What Happened After Remote Workers Were Offered $10,000 to Move to Tulsa? (seattletimes.com) 115
Five years ago remote workers were offered $10,0000 to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma for at least a year. Since then roughly 3,300 have accepted the offer, according to the New York TImes. [Alternate URL here.] But more importantly, now researchers are looking at the results:
Their research, released this month, surveyed 1,248 people — including 411 who had participated in Tulsa Remote and others who were accepted but didn't move or weren't accepted but had applied to the program — and found that remote workers who moved to Tulsa saved an average of $25,000 more on annual housing costs than the group that was chosen but didn't move... Nearly three-quarters of participants who have completed the program are still living in Tulsa. The program brings them together for farm-to-table dinners, movie nights and local celebrity lectures to help build community, given that none have offices to commute to.
The article says every year the remote workers contribute $14.9 million in state income taxes and $5.8 million in sales taxes (more than offsetting the $33 million spent over the last five years). And additional benefits could be even greater. "We know that for every dollar we've spent on the incentive, there's been about a $13 return on that investment to the city," the program's managing director told Fortune — pointing out that the remote workers have an average salary of $100,000. (500 of the 3,300 even bought homes...)
The Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation — which provides the $10,000 awards — told the New York Times it will continue funding the program "so long as it demonstrates to be a community-enhancing opportunity." And with so much of the population now able to work remotely, the lead author on the latest study adds that "Every heartland mayor should pay attention to this..."
The article says every year the remote workers contribute $14.9 million in state income taxes and $5.8 million in sales taxes (more than offsetting the $33 million spent over the last five years). And additional benefits could be even greater. "We know that for every dollar we've spent on the incentive, there's been about a $13 return on that investment to the city," the program's managing director told Fortune — pointing out that the remote workers have an average salary of $100,000. (500 of the 3,300 even bought homes...)
The Tulsa-based George Kaiser Family Foundation — which provides the $10,000 awards — told the New York Times it will continue funding the program "so long as it demonstrates to be a community-enhancing opportunity." And with so much of the population now able to work remotely, the lead author on the latest study adds that "Every heartland mayor should pay attention to this..."
They started working for Dwight Manfredi (Score:1)
Or at least that is what the internetz says.
Re: They started working for Dwight Manfredi (Score:2)
He treats his people well.
Even if they don't want to be his people.
Oh, yeay. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they have to attend?
E.g., the sort of person who's made the sacrifices in order to not have to show up in the officeplace will commonly be the same sort of person who isn't thrilled about forced socialization.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no mention on their pae of having to attend "movie nights". There's a 36-month membership in some Coworking space.
And there's a required New-member orientation.
All disbursements are delivered after approved members have (1) signed a qualifying lease or purchased a qualifying home, (2) completed their move to Tulsa, and (3) attended member orientation. You can read more about the fine print here.
Re:Oh, yeay. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am fairly sure the socialization is the key ingredient. Isolation has long term effects. Most people older than 30 have a harder time making new friends than they did in their 20s. Workplace is one of the few places people have opportunity. Most cops and firefighters exclusively have coworker friends with the occasional outlier. It was similar in the military. Making friends is always a deterrent to picking up and moving. Its tough letting go of the few friends you have. Offering those community building events would motivate me to actually consider transplanting myself into a new state/city.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah. One of those "effects" being "Not having to be around other people." Which is a lovely effect.
I live in the countryside. The nearest person lives 300 meters away. I'd prefer at least an order of magnitude higher than that. At least I'm able to keep them a significant distance away on three of the four cardinal directions, by owning a sizable chunk of land along one axis, and having a canyon as a land boundary o
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not understand the difference between wanting socialization and being made to socialize.
You can't force people to socialize. All they need to do is provide the opportunity, and people naturally want to.
Considering they put the people through a live interview during the application review process: I suspect if there are individuals with absolutely no interest in socializing, then their application might not make it past the interview stage.
Re: (Score:3)
I am literally telling you, I do not want to socialize with people in person. Please quit telling me that I do. I really do not. Old friends and of course family are always welcome, and I'll greet them with a hug and we'll get on great, but I get more than ample socialization online, and have no need for more than that. A good day is a day where I don't see another person. A good week is a week where I don't see another person.
Re: (Score:2)
I am literally telling you, I do not want to socialize with people in person. Please quit telling me that I do. I really do not.
I do not doubt there are exceptions... What I'm saying is almost everyone craves some amount of socialization.
Someone who doesn't want to socialize on the other hand; they might interview if you applied and decide they don't think you're a good fit for the program. Their supposed purpose is to expand the community, and you don't have a healthy local
community if people in
Re: (Score:2)
Who moved probably... (Score:2)
... depended on where they were living beforehand. Those who already lived in some nowheresville small town probably jumped at the chance, those who lived in NYC or some similar happening city (or outside the US though 10K wouldn't even cover moving costs) I would guess not so much. Unless they fancied a complete change of scene.
Re:Who moved probably... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the presumption that people want to live in big "happening cities"?
Living somewhere like NYC is my image of hell. I hate even visiting big cities, let alone having to live there. I'm not alone [gallup.com].
Even Reykjavík is annoyingly "big city" from my perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
I was assuming most of them were a younger demographic and so would be more attracted to big cities. But generally as we get older we prefer a quieter life.
Never been to iceland but Reykjavik would only qualify as a town in most places, never mind a city.
Re: (Score:2)
Never been to iceland but Reykjavik would only qualify as a town in most places, never mind a city.
The whole country wouldn't even quality as a New York borough: it has four times fewer inhabitants than Manhattan.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
it has four times fewer inhabitants than Manhattan.
Manhattan's population is about 1.6 million. Four times fewer than that is negative 4.8 million. How does anywhere have a negative population, much less one that negative?
(Staten Island has under a half million people, less than a third of Manhattan's population. Does that mean it doesn't count as a borough, either?)
Re: (Score:3)
The Huldufólk count as negative people ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The Huldufólk count as negative people ;)
I looked that up, and I gotta say the Nordics have the coolest mythologies.
Re:Who moved probably... (Score:4, Informative)
So like, if you poll modern Icelanders and ask whether they exist, you'd be lucky to get 20% yes on that poll. Probably more like 10%. But on the other hand, if you asked people to definitively state that they don't exist... maybe 50-50? Like, for example, there's plenty of places where they're building a road, and detour it around an elf rock, because... like, it's not a big deal to change the path of the road, so why risk it? ;)
Really, though, most people's conception isn't so much as little hidden people in archaic clothes or whatnot. It's closer to the Japanese concept of Kami. Basically that there's places in nature that can have a spirit or energy associated with them, which doesn't like to be F'ed with ;) Certain people may also have a sort of "veil between worlds" sort of view to it as well.
I was once engaged to a guy whose family had an association with a shadowy figure in dark clothes, seen in the distance, who wasn't really there, and if they'd see him, it was a portent that something big was going to happen. And it's the sort of thing where like, do they actually believe it? With certainty - almost certainly not. But willing to definitively rule it out? No.
Trolls, by contrast? Lol, everyone knows THEY'RE not real ;)
(Speaking of trolls, you might want to look up our Christmas traditions, involving 13 creepy troll "santas" that steal from you, their mother who kidnaps children in a sack to make into soup, and their house-sized black cat which eats (up to and including) children if the child doesn't get a new piece of clothes for Christmas, to ward it off. ;) So yeah, our Christmas decor can get... interesting [heimildin.is] ).
Re: (Score:2)
So like, if you poll modern Icelanders and ask whether they exist, you'd be lucky to get 20% yes on that poll. Probably more like 10%. But on the other hand, if you asked people to definitively state that they don't exist... maybe 50-50? Like, for example, there's plenty of places where they're building a road, and detour it around an elf rock, because... like, it's not a big deal to change the path of the road, so why risk it? ;)
Really, though, most people's conception isn't so much as little hidden people in archaic clothes or whatnot. It's closer to the Japanese concept of Kami. Basically that there's places in nature that can have a spirit or energy associated with them, which doesn't like to be F'ed with ;) Certain people may also have a sort of "veil between worlds" sort of view to it as well.
I was once engaged to a guy whose family had an association with a shadowy figure in dark clothes, seen in the distance, who wasn't really there, and if they'd see him, it was a portent that something big was going to happen. And it's the sort of thing where like, do they actually believe it? With certainty - almost certainly not. But willing to definitively rule it out? No.
Trolls, by contrast? Lol, everyone knows THEY'RE not real ;)
(Speaking of trolls, you might want to look up our Christmas traditions, involving 13 creepy troll "santas" that steal from you, their mother who kidnaps children in a sack to make into soup, and their house-sized black cat which eats (up to and including) children if the child doesn't get a new piece of clothes for Christmas, to ward it off. ;) So yeah, our Christmas decor can get... interesting [heimildin.is] ).
Is that image from a parade or something like that? It is pretty darn awesome.
As one guy said to me once, "The nasty stuff people tell their kids id damn nasty." He was referring to the Brothers Grimm, but looks like the scare the crap out of the kids concept is a bit of sadistic fun for them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sculpture of the Christmas Cat [staticflickr.com] (Jólakötturinn). :) Gets put up annually in Reykjavík.
(Akureyri's sculpture of the Christmas Cat, by contrast, is a bit more.. um... derpy [myndir.ruv.is] ;) )
Re: (Score:2)
The Huldufólk count as negative people ;)
But Húsavík has a Eurovision museum. So it wins. I'd live there.
Re: (Score:2)
Húsavík is a lovely town, BTW :) And there's lots of neat stuff in the countryside in that region (the sort of rough Húsavík / Góðafoss / Dettifoss / Ásbyrgi quadrangle)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I was there a few months ago. The coffee was excellent, which is my primary priority.
Re:Who moved probably... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would Rattenberg get city privileges today? No. Is it a city? Yes, as far as the Law in Austria is concerned. Does Austria care what an U.S. citizen considers a city? Not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This is all technically true but completely tangential to the discussion. I smell Asperger's here :D.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what made you think I was american. I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
You saw something, and then you responding with some bigotry. I'm not sure that's better.
Re: (Score:2)
I found it amusing that the town I grew up in is a "city", but the next town over is merely a "census designated place" because it's technically not incorporated. Quite a few towns in that county turn out to be CPDs while others are cities. These are census designations though, they don't line up with how people refer to these places.
Re: (Score:2)
I smell Asperger's here :D.
Try saying that in a room full of 5th graders!
Re: (Score:2)
I smell Asperger's here :D.
You may have synesthesia...
Re: (Score:2)
What are "city privileges" in Austria? I assume its the right to tax, the obligation to provide services, etc., the same as a city would be in the US. In the US the definition of city can vary from state to state, the same way it varies from country to country or province/state/canton/duchy/whatever in Europe. For the most part in the US, if a group of people in an unincorporated area want to form a city they just tell the state "Hey, we want to be a city, we will have a mayor/council form of government,
Re:Who moved probably... (Score:4, Insightful)
Living somewhere like NYC is my image of hell
Same here. I'm allergic to any city over 250,000 inhabitants. And even then, I try to live outside of it as much as possible.
I'm currently 10 miles from a 200,000-in city, out in the sticks: it's quiet, I can see the stars at night, and it's close enough to enough civilization to have a convincing night on the town and find stores of all kinds.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why the presumption that people want to live in big "happening cities"?
Living somewhere like NYC is my image of hell. I hate even visiting big cities, let alone having to live there. I'm not alone [gallup.com].
Even Reykjavík is annoyingly "big city" from my perspective.
It's almost like there are different people with different ideas how they prefer to live. ;^)
NYC is not for everyone. I go there every so often because I find it energizing, but after a week, I gotta leave from the over-stimulation. I'm living pretty much where I want to live, in a suburb of a small city. I live 2 miles from work (I'm presumably retired, but called back) It has a lot of amenities that I like.
But I can be in wilderness in about 20 minutes, you'd probably love it. Less than 1 person per
Re: Who moved probably... (Score:2)
Imo at least, the push for rural/countryside living is merely a return to how the bulk of humanity was living prior to industrialization.
Humanity largely evolved to live in small rural villages populated by no more then a few hundred people. Big densely populated metropolitan areas with populations numbering in the thousands, if not millions, are not environments we are accustomed to. The fact people try to recreate small community structures in these urbanized areas only reinforces this notion if anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not alone. I loathe city life. My piano teacher loves it, he wants to be compressed from all sides and ride buses and all that.
The only thing I will concede to him is, big cities have the good orchestras, the good orchestra halls, and all that.
But, you cannot pay me to live in one. Even having a zero-lot line house is bad enough, I have to hear the neighbor's babies cry, their goddamned dog whine and bark, the other dog, and the other -- NO!
I find city people a most curious bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, people who like quieter places forget that there are actually those of us who prefer them. I cannot **stand** some little town place and am absolutely happier the larger the city environment. We really just need to recognize that one person's ideal living situation is not another person's.
Re: (Score:2)
However, 36% of Iceland lives within Reykjavík, and 64% of Iceland lives within Reykjavík's metropolitan area.
So doesn't that make the answer to the following question:
Why the presumption that people want to live in big "happening cities"?
Because most people do?
I'm not alone [gallup.com].
Polls like that area have a built-in gotcha.
Where would I prefer to live? Ya, probably somewhere up in the mountains.
But more than that, I prefer the availability of high-end amenities, and all the random crap a city provides, along with the
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing "want to live" vs. "have to live".
Most people didn't abandon small towns in Iceland because they had some great desire to live in a small apartment in Reykjavík. They moved to Reykjavík because that's where the jobs were. Iceland didn't use to be like this; the population used to be much more evenly distributed (outside of the highlands). But the fishing quota system ended up concentrating the quotas in the hands of fishing magnates and people in small towns could no longer fis
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing "want to live" vs. "have to live".
I don't think I am.
I think you're confusing "would prefer" with "what they're willing to sacrifice".
Like I said- I get wanted to live out in nature. But there's another side of living far away from things- and that's an inability to do basic things like "going out".
I'm not sure most people are willing to live a life in isolation where going out means picking up the package from Amazon off your porch, because it's a 3 hour drive to the city.
I have a condo in Seattle, and while I'd love a home with a bun
Re: Who moved probably... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Toronto is tiny compared to NYC, yet it still has vast neighbourhoods with nothing natural around. And you see kids walking down sidewalks next to roads, in the shadows of multi-story buildings as they walk to school - never seeing much more than concrete and asphalt on their way.
I grew up in 'burbs, where admittedly there isn't a lot of actual nature either, but there was way more green space and more space in general. Even rivers and small bits of forest (that seemed huge to a kid) within a short bike r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But then you pay for it with wither a high house price or a very long commute. A lot of people competing for small parcels of land.
In the 'Burbs you can have a house.
In most US mega-cities, likie NYC, LAX, SFO, CHI, and so on, you are lucky if you can (find &) afford a 400 sq.ft. flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how far is the drive to work if you are in the burbs in some of those places?
Depends on how expansive your metropolis is.
Re: (Score:2)
"vast neighborhoods"??
where? from what I recall of Toronto, it has plenty of green space.
I found a 2007 GIS map of the city's tree cover & it looks pretty green to me
https://www.researchgate.net/f... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:2)
where? from what I recall of Toronto, it has plenty of green space.
You're not wrong. I live 10km due north of the CN Tower, in a busy neighbourhood. There is lots of green space around me. This area where I walk my dog is about a 10-minute walk from me:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wk2KeL... [app.goo.gl]
Re: (Score:2)
Toronto is tiny compared to NYC, yet it still has vast neighbourhoods with nothing natural around. And you see kids walking down sidewalks next to roads, in the shadows of multi-story buildings as they walk to school - never seeing much more than concrete and asphalt on their way.
I grew up in 'burbs, where admittedly there isn't a lot of actual nature either, but there was way more green space and more space in general. Even rivers and small bits of forest (that seemed huge to a kid) within a short bike ride. I can't imagine raising kids in the 'concrete jungle'.
I was lucky enough to find a place in a suburb just outside my city. I live in a forest, it was designed to incorporate the village into nature. I have 100 plus foot trees in my yard. So they've been there a while. My son walked to school - yes, the idea that if a child walks to school in America, they are immediately kidnapped and molested is a product of fear culture and Television shows. We even keep our doors unlocked.
Re: (Score:2)
I spent the first 11 years of my life in a large city (a bit bigger than Toronto) and then the next 12 years in a small city (St. John's, Newfoundland.) I definitely like the big city life better. Toronto, though, is way too expensive for me, so I currently live in a mid-sized city of about about 1.5 million and find it a decent compromise.
There's no way I could live in a small town or (worse) the country. The conservative attitudes there would get me down, and having to drive to go anywhere would also
Re: (Score:2)
You think the 3-trees-per-lot in shitty american suburbs that sprawl around every mid-sized city that has jobs are natural? There's a sucker born every minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is where the majority of americans who do not live in "big cities" live. It is a natural inference that when reject the former you're suggesting the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure a state where this asshole [apnews.com] is in charge of education is a healthy place to raise a child.
https://www.the74million.org/a... [the74million.org]
"In July, Walters mandated that every school district must teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments..."
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And yet all those people live there. There just are not enough places in America for every resident to be next to nature. And believe me, head out of NYC and into the suburbs of NY or New Jersey and you'll find more natural trees there because the woods weren't bulldozed over to turn into farms or subdivisions. The one key thing about much of California is that the landscape is brown. Most of the things that are green were planted, except for various shrubs and the like. Ie, very mediterranean. So wh
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. I was born and raised in NYC and I'm decently successful. Everyone likes to focus on the negative and dismiss the positive of NYC - which I find funny, given I've had the opportunity to travel around the country and world. I digress though.
Am I saying NYC is perfect, heck no, but I would trust bringing my kids up there over there versus some of these other "quieter" places for 1 simple reason, they will learn how to interact with the world...because the world comes to NYC. More importantly,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... depended on where they were living beforehand. Those who already lived in some nowheresville small town probably jumped at the chance, those who lived in NYC or some similar happening city (or outside the US though 10K wouldn't even cover moving costs) I would guess not so much. Unless they fancied a complete change of scene.
I've been in Oklahoma - I'd sooner live in Point Barrow AK. Then again some people want to live in flyover country.
Re: Who moved probably... (Score:1, Flamebait)
I'll take needles and liberal nuttiness any day of the week over theocracy. There isn't an angstrom of daylight between the conservatives in Oklahoma and those who run Iran and Afghanistan. Only a few years' time.
Re: (Score:1)
This. Oklahoma's in the "fascist states actively oppressing minorities and taking away rights" column. You could not pay me enough to live there.
Re: (Score:2)
Your hypothesis doesn't make sense because the study concluded that people who moved, "saved an average of $25,000 more on annual housing costs than the group that was chosen but didn't move." People who moved from "nowheresville" wouldn't have saved any money on housing costs by moving to Tulsa, because those costs would have been even less than Tulsa, in rural areas.
As for moving costs, $10K is what you pay for *full service* moving by brand-name moving companies. For the vast majority of Americans who us
lol (Score:2, Interesting)
They took $10k to move to Tulsa, while making $100k+ per year. Wow, that's a whole five weeks of salary at most... Where were they living before, and did they want to move already?
I mean, there's no problem with this but I don't think it'll scale: 1. This only works for cities (like Tulsa) that are big enough to host a commercial/industrial base but still small enough to feel "heartland"-ish. 2. You're only going to attract people who already want to move and once those low-hanging fruit are done with, you'
Re: (Score:2)
Still, it's a positive sign that bribe economics are going to individuals at all. It's better than giving 50 years of tax breaks and publicly-funded "incentives" to Whole Foods or whatever.
True point.
Re: (Score:1)
The article closes by suggesting that this is a tactic that other midwest cities should consider using. I am merely skeptical of that claim.
To the extent it does work, it works not for rational economic reasons (if so, they wouldn't need to bribe anyone and they would be moving for the cheaper housing already), but mostly as a form of advertising.
At worst it could lead to a "midwest bribe bubble" which could be harmful. idk.
Re:lol (Score:4, Informative)
They took $10k to move to Tulsa, while making $100k+ per year. Wow, that's a whole five weeks of salary at most...
I thought that didn't seems like a massive incentive to move, potentially half way across a large country, but it's dwarfed by the recurring $25k annual saving on housing.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it is basically taking a long position on your employer not pulling a "return to office or be fired" on you, with the benefit that you get to game cost-of-living adjustments as long as they don't.
Fair enough.
Re: (Score:1)
lol. lmao.
oops, they blue themselves (Score:2)
Kudos to these brave pioneers bringing civilization to the hinterlands.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the article the impact was more than $10k due to the lower cost of living.
Re: (Score:3)
If you were undecided on moving then the 10k could be enough to tip the scales.
If you were planning to move anyway, the 10k could be enough to affect where you moved to.
Re: (Score:2)
You overlook the 25k/year savings. The 10k was just to get people's attention.
De-risking (Score:2)
$10k is enough to reduce the risk of a move and see what happens. At many points in people's lives they are open to a change or frustrated with the status quo-- these people are open to a nudge.
It isn't just $10k though: they are saving another $25k on salaries, 3-5+% on state income tax, and lower daily living expenses. Just doing it for a couple years and you can save up a down payment for a house, elsewhere if you choose.
Re:lol (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm.
Tulsa Remote’s success is not about a “bribe” or a quick fix but a sustainable strategy to reverse brain drain and support community growth. You are (deliberately?) overlooking the nuanced approach Tulsa is taking to attract and retain remote workers, the adaptability of this model to different cities, and the evidence that these incentives provide benefits for both workers and the local economy. Your comment is a poorly constructed mix of dismissive assumptions and selective misinterpretations that misrepresent the Tulsa Remote program and its potential impact.
They took $10k to move to Tulsa, while making $100k+ per year. Wow, that is a whole five weeks of salary at most Where were they living before, and did they want to move already?
Fallacies: Misrepresentation & Loaded Question. The $10k incentive is not about replacing a remote worker’s salary; it is about providing initial relocation assistance to make Tulsa more attractive. You imply that a five-week salary equivalence somehow diminishes the incentive’s value, but this ignores that $10k can cover many upfront costs associated with a move, which can be substantial. Also, questioning if people “wanted to move already” is irrelevant; the program is meant to attract people who are open to relocation due to remote work flexibility, regardless of whether they had previous plans to move.
I mean, there is no problem with this but I do not think it will scale: 1. This only works for cities (like Tulsa) that are big enough to host a commercial/industrial base but still small enough to feel "heartland"-ish.
Tactic: Arbitrary Limitation. You are implying that this model will only work for cities exactly like Tulsa. In reality, Tulsa’s success could be a model for a range of cities aiming to attract remote workers, as the article explains. Numerous cities with diverse characteristics are attempting similar programs, proving this approach can adapt to different environments. Limiting it to cities with a “heartland” feel is a baseless restriction that disregards the flexibility shown by remote workers who value affordability and community, not only geography.
2. You are only going to attract people who already want to move and once those low-hanging fruit are done with, you will have to up the bribe significantly to attract even mid-tier talent.
Fallacies: False Prediction & Unfounded Assumption. You assume that Tulsa will “run out” of people interested in relocating and then need to raise the incentive significantly. This is speculative at best. The article notes that thousands have already taken advantage of the program and that Tulsa Remote has a high retention rate among participants. Your implication that mid-tier talent would only come for higher “bribes” ignores that many factors attract remote workers, such as cost of living, quality of life, and community, as highlighted in the article.
Still, it is a positive sign that bribe economics are going to individuals at all. It is better than giving 50 years of tax breaks and publicly-funded "incentives" to Whole Foods or whatever.
Tactic: Red Herring. While it is valid to criticize corporate tax breaks, that is unrelated to the effectiveness of Tulsa Remote’s model. You are deflecting from the article’s main focus—whether incentivizing remote workers can help reverse brain drain—by bringing up unrelated issues with corporate subsidies. The success of this program should be assessed on its own terms rather than compared to unrelated corporate incentive programs.
In summary, i am fairly certain you are just a typical reactionary slashdot troll. I invite you to prove otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
yep. troll. *plonk*
One big problem with this (Score:5, Funny)
They'd be living in Oklahoma.
Re:One big problem with this (Score:5, Funny)
Oh come on... It's not that bad. In fact, it's quite OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: One big problem with this (Score:1)
A) Because Oklahoma sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Our old license plates even said Oklahoma its OK ... No kidding. There you go. Tulsa is a nice city, and the homes are still some of the cheapest around AND they have trees as opposed to OKC.
Re: (Score:2)
Our old license plates even said Oklahoma its OK ... No kidding. There you go. Tulsa is a nice city, and the homes are still some of the cheapest around AND they have trees as opposed to OKC.
So MOVE To Tulsa ! Because It's NOT OKC ! ? Got it!
Re:One big problem with this (Score:4, Interesting)
If you want a position in an alphabet agency there is more opportunity in Oklahoma than there is in VA. Definitely better advancement. Dont be too quick to discount it. If your endgame is a house, a wife, kids, a dog, and a white picket fence; there are worse places to live. With all the government operations running out of there, theres federal money pouring in as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One big problem with this (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent a few weeks in Tulsa in the mid 90s for a 2 week long nation wide convention.
What I remember is the people who lived in Tulsa was very very friendly. The area was to be very pretty and not a long drive to get to the country.
But people like me from the very northern part of the US, there was one thing we hated, the weather. This was in June and it was as hot as hell for us. Hotter than any thing we ever experienced. I asked people who lived there "Is it always hot like this ?". They said "Oh, it does not get hot until August". Maybe one could get use to it, but no thanks :) A few people had to be taken to the hospital for heat issues. It is too bad since to me, Tulsa seems to be a good place to live.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like anything, you get used to it after awhile.
Hell, I live in New Orleans....we have heat AND high humidity for at least half the year.
At times, yeah, it sucks...thank God for A/C.
But then again, it's fun to be wearing t-shirts and shorts while cooking up Day fare indoors and outdoors...while other friends across the US have snow...
There's no way I
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto. I once interviewed with Texas Instruments. In August. I had an early flight back and it was a long drive to the airport so I had to leave the hotel a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Ever heard of A/C?
Tornado's vs Earthquakes vs Hurricanes vs Blizzards vs Floods - Weather is a problem everywhere.
Been in Oklahoma most of my life. Lived many places, including Hawaii. I'll take Oklahoma always.
Indeed (Score:1)
The Down Side.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've actually spent time there and, HELL YEAH, they should be paying you to live there
Re: (Score:2)
More than likely, the vast majority of those who took the deal, already had their eyes on living in Tulsa. Maybe they have family living there, or maybe they *want* to live in a calmer, slower-paced place.
Why Tulsa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a family it might be easier to stick to the US. If your work is time zone sensitive it might be better as well. Internet might be more reliable as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Tulsa a better deal for digital nomads than say, Sicily or Greece or Albania
Sure. You could find places to buy in Sicily for only 1 USD, but the time & costs to rehabilitate that structure into a comfortable & livable abode are tremendous.
And then there is the culture shock. You might move to Sicily because you know about it and like what you know, but you never really KNOW a place until you have lived there for at least all 4 seasons.
You'll know I've been through it... (Score:2)
...when I set my watch back to it.
Change them blue (Score:1)
I bet age has a lot to do with the views here? (Score:2)
I know when I was younger, I wanted to make sure I lived "where the action was". Unlike some of my peers, I didn't dream of NYC. But I wouldn't have ever wanted to live in the middle of nowhere or someplace with no night-life or department stores.
By my mid 30's, all of that became less important. Especially once you're married and have a kid, you get a lot more worried about which area has a school district that's not terrible and where you can get by with less expense (since groceries and clothing costs a
Unintended consequences (Score:2)
This will probably not cause more than a handful of people to move, but if it attracts too many, they may find a lot of liberal well paid people come and change the local politics in a way they don't like.
Come to Tulsa! We use the Bible in public schools! (Score:2)