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.
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.