Regional slurs, like national ones, are not allowed here. HN has readers in nearly every part of the US (and the world), and they have as much right to respect as you do. Please don't post like this again.

It's not a slur. It's an empirical fact. Demand for housing there is much lower.

You called the people who want to live there "no one". Prejudice seeps out in comments like that.

(Edit: I should have said "nobody" instead of "no one"; sorry.)

No one is pretty clearly a description of quantity, not a description of the people. I'm not sure why you would try to apply such an absurd and uncharitable interpretation to what I said, but if anything is toxic in this thread, it's that.

I get that you were talking about quantity, but the figure of speech which describes millions of people as "nobody" has also a belittling aspect to it. This is the aspect I'm talking about.

Well, I simply disagree that the fact that a word has another, unintended meaning has any bearing on its use. I don't really see why it should, or why that would be a productive or useful social rule to impose.

The word in question has a clear meaning, which clearly wasn't the sense in which you used it.

...and again, why is it that a sense that I didn't use matters?

You sure your best strategy here is "nobody wants to live in Texas"?

Normalized to size, they don't, relative to say, California.

Average population density is your argument? Do you realize how stupid that is?

By your measurement nobody wants to live in California because everyone wants to live in New Jersey.

Relative to SF and LA, the demand for housing anywhere in Texas is near zero.

And relative to new jersey, the demand for housing in California is near zero. See how dumb that sounds?

I'm not making a point about population density, I only did so because others brought it up first. Demand for housing in the urban areas of SF and LA is much higher than anywhere in Texas. Note that I used the word 'demand', not 'density'.

Really?

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/20/texas-population-gre...

California has a density of 241 people per square mile. Texas is 105. I'd say my point stands just fine.

I don't think you even know what your point is. Population density of an entire state has absolutely nothing to do with "nobody" wanting to live in the state. If Alaska decided to merge with California the population density would plummet and would fail your criterion despite the fact that no people actually moved.

I was responding to the link. The link talked about the population of Texas.

You tried to use population density of the state as a point. Do you know what the average population density of a state means?

Maybe you should read what I said. I used population density in response to someone else using it.