91–100 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
… and is about a program that pays people to relocate to Tulsa.
To be fair, that title really isn't engendering understanding.
I understand people who have roots in the bay area and aren't in the position to leave (or just don't want to). I also understand people who, under the current circumstances, want to temporarily or permanently move to a location that will work out better for them. I don't understand, though, how $10K can be the deciding factor for someone for such a major decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Aside from not allowing non-competes what is there to copy?
I have a relative with an advanced degree in a state without labor laws who has to work 12 and 13 hour shifts with zero breaks standing up.
https://okcfox.com/news/local/oklahoma-ranked-14th-most-dang...
Sure. If I rented, my job was secure, and all of my friends are packing, of course I would take a free $10k to move somewhere else for a year. The pandemic is probably going to take at least that long to wind out. I can always just move back if SF picks up again.
I would love for Tulsa to succeed at creating a "new silicon valley" It could be great for the area, great for the people who are early movers, etc I don't think it will be, but I think ideas like this are good experiments. You need a certain amount of gravity before you have a good tech scene, and I am interested in knowing "what does that gravity look like? How can such friction to becoming a tech hub be erased?" H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-Catholic private schools what's wrong with public schools?
The persistent underfunding. Everyone who can afford to send their children to private school will do so because OK public schools are plain awful. Of course it's impossible to raise taxes to attract any sort of decent teacher or buy equipment or even paint because it's Oklahoma, no one is using public school anyway, so why fund it. But what's wrong with Catholic school? They have a tradition of being quite secular a…
I went to Catholic school, and politically, they certainly seem to be for restricting other people’s freedoms (see abstinence only sex education, gay marriage, and abortion). My whole sex education at the age of 14 or so was a slideshow of genital herpes or sores and “don’t do it”.
There’s also the whole decades long organizational support of child molestation issue that one might want to avoid supporting.
I (truly) wish these people good luck and hope they find the happiness they seek. I am from near Tulsa and there's absolutely no way in hell you'll ever catch my family moving back to there. It's hot, humid, comes with tornadoes, you have to drive everywhere (and everywhere is set up on the assumption you will drive). Plus, I will never forget the clerk at the licensing office who, after the rules changed to require…
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…
And therein lies the rub. We had the big house (that we had to clean more often and pay more to heat, cool, and maintain), the huge yard with lots of space (that we had to spend hours every weekend dealing with, along with the cost), the two cars (with their own costs and hassles), and so on.
What we didn't have was the respect of our community, or at least the recognition that families like ours should be full members of society. It's fucking awful to hear your governor on TV crowing about how immigrants are "ruining the state," or that the latest environmental-disaster of a highway project is "true freedom."
No amount of money can ever make up for that. Where we live now, we still get to save, we still are able to travel (well, pandemic notwithstanding), and we need not drive everywhere to do it and we feel accepted--or at least somewhere between begrudgingly tolerated and utterly adored--by the government of our state.
I used to optimize for cost; no longer.
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.
The only question people are left asking is if a CA transplant believes their different way of doing things is so much better then why did they leave and why don’t they go back.