9 ms·

Or put another way, the talent need not follow the money types to Texas. There are plenty of cheap places in California where you still aren't compelled to sell

Or put another way, the talent need not follow the money types to Texas. There are plenty of cheap places in California where you still aren't compelled to sell your soul to your employer - and salaries suggest that talent in tech already had plenty of leverage before remote working even entered the equation. I see a sad pattern where government officials often conflate free markets with sound markets. They certainly overlap in many areas but non-competes are a classic market failure.

hhggfdss 6y ago
There's plenty of talent already here in Texas; we don't need talent to follow the money from anywhere thanks Although it's welcome to if it will, and that's why Texas is home to America's most diverse city, Houston
- ryder9 6y ago
  lmao
- aNoob7000 6y ago
  I'm not trying to make this political, but with all the migration to Texas it will be interesting to see if it remains a strongly Republican state in the future. I live in Georgia and I can see the demographics changing quite a lot.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    IMO the idea of red states and blue states doesn't make a lot of sense. Remove the state boundaries and the real defining characteristic for red/blue is urban/rural. It need not be any more complicated than that.
    - hindsightbias 6y ago
      In TX it is more complicated. The cities and farms were blue until all those folks from out-of-state moved into new suburbs and retired to exurbs. The suburbs have controlled TX for about 30 years. What's left of real rural folk doesn't matter except in the local statehouse.
    - api 6y ago
      It’s a shocking almost perfect correlation, and it’s intensifying. The suburbs are starting to turn blue, especially around large cities, leaving the Republican Party an almost pure rural party.
    - pc86 6y ago
      I mean, if you ignore the Electoral College, and Senate seat allocations, sure.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        I mean at the voter level. How it gets expressed in power is certainly an artifact of our political system. For better or worse, our system is tilted towards rural power.
    - dfxm12 6y ago
      Look at Texas' 2nd congressional district [0]. Gerrymandered districts are a more defining characteristic for red/blue (as is the electoral college). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_di...
      - jofer 6y ago
        I live in this district. Supposedly, I have more in common with folks 50 miles away in Kingwood than I do with the folks two streets over. It's BS and leads to Crenshaw getting elected (who I didn't like but at least respected at the beginning of his term, but really kinda do hate now). There is a bit more than just the usual gerrymandering at play here, though. Notice where the southern tip of the district is. The med center is deliberately split between (almost) every congressional district in Houston. That means that it gets multiple representatives in congress from multiple parties and remains well-funded. That's actually not a bad strategy, but it unfortunately gives the Republican state legislature a justification to hide behind for their blatant gerrymandering. It's also why the current configuration isn't likely to change dramatically. Both parties want to ensure that the TX Medical Center has lots of representation in congress. As a result, Houston's core will always be divided among multiple districts. Republicans control the state legislature, so they make the districts have big "blobs" from outside the city, but if it were drawn by the democrats, it would still have this weird tendency to have narrow "arms" reaching towards the med center.
    - anonymouse008 6y ago
      You nailed it. The difference between cultures in rural, suburban, and urban is mainly due to environmental stimulus. When your only opportunity for food at ~9pm in a rural/suburban environment is fast food — that changes the way you view your day, becoming a defacto framework that permeates everything. They think in terms of independence and consequence (sound red?) - work late and still want decent sleep? Well you have to eat McDonalds or make a turkey sandwhich, there is no luxury, no option of a small family restaurant sharing their homeland cuisine. This makes for a peculiar set of people - people that are mad good at creativity within limitations, but are constantly defined by their lack of exposure to experiences and post-modern cultural poverty.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        >When your only opportunity for food at ~9pm in a rural/suburban environment is fast food — that changes the way you view your day, becoming a defacto framework that permeates everything. I pretty strongly disagree with this. Most people make meals at home which aren't necessarily "just a turkey sandwich." I don't even live in a particularly rural area (about 40 miles west of Boston) and I don't really have great meal options at 5pm much less 9pm. There are a few good pizza places, a Five Guys, some chain steak places, etc. but other than the odd pizza takeout I don't really eat out. If I lived in a city? I'd probably go out or get takeout more regularly but I'd still cook most days.
        anonymouse008 6y ago
        I debated fully fleshing out this topic and decided to stick to a high level until someone replied - so thank you for the critique. The turkey sandwhich was meant to be a place holder for the general idea. Roughly, if you want to work long and hard to get ahead, usually food prep time is the easiest thing to cut to get a return on time invested in long term value. There are still super humans that have mastered meal prep (this may be you) but for the people I know, it’s hard to do all of these things well with limited options - which forces this consequence mindset.
        ghaff 6y ago
    - samizdis 6y ago
      Indeed, and I'd read many articles over the past few years pointing that out. Being a bit of a nerd, though, it was brought home to me most vividly by an NYT article in September, which uses aerial image analysis - roughly speaking grey v green, but with the most interesting bits in between: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/02/upshot/america-political-spectrum.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/02/upshot/americ...
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Each state is unique and changing in time. Look at CO for example. Focus on the Family, the USAF Academy and many military bases are all in CO. 20 years ago, it was a solid Rep. base. But over time, things have shifted so that weed first became legal there. That's ignoring the major issue that all western states have: water rights. All the pish-posh of politics today has nothing on the fights over water in western states. In CO that pits the mountains against the ranchers, in CA that pits north against south; there is no red/blue when it comes to the real (and sometimes deadly) fight over water.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    Texas was strongly democratic until a lot of folks from the Bible Belt watched too much Dallas on TV and moved in. The demos have to change a lot in a lot of districts to overcome Gerrymandering for state and federal House representatives. Power isn't in the Governorship, the Lt. Governor controls the state Senate, budget and sits on the redistricting commission. They are elected from the state Senate members. So TX could have a Democratic Governor and Senators but the local stuff will be red for a long time.
    - AuthorizedCust 6y ago
      > They are elected from the state Senate members. In context, I think your "they" refers to the lieutenant governor? That position is elected by the people of Texas, not (state) senators.
    - kthejoker2 6y ago
      By "local stuff" I guess you mean small rural counties? All of Texas' major cities vote blue.
      - clavalle 6y ago
        Not all. Lubbock and Ft. Worth are red through and through.
        kodablah 6y ago
        Fort Worth (or Tarrant county maybe, I forget) majority voted for a democratic president for the first time in a long time. Demographics are slowly shifting there (and for those looking for that old Austin feel, it has a lot of it these days).
        SirLuxuryYacht 6y ago
        If you define blue/red by the presidential vote, then the parent is correct. Every major city voted biden this cycle.
      - hindsightbias 6y ago
  - mbesto 6y ago
    > remains a strongly Republican state in the future Texas is already pretty purple. Dallas/Houston/Austin are all very blue and growing like crazy.
  - base698 6y ago
    What makes you think it's red or blue that's leaving? California is still 40% republican after all. Granted there are lots of reasons both would move like the needles and shit in the street. I feel on the political side it would be more likely for the reds to leave.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      People living in strongly red or blue states are going to be more used to the dominant party's stupidity. It's not about the specific party policy points as it is about being blind to everything your party does wrong. A "red" Californian transplant in some other state is more likely to vote for some insane leftist who wants to turn the economy inside out because they like their policy on police reform and they are blind to all of the things that should be red flags because those things are within the realm of normal back home. And the same goes for a blue transplant from the reddest parts of the bible belt. They're more likely to vote for some insane moralizing right winger because they support legal weed despite having beliefs about homosexuals that are straight out of the 1980s (or whatever, I'm just making up somewhat realistic examples). IMO the worst part is that both groups don't realize that the rampant ineffectiveness, corruption, back room dealing and bad treatment of the populace that governments in both red and blue states indulge in when they don't have to fear being voted out isn't something that's normal or something that should be tolerated. If you live in a single party dump of a state you're eventually gonna stop smelling the dump.
    - giardini 6y ago
      base698 says:"> I feel on the political side it would be more likely for the reds to leave.<" b/c reds are the only ones who have the money to relocate.
  - AaronM 6y ago
    In the 2016 Senate election, more California transplants voted for Cruz over Beto. https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-percentage-of-california-transplants-supported-cruz-in-2018-than-native-texans/ https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-percentage-of-california-...
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  Sorry, you're suggesting there's the same level of technical talent in ATX as in the Bay?
  - igetspam 6y ago
    Define "level." Is there the same caliber of talent? Absolutely. Are there an equal number? Not even close. Is the ratio of tech to non tech in the ATX area the same as the bay area? Probably not but it's growing. More and more of the people I've met here are in tech. This has continued to go up as more subdivisions are completed. The new tax laws that screwed over CA residents have definitely increased the number of CA migrants, as has the the increase in remote work from COVID. We have fast internet, no state tax and cheaper property. (What you get for half million here vs CA is amazing and it's nowhere near as nice as it was just five years ago). Added bonus and what nobody here will tell you (and TX natives don't see) is that the Hill Country is absolutely beautiful. I was shocked when I moves here. I didn't know it but it's a huge wedding destination because it's so pretty. (Being in CA leaves an ignorant taste in your mouth about TX). So no, it's not the bay area and we don't have parity right noq. As a bay area native, I would never go back. (Full disclosure: TX will get better than it is now but not that I'm a parent of a toddler, we're probably leaving and headed to New England. That's a discussion for a different topic though.)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dracophoenix 6y ago
      Why the move to New England?
- asiachick 6y ago
  I don't know what criteria is being used to claim Texas is American's most diverse city but simple checking the census data shows that is provably false. ALSO, WTF is up with the whole mixing in Hispanic in such a strange way in the census? Seems super fishy like someone wanted to paint a certain kind of picture but if they just plainly list ethnicities they don't get to make the story they want to tell.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It’s handled that way because many Hispanic people don’t consider “Hispanic” to be a race. That is to say, Afro-Latinos and White Hispanic people often don’t consider ourselves multiracial; my racial heritage is independent of the fact that my ancestors happened to be located in Mexico at one point.
    - lupire 6y ago
      What's a racial heritage though? Appalachians don't have the same racial heritage as more recent family immigrants from Russia or Ireland, but all are Caucasian, and Black descendants of slaves don't have the same racial heritage as Somali or Kenyan immigrants.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    The DC area, for instance, seems obviously more diverse than Houston.
    - kthejoker2 6y ago
      "Obviously" in what way? Houston's population is 25% foreign born, with an almost even 4-way split between Black, Asian, Hispanic, and White residents. We're also more socioeconomically balanced and diverse. https://wallethub.com/edu/most-diverse-cities/12690#detailed https://wallethub.com/edu/most-diverse-cities/12690#detailed
      - letitbeirie 6y ago
- mapgrep 6y ago
  As an ex Texan, I understand the pride behind this statement. But I think what seems to be the underlying premise — we don’t need to change to attract outsiders - captures an essential historic difference between California and Texas culture. It’s dangerous to speak too broadly — california has had its reactionary periods - but on balance I find it historically much more eager to change and evolve, especially socially, in response to outside and unconventional ideas and people. The Bay Area in particular (a tech center) is famous for this. Yes Texas is demographically changing rapidly but the culture of a place changes relatively slowly.
api 6y ago
Also means that some simple reform in Texas could remove one of the few downsides. Meanwhile California cannot build anything. Everything is either blocked by NIMBYs or like the high speed rail fails due to corruption and incompetence. I felt like the failure of the rail project from LA to SF was kind of a milestone showing just how dysfunctional the state is. California spent more money not building rail than it costs in many countries to complete a rail line.
- djcapelis 6y ago
  I feel like your comment is spot on for the usual Texas vs California dialog: High speed rail in Texas: 0 miles built, zero miles under construction, projects stuck in regulation waiting to begin work[1] High speed rail in California: Active construction, most ambitious real HSR project in the country, project delay by regulatory hurdles… mostly because conservatives tried to sue it to death and failed. Texans on their progress vs California: California is a failure. This whole meme is because a couple struggling Silicon Valley companies who stopped being able to make it in SV decided to relocate to Texas to go out to pasture along with a couple rich people. Y’all think that being a launch site for SpaceX, which remains a company with a California headquarters, and a majority California positioned engineering team is hot stuff. Y’all celebrate how many tech jobs come to Texas when California companies open branch offices for support and secondary roles in your state and crow about how you one upped the Californians as you landed those amazing customer support roles by selling corporations pieces of Texans and the time of your citizens for cheaper. Then y’all lecture us about how you just got HP’s enterprise spinoff, when we have the actual HP… y’all need to stop claiming to be doing better at areas you’re doing worse on if you want to figure out how to actually do better. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bulle...
  - Alupis 6y ago
    The California HSR project is dead, in case you didn't know. It ran over budget nearly 3 times the initial projected cost estimates, and ultimately is going between Merced and Bakersfield instead of the original SF to LA (less than 200 miles of track) - two cities practically no person commutes between. Overall, the project was a massive failure, and a political party that's in the minority isn't the reason.
eplanit 6y ago
"There are plenty of cheap places in California" Where in California, the central valley?
- deaddodo 6y ago
  If you think places like Orange County, Ventura, the Inland Empire, Sacramento, etc are expensive; you’re going to be sorely disappointed when you leave to any similarly sized metro elsewhere.
mapgrep 6y ago
Yes, California is a very big state and I could imagine for example the Central Valley reaping many more benefits from any persistent remote work or company relocation trend than other states. Hadn’t considered this possibility but it makes a lot of sense.
- NDizzle 6y ago
  Having just left the Central Valley of California, living there for 7 years working remotely the whole time, I don’t think it’ll work out this way. If you want to see overtaxed areas where you absolutely cannot see the benefits of your tax dollars, you’ll be right at home. Moving out of California is like getting an immediate 25% raise.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    If someone's fine with heat and they want to stay in that general area of the country, I'd probably steer them towards Nevada TBH.
    - NDizzle 6y ago
      I thought the same until I spent more time in Reno. The cost of living increased too much and the WIND is the worst thing about the area. Constant 40+ mph gusts. I don't know much about Vegas, perhaps it's better.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
linguae 6y ago
I concur. I grew up in Sacramento and I'm contemplating buying a place there (I'm currently in Santa Cruz County; I'd love to stay here forever, but it is too expensive for me to buy unless I live in the mountains) and working remotely from there, though prices have risen considerably this year due to its popularity with Bay Area mega-commuters and remote workers. Sacramento has a lot going for it; it's a diverse metro area with a lot to do, and there are many nice, safe neighborhoods. I also like Sacramento's walkable central areas, though these areas are a bit pricey (they're an absolute bargain compared to the Bay Area, but they're more expensive than Sacramento's suburbs). Sacramento has a California State University campus (Sacramento State University), and University of California, Davis is only 15 minutes west of Downtown Sacramento. An alternative that I'm considering is Merced, which is roughly two hours from Silicon Valley. Merced is much smaller than Sacramento, so it lacks Sacramento's amenities and variety of neighborhoods. However, Merced is home to University of California, Merced, which opened in 2005. UC Merced has been expanding and is becoming more popular with students. While Merced does not yet have a college-town atmosphere (at least to me), Merced has the potential to develop this feel. Merced has the cheapest housing of all cities that host a UC campus (though Riverside comes close). A mortgage on a brand-new three-bedroom house in Merced is cheaper than the rent on a one-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area. Finally, I'm also considering some of Southern California's desert cities that are part of the greater Los Angeles metro area, such as Palmdale and Lancaster in the Antelope Valley as well as the Inland Empire area. These areas have relatively affordable housing yet are very close to Los Angeles and all of its amenities.
- scruple 6y ago
  > ... Palmdale and Lancaster in the Antelope Valley as well as the Inland Empire area. These areas ... are very close to Los Angeles and all of its amenities. Have you lived in SoCal before? Because this reads as kind of naive about the traffic patterns down here. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything but there's a certain reality you have to be capable of accepting about driving distance to driving time in SoCal, otherwise you will be absolutely miserable living here.
  - linguae 6y ago

hhggfdss 6y ago

There's plenty of talent already here in Texas; we don't need talent to follow the money from anywhere thanks Although it's welcome to if it will, and that's why Texas is home to America's most diverse city, Houston

ryder9 6y ago
lmao
aNoob7000 6y ago
I'm not trying to make this political, but with all the migration to Texas it will be interesting to see if it remains a strongly Republican state in the future. I live in Georgia and I can see the demographics changing quite a lot.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  IMO the idea of red states and blue states doesn't make a lot of sense. Remove the state boundaries and the real defining characteristic for red/blue is urban/rural. It need not be any more complicated than that.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    In TX it is more complicated. The cities and farms were blue until all those folks from out-of-state moved into new suburbs and retired to exurbs. The suburbs have controlled TX for about 30 years. What's left of real rural folk doesn't matter except in the local statehouse.
  - api 6y ago
    It’s a shocking almost perfect correlation, and it’s intensifying. The suburbs are starting to turn blue, especially around large cities, leaving the Republican Party an almost pure rural party.
  - pc86 6y ago
    I mean, if you ignore the Electoral College, and Senate seat allocations, sure.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      I mean at the voter level. How it gets expressed in power is certainly an artifact of our political system. For better or worse, our system is tilted towards rural power.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    Look at Texas' 2nd congressional district [0]. Gerrymandered districts are a more defining characteristic for red/blue (as is the electoral college). 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%27s_2nd_congressional_di...
    - jofer 6y ago
      I live in this district. Supposedly, I have more in common with folks 50 miles away in Kingwood than I do with the folks two streets over. It's BS and leads to Crenshaw getting elected (who I didn't like but at least respected at the beginning of his term, but really kinda do hate now). There is a bit more than just the usual gerrymandering at play here, though. Notice where the southern tip of the district is. The med center is deliberately split between (almost) every congressional district in Houston. That means that it gets multiple representatives in congress from multiple parties and remains well-funded. That's actually not a bad strategy, but it unfortunately gives the Republican state legislature a justification to hide behind for their blatant gerrymandering. It's also why the current configuration isn't likely to change dramatically. Both parties want to ensure that the TX Medical Center has lots of representation in congress. As a result, Houston's core will always be divided among multiple districts. Republicans control the state legislature, so they make the districts have big "blobs" from outside the city, but if it were drawn by the democrats, it would still have this weird tendency to have narrow "arms" reaching towards the med center.
  - anonymouse008 6y ago
    You nailed it. The difference between cultures in rural, suburban, and urban is mainly due to environmental stimulus. When your only opportunity for food at ~9pm in a rural/suburban environment is fast food — that changes the way you view your day, becoming a defacto framework that permeates everything. They think in terms of independence and consequence (sound red?) - work late and still want decent sleep? Well you have to eat McDonalds or make a turkey sandwhich, there is no luxury, no option of a small family restaurant sharing their homeland cuisine. This makes for a peculiar set of people - people that are mad good at creativity within limitations, but are constantly defined by their lack of exposure to experiences and post-modern cultural poverty.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      >When your only opportunity for food at ~9pm in a rural/suburban environment is fast food — that changes the way you view your day, becoming a defacto framework that permeates everything. I pretty strongly disagree with this. Most people make meals at home which aren't necessarily "just a turkey sandwich." I don't even live in a particularly rural area (about 40 miles west of Boston) and I don't really have great meal options at 5pm much less 9pm. There are a few good pizza places, a Five Guys, some chain steak places, etc. but other than the odd pizza takeout I don't really eat out. If I lived in a city? I'd probably go out or get takeout more regularly but I'd still cook most days.
      - anonymouse008 6y ago
        I debated fully fleshing out this topic and decided to stick to a high level until someone replied - so thank you for the critique. The turkey sandwhich was meant to be a place holder for the general idea. Roughly, if you want to work long and hard to get ahead, usually food prep time is the easiest thing to cut to get a return on time invested in long term value. There are still super humans that have mastered meal prep (this may be you) but for the people I know, it’s hard to do all of these things well with limited options - which forces this consequence mindset.
        ghaff 6y ago
  - samizdis 6y ago
    Indeed, and I'd read many articles over the past few years pointing that out. Being a bit of a nerd, though, it was brought home to me most vividly by an NYT article in September, which uses aerial image analysis - roughly speaking grey v green, but with the most interesting bits in between: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/02/upshot/america-political-spectrum.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/02/upshot/americ...
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Each state is unique and changing in time. Look at CO for example. Focus on the Family, the USAF Academy and many military bases are all in CO. 20 years ago, it was a solid Rep. base. But over time, things have shifted so that weed first became legal there. That's ignoring the major issue that all western states have: water rights. All the pish-posh of politics today has nothing on the fights over water in western states. In CO that pits the mountains against the ranchers, in CA that pits north against south; there is no red/blue when it comes to the real (and sometimes deadly) fight over water.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  Texas was strongly democratic until a lot of folks from the Bible Belt watched too much Dallas on TV and moved in. The demos have to change a lot in a lot of districts to overcome Gerrymandering for state and federal House representatives. Power isn't in the Governorship, the Lt. Governor controls the state Senate, budget and sits on the redistricting commission. They are elected from the state Senate members. So TX could have a Democratic Governor and Senators but the local stuff will be red for a long time.
  - AuthorizedCust 6y ago
    > They are elected from the state Senate members. In context, I think your "they" refers to the lieutenant governor? That position is elected by the people of Texas, not (state) senators.
  - kthejoker2 6y ago
    By "local stuff" I guess you mean small rural counties? All of Texas' major cities vote blue.
    - clavalle 6y ago
      Not all. Lubbock and Ft. Worth are red through and through.
      - kodablah 6y ago
        Fort Worth (or Tarrant county maybe, I forget) majority voted for a democratic president for the first time in a long time. Demographics are slowly shifting there (and for those looking for that old Austin feel, it has a lot of it these days).
      - SirLuxuryYacht 6y ago
        If you define blue/red by the presidential vote, then the parent is correct. Every major city voted biden this cycle.
    - hindsightbias 6y ago
- mbesto 6y ago
  > remains a strongly Republican state in the future Texas is already pretty purple. Dallas/Houston/Austin are all very blue and growing like crazy.
- base698 6y ago
  What makes you think it's red or blue that's leaving? California is still 40% republican after all. Granted there are lots of reasons both would move like the needles and shit in the street. I feel on the political side it would be more likely for the reds to leave.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    People living in strongly red or blue states are going to be more used to the dominant party's stupidity. It's not about the specific party policy points as it is about being blind to everything your party does wrong. A "red" Californian transplant in some other state is more likely to vote for some insane leftist who wants to turn the economy inside out because they like their policy on police reform and they are blind to all of the things that should be red flags because those things are within the realm of normal back home. And the same goes for a blue transplant from the reddest parts of the bible belt. They're more likely to vote for some insane moralizing right winger because they support legal weed despite having beliefs about homosexuals that are straight out of the 1980s (or whatever, I'm just making up somewhat realistic examples). IMO the worst part is that both groups don't realize that the rampant ineffectiveness, corruption, back room dealing and bad treatment of the populace that governments in both red and blue states indulge in when they don't have to fear being voted out isn't something that's normal or something that should be tolerated. If you live in a single party dump of a state you're eventually gonna stop smelling the dump.
  - giardini 6y ago
    base698 says:"> I feel on the political side it would be more likely for the reds to leave.<" b/c reds are the only ones who have the money to relocate.
- AaronM 6y ago
  In the 2016 Senate election, more California transplants voted for Cruz over Beto. https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-percentage-of-california-transplants-supported-cruz-in-2018-than-native-texans/ https://www.ktsa.com/abbott-larger-percentage-of-california-...
whimsicalism 6y ago
Sorry, you're suggesting there's the same level of technical talent in ATX as in the Bay?
- igetspam 6y ago
  Define "level." Is there the same caliber of talent? Absolutely. Are there an equal number? Not even close. Is the ratio of tech to non tech in the ATX area the same as the bay area? Probably not but it's growing. More and more of the people I've met here are in tech. This has continued to go up as more subdivisions are completed. The new tax laws that screwed over CA residents have definitely increased the number of CA migrants, as has the the increase in remote work from COVID. We have fast internet, no state tax and cheaper property. (What you get for half million here vs CA is amazing and it's nowhere near as nice as it was just five years ago). Added bonus and what nobody here will tell you (and TX natives don't see) is that the Hill Country is absolutely beautiful. I was shocked when I moves here. I didn't know it but it's a huge wedding destination because it's so pretty. (Being in CA leaves an ignorant taste in your mouth about TX). So no, it's not the bay area and we don't have parity right noq. As a bay area native, I would never go back. (Full disclosure: TX will get better than it is now but not that I'm a parent of a toddler, we're probably leaving and headed to New England. That's a discussion for a different topic though.)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    Why the move to New England?
asiachick 6y ago
I don't know what criteria is being used to claim Texas is American's most diverse city but simple checking the census data shows that is provably false. ALSO, WTF is up with the whole mixing in Hispanic in such a strange way in the census? Seems super fishy like someone wanted to paint a certain kind of picture but if they just plainly list ethnicities they don't get to make the story they want to tell.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It’s handled that way because many Hispanic people don’t consider “Hispanic” to be a race. That is to say, Afro-Latinos and White Hispanic people often don’t consider ourselves multiracial; my racial heritage is independent of the fact that my ancestors happened to be located in Mexico at one point.
  - lupire 6y ago
    What's a racial heritage though? Appalachians don't have the same racial heritage as more recent family immigrants from Russia or Ireland, but all are Caucasian, and Black descendants of slaves don't have the same racial heritage as Somali or Kenyan immigrants.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  The DC area, for instance, seems obviously more diverse than Houston.
  - kthejoker2 6y ago
    "Obviously" in what way? Houston's population is 25% foreign born, with an almost even 4-way split between Black, Asian, Hispanic, and White residents. We're also more socioeconomically balanced and diverse. https://wallethub.com/edu/most-diverse-cities/12690#detailed https://wallethub.com/edu/most-diverse-cities/12690#detailed
    - letitbeirie 6y ago
mapgrep 6y ago
As an ex Texan, I understand the pride behind this statement. But I think what seems to be the underlying premise — we don’t need to change to attract outsiders - captures an essential historic difference between California and Texas culture. It’s dangerous to speak too broadly — california has had its reactionary periods - but on balance I find it historically much more eager to change and evolve, especially socially, in response to outside and unconventional ideas and people. The Bay Area in particular (a tech center) is famous for this. Yes Texas is demographically changing rapidly but the culture of a place changes relatively slowly.

api 6y ago

Also means that some simple reform in Texas could remove one of the few downsides. Meanwhile California cannot build anything. Everything is either blocked by NIMBYs or like the high speed rail fails due to corruption and incompetence. I felt like the failure of the rail project from LA to SF was kind of a milestone showing just how dysfunctional the state is. California spent more money not building rail than it costs in many countries to complete a rail line.

djcapelis 6y ago
I feel like your comment is spot on for the usual Texas vs California dialog: High speed rail in Texas: 0 miles built, zero miles under construction, projects stuck in regulation waiting to begin work[1] High speed rail in California: Active construction, most ambitious real HSR project in the country, project delay by regulatory hurdles… mostly because conservatives tried to sue it to death and failed. Texans on their progress vs California: California is a failure. This whole meme is because a couple struggling Silicon Valley companies who stopped being able to make it in SV decided to relocate to Texas to go out to pasture along with a couple rich people. Y’all think that being a launch site for SpaceX, which remains a company with a California headquarters, and a majority California positioned engineering team is hot stuff. Y’all celebrate how many tech jobs come to Texas when California companies open branch offices for support and secondary roles in your state and crow about how you one upped the Californians as you landed those amazing customer support roles by selling corporations pieces of Texans and the time of your citizens for cheaper. Then y’all lecture us about how you just got HP’s enterprise spinoff, when we have the actual HP… y’all need to stop claiming to be doing better at areas you’re doing worse on if you want to figure out how to actually do better. [1] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bullet-train-permits/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/17/houston-dallas-bulle...
- Alupis 6y ago
  The California HSR project is dead, in case you didn't know. It ran over budget nearly 3 times the initial projected cost estimates, and ultimately is going between Merced and Bakersfield instead of the original SF to LA (less than 200 miles of track) - two cities practically no person commutes between. Overall, the project was a massive failure, and a political party that's in the minority isn't the reason.

eplanit 6y ago

"There are plenty of cheap places in California" Where in California, the central valley?

deaddodo 6y ago
If you think places like Orange County, Ventura, the Inland Empire, Sacramento, etc are expensive; you’re going to be sorely disappointed when you leave to any similarly sized metro elsewhere.

mapgrep 6y ago

Yes, California is a very big state and I could imagine for example the Central Valley reaping many more benefits from any persistent remote work or company relocation trend than other states. Hadn’t considered this possibility but it makes a lot of sense.

NDizzle 6y ago
Having just left the Central Valley of California, living there for 7 years working remotely the whole time, I don’t think it’ll work out this way. If you want to see overtaxed areas where you absolutely cannot see the benefits of your tax dollars, you’ll be right at home. Moving out of California is like getting an immediate 25% raise.
- ghaff 6y ago
  If someone's fine with heat and they want to stay in that general area of the country, I'd probably steer them towards Nevada TBH.
  - NDizzle 6y ago
    I thought the same until I spent more time in Reno. The cost of living increased too much and the WIND is the worst thing about the area. Constant 40+ mph gusts. I don't know much about Vegas, perhaps it's better.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

linguae 6y ago

I concur. I grew up in Sacramento and I'm contemplating buying a place there (I'm currently in Santa Cruz County; I'd love to stay here forever, but it is too expensive for me to buy unless I live in the mountains) and working remotely from there, though prices have risen considerably this year due to its popularity with Bay Area mega-commuters and remote workers. Sacramento has a lot going for it; it's a diverse metro area with a lot to do, and there are many nice, safe neighborhoods. I also like Sacramento's walkable central areas, though these areas are a bit pricey (they're an absolute bargain compared to the Bay Area, but they're more expensive than Sacramento's suburbs). Sacramento has a California State University campus (Sacramento State University), and University of California, Davis is only 15 minutes west of Downtown Sacramento. An alternative that I'm considering is Merced, which is roughly two hours from Silicon Valley. Merced is much smaller than Sacramento, so it lacks Sacramento's amenities and variety of neighborhoods. However, Merced is home to University of California, Merced, which opened in 2005. UC Merced has been expanding and is becoming more popular with students. While Merced does not yet have a college-town atmosphere (at least to me), Merced has the potential to develop this feel. Merced has the cheapest housing of all cities that host a UC campus (though Riverside comes close). A mortgage on a brand-new three-bedroom house in Merced is cheaper than the rent on a one-bedroom apartment in the Bay Area. Finally, I'm also considering some of Southern California's desert cities that are part of the greater Los Angeles metro area, such as Palmdale and Lancaster in the Antelope Valley as well as the Inland Empire area. These areas have relatively affordable housing yet are very close to Los Angeles and all of its amenities.

scruple 6y ago
> ... Palmdale and Lancaster in the Antelope Valley as well as the Inland Empire area. These areas ... are very close to Los Angeles and all of its amenities. Have you lived in SoCal before? Because this reads as kind of naive about the traffic patterns down here. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything but there's a certain reality you have to be capable of accepting about driving distance to driving time in SoCal, otherwise you will be absolutely miserable living here.
- linguae 6y ago