• @BURN
    link
    128 months ago

    It may not be the sole reason to move somewhere, but it’s often an explicit reason NOT to move somewhere

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -108 months ago

      Is there evidence for this? People move primarily for job, education opportunities and existing family. Local laws don’t really factor in that much, again unless you are participating in activity that your daily life revolves around, like drugs or maybe guns if you are a real freak about them.

      • @BURN
        link
        78 months ago

        Look at the demographics. Red States have a lot of Red Voters moving in, but not a lot of blue voters. Blue states have a lot of Blue and Red voters coming in. This doesn’t only deal with abortion, but it’s a major concern.

        Anecdotally, anyone Gen Z who isn’t a raging magat I know refuses to move to states such as texas due to the regressive abortion laws. Watch the next few years as big tech finds ways to move out of those states as they can’t attract talent.

        Ex. Austin is a great city for tech. I could likely make the same salary I do in Seattle, at a lower CoL. However, due to the political climate of texas, I wouldn’t even entertain the idea of living there.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -88 months ago

          “As they can’t attract talent”

          You realise industries built up around a workforce? It’s why you have complexes of related companies in regions because they poach each other’s workforces. They don’t just build a multi-million/billion dollar facility and hope that their workforce materialises out of thin air.

          Tech companies like any high-skill field, built up around universities that produce the talent. Unless you think UT-Austin is suddenly going to stop producing students, why do you think that tech companies are going to abandon all their investment?

          “Look at the demographics”

          Why don’t you read the US Census inflow and outflow of populations between the states? (I don’t have the software to read it on my phone rn, but I seriously doubt it supports your argument, as far as I know low COL states are attracting everyone from high COL states. The low COL states are due to low market demand from being rural and just happen to be Republican).

          If it were really true that “red states” only import “red voters”, then how come cities in “red” states become increasingly “blue” over time? Keep in mind that the majority of the population even in relatively rural states is in cities. If they were really just importing Republican voters, then one would expect the voting patterns to stay the same. Anecdotally, basically every state in the West Coast and the adjoining states have been flooded with Democratic voting Californians driven out by COL in the past several decades.

          • @BURN
            link
            58 months ago

            Tech companies went to texas for tax breaks, not because of local talent. People move for jobs. They also provided relocation stipends when they opened those offices. They literally did exactly what you say is impossible. They brought the people so they could have a workforce.

            Low COL states are primarily destinations, but blue ones are more so than red ones. People leaving blue states tend to either be red voters or blue voters moving to other blue states.

            Urban counties almost always vote blue, as they tend to have more diverse populations. They’ll continue to do so as new voters join, as young people tend to overwhelmingly vote blue.

            Blue voters aren’t moving to the Alabamas, Oklahomas, Iowas etc. they’re moving into what would be considered purple states at best. (And yes, texas is closer to a purple state than a red one now).