You think people with an income of one million a year depend on the location much?
Thinking of California, I figure those people are either owners of companies, who will keep the income from their company in California even if they lived in Idaho, and Hollywood people, who depend on the location but simply won't have that same income on a regular basis. They stay for their project and move away when it is done (or they stay when it is done). I doubt production companies will move out of California because of this.
Seems like you answered your own question.
Companies are located where they are for a number of reasons. Accesibility to customers, accessibility to raw materials, availability of a workforce with particular skills and so on. Companies are not located where they are as an act of charity by the upper management. Just like no employee is hired as an act of charity. If an employee doesn't contribute more to the bottom line than they cost they'd be out on thier ass so fast their head would spin. Perhaps the company was simply founded there and developed there. Whatever, the companies are there now and to move would require substanstial costs.
Basically CA has said we think the advantages of being in CA outweigh a 1% tax on earnings in *excess* of $1 million. My reading of this is that someone making only $1 million would pay $0 due to this tax and someone would have to make $2 million to actually have to pay a relatively miniscule $10K.
If CA is right then not many people will be going anywhere, if they're wrong then more will leave. But if CA is like any other state that I know of they tax income *earned* in CA regardless of where the income earner lives, so TV and Movie people and company owners would not benefit in the least by moving out of state unless the company moves out as well which is a possibility but far more difficult and costly then simply living "off-site" with periodic commutes.