Economist Magazine article: California vs. Texas (homes, neighborhoods, buy)

[hoffdano]

A very new article comparing the two states. An interesting read.

California v Texas: America's future | The Economist

[hsw]

Interesting topic; thanks for pointing out article

Common sense suggests only a few million people (?<3MM) "need" to live/work in CA to fuel its lucrative, innovative tech and finance industries in SiliconValley and perform well-compensated blue-collar support tasks (don't many gvt employees in CA earn >>$100K/yr for dubious quality work?)

Not sure what the many millions in LA (or SD) really do...entertainment industry is relatively small and dual-HQd in NYC and LA; LA's finance industry is puny compared to SV's

Unfortunately, TX has not shown an ability to create valuable new companies; consider Austin's lack of new, valuable cos., aside from smallish (and now ancient) Dell

Dallas is a favored destination for major corporate HQ relocations and Hou is home of boom-and-bust oil&gas industry

Suspect TX's attraction of low-wage, low-skill jobs from CA or NYC or Chic is a dangerous, non-sustainable game (much like the approach of China or India today...or Japan in '80s); inevitably, costs and taxes will go up (as will social ills) and such low-level, non-innovative jobs will migrate to next place w/lower costs/taxes

Already, upscale suburbs of Dallas or Houston or Austin cost far more than upscale suburbs of Silicon Valley or NYC (compare land costs); thus, suspect cost equilibration is not far away....and CA's intellectual/innovation culture (in Silicon Valley)/weather/topography/produce/hedonism (on LA's Westside) are awfully addictive, esp if costs are relatively similar for high-income, high-skill workers or entrepreneurs

But generally agree, most mundane jobs really have no sense being located in high-cost, high-tax SF or LA or NYC....suburban Dallas and Houston are far more efficient places for most businesses and workers, esp in newer suburbs rather than ancient cities and suburbs

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by hsw

Interesting topic; thanks for pointing out article

Common sense suggests only a few million people (?<3MM) "need" to live/work in CA to fuel its lucrative, innovative tech and finance industries in SiliconValley and perform well-compensated blue-collar support tasks (don't many gvt employees in CA earn >>$100K/yr for dubious quality work?)

Not sure what the many millions in LA (or SD) really do...entertainment industry is relatively small and dual-HQd in NYC and LA; LA's finance industry is puny compared to SV's

Unfortunately, TX has not shown an ability to create valuable new companies; consider Austin's lack of new, valuable cos., aside from smallish (and now ancient) Dell

Dallas is a favored destination for major corporate HQ relocations and Hou is home of boom-and-bust oil&gas industry

Suspect TX's attraction of low-wage, low-skill jobs from CA or NYC or Chic is a dangerous, non-sustainable game (much like the approach of China or India today...or Japan in '80s); inevitably, costs and taxes will go up (as will social ills) and such low-level, non-innovative jobs will migrate to next place w/lower costs/taxes

Already, upscale suburbs of Dallas or Houston or Austin cost far more than upscale suburbs of Silicon Valley or NYC (compare land costs); thus, suspect cost equilibration is not far away....and CA's intellectual/innovation culture (in Silicon Valley)/weather/topography/produce/hedonism (on LA's Westside) are awfully addictive, esp if costs are relatively similar for high-income, high-skill workers or entrepreneurs

But generally agree, most mundane jobs really have no sense being located in high-cost, high-tax SF or LA or NYC....suburban Dallas and Houston are far more efficient places for most businesses and workers, esp in newer suburbs rather than ancient cities and suburbs

Not sure I agree with much of what you posted. I agree Austin's tech industry hasn't produced any notable new companies recently. But as someone in that industry in Austin - I can tell you people are still trying. Small companies are being created and investment is being made. Dell may be on a long term slow decline, but it is hardly small. Silicon Valley is home to many companies declining in influence and power too. Sun is dying and only being propped up by Oracle. Sybase means almost nothing. The chip business is soft everywhere.

As for upscale suburbs - can't speak with first hand knowledge of Dallas, but upscale Austin homes are $200-$300 sq. ft. Where can you buy upscale in the Bay Area for that? Prices are stable or declining slightly. Land is less available than a decade ago but it IS available.

[nmnita]

Dallas, as well has upscale neighborhoods with homes running $200 per sq ft and more. I take these studies, stories and stats with a grain of salt. Next week there will be another one deputing all this..

Nita

[CA central coast]

"adopt Texas' welcoming attitude toward Mexico"? Isn't that what helped get us into trouble. By reading the article you would think CA has a rejecting attitude toward immigrants and Texas welcomes them with open arms. Which has been good for Texas and bad for us? That part of the article makes zero sense. California has bent over backwards for Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal. And they have helped bankrupt us.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by CA central coast

"adopt Texas' welcoming attitude toward Mexico"? Isn't that what helped get us into trouble. By reading the article you would think CA has a rejecting attitude toward immigrants and Texas welcomes them with open arms. Which has been good for Texas and bad for us? That part of the article makes zero sense. California has bent over backwards for Mexican immigrants, legal and illegal. And they have helped bankrupt us.

They are not speaking about immigrants per se. Texas is much more accepting of it's Mexican culture and heritage than California is. That is part of the reason Texas has such a large Mexican-American middle class while in California they are the underclass. Why is it that Texas doesn't have the immigration problems CA has? That is because immigrants in Texas don't have to scratch out a life in the lowest-income, most gang-infested neighborhoods in their cities. My wife's Mexico-born, elementary-school educated aunt owns her own business and two homes in San Antonio, while my US-born, US-educated sister-in-law rents a shack in the ghetto in California.

Texans living on the border are vehemently AGAINST border fences as they believe that the border is a political boundary and is irrelevant to their lives, whereas Californians have a decidedly different viewpoint.

[hartford_renter]

I just read the article. It was more about Texas and it's positives and negatives. It did not get into much detail about CA. The positives were low taxes and low regulation - negatives were poor performing public schools and colleges, low graduation rate, lots of uninsured people. It mentioned a study by "executive magazine" that ranked TX 1st for businesses while CA was last.

I didnt understand their logic that TX was somehow more open and accepting to immigrants then CA. Doesnt CA give immigrants free health care/education (I could be wrong here but if CA is much more generous in benefits then TX it would seem logically that the immigrant in CA would get much more govt handouts then TX).

They did mention charter schools and their success in TX.

The article did not talk enough about what were the causes to the problems in CA. They did mention that most spending is done by "budget initiatives" and that you need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes. (This is just from memory I could have this slightly wrong).

My thoughts are why doesnt CA cut spending more, they need cuts in education and social spending. (Ed budget was 50% of total state expenditures). They spend too much that is their problem, as it stands how can they raise taxes they are already one of the highest taxes states.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I didnt understand their logic that TX was somehow more open and accepting to immigrants then CA. Doesnt CA give immigrants free health care/education (I could be wrong here but if CA is much more generous in benefits then TX it would seem logically that the immigrant in CA would get much more govt handouts then TX).

You can welcome immigrants while expecting them to support themselves instead of living off the taxpayer.

[JakeInSoCal]

I dont see people leaving California to go for Texas. They seem to all go to the Mid west our deep south. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think California will bounce back, but probably very different in gov't. And it seems like its the poor moving and I'm not sure whos replacing them, I guess retirees. California and Texas have about the same amount of Hispanic/Latinos has each other and I would think CA would be more accepting but I see how them being mostly lowerclass here affects it. For a long time people have come here and we've expanded way to big. The huge population is part of the problem in why our gov't is so huge.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

I didnt understand their logic that TX was somehow more open and accepting to immigrants then CA. Doesnt CA give immigrants free health care/education (I could be wrong here but if CA is much more generous in benefits then TX it would seem logically that the immigrant in CA would get much more govt handouts then TX).

Texas and Mexico are linked as part of one culture. Whites in Texas accept Mexicans as Texans and tend to ignore illegal / legal distinctions. Texas ranchers cross the border freely and have relationships with Mexican counterparts across the border.

In California that same relationship is a huge element of our class warfare. California STATE may be generous to Mexicans but Calfornia the CULTURE is hardly as welcoming as Texas.