4 ms·

Warning: This post is written from a libertarian/center-right viewpoint. While this move is great, I'm skeptical of the idea that moving to Austin is a politic

Warning: This post is written from a libertarian/center-right viewpoint. While this move is great, I'm skeptical of the idea that moving to Austin is a political panacea for moderate/center-right/libertarian governance. - The same percentage of people who voted for hard leftist candidates in SF also voted for hard leftist candidates in Austin. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Texas_Democratic_presidential_primary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Texas_Democratic_presiden... This means that, fundamentally, people in Austin believe the same things that people in California do. - There are homeless issues in Austin, just as there are in SF (though not as bad as SF, it's getting worse every year). - Many people don't realize how regulatory constrained Austin is for new buildings/housing. The same NIMBYism exists in Austin too, just like SF! But this isn't surprising since people in Austin basically have the same politics as people in SF. The only reason why rents are cheaper (though that's changing as more people move in), is because Austin isn't as big as SF. If all of the intelligent tech people moved to Austin, it would have the same supply & demand problems that SF has (since you'd have the same number of people mixed with the same regulatory constraints on new housing supply). - Yes, it's true Austin is a place with zero income tax and fewer business regulations, but that's only because it's held at bay by the surrounding red regions of Texas. But it's only a matter of time before Texas turns blue. So in the long-run -- when the state house will be controlled by the same party running California -- why would you expect tax rates and regulations to stay low? In 10 years, Texas will have the same political makeup (at the city, state, and federal levels) as California! - The bulk of taxes and regulations aren't at the state/city levels. They're at the Federal level. A zero percent state income tax is cool, but it only goes so far. Is the entire tech ecosystem really going to sustain this movement for a mere 10% drop in total taxes? The SF/NYC network effects are still very strong. I'm not sure such a marginal/incremental decrease in taxes is enough to affect this sort of change. Power to Tesla though. I really, really hope to be proven wrong.

resters 5y ago
It's less about ideology than about the impact of entrenched power. For all the leftist rhetoric in SF, interest groups like property owner, landlords, etc., have political power sufficient to preserve the status quo. I think the geographical constraints of SF (water all around) amplify the power of the above groups at the expense of others. Austin may have more space to gradually expand and spread out in a way that is more equitable and does not so disproportionately reward those who were there first.
- georgewsinger 5y ago
  That's true. But leftists are entrenched in Austin as well at the city level. I suppose, at the state level, once the state flips blue, the "default"/status-quo position will still be more low-tax/low-regulation, and that's an advantage for Texas (again speaking from a libertarian view point; I understand you won't agree if you share a different politics). It still seems to me that Austin will converge to SF, given enough time, given that the people in both cities believe the same things, and in only a few years Texas will be blue.
andreygrehov 5y ago
> There are homeless issues in Austin, just as there are in SF (though not as bad as SF, it's getting worse every year). - Homelessness in Texas has decreased by 55% since 2010. - Homelessness in California has increased by 35% since 2010. So, there is massive a 90% gap. California is obviously doing something wrong there. Source: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
- davidw 5y ago
  They're talking about Austin in particular, not the entire state. I found this to be an interesting read: https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-is-about-housing-not https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-is-about-housing-n...
  - georgewsinger 5y ago
    Yeah, I was only talking about Austin.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Obviously, Texas has out-built California in housing every year since 1990. Housing solves homelessness for reasons that should be clear.
  - davidw 5y ago
    This parent comment from jeffbee is pretty obviously correct. There are more homes and they cost less and... amazingly, there are fewer people without homes. People get this logic when you talk about, say, Ferraris. Of course not everyone has one! They cost a lot of money! But with housing it's like "no! It must be drugs! Or they don't work hard enough! It can't have anything to do with the cost of a home being nearly a million dollars!"
hindsightbias 5y ago
Liberal Austin voted to criminalize homelessness this year. So it’s safe for glibertarians now. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/09/austin-texas-camping-ban/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/09/austin-texas-camping...

resters 5y ago

It's less about ideology than about the impact of entrenched power. For all the leftist rhetoric in SF, interest groups like property owner, landlords, etc., have political power sufficient to preserve the status quo. I think the geographical constraints of SF (water all around) amplify the power of the above groups at the expense of others. Austin may have more space to gradually expand and spread out in a way that is more equitable and does not so disproportionately reward those who were there first.

georgewsinger 5y ago
That's true. But leftists are entrenched in Austin as well at the city level. I suppose, at the state level, once the state flips blue, the "default"/status-quo position will still be more low-tax/low-regulation, and that's an advantage for Texas (again speaking from a libertarian view point; I understand you won't agree if you share a different politics). It still seems to me that Austin will converge to SF, given enough time, given that the people in both cities believe the same things, and in only a few years Texas will be blue.

andreygrehov 5y ago

> There are homeless issues in Austin, just as there are in SF (though not as bad as SF, it's getting worse every year). - Homelessness in Texas has decreased by 55% since 2010. - Homelessness in California has increased by 35% since 2010. So, there is massive a 90% gap. California is obviously doing something wrong there. Source: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

davidw 5y ago
They're talking about Austin in particular, not the entire state. I found this to be an interesting read: https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-is-about-housing-not https://www.slowboring.com/p/homelessness-is-about-housing-n...
- georgewsinger 5y ago
  Yeah, I was only talking about Austin.
jeffbee 5y ago
Obviously, Texas has out-built California in housing every year since 1990. Housing solves homelessness for reasons that should be clear.
- davidw 5y ago
  This parent comment from jeffbee is pretty obviously correct. There are more homes and they cost less and... amazingly, there are fewer people without homes. People get this logic when you talk about, say, Ferraris. Of course not everyone has one! They cost a lot of money! But with housing it's like "no! It must be drugs! Or they don't work hard enough! It can't have anything to do with the cost of a home being nearly a million dollars!"

hindsightbias 5y ago

Liberal Austin voted to criminalize homelessness this year. So it’s safe for glibertarians now. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/09/austin-texas-camping-ban/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/09/austin-texas-camping...