

Texas, here we come: Migration to the lone star state - cwan
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/06/migration

======
ronnier
My concern with regard to the large amount of people moving to Texas is that
they'll then advocate the same policies they just fled from.

~~~
geebee
These policies may eventually find their way to Austin. I don't think the
people who fled them will advocate them, but keep in mind what "fleeing" means
- somebody is pursuing you. These folks may eventually catch up.

One big difference between San Francisco and Austin is that SF has been a
wealthy city for a while now, whereas Austin is still on the way up. The more
money there already _is_ , the more incentive people have to focus on getting
that money than creating new wealth.

As Austin gets bigger, wealthier, and more established, it's hard to believe
that some people won't see jobs, benefits, apartments, and vacations as things
people "get" rather than "create."

SF, while unimpressive in this regard, really isn't that different from any
other old city (Boston, NY come to mind). The advantage these old cities have
is they are, well, much more interesting places to live than most of the new
cities.

It sounds like Austin is in that magical spot where it is both new and
interesting, a rising star that doesn't have the baggage yet.

------
arohner
At my last corporate job (in Austin), we interviewed an engineer currently at
Apple. We asked him why he was moving. He answered "I can work at Apple for
$120k/year, and pay $1m for a house, or I can work in Austin for $100k/year,
and pay $200k for a house".

This was pre-bubble and I didn't fact check his numbers, but are the cost of
living in SV numbers correct?

~~~
enjo
Not exactly... and it's most definitely not an apples-to-apples comparison.

That $200k house in Austin is in a suburb. All of those nice walks to the
grocery store? Gone. All of those nice close local eateries? Gone.

You can find that in Austin, but the price jumps up pretty significantly.

~~~
wmf
Isn't a $1M silicon valley house also in suburbia?

~~~
kscaldef
Depends on what you mean by suburbia. Most of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, etc are
what I'd think of as "dense suburban". It's generally walkable to restaurants
& shopping.

~~~
natrius
It'll cost you more than $200k, but dense suburban housing is still more
affordable in Austin than it is in the Bay Area.

------
mattj
I think they read the totally wrong thing from this data. People move to
Portland, Austin, or Seattle due to the much higher perceived quality of life.
Low taxes are nice, but that's really just a side benefit.

------
j_baker
This could be an example of Simpson's paradox[1]. You can't determine where
people are moving based on which map has the most black lines.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox>

------
njharman
> High earning New Yorkers and Californians can take home between 9% and 11%
> more of their income by moving to Texas

Wages in Austin are __significantly __less than San Francisco or Seattle and I
suspect NY too. Don't kid yourselves you will be bringing home less money.
Sales and property taxes are high too. But considering costs esp housing it's
probably a net gain.

I wish I could recommend you not come to Austin (because influx of peoples
will change what Austin is) But I can't cause Austin flippin rocks.
[qualifications for judgment include; 3yrs Austin, 14yrs SF, 3yrs Seattle,
many months in SoCal, Phoenix, Baltimore, Toronto, Melborne, all over Germany,
Prague, Bangkok]

~~~
exit
so since you reject the articles financial argument, what is it you find
"flippin rocks" about austin?

~~~
njharman
> But considering costs esp housing it's probably a net gain.

------
antidaily
At this rate it's going to be tough keeping Austin weird.

~~~
robotron
No kidding.... we keep getting an influx of people seduced by the charm of
Austin who then turn around and force the charm to go away (see the recent
destruction of the Cathedral of Junk for an example). I know, I'm making
sweeping generalizations.

The infrastructure is definitely not set up for all of these new people.

Anyway, that's my doom-and-gloom for the day. Welcome to Austin?

~~~
natrius
Most of the things people blame newcomers for in Austin are actually caused by
people who've been in Austin for a while. The noise complaints don't come from
the people in the shiny new condos, but people succumb to their base instinct
for class warfare and blame problems on people who aren't like them.

I don't think the city did anything wrong by trying to make sure the Cathedral
of Junk didn't hurt anyone.

------
p3ll0n
Forbes had an interesting article

[http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-houston-
immi...](http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-houston-immigration-
job-growth-on-my-mind.html)

recently that had a narrower focus (Houston) but touches on many of the same
topics ... innovation, job growth and immigration ... and how they have helped
Texas stay ahead of the curve during the recession.

------
davidw
Note the astute comment 2nd from the top pointing out that a lot of the
Californians are headed to Oregon, which is _not_ a "low tax" state. Oregon's
taxes are actually fairly progressive: no sales tax (which tends to hit lower
income people more), and a higher income tax, IIRC. Basically, they're moving
there because it's indubitably cheaper, and the quality of life is higher (not
such a rat race).

------
kscaldef
There's definitely some cherry-picking going on here. The migration patterns
for Manhattan don't support the low-tax theory at all.

------
natmaster
Ok, now I have to ask: do you guys actually think high taxes are good? Please
respond with comments, rather than just up/down voting this.

------
natmaster
Guys, taxes are good. The government knows how to spend your money better than
you.

