Texas and Georgia are states huge numbers of people would never consider moving too because of their horrific politics - a rather direct reflection of the average.
We need to keep in mind the magnitude of coercion, or even of oppression, that arises simply from economic forces -- and these generally squeeze harder in the blue states. If the states with the "good politics" can't supply housing at a reasonable price, and if their affordable universities won't let your kids in, then what good are they? A red state with "bad politics" may be sufficiently cheap that the freedom it offers from wage-slavery may outweigh whatever oppressive laws are on the books there. The same goes for other countries. Suppose a country nominally has an authoritarian ruler, but he leaves ordinary apolitical people alone, and prices for medical care are reasonable. Maybe that's still a perfectly nice place to live? Maybe it's better than struggling to pay rent in the "good place"?
As for Texas and Georgia, local politics also matter. Some of the cities are blue islands. So you can't judge a county based only on what state it's in.
But if people are so blinkered that it's literally worth their entire life's wages just to own a house in the "good place", then I guess that's their problem.
That's my issue. The sheer amounts of money we're talking about are staggering. And you have to survive within an abusive corporate structure to get the money. Why tolerate that?
How can you have an emancipatory politics on the one hand, and sign up for lifelong debt on the other? It is good to try to free others, but if you can, shouldn't you try to free yourself first? Then, how can you free yourself in one of the places where money-power is strongest?
On the plus side, for the rest of your life, including especially if you actually want to raise a child, red states are much better in most ways unless you have a very high salary in a coastal blue state (or your income is low enough to get benefits from the blue states, but your income won't be low enough if you're a professional).
Well unless your a woman with pregnancy complications that are life threatening. Then your out of luck. Hopefully you can catch a flight to California in time before you go into septic shock.
People vote with their feet.
The technical term for this is "race to the bottom," abetted by short-term thinking on the part of "customers." It's similar to how people complain bitterly about the quality of air travel, but then go for the lowest-possible air fare.
(OK, the actual technical term is "revealed preference vs. expressed [or stated] preference.")
The Bay Area has insane housing costs because of toxic zoning regulations.
Austin is a firmly blue city with extensive public services.
The parts Georgia Bay Area folks are moving to are similar politically and socially.
A better description is “people who value a well run city leave their poorly run city and move to a well run city.”
Corporations doing business in the country with the least environmental regulation is a race to the bottom.
Big corporations opening campuses in lightly populated suburbs is a race to the bottom.
Ships flying flages of convenience in third world countries is a race to the bottom.
People leaving a poorly run place to a well run place is not a race to the bottom.
When a person moves from the Dominican Republic to New York, that’s not a race to the bottom.