Texas Rocks Job Creation (Maybe That's Why Californians Are Moving There)


Lone Star Planet

Doubters have been poo-pooing Texas' economic growth ever since it shook off the economic recession even as the rest of the country continues to try to scrape the thing off its shoes. Yeah, Texas may be creating jobs, they say, but only for burger-flippers. But data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows that those must be some well-paid burger-flippers. Texas, according to a new paper, outstrips the rest of the country when it comes to creating not just jobs, but jobs that pay well.

In "Texas Leads Nation in Creation of Jobs at All Pay Levels," an article in the latest issue of Southwest Economy, Melissa LoPalo and Pia M. Orrenius write:

Texas experienced stronger job growth than the rest of the nation in all four wage quartiles from 2000 to 2013, even in the middle two wage quartiles, where growth in the rest of the nation was negative and zero, respectively (Chart 1). In Texas, the two upper wage quartiles grew at 28 and 36 percent, respectively, over the 13-year period, corresponding to average annual rates of 2.1 and 2.7 percent. The 13-year figures for the rest of the nation were 0 and 13 percent, corresponding to average annual rates of 0 and 1 percent. In sum, the data show Texas has experienced far greater growth of "good" jobs than the rest of the nation has since 2000.

Texas and California are frequently cited as two competing economic models for the country to consider. The Lone Star State is considered the lower-tax, less red tape contrast to California's bigger government model. In terms of how that's working out, the Washington Post recently pointed to census figures showing that, in 2012, "63,000 people moved from California to Texas, while 43,000 in Texas moved to California."

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas

Capital walks as quickly and far as people. Travis H. Brown, author of How Money Walks, points to IRS figures that track the flow of wealth from some states and to others. From 1992 -2010, California was a net loser of $45.27 billion in adjusted gross income. $6.02 billion of that went to Texas. Texas, on the other hand, gained $24.94 billion in AGI during those years, with California the top source for transfers.

Well, investment and people drive economies, and now we're seeing more payoff in terms of a boom in jobs—"'good' jobs" as LoPalo and Orrenius put it.

Who knew messing with Texas paid so well?

NEXT: Some Cities with High Income Inequality Also See High Income Mobility

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Texas experienced stronger job growth than the rest of the nation”

    I’m sure after enough Californians move in they’ll vote for policies that put an end to that.

    1. Those regulations are common sense. Every last one of them.

    2. Are liberals moving in? Look for the media buzz words like:

      “uncontrolled growth”
      “lack of regulation”
      “common sense restrictions”
      “environmental impacts”

      1. “63,000 people moved from California to Texas, while 43,000 in Texas moved to California.”

        Net 20,000 hardly matters. That is not enough to get a fact-based school textbook approved in Texas.

        1. You’re right. Those numbers do look insignificant. What really matters is where companies decide to move. Outside the Bay Area when I lived in Sacramento I was inundated with stories of companies closing up and opening new offices in Texas. Like many migrations it is very gradual. Silicon Valley isn’t going anywhere soon so the tax base will be fine, but for someone like me (young and trying to get an economic foothold in this world) California is pretty grim.

          1. Don’t try and confuse Rectal Obstruction with anything that contradicts his talking points.


        2. I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

          The fact that a next of 20k people moved form California to Texas is not the same thing as the number of jobs that moved. That number is much higher.

          And when those companies move here, they also tend to expand, and that net job addition also occurs here, not there.

          1. *next = net

        3. Palin’s Buttplug|3.7.14 @ 9:54AM|#
          “Net 20,000 hardly matters.”

          Hey, Mr. 8% (that’s not 10%..)
          Check out Matt’s column in the print issue “Mourning in America” which directly compares the poor results Reagan delivered to the abysmal performance of your fave lying bastard.
          I thought it was bad; it’s worse. What a POS!

          1. Not that old bullshit about “the worst recovery ever” is it?

            Reagan had to deal with a garden variety recession in 80-81. OTOH, 2008-09 was a financial crisis like 1929-32 where trillions of wealth evaporated.

            1. How’s that employment participation doing? Still cratered?

              1. And the GDP for next quarter revised down from 3.2 to 2.4%.

                HUZZAH! We are BOOMING!

                Fucking Obama shill.

                1. FdA: I think you meant:

                  And the GDP for next quarter unexpectedly revised down from 3.2 to 2.4%.

                  And isn’t that revision a reduction of .8?

                  1. AND I guess I was incorrect. Apparently it was a revision to 4th quarter GDP. My mistake.

                  2. Yes it’s only .8% but they were off by 25% .8 x 4 = 3.2%

            2. And the government responded in 08-09 like it responded in 1929-1932 with vastly increasing the size and scope of government to deal with the recession. Of course, what resulted was a much worse recession that lasted longer than it otherwise would have if the government had just gotten out of the way.

            3. Reagan had to deal with a garden variety recession in 80-81.

              Actually, it and the one after were the worst in America’s history and came as Volker had to ramp up rates to suck the inflation poison out. Your retarded Hero Obama and Bernak pushed inflationary poison in while failing to generate a meaningful recover.

        4. See, in shrike’s world, the only thing that matters is votes, not jobs.

          You can be sure that every one of those 63,000 who moved to Texas because of a job there. Because nobody moves to Texas for the welfare.

          California? Cushiest safety net in the country? Hard to say, but I bet not every one of those who moved to California did so for a job. Remember:

          You get more of what you reward . . . .

          1. you mean incentives work?

          2. Texas is the energy capital of the USA. I bet 80% of those who moved there followed energy.

            Same with Houston in the 80s boom.

            1. But US energy consumption is down. Shouldn’t that have the opposite effect? People leaving Texas?

              Relax, dude, people are moving to the state with the more liberal economic policies. That should be good news for a “classical liberal” like yourself.

            2. all the more reason why CA is fucked up. The state is awash in resources under its feet and off its shores, but its greens steadfastly refuse any effort to take advantage. One more self-inflicted wound.

              1. On the bright side, the reserves are still there.

              2. Exactly, warbird. CA could rival Texas in energy production, if they cared to. Shreek seems to think that the energy industry is a cause of the disparity, when really its just another symptom of the underlying dynamic.

            3. Texas is the energy capital of the USA. I bet 80% of those who moved there followed energy.

              Same with Houston in the 80s boom.

              There’s a butt-ton of jobs here in Texas, only some of which are in energy.

              I moved here because of no state income tax and a reasonably sane government, not because I was chasing some oil job.

              Houston is an oil town, but the rest of the cities, not so much so. Austin is known for high tech.

              But, thanks for weighing in on something without any concrete knowledge.

        5. Well, you could also point out that TX gained four congressional seats as a result of the 2010 Census. Where as CA gained zero. So there is that.

        6. That’s 20k from California. There are similar numbers numbers coming from other states, especially the northeast.

          The “sad” truth is: Blue states are fast becoming known as net losers of people and income. And it’s the government policies that entice folk to leave the coast and move to the prairie.

          So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

          1. I meant this for PB.

    3. Hopefully the Incans moving out of Cali for the Lone Star State are the ones who recognize those policies are what they were escaping.

      1. Some are, some not. A lot of transplanted lefties from CA here in Austin.

        Its trending leftist, but perhaps a couple of decades before that could be a problem that fucks up the government.

    4. Then they’ll complain that the state has been ruined — by other people, natch — and move on. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    5. When liberals see a goose laying golden eggs, they feel compelled to kill it.

      1. Pretty much.

      2. That’s worth stealing.

        It took them forty to fifty years to strangle California. Texas will not likely fare any better. In fact, it was in poor shape thirty years ago when the southern democrats were in control.

        I don’t particularly like Rick Perry for his cronyism, but his–and W. Bush’s before–policies have been good for Texas.

        1. The Texas state GOP has ramped up spending enormously.

      3. Of course. Those golden eggs don’t get distributed evenly enough, and that’s just not fair. Better that no one gets to have any golden eggs than some people wind up with more. Because FAIRNESS!

    6. Directive 10-289 will put a stop to all of these people and businesses moving around and messing things up. At least until we get a chance to breathe and catch up.

    7. “I’m sure after enough Californians move in they’ll vote for policies that put an end to that.”

      My exact thought.

    8. see: Austin.

    9. We definitely need some kind of immigration reform. You should have to get a work permit and live here for 5 years before we even consider letting you vote if you are from California.

  2. Enjoy it now. Once the locusts swarm in and eat everything it will be too late.

    1. Not necessarily. They can be assimilated. Changed.

  3. But I was informed by a Progtard on the Tweeterz that Washington State was leading the nation in job growth DESPITE HAVING BECAUSE IT HAS THE HIGHEST MINIMUM WAGE…therefore, increasig minimum wages increases job formation. QED. Mic drop. End of derp.

    Also, higher minimum wages would REDUCE FOOD STAMP USE BY DERP BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

    And Texas doesn’t have or support ANY of that! So this can’t be real. Shut up, JD, you liar! Plus -you live in AZ, so RAAACIST HOMOPHOBE!

    So Californians are moving to WASHINGTON – because – POLICIES.


    1. Then why is Washing 30th in unemployment while the state with the lowest minimum wage (Wyoming) is 7th?

  4. California is a tragedy.

    1. Is it a tragedy or a comedy? Mybe the comedy part is coming – like Detroit?

      1. Both, it’s a comedy if you live far away. But it’s a tragedy that a state with so much potential is so poorly run.

        I don’t know where it ranks now, but supposedly at one point in time CA was, by itself, the 5th largest economy in the world. Of course that may be a myth, I never saw the hard evidence.

        1. Last I heard it was 8th.

  5. Yeah, but those aren’t good jobs. You know, the kind of jobs people who write for prestigious newspapers and magazines want their kids to do.

    So, bzzzt. Try again, later.

  6. my buddy’s aunt makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for six months but last month her check was $12405 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit homepage…………. http://www.mumjob.com

    1. sure, but is doing it in TX or CA?

  7. This morning, I saw some “Concerned Americans for Immigration Reform” ad. Their justification for more immigrant workers?


  8. From the WaPo link:

    He (Gov. Brown) was quick to counter Perry’s claim that Texas should be the nation’s model. Yes, he said, if you want to build something, you can do it faster in Texas than in California, where there are more regulations and governmental red tape. “That’s true,” he said, but he added, “Would you rather live in Houston or Santa Barbara, or maybe Santa Monica or San Francisco?”

    Well played Governor?

    1. Um…

      Houston….by a long shot.

      1. I like living in a house. I can actually afford one in Houston.

        1. Since both places are too warm, I’ll take tornadoes over earthquakes if those are my only options. Plus, I’m less likely to have a bureaucracy-induce aneyrism in Houston.

    2. The jobs do not tend to move as much from California to Houston as they do the Dallas and Austin areas. Having lived in the Bay area, I prefer Austin by a long shot.

      1. Ditto, except for the furnace-like summers. I loved Austin, miss it greatly.

        It’s instructive to walk around Austin, look at the new buildings, and see the names on them. Freescale, Apple, Google, IBM… notice a pattern?

        1. Single word/acronym names?

        2. Austin is the one high-tech enclave in Texas (yes, I know about TXN). We have Google, Apple and IBM offices in Atlanta.

          And Dell is floundering these days. I can’t think of another large tech company HQed in Austin.

          1. Still the obsession with 80 year old economics. Like most statist/authoritarians, shreek is obsessed by size and loves him a large, top-down organization.

            Who cares if there are “large” tech companies in Austin? There are a million little ones.

            1. Well it’s like Hilary once said, she couldn’t be bothered with every undercapitalized company. What matters is scale because that allows the easier implementation of the fascism that the left was (and still is) enthralled with.

            2. I was lucky enough to work for one of them. It’s a GREAT place to do start-ups. Between low regulatory hurdles and an amazingly educated workforce, it’s a prime spot for electronics, software, and biotech. It’s easy to get hyperintelligent 20-somethings to move or stay there, and that’s the driver for startups.

              1. It might be that the same thing that drove the music scene before the tech boom (“low rent and cheap pot”, I believe was the summary) drove the tech boom.

                1. I didn’t find the pot cheap, but it was freely available and high quality. Unlike here.

                  1. You can buy an ounce of decent Mexican weed here for $50.

                    Or so I’ve heard.

              2. It might be that the same thing that drove the music scene before the tech boom (“low rent and cheap pot”, I believe was the summary) drove the tech boom.

                1. a point worth repeating.

                  1. You can say that again.

          2. Sure, but HQ’s can be moved. Just like jobs.

          3. These aren’t “offices”- they’re full-blown R&D centers.

          4. You don’t have to think, just walk around. It will decrease the ignorance.

            Dell isn’t HQed in Austin. Round Rock.

            1. Round Rock is another burb just outside of the ridiculously sprawling city limits of Austin. You can drive past the boundary of the two without it being discernable, unless you stop in a grocery store and notice suddenly they provide plastic bags, in which case you’re outside Austin.

          5. Austin is the one high-tech enclave in Texas (yes, I know about TXN). We have Google, Apple and IBM offices in Atlanta.

            And Dell is floundering these days. I can’t think of another large tech company HQed in Austin.

            Apparently Plano, TX (north of Dallas) doesn’t exist in your world.

            And apparently you are incapable of googling “high tech companies in Austin” to see that you don’t know what you are talking about.

            Most of the desktop and laptop computer companies are hurting because of the advent of tablet computing — creative destruction.

            Not sure why you think only large tech companies count — there are several smaller high tech firms located literally across the street from where I live.

        3. Could Austin displace Silicon Valley and take what is left of Cali’s tax base?

      2. I may be returning to Austin at the end of the year. Wife has applied to a masters program at UT. Apparently, if you want to advise old people on diet and exercise you need a masters degree to get insurance to pay for it. We’ll see.

    3. “Well played Governor?”

      So he’s riding the climate and the geography, hoping not to find out how much you have to fuck things up before they collapse.
      Same as the gov’t did with the housing market prior to ’08.

      1. Yeah he doesn’t seem to realize the you can’t eat scenery and the weather is a problem if you don’t have shelter no matter where you live.

      2. So he’s riding the climate and the geography, hoping not to find out how much you have to fuck things up before they collapse.


        How beautiful a place is, is directly proportional to how much government theft people will tolerate before they leave.

        /Jerry Brown

        1. How beautiful a place is, is directly proportional to how much government theft people will tolerate before they leave.

          Edited for redundancy.

      3. Yep. That just makes Perry’s point stronger. Texas is doing better despite being basically a desert compared to California’s natural oasis.

      4. I hear the weather in Greece is nice, too.

        And a similar economy as California.

      5. “That may be true, but where would you rather live? Havana or Minot?”

    4. Would you rather be unemploted in Santa Monica or San Fran, or have a job in Houston?

      1. I have no idea what being unemploted is but it sounds terrible. I’ll take the job, plz.

        1. I was unemployed once – I spent my time writing a book and looking for work. The book wasn’t all that good when I finished it, but I’ve gotten better.

        2. Did RC just demonstrate one of his own laws?

    5. I like Brown’s total lack of self-awareness that living in Santa Barbara or Santa Monica comes at a cost, and one that most folks either can’t bear or choose not to.

      1. He was speaking to the people that matter to him, not the tax slaves.

    6. Let’s not forget in this discussion that Houston is very close to the gulf coast… not exactly a bad place.

    7. I spent my growing up years roughly divided between Texas and California. My preference would be living in California surrounded by Texans.

  9. Yes, he said, if you want to build something, you can do it faster in Texas than in California, where there are more regulations and governmental red tape.

    The progressive fetish for stasis, neatly encapsulated.

  10. Here’s the problem with moving to Texas:

    Last summer, I took a little more than a week off, got on my bike, and I rode almost nothing but mountain twisties all the way to Tahoe, north through the Sierras, to the Shakespeare festival in Oregon. Then I took–completely different–mountain twisties south down to PCH, and to Monterrey to catch the Moto GP at Laguna Seca.

    Riding some of these back roads, I wouldn’t see another car for hours. I’d see other guys one motorcycles every half hour or so, all of ’em with big grins on their faces. Because the roads are so remote, so twisty, and so perfectly maintained!

    You see, the taxpayers in California are so stupid, they squander billions and billions on CalTrans, and CalTrans workers have to justify their jobs by doing stuff! …and they end up doing stuff like repaving remote mountain roads–to nowhere from nowhere–that hardly anyone is ever going to use–except that measly percentage of Californians who ride sport bikes long range like me!

    The taxpayers in Texas aren’t gonna waste money on roads like that.

    I wouldn’t have as much fun if the State of California gave me $50,000 a year to join a private country club! They spend billions to build and maintain a 2,000 mile race track to ride at my leisure–thank you, California taxpayers!

    And, remember, before you vote in November, the important issues to vote on are culture war issues–not taxes and spending!

    1. Maybe, but I’ve been on many a nicely paved Farm Road #XXXX in West Texas and not seen a car for considerable spaces of time. Nice how everyone waves when a car does come along.

    2. NYDoT doesn’t have to address the nowhere roads to get its budget, every winter, the ice comes along and tears up last summer’s pavement, so they redo the same roads over and over again. Now if they’d do it right instead…

      1. The roads in Westchester are the worse I’ve ever seen them. Not holding my breath for repairs, though I presume they will be fixed there before they get fixed in most other parts of the state.

    3. You can pretty much get that around Fredericksburg (just west of Austin).

      1. When I say thousands of miles, I ain’t kiddin’.

        I could have gone three completely different routes, logged 2,000 miles by all those roads, too, and I would have seen the same thing.

        The money we spend on CalTrans is ridiculous, and when I tell people about how much fun I’m having on their taxpayer dime, I’m trying to make them angry.

        Because talking about taxes and spending just makes them talk about gay marriage and how Sarah Palin thinks she can see the Kremlin from her back yard.

        You gotta hit people where they live.

    4. they’re spending your money, too, dude. That it’s on something you enjoy is purely coincidental.

    5. If you are wealthy and have so much money that you don’t give a shit about the taxes or lack of job prospects, California is always a better choice than Texas.

      Texas is a wasteland infested with snakes and humidity for the most part. California in contrast is paradise.

      The fact that Texas is the better place to live for 90% of people, tells you all you need to know about how vile Prog policies are. They are so vile, they make Texas preferable to California.

      1. You say “Snakes”, I say “Lunch”. Further, humid, hot weather is the best. Just dress for it.

        1. “heat” and “humidity” are words that evoke dread when they appear in a weather report.

        2. No accounting for taste. I say this as someone who lived in Texas for most of seven years and in many ways loved it and miss it. Outside of the high dessert out west around Big Bend and Fort Davis and such, the land there is mostly God awful flat and ugly. And the climate for where 90% of the population lives is brutal. If you love hot and humid, good for you. I can tolerate hot and humid, until it has been 98+ for three months and is still that hot in September. Texas summers are the hot equivalent of Minnesota winters. When I lived in Georgia I used to laugh at the people who said they had bad summers there. Georgia summers are frigid compared to Texas summers.

          1. I suppose it is a taste thing, but I have to object to flat and ugly. Balcones, Mt. Bonnell, Edwards, Sam Houston National Forest, Colorado River, and I’m getting nostalgic now. Thanks.

            1. The hill country is okay. But really, people only think it is pretty because the badlands north of there are so awful.

              I love the culture there. I miss it. But I don’t miss the summers.

              1. But really, people only think it is pretty because the badlands north of there are so awful.

                Yeah, this is some ugly shit, no question:


                1. You lived in Midland RC. No, none of that stuff is very nice, at least not when compared to actual nice places.

          2. 98?

            So you are talking about spring? or fall?

          3. If you think it’s “mostly” flat and ugly, you haven’t been around enough of Texas. Even ignoring the hill country, which is a huge swath of the state and not just “up there around Austin,” the big thicket is beautiful, the mesquite forests in the southwest are incredible, the panhandle and West are rugged and rolling, and the entire Brazos valley is lush and green. I miss driving around the whole state. If you hunt or fish, it’s paradise.

            1. I have been pretty much everywhere in Texas. And the places you mention are flat and at best unremarkable.

              I am from Kansas and I find the countryside boring. I know boring when I see it.

        3. Hhahahaha! I lived in Killeen as a kid. My neighbor would pay us kids $5 for rattlesnakes. His mother would make stew with the meat, and he’d sell the skins. We were little kids; like in first grade. Walking home from school through the prairie we’d find rattlesnakes, surround them, and crush them with rocks or stomp on them. Good times.

          1. We used to catch scorpions and put them in glass jars. My parents encouraged it, so long as we were “careful”.

            1. Oh yeah. Had to check our shoes in the morning for scorpions. The little fuckers would be on the walls in our house. Parents didn’t freak out. Just kill it, and “be careful”.

              1. This sounds absolutely horrifying.

      2. You’re forgetting about the giant spiders. Texas has many varieties of giant spider, most of which will find a way into your home whether you like it or not.

        1. Snakes? Giant spiders? Scorpions in my shoes? You guys are freaking me out and I LIVE in Texas.

          Central, north of Austin is the best. Just below the tornado zone (Jarrell was wiped out twice; I’ve never even seen a tornado here and i’m ten minutes south of Jarrell).

          I love TX and wouldn’t live anywhere else, but John is right: the Summers are fucking brutal.

          1. Texas sounds like Australia, sans Assies…so better than Australia.

    6. Yep, this has been a Texas frustration for me. I’m a road cyclist, and the country roads around here are in fairly poor condition, since no-one drives on them. Most roads don’t have shoulders, so it’s pretty hazardous to ride, and everyone drives. In Minnesota, the country roads were nicely paved, wide shouldered, and hardly travelled. In other words, a waste of money.

      And then there’s the lack of public land. Same deal – waste of money, especially with the government running parks. But I love trail running, mountain biking, and just being outdoors, so the lack of it is pretty depressing.

      On the plus side, owning land is cheaper. It’ll just take some time, I suppose.

      1. Every single beach in Texas is public, and there’s a fuckton of them. Of course, they’re geographically concentrated in the expected manner.

        1. The “wet” beach is public, from the water to the average high tide line. Texas is #4 in the country for % public land, after Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.

          Of course, there’s still land that’s accessible to the public. The best mountain biking outside West Texas is privately owned ranch property like Reveille Peak and Smithville. And $10/day isn’t bad, compared to State Parks.

          1. I meant #4 for smallest amount of public land, so #47 for most.

            1. By percentage its the lowest, but by raw acreage, its #3 in public lands, behind Alaska and California.

              1. *fourth lowest

      2. Where are you? Huntsville state park near Houston, Canyon Lake near Austin, etc.

        1. College Station. I’ve been to Huntsville State Park a few times, it’s not too far, and I’ll be headed to the Hill Country this weekend to camp. I’ll admit I’ve been spoiled, living in San Diego, Seattle, and Minneapolis.

          I’ve just never lived somewhere where it’s so difficult to get out in nature far away from other people. It’s really my only disappointment with Texas, and like I said, I agree with this arrangement in principle. Just reason to get my own land and open it up to other Aspies like me, I guess.

          1. Yeah. Okay. B-CS is not my favorite area of Texas. And, indeed is far away from most of the good parts.

      3. I’m a road cyclist

        go back to Minnesota. Or come to Boulder, they love that sissified crap here.

  11. Hey Lady Justice;) How YOU doin’?

  12. 2008-09 was a financial crisis like 1929-32 where trillions of wealth evaporated.

    Wrong. “Trillions” of nominal dollar price tags were marked down when the music stopped.

    1. That’s a good point. Paper wealth isn’t real wealth. But for proggies paper wealth is real wealth because that means they can just pass laws and make whoever they like at the moment wealthy.

      1. I wouldn’t say it isn’t “real wealth”. If it is fake, I sure would like to have some of it.

        The thing is all wealth is relative. If the price of oil is $100 a barrel, my land with an oil well on it is worth a lot of money. If the price of oil drops to $20 a barrel one day, my land is worth a lot less. It is real wealth in both cases.

        The problem I think is that our governing class has decided that capitalism means no one ever loses money. They have totally forgotten that the flip side of a crash in asset prices is things getting more affordable. Booms happen, bubbles happen and they crash and pop creating winners and losers. Our political class, since it hates uncertainty and uncontrolled change more than anything, can’t stand that because they want to be able to pick the winners and losers. So they constantly meddle and never let the economy sort itself out.

    2. remember, when shreek isn’t crying about trillions in lost “wealth” in 2008, he’s crying about how the unregulated market created those trillions in “wealth” running up to 2008 creating a crisis.

  13. After the 1987 “crash” Shreeek’s hero, Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett, pointed out the fact that no buildings or machinery had been destroyed; everybody was going to show up for work, and the world had not, in fact, come to an end. In other words, NO REAL WEALTH HAD BEEN DESTROYED.

    I wonder- what happened to that guy?

    1. He realized it is easier to acquire money by being a rent-seeker.

    2. One man’s “crash” is another man’s “good deal”. My guess is that Buffett was able to buy low in 1987 but actually lost money in 2008. All this talk about relative wealth is great and all right up until it costs you money. Then it is personal and something has to be done.

  14. Buffett made money loansharking to GE and Goldman. I can’t remember who else he bent over; maybe B of A.

    1. The big looser in the 08 crash was AIG. They let Lehman Brothers go down, but when AIG was ready to go belly up it all of the sudden got serious.

      Who was AIG’s biggest creditors? Goldman Sachs and Bershire Hathaway if I am not mistaken.

      This is why Grandpa Warren thought 2008 was so different than 87.

      Without a bailout, he might have ended up an ordinary millionaire.

  15. Good news for Texas is that no liberal Californians are moving to West Tx (unless for energy jobs, but then they aren’t really “liberal” are they?) so the tea party types will continue to balance a possible influx of progressives in the state senate. City policies could affected, but I don’t see Houston or Dallas turning to California-type progressivism any time soon. Austin maybe, but the state legislature notoriously hates Austin for its (in my opinion overblown) liberalism. Would be nice to have the creationists in rural TX (and Dallas somewhat) balanced out a bit on the other side. We’ll see how it goes.

  16. “63,000 people moved from California to Texas…

    …Texas, on the other hand, gained $24.94 billion in AGI during those years, with California the top source for transfers

    Not to worry, all those Californians will eventually turn TX into the same bloated progtard wasteland that they’ve turned CA into. Only TX won’t have the nice climate to boast about.

    1. Agreed, for the most part. But California is not very unlike central Texas east of the coastal mountains. And, once they drain the northern rivers the way they have the Colorado, the southern coast will go back to being semi-arid.

  17. The state is awash in resources under its feet and off its shores, but its greens steadfastly refuse any effort to take advantage.

  18. that’s interesting, I agree that investment and people do drive economies and bring about positive changes=)I’d like to say that good CV can help to find a job. If a candidate makes bad resume, it will make him look unprofessional. But good resume enhances a chance of a candidate. Try to consult professional resume writing service, it helped me to write my resume good, so I’d advise this service to make the CV more effective and avoid mistakes. Good luck!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.