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.
Or maybe Texas is just less materialistic as a whole.
Not really. I would say in some ways they're more materialistic. In Texas the goal is not generally to be millionaires but upper middle class. There is a kind of "humble arrogance" to the way some Texans love to talk about how they were able to do so much more with so little or be comfortable with something less when they could've had more. They didn't need fancy schools, cars or fancy startups, it was all "gumption".
For instance I just received a reputation comment that read like this: "My A&M engineering classmates in the mid 90's starting at 90k & are executives now, most making 250+. Unlike Northern fancy private graduates (like anyone buys that) A&M big boys don't chat on a city forum 24/7."
A.) I am not an engineering grad so I would hope that he would be making more than I.
B.) If we are trying to compare equal grads, my friend who graduated with an engineering degree from Penn went on to work for Goldman in NYC, probably ended up making 100+ by the time he was out in 2 years, went to work for the Federal Reserve Bank of NY and is now at Harvard Business School. I am sure he will making over 250 in a couple of years and didn't have to wait from the mid 90s.
C.) I know that a lot of private colleges are overvalued in comparison to your local flagship but there is still a difference between an Ivy and A&M no matter how you slice it. If you think going to a top school is all about getting a job and the salary afterward, then that's probably why you've never attended one. It would probably be more practical to attend an A&M if that's all you're looking for.
This bickering is all ridiculous though. I was never harping on Texas. I find the State to be beautiful, charming and the people to be far more interesting and witty than people from the coasts. I always miss them, even the good ol' boys before we get to talking about politics or religion. The point was that the humble arrogant, stubborness to not accept that some things are nicer or better or whatnot gets annoying. The Chrysler is not better than the Mercedes.
It's not that some folks think the Chrysler = Mercedes. It's that they think that wanting a Mercedes so badly as to be willing to spend all that extra $ indicates a character flaw, or at least a bizarre idiosyncrasy. If you're going to spend the resources - questionable because you could be saving those resources for future use (i.e., retirement) - then spend them on having a greater quantity or bigger size of Chrysler, or a fishing boat, or four-wheeler - things that deliver what they consider as "real value" - not what they perceive as a silly California bauble that delivers nothing extra but shiny vanity and the inconvenience and cost of having to deal with it.
Please don't take this to mean that I personally agree with this statement...
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,138,083 times
Reputation: 3145
Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalPlanner
It's not that some folks think the Chrysler = Mercedes. It's that they think that wanting a Mercedes so badly as to be willing to spend all that extra $ indicates a character flaw, or at least a bizarre idiosyncrasy. If you're going to spend the resources - questionable because you could be saving those resources for future use (i.e., retirement) - then spend them on having a greater quantity or bigger size of Chrysler, or a fishing boat, or four-wheeler - things that deliver what they consider as "real value" - not what they perceive as a silly California bauble that delivers nothing extra but shiny vanity and the inconvenience and cost of having to deal with it.
Please don't take this to mean that I personally agree with this statement...
This is precisely what the analogy is meant to uncover. Houston living taught me to compensate for its low quality of life with things. I had a big house and a pool and a convertible sports car. What I lacked was a creatively stimulating environment and an enjoyable urban lifestyle with a unique city culture. Greater quantities of mediocrity does not equal a great lifestyle, with abundant outdoor activities, an innovative, intellectual atmosphere, vibrant neighborhoods, breathtaking scenery, a sense of place, rewarding career (not just job) opportunities, transportation options and the culture that develops around them, local food culture, environmentally sound development, pleasant climate, vastly varied environments to suit any taste, etc.
Some people drive the Mercedes because it's comfortable, luxurious and holds its value, not for status.
I see and agree with your point, dal. However, for many folks that live in or move to Houston, it is the acquisition of larger versions of / numbers of things or stuff that produces value for them. Living in a walkable neighborhood or having a "sense of place" just doesn't ring their cash register. Houston does a great job of attracting these people and produces lots of value for them.
Unfortunately it has yet to produce an environment that attracts significant numbers of folks who share a similar value-generating profile to yours. So, we are probably under-attracting a potential market. Of course, if you think it's a zero-sum game - that having an environment that caters to your values profile will deter folks with the other type of profile - then that issue is moot, because Houston has been successful enough in its existing specialization. I personally think Houston can have a big enough "pie" that both groups can get plenty, if we choose to change at least some of our environment to pick up the portion of the market we're missing.
Dalparadise and Local Planner have taken the discussion to a great level. Thank you both!
That's exactly where I was going with analyzing Houston's potential. At the moment, the appeal of Houston for a lot of people is it's low cost living and despite the lack of environmental stimulation, a bustling urban center, and ample creative opportunities, Houston can be a city for those wishing to accumulate more stuff, in layman's terms; it's a real keeping up with the Joneses type of place.
Because of the high cost of living, the ample creative outlets, the stimulating urban and natural environments, NYC/LA, Boston (all cities I've lived in), the emphasis was not so much on what you had but what you did with your life, what you're doing and what you will do. A career, a job (since Houston lacks creative ones) is means to an end. The end result is to acquire that upper middle class surburban or midtown life that Houston boasts.
That "practical" mindset is very prevalent in Houston. People there will ask, "what was the point of studying this or that if it only got you a 30k job", or "I didn't go to college and now I have house in Creek Ranch Vista Villa Lake Side Wood Glen Estates". It's really not a center conducive to spawn a whole lot of creative outlets for people unless of course those creative people become middle class themselves and "sell out". Then it's respectable and you get your picture/profile in 002 Magazine.
I just don't get why the powers that be will not let Houston be both though? If you want the former I described then you have that galore in the burbs. But why cannot Houston just support the thriving art scene we have here much much more, maybe attract some of that tech growth that's in Austin, etc.
What is the vanguard in Houston afraid of, lol? That we'll be "weird" lilke Austin? That it just cannot be practically done?
No, you missed the rather simple point. Texas doesn't offer the Mercedes at all. Texas is the Chrysler in this scenario.
The point is, Texas drives up in its Chrysler and snickers at California in its Mercedes. "This Chrysler does everything your Mercedes does at half the price! You are so stupid, California. Why would you want that expensive car when this one gets you wherever you want to go for less money? Look, it has wheels and leather seats and air conditioning. It's exactly the same. I can even afford to put wheels on it and make it look just like that Mercedes."
And yes, I know there are people who, fed up with the cost of Mercedes, have traded for the Chrysler. But, they still wish they could drive that Mercedes. They can try to convince themselves, but, if all things were equal, no one would pick the Chrysler over the Mercedes. To those who lack the desire to drive the Mercedes, it doesn't really matter. It's a silly indulgence, overpaying for what one can approximate with another car. But, for others, there is a feeling of driving the Mercedes that isn't there in the Chrysler and its worth it. They appreciate the character of the car. They like the performance. They're willing to pay for its style and substance. Historically, it offers better resale value, too. But, that's not really such a big deal, since most drivers are leasing, anyway
Gosh what a genius you are.... gosh we are lucky to be enlightened by overspending Ca residents... when you come begging to be bailed out you need we will send your post back to you ....with a blank check. Enjoy the high life and that mercedes....but not on our dime
Gosh what a genius you are.... gosh we are lucky to be enlightened by overspending Ca residents... when you come begging to be bailed out you need we will send your post back to you ....with a blank check. Enjoy the high life and that mercedes....but not on our dime
...and the discussion just sunk back into the abyss. John the analogy was meant to point to the differences in what states like CA offer and what low cost cities like Houston offer. Their markets, the people they attract, the offerings to people and the relative philosphies behind both States.
It is not a boorish debate on how the rich state will pay for the broke one. I mean why did you have to go there? What did it contribute?
...and the discussion just sunk back into the abyss. John the analogy was meant to point to the differences in what states like CA offer and what low cost cities like Houston offer. Their markets, the people they attract, the offerings to people and the relative philosphies behind both States.
It is not a boorish debate on how the rich state will pay for the broke one. I mean why did you have to go there? What did it contribute?
There is nothing boorish about being able to afford a lifestyle for your family that educates your kids etc. Does Ca have the superficial attributes of better looks than Tx? Sure.... but to assume that value system is meaningful to us all is boorish. If you think Houston is merely a low cost city you have a lot of learn about value systems others than yours.
The abyss is where Ca is headed.... to stick your head in the sand and call pointing that out boorish is ignoring realities to come. What does your group think about the superficial add to life and this decision? Why do you continuously go there...
This is a Texas forum if you want to engage in group think and love to Ca.... there is a Ca forum
There is nothing boorish about being able to afford a lifestyle for your family that educates your kids etc. Does Ca have the superficial attributes of better looks than Tx? Sure.... but to assume that value system is meaningful to us all is boorish. If you think Houston is merely a low cost city you have a lot of learn about value systems others than yours.
The abyss is where Ca is headed.... to stick your head in the sand and call pointing that out boorish is ignoring realities to come. What does your group think about the superficial add to life and this decision? Why do you continuously go there...
This is a Texas forum if you want to engage in group think and love to Ca.... there is a Ca forum
Way to miss the point. Affording a nice life for your family is not what I consider boorish and that's not what I was talking about. Lots of people afford nice lives for their familes and a lot more wish that for their families. The point is that Houston has the potential to have the best of both worlds for both people to choose. People can and do afford a fine life for their familes without the "means to an end" career that basically just affords a rather continuous loop of accumilating more stuff. It's not a zero sum game. It's not one or the other.
Why cannot Houston have an urban center that's pedestrian, creative, eclectic and bustling. It has the elements for that sprawled out, why not make use of it all and start connecting the dots?
I like what Woodlands and Sugar Land have done to where the development going in the city isn't disconnected from the burbs which sometimes it does feel that way. Katy, where I grew up, seemed like a whole other city hundres of miles apart from the rest of Houston, and it was only 20 mins away!
Spring felt like I was in a whole different State.
Our debate here is a prime example of what I was talking about with the competing philosophies. I actually think it's far from superficial to be adament about a natural landscape, an escapist environment, an urban center, a level of vibrancy and a multitude of possibilities to do creative things and get paid for it.
You on the other hand thinks that's superficial. And somehow the "means to an end" job/career to "afford your family a better life", i.e. gather up more stuff, is not superficial? The keeping up with the Joneses is not superficial? To throw away the aesthetics, the vibrancy of life, an environment conducive to bringing out the creative juices is superficial, in favor of living the simple suburban life is superficial?
I mean to each his own but that's some wild Orwellian doublespeak there. Regardless, I respect that people want that for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not what I would prefer, but that doesn't mean that I am superficial. It also doesn't mean that Houston cannot cater to both.
The mere fact that you wrote back in such a way is clearly the point dal and I were trying to make and how your way of life is meant for Texans and shouldn't change and that our way of life or personal "superficial" preferences are made for the "group think" blue States.
Way to miss the point. Affording a nice life for your family is not what I consider boorish and that's not what I was talking about. Lots of people afford nice lives for their familes and a lot more wish that for their families. The point is that Houston has the potential to have the best of both worlds for both people to choose. People can and do afford a fine life for their familes without the "means to an end" career that basically just affords a rather continuous loop of accumilating more stuff. It's not a zero sum game. It's not one or the other.
Why cannot Houston have an urban center that's pedestrian, creative, eclectic and bustling. It has the elements for that sprawled out, why not make use of it all and start connecting the dots?
I like what Woodlands and Sugar Land have done to where the development going in the city isn't disconnected from the burbs which sometimes it does feel that way. Katy, where I grew up, seemed like a whole other city hundres of miles apart from the rest of Houston, and it was only 20 mins away!
Spring felt like I was in a whole different State.
Our debate here is a prime example of what I was talking about with the competing philosophies. I actually think it's far from superficial to be adament about a natural landscape, an escapist environment, an urban center, a level of vibrancy and a multitude of possibilities to do creative things and get paid for it.
You on the other hand thinks that's superficial. And somehow the "means to an end" job/career to "afford your family a better life", i.e. gather up more stuff, is not superficial? The keeping up with the Joneses is not superficial? To throw away the aesthetics, the vibrancy of life, an environment conducive to bringing out the creative juices is superficial, in favor of living the simple suburban life is superficial?
I mean to each his own but that's some wild Orwellian doublespeak there. Regardless, I respect that people want that for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not what I would prefer, but that doesn't mean that I am superficial. It also doesn't mean that Houston cannot cater to both.
The mere fact that you wrote back in such a way is clearly the point dal and I were trying to make and how your way of life is meant for Texans and shouldn't change and that our way of life or personal "superficial" preferences are made for the "group think" blue States.
Well the reason these things you think are grand dont happen all over is money.... which you find boorish.. I cant help you good luck
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.
