $100K. So they spent four times the median household per person helped. Those are bad results.

They're driving out businesses. They're destroying the infrastructure that let them build the economic juggernaut of agriculture and tech (reservoirs left dry, water management mishandled deliberately, forest mismanagement contrary to decades of evidence).

Generally speaking, I've liked their food and consumer product safety regulations, and most of those have been emulating Europe, but most of the rest they've gotten wrong. They're still rich because of Silicon Valley and Hollywood, but they're driving away tech, and while Hollywood has a long way to tumble, it's on its way to doing that to itself.

> 187,084 homeless in California in 2024.

California has a significantly better climate to be homeless in, so you'd want a bus ticket from Minnesota or whatever to there too if you were homeless.

> they're an economic powerhouse

Could be inertia.

I know nothing about nothing, but I always assumed that all the money was from Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Outside of those two highly localized industries, is there really much more money than other states have?
> Do all these laws improve peoples lives?

The salary requirement for job postings has been AWESOME. Saves so much time and you can see if your company is paying market rates, realize if you are underpaid etc. Definitely made my life better. Other states are following suit! Employers hate it, haha. California, Colorado, NY, Illinois, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota and Hawaii all have this law now.

Glad to hear it.

Another common-sense law I want is a holiday for elections so that more people can vote.

Because of the power CA has, many of the regulations they pass around health and safety end up benefiting other states because it's cheaper to simply implement it nationwide.
Regulations aren't fungible, so this is not a particularly meaningful perspective.
All of them? No. Some of them? Yes.

Some examples:

* ARL / Automatic Renewal Law: If a company allows you to sign up for a subscription online, they also must provide an immediate, straightforward way to cancel it online.

* SB 478: No bullshit junk fees tacked on to prices. Any price displayed, be it for concerts, hotels, or whatever else, must be the full, out-the-door price.

* SB 244: Right to Repair: Electronics and appliance manufacturers must make diagnostic tools, manuals etc available for at least 7 years after manufacture.

Does SB478 apply to car dealerships? That would be a huge boon to consumers on its own.
Car dealerships were exempt from SB 478.

However, California's CARS Act, which took effect July 1, 2025, prohibits misrepresentations about the costs or terms of purchasing, financing, or leasing a vehicle, including the availability of vehicles at an advertised price.

Dealers should be required to list the title/plate fees and their processing fee but stuff like dealer options and markup are required to be on a seperate sticker.

America has such an aversion to including taxes on a listed price so I doubt that will ever be included.

I hope they refactor and harmonize them at some point to reduce duplication, contradiction as well as proliferation.
Is there a reason to think these should or should not scale with size of population?
At first you might think "How the heck can a state have so many regulations!?". Even the ~40000 regulations of the states with the least regulations might seem like a lot. How the heck are people supposed to be able to keep track of all those regulations so they can avoid violating them?

But if you look closer there is a hint to what is going on. According to the US News article these are the 10 most regulated states: California, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, Oregon, Washington, Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana.

These are the 10 least regulated: South Carolina, Michigan, Wyoming, Kansas, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho.

Note: the US News article says they had to omit some states due to limited availability of data. Also that list is from 6 years ago. I found a later list without those omissions.

It is mostly the same, with the addition of some of the states the US News list had to skip, and the order is quite a different in the two bottom 10 lists.

Combining the lists these are the most regulated states (in alphabetical order): California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington.

These are the least regulated: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming.

One thing that stands out about the first list is that most of them are major players in a variety of major industries. The second list doesn't seem to be nearly as diversified.

I bet if you dove into the details of regulations this would be a big factor. The top list has more regulations simply because they have more to regulate. In any given field they don't necessarily have more regulations than other states, but they have more fields that are big enough to need regulation. More diversity also means more conflict between different industries which will tend to increase the need for regulation.

A key aspect of this, and why we aren't overwhelmed with just keeping up with regulations, is it is the breadth of the regulatory systems that leads to the high counts. not the depth. You only have to deal with a few branches in this wide tree.

For example the US News article says that the most regulated industry is administrative and support services, such as unemployment services, collection agencies, and call centers. All of us not involved in such services can pretty much ignore that big chunk of regulation.

There is a similar thing with the federal tax code. The Internal Revenue Code is around 7000 pages, and the Federal Tax Regulations are another ~70000 pages. But a lot of that is because of the breadth of the US economy, and another contributor to the size is that the government uses per industry tax incentives and penalties as a way to encourage or discourage things that they want to influence. The net result is the tax code and regulations are full of things that 99% of taxpayers (individual and business) can completely ignore.

I'm curious why food producers didn't do this on their own, since no one likes "sell by" anyway? Or was there an existing regulation that got changed?

In any case I think the new way is better.

They don't want grocery stores to carry product that's too old because customers will try it and decide they don't like it, not realizing that it's old. And a grocery store worker won't know when to get rid of it unless someone tells them.

And from a grocery store's point of view, product that's on the shelf too long isn't selling. It's taking up space that could be used for something else.

I'm pretty sure food producers are the ones putting the "sell by" labels on stuff, with the hope that people will needlessly throw away food and buy more because of that label.
Presumably food producers benefit if people throw things out earlier, as they will buy more ?
This is a pretty nothing law when you look into it.

All it does is standardize "sell by" labels to be more transparent. The extent of the ban is the explicit phrasing "Sell By" which is itself confusing since the manufacturer has some estimated consumption interval that is tacked onto their actual expiration date. Sell By gives the customer has no idea how much padding they are adding to their estimate and when the thing actually goes bad.

All this law really does is it standardizes the labels manufacturers can use to "BEST if Used by" for quality concerns or "USE by" for safety concerns. A lot of manufacturers already do this, so it is a pretty minimal law There are probably more pressing issues in Sacramento, but a small improvement is always welcome.

I don’t think it’s a nothing law. Not only does it help with reducing waste, but also a food safety thing. “Best by” or “best is used by” or “expiry dates” are pretty clear: use the product before the date.

In my own case, we have a brand of bread that does “sell by”. There is not uniform standard on how many days after the date, the bread is safe to consume. Internet wisdom gives you a wide range.

To be fair, if we waited until there "no more pressing issues", then we'd never get any "quality of life" regulations passed like this.
Yeah. I'd agree. This is a pretty quick and easy law with very few downsides. There is also a "good house keeping" aspect to this. The habit of keeping a house clean and tidy makes it easier to do the bigger and more substantive improvements. I'm a bit surprised that New York Times is reporting on such a small law passed so far away or that there are such negative comments about such laws here, but such is life.
Previous discussion when the bill was passed in 2024: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41765006
In the end, standardization of this type of things can only be good even if the effect on waste is small. There is no need to create additional ways to confuse people.
It’s be pretty cool if they figured out their water problem instead of passing all these nebulous laws that don’t push the needle any.
The only water problems are for farmers growing in a semi-arid valley. California has droughts, not water shortages.
Not the /only/ water problems... https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/conservation/regs/water_effic...
I’m not sure what to focus on in that site, what did you have in mind?

Agg uses like 80% of consumer water. Almost all of this is land that has only been farmed since the Feds build a bunch of water projects starting in the 30s.

Most of the irrigated farm land is owned by big corporations and extremely wealthy families. They push a narrative of mismanagement and shortages to get urban areas to use less and less while they resist investing in better irrigation methods.

> Experts say the term “sell by” is generally for retailers to know when to rotate inventory, compared with labels like “best if used by” and “use by,” which indicate quality.

...

> Under the state’s bill, “sell by” dates can still be included on products as long as they are “coded” — information that is aimed at retailers rather than consumers.

This is about obfuscating "sell by" dates so customers don't get confused. They might not necessarily add another date you can read easily. Then if the grocery store forgets to replace old stock, you will never know.

But maybe someone can write an app to read the codes?

can’t wait for a new Regulatory Liability fee to be added to checks here
Can't rip the plastic wrap off to smell for rottenness.

Absorbent pad adds to the price also hides the "purge".

Harder to find meat without thousand poked holes (tenderizing)

Can't tell if meat are colorized to hide browness.

Time for me to visit my local butcher for a quarter cow, butchered.

Also a bigger freezer chest too!

"Packed On" or "Processed On" is the most accurate way to label meat, IMHO.

You're not charged for the absorbent pad anymore than you're charged for the packaging. You can weigh the meat when you get home to verify yourself
The pad, no, but you do pay for the liquid that the pad soaks up from the overly hydrated meat. The cheaper chicken in my area is pumped full of salt water and is weighed as it's getting packed, but the pad absorbs a bunch of that water to keep the chicken from looking like it's sitting in a puddle.