Yeah, the proof is in the pudding. When it really comes down to it, what matters to people's lives is proposed laws that haven't been passed.
Oh, wait. No, that's not the proof.
The proof is in actual results - in how people actually live. Things like GDP per capita, average lifespan, poverty rate, suicide rate, violent crime rate, and so forth. Yes, California has problems - but so do all the other states. When we compare *proven* results, California mostly does better than average. Regarding the statistics - if you have a comparison of unfunded liabilities by GDP per state, I'd love to see it. I didn't see a comparison of that in my search.
Except the discussion wasn't about California, overall. It was about California's
government. You're trying to switch topics to defend something indefensible. It's like something telling you they're dying of cancer. And you saying no, that's silly. Because they can still run as fast as they ever did, and they make lots of money. And
that's what important. That's the big picture. Not the cancer.
GDP per capita
is important. Really important. Take all the other metrics and throw them away important. It serves as a reasonable proxy for the standard of living for each individual citizen, and also for power and influence as a whole -- that's why countries with small GDPs regularly beat countries with large GDPs, if they have higher per capita GDP.
(Parenthetical aside: One metric for measuring government power I've run across recently is to multiply GDP by GDP per capita -- in other words, China isn't as big a threat to the US as doomsayers claim, because while they're roughly at parity when it comes to overall GDP, China's wealth is spread across more people, so a higher proportion goes to basic subsistence and other forms of upkeep. They don't have anywhere near as much discretionary economic power to throw around.)
And California has a high overall GDP
and an even higher GDP per capita. So yes, it does very well by that measure. But they're also doing poorly by other measures, like government management of the homeless, government interference in housing, government imposed taxes, and government debt. And some of those are creating long term problems, that will impact the future GDP per capita. A small percentage of the taxpayers in California pay a very high percentage of the taxes, and they're starting to flee. The wealth has also largely been produced by a few specific sectors, primarily technology. But Silicon Valley is losing its stranglehold as more companies and looking toward places like the Northeast and Texas, and the increasing focus on remote work means even the native companies may start to hollow out. The massive government debt is forcing the state to look to raise their already obscenely high taxes, and even tax people out of state, which will accelerate the flight. That lowers their GDP per capita, and will reduce their future tax base, compounding the problems with the debt.
The question isn't whether California is rich. It is. The question is whether they're sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The Magic 8 Ball says maybe.