4 ms·

Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the avera

Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the average.

pyuser583 3y ago
Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet. The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare. (OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
  - pyuser583 3y ago
    People leaving the Bay Area for Austin and Georgia is hardly a race to the bottom. The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations. Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services. The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially. A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.” Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom. Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom. Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom. People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom. When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.
FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
Yes, there are a handful of policy areas where the politics really do matter -- if you need it, did the state sign up for Medicaid expansion? If abortion may sadly be necessary, is it legal there? -- but I think in most areas, day to day life is no more oppressive in those states, and frequently the demographics are no less diverse (they are often more so). We need to keep in mind the magnitude of coercion, or even of oppression, that arises simply from economic forces -- and these generally squeeze harder in the blue states. If the states with the "good politics" can't supply housing at a reasonable price, and if their affordable universities won't let your kids in, then what good are they? A red state with "bad politics" may be sufficiently cheap that the freedom it offers from wage-slavery may outweigh whatever oppressive laws are on the books there. The same goes for other countries. Suppose a country nominally has an authoritarian ruler, but he leaves ordinary apolitical people alone, and prices for medical care are reasonable. Maybe that's still a perfectly nice place to live? Maybe it's better than struggling to pay rent in the "good place"? As for Texas and Georgia, local politics also matter. Some of the cities are blue islands. So you can't judge a county based only on what state it's in. But if people are so blinkered that it's literally worth their entire life's wages just to own a house in the "good place", then I guess that's their problem. That's my issue. The sheer amounts of money we're talking about are staggering. And you have to survive within an abusive corporate structure to get the money. Why tolerate that? How can you have an emancipatory politics on the one hand, and sign up for lifelong debt on the other? It is good to try to free others, but if you can, shouldn't you try to free yourself first? Then, how can you free yourself in one of the places where money-power is strongest?
- telotortium 3y ago
  Honestly, for abortion, if it's that important to you and you have the capacity to get a professional job there, you have the capacity to book a flight to California etc. to get an abortion, or even just get abortion pills mailed to you from a Silk Road-like site. On the plus side, for the rest of your life, including especially if you actually want to raise a child, red states are much better in most ways unless you have a very high salary in a coastal blue state (or your income is low enough to get benefits from the blue states, but your income won't be low enough if you're a professional).
ddd000012 3y ago
[dead]

Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the average.

pyuser583 3y ago

Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dctoedt 3y ago
> Texas and Georgia both have massive immigration from other states. People vote with their feet. The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare. (OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
- pyuser583 3y ago
  People leaving the Bay Area for Austin and Georgia is hardly a race to the bottom. The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations. Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services. The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially. A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.” Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom. Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom. Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom. People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom. When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.

FooBarBizBazz 3y ago

Yes, there are a handful of policy areas where the politics really do matter -- if you need it, did the state sign up for Medicaid expansion? If abortion may sadly be necessary, is it legal there? -- but I think in most areas, day to day life is no more oppressive in those states, and frequently the demographics are no less diverse (they are often more so). We need to keep in mind the magnitude of coercion, or even of oppression, that arises simply from economic forces -- and these generally squeeze harder in the blue states. If the states with the "good politics" can't supply housing at a reasonable price, and if their affordable universities won't let your kids in, then what good are they? A red state with "bad politics" may be sufficiently cheap that the freedom it offers from wage-slavery may outweigh whatever oppressive laws are on the books there. The same goes for other countries. Suppose a country nominally has an authoritarian ruler, but he leaves ordinary apolitical people alone, and prices for medical care are reasonable. Maybe that's still a perfectly nice place to live? Maybe it's better than struggling to pay rent in the "good place"? As for Texas and Georgia, local politics also matter. Some of the cities are blue islands. So you can't judge a county based only on what state it's in. But if people are so blinkered that it's literally worth their entire life's wages just to own a house in the "good place", then I guess that's their problem. That's my issue. The sheer amounts of money we're talking about are staggering. And you have to survive within an abusive corporate structure to get the money. Why tolerate that? How can you have an emancipatory politics on the one hand, and sign up for lifelong debt on the other? It is good to try to free others, but if you can, shouldn't you try to free yourself first? Then, how can you free yourself in one of the places where money-power is strongest?

telotortium 3y ago
Honestly, for abortion, if it's that important to you and you have the capacity to get a professional job there, you have the capacity to book a flight to California etc. to get an abortion, or even just get abortion pills mailed to you from a Silk Road-like site. On the plus side, for the rest of your life, including especially if you actually want to raise a child, red states are much better in most ways unless you have a very high salary in a coastal blue state (or your income is low enough to get benefits from the blue states, but your income won't be low enough if you're a professional).

ddd000012 3y ago

[dead]