Some Red State/Blue State Indicia
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
i've tried to explain...it is mostly a migration of older less productive people
but california and other blue states do have some very bad policies...they could do even better if they reformed their permitting systems...there have been some hopeful recent developments but they need to do more
sturg33
I
people have been getting old forever. this is a recent, unprecedented phenomenon
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
california has always been a net gainer of young college educated students except for a couple years in the aftermath of covid
and of course florida's post-covid bump is receding quite fast
sturg33
I
California back in in red in 2025
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I haven't seen any data that breaks it down by age and educational attainment for 2025. A few general points:
1) California has been seeing negative net migration to other states for over 20 years now.
2) Most of that negative net migration is older less well-educated people
3) It tends to attract younger college educated workers, with one notable dip in 2021
4) It attracts a lot of highly educated immigrants and many poorly educated immigrants. I think both groups tend to complement the skills of the population that is already there.
I'll post some graphs.
sturg33
I
Problem is now they are losing more people than they are gaining. Gavin Newsom has overseen an actual decline in population. So badly they will be losing a handful of congressional seats.
Recent
Unprecedented
Failure
sturg33
I
Unprecedented
sturg33
I
Elon needs to get more woke
A dollar earned produces a better overall outcome (in terms of purchasing power, what it can actually buy after accounting for costs, and retained take-home pay) in Texas than in California for the typical household.
tiktok.com
Why Texas Generally Wins on Purchasing PowerHigher nominal median household income in California ($100,000–$102,000 in recent 2024 data) vs. Texas ($73,000–$83,000). However, this advantage erodes significantly once adjusted for cost of living.
visualcapitalist.com
Cost of living is dramatically higher in California (index ~142 vs. Texas ~92, meaning California is roughly 40–50% more expensive overall, with housing often 2x+ the national average). Groceries, utilities, transportation, and especially shelter drive this gap. Texas costs are closer to or below the U.S. average.
worldpopulationreview.com
Taxes: Texas has no state income tax, which boosts take-home pay (especially for middle- and higher earners). California has high progressive income taxes (up to 13.3%). Texas relies more on property and sales taxes, but the net effect for many households—particularly when paired with lower home prices—is more money in pocket. Effective tax burdens vary by income level and assumptions, but the absence of state income tax often gives Texas an edge in retained earnings.
ricelandtx.com
Housing affordability: This is the biggest factor. Median home prices in Texas ($300,000–$340,000) vs. California ($800,000–$870,000) mean a dollar stretches far further toward homeownership or rent in Texas. Price-to-income ratios are much more favorable in Texas (4x) than California (8x+), making it easier to build wealth through housing.
constructioncoverage.com
Adjusted/purchasing-power metrics consistently show Texas providing stronger real outcomes for a typical dollar earned. Studies adjusting median incomes for cost of living (including regional price parities from the BEA) often place Texas near or above national averages in effective buying power, while California's high costs reduce the real value of its higher nominal incomes. One analysis noted that even after adjustments, California's edge is modest (~4% above national in some rankings), while Texas benefits from affordability.
ocregister.com
Other Factors Influencing "Better Outcome"Non-housing costs: Everyday expenses (food, energy, transport) are noticeably lower in Texas, allowing more discretionary spending or savings.
Metro variations: In high-cost California metros (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles), the gap widens dramatically—requiring $180,000–$280,000+ household income for comfortable living or home buying in some areas. Texas metros (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio) offer better ratios even in growing cities like Austin.
jvmlending.com
Lifestyle and wealth building: Lower costs in Texas often translate to higher savings rates, easier homeownership, and more financial flexibility. California offers higher earnings potential in certain industries (tech, entertainment), but for median/typical earners, the cost erosion is substantial.
Caveats: Individual outcomes depend on specific location, occupation, family size, and lifestyle. High earners in California may still come out ahead in absolute terms despite costs. Some analyses show mixed tax burdens (e.g., regressive elements in Texas for lower incomes), but overall cost-of-living adjustments favor Texas for broad middle-class scenarios.
In short, while California provides higher gross earnings on paper, Texas delivers superior purchasing power and affordability for what a typical dollar can achieve in housing, daily expenses, and take-home value. This "Texas raise" effect—more lifestyle per dollar—is a key reason many cite when comparing the two states. For personalized calculations, tools like cost-of-living calculators from SmartAsset or Forbes can model specific scenarios.
A dollar earned produces a better overall outcome (in terms of purchasing power, what it can actually buy after accounting for costs, and retained take-home pay) in Texas than in California for the typical household.
tiktok.com
Why Texas Generally Wins on Purchasing PowerHigher nominal median household income in California ($100,000–$102,000 in recent 2024 data) vs. Texas ($73,000–$83,000). However, this advantage erodes significantly once adjusted for cost of living.
visualcapitalist.com
Cost of living is dramatically higher in California (index ~142 vs. Texas ~92, meaning California is roughly 40–50% more expensive overall, with housing often 2x+ the national average). Groceries, utilities, transportation, and especially shelter drive this gap. Texas costs are closer to or below the U.S. average.
worldpopulationreview.com
Taxes: Texas has no state income tax, which boosts take-home pay (especially for middle- and higher earners). California has high progressive income taxes (up to 13.3%). Texas relies more on property and sales taxes, but the net effect for many households—particularly when paired with lower home prices—is more money in pocket. Effective tax burdens vary by income level and assumptions, but the absence of state income tax often gives Texas an edge in retained earnings.
ricelandtx.com
Housing affordability: This is the biggest factor. Median home prices in Texas ($300,000–$340,000) vs. California ($800,000–$870,000) mean a dollar stretches far further toward homeownership or rent in Texas. Price-to-income ratios are much more favorable in Texas (4x) than California (8x+), making it easier to build wealth through housing.
constructioncoverage.com
Adjusted/purchasing-power metrics consistently show Texas providing stronger real outcomes for a typical dollar earned. Studies adjusting median incomes for cost of living (including regional price parities from the BEA) often place Texas near or above national averages in effective buying power, while California's high costs reduce the real value of its higher nominal incomes. One analysis noted that even after adjustments, California's edge is modest (~4% above national in some rankings), while Texas benefits from affordability.
ocregister.com
Other Factors Influencing "Better Outcome"Non-housing costs: Everyday expenses (food, energy, transport) are noticeably lower in Texas, allowing more discretionary spending or savings.
Metro variations: In high-cost California metros (e.g., San Francisco, Los Angeles), the gap widens dramatically—requiring $180,000–$280,000+ household income for comfortable living or home buying in some areas. Texas metros (Houston, Dallas, San Antonio) offer better ratios even in growing cities like Austin.
jvmlending.com
Lifestyle and wealth building: Lower costs in Texas often translate to higher savings rates, easier homeownership, and more financial flexibility. California offers higher earnings potential in certain industries (tech, entertainment), but for median/typical earners, the cost erosion is substantial.
Caveats: Individual outcomes depend on specific location, occupation, family size, and lifestyle. High earners in California may still come out ahead in absolute terms despite costs. Some analyses show mixed tax burdens (e.g., regressive elements in Texas for lower incomes), but overall cost-of-living adjustments favor Texas for broad middle-class scenarios.
In short, while California provides higher gross earnings on paper, Texas delivers superior purchasing power and affordability for what a typical dollar can achieve in housing, daily expenses, and take-home value. This "Texas raise" effect—more lifestyle per dollar—is a key reason many cite when comparing the two states. For personalized calculations, tools like cost-of-living calculators from SmartAsset or Forbes can model specific scenarios.
sturg33
I
Oh reminder your house burned down bc retarded DEI policies
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
This isn't a boon doggle.
45K per household for stable internet connection vs. 350 dollars for limited shit internet. is nothing. Also California could easily cost this out to make profit if they hit enough places. While buying everyone a star link just makes them more money.
Let's theory craft this, California spends 6 billion building this infrustructure that eventually connects, and signs up 20% of it's households to this service, that's about 2.5 million customers. If they're charged 50 bucks a month on average for internet that generates 125 million a month or 1.5 billion a year.
Making internet a public utility isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not saying it's th eright thing 100% of the time but we've seen this work in other places. Chatanooga for example has public utility fiber and it's a rousing success and makes enough money and provides up to 25 gigabits per second allowing power users and businesses to subsidize lower income folks.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And moving to New York. You don't mention that.
JJ wanted to move his business operation closer to his home in New York.