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.

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.

That's exactly what happened in Nevada during the housing bubble. You could sell a shack in CA for a huge amount of money and buy a McMansion on an acre for next to nothing in NV. As that trend continued you could see a distinct uptick in the rate at which CA influence was happening in the schools, laws etc.

This is a legitimate concern with foreign immigration as well, although people expressing this concern are usually criticized as racists.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

Look in Rosedale. You can still get a good house for under $500K.

I have lived in SV, and I currently live in Austin. The $1M for a house is not completely out of line, It does depend on how far you're willing to drive and if public school quality is a factor.

I think is $200k for Austin is a little low. It is possible to buy a home in Austin for $200k. Like all things housing, location is very important as is public school quality. If you don't care about the quality of the schools and don't mind a commute, then it is possible.

If your employer fires this engineer after a year, how many other potential employers would he have as options in Austin? When I think about relocating to a new place, the "what about the job after this one?" question is something foremost on my mind.

The number of tech employers in Austin is extremely high for any non-silicon valley location. Sun, IBM, Google, Intel, Dell, Motorola, Apple, Cisco, etc. all have offices in, or very close to, Austin.

It's not as many as in the valley, but it's not crazy for a nerd to move to Austin, even if the job that takes them there is fleeting.

But, I'd rather Austin stays just the way it is: just big enough to be exciting and just small enough to be friendly, affordable, and not cramped. So, don't move to Austin. It's terrible there. There are no jobs, no nerds, and the women are ugly and mean.

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.

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

> 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]

I left Austin for Denver. Two pretty similar cities but (for me at least) Denver has a much nicer climate, with even more to do nearby. While there is a (low) state income tax, property taxes are MUCH lower. We pay a bit less in Taxes than when we lived in Texas overall. I also much prefer the neighborhoods in Boulder/Denver to what Austin has to offer.

Here is a nice chart with effective tax rates measured various ways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_...

On average, moving from San Francisco to Austin will considerably increase your disposable income.

http://swz.salary.com/costoflivingwizard/layoutscripts/coll_...

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

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

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

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?

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.

Forbes had an interesting article

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-houston-immi...

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.

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).

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

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.

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