Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm I don't see Texas being the opposite of CA at all. I'd say opposite of Texas would be something like Massachusetts. California cities mostly feel like slightly nicer versions of Texas cities, and outside of SF proper they have a similar suburban, decentralized buildout. Both states are very diverse with a large Hispanic influence, and both contain major cities along with significant rural economies.
Politically, the states are very different mainly because California is controlled by the urban populations in the major cities whereas Texas is not.
That said, I certainly wouldn't pick Texas in this poll or argue that it has been "Californiaized". It's more that I don't find the established Texas culture and the established California culture all that different in the grand scheme of things.
I'm not sure I believe this. Texas has very large and populous cities and many counties with more oil or cows or wind turbines than people. I am inclined to believe that Texas is influenced heavily by it's suburban counties just like California is as you pointed out. It's just that Texas is well... Texas.
I do agree with your post overall though that Texas and California are not as different as people like to argue they are. If I had to argue Texas' opposite, it would be Rhode Island, and if I had to argue California's opposite, and this is a tough one, probably Alaska.
If you are referring to California’s stifling big government tendency to micromanage everyone/everything and tax you to death for the privilege….Nevada is the opposite of that.
If you consider liberalism to be the opposite of libertarian than California and Nevada are polar opposites.
Oregon, Washington and Colorado have shifted the most towards California-style, big government that I have noticed in the past few decades.
If you are considering just the population demographics etc, yes Nevada is full of retired or transplanted Californians and we have a relatively small population so we could have the most former Californians as a percentage of our population.
I do agree with your post overall though that Texas and California are not as different as people like to argue they are. If I had to argue Texas' opposite, it would be Rhode Island, and if I had to argue California's opposite, and this is a tough one, probably Alaska.
I think West Virginia is California's opposite. The state is landlocked, dominated by declining fossil fuel industries, predominantly rural, culturally homogeneous, elderly and socially conservative. I would agree with Rhode Island being the opposite of Texas.
Hmm I don't see Texas being the opposite of CA at all. I'd say opposite of Texas would be something like Massachusetts. California cities mostly feel like slightly nicer versions of Texas cities, and outside of SF proper they have a similar suburban, decentralized buildout. Both states are very diverse with a large Hispanic influence, and both contain major cities along with significant rural economies.
Politically, the states are very different mainly because California is controlled by the urban populations in the major cities whereas Texas is not.
That said, I certainly wouldn't pick Texas in this poll or argue that it has been "Californiaized". It's more that I don't find the established Texas culture and the established California culture all that different in the grand scheme of things.
I will tell you where both states are very similar: about 90% of the population of both states occupies 10% of the land. Outside of El Paso, most of the population is on I-10 and I-35 and comprises Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio and Houston in a small area. Dallas-Forth Worth is relatively far apart relative to the other 3 major cities. Austin and San Antonio are as close to each other as Oakland is to Sacramento. Then you have huge swaths of where no one lives. In California it is much of the mountainous areas and the Mojave Desert. I drove from Needles to Barstow and the population is near zero. The same could be said of Texas from Junction to Far East El Paso.
Nevada is, essentially, the California hinterland.
If “California” became its own country, it would/should consist of the current:
California (U.S. State—also known as Alta California) Baja California Peninsula (Mexico—the states of Baja California and Baja California Sur) Nevada (U.S. State)
Surprised that Utah is not listed...I heard that Californians like to move to that state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintX
Utah should definitely be listed. SLC is like California-lite.
I didn't list Utah because Utah has the highest percentage of native born residents out of all the Western states at 61%. It's a very homegrown state not really known for being full of transplants, especially California transplants. Salt Lake City is somewhat an outlier as it's a small city filled with so many transplants and they haven't overwhelmed the local dominant culture
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
