Texas still largest source of Austin's population growth (Houston, Dallas: transplants, real estate)

[cBach]

Well, besides natural increases, the largest source of Austin's population growth is still from other cities in Texas. We are the hub for Houstonians and Dallasites wanting to move to a more beautiful place but still stay in Texas.



Californians are the largest non-Texan state but it is still small compared to Texas. So enough with the "Californians are changing ..." that I hear nonstop.

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/lo...pC1HDQYxq-gHRs

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

I noticed alot of the fastest growing city in each state are college towns. As the country evolves into the information age from the industrial age, it's beginning to look like the college towns are going to be the big drawl as companies are looking for a young and educated work force. These employers are more intersted in brains rather than brawn, like they were in the industrial age.

[AlterEgo42]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

Yep, I've seen numerous reports on this. It's not even close (6%). That might explain why the only real place I ever hear the anti-California talk is in this virtual reality world. I've been here a year and a half now and that talk has been just about non-existent everywhere I go. Much ado about nothing.

Extremely true.

[WhatTheFox]

I am not surprised at all. Austin might hit the top 10s or whatever lists but it is still surrounded by Texas so it makes sense that it mostly gets Texans.

[AlterEgo42]

Originally Posted by JoeSmow

So KVUE's report has roughly 6% from California, but to complete the picture (since I just went through the trouble on another thread), here's the rest of Texas...

To continue on with the rest of this claim, let's look at this bit of information for the entire state (since the claim about Austin is clearly false)...

https://comptroller.texas.gov/econom.../migration.php

Here's one of the key points from the article:

"A 2016 report by the Texas Demographic Center analyzed the state’s migration patterns for the 2009-2013 period in detail. On average, only about 16 percent of moves in this period represented net migration to the state (Exhibit 3). The remainder moved within Texas, with nearly 61 percent staying within the same county."


That's right....16%! Put another way, 84% was internal. And of that 16%, a little over 4% was international migration. So now we're between 11%-12% that came from other states. That amounts to roughly 300k out of a total population change of over 2,700,000. Of that roughly 300k, California amounts to a little under 66k. And that equates to about 2.5% (66,000/2,700,000).

So while it's true that a larger percentage of the 16% of net migration came from California, it's completely disingenuous to imply that the state is being "invaded" by Californians. It's equivalent to saying Davy Crockett invaded the Indians

If anyone that is originally from here wants to start pointing fingers at who is changing the state, the first thing to do would be to stand in front of a mirror.

P.S. And yes, I realize these reports are dated a few years, but let's not be ridiculous. The state didn't go from having 2.5% from California to some outrageous number of people "invading" here.

Ummm. Nobody on the thread was disagreeing with the original premise.

[Axiomatic]

Have heard it explained as "Okies-in-reverse." Texans/Oklahomans moving to California (1930s), and their descendents "returning" to Texas and Oklahoma (2000s).

Does it really matter? We're all Americans. I've lived in, and been welcomed in, five U.S. states, including California and Texas.

[earthisle]

Like I have said, most transplants are from Texas suburbs, that's why people are so closed off and unfriendly, and increasingly so. That's their culture

[cBach]

There's a filtering of sorts.

The more liberally minded people from Houston and Dallas settle in central Austin. They most often moved to Austin because they were fed up with the problems in those cities and wanted to live in the Peoples Republic of Austin.

The conservatives from small Texas towns, Louisiana, and other conservative areas end up settling in Round Rock or Cedar Park or retire near the lake. They tend to be upper middle class. A lot of them are only here for economic reasons and these are the people that if you talk to them in a bar they are extremely defensive pro-Trump people. They tend to smash the Austin city council even though they aren't in the city limits so they don't have a right to do so.

Most of the Californians that move here move for economic reasons as well, but they want to live in an area that has the scenery they are used to. They typically settle in the Hill Country area near the lake. They are usually social liberals but sometimes fiscal "Orange County" type fiscal conservatives. Once here, their views are considered very liberal by Austinites because our measuring stick is Texas conservatism. The ones from the Bay Area usually settle downtown and buy the priciest real estate because it seems cheap to them, and they are extremely far left liberals.

Most of the New Yorkers that move here move for economic or climate reasons and if they are a Brooklyn hipster you'll find them on the Eastside. The others either get a highrise downtown or a home close to downtown. There are some NJ suburbanites that tend to congregate in RR or Cedar Park too.

[ScoPro]

People talk politics in social settings? Why?

[earthisle]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

People talk politics in social settings? Why?

Probably because politics is important. It literally governs how people live