Bay Area applicants flood program that pays them $10k to move to Tulsa • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by dariusj18 » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

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.

I get a disquiet feeling when I'm in old southern towns like Savanah, I didn't know why at first, until I realized it's because their society is still so segregated.

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

#172

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

rafram wrote: post #86

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…

> 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.

> They are as much a human being as you are and people are capable of change

Totally agree. But these attitudes towards fellow people tend to pair with unproductive behaviours.

Now, there are plenty of exceptions. Highly productive people with abhorrent views. But on average, acidic views tend to go with lower incomes at a population level. (I make no assertion on which way causation flows. And within a city, the relationship breaks down.)

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

#173

Post by vmception » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

burnthrow wrote: post #126

xur17 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly surprised more places are don't try this - $10k for the potential tax revenue seems well worth it to me.

Probably because it doesn't work. You're most likely to attract those with few compelling options anyway.

I bet it’s a distribution of people from all socioeconomic classes. With some just seeing the advertisement for Tulsa and being inspired to move there with this money.

So the highest earners eclipse the tax revenue from the lowest that have less lucrative prospects and it is a win.

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

#174

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

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.

If you take two cities and compare their median incomes, the one with a higher income will tend to be more tolerant.

That does not mean, within the city, the wealthy are more tolerant than the poor. It’s a system effect. When tolerant people densify, they become more productive. This might be because they can exist more compactly. Or it might be something about how interactions in a tolerant society work.

The country club analogy was solely an equivalence of cost. If I were in Tulsa, I imagine I would have to pay that much to get access to the restaurants, theatre, arts and clubs that I take for granted in New York.

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

#175

Post by wrsh07 » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

xfitm3 wrote: post #27

throwawaygh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This won't happen, and Oklahoma/Tulsa needs to fess up to that reality and make a real plan for their economic future. If we're honest, DC/AZ/OR are the "third tech hubs" after SF and then Seattle/Boston/NYC. The ambition for a midwest tech hub to join those ranks is not insane in general. Pittsburgh could make a reasonable play because, unlike Tulsa, in Carnegie Mellon it actually does have a continuous pipeline of…

There are plenty of successful states that aren't focused on tech. I moved to one of them, and I'm enjoying my life a lot more. I was miserable in California – it's not for everyone. I'm betting that tech won't come to my area any time soon and that's a great thing.

I was careful to hedge that becoming a tech hub is not an inherent boon. It "could" be great, but I'm pretty sympathetic to locals being resistant to a bunch of tech cos and workers coming to their area and dramatically changing the fabric of the local culture without providing any benefits (or even a voice) to those who had lived there for the previous decades

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

#176

Post by HarryHirsch » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

jl2718 wrote: post #165

HarryHirsch wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have to disagree about the "necessity" of oppressing those who are not within your circle. Consider George Wallace, after whom streets are named in Alabama. As a young man he ran on a policy of good roads and schools, and when that didn't get him anywhere he changed strategy and had a long, successful career on a program of institutional racism. When you look at Alabama, giving the outgroup the helot treatment is either a way of life or a luxury good.

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

#177

Post by HarryHirsch » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

dcolkitt wrote: post #133

HarryHirsch wrote: post #28

A few years ago, there was a similar incentive scheme by a businessman to revitalize the Jewish congregation in Dothan, AL that he grew up in. The plan was launched with great fanfare (see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/us/an-alabama-synagogue-o... ) but failed badly: https://www.timesofisrael.com/billionaires-scheme-to-revive-... None of the newcomers stayed, too much casual racism, no qualified jobs and b…

> bad schools (the private school for your kids will really bust your budget) Oklahoma has significantly better schools than California[1]. San Francisco has notoriously bad public schools, and hardly any upper-middle people send their kids there. It's not like NYC, which has strong magnet programs for the gifted. The one really good SF school, Lowell, is replacing its meritocratic test score system with a diversity…

Anyone coming to Oklahoma from the Northeast will be in for a shock. The poor state of schools in California is a surprise, but then large parts of the state are agricultural and deep red, or otherwise simply in the middle of nowhere. CA should take a look at GA, Georgia schools are surprisingly good, especially when you compare them to the utter lousiness you find across the state line in AL. I don't know what they are doing in GA, but it works.

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

#178

Post by KittenInABox » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 4:24 PM UTC

effingwewt wrote: post #169

mint2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neighborhoods being segregated is much more different than entire geographical regions. People in those neighbourhoods still travel around. Also, Rosemead's most populace race according to wikipedia is only 60% asian. That's a far, far cry from 80-90+% white regions.

(I should also note that the idea they wanted familiarity is just one part of why specific minorities live together. Another is because of the effects of racism actively rejecting any attempt to integrate.)

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

#179

Post by KittenInABox » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 4:40 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #172

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.

> They are as much a human being as you are and people are capable of change Totally agree. But these attitudes towards fellow people tend to pair with unproductive behaviours. Now, there are plenty of exceptions. Highly productive people with abhorrent views. But on average, acidic views tend to go with lower incomes at a population level. (I make no assertion on which way causation flows. And within a city, the rel…

> But on average, acidic views tend to go with lower incomes at a population level. (I make no assertion on which way causation flows. And within a city, the relationship breaks down.)

This is classism and itself is abhorrent. As someone who lives in NYC, living in NYC and discussing abhorrent views in red states as correlated to income sounds utterly ridiculous on its face when we have our own corrupt NYPD (Stop and frisk, the kettling and brutality on peaceful protestors), ineffective mayor, and increased gentrification leading to homelessness.

I'm absolutely baffled by "I treat living in NYC as a way to get away from lower income people and their abhorrent views" when NYC has lower income people that are actively being disenfranchised and the wealthy simply look the other way (which arguably is abhorrent!).

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

#180

Post by scruple » Mon, Nov 16, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

dariusj18 wrote: post #171

mint2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get a disquiet feeling when I'm in old southern towns like Savanah, I didn't know why at first, until I realized it's because their society is still so segregated.

> I get a disquiet feeling when I'm in old southern towns like Savanah

I love Savannah and Augusta. Those cities are a lot of fun. I spent time living in both in my early 20s. The segregation both is and isn't there. It's very strange. I think that the feeling you're describing is due to the ghost of slavery. It was always very hard for me to separate the history of the antebellum south from those two cities specifically.

To be fair, though, the most segregated place I've ever lived was easily East Los Angeles. It doesn't have that same feeling that you describe, of course, which makes it ... different but in a slightly better way.