5 ms·
Lots of denial in this thread. CA is the most negative State in net domestic migration and TX is second to FL only at the other end of the scale. https://en.w
by muyuu 6y ago
Lots of denial in this thread.
CA is the most negative State in net domestic migration and TX is second to FL only at the other end of the scale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_net_migration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
CA is just terrible value for most people currently. I'm not American and neither is Musk, it's not like he's going to make such decision for ideological allegiances. He just gets better value for his money elsewhere. Currently CA seems pretty broken between rural, poor and underinvested areas; and super-expensive, badly mismanaged urban areas. I don't think he's going to move to the desert, he'll probably move to urban TX and it's rather liberal there.
- pbadg3r 6y agoThank you for the wiki link! What's crazy is the migrants per capita numbers. Idaho is 3x Texas!
- dragonwriter 6y ago> CA is the most negative State in net domestic migration Sure, but mostly that's actually good for the state economically since while there is net domestic outmigration, its more than made up for by international immigration, and the gross domestic outmigration is lower on the economic scale than the gross domestic inmigration.
- muyuu 6y agonot currently, no international migration is shown in that like as well, in the bottom table in any case it doesn't bode well for them economically as these immigrants are usually net welfare recipients
- desert_boi 6y agoLet them eat Texan cake.
- dntrkv 6y agoThat's in absolute numbers. Per capita, it's number 8, which is still high, but still beat out by NY, NJ, and IL.