What do South Africans mean when they make the following complaints about Australia?

[TrueDat]

Originally Posted by ukaussi

Agreed.

Here in the US it is often the opposite as everyone ******* about their "amendments" and "rights" which often lead to people doing what they want at others expense.
Funniest part, one of the most regulated states is California (where I live) and some people complain about the regulations but if they moved elsewhere to somewhere like Texas (many religious based laws, lots of guns, bad drivers etc) they would be quick to move back :P

Uh, not necessarily. As a former Californian who's not all that religious and who has no plans (currently) to move back, I can say that you're engaging in stereotype and cliche. As if bad drivers don't exist in California. And, according to this BBC story, lots of newcomers don't find Texas all that bad. BBC News - 10 reasons why so many people are moving to Texas

Though I once heard Australia described as "Texas without margaritas," it is true that a lot of people here in Texas would find Australia too much of a nanny state.

[drive carephilly]

Per the OP, I can kind of see the "nanny state thing" (bicycle helmet laws, traffic cameras everywhere, etc) but I wouldn't call it bland and I don't find any of the other things to be true. I don't know much about South Africa or how entrepreneurial it is but that's not really what comes to mind when I think of it.

Originally Posted by TrueDat

Uh, not necessarily. As a former Californian who's not all that religious and who has no plans (currently) to move back, I can say that you're engaging in stereotype and cliche. As if bad drivers don't exist in California. And, according to this BBC story, lots of newcomers don't find Texas all that bad. BBC News - 10 reasons why so many people are moving to Texas

Though I once heard Australia described as "Texas without margaritas," it is true that a lot of people here in Texas would find Australia too much of a nanny state.

If you're talking about climate/bioregion then you could probably make a few comparisons between parts of TX and parts of Oz - otherwise the two places are nothing alike.

Joel Kotkin (quoted heavily in that article you linked) is an infamous ideologue in the world of demography and city planning. He loves to cherry pick and to switch back and forth between percentages and raw numbers when it suits him. Like when he refers to Hoboken and Jersey City as "suburban" to point out that the fastest growth in the NYC region is not occurring in Manhattan (because, according to him, no one wants to live in a dense, crowded city like NY - with zero sense of irony.)

Anyway, in a populous country with a dynamic economy one would expect a lot of internal mobility. The more populous the state the more people are going to be moving in and out of it every year. A lot of people move out of TX every year but more have been moving in than moving out. CA, NY and FL lost the most people to TX. Those states + TX also happen to be the 4 most populous states.

Top ten states by net loss to TX/percentage of state population:
CA - 21,905/.05% (note the decimal point - that's 1/20th of a percent)
NY - 17,004/.08%
FL - 10,245/.05%
NC - 8,335/.09%
AZ - 7,385/.11%
KS - 6191/.21%
MD - 5824/.09%
MI - 5719/.06%
MN - 4629/.09%
AK - 4178/.57%

Why would so many people from CA, NY and NC (states known for strong tech sectors and well educated workforces) move to TX, a state with a high rate of poverty and low educational attainment? Maybe because TX lacks a qualified, homegrown workforce and people are attracted by the relative premium employers are willing to pay compared to the low cost of living? Or are these people close to retirement age and they're simply cashing out their expensive homes in LA or SF and moving to places with much lower costs of living like AZ, NV and TX (the 3 biggest destinations for ex-Californians).

Texas did lose people to 13 states. Some of the biggest gains were CO, ND and LA and when I see those states together the first thing that comes to mind is "oil & gas industry". A lot of people from LA moved to Texas after Katrina - so some of that might be people trickling home.

OK gained 13,000 people from TX. This could be people fleeing the Dallas sprawl or it could be Okies returning home as their state had been losing people to TX for a long time.

WA, OR and MA all net-ed people from TX. Why would Texans (the least transient people in the US) move to those places? Or are most of the people leaving TX actually just going back to Portland, Seattle and Boston after "doing their time" in Austin?

OTOH, I have no idea in the world why 8,000 people from TX would move to SC. (4,000 people moved from SC to TX for a net of 4,000 for SC)

I would suggest though that perhaps a good percentage of these people moving to TX are politically and/or socially better suited to life in TX and that's why you might see more long term gains from certain states. It's no secret that there's been a big social and political sorting going in the US for the last 20 years (even though it's more by county than by state).

[sossie]

Originally Posted by ukaussi

Agreed.

Here in the US it is often the opposite as everyone ******* about their "amendments" and "rights" which often lead to people doing what they want at others expense.
Funniest part, one of the most regulated states is California (where I live) and some people complain about the regulations but if they moved elsewhere to somewhere like Texas (many religious based laws, lots of guns, bad drivers etc) they would be quick to move back :P

This is totally laughable-I doubt you ever stepped foot in Texas and are basing all your experience on whatever the media feeds you. I lived in one of the most liberal states in the USA for many years and now Texas-the drivers here are no worse than anywhere else in the USA -And no we all don't walk around toting guns and there's an awful lot of people have no interest in religion either. Plenty of people here from Cali too-not to mention MA NJ and NY they all appear to be pretty happy in TX and not fighting to move back-so please base it on fact not stereotypes.

As for SAfricans not wanting to move to OZ thats there choice....plenty of them do though-guess OZ is not that bad after all !

[TrueDat]

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

Why would so many people from CA, NY and NC (states known for strong tech sectors and well educated workforces) move to TX, a state with a high rate of poverty and low educational attainment? Maybe because TX lacks a qualified, homegrown workforce and people are attracted by the relative premium employers are willing to pay compared to the low cost of living? Or are these people close to retirement age and they're simply cashing out their expensive homes in LA or SF and moving to places with much lower costs of living like AZ, NV and TX (the 3 biggest destinations for ex-Californians).

This is getting off-topic but this is only partially true. It's not just about old people looking for a cheap place to die or Christian families looking for cheap suburban McMansions. There are plenty of young people from all over the world drawn here for the tech and telecom industries -- Dell, Texas Instruments, AT&T, etc., not to mention health care (Texas Medical Center, the world's largest) and, of course, oil and gas. There are plenty of startups here like SoftLayer Technologies which just got bought by IBM for what's believed to be $2 billion. University of Texas Dallas is at the forefront of nano-technology research. As of 2011, Texas came in 2nd in terms of tech jobs TechAmerica Foundation : Texas Remains the Nation

Back to your regularly scheduled programming about Oz and SA.