Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno
This is pretty apt on a macro measure.
The easiest places to develop, develop first, they are now the classic old metros we know today, Modern development (basically world war two on) has gone to the less cheap and desirable developments to secondary ones. (Sunbelt Boom Growth)
As the Sunbelt matures (they still have long growth legs many more decades of it) More people will move deeper into "flyover" country for the same reasons they moved to the sunbelt.
Cheaper retirement, Cheaper living, ability to afford housing, new opportunities in new developing cities etc. Places like Idaho, the Dakotas and Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming.
Dont be surprised to see places like Billings, Fargo, and Omaha end up having boom town type growth in the latter part of this century.
For those of you that are still around 
Of course all of this is assuming things generally go in the same direction they have gone in the last 100-125 years and we dont have like a global pandemic, or discover some new resource that can replace oil and is located primarily in Alabama and West Virginia etc. |
Yea, I don't see what this is hard to understand. Texans (as usual) want to believe their situation is different, because, well, it's Texas. There are cheaper cities outside of Texas that will draw the same people getting priced out. There's evidence for this, and not some wishful thinking bs. "Oh...but we have space" crap that means nothing.
What's stopping OKC from absorbing Texans outflow? Or Tulsa? Or KC?