8 ms·

Only downside is most of the implants want to bring their left leaning policies with them, apparently completely, and blissfully, unaware that it was those same

• king_jester 13y ago
  What you are thinking of is gentrification, which does ruin communities over time.
• afreak 13y ago
  Are we speaking socially or economically?
  • DamnYuppie 13y ago
    To be honest both. How can you have a nanny system that doesn't impact the quality of life and continued economic viability of the state?
• jbooth 13y ago
  Yeah, it's practically the third world here in NYC. Texas's top industry: Defense (100% government spending). Texas's 2nd industry: Oil (government subsidized, and having oil is surprisingly not a function of income tax rates). Texas's most exciting economic area: Liberal Austin. I'm not going to rip on Texas but it's gotta be awfully hard for you to feel free-market-superior to the city that has Wall St in it and an entrepreneur on every single street corner.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • roboneal 13y ago
    Uhhh, "old school" Houston and Dallas metro areas are #1 and #2 respectively in job growth in the nation. While Austin may be an "exciting" center of research and technology, it's hardly a "job creation" engine -- at least not directly.
  • DamnYuppie 13y ago
    That doesn't address my original point at all. My original point was that all the laws passed in those states have been driving the cost of living up and median standard of living down, while consistently stripping away the rights of individuals. You can tout Wall Street all you want but not many out side of your city see them as a good thing, most of the country sees them as a parasite with too much political power and way too little oversight. SEC, Secret Service, FBI, and DOJ be damned none of them have gone after them with any rigor. You also don't have a good grasp on your own cities history. There as a time when manufacturing and textiles was its biggest industries. Yet you managed to drive them all out. If we decide to stop sending you food and gas you city comes to a stand still. Then you can have hungry entrepreneurs on every street corner...
    • jbooth 13y ago
      Competition drives the cost of living up. We can explain this with supply and demand. As far as the industrial history, yeah, service economy, information age, yadda yadda. And I agree on Wall St, I pretty much despise them. But if you're going to preach unfettered capitalism via low taxes you should be worshipping it.
      • DamnYuppie 13y ago
        Competition generally drives prices down. Governments involving themselves in the marketplace generally drive prices up.
        • ahomescu1 13y ago
          That sounds like supply-side competition, which does drive prices down. When talking about competition over housing, you have a somewhat fixed supply but high competition on the demand side. In that case, prices go up.
• colanderman 13y ago
  You really need to back that up with some facts.
• wavefunction 13y ago
  I can't necessarily qualify the new arrivals as more liberal (though they probably are.) I don't care for urban folks moving to more rural areas and then complaining about the locals or trying to turn these areas into the same urban hell-holes they moved from. If LA or NYC or SFC are so much better than here, move back.
• npsimons 13y ago
  Yeah, and some of us left leaners know better than to move to a state where we can't even hold office: http://i.imgur.com/s8gUacT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/s8gUacT.jpg Nice to hear there are good alternatives to the valley for startups, but personally, none of the reasons listed in the article resonate with me, and plenty of other good reasons for not moving to TX exist.
  • danielweber 13y ago
    None of those statutes would stand up post-Fourteenth Amendment. They're about as relevant as "No Irish" laws. EDIT: hell, your image pictures 8 states and then says "7" right under it. Is this some clever meta-humor?
    • Greenisus 13y ago
      Maybe it counts Texas as a country.
      • danielweber 13y ago
        It's a leak from /r/atheism[1], just yesterday. That thread at least points out all the problems if you scroll down. http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1fb282/these_7_states_ban_anyone_who_is_atheist_from/ http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1fb282/these_7_stat...
  • nsxwolf 13y ago
    The current Texas constitution is from 1876. It disallows any religious test for office except for the "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being". That's pretty in line with the American flavor of Enlightenment thinking and is hardly a conservative right wing Christian theocratic view (they would insist you were a Christian, would they not?). The acceptance of atheism in the US is a relatively recent phenomenon, like the acceptance of homosexuality. It's invalidated anyway (14th + 1st combo meal), so not sure why it's so off-putting to you - is it so offensive that somebody hasn't symbolically removed it for you yet?
• Avshalom 13y ago
  mmm... Do most of those implants think the states the came from are ruined?
  • nantes 13y ago
    Maybe not ruined yet, but it was seemingly on its way. I moved from KS.
• Blockhead 13y ago
  Where was that fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 and injured 200 because of poor regulation? Oh right, Texas.
  • ericcumbee 13y ago
    The cause is still in question http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/us/paramedic-bryce-reed-denies-role-in-west-texas-blast.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/us/paramedic-bryce-reed-de...
• kevinskii 13y ago
  You say "most implants." I wonder if any survey has been done to determine whether this is actually so. This seems to be a common perception among Texans I've talked to, but all of the folks I know who are moving there from CA tend to have more right leaning political views.
  • snogglethorpe 13y ago
    FWIW, though, I've known plenty of born-in-Texas liberals, and according to them, they aren't alone. They aren't precisely identical with those from other places, but the state's reputation as a conservative bastion seems a bit overplayed...
• drraoulduke 13y ago
  I agree. As a life long liberal living in the NY Metro area, I've recently realized the destruction caused by nannyism. I'm done with it. I would move to TX if my wife was OK with it.
• michaelochurch 13y ago
  What ruined CA and NY wasn't "left-leaning" politics so much as self-serving hypocritical pseudo-liberalism. Mostly, it's the NIMBY impulse. You have wealthy semi- or unemployed people (stereotypically housewives, but some are men) who have nothing to do but sit on various local boards and city councils and prevent anything that will hurt their house prices, even if it's good for the city. It's either that or sit on co-op boards, which are so full of mean-spirited intrigue that even Cthulhu can't stand those people. That's the kind of stuff that ruined NY and CA. One thing I have noticed in this world is that hypocritical pseudoleftists do a lot more damage, than real leftists or real conservatives, because they think morality is on their side when they wreak havoc. Also, Russian oligarchs and third-world despots fucked up the real estate markets in NY and CA. They don't live here, but they buy, and that affects everything and makes it a lot more competitive. This is not a dig against Austin; but the good news is that the foreign speculator scumbags are not going to take an interest in Austin any time soon. I don't live in Austin, although it sounds like a really cool place. My personal belief is that it needs some kind of centralized planning to keep inefficient growth that becomes tomorrow's legacy problem. I don't like the NIMBY regulations and self-serving injected complexity that often come about; but some kind of planning that encourages environmentally sound and healthy development is always a good thing.
  • chiph 13y ago
    Watch out when people say "There ought to be a law/rule/regulation!". That's how CA got to where it is. One small rule at a time. The speculators are here (in Austin) - houses are being sold within 24 hours of being listed, with offers $10k above the asking price. Just crazy.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Watch out when people say "There ought to be a law/rule/regulation!". That's how CA got to where it is. #12 out of 38 states by per capita income and GSP per capita, and #10 by median household income. Not exactly a bad place to be. (And, as that would suggest, much better than the US as a whole at all those measures.)
  • 13y ago
• wwweston 13y ago
  > unaware that it was those same policies that ruined the states they came from. Ruined? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-truth-about-california-2010-11-22 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-truth-about-california-... And which left-leaning policies are we talking about, by the way? Capping property taxes? Requiring supermajorities in the legislature to do anything? > I am looking at You CA and NY. Sure, there's going to be some CA & NYers moving to TX, and they may even be highly represented compared to the rest of the country given they're the most populous states in the nation with Texas. According to the graph, though, more people are still moving to CA&NY. Guess they're just blissfully unaware.
• crusso 13y ago
  While the way you say it is a bit obnoxious, I think there is some merit to the sentiment. The bluer states are trending down population-wise and the red states are where the most economic and population growth seems to be happening. Normally when you hear talk of "1-percenters", the vitriol is directed toward Wall Street and business. I think it's counter-intuitive for those people and many in the media to consider that the huge income disparity and decrease/stagnation in effective wages for the middle class are the result of government over-regulation and over-taxation rather than any forces originating from the business/capitalist side of the equation.
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    > The bluer states are trending down population-wise and the red states are where the most economic and population growth seems to be happening. "Seems" perhaps, but, not more than that when it comes to economic growth. [1] Its closer to (but still very far from) true in population terms, in that many of the most rapidly growing states are redder states and few are bluer states (but many of the slowest growing states are redder states, too!) [2], and to the degree it resembles truth in population terms, that underscores how far from true it is in economic terms, since the handful of redder states that are growing the fastest in GSP are also the ones growing fastest in population, which means that their GSP per capita growth rate isn't actually that good (meanwhile top-quintile GSP growth bluer states like California and Massachussetts are more in the middle of the pack in population growth.) [1] http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsrelease.htm http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/gsp_newsr... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_populati...
• vaadu 13y ago
  The liberal transplants are called locusts. They vote for big government, and a huge welfare state. As a result, the government then hikes taxes, and institutes all kinds of nanny-state regulations, strangling business. Eventually (sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly) the state begins to fail, all of the resources have been exploited, and Liberals move on to the next state.
  • dragonwriter 13y ago
    This is an interesting and oft-repeated theory, but for at least the last three decades, if not longer, the examples of the most recent states the "liberal locusts" have just destroyed when it gets trotted out have always been some combination of New York, California, and Massachussets, and the implication has always been that they are next moving to previously "pure" states in the South or inland West. If the trend was really as claimed, you'd expect their to be a trail of states to point to that have been moved through over time, rather than always the same states.