4 ms·

California: incessantly talks about the need for equality more than anyone else in the world; creates least equal, most economically stratified society in the U

by nugget 11y ago

California: incessantly talks about the need for equality more than anyone else in the world; creates least equal, most economically stratified society in the United States where all except the independently wealthy feel uneasy. Texas: makes fun of Californians who constantly preach about inequality; creates a pretty equal, egalitarian society that most citizens feel comfortable in.

guelo 11y ago
Citation needed.
tstactplsignore 11y ago
Shame that this has been upvoted, because it's not really true. The Gini coefficient of CA and TX are extremely similar [1]- CA is ranked #44 in the US, and TX is ranked #43. However, social mobility of the poorest percentiles is significantly higher in Californian cities [2]. In fact, of the major US metropolises, the top four best cities for social mobility of children in the bottom quintile are: San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego, in order. [2] Social mobility in Texas is significantly lower, and extraordinarily lower throughout the rest of the southern US. (Texas is a nice exception) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-incom...
- nugget 11y ago
  It's about quality of life, not relative income. I used these two states as examples because I've spent a lot of time and have a lot of friends in both. In Texas, a middle class income sets you up with a decent house, in a decent hood, with a decent school district, and a fairly low stress life. You mix with others from random walks of life. In California, it feels like you spend every dollar just to survive, and you tend to associate with a narrower spectrum of peers.
  - tzs 11y ago
    Is it actually possible to have a "decent school district" in Texas after what the Texas State Board of Education has done to the history textbooks? McCarthy's blacklists were justified because of widespread Communist infiltration? Slavery was just a side issue in the Civil War? No mention of Jim Crow or the Ku Klux Klan? Four major thinkers who greatly influenced the Founding Fathers were Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Moses? Science doesn't really fare well with the Texas State Board of Education, either.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    > In Texas, a middle class income sets you up with a decent house, in a decent hood, with a decent school district, and a fairly low stress life. Of course, the hard part is obtaining a middle-class income in Texas.
- saryant 11y ago
  I think "significant" is probably overstating things. In the bottom quintile in San Jose has a 12.9% chance of making it to the top, Houston is 9.3% (nearly the same as Sacramento). I grew up in California but moved to Houston half-way through high school. The school I wound up in in Houston was light-years better than the one I left in California.
nether 11y ago
At least California lets Tesla sell cars without dealerships. How's that for Texas small government?
dang 11y ago
No tangential flamewars on Hacker News, please. Perhaps there's a substantive point to be made about California and Texas, but flat-out tribal/ideological provocation is the opposite of that, and not ok here.
- nugget 11y ago
  My comment wasn't meant to be tangential or start a flamewar. I think the article hits upon one of the most important issues of our time, namely how we want to structure our most important urban centers moving forward. There are very real quality of life issues at stake. Like many others here, I don't think of myself as Californian or Texan but as an American who has lived in various places at various times and who votes with his feet as opportunity arises. I used a bit of tongue in cheek snarkiness to drive the point home. Imagine my first comment as a political cartoon and you might see it in a better light.
  - dang 11y ago
    It always feels like this from the inside: > I used a bit of tongue in cheek snarkiness to drive the point home But the dynamics from the outside are different. The snark doesn't "drive the point home"; it calls attention to itself, obscuring your point. Of the people who read that, some will not experience it in a tongue-in-cheek way; of those, some will feel hurt and angry; some will typically respond with incivility—feeling justified, since they were provoked. These provoke others, and down the tedious spiral we go. Maybe it's their problem for being offended, but when is that not the case? The thread goes up in flames anyway. This problem is intrinsic to a large semi-anonymous internet forum. Think of it like a campground in an area that's high-risk for forest fires. You'd automatically be careful there, to protect the shared space. HN's solution to this problem is to require comments to be civil and substantive. A thoughtful comment like your reply here raises the whole quality of the discussion. You obviously have some nuanced things to say about this topic. Please give us the nuances.

by nugget 11y ago

guelo 11y ago

Citation needed.

tstactplsignore 11y ago

Shame that this has been upvoted, because it's not really true. The Gini coefficient of CA and TX are extremely similar [1]- CA is ranked #44 in the US, and TX is ranked #43. However, social mobility of the poorest percentiles is significantly higher in Californian cities [2]. In fact, of the major US metropolises, the top four best cities for social mobility of children in the bottom quintile are: San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego, in order. [2] Social mobility in Texas is significantly lower, and extraordinarily lower throughout the rest of the southern US. (Texas is a nice exception) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-income-ladder-location-matters.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/business/in-climbing-incom...

nugget 11y ago
It's about quality of life, not relative income. I used these two states as examples because I've spent a lot of time and have a lot of friends in both. In Texas, a middle class income sets you up with a decent house, in a decent hood, with a decent school district, and a fairly low stress life. You mix with others from random walks of life. In California, it feels like you spend every dollar just to survive, and you tend to associate with a narrower spectrum of peers.
- tzs 11y ago
  Is it actually possible to have a "decent school district" in Texas after what the Texas State Board of Education has done to the history textbooks? McCarthy's blacklists were justified because of widespread Communist infiltration? Slavery was just a side issue in the Civil War? No mention of Jim Crow or the Ku Klux Klan? Four major thinkers who greatly influenced the Founding Fathers were Locke, Montesquieu, Blackstone, and Moses? Science doesn't really fare well with the Texas State Board of Education, either.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  > In Texas, a middle class income sets you up with a decent house, in a decent hood, with a decent school district, and a fairly low stress life. Of course, the hard part is obtaining a middle-class income in Texas.
saryant 11y ago
I think "significant" is probably overstating things. In the bottom quintile in San Jose has a 12.9% chance of making it to the top, Houston is 9.3% (nearly the same as Sacramento). I grew up in California but moved to Houston half-way through high school. The school I wound up in in Houston was light-years better than the one I left in California.

nether 11y ago

At least California lets Tesla sell cars without dealerships. How's that for Texas small government?

dang 11y ago

No tangential flamewars on Hacker News, please. Perhaps there's a substantive point to be made about California and Texas, but flat-out tribal/ideological provocation is the opposite of that, and not ok here.

nugget 11y ago
My comment wasn't meant to be tangential or start a flamewar. I think the article hits upon one of the most important issues of our time, namely how we want to structure our most important urban centers moving forward. There are very real quality of life issues at stake. Like many others here, I don't think of myself as Californian or Texan but as an American who has lived in various places at various times and who votes with his feet as opportunity arises. I used a bit of tongue in cheek snarkiness to drive the point home. Imagine my first comment as a political cartoon and you might see it in a better light.
- dang 11y ago
  It always feels like this from the inside: > I used a bit of tongue in cheek snarkiness to drive the point home But the dynamics from the outside are different. The snark doesn't "drive the point home"; it calls attention to itself, obscuring your point. Of the people who read that, some will not experience it in a tongue-in-cheek way; of those, some will feel hurt and angry; some will typically respond with incivility—feeling justified, since they were provoked. These provoke others, and down the tedious spiral we go. Maybe it's their problem for being offended, but when is that not the case? The thread goes up in flames anyway. This problem is intrinsic to a large semi-anonymous internet forum. Think of it like a campground in an area that's high-risk for forest fires. You'd automatically be careful there, to protect the shared space. HN's solution to this problem is to require comments to be civil and substantive. A thoughtful comment like your reply here raises the whole quality of the discussion. You obviously have some nuanced things to say about this topic. Please give us the nuances.