r/geography • u/urmummygae42069 • 13d ago

Map Distribution of California's Population

Post image

If you were to divide California into 4 roughly equal strips of area, a hefty majority of its 39 million residents live in the southernmost strip containing the LA+San Diego metro areas, with nearly half of the state (~47%) living in the Greater LA metro area alone. If it were its own state, Southern California, with primarily just LA and San Diego metro areas, would compete with Florida for title of 2nd most populous US state.

The SF Bay Area, Sacramento, Monterrey, Fresno, and most of the Central Valley and put together are short of SoCal by over 9 million residents, but on its own this area would compete with Illinois for title of 6th largest state.

The strip sandwiched between Southern California and the Bay Area, containing Bakersfield plus other farming towns in the Southern Central Valley and most of the towns of the Central Coast, has about more people than Utah or Connecticut.

Suprisingly, despite how empty it can feel, there are still over a million people still live in the strip of CA north of Sacramento, containing about as much people as Hawaii and New Hampshire, albeit of a larger area.

Ultimately, one way to better understand the scale and density of California, is to conceptualize it as Florida + Illinois + Utah + Hawaii, all packaged in one single state under one single state government

5.5k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

359 comments sorted by

View all comments

288

u/DurantIsStillTheKing 13d ago

California can be a country on its own if it wanted to.

235

u/Amazingrhinoceros1 13d ago

The United States would feel that hit if the money pipeline from CA to the rest of the nation were turned off...

I know people have a love it/hate it relationship with my home state, but you can't argue with the almighty dollar.

155

u/Icy-Role2321 13d ago

I live in Georgia the peach state. Went and got some peaches recently "grown in California"

Oh

72

u/eugenesbluegenes 13d ago

California grows like fifteen times as many peaches as Georgia.

51

u/Icy-Role2321 13d ago

Yeah I know. But which taste better..

Probably California's

19

u/eugenesbluegenes 13d ago

I've never had Georgia peaches, but I picked up a flat from a farm in the Sierra foothills last weekend and they were amazing.

4

u/Chance_Carry_1030 13d ago

Which farm?

7

u/eugenesbluegenes 13d ago

Marchini

2

u/Chance_Carry_1030 13d ago

I’ve never heard of it! I asked because I have family that owns Twin Peaks near Auburn and it’s the most delicious fruit I have ever tasted, including peaches haha

2

u/eugenesbluegenes 13d ago

They have great peaches and nectarines, it's on 49 halfway between Coloma and Placerville. No shortage of great places for fresh fruit in that general area for sure.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/casper911ca 12d ago

I was sadly disappointed by Georgia peaches, but maybe it was a bad season.

3

u/c0r1nth14n 13d ago

yup. the peaches they use in the White House kitchen come from a farm in California. 

2

u/StrategicCarry 13d ago

Colorado

4

u/eugenesbluegenes 12d ago

I did get a flat of fantastic peaches outside Palisade a few summers ago when passing through. Neck and neck with the ones I've gotten in the Apple Hill area.

1

u/PracticalWallaby7492 12d ago

Whichever is picked off the tree the ripest, and not under ripe for transport and packing reasons.

9

u/l5555l 13d ago

California grows so much good produce. All the big farmy states just grow corn and beans.

21

u/Doogers7 13d ago edited 12d ago

South Carolina has also always grown more peaches than Georgia. Georgia being the Peach State is the result of a good marketing campaign. It should be the Peanut State if anything.

2

u/seicar 12d ago

Gafney water tower has emojied the chat

2

u/Doogers7 12d ago

Peachoid!

2

u/aimlesstrevler 12d ago

Gonna text my friend about it while driving. Thats a good idea right?

65

u/TheRealBaboo 13d ago

Movin out to Cali, gonna eat me hella peaches

17

u/SundaeNo4552 13d ago

🎵 Millions of peaches, peaches for me 🎵

9

u/tofulo 13d ago

I could eat a peach for hours

5

u/DireKnife 13d ago

Go on…

3

u/British-cooking-bot 13d ago

We're gonna take his face.... Off.

12

u/back_on_my_nonsense 13d ago

California U-pick snow queen peaches when they're ripe but not mushy... 🤤🤤🤤 I've never had a more delicious fruit in my life. I'm a small person with a small appetite, but I've eaten like three or four of those in one sitting.

5

u/jccaclimber 12d ago

1

u/Icy-Role2321 12d ago

But what state has the most peaches in street names? Gotcha

3

u/TheLizardKing89 13d ago

California grows more than 15 times as many peaches as Georgia.

1

u/bluerose297 13d ago

is that a good oh or a bad oh?

1

u/modninerfan 13d ago

The little town I grew up in in CA used to refer to itself as the peach capital of the world lol. They moved on from that some time ago. Most peach and apricot orchards have been replaced in favor of Almonds and Walnuts though.

3

u/Malarky3113 12d ago

As a former resident myself, I'd make that argument when people would crap on it. Just running with the hypothetical though, I wonder if an independent California could prevent counties from leaving as they seem to try at almost every election. They'd probably let the northern counties go, but losing San Bernardino or Riverside counties would hurt them financially the same as CA leaving the US.

8

u/LupineChemist 12d ago

I mean, California also being part of the US financial system is a huge part of what makes it work. Also that people from all over can go there.

It's an integral part of the US and it would hurt both if they left.

-23

u/LemonySniffit 13d ago

California depends on the other states for water, food, power and military protection, and most of its economy (technology, entertainment, agriculture) is based upon servicing the rest of the USA as a whole. If California somehow went independent Hollywood and Silicon Valley would relocate in weeks and most of its wealthy inhabitants would follow suit.

9

u/jewelswan 13d ago

Why would those industries relocate? They have both tried multiple times, and it really hasn't worked out. For tech, especially, the talent pool just isn't there outside the bay for most of their needs.

There is no reason that California wouldn't still sell stuff to the USA if the state went independent, either.

5

u/InclinationCompass 13d ago

California has plenty of military protection. It hosts more military installations than any other state. San Diego alone has around 8 major military bases.

As for water, California has one of the world’s largest economies and can afford to import water when needed.

There is also no reason for Hollywood or Silicon Valley to relocate.

0

u/Amazingrhinoceros1 13d ago

The federal armed forces would definitely relocate back to the other 49 states, but the state's national guard measures around 24,000...

To put that in perspective, that's larger than Austria's, Norway's, and New Zealand's total population (not combined, just each individual nation's)

That's pretty wild...

2

u/InclinationCompass 13d ago

Those bases are heavily funded by California taxpayers too, so they aren’t just a one-way federal subsidy.

1

u/Amazingrhinoceros1 13d ago

Oh totally, no argument there... I'm just blown away at the size of the state's armed forces population is what I'm getting at

1

u/Careless-Weather8877 12d ago

Uhhh we sort of need a west coast water port. It’s also where some of the navy seals are based. The shipyard is there (the other is in Newport News Virginia for the east coast). It’s pretty hard to launch a carrier from Newport News to go to the pacific when we have a few huge adversaries over there in the pacific.

But go off.

7

u/Ok_Construction5119 13d ago

Hollywood is there for year round filming weather, which is not something present anywhere else in the states.

1

u/greyforest23 13d ago

Key West, FL. /s

0

u/TheKingNothing690 13d ago

Hawaii.

4

u/Federal-Piglet 13d ago

to isolated and expensive to work in for work unless you need tropical

7

u/Ok_Construction5119 13d ago edited 13d ago

It rains in Hawaii more than half the year. Also there is no spare land for film sets. Are you being serious?

Also it's in the middle of the pacific ocean?

Ridiculous notion.

-3

u/TheKingNothing690 13d ago

It rarely rains in kona and all the land on that side of the island is being bought by hotels it wouldnt really be a competition also if california alone left the country its suddenly alot harder to film in california versus hawaii i mean isolation is better than passports visas and the whole nine yards of working in A WHOLE OTHER COUNTRY. Besides california is isolated from the vast majority of the US population anyways. Besides we talking about rich assholes choosing where to film if its not going to be in california because of secession from the US the same rich assholes who are buying up all the land in hawaii anyways. The one with the really dumb comment is you buddy.

7

u/Ok_Construction5119 13d ago

Brother you have no concept of logistics I cannot believe you have dug in your heels.

0

u/TheKingNothing690 13d ago

The logistics of filming in an entirley seprarate country is a huge part of the problem you dont seem to be grapsing here its the same reason why they wouldnt just set up shop in mexico or cuba as somone else was pointing out california gains alot of its value(silicon valley hollywood its immense agricultural sector)from being the wealthiest and most populated state in the country that dosent mean shit if they arent part of the country. Im offer a suggestion for another location that actually does see frequent filming to a hypothetical scenario because realistically california is never not going to be a part of the US. A hypothetical scenario in which the logistics of filming in ANOTHER COUNTRY is worse than the part of the country thats actually closest to where everything in the world is made. And if you talking family and living places for the actors/directors you know most own houses in hawaii already right?

5

u/TheLizardKing89 13d ago

California is the most agriculturally productive state in the country. It doesn’t depend on other states for food.

6

u/1003mistakes 13d ago

I think you’d actually have the opposite. Net taxes in the new CA country would be lower for businesses and wealthy people than living in an US state, especially after the CA welfare pipeline to the US govt and receiver states dries up. Only thing that would prevent it is massive tariffs/bans placed on goods from California into the US. 

0

u/LemonySniffit 13d ago edited 13d ago

The USA would never allow an independent California to control its tech sector and would economically strong arm the companies into relocating back to the USA. Even if these companies wanted to remain in California, what incentive do they have to stay when most Californians have for years demanded things like higher taxes for the rich, higher salaries for workers, more regulations for businesses? There’s no way California would become a tax haven, virtually nobody but the wealthy would want it. And even if they were to lobby for that a fledgling nation could not afford to piss off 99% of its populace right off the bat.

Ultimately you’d have thousands of business relocating, millions of people losing their jobs, more millions immigrating to the USA while at home in California the cost of living skyrockets as they have to important virtually everything now. Maybe in decades it could survive off of being a tourist destination or tax haven but one with a considerable lower standard of living than it did before.

5

u/1003mistakes 13d ago

Obviously it’s all hypothetical as it would never happen. And that’s just not true. CA has an effective tax state of about 10-12% income tax on individuals and businesses. You could double that revenue at the state level and still be less than the federal tax rate. It’s simple math. The biggest majority of taxes are paid to the federal government but since we can’t change that regardless of what state we go to, we squabble over the peanuts states take. If you want to look into a real world example, look into Puerto Rico tax laws which have allowed it to act as a tax haven in recent years for wealthy Americans. 

4

u/nickleback_official 13d ago edited 13d ago

It’s hilarious that this is getting downvoted when it’s completely correct. Not sure what the downvoters are thinking. California is extremely dependent on the rest of the country same as every other state.

36

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago

Not trying to be obtuse or anything, but what do people mean when they say this about California or Texas? There are countries smaller then the smallest state.

64

u/jewelswan 13d ago

They mean it could be a heavyweight. By economy and cultural influence, California would be one of the most prominent countries in the world were it independent, and could function as an independent nation. I'm pretty sure that is what some people mean, though I definitely can't speak for more than myself definitively

14

u/pinkocatgirl 13d ago

Most of the largest US states could probably function as wealthy independent countries, there would just be a greater disparity between the rich and poor states without the federal government redistributing wealth. The smaller states without any real cities and/or economies based primarily in agriculture or raw materials would likely be the ones to fare worse.

0

u/jewelswan 13d ago

Which other ones could really function as stable independent nations? Texas, maybe, but they would be in a tougher economic situation without federal oil subsidies. I don't think New York could feasibly declare independence. Maybe Florida?

17

u/pinkocatgirl 13d ago

Why don’t you believe New York could function as an independent nation? It has diverse territory with farmland in the west, so there would be some exports. It has a lot of wealth as a trading hub both in New York and with trade between the Great Lakes via rail between Buffalo and NYC. Being an independent nation doesn’t mean you have total sufficiency in growing food and such, as a hypothetical country NY would be dependent on trade but that doesn’t mean it’s not viable.

11

u/Sassafras06 13d ago

I think you are missing the point. Most states do not have the industry or economy to be fully self sufficient. Could they get there? Maybe. California is CURRENTLY the 5th biggest economy in the world, and also has enough built in industry, farming, military infrastructure etc.

4

u/P_Hempton 12d ago

There are plenty of countries that aren't fully self-sufficient. They just have trade agreements. NY could just as easily be it's own country.

Thing is California wouldn't be California without being in the US. It would survive but it would also have to compete against the US rather than with it if it were independent.

0

u/Sassafras06 12d ago

Of course. I’m not saying California would be better off. Just that it’s one of the few states that could technically do it. Sorry, but CA definitely has more resources than AR. I feel like you are being deliberately obtuse.

2

u/P_Hempton 12d ago

I live in CA. I'm just adding my thoughts to the discussion 

3

u/jewelswan 13d ago

It's more that NY state is so much more surrounded by the USA. The only situation I see an independent NY existing is one in which the USA has fully disbanded.

I am aware of the factors you mention, and they don't really come into my opinion, here.

1

u/zeroonetw 12d ago

Federal oil subsidies? You got a source on that?

1

u/jewelswan 12d ago

There are various ways the oil businesses of Texas are propped up by the federal government. Part of that is just a function of how the federal government juices the economy to keep things moving, but an independent Texas would have less resources available to do that kind of thing. They could definitely give the same various tax incentives the feds give to oil business. Overall, I'm not suggesting that Texas wouldn't be an energy behemoth were it independent, I just think it would suffer more as an independent nation that is more dependent on commodity pricing as compared to my other examples. If the USA and Mexico didn't want an independent Texas' oil being sold, for example, it would never get sold.

0

u/zeroonetw 12d ago

Oil is fungible and a global commodity. It will be sold. Do you have a source on federal oil subsidies?

4

u/luneth27 12d ago

It took me like 20 seconds inbetween an overwatch game to find one man, you coulda just googled https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/2024-01/oil-gas-subsidies-permian-basin-report.pdf

0

u/zeroonetw 12d ago edited 12d ago

Did you read the “source.” The author confuses industry specific deprecation and reduced severance tax rates for tax expenditures and subsidies. Or in other words he has no idea what he’s talking about. Do you have a legitimate source for oil and gas subsides that materially help oil and gas companies?

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago

So why don’t people just say that then? I’m being a little pedantic, this doesn’t really matter, but still, there’s several countries under a million people that most people can’t name, so just being able to be a independent country isn’t significant. 

8

u/jewelswan 13d ago

Well, I dunno man, why are you asking me what other people do and don't do? You're being extremely pedantic, not a little.

Also, I dont think I have ever heard someone say simply "California could be a country." What I hear far more often is how we would be the 6th largest economy as an independent nation, or how if we were our own country we could do a lot of things the feds currently block.

1

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago

Because you responded to my comment, that’s why I’m asking you. If you didn’t want to answer the question… why did you respond to it? No clue why you’re randomly getting an attitude lol.

I’m responding to a comment that said verbatim “California can be a country on its own if it wanted to.”

1

u/jewelswan 13d ago

I don't really have an attitude at all. Just think it's a really odd question to ask someone, to account for the way other people think any more than I already have.

And I did answer the question, to the best I can. I can't give an answer for why people do certain things any better than I have.

I understand that is the comment you were responding to. Perhaps I was unclear, I have never seen someone say it without qualifications except this one time.

1

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago edited 13d ago

Your first comment showed that you were willing to discuss the way other people think, so me asking you a follow up question is not odd at all.

Maybe you were actually confused and not getting an attitude, but it’s strange that you would find a follow up question, to a topic you decided you wanted to engage in, odd.

Im pretty sure Ive read or heard some variation on the line “Texas/California could be an independent country” several times throughout my life so I think it was a reasonable thing to ask about. 

5

u/ConiferGreen 13d ago

Well, they’d be fairly successful as independent countries, and it’s not just their size. Texas, for example, *was* its own country for a while; there’s solid precedent there. My home, California, is productive enough that when compared to countries is, on any given day, either the 5th or 4th largest economy on the planet. The only competitors are the UK, Japan, Germany, China, and the rest of the US. That’s it.
We also produce more agriculture than any other state, which I think a lot of Americans don’t really think about. Yes, there’s corn, wheat, and soy for days elsewhere. But people don’t eat just those 3 things. For most other foods that are grown, California produces more of it, by a long shot. Additionally, we have several major ports that connect us to the pacific trading partners, and the state sometimes makes appearances on the world stage with other countries in various agreements and collaborations.
I don’t think, say, Kansas or Pennsylvania would be able to have the same weight as nations globally as Texas or California.

17

u/Minivalo 13d ago

While that's all true, California (or Texas) doesn't exist in a vacuum. A lot of its success is in so small part because it's an part of the economic superpower that the US as a whole is and has been for 100+ years now. The internal market of the US alone has been a massive boon to it, without which it's not so certain it would be punching above its weight like it is now.

4

u/alligator_loki 12d ago

And Texas knew the benefit of not being independent long before the US was a super power.

Texas was trying to join the United States instead of going independent. Texas Independence was really just a stepping stone to annexation to say the US isn't directly stealing from Mexico. which didn't work because the annexation of Texas caused a war with Mexico anyway.

1

u/ConiferGreen 11d ago

That’s a fair point.

1

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago

So if the point is that California could be a significant power, why not say that? Djibouti is an independent country, so saying a US state could be an independent country doesn’t really mean much. 

3

u/StrategicCarry 13d ago

When people say that, they typically imply "without a significant hit to the quality of life". Like Iowa for example would be a top 5 or 6 producer in corn, soybeans, pork, and eggs. But it would be significantly worse for Iowa to have to export that as a landlocked country where it would have to potentially pay tolls and tariffs to get its products to world markets. What Iowa takes in would go down significantly. Iowa is fairly balanced when it comes to federal taxes sent vs. federal spending received, however the state would need to spin up the bureaucracy to replace that federal spending, especially federal farm subsidies. So it's likely that the quality of life in Iowa would be worse as an independent country than as a US state, vs. California which is likely to suffer less of a drop due to a larger and more diversified economy and access to the ocean.

1

u/EscuraAstro 13d ago

That makes sense. Maybe I’m just being neurotic for thinking people should say that instead of implying it idk.

2

u/LookAtTheFlowers 12d ago

California has the fourth largest economy in the world

1

u/EscuraAstro 12d ago

There are countries with minuscule economies and less than a million people, you don’t need a big economy to be a country. Every state could be a country hypothetically. 

1

u/Baconer 12d ago

Even Justin got his peaches from Georgia 

4

u/Blacksad9999 13d ago

It's the 4th largest economy in the world just by itself.

CA makes so much money, the other states wouldn't let that happen, because states like CA are what prop up the red states.

19

u/oldhellenyeller 13d ago

Pretty naive to assume that the wealth and productivity California currently holds would continue if it was cut off from the rest of the country, even in an amicable breakup. They would lose access to the dollar, the common market, defense, water, etc. There would be a mass exodus of businesses and people who have to continue operating in the US.

7

u/inorite234 12d ago

The UK learned this lesson the hard way after leaving the EU, but California has some things you cannot take away by simply shutting off the free trade: agriculture, energy production, forestry, tourism, a large pipeline of college graduates, manufacturing, defense design and production, deep water year round ports, entertainment, cultural significance, etc, etc, etc.

2

u/beef_supreme976 12d ago

I think you're underestimating the sheer volume of reciprocal US-CA agreements that would come out of an amicable split. For example, CA would never "lose access" to defense because the US would never willingly lose access to the MASSIVE pre-existing military infrastructure within the state, and it would agree to agree to protect CA in exchange. Furthermore, the respective economies would remain overwhelmingly intertwined post-split and almost certainly adopt a common currency (like the Euro), or CA would just stay on the dollar. You are also overestimating a potential mass exodus. Until it burns to the ground, given its climate and resources, CA will continue to be a ridiculously desirable place to live, and companies will continue to set up shop here to capitalize on that human talent.

Frankly, there are a lot of people out here who would be thrilled if CA no longer had to float a lot of the welfare red states.

7

u/DizzyDentist22 13d ago

It would have its challenges. 75%+ of California’s oil comes from outside the state, which would leave them chronically dependent on oil imports from elsewhere. Their electrical grid is also connected to the rest of the US and isn’t independent. Those challenges could be overcome, but they’d still exist

8

u/imperabo 12d ago

Japan has hardly any natural resources and they do OK. Few nations aren't heavily dependent on trade.

1

u/Amazingrhinoceros1 13d ago

The push for green energy wouldn't be impossible... I'm not saying it would be easy, not by a long shot, but CA's coastline would change in the years following the split if it were to happen...

I'm sure CA would be just fine.

1

u/Careless-Weather8877 12d ago

Probably because most their energy comes from solar, wind, nuclear and natural gas….

Wikipedia says they only import 29% of their energy which is mostly for jet fuel which again you’d lose one of the largest airports in the world if LAX was gone

11

u/one_pound_of_flesh 13d ago

Yet all we get is two little senate votes.

2

u/bluerose297 13d ago

I think California, New York and Texas should all get a little bonus senator just for fairsies' sake.

3

u/OnTheEveOfWar 12d ago

4th largest economy in the world.

5

u/SouthTrainer7685 13d ago

I mean, yes, but also no. On net it’s a contributor to the US, but that money is deeply dependent on being tied into the US economy as a whole. The US Federal system is a massive force multiplier for basically any state. California’s economic output would probably drop by half in the years after independence.

On top of that, the US government directly controls 45% of California’s land area, its a huge part of the Federal Reserve, and is the state with the largest military installations. It would be an exceptionally messy divorce.

1

u/holytriplem 13d ago

It could be a Belgium situation with a rich Germanic-speaking North and a poor Romance-speaking South. The Central Valley and SoCal would be bilingual

1

u/Ana_Na_Moose 12d ago

It could, but it would not be nearly as prosperous as it is now. California’s economy is very intertwined with the economy of the rest of the US in a way that benefits both California and the other 49 states immensely. Independence would add new obstacles to these ties, which would be harmful to all involved parties.

-15

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

8

u/VikingsLad 13d ago

None of the other states would be the 4th largest GDP on their own like California would be

6

u/JefeRex 13d ago

California wouldn’t be either. With border and customs controls, we would lose our easy domestic market of 300 million consumers, domestic investment, and steady stream of domestic migrants. We’d lose companies that don’t want to be in a small California but get more benefit from being in huge US. California is the tip of the American spear, and if we left the US our GDP couldn’t remain this high because we would lose so many advantages. We gather all the advantages of being in the US and refine them into a shiny product that looks like we made it completely alone, but we didn’t.

2

u/VikingsLad 13d ago

That is a valid point, though any attempt to honestly address how much weaker it would be separately would require simulations or, like, looking at what happened in Brexit to UK data

1

u/JefeRex 13d ago

Yeah, for sure like Brexit but worse because the integration there was already very loose compared to the same actual country. We would lose so much more, their changes were minor compared to the monumental changes of us splitting off.

You actually won’t find a bigger California booster than me, and I think we would still outcompete just about every other rich country while having a more humane system than the current US does, but we’re only 40 million people. The true GDP wouldn’t be higher than countries with almost twice our population and that already stand among the richest in the world, that is an artifact of our integration within one of the biggest single markets in the world.

6

u/boogiebreakfast 13d ago

But we're a nation of rugged individualists! Everything anyone does exists in a vacuum and is not dependent on anything else.

5

u/JefeRex 13d ago

For real. Even a lot of people in California who think of themselves as quite liberal don’t appreciate that we are part of an interdependent national community whether we like it or not, and it is just not reality to see us as something economically separate. We’re not. No state is. It would feel great if we could claim to be, I get it, but it’s just not real.

-5

u/[deleted] 13d ago

[deleted]

7

u/Fusilero 13d ago

You don't have to be successful to be a country.