Plenty of that in Silicon Valley too. Being displaced by rich assholes who came for the money or some fad and will bail on the place just as quickly, leaving the area worse than they found it isn’t likely to make (educated, liberal) rich assholes many friends amongst those with roots or more vested long term interests. We live in a world of replacement and our communities should not be treated as another disposable product to be enjoyed and then discarded for whatever new shiny thing comes along. California, Austin, etc are selecting for people who take more than they give. Their growth removes community and disrupts lives, perhaps a fair price to pay for progress, but is it really progress?

> California, Austin, etc are selecting for people who take more than they give.

How is this measured? Any should someone born in a community without access to high paying jobs or less desirable weather/amenities not be able to move elsewhere?

It’s not an empirical statement but if you wanted to treat it as such you could look at the churn, how long people stay in the new location, broken out by earnings delta and education level. The extent to which people chase money or lack ambition is increasingly correlated with geography, to the detriment of humanity IMO. The other side of the coin is persistent poverty and social problems for the less ambitious/greedy.

Sure, that is one sort of expression. And very typical “it’s you, not me” attitude on both sides.

Another is that locals would love to know that they can afford a mortgage payment in their own hometown sometime in their adult life.

The fact you can't comprehend why they'd be unhappy about it... is why they're unhappy about it.

Our educated liberals hate Californians just fine, thank you.

Good lord. This statement alone should be hammered into your license plates when you leave. It's the perfect embodiment of why people don't like you.