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