A couple of recent posts by TLOTB have drawn my interest. He is focused loosely on the battle between California and Texas for wealthy citizens (or any citizens in general). He argues that California’s high tax rates won’t push residents towards Texas and its lower tax rates because wealthy Californians don’t want to live in Bible country.
I don’t think Californians’ general desire to avoid Texas and Texas’ culture has as much to do with it as their general love of the landscape and weather of their state. That should come at a premium, and you’d expect to be able to charge more money for access to mountains and the beach and relatively nice year-round weather. But, of course, all along the tax spectrum marginal taxpayers will decide that access to nice scenery has become too expensive.
While I’d expect that economists have discussed tax rate elasticity between states and regions, I wonder if they’ve modeled access to landscapes. Why wouldn’t states with access to the ocean charge more? Why wouldn’t counties within those states have higher property taxes or sales taxes? The same concept applies to cities which offer amenities that generally lower-tax rural areas don’t have.
Taking each state as a whole then, we see that the natural offerings of each state – it’s weather, landscape, waterways, and general scenery – help formulate its destiny. We could model two states, The Ugly State and The Beautiful State. Just running through the model quickly, The Beautiful State would move towards a blue model because the people who are willing to select environment over low tax rates would more likely be liberal in disposition. Ugly States could only compete on price (tax rates). The people it would attract would be price-focused.
But as for TLOTB’s present discussion, California’s increased taxes will surely push some people away, but it will push those who are least attached to the state (and more attached to their money). Retirees will move away and so will business owners. Many Californians do also enjoy the return they get on their tax dollar investment. The state provides some decent amenities to its residents. But the new tax hikes aren’t really providing any new amenities; it’s bailing the state out for ineffective amenities it has provided in the past.
This is just a quick model, and I’m shooting from the hip here. I expect push back in the comments so let ‘er rip.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Arkansas is beautiful, but not a lot of people want to live there.
I grew in Houston and I went to great public schools, I went to UT-Austin and paid $800/semester for tuition (early 90s), it was fairly safe, there were lots of other kids and lots of open space to play sports all the time and there were job opportunities if I had wanted to stay there. There are a lot of Jesus freaks and misquitos and fire ants, but on the whole the institutions there are much better than other places.
One other thing about Texas, is that it has its own economy basically and that you can get the sort of connections that you get at Ivy Leagues going to Texas A&M or one of the other state schools if you don’t mind make money in oil & gas.
If I may add some more, I was born in Florida and had lots of family who still live there and my family often wondered what would have happened had we stayed there. For instance, most of cousins (have a lot of them) didn’t go to college or didn’t finish high school where my siblings and I all have graduate degrees and have pretty well paying jobs. Was the culture of Florida so much worse than Texas or is this just a weird coincidence?
The problem with cheap, low-cost living states has THIRD of the story to do with White Christians, rednecks, “white trash” (white criminals) or other assorted figures.
Rich white liberals (Yuppies) and poor white liberals (hipsters) both form part of the SWPL Club and constantly denigrate these “Red states” for their horrible conditions always on those *gasp* “bad white people!”
The real reason is simple and obvious, yet so denied: race. “Red states” are full of Blacks and Hispanics. White liberals who live in white enclaves due to their net worth and riches, or those who live near them like hipsters, live in Maine, MA and other white liberal places.
And thereby don’t need guns and hate gun culture. They also hate the whole idea of reduction on abortion by citing *gasp* feminism when in reality abortion is more of a racial thing (80% of abortion clinics are stationed in poor neighborhoods which is code for “Black/Hispanics places”). Ironically, pro life propaganda has contributed NAM birthrates to around 2.0 (replacement level).
“Red states” are ironically lowering dysgenic NAM birthrates (mostly by letting NAMs killing each other through illegal guns, threating to reduce abortion so their families abort even more and not supporting a police force to babysit them) and are keeping white birthrates slightly above replacement level to around 3 (also keep in mind that most young whites who have babies nowadays are unmarried but cohabitate).
There are three reasons:
- Culture (Redneck, White Christian)
- Geographical/Genetics/Race (Blacks and Hispanics)
- Other reason
Oh and cutting welfare is also lowering NAM birthrates.
Nice theory Chuck. Californians have referred to the idea of their georgraphy and landscape pulling more in as the sunshine tax. California also has the unique feature of being the hub for two cool, trendy industries in Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
RDCT45 is onto something about NAM populations of those awful red states. It would scare off wealthy, genteel northern whites. I’m a former Mainah, and Maine is the most redneck blue state or the gayest redneck state in the union. It does have a beautiful look to it and no NAMs (97% white). Up until 2010, the biggest minority was the American Indian population, but they live mostly on reservations. They can vote Dem because when they run into a NAM they say “Are you lost?”.
Whenever I read a LoB post and picture the Lion or Half Sigma, I see George Costanza.
New Jersey is a pretty ugly state.
Half Sigma looks nothing like George Costanza. He’s got a full head of hair and isn’t hefty at all.
People are overly complacent about California’s earthquake risk.
What’s funny is that SF knows it’s full, but polices itself to express the idea in incoherent ways…we have too many PEOPLE, but not too many IMMIGRANTS.
Check out this classic tolerant liberal freak-out about “carpetbaggers” (i.e. internal migrants) in SF, from the height of the dot-com bubble.
http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28/internet_2/
Well, as a northerner who relocated to Houston, I might have some thoughts. Granted, since I was a military exitee with children, I am probably atypical.
For a parent, Texas is a great place to raise children. Affordable housing in good school districts, access to great private schools, and a strong home-schooling network. But for me, it was the more conservative social mores that did it. I saw too many kids destroyed by their peer group.
It’s funny, when Compaq was bought by HP, I got a chance to meet a bunch of Californians that were doing the merger. They were astounded at the quality of life and the economy. I heard more than a few comments that indicated their time in California was short.
With the advent of heating and AC, I think that climate is almost a null point in most models.
It’s a mix of culture and geography.
A fair number of coastal elites could never psychologically live in a place in the middle — the country revolves around the coasts, and the middle is a nuisance that votes Republican — bunch of fucking stupid redneck hicks.
California does have the sunshine tax and the cool factor, but it’s very crowded and expensive. People have been fleeing the state and driving up real estate prices in other western states for decades now, so it’s nothing new.
To me, California is like NY in the sense that if you are going to live there, you need to blow the doors right off the hinges and make 7 figures. Otherwise, you’re better off living elsewhere.
I’ve encountered a number of people who view the NW corner of Arkansas as a hidden treasure. The problem is they bring their blue state politics with them when they move here.
California is a state controlled by government (the biggest player in electoral politics is the public unions). California also has many areas with the best weather in the world, which is why it can rape the non-public sector workers. I played tennis outdoors yesterday and it was delightful.
The state has been hollowing out along the lines of a Latin American country leaving just a wealthy overclass and largely illiterate peasant class of illegals. The middle classes are leaving to neighboring states and places like Texas where they can afford to raise a family on a middle class income. It is not a sustainable situation and it does not look like it will have a happy ending.
Florida is a good state to raise children (we had two here, and public High School was OK.)
But I cannot imagine someone like Derbyshire residing here.
Derb has about a dinner a week in NY City with very intellectual people,
while living in Long Isalnd, NY, NY.
There is no such concentration of intellectuals here in Florida.
By the way, I do not consider myself as intellectual,
just a professional.
Your F.r.
OT.
Doubtless you’ve seen Derbyshire’s dismissal of the NEXXT LEVEL charlatans here, though your readers may have not:
http://takimag.com/article/arriving_late_to_the_hbd_party_john_derbyshire/print
High praise to GLP, considering the source.
Matt
Those NexxtLevel articles were terrible. I couldn’t even read the whole thing.
@Mike43
“With the advent of heating and AC, I think that climate is almost a null point in most models.”
Except that humans feel better in natural light and fresh air. The appeal of California is the weather. Every time we get a mid 70′s, sunny, low humidity, breezy day, I’m reminded why people love California. You just feel good and are in a good mood on those days.
“People are overly complacent about California’s earthquake risk.”
Most people are, I’d agree. I have 2 waterproof cases of SHTF supplies for when the big one hits. I live in a wood frame house, and those tend to do pretty well in all but the most violent earthquakes. I would not want to be in an older concrete tilt-up or under a freeway overpass during a quake though.
That said, here in southern California we get a good, strong shake about once every 20 years. The last one was in 1994, so we’re about due again but I’d rather live with that than hurricanes, tornadoes, or blizzards year in, year out. And not all parts of the state are at the same risk. San Francisco has a much higher probability of a massive quake than does San Diego, for example.
And, as other commenters have pointed out, you can’t beat the weather.
I had a couple of blog posts about California about eight months ago. Hope you don’t mind my posting them here as I think they illustrate the problems that state is facing:
http://colrebsez.blogspot.com/2012/05/youre-not-california-dreamin-youre-in.html
http://colrebsez.blogspot.com/2012/08/california-school-district-financing.html
Having lived in both California and Texas (for about equal time periods), it’s Texas hands down.
And who says Texas isn’t beautiful? Try the south Gulf coast near Corpus Christi/Padre Island for beaches as good as you’ll get in southern CA. Try west Texas and Big Bend National Park for some awesome desert scenery. And try Marfa, Ft. Davis, and Alpine for the same kind of “latte town” experience you would get in Marin County without all the pretense.
Property taxes are high in Texas, but there’s no income tax, while in CA the leftists in control of the legislature plot to overturn Prop 13 to jack up property taxes–while maintaining the high income tax the leftwing electorate approved this past November. There’s absolutely no justification for anyone to live in CA these days–at least if you want to build a business or have a semi-secure job.
This is why inland California is doing so poorly, it’s ugly AND it has high taxes.
I think you guys are kind of missing the point in the California vs. Texas dustup. Wealthy Hollywood and Silicon Valley types aren’t going to like any part of Texas except for Austin (which, pace Chuck’s theory, is at the base of by far the most beautiful area of the state, the Hill Country). And bible-thumping rednecks would rather die than live in LA or Marin County for that matter.
But that’s not really the issue. The issue is where corporations want to go. For most industries, Texas has much lower taxes and less regulation. Living by the beach is nice, but when you’re chasing a middle-class life in this economy, you have to go where the jobs are.
I think you guys are kind of missing the point in the California vs. Texas dustup. Wealthy Hollywood and Silicon Valley types aren’t going to like any part of Texas except for Austin (which, pace Chuck’s theory, is at the base of by far the most beautiful area of the state, the Hill Country). And bible-thumping rednecks would rather die than live in LA or Marin County for that matter.
Right — exactly my point. It’s the same for the people living in NYC, Boston and DC. Coastal elites be coastal elites.
“And who says Texas isn’t beautiful? Try the south Gulf coast near Corpus Christi/Padre Island for beaches as good as you’ll get in southern CA. Try west Texas and Big Bend National Park for some awesome desert scenery. And try Marfa, Ft. Davis, and Alpine for the same kind of “latte town” experience you would get in Marin County without all the pretense.”
The Corpus Christi area has inferior beaches to Alabama for goodness sake. All beaches on the gulf, save maybe in far South Florida, can’t hold a candle to California’s. It’s not just the water, they lack the dramatic cliffs and rocks that make California’s coast so beautiful. I say this as a longtime gulf coast resident, too.
Just face it: Texas is not that scenic. It’s not ugly either though- no state is truly ugly, except for maybe Indiana.
Not that I’d move there, but I think the most beautiful states I’ve visited would have to be Oregon and Washington. It’s very lovely up in the Pacific northwest.
Steve Sailer beat you to it.