About half of America’s off-grid energy projects are in Texas. The OpenAI/Oracle data center in Shackelford County is running on its own gas plant. That’s the real Texas advantage.
It’s not just taxes or cheap power. It’s that you can put the power plant and the inference cluster in the same operating loop to avoid waiting years in an interconnection queue.
Those companies building AI datacenters in Texas are still mostly hiring for higher-paid office positions (like SWE) in the Bay Area, Seattle, NYC, etc because that's where the leadership still is. Before this, it was the same, California had almost 0 datacenters while the rest were in like SC, OR, TX, NV, IA. You could argue CA should've been more receptive to datacenters because they bring decent jobs, but I don't see a reason to focus so much on them.
California is an incredible example of how to drop the ball when running a powerful state. Texas is of course on the other end of the spectrum in terms of regulation and being business-friendly. Something more in the middle of the two is obviously ideal.
I’ve heard this a lot and am curious to learn why this is the case. As an employee at firms in SoCal then NorCal, I only enjoyed my living and work time in CA. Perhaps, I would see differently as a business owner? Curious to become an informed citizen and learn what isn’t working in CA
California's problems are going to magnify as time goes on. The state budget has always been a fiction they could paper over because the state had high growth. As growth slows it becomes harder and harder to provide services using debt.
Property taxes are relatively high in Texas but houses are so much cheaper. Also, the cost of living in Texas is far lower than in CA. From an economic perspective, living in Texas is a no brainer.
Even when you look at those rankings that take property tax into consideration, CA is way higher than TX. And the people who see a dime from the CA safety net aren't the ones paying property tax.
Don't take into account the higher appreciation in California .
I disagree about the safety net. I was a high earning California resident (mid six) and when I was laid off, I got my unemployment and my kids got free Medicaid that ended up paying out quite a bit. The safety net is pretty nice.
Since that payout from insurance, my total tax burden in California was actually negative. Had I been in a state like Texas I would have paid less in tax but more overall.
True, but in my experience grandparent is a bit full of it. Yes property taxes are higher, but what op leaves out is that the values of homes are like for like 2-3x more expensive in California. So in the end I would probably pay around the same tax for a like for like home in California as Texas, simply because of the value of the home. Then we must consider the state income tax of California, which is a nonzero differential to that of Texas’ state income tax
Yes people in Texas have to move a ton because as property prices go up so do their taxes. With California, you control how much income you earn. In Texas, people moving to your neighborhood can price you out even after you've bought .
A move for a family can cost thousands. Since the higher moving rate is due to the tax system these costs ought to be counted.
Because it's cheaper, partially because yes taxes are lower but also because it's just cheaper. The weather makes Texas less desirable than California, and it's almost as if they tax based on that.
How many homeless people in California are actually from the state? Cause it seems like within CA, they move to big cities. Democrats then say that high-valued real estate is causing homelessness, and Republicans blame lack of law enforcement, but I don't see how it's either of those.
Almost none are from out of state. 90% were living in California when they became homeless, and 65% were born in California. It doesn't even make sense as to why a homeless person would voluntarily move to California where literally everything, including food, is more expensive and housing is impossible. Plus, homeless people lack the means to easily move around. California's housing situation is the worst in the country. It even has the lowest percentage of homes actually owned by homeowners.
Not disputing any of the statistics cited, but there is one advantage of being homeless in California compared to other places: favorable weather, especially along the coast. Snow is a once-in-a-generation event outside high-elevation areas, and while it does freeze on some winter nights, it’s rarely below 30 F. There are many parts of the country where temperatures sometimes get low enough to be life-threatening for those with inadequate shelter, heating, and clothing. The coastal areas of California also typically don’t get too hot. Heat is more of an issue inland, particularly the Central Valley and the desert.
Texas has high property taxes. This causes people to need to move. It also spurs construction causing prices of homes to stay flat. For the typical homeowner, the total combined appreciation of your home in CA combined with the savings from the no moving property tax once you've been there a while more than covers the California tax burden.
My colleagues and direct reports in Texas constantly have to move as their property appreciates. This alone results in excess cost that is essentially a tax on not being rich.
It’s not just taxes or cheap power. It’s that you can put the power plant and the inference cluster in the same operating loop to avoid waiting years in an interconnection queue.
reply