It's unfortunate that Texas, Arizona, and North Carolina are all so conservative. The cheap property prices are appealing but I can't envision myself actually living in those places.
I'll have to be honest with you. The super conservatives in the Midwest and the super liberals in the bay have a lot more in common than you might think. Hell just the other day I was listening to a group of women with their dogs discussing murdering Trump because we don't need any more of that "white man privilege". This isn't that different than some white dudes discussing killing Obama because he's a "black terrorist" or something.
My point is that we all need to live and let live. Anyone who is generalizing whole portions of the population are bound to run into the "long tail" of people out of the probabilistic norm. I actually think as a society people mostly fall out of the norm.
All that being said, I do have to say - the rudest people I've meet are from (1) D.C. (2) S.F. and (3) downtown Chicago. The nicest have actually been in the suburbs of Chicago, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia (outside of D.C.)
I know someone who lives in suburban Charlotte. She is actively discriminated against at work because she doesn't attend a church. I have no interest in submitting myself to that kind of judgment, and fortunately, because I don't live in the south, I don't have to.
I've have/had to sit through at least 20 different talks/seminars a year on how women are discriminated against and it's the white males fault. Last year, I worked with a team of 3 women, and myself (the only male). I was put in charge (by my women director), to help train the team on web development. OH BOY that was a big TODO, regardless of the fact I have years more experience and have managed teams before... Eventually, I just quit the team because one of the women was so insufferable and would basically refuse to do any work until a women was put in charge.
Point is, you're right, there are different flavors to each group. All of them are wrong though. They all discriminate just to different extremes. That's part of the reason I really enjoyed the Chicago Suburbs, they have a decent mix of both so both extreme groups become more moderate.
And that's not even taking into account culture and diversity which matter if you're a relatively new immigrant.
Look, my point is that just because people have differing views on life doesn't mean that they aren't equally capable of being correct.
> Conservative states are more likely to disadvantage the poor, disabled and minorities.
I would argue that is not necessarily the case. I have seen WAY more homeless, poor, disabled, and generally disadvantaged in California (and heroin users) than any other state. Perhaps they are just more visible, but the breakdown of the stats seem to agree with me[1]. Generally, conservative states just deal with things differently than liberal states, they both end up with their own issues.
Disclosure: Personally I a libertarian at heart. I believe in the whole "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" thing, basically meaning I fall more in line with the "middle" than just about anyone. I find the bay area equally as appalling as most conservative regions, I think the only thing I find more appalling about conservative places are the whole anti-abortion thing. Honestly, racism and sexism is probably worse in the bay area than most places because everyone is trying to be so "equal" they end up being racist and sexist against the other parties. This leads to ridiculous conflicts that make no sense.
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/22/america-drug-use-ma...
That's because California has nice weather year-around, which makes homelessness a lot more tolerable. (Same with Hawaii: lots of homeless people hanging out at beaches and lying on the the grass in parks.)
For example, if other states' way of dealing with homeless people was "buy them a bus ticket to California", wouldn't that have exactly the outcome you are describing?
http://www.mintpressnews.com/500-homeless-mental-patients-we...
The problem with one state treating the homeless well is that it simply attracts more homeless from other states, overloading the system. Homelessness really needs to be addressed on a federal level.
Tech companies grow and raise the demand: True.
Tech companies increase the cost: False.
Most of the cost increases have been NIMBYs and misguided community organizers and environmentalists. For example, a major source of funding against homes near the T light rail line has been a retired insurance industry executive and consultant. That’s not tech.
If there are not enough houses near the jobs, then somebody is going to be driven out. If you had to choose for your own property, then it would be irrational not to pick the higher paying tech employee.
If anything I've found corruption is much higher around more liberal states.
We need more of the former and less of the latter.
... it's all a matter of perspective ...
Unless you are some odd political bent that is truly rare, I wouldn't worry about it; and after all, there are plenty of nice people in those states that you don't have to talk politics with, at all.
The sufficiently privileged (pretty much by definition) don't have to worry about this much, but say the bubble pops. Are you sure your savings account will last long enough for it to re-inflate? Because if it doesn't, it suddenly matters a great deal where the people who wrote your state laws stand on the question of personal responsibility.
Now, granted, outside of the major metro areas, things get more conservative, but if you're comparing it to CA, I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in the central valley.
[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/181601/frequent-church-attendance...