Austin or Sonoma County for a job relocation?

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

It's not a kneejerk decision. We've been thinking about it for years. My youngest has one more year of high school. We were considering downsizing then anyway.

Both of my kids were born and raised in Austin and never lived anywhere else. My oldest daughter didn't apply to a single college in Texas because she had no desire to stay here. My youngest has said the same thing. And trust me, we tried to talk them into it, for financial reasons, if nothing else. Both of my kids will leave Texas before we do, if we do, by their own choice.

I realize that it affects everyone, and that I am sort of the odd man out, seeing as I'm the only member of my family who is not from Texas. But I wasn't the one who brought any of this up. Actually, my husband was. And my kids are obviously totally onboard.

There is no timeline. It will depend on factors like the real estate market, etc. I work from home and can work from anywhere in the US. My husband's job is not so flexible, so there's that to consider too.

There are other good, even better, prosperous parts of the country.

That's good you're taking it day by day and not rushing into anything. It's alot to think about.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by sanmiguel

My wife and I spent 20 years living in Sonoma County specifically Sebastopol and Occidental. Upon retiring, for 10 years we owned a home in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Austin. It would be hard to say one is better than the other. Western Sonoma County is still a very rural environment whereas Austin is a big city although (at least not yet) affected by as many urban problems as its larger counterparts. For us the biggest differences were cultural. The thing I really appreciated about Austin was the proximity to the UT campus and entertainment venues. The Sonoma Coast is gorgeous and rough reminiscent more of Ireland than SoCal or Florida. We now live between San Francisco and Lake Tahoe to be closer to family in our old age. If I had to choose between Sonoma County or Austin today, I would just toss a coin knowing that we would be happy in either place.

California has better health care overall and a better social safety net for elderly people, I believe. That -- alone -- would make it less of a coin toss.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Don't think it can't / won't happen. It has before. Texas was once Democratic, and California was once Republican.

Interesting paradigm you've cited there.

Also, though, I'd say back when California was "Republican", so were Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and Connecticut. Republicans back then were often fiscally conservative, but socially moderate-to-liberal, much like Democrats today.

Conversely, Democrats were more conservative but blue-collar oriented and supported Southern white workers, conservative Catholic steelworkers in the Northeast, as well as people without education. States like Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia and Kentucky were staunchly Democratic.

The parties, by and large, have flipped.

[As Above So Below...]

If money is no object and job security is firm, it would be hard to imagine choosing Austin over Sonoma.

If money is now or will ever be an object or if you may need to find another job, it would be hard to imagine choosing Sonoma over Austin.

[sanmiguel]

Originally Posted by As Above So Below...

If money is no object and job security is firm, it would be hard to imagine choosing Austin over Sonoma.

If money is now or will ever be an object or if you may need to find another job, it would be hard to imagine choosing Sonoma over Austin.

One huge intangible difference between the two states:

"You just can’t live in Texas if you don’t have a lot of soul." Doug Sahm

[As Above So Below...]

Originally Posted by sanmiguel

One huge intangible difference between the two states:

"You just can’t live in Texas if you don’t have a lot of soul." Doug Sahm

I dont know about that. Ever been to Southlake?

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by apple92680

Interesting paradigm you've cited there.

Also, though, I'd say back when California was "Republican", so were Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois and Connecticut. Republicans back then were often fiscally conservative, but socially moderate-to-liberal, much like Democrats today.

Conversely, Democrats were more conservative but blue-collar oriented and supported Southern white workers, conservative Catholic steelworkers in the Northeast, as well as people without education. States like Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, West Virginia and Kentucky were staunchly Democratic.

The parties, by and large, have flipped.

Democrats between the early 1900's through the modern era have had a slow transition into becoming more liberal when it comes to civil and economic matters and from ~1940 onward they were considered to be left of their Republican counterparts despite meeting opposition from more conservative 'dixiecrats' (primarily in the south). I agree that the Republican Party did initially start off as the more open minded party when it came to economics, but it becomes questionable when it came to civil and human rights.

Abraham Lincoln for example, (the first Republican President during the era of the foundation of the Republican party) main goal was to keep the union intact as the North was becoming rich off of the South. He even stated “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that”. His primary objective had little to do with civil human rights, it just turned out abolishing slavery would weaken the confederacy (who already hated him because he wanted to prevent slavery from spreading to the north).. While I will agree in terms of humanism he did have more characteristics than the dixiecrats of his era as he and his party did believe slavery was immoral, he too would be labled as a racist by todays standards.

He did not believe blacks and whites were equals
He did not support black / white marriages
He also did not want free blacks to intermingle with U.S. Society and made multiple attempts to send blacks back to their originating countries.

So with all due respect I disagree that the Republican society of yesterday was any more open minded than either party of today.

Now here is something I find rather interesting when it comes to heirlooms and open-mindedness:

https://www.businessinsider.com/dona...reuters-2023-6

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by apple92680

California has better health care overall and a better social safety net for elderly people, I believe. That -- alone -- would make it less of a coin toss.

IMO your analysis is too broad.

Older people tend to need, or at least do better with, high intensity medical care close by. There is no universe in which Sonoma has better high intensity HC than Austin. It does not sound like the OP needs a social safety net either.

So far as I know Santa Rosa has the nearest Level II trauma center to Sonoma.......that's what around 45 minutes by car?

Austin & Roundrock have at least 3 (maybe 4) Level I trauma centers and all the associated docs, nurses, neuro-critical care, eldercare, ID and other specialized services right there.