Hacker News Reader

Comment by thetrumanshow | Hacker News Reader

Man, I feel like I'm going to be really negative, I hope not, but here goes: OKC is undergoing an oil boom, the secondary effects of which are being reported in this article (IMO). My advice: come live in Oklahoma or Kansas if you actually like it here and want to be here for a long time, because when the boom dies, you'll find it harder to leave. Opportunities abound on the coasts. Texas, well, Texas is always a great place to live and work... they are almost always the exception.

View on HN

There is more to it than than just oil. OKC didn't go nuts like much of the country did during the real estate boom and likewise we didn't get our asses handed to us when the market dropped. We saw moderate gains followed by moderate loss. That's a big reason why OKC has maintained one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country throughout this financial crisis.

IMO this is a reflection of a culture that's a little more traditional and a lot more conservative than the rest of the country (and I don't mean crazy-right-wing-extreme-conservatism, though we have that here, too). People live, work and start businesses in OKC because they want to be here — not because they want access to VC/talent/incentives/loopholes.

I've lived in OKC for 20 years and we've stayed because it's a great place to live. My kids aren't passing through metal detectors at school, I can drive anywhere in the city in 20 minutes, the other guy always lets you go first at a 4-way stop, and when I say "hi" to a total stranger on the street they smile and reply in kind.

> the other guy always lets you go first at a 4-way stop

You say this like it's a good thing...

You're right. It's kind of irritating sometimes—there are rules for how this works!

But they do mean well :)

Even in Texas, you have to be careful when the boom ends. I was in Midland/Odessa about 10-12 years ago (before the current oil boom) and it was a tough place to live - lots of closed businesses. The drilling firms had stacks of pipe in their yards, instead of out in the oil fields being put to use.

The folks who lived there were really down on their city, something you don't see all that often in Texas (how do you know someone's a Texan? Don't worry, they'll tell you). That was hard to deal with in conversation with them - they still had lots of advantages, but they wouldn't see them.

You have to be careful where you are when the boom ends. Dallas weaned itself off oil money in the late 80s/early 90s; ExxonMobil's headquarters is the only major holdout. It turned itself into a headquarters town, and is now turning itself into America's datacenter and a minor tech hub. Austin has entrenched itself as a second-tier tech hub. San Antonio is a major Air Force tech hub. Houston, while awash in oil money, has non-oil shipping, finance, and NASA. Only west Texas is so dependent on oil that an oil bust would be a major economic calamity.

> how do you know someone's a Texan? Don't worry, they'll tell you

I never noticed this before, but I'm a Texan, and I do this.

Same joke also works for new yorkers

As well as lawyers, crossfitters, and vegetarians.

I've always heard it with pilots

Yorkshire

I live in Atlanta, and notice that it has many of the advantages of an inland city without being as tied to a boom/bust cycle that oil cities can have. Surely there are other US cities that have a lower cost of living that isn't tied to a single industry. I'd love to hear what experience others have.

Agreed this was super OKC focused (almost felt like OKC planted story if it wasn't the NY Times!) but the data supports the fact this is a broader trend.

Could be OKC is just good at PR. The mayor is an ex-TV celebrity and a perfectly reasonable person who makes a good interview. They interviewed him on NPR recently and his side was, in summary, they needed to spend money so they raised a tax and spent the money.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/19/145437581/oklahoma-city-avoids...

It's a pretty good example of why Republicans make good mayors, even when state and national level Republican politicians are insane.

Being from OKC and with plenty of family still left that I still visit frequently, I can say I heartily endorse moving there if, and only if, you:

1) Can tolerate daily encounters with racist and homophobic statements and words like nigger and faggot being thrown around by ~everybody. 2) Think it's funny when the local paper actually uses the word "Osamacare" in print. 3) Enjoy minor earthquakes.

As an Okie (now living in NY), the last two are very accurate. Can't say I've heard much on 1) but polite or quiet racism is definitely prominent. The state hates Obama, hates renewable energy (even though it could be a leader in both wind and solar energy), and hates rational thinking.

If you're not a church goer or conservative, imho, it's not an enjoyable place. You will be outnumbered 90-1. And once you've lived in a community that has a vibrant artistic community (that you partake in), it becomes very difficult to enjoy a city that just doesn't respect that (and doesn't feed that part of your life).

And I say this as someone who loves Oklahoma. But it's problems far outweigh the positives for me to ever move back. I'll take NY or LA along with the expense over a cheaper growing "town".

<edit> And having lived thru the oil bust in the 80s, and how much OKC is married to the wealth and growth of Devon, Chesapeake and the oil/gas industry, another bust or even long periods of negative growth will kill the OK economy. The state leaders won't have the will to counteract that force with investments in tech and renewable energy.

> The state...hates renewable energy

Well that clinches it for me. There are very, very few viewpoints that I dismiss out of hand, but opposition to renewable energy is one of them (maybe the only one). Energy is one of the world's most important resources, and we know that we are using a source which is ultimately finite. Even if oil reserves were to last another 10,000 years (and the vast majority of experts do not think this is the case), what do we have to lose by moving our infrastructure towards a renewable source? Not doing so is cutting off the branch we are sitting on.

I can tolerate people who are apathetic about this issue...I understand the greed of people who enter the oil industry without regard for the environment...I can sympathize with people who say they're concerned with personal expense (e.g. buying solar panels for their house)...but being flat-out opposed to the idea of removing humanity's dependence upon a limited resource is just ludicrous. Or willfully ignorant. Or something. I don't even know.

Opportunity cost. If you expend resources on developing something what are you giving up? This is why renewables are not being developed more than they are. In fact they are probably being developed at an artificially exaggerated rate right now, given incentives such as tax credits.

As oil becomes more scarce, its price will rise sharply. A large increase in the price of oil would have significant negative effects on the global economy. It can be argued that money spent to reduce our dependence on oil is only "giving up" in the same sense that saving money is giving up the ability to spend it. The opportunity cost of not pursuing alternatives is _much_ higher in the long run.

Do you actually believe that alternative energy is not a good investment, or were you attempting to rationalize why one might be opposed?

I don't hate renewable energy. I love the idea of renewable energy. But I hate parts of the renewable energy industry that lie, manipulate, or simply use political contacts to make a profit when they don't have a viable product.

I suspect Oklahoma's "hate" for renewable energy is the same. They're actually top 10 in non-hydro renewable electricity production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_electric... ). From what I can tell, they actually have one of the healthier outlooks toward both renewable and non-renewable energy.

Oklahoma is one of the reddest states in the nation. Oklahoma has voted for the Republican candidate in every election since 1952, with the exception of 1964 (Goldwater/LBJ). It's an important data point, and you will see it reflected in many peoples' attitudes. (I have family there and visit every couple of years.)

I don't think there are more racist/homophobic people in the midwest than anywhere else. But since you are in less of a bubble of progressive/hacker culture you might encounter them more often.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com