Hacker News Reader

Comment by glitchc | Hacker News Reader

This doesn't make any sense. Why is the quality of life poorer in California compared to Texas when California has: Better schools across all grades, better universities and better weather? Perhaps there are other factors? Do demographics play a role perchance?

From Wikipedia:

1) According to 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, California's population was 59.5% White (36.6% Non-Hispanic White), 14.7% Asian, 13.8% Some Other Race, 5.8% Black or African American, 0.8% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.4% Pacific Islander and 5.1% from two or more races.

2) According to the 2018 US Census Bureau estimates, the population of Texas was 73.5% White (41.4% Non-Hispanic White and 32.1% Hispanic White), 12.3% Black or African American, 5.0% Asian, 0.5% Native American and Alaskan Native, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 6.0% Some Other Race, and 2.7% from two or more races.

Texas is still predominantly white. I'm wondering if that is the unstated preference here.

View on HN

I live in San Francisco. I literally do not see black people. I largely do not see brown people outside of the service industry (i.e. they are "kept back in the kitchen"). I will largely interact with only white people and asian people on any given day.

Where I will be moving to in TX has more diversity than where I live in San Francisco, which is something I am happy about. My children will be seeing more black & brown people in TX than San Francisco.

But hey, thanks for casually assuming racist motivations!

That's... strange. SF's black population has definitely been on the decline (but they're certainly here, all over!), but you must have been actively hiding if your only exposure to brown people was people "kept back in the kitchen".

I'm not going to claim that SF is some amazingly perfect bastion of racial diversity, but if you're mainly only seeing and interacting with white and Asian people here, that speaks more to the circles you spend your time in than the city's diversity.

The city of SF is approximately 40% non-hispanic white, 34% asian, 15% hispanic, 5% black, 5% mixed, and 1% other.

Other Bay Area cities have different distributions. For example Oakland is approximately 29% non-hispanic white, 26% hispanic, 23% black, 15% asian, 5% mixed, 1% other.

You do not see brown people ? Have you, I don't know, been to any tech company ? where vast majorities of engineering groups are brown people ?

Not either of the posters, but in many demographic calculations, those of Indian descent are often referred to as "Asian" or "Indian" with "Brown" often referring to African-descendant or Hispanic.

There’s some interesting history here where the courts definition of caucasian used to include south Asians and was subsequently changed to prevent their naturalization.

As an aside, I often cringe at arguments involving skin-deep diversity. I’ve lived in towns that bragged of diversity when in reality they tended toward the same monolithic affluent culture regardless of skin tone.

The parent poster was making a broader point about "diversity". Unless they consider "Indians" as not diverse, that broader point doesn't stand either. Bay Area has many many towns with Asian majority - San Jose, Fremont, Sunnyvale, Milpitas, Dublin etc. come to mind. That comment was really ignorant

I've been to San Francisco proper and Indians are pretty rare there. You'd have to go outside the city to see a lot of Indians.

San Francisco 40% Asian

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco

> As of the 2010 census, the ethnic makeup and population of San Francisco included: 390,387 whites (48%), 267,915 Asians (33%), 48,870 African Americans (6%), and others. There were 121,744 Hispanics or Latinos of any race (15%).

> In 2010, residents of Chinese ethnicity constituted the largest single ethnic minority group in San Francisco at 21% of the population; the other Asian groups are Filipinos (5%) and Vietnamese (2%).

So less than 5% Indian.

Most white liberals like to pretend like Asians, including Indians, don't exist (or worse, consider them 'white').

It runs counter to a lot of their narratives regarding diversity, immigration etc.

Not sure were you live in SF and what circles you frequent. I live in The Mission and most times I go somewhere in the neighborhood there's lots of "brown" people. There's not much black people in SF but black people from Oakland hang out in some places I frequent.

Maybe it's your neighborhood, some islands in the city look like a white suburb, like Noe Valley for example.

This is not really a response to you particularly, but Southern California is much more _visibly_ diverse than SF and the Bay Area generally, I think. I am very happy with the diversity in my 4 years living here, particularly compared to the southern U.S. where I'm from.

Enjoy Texas - cost of living is a very reasonable reason to move there. But know that the Bay Area is much bigger than San Francisco. To see more black and brown people people you only need to cross a bridge.

This makes it sound like you're moving exclusively because you see too many white and asian people, which is kind of a racist motivation.

Seeking diverse environments is racist? Dang someone needs to tell Facebook

The average income in California 25% higher than Texas (60k vs 48k), but taxes and costs are more than 25% higher in California.

The typical home value of homes in California is $599,159. [1] The typical home value of homes in Texas is $224,065

California sales tax rate of 7.25% is higher than that of any other state, and its top marginal income tax rate of 13.3% is the highest state income tax rate in the country.

Texas has an 6.25% sales tax and no state income tax. [2]

California's per capita combined state and local taxes is ~$6,000 per person.

Texas's per capita combined state and local taxes is ~$4,000 per person

https://www.zillow.com/ca/home-values/

https://www.thecentersquare.com/texas/texas-residents-pay-8-...

For the cost of a normal middle-class home in Palo Alto [1], I could buy an entire public airport with a paved runway and home on almost 300 acres in the (not Texas) town I lived in as a child [2].

1: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/529-Driscoll-Pl-Palo-Alto...

2: https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/37-Colonel-Lindbergh-Ln-M...

Just a nitpick, while Texas' state wide sales tax is 6.25%, every local municipality is allowed to tax up to 2% for their own revenues. I have yet to make a purchase anywhere in the state in my entire life and not been charged the full 8.25%.

Texas also exempts grocery store food purchases from sales tax, barring a few specific luxury categories, so that's something to keep in mind as well if you have a large family. Saving 8% on food could be a decent chunk of change for a lot of families. Restaurant food is still taxed at the normal rate.

>Texas also exempts grocery store food purchases from sales tax, barring a few specific luxury categories

California does this too. That said, food prices are higher in California because the local cost of living is factored into all prices.

I found grocery stores in LA to be incredibly affordable compared to Seattle. More variety as well. Not sure about Texas m, but prices for food in CA follow the west coast norm.

Note that the oil industry-related taxes and fees tend to subsidize TX coffers. Without plentiful oil, TX would probably have higher taxes.

> The typical home value of homes in Texas is $224,065

It's not uncommon to find decent homes in decent neighborhoods well below that average (I'm in a north Houston suburb, in a 1600 sqft corner lot 3/2 that's currently around $160k)

I do not doubt or dispute that Texas is cheaper to live in. It was the "significant" quality of life for children statement struck me as a red flag. It's a form of WASP signaling I've seen many times before (I may be a WASP too...)

It's a particularly egregious statement given that people the world over (myself included) would love to retire in California some day due to the wonderful weather, the abundance of high-quality food and the lovely ocean next door, not to mention the world-class in-state universities, and the abundant employment opportunities. Yes, SF is expensive, and perhaps it makes sense to move out, but leaving California altogether is a whole other kettle of fish. Resorting to Texas as being significantly better given its poor social safety net, open-carry laws, wide variation in schooling based on neighbourhood wealth, well "significantly better" starts to look downright fishy.

>well "significantly better" starts to look downright fishy.

Thankfully you're not owed an explanation of what someone deems to be a significantly better option to another.

I downvoted because you seemed to lump multiple items together assuming they are a universal bad (poor social safety net, open-carry, variation in schooling). I'd prefer you be more specific rather than losing your point in broad assumptions

So therefore the OP must be secretly racist??

No.. just afraid. Fear is a powerful motivator, one sufficiently strong enough to get a lifelong Democrat to move to a Republican state.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/1/26/14340542/wh...

I understand it's an uncomfortable discussion, and I'm happy to stop, although I personally think these discussions are worth having as there are some fundamental issues around diversity and inclusion at play here. For the record, I have not once claimed it's motivated by racism.

> For the record, I have not once claimed it's motivated by racism.

> Texas is still predominantly white. I'm wondering if that is the unstated preference here.

Sure, you didn't actually claim it was motivated by racism, you just wondered it out loud.

I think it's pretty amusing the only conclusion you can come to for why a person would possibly move from California to Texas is because of race. If CA has a kool-aid you've been drinking it.

I love where I live, in Colorado. I would not move to California. I'm not racist though, I promise.

> Better schools across all grades

[citation needed]

When I type “california public schools” into DuckDuckGo, the top suggestion is “california public schools bad.” Accepting this, the top three results are:

① “California schools were once the nation's envy. What went wrong?”

> The enormous strike in Los Angeles paints a grim picture of wealthy state that is struggling to fund its education system

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/jan/19/california...

② “Are California Schools the Worst in the Nation?”

> Roughly speaking, there’s the usual mix of good ones and bad ones, and overall they’re about average.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/01/are-californi...

③ “California Is Home to Some of America's Worst Public Schools”

> In fact, a spokeswoman for WalletHub says, “California has the 12th worst school system in America.”

> The study was based on 17 metrics, including student-to-teacher ratio, dropout rates and average SAT and ACT scores. Compared with the other 49 states and the District of Columbia, California ranked 47th in reading test scores, 46th in math test scores and dead last in student-teacher ratios.

https://www.laweekly.com/california-is-home-to-some-of-ameri...

According to https://www.forbes.com/sites/reneemorad/2020/08/04/states-wi..., Texas public schools rank 28th in the nation, while California’s are now №37.

California funds schools mostly at the state level. Other states fund schools mostly at the local level. For wealthy people living in wealthy neighborhoods, local schools are therefore richer in states where they don’t also have to contribute to funding poor people’s kids’ educations. Here’s a clear summary I found describing education funding in CA https://ed100.org/lessons/whopays

The local -> state change to the funding structure in CA a few decades ago has benefitted previously grossly underfunded schools in poorer cities, but it is a trade-off for sure. Arguably almost all of the schools statewide are now underfunded.

One problem with funding schools at the state level is that it has made it very difficult to increase school funding, because it requires support from across the state to raise taxes for it, and (a) most people in the USA are generally opposed to any taxes that they can’t see immediate direct benefit from, and (b) Prop 13 makes the bar for tax increases very high.

Interesting, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25363022 claims that Texas has less inequality between schools.

If you are super rich sure, if not, Quality of Life in CA city is small apt in not great part of town vs suburban home in great part of town.

> Texas is still predominantly white.

Texas is big, it's not monolithic, percentage of ethic origins varies widely geographically. Also have you ever been to Texas, or anywhere. Your comments come off as extremely naive / opinions learned from online rather than experience.

Not Texas here, but

You might have to adjust your statistics regionally for income. Middle class in California is upper middle class everywhere else, even adjusting for salary reduction. Leaving California put us in the 90th percentile for family income in our new region even accounting for change in salary, vs 75th back in the South Bay. That opens up a lot more opportunity for leisure and better schools - we don't have to live in a middling caliber town or neighborhood anymore.

Also, owning a home is a massive improvement in quality of life. Something we couldn't do in California. No more shared walls, a garage, a home office, backyard, basement hobby space, spare bedroom, nursery... I would have to double or triple my take home pay (not everyone takes equity to pay down a mortgage) to have the same quality of home in my old neighborhood than I do today.

Weather is meh, we can afford central heating and cooling and there aren't wildfires that turn the air to poison for days at a time. Snow be damned.

Sounds like Texas, except you got a basement (and snow)!

I really wish more homes in Texas had basements, but they add a lot of unnecessary costs to the building that aren't required for code reasons. Plus, then you can spend that money above ground increasing your living area. Unfortunately, most people don't factor in the extra expense of cooling more above ground space, whereas a basement would hold the temperature better. I'd reckon after a decade or so, the energy savings of putting some extra square footage in a basement would event out.

In many places in Texas it's just not economically viable to build a basement. Two examples, Houston has a very high water table, Austin has very hard limestone

It would be downright foolish to want a basement in Houston.

Indeed, in many parts of town even having a first floor is suspect

> Unfortunately, most people don't factor in the extra expense of cooling more above ground space, whereas a basement would hold the temperature better.

I would recommend anyone building a new home have their basement on a separate HVAC zone, or else the heat rises in the winter and space heaters aren't a great solution.

I moved from the Bay Area (lived there 2 years) to Seattle (well, Bellevue) a few years ago. I had two elementary schoolers and a toddler. The main reason was that although I was paid fairly well, we would never be able to buy a house. So every year was a race between my raise and rent increases. We lived in a pretty decent school district, but it was difficult to move with in the same district, let alone the same school. I was looking at my oldest entering middle school and I didn't want her to have to face the prospect of changing schools every 1-2 years.

Our situation in California let us offer everything except stability. Younger kids are fine anywhere as long as their parents are involved, but older kids benefit from social stability so they have time and space to define who they are.

I know it's natural to want to optimize for your child's school, but doesn't most evidence show that your child's school is only marginally predictive of attainment? The fact that you care so much to optimize for them might be self-selecting because your concerned/aware/have the resources to help in other ways.

It also determines who your children's peers will be. Selecting into a highly rated school district means all the other kids' parents did the same.

Not asking with snark, but does that matter if said school demonstrates very little ability to to explain variance in attainment?

I.e., if the school determines network and schools don’t contribute much to achievement, doesn’t it imply scholastic network effects have limited value?

I sometimes wonder is we dedicate too much mindspace to the wrong area and rationalize our choices

Without worrying about the exact split, I have always looked for good teachers, functional district, and motivated, education-driven peers. I don't have enough kids to properly A/B test.

Do you have kids? Have you tried buying a home in a nice school district in the bay area?

Implying that moving out of California is racist is quite the take.

From your own numbers, Texas has <5% more non-Hispanic white people than California (36.6% vs 41.4%). It's a weak argument when Oregon exists.

>California has: Better schools across all grades

No, it doesn't. For example, USNWR ranks TX public schools #33 and CA #37:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education

More generally, public schools in many affordable parts of California are severely underfunded due to Proposition 13, while the statewide average is boosted by high-ranking schools in ultra-expensive cities like Palo Alto. Texas has less inequality between public schools and has earned international recognition for its Ten Percent Law:

https://news.utexas.edu/key-issues/top-10-percent-law/

>36.6% Non-Hispanic White

>41.4% Non-Hispanic White

4.8%. that sure makes a world of difference.

I'm wondering if you're implying that there's something wrong with having such a preference though. You have provided some interesting statistics, would you mind if I did so as well?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com