Moving to Texas
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Don't get me wrong, there is a ton I really like about Austin: really strong job market with tons of tech jobs, lots of stuff to do outdoors most of the year (the lakes, hike-and-bike trail, etc.), investment in great public spaces (the downtown library is a masterclass in architecture and design, the relatively new boardwalk is great, etc.) But there is also a ton that's not great about Austin (e.g. horrible traffic with extremely limited public transit), and all-in-all I feel like it just kinda got "anointed" as the "cool" city by Elon Musk and friends to the point where it no longer deserves it's hype.
I mean, Austin metro is still relatively small/mid-sized, such that it just doesn't have any of the amenities of larger cities like NY/Chicago/SF when it comes to things like world-class theater, museums, sports teams, architecture, etc. Austin famously touted itself as "Live Music Capital of the World" and its "Keep Austin Weird" slogan, but the dramatic increase in cost-of-living has basically priced out many of the musicians and others that made it "weird".
Which in itself is odd, because it's hard to see it as anything but a carbon copy of "Keep Portland Weird".
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=k...
But, let's be honest, Austin isn't really weird any more, so I guess it's a moot point. I bought my house in the low-cost part of town in 2001, and for about 10 years it more or less stayed the same price, but it has tripled in the last 10 years, much of that in the last 5. I love Austin, but a slowdown in the pace of people moving here would be fine. I am hypocritical for saying this, as I moved to Texas from California...
Putting aside the politics, weather, and economic structure of Texas, the "mystical ethos" of Texas is the thing that really gets me, and I had to leave the state before I could get a good vision of it. The pervasive myth of Texas being larger-than-life, exemplified by the "I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could" and persistently quoting "you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas" is really something, and it seeps into everything. It's like taking American exceptionalism and raising it several more notches.
In graduate school in Illinois, there was a guy from Texas, and he couldn't stop telling us (mostly europeans, but i'm from chicago) how Texas is better than everything.
We didn't understand. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
He released 10 years of tax returns [1], showing modestly high income. His disclosures in Congress - which he would be breaking the law if he lied about, e.g. Trump potential fraud - show higher net with real estate holdings. [2] Still probably 8 digitals starting with a $1 or less.
There are sources that says his father in law is worth $500mm. If you think the father in law will give the couple all his net worth that would put in maybe half way there generously based on that info. But that still doesn't compute with what you said even if misleading. [3] [4]
[1] https://www.texastribune.org/2019/04/15/texas-beto-orourke-2... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/net-worth?cid=... [3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/14/club-growt... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2018/11/04/is...
Robert was defeated despite overwhelming publicity from out of state sources, and being backed by a father in law that 'conservatively' has a 500mm net worth (as of 2 years ago, during which time the S&P 500 has nearly doubled).
Texas was too smart for him.
If you are a woman who values access to healthcare, specifically abortion, he is very hostile to your wellbeing and interests.
But there are plenty of others who feel the exact opposite in Texas since obviously he is elected. Just brushing aside for a different thread arguing about lopsided representation lol.
> In 2017 Portland ranked third. Now it has dropped to 66th out of 80. [1]
I am glad I got out. The entire west coast needs less Seattle chadzone, Portland protests, LA homelessness, SF crime and Berkeley wokeness.
The great thing about America is that we have states competing with each other and keeping in check. My hope is that west coast will become better in next decade after some self-introspection. I love the west coast and it is sad to see the decline :-(
[1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/06/12/portland-...
> My hope is that west coast will become better in next decade after some self-introspection. I love the west coast and it is sad to see the decline :-(
The west coast is the way it is because they've always been boom towns. You could say "I hope Seattle learns it lessons!" when it has grown 25% in the last decade, there just isn't the feedback for that. And from this perspective, the west coast has been in decline since the mid 19th century. I'm actually glad it isn't perfect, or it would attract even more people!
I want to change the economic and political structure of the state, many folks here do, we're neither screaming liberals, nor very conservative either, when I can actually get folks to visit here, they're surprised by what they find, its not what they expect, and they usually like it, even if they dont want to live here (usually the weather does not suit them).
That damn lone star is so common that it shows up in god damn furniture sets. How often are you getting a set of furniture where an apple is prominently featured in every piece because you’re buying something in Washington state?
However, winter storm Uri was a real eye opener, and the (lack of) legislative response to it, while not surprising, is yet another indicator that no matter how great Austin is, it’s still subject to the state legislature. I can’t see myself staying in a state where the government is trying so hard all the time to insert itself into the culture war du jour and continually failing to actually govern, not to mention the continued assault on women’s and voting rights.
We’re lucky enough to have a house here, but for what we paid for it we can get 2x or more land/house in other places. Now that remote work has taken off, there’s a lot less tying us to this city in particular. We’ll probably try to keep the house and become yet another set of out of state homeowners renting out space in the city (which I swear is at least 80% of the purchases I’ve seen in our neighborhood lately).
Another consideration is how the summer are just going to get worse here over the next few decades, so I don’t feel like investing (home improvements etc).
They miss the weather but don’t miss tradespeople refusing to enter when they realize the house belonged to two women.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article253429364...
Meanwhile, sales tax is extremely high in Bay Area and it is hurting the little guy more than the big guys.
But the houses--I kid you not--can be 20% the price per sq ft. Any assessment that does not consider this is dishonest.
Austin's prices have skyrocketed by 40% over the last year, but if you compare a house in Austin to SF, even excluding lot size or modernity, it's not a comparison. If you look at Houston or Dallas, it's basically free.
Average sq ft in Austin is 2100 sq ft vs average sq ft of 1150 sq ft in SF. Average price in Austin is $606K and average price in SF is $1.5M.
Taxes-wise, I think California is underrated. At 150k a year, the tax rate is basically the same as most states, and prop 13 is incredibly beneficial from a planning perspective. You just can’t afford the parts of coasts with access to good medical care unless affordability isn’t even a question for you.
Texas near Dallas, austin, Houston have medical, culture, etc at extremely low prices. The property tax is insane and regressive but it’s a wash.
I’ve been living in PHX for 2+ years now, and have to disagree.
Low cost of living and high QoL. Great school districts and master plan communities designed to make pre-k -> 12 schools walkable. Great food, amazing supply chains (the stuff you find at grocery stores here can be mind blowing), and well maintained infrastructure.
We are positive sum water, when you build here you are expected to bring the water for your project into the valley. We don’t ration water during the summers here the way I experienced in CA.
We supply electricity to many neighboring states (including CA) thanks to Palo Verde. Our nuclear power plant beats solar at lifetime cost per kilo-watt; the only way solar companies sell their product here is by exaggerating payback.
To me, this state is a testament to man’s perseverance and a great example of positive sum work. We’ve taken a desert and transformed it into an oasis.
Our approach to water is part of why we are able to give up so much from our pull on Lake Mead during this drought. Nevada is giving up 21k acre-feet, Mexico 80k af, and AZ is giving up a whopping 512k af. Nothing as far as I know for cutbacks from CA's draw.
I’ll repeat, when you build here you bring your water. And we actually enforce that. You don’t get to build a new subdivision or plant a nut tree farm without sourcing every drop of water you’re going to use.
Water is running out in some states. It’s not running out there because there isn’t water - it’s a symptom of failed water management strategies.
My point is, anyone who lives in an overpopulated desert and says “we don’t have a water problem” should be taken with a grain of salt.
How are property taxes regressive? Working class people bear the tax burden with income taxes, land owners bear the tax burden with property taxes, I'd argue that having 0 income tax and funding the state through property tax is as progressive as it gets. Of course, rental property has to pass that tax on to renters to remain profitable, but still that allows for the vast majority of property that is not rental property to bear more of the tax burden.
Relatively speaking, a steep progressive income tax regime is less regressive than a property tax since the burden is entirely on home value which is largely out of the control of homeowners.
For those who don’t live in Texas, there’s a whole cottage industry of companies that will contest the annual assessment (typically tax increase) for you, often with a guarantee that they can save more than their fee.
Here's a billionaire - literally worth $1 billion. He doesn't have a $3 billion house. So the ratio of total assets to amount covered by property tax is much more favorable to the billionaire. His house may be $30 million, but total assets / house price is 33/1.
But when you also have sales taxes or value added taxes, chances are the billionaire is living a little more exorbitantly than the regular guy. If you want to get more progressive than that you can introduce luxury item taxes.
More importantly though, the brunt of the tax burden is still resting on the higher value properties. If we decide that progressive means "pays more of a percentage of their wealth/income" then you're right, but if we decide it means "most of the overall tax burden falls on richer people" then it is still more progressive than income tax schemes that exist now.
Weather was nice, though a bit hot for my taste. Everywhere I looked, they were building condos. This was 5 years ago, not what the deal is now.
Similar for "racial diversity."
So for this guy to say this is why "everyone's moving to Texas" is ridiculous. Maybe it's a good explanation for "liberals I know who work for and read the publication for which I write are moving to Austin."
Instead, we (all) need to train ourselves to (a) leave provocations where we encounter them and (b) focus on the genuinely interesting things. Then we have a chance at contributing to a good, interesting forum.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Either way, we should abstain from predictable provocations and tedious flamewars. They may feel intense and exciting for a while but they lead to a degraded and ultimately boring forum.
Most articles are a mixed bag: they (hopefully) contain things that can lead to interesting conversation, and they often also contain provocations that will lead to angry, repetitive arguments if amplified. We don't, for example, need yet another generic ideological flamewar. There's no curiosity in those.
Therefore, "it's in the article" is not by itself a good reason for bringing something into a thread here. If an article is burning in places, that does not mean that we should import the flames. Seed discussion with the least predictable, most curious aspects of an article, not the ones that point to hell.
On the other hand, if there's a mixture, then you/all of us should focus on what does gratify curiosity and leave the nasty bits and flamey bits where you find them. That takes some restraint, of course, which none of us is used to on the internet, but it's the way to have the forum we all actually want HN to be. Nobody wants scorched earth—that's the ultimate boring endstate. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Re HN discussion, Austin << TX. Many Texans who know both States would posit Austin is to TX what Berkeley is to CA. Take that for what it’s worth.