Just learn the accent before you move there, and don't tell your neighbors where you're from.
That's generally true now and previously, but I wonder about the next decade+ as relocation shifts into higher gear. My historical impression has been that locals are usually okay with a few outsiders... but when it turns into a deluge, and everyone who moves there is wealthier than them...
Well, better to be nondescript than driving around east TN or KY with a CA or NY plate.
I live in Houston, TX now (and grew up here), and couldn't tell you whether we have any Californians here since we've always been a super diverse city.
Having drove to Knoxville last week, the stroads have too many cars.
That being said, check out Market Square for a bite to eat or KnoxDevs for a pretty cool dev community.
Most of Nashville Metro and surrounding counties are actually transplants or children of transplants. Once you go to a county that doesn't border metro Nashville the culture and accent change tremendously.
Everyone in the area is aware of "outsiders" and resents it to some degree.
I'm a young SWE from TN. I can't compete with SWE's from the coasts who have immense savings up on me and they're buying up all the homes.
SWE's who are 40+ in the area immediately bought brick 4 bed homes in the burbs in the nicest part of town when they got hired 10+ years ago. SWE's closer to 30 who are local are just able to buy an apartment if single income.
However it's a huge tide, this money coming in, the issue is most locals don't have ships to ride it.
Your neighbors will be from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, and they won't sound any more southern than their efforts.
In other words, you'll go to those small towns to teach those hicks some manners. No wonder they're not that keen on seeing refugees from "more humane and well thought out" places settle in their towns and villages.
If that is your message to your new neighbours may I suggest you go somewhere more welcoming of those "humane and well thought out" policies? It is a sad thing that those places tend to be the ones people are moving away from but that means there should be lots of vacancies.
> those places tend to be the ones people are moving away from but that means there should be lots of vacancies.
People have been moving away from those small towns for generations, and I feel like this speaks for itself.
Employment is a policy failure. Likely "not well thought out" if it didn't work as intended :)
California and its policies have created an ton of jobs. So many jobs that theres not enough space to put the people who work those jobs. Much of Silicon Valley in the 50s was farmland. Why hasn't every other rural town transformed into the economic powerhouse of the 21st century? Could it be (partially) policy decisions?
> Bruce Springsteen touched this
Not the authority on human migratory patterns i'd expect.
Of course not. The policies which gave California those jobs you mentioned are not the policies enacted by the current crop of Californian politicos. This can be seen by the population stats for the state which for the first time ever (?) see a downward trend [1] due to the number of people fleeing the place. Where California used to enact policies which made people flock to the place they now do the opposite. Maybe California was not the best example to give, seeing as how it is currently melting down in more than one way? Power failures, skyrocketing crime, rampant homelessness, tell me something which they're doing right...
As to Springsteen not being "the authority" on "human migratory patterns"... really? Why does it take an "authority" to see jobs disappearing from your town/county/state? You forgot to mention Chris Rea, is he more of "an authority"? Of course he isn't and of course he is since this whole "authority" spiel is just that. Both Springsteen and Rea made songs about things they saw happening around them, both of them involve rivers, both saw the jobs disappearing. Rea noticed that there are salmon swimming in Steel River, Springsteen thinks back to better times. They're artists, not "authorities".
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/californias-population-f...
Yes.
Obviously its a little glib to be an arm-chair critic and just handwave all externatilities and decisions away, but yes i think the rust belt was (partially) a policy failure. eg. Cleveland was once one of the richest cities in america, but did nothing to protect or incubate the next generation of businesses there. I used to live near Cleveland's millionaire row. The mansions are now homeless shelters and frat houses, and the rich are gone. A strong policy for employment is to push diversity of the work - lots of different industries, and new ventures so economic cycles don't affect the whole region. Today, that same strip of road is being re-imagined as the "Health-Tech Corridor", is being outfit with a massive fiber line, and encouraging peering between institutions to share medical data for research purposes. I think this is a step in the right direction: instead of waiting for stardard oil to move back, invent your own future. They say a nearby hospital and university collab on medical research, and the gov paid for infra to attract lots of new orgs to the area (its working so far at attracting orgs). Who knows if it'll revitalize the area in 20 years, but it was pretty cheap and paid for by grants, so why not?
California proved for years (but maybe flew too close to the sun recently) that you could charge high taxes and high regulation and people would still go, and still start businesses, if you made it worth it. How many "Bumfuck and Podunk"'s are raising taxes to generate more revenue for the locality to offer more for their citizens?
Protect workers (humane) and give them affordances to start new ventures (good policy). Bring in (and welcome!) outsiders (humane+policy) who will offer new perspectives and start new businesses, and bring new needs to be met with economic growth.
Speaking of outsiders, this whole conversation could be avoided if these podunk places (or those that speak on their behalf?) weren't fearful of outsiders coming in and doing things differently. Be open to outsiders! Be open to change! Just because outsiders are different and not like you doesn't mean they're bad, or wrong, or will make your life worse. Maybe what "podunk" needs the most is some west coast open-mindedness.
> The policies which gave California those jobs you mentioned are not the policies enacted by the current crop of Californian politicos.
What is the difference between then and now? Genuine question besides obviously politicians come/go and get different string of names on a ballot.
> Power failures, skyrocketing crime, rampant homelessness,
to be clear, power failure isn't texas-style "our grid is poorly managed" power failure, they turn it off to avoid starting fires at key moments. Still means you don't have electricity, of course, so something needs to be done - and they're actively trying to fix it.
The homelessness is a huge policy failure of CA. I agree. NY/MA handle it way better on a policy level (which is more humane too).
> tell me something which they're doing right...
They have great worker protections. Eg. they don't honor non-competes, a huge requirement for entrepreneurial activity.
They are one of a few states to enact privacy laws. This is great for forcing companies to respect users, instead of the state respecting businesses.
They are one of a handful states that offer strong LGBT protections in the workplace. A very "humane" law thats missing from most "bumfuck" areas.
They have/had strong gun controls and protections.
The legalization of cannabis was huge for reducing "crime" and giving people more freedom.
Their push for EV and renewable power on the grid is one of the strongest in the country. Driving an EV in cali is easy because of all the chargers, and so many other cars are EV that it creates positive feedback loop.
Maybe people didn't leave because of the policies, but because of their position relative to them. I mean, people who aren't legacy homeowners and find California too expensive but otherwise like it might well prefer to become a homeowner and then have the place they are in become like California.
Since basic economics still applies, prices get inflated, some of the people don't like the economics of what they voted for so they decide to move to Arizona or Texas or Florida and then once they've "got theirs" they smugly vote for more of the same policies that always apply to "someone else". Hence where the acronym NIMBYism comes from.
Most efficiency standards actually lower monthly housing costs, including your two examples of solar panels and natural gas bans. Note that the solar can be built offsite, and solar + electric is a natural (hah) combination.
Silicon Valley types haven’t been in the state long enough to have voted for those polices, and are (in my experience) strongly against them.
There is some really dumb stuff happening now in the name of progressives (like a state mandate that all cities reduce the number of commuter miles the road infrastructure supports), but they’re thinly-veiled NIMBY regulations that prop up property values for our landed gentry.
Silicon Valley types leaving the state typically don’t hold their dynastic wealth by hoarding California housing.