I would not relocate to Austin or anywhere else in Texas for $70,000 much less $7000. Even a bastion of sanity in Texas is still in Texas. What if my daughter needed healthcare "south of the border", go to court?
I'd take my chances with the severance pay and live somewhere sane where they can keep the lights on.
The only people for whom Texas is a better deal for taxation are in the highest income brackets, higher even than tech workers at Apple. This is the case even though access to healthcare, higher education, and public services tends to be worse. This is why eliminating income taxes in favor of consumption and property taxes is widely considered to be regressive and disproportionately targeted at lower and middle class households. The higher median tax rate then seems to simply be a redistribution mechanism to funnel additional wealth to the wealthy on the backs of working Texans.
[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer...
I don’t know about Apple in particular but this is not generally how this works.
Also, I’m not sure $70k to have to fly my daughter out of state for health care is a good trade, ymmv.
> The only people for whom Texas is a better deal for taxation are in the highest income brackets, higher even than tech workers at Apple.
I pay 4-5% of my individual income in local property taxes of all types, and we pay less than 4% of our household income. And that's after recent large increases in our property value. We live in the city limits of Austin, one of the more taxed places in TX. We bought outside of downtown, but actually nearer most tech companies than downtown. Our neighborhood is perfectly safe, paying less didn't affect that. If you're in TX paying 12% of your income in taxes you probably either have a low income and inherited more house than you could otherwise afford or you made a foolish decision on where to live(had to be in that trendy part of town).
Bonus: cheap gas, cheap electricity, cheap beef, cheap groceries at H-E-B
Here's another way of looking at it, in case helpful: we don't want anything predictable on HN. The rhetoric that people resort to when an issue like this comes up is fierce, repetitive, and predictable. That makes sense—if you're fighting for a cause you feel passionately about, repeating the same points as intensely as possible is what you do. But all of that is off topic on this site. There are plenty of other places to post that way.
Edit: I know how strong the temptation is to read something like this and think that the mods are taking the wrong position* on (in this case) abortion rights, and then get super mad about it. But I'm not saying anything about abortion rights (or California vs. Texas) in the slightest. I'm just trying to do the pedestrian moderation job I always do.
* https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
That said, California has literally nothing like HEB and if I could have elected HEB to be the government I would have taken that deal in a heartbeat, so you and I agree there.
Will they also change "Designed in California, made in China" with "Designed in Texas, made in India" ? /s
I might lack the nuance to pick up differences, but American suburbs are remarkably consistent across the country. All the new 'inner' tech cities (Austin, Atlanta, Phoenix, Boulder), used to be University towns.... so they were deep blue even before us tech yuppies moved in.
I've found Americans to be rather welcoming everywhere I have gone. If anything, Seattle has been my 'least welcoming' experience so far.
Is the abortion issue that big of a factor in moving decisions ? Other than a few headlines, I doesn't seem to be particularly difficult to take an out of state visit if the need arises.
I can understand the urban density or nature as good reasons....but I find that those most opposed to the move rarely give either as reasons. (I might be projecting based on a few similar anecdotes I've been on the listening end of)
All other things being equal, people normally like to live in an area where local government look after their people. Or at the very least, don't actively write legislation that is designed to harm you for no compelling reason.
Power is lost, people dumpster-dive, and the milk/bread sells out
That said: HN's policy of strongly deprecating discussions of political hot potatoes does mean that HN has a de facto status quo bias, which is problematic in general and in this case specifically, as the issue raised in the flagged comment upstream is assuredly material for some Apple employees objecting to Apple's ultimatum.
Political oppression is unfortunately highly predictable. This doesn't make it unworthy of discussion.
Mods almost never flag submissions but we do sometimes flag comments.
Both of these points are in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.
There's been a tremendous shift in U.S. abortion, reproductive, and effectively general healthcare since the Dobbs decision in 2022, and Texas specifically has enacted some of the strictest and most vindictive state laws and policies, all of which would and should weigh heavily on the minds of anyone affected by Apple's decision here. Raising that point is absolutely on-topic in this discussion.
I'll allow that the "Thanks, Apple" wasn't strictly necessary, but even that seems within bounds given the circumstances and story.
If you'd like some guidelines here, I'd suggest that political considerations which impact on a story, particularly where those considerations have recently changed or are in flux (both of which apply here) should be permitted.
Totalitarian, repressive, and authoritarian governments and governance specifically operate on the very sort of generic, hot-button, emotionally-loaded issues and matters which HN typically eschews. Where those topics are not materially related to the story at hand I think that they can be reasonably admonished, particularly if the context and tone are inflammatory. In this case the consideration and its significance are material and relevant, even if Chron's own story omitted the consideration (a conspicuous omission itself).
HN's policy puts an extreme onus on those who call out repression, and is effectively a form of tone-policing. I've called this out in the past, and pointed out where you've acknowledged a comenter's stress in response, as here: <>>37372792 >
As contrasted: <>>37270026 >, which bears repeating.
Your own insensitivity on this particular matter is truly disappointing.