Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrZongle2 | Hacker News Reader

My favorite quote from the article: “A lot of people, especially from California, say, ‘Texas? Why the hell are you in Texas?’ But I am generally happy to wave the flag and say, ‘No, I am not here under duress.’ I actually like it here. And we appreciate the sense of the Southern hospitality. You don’t get the sense that everyone needs to be coddled and taken care of. You get the sense of gumption.”

This is why many of us live in "flyover country".

View on HN

I used to live in California, and now live in Austin.

Have to agree w/ other commenter, there's actually a pretty surprising overlap in personality types between the two places. Maybe Austin skews a little younger (both biologically and socially).

However... Texas is for materialists, hands down. You don't go there for natural splendor or the climate. The beach is a turd, and you're surrounded by 500 miles of polarized right wing fundamentalists in every direction. But it's centrally located! Which means you will be flying/renting a car to leave town, period.

California is for people who value quality of life, and are willing to pay every penny they have now and forever, to approach it, to the point that they have no quality.

After these and other living arrangements, I'm done with population centers. Give me a rail connected village please.

"You don't go to Texas for natural splendor" sounds exactly like what a California transplant to Austin would say because they can't ride their bike to the Hill Country, the pine forests of East Texas, or the Trinity River in North Texas.

As an East Texas native who's now in California... sorry, Texas has some pretty vistas, but there's no comparison to the Sierras and California Coast.

God, I miss good Mexican food and TexMex though.

Never said Texas surpassed California in the nature department, but to claim Texas is devoid of natural beauty in such a blase fashion is just ignorant, methinks.

Pretty much. I'm in Fredericksburg. There are other places and they all have their positive virtues, but not much better IME.

Austin really isn't representative of, well, nearly anywhere else in Texas.

This has good and bad aspects.

Dallas is trying (and failing) to emulate Austin right now in many ways.

For what it's worth, Austin is one of the most liberal places in texas. I don't think its a good comparison.

Sounds like you have not explored Texas enough.

- your friends at the Texas Board of Tourism

You don't go there for natural splendor or the climate.

Said like somebody who's never watched a thunderstorm roll in over the plain.

The beach is a turd, and you're surrounded by 500 miles of polarized right wing fundamentalists in every direction.

You go to church much? How much time have you spent actually in small towns, chatting up folks?

People like you are why Austin sucks: cookie-cutter upper-middle-class self-righteous pricks who think they've moved to the mecca of cool and haven't realized that they're chasing the same sort of vapid materialist views of self-worth they decry so much.

Texas is for people who know how to make a living, form communities, and soldier on.

ha, wow, living up to your handle! There's some Texas hospitality! Knives out!

For certain values of cool, Austin IS the mecca, but I have no use for it in my life.

You can soldier on through the allergies, drought, heat, toll roads, and endless expanses of private property, I'm moving on.

To your latter remarks. That just sounds like "life" to me. For instance, if you were moving on to, say, California, I'd tell you to enjoy the astronomical cost of living, relentless taxation, real drought issues(most of Texas is drought free as of this year), catastrophic earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires...

Texas isn't really flyover country, at least in my book. Texas and California love to hate each other but they are culturally similar in a lot of ways (large states with geographic/cultural diversity where most of the residents have a ton of pride and feel like they live in the best state in the nation). And then of course there is Austin which is arguably the "coolest" city in America right now and has Californians moving there by the truckload...

True flyover country to me is places that nobody really cares about, like Kansas (I'm being flippant, but really, there are some states you can almost forget about if you don't have a connection to them...).

It's fitting that they're so similar, since both states seceded from Mexico and then formed republics.

Flyover country is everything between the east and west coast IMHO. Texas is largely a place neither liberal cost cares anything about, just like Kansas and all the other crazy red states found in fly over country which is little more than a euphemism liberals have for conservative states.

I have to agree. I just don't see why every tech company wants to be in California. If the Internet is suppose to make it easier to communicate and collaborate across the globe the surely it's just as easy to do said communication and collaboration across the continent.

Primarily the money funding everything wants you to be in California. They want you in or very near their network, for all sorts of obvious reasons.

You'll see statements like this: "Q: Do I have to be in California / Silicon Valley? A: No, uhhhh, but, uhm, well it's extremely preferable." They're being polite when they say you don't absolutely have to; what they mean is, you have to be a particularly incredible opportunity if you're not.

Yeah, it seems obvious but for me it seems their network is probably half the problem with the tech industry. It's a bit of an incestuous relationship where new ideas are passed by because it's not from SV. Eventually, it's going to bite them in the butt when some other upstarts finally beat them at their own game.

I agree in principle, but why does that end up being embodied by the likes of Rick Perry and GW.

Rick Perry was a good governor, he does not get enough credit for roping in the number corporations to Texas. I understand the Corporate Welfare argument, I have to say though in spite of his political rhetoric, Rick Perry is a good governor. GW, on the other hand rode the wave of Republicanization of Texas, because the blue-dog democrats were severely marginalized by the National party.

Texas is a very diverse state and the metro areas in Texas are more vibrant and diverse than a typical East Coast metro. Its not Texas that is backwards, but the people who are stuck up with their mental image of Texas.

Where's your evidence that the fact that Perry was the governor was a key factor (if at all) in the success of Texas during his time in office? I doubt his position in office did little to contribute to the Texas remaining economically prosperous during the recession (economic diversification and energy profits were primary factors).

Additionally, while Texas does have an diverse makeup, it takes little advantage of the fact (my money would be on how segregated those metros are [1]). One of the most impressive things about Houston and Dallas is the fact that they have so many cultures with so little culture of their own. There's nothing outright offensive about them (beyond maybe sprawl and corporate culture), but compare them to other major metros and they're just simply adequate.

If you're not looking at Austin stick clear if you're in your 20s and early 30s, but if you're starting to settle into things it does rise above the image most hold of it.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/08/us/census-race...

The story of Perry working overtime using Texas Enterprise Fund to lure businesses is known to many who are interested in local economics. I live in North Texas and make trips to Houston, and the way things were 10 years to today, in terms of Economic development etc is evident if you pay minimal attention. He was governor for 14 years, and that is too long time for someone in that position of power to be on auto-pilot. Is he lucky, perhaps, the economic conditions were favorable, but to tell me that there is no connection between a Governor and his State is ludicrous.

I disagree with Dallas and Houston lacking in Culture, I really do not know what exactly you mean by culture then. Adequate is a bit snobby but I guess to each his own.

Rick Perry may have had successful economic policies, I don't know but I'll take your word for it. What I was thinking was that he is a social conservative ideologue, like GW, like Greg Abbott. That's the batshit crazy part of the state that you just can't change no matter how much you dress it up.

Now, if only he could convince them to move some of their hardware work here... :P

Reply on news.ycombinator.com