Vermont is 32nd in per capita GDP. Poorest would be Mississippi, dead last. California is indeed a massive economy and we're ranked 10th in per capita GDP.
One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.
Per capita GDP matters more in determining whether Vermont or California can better afford this. In fact, CA can better afford this than Vermont.
By comparison, Mississippi cannot afford this. They're basically supported by states like California; their economy is trivial and they're propped up by defense spending.
Why? Disagree with your reasoning, it's not about per-capita, it's about absolute numbers in the risk pool and ability for a large actor like CA to better negotiate prices down.
Why do you think Apple gets better prices than, e.g. Logitech for component parts? Because they order massively more, up-front, and with strict timetables for delivery.
There are a lot of very poor communities in Vermont, though I doubt Vermont is poor by median household income. I don't have the numbers in front of me but in terms of corporate tax base, Vermont is probably quite poor compared to NY or CA.
Ben and Jerry's can only foot so much of the tax bill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_per...
One point about our size. When CA does something at the state level a lot of other states follow along. Minnesota can't dictate to manufacturers but CA can.