HOUSTON? We have a Problem

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

Because it would mean federal oversight (interstate commerce clause) and Texas wants to retain control over its grid.

But, again, it still wouldn't make any difference in the two recent storm-caused outages in Houston. If the lines are down it doesn't matter where the electricity is coming from.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

What am I missing here? Do you mean by percentage of population? By sheer numbers, Metro Houston is second in the country behind DFW. And while DFW's growth rate slowed in 2022-23, Houston's accelerated.

Using the annual Census estimates, both Dallas and Austin have faster % growth than Houston.

[JManc]

Austin's growth was off the charts and unsustainable but it's Dallas that has consistently outpaced Houston and has pulled away somewhat.

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by JManc

Austin's growth was off the charts and unsustainable but it's Dallas that has consistently outpaced Houston and has pulled away somewhat.

Actually, both DFW and Houston have traded places in faster percentage growth over the decades since 1970 per Wiki. DFW seems to sprawl more which probably helps its growth as many people that move prefer suburbs and exurbs for cheaper and newer living. Still it's not as if any of the large metros in TX are losing population, and many other US metros would trade their no or very low growth for Houston's growth. But it's odd that the Dallas county is basically stagnant in population and less important to whole DFW area. And it is kind of interesting that a small metro right next to Houston, Beaumont, has been stagnant but someone said that Beaumont is not attractive because of the heavy petro industries, so I guess it must be like the Gary, IN of the Chicago metroplex.

[JManc]

The problem with Houston's economy is that it's still very much tied to oil and gas which is a volatile industry and one that is sunsetting whereas Dallas is more diverse and more 'white collar' with growing industries. It's also more attractive to business locating from out of state that don't necessarily want to follow the Austin bandwagon.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

The problem with Houston's economy is that it's still very much tied to oil and gas which is a volatile industry and one that is sunsetting whereas Dallas is more diverse and more 'white collar' with growing industries. It's also more attractive to business locating from out of state that don't necessarily want to follow the Austin bandwagon.

i also have to imagine that most non-O&G companies looking to move to/expand in TX are seeing the recent flooding & subsequent power issues in the Houston area and are maybe starting to calculate "perhaps a place a bit more inland from the gulf coast (DFW) is the safer bet".

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i also have to imagine that most non-O&G companies looking to move to/expand in TX are seeing the recent flooding & subsequent power issues in the Houston area and are maybe starting to calculate "perhaps a place a bit more inland from the gulf coast (DFW) is the safer bet".

Perhaps but I think it's more that DFW has more momentum attracting non OG businesses and has the established labor market better suited for these types of jobs. I am a PM in the tech industry (laid off) and would probably have better luck in Dallas than here looking for work.

[benp]

Dallas also has a more centralized location than Houston for ground and air transportation, DFW airport is #2 in the US, and the Metroplex is a crossroads of I-35, I-45, I-20, and I-30. A drive down I-20 and I-30 near Dallas is an impressive sea of warehouses and truck servicing areas. Houston is almost literally the end of the road. The quickest path to central US markets is Laredo to Dallas on I-35.

[DCReid]

Houston was written off as the next Detroit in the 1980s but it hasn't happened yet.

[PhillyRising]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

A long time ago the talking heads decided they would rate competitiveness on a bunch of factors that show only part of the economic picture.

The main one is obviously income taxes. It's a narrative that gets played constantly. But there are plenty of hidden taxes in "low tax" states that get no play whatsoever.

1. Privatization of public services. This started in the 80s, but how many sprawl burgs in the sunbelt claim to have low taxes but then require you to contract privately with trash haulers to remove your trash, a service that is provided by right in other "higher tax" locals. These services are something like $1000 a year, typically.

2. Underfunded public schools. What proportion of low tax states have such low performing public schools that it is in effect, mandate that you send your kids to private schools? It's a hidden tax for many people. I'd argue in much of the south, this is by design. I mean, this is the very basis of Segregation Acadamies. Evangelical Whites pulled their kids from public schools en masse and have been strangling public schools of funds ever since.

3. Insurance (Homeowners and otherwise...I would lump car and health insurance in this bucket as well). Insurance rates across much of the coastal south are sky high and only getting higher. It's not just homeowners insurance that is skyrocketing in Florida. It's also car insurance. I haven't looked at it, but I presume there's no way health insurance could be competitive compared to other states in a place like Texas where over 30% of people are uninsured.

Add to that generally lower salaries (not uniformly, but generally...I know Texas and Georgia are exceptions) are you really better off?

The media says yes but I call bullshit.

This.

Well said

[Velvet_Highground]

Houston has benefited greatly from being the corporate/financial hub for Gulf of Mexico oil production. I would also argue its NASA legacy created an environment where highly educated and specialized engineering talent could transition to the civilian sector in deep sea drilling, exploration & engineering projects that offered lucrative salaries.

Houston isn’t a one horse town but it has certainly benefited from being the 5th largest MSA and located adjacent to the offshore oil fields as well as being a center for petrochemical refining. Arguably Houston is much more so the capitol of US refinery country as opposed to New Orleans which is more of a staging ground and logistics hub.

The entire North American oil pipeline infrastructure is converges on the Texas Gulf Coast with Houston smack dab in the center. The amount of money made by the refining and export of the petrochemical industry is massive at an estimated gdp of $666 million in 2022 the same size as the whole of the Argentine economy.

Remarks about “Houston becoming the next Detroit in the 80’s” were due to the of alternative oil sources in the West ie The North Sea and Canada. Other geopolitical factors were involved in the absolute collapse of oil prices in the 80’s. Soviet exploitation of Siberian oil fields added a significant amount of oil to global supply and when the market was flooded with Western petroleum the Saudis freaked out and tried to out produce the West. The reasoning was production increases would lower the price of oil and the cheaper to extract Saudi fields would still be profitable while Western producers would go bankrupt. The Saudi state being completely reliant on oil revenues saw its economy go into a tailspin trying to hold onto market share while western producers downsized and saved capital to restart production during the inevitable rebound. Houston being oil capitol USA was staring at the prospect of its major industry being exhausted. However oil prices rebounded in part due to the Gulf War and major economic growth in East Asia with South Korea & Taiwan becoming the first world economies and nations like Indonesia, Thailand & China experiencing rapid growth.

Houston has done very well for itself weathering the volatility of the oil market becoming a major import center and refining center for Venezuelan heavy crude as well taking on imports from other nations and distributing them. In a way it’s the reason why the US oil industry is so ass backwards now, the US is the largest energy producer in the world yet our refining industry is set to process heavy sulfur rich oil from Canada or Venezuela. The light sweet crude that the shale boom has produced is generally exported.

The industry likely doesn’t want to invest in renovating existing refineries to process the cleaner domestic oil because in 20 years the industry likely won’t exist as it does today. The decline in hydrocarbon production and use has the industry looking towards new long term profit models I would imagine. While we are certainly taking a closer look to the traditionally most climate vulnerable cities aka low lying coastal cities in hurricane prone regions or fast growing desert cities. The fact that we’ve experienced 12 months at 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels means all cities, states and nations need to take a look at their own local vulnerabilities. Short term the so called climate havens like Great Lakes are a solution for climate refugees but if we let the situation slide so far out of control that the North Atlantic oscillation breaks down (the exchange of heat via the Gulf Stream on the surface and cold sea floor currents coming from the Arctic) North American and European livability could become questionable.

Albeit events that seem to set off ice ages are “super volcanic eruptions” or asteroid/comet impacts naturally and that’s still just a well regarded theory and it’s possible that impacts create the super massive continental scale flood basalts that finished the dinosaurs. Though we’re getting into contentious territory large scale release of greenhouse gasses coincide with very bad times on the planet. The collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire into Byzantium by bubonic plague then the rise of the Islamic Empire was preceded by well documented records of a couple years of a dull sun and a long term period of crop failures. Ice cores show a potential VEI 7 at least happening at that time or perhaps it could have been two eruptions (imo) either in Central America or new research is pointing to potentially Vanuatu. The science is evolving quickly but the Mayan collapse and the eruption of the volcano in the giant lake in Nicaragua happened around that time but not exactly lining up a eruption in the Pacific in the region of New Guinea, the Solomon Islands or Vanuatu seems to line up better.