[austin356]

Though I like good climates why is the talk on here so focused on such?

I think many people want to hide the real factors which is the problems created by governments in the slow growth areas.

-High taxes and regulation have negatively affected the north and northeast. The exceptions to this (NYC, BOS, and SF, are in spite of, in which the spite comes because said cities are sooo very favorable to live in, build enviroment wise)

-Housing cost, of which is DIRECTLY attributable to land use policies by governments. If you look you will find that the least regulated market (Houston) is the very cheapest in the nation, while the most regulated market (SF) is the most expensive. There is a direct correlation between government intervention in land use and housing cost.

-Middle class "paradise" that has formed in southern suburbia. A brand new big house and big yard for less than 200k.


Even though I admit that the above factors I mentioned, which are problems (or solutions to some ppl) can directly attributed to the governments, there really is not that massive of a fundamental difference between even the policies of NY and Texas. The tax burden is not extremely higher and the regulatory regime, though more stringent, is not insanely so. But, there is a difference, and the last few decades show that even same changes in government can have exponentially greater effects on results (aka the market is more powerful than even I thought)



We can all see the effects, unless we are too close minded to even give the situation a unbiased analyzation. The real debate should be like this:

-Are the sideeffects of cheap, middle class housing worth the negative ramifications? (this is subjective at its very core).