I say that as someone who’s spent a non-trivial amount of time there, too.
The weather is miserable in summer, marginally less miserable in winter (depending on your climate preferences). It’s a car-dependent big box wasteland hellscape even near the city center. The intolerance I encountered was astonishing. It has little to offer in the way of culture, and even less in the way of beautiful natural spaces. It would be borderline uninhabitable without aggressive air conditioning and similar modern “conveniences”.
Basically all is has to offer is endless room for suburban sprawl. But so do dozens of other American cities.
I’m sure there are some people who love it there.
If I didn't have a family to support, I would confidently state that I would prefer to be homeless here than live in Tulsa.
And in general, I'm surprised that $10k significantly moves the needle for anyone. $10,000 is not that much money for a move - unless you have very few personal effects, moving house can easily cost ten thousand dollars, when you factor in a vehicle or moving service, the cost of disposing of and/or acquiring new things, things like fees for moving into a new place, etc.
The Economic Benefits of Paying Workers to Move - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-29/tulsa-rem... | https://archive.today/Hahud - May 29th, 2025
toomuchtodo•8mo ago
Analysis:
The Effects of Tulsa Remote on Inducing Moves to Tulsa: Estimates and Implications - https://research.upjohn.org/up_technicalreports/50/ | https://doi.org/10.17848/tr25-050
Abstract:
Tulsa Remote is one of the largest of over 100 remote worker attraction programs in the United States. Since its beginning in 2018, the program has provided generous incentives ($10,000 for moving to Tulsa and staying one year), along with accompanying networking services and incentives to encourage entrepreneurship, to over 3,000 Tulsa Remote member households, selected out of tens of thousands of applicants. Tulsa Remote’s purpose is to promote economic development in Tulsa. Tulsa Remote members spend more locally and generate fiscal benefits, as well as start up businesses and help make Tulsa more attractive for high-tech job growth. These benefits depend on the degree to which Tulsa Remote actually induces Tulsa moves. What percentage of approved Tulsa Remote applicants would not have moved to Tulsa “but for” the incentive offer? Using data on applicant households, including both approved and not approved by Tulsa Remote, this report estimates Tulsa Remote’s “but for” rate. Using a variety of models, this report estimates a “but for” rate of 58–70 percent, averaged across all member households. The report then enters these “but for” estimates into a regional econometric model that simulates the effects of Tulsa Remote on the per capita incomes of the original Tulsa residents. In the baseline estimates, the benefits to original Tulsa residents, in higher incomes, are over four times the program’s financial costs. Simulations also show that benefits go up with the following: a higher “but for” rate, a higher retention rate, higher wages of Tulsa Remote members, higher entrepreneurship effects among Tulsa Remote members, and increased housing supply to accommodate the induced population growth. The program’s support activities and other policies accompanying the program (e.g., housing supply policies) are at least as important as the incentive payments and the selection process for membership in Tulsa Remote.