[blakesq]

not that interesting. most people recognize that cherry picking statistics is really another way of trying to hide the truth. The truth being that Texas has done very well, people are FLOCKING to texas for the opportunity there, just as they are leaving Connecticut and the NE.

Originally Posted by basehead617

Interesting that no one has responded to hamellr's post of state rankings.

I think that post says it all - you can see what comes with your 'low cost of living' in pretty brutal terms.

You get what you pay for. ALWAYS.. you just might not know it at first glance.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by blakesq

not that interesting. most people recognize that cherry picking statistics is really another way of trying to hide the truth. The truth being that Texas has done very well, people are FLOCKING to texas for the opportunity there, just as they are leaving Connecticut and the NE.

Please post statistics that aren't "cherry picked" to prove your point.

[bobtn]

hamellr, Remember your 6th Congressman. During the same period, Texas added Congressmen. That 6th Congressman was lost due to Ct outbound migration of the mid 90s, and if the next census growth remains the same for Ct and the US overall, Ct will be down to 4. Its simply Ct (or any state pop)/US pop *435. They use round up, so CT or any state with 5 holds 5 if the calculated answer noted here comes back 4.01 or higher.

This census resulted in 7 seats lost in Northeast and Rust Belt, with 7 pickups in South. Texas had 2 of those 7, I believe. Its based strictly on percentage of US census in ones state, lose Congressmen = lost population as % of total, gain them = reverse.

Now do you think the census cherry-picks?

PS, BLS publishes state-to-state migration in aggregate by state (i.e. not Ct-Tx, but Ct out, Ct in, Tx out, Tx in, etc). Qty in vs qty out. Last 5 year period I spotted was -68k for Ct, a pickup throughout the South, but Texas' growth rate exceeds almost all other states. It is done a few years after the fact, as it takes enormous time to generate the data.

[blakesq]

No need. Everyone knows that there is plenty of opportunity in Texas, and a dearth of opportunity in the NE.

Originally Posted by hamellr

Please post statistics that aren't "cherry picked" to prove your point.

[Angelic_Avalon]

Howdy partna,

I really dont believe the reason for Texas population growth come from people moving down there from the northeast, or much to do with moving in from northern states. I even know a few people that move there now leaving because they hate it there.

Look, one of the biggest reason for Texas large population is a huge teen-pregnancy (which we all should know that New England has the lowest teen-pregnancy)... we also know that the Mexicans love making big family in TEXAS, also it's size land. Look how big is the land of Texas! I can careless if Texas get so big because really there wont be enough job for all those POOR people, plus look how they get so dried I think water bill would be bigger than Connecticut in the future, and I'm sure those people down there sure know how to dry up those reservoir!

Good luck Texas,,, eeeey howwwwww LMAO give me some of that good old country square dance yall cow-boyz and start making those babies...

Even Teen Birth Rates Are Bigger in Texas | Mother Jones

[bobtn]

Angelic, In aggregate Texas gained population via state-to-state migration. In aggregate, every Northeastern state except Massachusetts has lost population via state-to-state migration. The problem it poses for the Northeast is a dearth of influence in DC, while Texas gains more and more clout, as do its Southern neighbors. Its also a matter of synergy; the lack of pop growth in the Northeast has led to decades of no new net job creation there , with Massachusetts being the lone exception.

[Angelic_Avalon]

^ I bet most of them are also from Mexico lol

[bobtn]

LOL, Angelic, there are tons no doubt, but BLS does not yet include Mexico in state-to-state migration stats. Obviously, Perry's comments struck a nerve. I'm not a fan of his, but people are over-reacting to a passing statement.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73

I am going to add my two cents to this. I get a little cranky with all this smugness and self-congratulatin'.

The median price of a single family house in TX is $125K. If you hold to the "30% of gross rule" for principal, interest, taxes, insurance and PMI, that means that a household that makes $13.50/hour all in, 2080 hours a year, or $6.75 an hour for two people, e.g., 4080 hours a year, can afford a single family residence. On the average. That's assuming 1% property taxes (reasonable) and another 1% (homeowners' insurance plus PMI). That's right, total fixed housing costs between $8100/yr and $8500/yr.

Now, I don't know about you. But for me, "quality of life" means "not having to worry about having food and a roof over my head". Given good friends and pinochle, you'd probably be surprised at how little it actually takes to live a satisfying life. By that standard, TX gets a pretty good score, in my book.

I've made a very good living in both places, and I can tell you from walking through the simulation that it is possible to ratchet down in Texas to where your income stream of last resort would cover your living expenses. As you all know from teevee shows, it's also possible to live at the other extreme. Connecticut does not offer the chance to live with dignity, from the fruits of your own labor, at the lower end of the spectrum.

And, need I say - as a result of the gun laws in TX, the lowest income areas are relatively safe. E.g., it's not only the criminals who have guns. In CT, the lowest income areas are filled with people with nothing to do other than stew with resentment at the prosperity of the well off. Unemployed, and unemployable in the traditional sense. A resentful entitlement class in CT. A low income, self sufficient class in TX. Both at the same income levels, but in TX they have their pride and the dignity of work.

You may scoff at the educational standards, etc. - however, truth be told, the CT board has a smattering of educated folk just barely hanging on. Stuck, despite their educational attainments. Fact is, there is simply no economic vitality for the thousands of folks who took out non-dischargeable student loans, and must now pay them back with no prospect of income. Unless you are of the entitlement class, it is impossible to live a low income life with a semblance of independence, dignity and self respect in CT.

Fact is, in CT you need a college degree and bilingual ability to work as a sign waver. The middle class jobs left long ago. The people in CT who have what I define as good quality of life? The entitlement class and state unionized workers.

So, stop with the mutual back-slappin' and self-congratulatin', already. TX ain't all that bad, if you value living an independent - albeit sparsely appointed - life. In fact, if you are living on the edge of desperation, as are some who have written here, TX might well represent a better life. Or so believe the tens of thousands of former CT professionals who have fled there over the past ten years and stayed, despite the conventional wisdom.

Source: US Census Bureau, Net Internal Migration tables, published quarterly

You're trying to attach free market supply and demand in the housing market to political policy. Two different things. Just look at nyc cost of housing(or even long island area) vs. Buffalo. Same state politics. Two drastically different housing costs.

[Tin Knocker]

Why on earth would anybody want their state to look like ours politically or economically? I mean, its a beautiful place but the fact is there is no place else in the US you can choose to live that taxes their people as much as CT does yet they all provide the same services to tax payers. I guess if your looking to milk the system its not so bad but as far as working & raising a family its not hard to top CT.