Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#161

Post by JSavageOne »

megablast wrote: post #110
redm wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your painting with a pretty broad brush. Sitting aside your bad experience at the licensing office (and general negativity on the culture), someone moving from SF may have a higher quality of life, depending on what they value. For example, more space, lower cost of living, lower taxes, ability to travel more, save more, have a larger house, etc. You can trade tornado's for wild-fire's and earthquakes. I live…

Not about having to drive everywhere, which is a deal breaker for me.

Unfortunately that's basically the case everywhere in the U.S. outside of NYC, SF, and DC.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#162

Post by Retric »

Thorrez wrote: post #157
Retric wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That rate of property crime is a direct result of prosperity. In poor areas there is less stuff worth stealing and people spend more effort protecting it. The average house in Riverdale Chicago is worth less than the average car in Silicon Vally. People there make less money from armed robbery than someone can shoplift from a Silicon Valley Apple store. So shockingly with different risk/reward payoffs you get more pr…

According to https://www.neighborhoodscout.com SF property crime: 57.01/1000 SF median home: $1,195,367 SF per-capita income: $64k NYC property crime: 18.64/1000 NYC median home: $1,126,049 NYC per-capita income: $73k Palo Alto property crime: 22.88/1000 Palo Alto median home: $2,363,833 Palo Alto per-capita income: $89k Chicago property crime: 32.48/1000 Chicago median home: $272,043 Chicago per-capita income: $34k…

That site is wildly inaccurate it lists 1.2% of homes in San Francisco as under 58k. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/real-esta...

But, if you’re confusing the point, clearly median income isn’t the only factor. Palo Alto is 2,712.65/sq mi where San Francisco is 18,790.74/sq mi. It’s over the hump where you don’t get poor people begging etc. Similarly, manhattan effectively segregates the rich an poor in a way that San Francisco doesn’t, but wealth very much is a factor when comparing San Francisco to similar areas.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#163

Post by odessacubbage »

Retric wrote: post #76
austincheney wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry Yes, bigotry is a nasty stain. Otherwise this thought sounds so tone deaf. The common perception outside California is that Californians royally fucked it up and are flooding out like water from a ruptured damn, except they are bringing their political baggage with them to damage their new home just like the thing they can’t escape…

It’s really odd to me that California is perceived to be such a problem while the area is so economically productive. It’s a very odd type of cognitive dissonance where something is both a model to be copied and a mess at the same time by the same people. People try and recreate Silicon Valley while arguing non competes must be enforced. As if the ideas must inherently be unrelated.

it's odd to me that larry flynt is perceived to be such a problem when his businesses are so economically productive.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#164

Post by jl2718 »

I wonder whether this is even good for them. What is the idea here? Are a few engineers supposed to rub off on everybody else and start the next Google there? Or are they looking to boost their services economy by catering to a massive remote work income disparity? I don’t know about the former, but the latter doesn’t work.

Sustainable regional economic growth depends on development of a local industry with global comparative advantage, e.g. exports. I’m not sure this will be software in Tulsa.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#165

Post by jl2718 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #115
rafram wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for being, generally, useless While I understand what you’re going for here, this feels a bit eugenics-ish to me. They are as much a human being as you are and people are capable of change. Odds are they didn’t choose to live there.

The million-dollar question that it's all about is if the locals choose to be ignorant assholes or if they don't know better because of circumstances - multigenerational bad education and ready availability of Foxnews. You'd actually say that anyone who could moved away long ago, and it's only the dregs of society that are still there.

I think people living in hard situations develop all kinds of biases and tribalism out of necessity. Cosmopolitanism is a luxury good.

If you can’t admit that you, with your own mind and morals, would act the same way in the same circumstances, that doesn’t seem any different than the bigotry you accuse ‘them’ of.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#166

Post by odessacubbage »

austincheney wrote: post #66
pqoek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry But I can understand that one wouldn't want to be the one that has to suffer for the good cause, because it takes generations for things to improve. The great thing about religion is that it attracts fanatics who are willing to do this work. I wish there was a movement to make the world a better place with missionaries going abroad an…

> Part of changing and improve things is to actually move there to dilute the bigotry Yes, bigotry is a nasty stain. Otherwise this thought sounds so tone deaf. The common perception outside California is that Californians royally fucked it up and are flooding out like water from a ruptured damn, except they are bringing their political baggage with them to damage their new home just like the thing they can’t escape…

it's not even just political baggage per say, city people and second home owners are coming from a different culture and they rarely if ever try to understand ours before demanding we change it to accommodate them. they want a starbucks, they want a whole foods and a shopping mall, they drive like assholes on a good day and are straight up dangerous once the roads start to get icy. given the choice they'd turn this place into another smoggy strip mall where the foxes don't come out and you can't see the stars anymore; they wouldn't even recognize what they took from us. to them central park is nature and not a big fucking lawn surrounded by noise and dead concrete. i see exactly what all the concentrated wealth and genius managed to do to california and it scares the shit out of me. keep your money, keep your 'culture' and opportunities just please go somewhere else.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#167

Post by blhack »

burnthrow wrote: post #143
blhack wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The semiconductor industry has an huge presence here. Here's a new (major) fab going in: https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2020/10/20/semicond... Intel also has fabs here. Semiconductor manufacturing is a major industry in Phoenix.

"Has tech industry" is not the same as "new Silicon Valley." As defined by an insatiable need for new programmer blood. Phoenix is laughably far from having that. Seattle (mostly Amazon) and Austin in the last decade have come closest to that, and are still a far cry.

Silicon Valley is called that because it’s where all of the chip fabs were. They’ve not anymore, and with TSMC coming to Phoenix, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Phoenix is becoming the center of the microprocessor manufacturing industry in the US. The existing infrastructure here with machine shops, contractors, etc that build and maintain the fab equipment is an obvious reason why they chose this City.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#168

Post by ketamine__ »

dvtrn wrote: post #122
ketamine__ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can Chicago be below Austin? Chicago has Groupon, 1871, and Lightbank. Austin's downtown doesn't even compare to Chicago's downtown. It's horrible.

Lived in one, now a resident in the other, Austin's downtown doesn't even compare to the downtown of the other major cities in its own state , if you even only talked about public transit. Going east to west is a nightmare of transfers, going north to south (in non-COVID times) is a nightmare of sitting on either Guadalupe for an hour to go two miles or sitting on Lamar for an hour to go two miles. And that's IF your…

I'm not anti-Austin. I would live there for a year if the cost of living was cut in half. I just don't think the value is there.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#169

Post by effingwewt »

mint2 wrote: post #150
sgustard wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was hoping someone would make this comment. White flight to a red state is nothing new. My neighbors in the bay area represent dozens of cultures and no one's going to pay me to give that up.

As a CA native, I feel weird and out of place when in any area with a single overwhelmingly dominant ethnicity. Whether it’s the Midwest or Shanghai, it just feels weird like something is off. I’m just too used to very multicultural areas.

This comment makes no sense to me. All over California are neighborhoods (Chinatown) and entire cities (Rosemead) that segregated themselves because they wanted more familiarity, which makes sense.

Re: Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa

#170

Post by effingwewt »

burnthrow wrote: post #124
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you're getting paid a tech salary to live in Tulsa + $10k who the FUCK cares if a clerk is rude to you? I think of my New York City taxes as a country club fee. That way they aren’t half bad. If I made a little less or a lot more they would be a problem. But having distance from racists, homophobes and idiots, who tend to congregate in low-cost places for being, generally, useless, is worth a few tens of thousan…

You'll find lots of racists, homophobes, and idiots at actual country clubs. Not sure what you're trying to argue here, class can't be purchased.

Indeed, my own family is exactly what you described here. They are affluent wealthy and nice public-facing people.

In private they hate the 'poors, blacks, queers', et al.

Boggled my mind reading gp's comment, as in my experience it's been the reverse- I had to distance myself from the wealthy part of my own family because 'the poors' have always been better people in general: more forgiving, understanding, compassionate.

Post reply on HN