What makes Texas so appealing?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by jd3189

It's not just about owning a house. Apartment rental are high as well and unless you live in the core of LA or SF, there isn't any good reliable public transportation, according to your definition in another thread. Thus, you are forced to drive through horrendous traffic most of the time, which reduces the quality of life. Thus, still living in crap conditions.


The best way to fix that is to simply allow Brooklyn/ Queens/ North side Chicago like density and transit coverage in many communities over a short period of time. Pretty much turn more of LA into Hollywood and Koreatown like neighborhoods. That alone would allow more people to stay.

Thats exactly whats happening in LA. From Santa Monica to Culver City to the rest of core LA, there are probably hundreds of projects currently being built or proposed, mostly along or near rail lines

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I found these graphics telling:



At least when it comes to the more highly paid workers who use Linked In, nearly as many move to the Bay Area from Texas as leave it for Texas and most workers who leave the Bay Area don't go to Texas, they go to other areas on the west coast.

A lot of youngish professionals (out of college-early 50's) are highly mobile and will move across state lines for career mobility. I have interviewed jobs in San Antonio, CA, DC and NC (market intelligence for Lowe's) and would have taken them if things panned out. I was recently contacted by a VP some some gov't contractor on LinkedIn and asked if I would be wiling to move to NoVA. That would be a hell yes.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

True. "Native Californians" are losing out to more competitive in-migrants from other states and other countries and leaving, either when they retire or when they find themselves not qualified for the high-paying jobs being created by this new cohort. Darwin was right.

LinkedIn doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story. There's another graphic I've seen out there that shows the movement between MSAs for the ten largest US metro areas. Not sure how this is anywhere close to Darwin's theory when you have companies like Toyota that moves thousands of jobs to suburban Dallas. Or Nestle moving from Glendale. Etc. No matter how you slice it, California is losing it's middle class (people making between 50k-125k), which holds the economy. How do you know those people aren't qualified? California is increasingly becoming a have and have-not place.

[Dale]

I love Texas for many reasons. One is the "Don't Mess With Texas" feisty type of identity. Another is that it is always growing and changing.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by Trae

LinkedIn doesn't tell anywhere near the whole story. There's another graphic I've seen out there that shows the movement between MSAs for the ten largest US metro areas. Not sure how this is anywhere close to Darwin's theory when you have companies like Toyota that moves thousands of jobs to suburban Dallas. Or Nestle moving from Glendale. Etc. No matter how you slice it, California is losing it's middle class (people making between 50k-125k), which holds the economy. How do you know those people aren't qualified? California is increasingly becoming a have and have-not place.

Maybe he meant that California is selecting itself for extinction.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Thats exactly whats happening in LA. From Santa Monica to Culver City to the rest of core LA, there are probably hundreds of projects currently being built or proposed, mostly along or near rail lines

Well, hopefully it continues and even ramps up. No offense to either California or Texas, but it's just crazy that it's losing the people that actually make it what it is today. Hopefully Texas never experiences that type of situation. But then again, cities in every state, especially the coastal ones, have to find ways to be more urban. I'm fine with certain places always being expensive, but not places that weren't expensive before. We need to reduce our fixation on building wealth on a piece of dirt.

[Marv95]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Exactly. Which pretty much answers the thread's question. If you can't afford living in the coast without living in crap conditions, why stay and continue to live in crap conditions? At least in Texas you can live pretty well despite the weather and politics.

No one is forcing you to live on the coast. Move east. Fresno, Bakersfield, even Sactown and the Inland Empire aren't too expensive last I checked.

Politics goes both ways. Lots of non-liberals have moved out of Cal due to the politics. Many of em have moved to Texas and other western states not on the coast.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Marv95

No one is forcing you to live on the coast. Move east. Fresno, Bakersfield, even Sactown and the Inland Empire aren't too expensive last I checked.

Politics goes both ways. Lots of non-liberals have moved out of Cal due to the politics. Many of em have moved to Texas and other western states not on the coast.

With the possible exception of Sacremento, those places aren’t really California.

Yes they are part of the state of California, but they don’t share the attributes (proximity to ocean, mild climate, scenery, progressive politics and population, etc) that make California appealing to those who find California appealing.

I’ve been to Fresno and Bakersfield, and would certainly prefer Austin over either of those. But those cities are not “on the coast”. The Central Valley of California is basically Texas anyway.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Marv95

No one is forcing you to live on the coast. Move east. Fresno, Bakersfield, even Sactown and the Inland Empire aren't too expensive last I checked.

Politics goes both ways. Lots of non-liberals have moved out of Cal due to the politics. Many of em have moved to Texas and other western states not on the coast.

Yeah, that's true as well, but then it really brings into question the ultimate goal of many people on SSP and other urban forums/groups.


Many of us love cities and wish that the US could be more urbanize so that a higher percentage of Americans could live in a urban environment so that the suburbs can be done away with ( at least, that's what I have been understanding with almost every thread in this section.


However, most, if not all the very urban cities in this country are very expensive and are out of reach for even middle class folks.


Since the middle class is the largest percentage of Americans at least right now, having them be a larger percentage of a city would make that city more representative of America as a whole. Plus the middle class drive the local and far reaching economic power of a city, so having more of them keeps things steady.


However, if these people can't afford to live in an urban environment, they will chose to live in the suburbs, which is a place so many urbanites ( especially here) despise.


So, it begs the question. What do we want? Do we want cities to be a place for all economic classes living relatively well with what the city provides while urbanizing suburbs and making them less suburban? Or are we okay with cities just being places for the rich and poor which everyone else lives in the suburbs?


To be honest, I don't mind living in San Bernardino, Sacramento, or the Central Valley. I'm actually going to live in one of these places soon and will have access to the coast via transit. Yeah, the weather and attractions are better near the coast, but I would need a damn good job to live there. But I'm happy living in the suburbs.


Another question is if other people here are okay with that. A lot of former Californians aren't. But it still like this is just how things are going to be. But, yes, are people in this thread okay with that?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by 10023

With the possible exception of Sacremento, those places aren’t really California.

Yes they are part of the state of California, but they don’t share the attributes (proximity to ocean, mild climate, scenery, progressive politics and population, etc) that make California appealing to those who find California appealing.

I’ve been to Fresno and Bakersfield, and would certainly prefer Austin over either of those. But those cities are not “on the coast”. The Central Valley of California is basically Texas anyway.

All of those places are quintessentially California locales. You just happen to have a narrowly defined outsider perspective of stereotypical California attributes.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by badrunner

All of those places are quintessentially California locales. You just happen to have a narrowly defined outsider perspective of stereotypical California attributes.

I disagree, I think he's correct. I actually lived in Bakersfield for a while, and didn't find it particularly Californian in the grand scheme of things. (Contrasted, say, with a place like Santa Barbara, where my gf's uncle lived at the time, and which we visited a few times.)

Bakersfield could've been in Idaho and I don't think I'd have noticed any difference.

So, yeah, if you're going to move to Fresno because that's all you can afford within California, might as well move to Texas or Boston or NC and be closer to the beach and coast in either case.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by lio45

I disagree, I think he's correct. I actually lived in Bakersfield for a while, and didn't find it particularly Californian in the grand scheme of things. (Contrasted, say, with a place like Santa Barbara, where my gf's uncle lived at the time, and which we visited a few times.)

Bakersfield could've been in Idaho and I don't think I'd have noticed any difference.

You could thank [or blame] Hollywood for that imagery that is burned in people's minds of what California is. There's more to the state than sunshine, palm trees, bikinis, beaches and freeways.

I bet a lot of people don't think blizzards and 10 feet of snow is California either, but the small towns in the foothills of the Sierra and Tahoe are quintessential Californian.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Marv95

No one is forcing you to live on the coast. Move east. Fresno, Bakersfield, even Sactown and the Inland Empire aren't too expensive last I checked.

Politics goes both ways. Lots of non-liberals have moved out of Cal due to the politics. Many of em have moved to Texas and other western states not on the coast.

4.5 million people live in the Inland Empire and there are 6.5 million people that live in the Central Valley and both regions are growing. The Central Valley is 18,000 square miles with a watershed of over 60,000 square miles.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

You could thank [or blame] Hollywood for that imagery that is burned in people's minds of what California is. There's more to the state than sunshine, palm trees, bikinis, beaches and freeways.

I bet a lot of people don't think blizzards and 10 feet of snow is California either, but the small towns in the foothills of the Sierra and Tahoe are quintessential Californian.

I think you might need to reconsider the definition of “quintessential”.

Those places are in California. California is an enormous place. But they are not quintessentially Californian.

More importantly, they don’t have the attributes, from weather to scenery to job opportunities, that make California such an appealing place to live. So again, if you’re going to have to move to Fresno or Bakersfield to afford California, then you might as well live in suburban Dallas or Waco. And barely anyone lives in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, relative to the population of California.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by badrunner

All of those places are quintessentially California locales. You just happen to have a narrowly defined outsider perspective of stereotypical California attributes.

Quintessential? Not in my definition. the "outsider perspective" of Califiornia is exactly what's appealing about California. Isn't that what we're talking about here?

No one is "California Dreamin'" of living in Bakersfield. Nor "wearing flowers in their hair" when they visit Stockton.

Originally Posted by 10023

I think you might need to reconsider the definition of “quintessential”.

Those places are in California. California is an enormous place. But they are not quintessentially Californian.

More importantly, they don’t have the attributes, from weather to scenery to job opportunities, that make California such an appealing place to live. So again, if you’re going to have to move to Fresno or Bakersfield to afford California, then you might as well live in suburban Dallas or Waco. And barely anyone lives in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, relative to the population of California.

Yup

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

I think you might need to reconsider the definition of “quintessential”.

Those places are in California. California is an enormous place. But they are not quintessentially Californian.

More importantly, they don’t have the attributes, from weather to scenery to job opportunities, that make California such an appealing place to live. So again, if you’re going to have to move to Fresno or Bakersfield to afford California, then you might as well live in suburban Dallas or Waco. And barely anyone lives in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, relative to the population of California.

Yeah those 6.5 million Californians living in California and doing what Californians have historically done, isn't the real California.

Now all those newly arrived tech bros living in Silicon Valley from India -- that's California.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Yeah those 6.5 million Californians living in California and doing what Californians have historically done, isn't the real California.

It isn't the desirable CA. 90% of what makes CA appealing is within a few miles of the ocean.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Now all those newly arrived tech bros living in Silicon Valley from India -- that's California.

True. CA is largely defined by immigration, innovation and risk-taking. SV is archetypal CA.

[JManc]

What is quintessential "California" the version depicted in post cards on Hollywood blvd? If

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Reverberation

In Phoenix you can drive an hour north and be in cooler temps. Same with El Paso. The high in Houston today is supposed to be 98 with 55% humidity. 40 minutes away in Galveston, it will be 88. If you commute from Kemah or Seabrook, it will be close to almost 10 degrees cooler at your house than it will be at your office. It’s still hot but it also isn’t quadruple the price and people aren’t living in Winnebagos next to city parks. I’m not saying that it’s awful and there aren’t any merits to living in LA or the Bay Area. I know from experience that there are. What I’m saying is that the “housing crisis” there is moving into its second decade and if anything, getting much worse. It used to be that you would forego a large house for a smaller one (needing some work) with an appealing lifestyle. Now you forego the house entirely, along with most apartments and that cancels out the lifestyle appeal. Unless of course you moved to California before the mid 90s. In that case you can cash out but if you do, you can probably never afford to go back.

The truth is with modern air conditioning the heat is really quite irrelevant to your daily life. (also it isn't that bad once you live in it)

[sopas ej]

I've never been to Texas, and I don't want to put it down, but at least Bakersfield and Fresno are still in California. I've been to Bakersfield, and only THROUGH Fresno (though my partner and I are planning a day trip to Fresno some time in the fall because we found out there's a Japanese garden there we wanna see).

There's nothing really exciting about Bakersfield, but I wouldn't doubt that it probably has a few Zen Centers and yoga studios, if you want "quintessential" California, haha. And the San Joaquin Valley has great Mexican restaurants; why wouldn't it? Mexicans and Mexican-Americans live there.

Plus, if I lived in Fresno, I would be close to Yosemite, Sequoia National Park, good skiing (I don't ski), some cute mountain towns... and San Francisco is only a three-hour drive away north, and LA is a 3-hour drive south. If and when the high-speed rail ever gets completed, you wouldn't even have to drive to either city from Fresno, and get there quickly.

And, since it's still California, you get the social benefits of living in California. I brought this up earlier in the thread... my cousin, who lives in Florida, has stage 4 breast cancer. She has been missing a lot of work so she can do her cancer treatments. I thought maybe she could apply for short-term disability to help her out financially... years ago, when my dad had a heart attack, he was able to take unpaid medical leave from his job and receive 4 months of state disability payments while he recovered and went to physical therapy. That was a good thing. But apparently Florida doesn't even have state disability. In fact, because I mentioned that earlier in this thread, I looked it up online and found out that most states *DON"T* have state disability; I just assumed that would be a universal thing, right? Only California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island have some form of state short-term disability, with California's being the most generous (you can get up to a year). Everywhere else, you are shit out of luck.

California is also one of a number of states that have FMLA leave that goes beyond federal FMLA (called CFRA). You can get an extended 12 weeks of job-protected leave once the standard federal FMLA 12 weeks expires. Texas also doesn't have that.

So, low taxes, low COL and a "business-friendly environment" can translate to shitty social services.