Texas has 70% the population of California.
$289 billion for California. $226 billion for Texas is actually a bit better rate than 70% of that - $202 billion. So proportionally, Texas is doing a bit better on GDP per capita than California.
Proportionally, the states have very similar stats. The only real difference is in agriculture, forestry, and fishing. But, again, how to compare? The Central Valley is a massive producer of world agriculture. Texas isn't exactly known for its forests. And Californian coastal length is 2.5 times greater and in the Pacific Ocean vs. Texas' coastal waters in the Gulf that it shares with neighboring states and Mexico.
This is such a weirdly dumb article. I'm shocked it made it into Bloomberg. I expect this of a lazy blogger who can't be bothered to do cursory research to reinforce a point.
Don't get me wrong. I'm generally pretty positive on California's direction, especially the increased implementation of environmental protects and conservation efforts (I live here). But just glancing at the article, I knew the statistics didn't smell right, so I looked.
And that's to say nothing of housing prices. Buy a house in Texas. Now try anywhere in coastal California. That stuff has economic impacts, too.
Lazy little article.