This is where California along with a handful of other Blue states in Congress need to push back, Balance of Payments.
California gets back 90 cents on the dollar in federal expenditures from what it sends to the Federal Government. New Jersey gets 82 cents. CA works out to about $60B that flow primarily towards Red states that hate California. I would imagine a big part of the tax problem would be solved in CA if they received back their fair share. As far as over-regulation and NIMBY, GFL! Texas gets a surplus, $1.17 + an anything goes regulatory system.
Green energy is an estate/wealth management strategy. Republicans say that they hate it and are first in line to invest to get the tax mitigation. Dems do the same thing with oil/gas drilling investments. Everyone is a hypocrite, especially when it comes to money/taxes.
Cape Canaveral's latitude is higher. Earth's slightly larger centrifugal force at a lower latitude makes Boca Chica TX a modestly better launch site. Best yet, until Space-X Boca Chica had little, so acquiring R&D, manufacturing, and launch sites there was a lot cheaper.
I lived in Houston 21 years. Its weather was like Calcutta's; its unfettered development of discordant uses left most of Houston looking like Hell. A ride down I-45, I-59, along I-10, or Westheimer does serious emotional damage. A visual assault to anyone coming in thru Bush International. What kind of city-planning is that?
Greater Houston Partnership, a creature of the oil companies, still runs everything. Houston's ugliness could not attract the Summer Olympics. Nor could the Partnership turn down the heat from Houston's massive, paved-in-all-directions heat-island. The Partnership tried initiatives in import-export and in hi-tech [Silicon Bayou anyone?!!!], but nothing new took root at scale in one-trick-pony Houston. Dallas is not Eden, but it has zoning. Texas will remain a growth state until leftists from outside tip the balance.
My deep family roots were just north of Houston, TX, tho' my upbringing was in far Northeast Enemy Territory, Yankeeland.
I wish Texas, even one-trick pony, Houston all the best. But seeing the Lone Star trying to turn blue, especially under weak-kneed Pastor Lite, has to turn Texans blue as well. But look on the bright side. Just figure, if Texas doesn't get Pastor Lite, it gets a crook who never misses a personal opportunity.
As a longtime Texas resident, I'm glad to hear this state getting some positive press for a change 😉 - go, Georgetown, TX! 100% renewable!! But Max Roberts is right - the reason you have to give the entire farm to investors/business concerns to move to Texas is that nobody in gorgeous northern California/Pacific Northwest, (or leafy, inspiring upstate NY) is going to move to that flat, ugly, overdeveloped, completely paved, humid hellscape otherwise. And what happens when AI gets to Texas and wants the last twenty drops of water available to the entire region? This is a persuasive post all-around, but can we really call the tech sector "partners in prosperity"? They hoard all the profits they can and create a bunch of low-wage service jobs to walk their dogs and pour their coffee - California already has plenty of those. It is their fair share of taxes that would make then actual partners, and if they pack up and leave, I can't say I'm surprised because they're crappy neighbors and good riddance....
Texas is a great place, but until there are real protections for women's health it is a hard sell for most of us. I'm not moving with my daughter to a state that doesn't respect her rights.
I hope we get to a point where every woman in America feels comfortable and respected no matter what state she calls home (if at all helpful, the women I know here have never felt disrespected by the medical system, their MDs have all been great, empathetic, accommodative etc)
"In May 2025, local voters (nearly all SpaceX employees and their families) ratified their new municipality by a 97% margin, 212 to 6. When’s the last time you saw that level of civic consensus on anything?"
A cynic might point out that their livelihoods may have depended on voting "yes."
I have other issues with this piece (there are reasons why company towns are heavily regulated and strongly frowned upon today), but I want to focus on what I see as the central premise: that tech companies and workers are being unfairly maligned and to combat this ostracization they (tech writ large) simply need to relocate to physical hubs more accommodating of their interests.
I don't want to be glib, but I have to point out the obvious: they've already done this and it is called Silicon Valley (though, admittedly, it doesn't manufacture chips like it used to). The problem is that tech doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has real life consequences and both negative and positive externalities. That people who live in and near those hubs are demanding mitigation of those negatives (sometimes at the expense of *quelle horreur* billionaires) isn't inherently a bad thing — it's part and parcel of living in a society and it's incumbent on tech companies/entrepreneurs to work within that frame.
That said, the central issue at play isn't regulatory (not to dismiss it, it is a factor, especially in California). Rather, the issue is how tech sees itself and how it fits within society. Where these hubs physically exist, then, is irrelevant; how these hubs, their subcultures, and their products exist within a larger cultural context is paramount. No amount of relocation is going to change that.
To your point: Texas is booming and talent is following. But that talent isn't homogenous and it's going to eventually remake the political make up of Texas. People born and raised in Texas will also have a vote. These changes will probably give rise to more regulation — especially as the negative impacts of its tech boom begin to migrate from California to place like Austin, Houston and, yes, Boca Chica. What then? Another mass relocation? If so, then the tech zeitgeist hasn't matured and simply boils down to "I'm taking my ball and going somewhere else." And that's sad on a few levels.
Tech companies can move with their feet all they want. They can be aggrieved all they want. They still need to reckon with people and that requires a level a maturity and empathy that has been absent for far too long.
My sense is Texas being more pro growth (and allowing so much new infrastructure and housing) is emerging as a much better fit for tech and other energy-heavy infrastructure. I sincerely hope they do not mess it up (and on most days am hopeful)
The reason corporations incorporate in Delaware is because their shareholders know and vote to incorporate in Delaware for the low tax rate but more importantly for the rules-based legal precedent that creates predictable outcomes in the Chancery Court.
Companies that flee Delaware for places like Texas or Nevada are signaling to their shareholders that they want to establish new precedent and there is higher risk they will get fleeced by founders and corporate executives.
That’s the theory, but in practice Delaware’s edge is optionality + familiarity, not immunity from perceived tail risk.
Once enough large companies even test Texas or Nevada, it signals that “default = Delaware” is no longer automatic, even if it’s still the benchmark. That shift alone changes incentives on all sides.
This is where California along with a handful of other Blue states in Congress need to push back, Balance of Payments.
California gets back 90 cents on the dollar in federal expenditures from what it sends to the Federal Government. New Jersey gets 82 cents. CA works out to about $60B that flow primarily towards Red states that hate California. I would imagine a big part of the tax problem would be solved in CA if they received back their fair share. As far as over-regulation and NIMBY, GFL! Texas gets a surplus, $1.17 + an anything goes regulatory system.
Green energy is an estate/wealth management strategy. Republicans say that they hate it and are first in line to invest to get the tax mitigation. Dems do the same thing with oil/gas drilling investments. Everyone is a hypocrite, especially when it comes to money/taxes.
Cape Canaveral's latitude is higher. Earth's slightly larger centrifugal force at a lower latitude makes Boca Chica TX a modestly better launch site. Best yet, until Space-X Boca Chica had little, so acquiring R&D, manufacturing, and launch sites there was a lot cheaper.
I lived in Houston 21 years. Its weather was like Calcutta's; its unfettered development of discordant uses left most of Houston looking like Hell. A ride down I-45, I-59, along I-10, or Westheimer does serious emotional damage. A visual assault to anyone coming in thru Bush International. What kind of city-planning is that?
Greater Houston Partnership, a creature of the oil companies, still runs everything. Houston's ugliness could not attract the Summer Olympics. Nor could the Partnership turn down the heat from Houston's massive, paved-in-all-directions heat-island. The Partnership tried initiatives in import-export and in hi-tech [Silicon Bayou anyone?!!!], but nothing new took root at scale in one-trick-pony Houston. Dallas is not Eden, but it has zoning. Texas will remain a growth state until leftists from outside tip the balance.
My deep family roots were just north of Houston, TX, tho' my upbringing was in far Northeast Enemy Territory, Yankeeland.
I wish Texas, even one-trick pony, Houston all the best. But seeing the Lone Star trying to turn blue, especially under weak-kneed Pastor Lite, has to turn Texans blue as well. But look on the bright side. Just figure, if Texas doesn't get Pastor Lite, it gets a crook who never misses a personal opportunity.
As a longtime Texas resident, I'm glad to hear this state getting some positive press for a change 😉 - go, Georgetown, TX! 100% renewable!! But Max Roberts is right - the reason you have to give the entire farm to investors/business concerns to move to Texas is that nobody in gorgeous northern California/Pacific Northwest, (or leafy, inspiring upstate NY) is going to move to that flat, ugly, overdeveloped, completely paved, humid hellscape otherwise. And what happens when AI gets to Texas and wants the last twenty drops of water available to the entire region? This is a persuasive post all-around, but can we really call the tech sector "partners in prosperity"? They hoard all the profits they can and create a bunch of low-wage service jobs to walk their dogs and pour their coffee - California already has plenty of those. It is their fair share of taxes that would make then actual partners, and if they pack up and leave, I can't say I'm surprised because they're crappy neighbors and good riddance....
Texas is a great place, but until there are real protections for women's health it is a hard sell for most of us. I'm not moving with my daughter to a state that doesn't respect her rights.
I hope we get to a point where every woman in America feels comfortable and respected no matter what state she calls home (if at all helpful, the women I know here have never felt disrespected by the medical system, their MDs have all been great, empathetic, accommodative etc)
We were at that point, but sadly Texas decided to go backwards. Texas has been working hard to make sure we never get back to that place.
There are a lot of great things about Texas, but it is not an inclusive place open to everyone.
"In May 2025, local voters (nearly all SpaceX employees and their families) ratified their new municipality by a 97% margin, 212 to 6. When’s the last time you saw that level of civic consensus on anything?"
A cynic might point out that their livelihoods may have depended on voting "yes."
I have other issues with this piece (there are reasons why company towns are heavily regulated and strongly frowned upon today), but I want to focus on what I see as the central premise: that tech companies and workers are being unfairly maligned and to combat this ostracization they (tech writ large) simply need to relocate to physical hubs more accommodating of their interests.
I don't want to be glib, but I have to point out the obvious: they've already done this and it is called Silicon Valley (though, admittedly, it doesn't manufacture chips like it used to). The problem is that tech doesn't exist in a vacuum. It has real life consequences and both negative and positive externalities. That people who live in and near those hubs are demanding mitigation of those negatives (sometimes at the expense of *quelle horreur* billionaires) isn't inherently a bad thing — it's part and parcel of living in a society and it's incumbent on tech companies/entrepreneurs to work within that frame.
That said, the central issue at play isn't regulatory (not to dismiss it, it is a factor, especially in California). Rather, the issue is how tech sees itself and how it fits within society. Where these hubs physically exist, then, is irrelevant; how these hubs, their subcultures, and their products exist within a larger cultural context is paramount. No amount of relocation is going to change that.
To your point: Texas is booming and talent is following. But that talent isn't homogenous and it's going to eventually remake the political make up of Texas. People born and raised in Texas will also have a vote. These changes will probably give rise to more regulation — especially as the negative impacts of its tech boom begin to migrate from California to place like Austin, Houston and, yes, Boca Chica. What then? Another mass relocation? If so, then the tech zeitgeist hasn't matured and simply boils down to "I'm taking my ball and going somewhere else." And that's sad on a few levels.
Tech companies can move with their feet all they want. They can be aggrieved all they want. They still need to reckon with people and that requires a level a maturity and empathy that has been absent for far too long.
My sense is Texas being more pro growth (and allowing so much new infrastructure and housing) is emerging as a much better fit for tech and other energy-heavy infrastructure. I sincerely hope they do not mess it up (and on most days am hopeful)
Except the Delaware ruling was correct…
They lost Roblox, Dropbox, The Trade Desk, Simon Property Group, Coinbase, Tesla, and more - was it really worth it? Some more reading if curious: https://a16z.com/were-leaving-delaware-and-we-think-you-should-consider-leaving-too/
The reason corporations incorporate in Delaware is because their shareholders know and vote to incorporate in Delaware for the low tax rate but more importantly for the rules-based legal precedent that creates predictable outcomes in the Chancery Court.
Companies that flee Delaware for places like Texas or Nevada are signaling to their shareholders that they want to establish new precedent and there is higher risk they will get fleeced by founders and corporate executives.
That’s the theory, but in practice Delaware’s edge is optionality + familiarity, not immunity from perceived tail risk.
Once enough large companies even test Texas or Nevada, it signals that “default = Delaware” is no longer automatic, even if it’s still the benchmark. That shift alone changes incentives on all sides.