My argument wasn't that they should just not work instead. My argument was that Texas is not some beacon on a hill to behold. Their unemployment number looks good because they're hiring a bunch of cheap labor, and not providing them with benefits like health insurance. That's not something you should be proclaiming as "better" than California simply because the unemployment number is lower. You would think that since their employment figures are so much better, that would mean more people with access to health care and the like...but instead, a quarter of Texas's population lacks health insurance.
They are hiring cheap labor because there are jobs in Texas to be filled. It is better than California because what you are left with is more people earning an income (and paying taxes into the system), regardless of benefits. The fact of the matter is that health care provided for by the state is paid for by the tax payers. When you put the overwhelming majority of the tax burden at the top, those people leave to places like Texas. The less taxpayers there are in California, the less money there is for the state to provide healthcare to citizens.
Along with that, the more states that are competing for businesses the way Texas is, the more the market power shifts to the employee instead of the employer. This increases wages and benefits for the talented workers as companies try to attract them.
Meanwhile, California is a complete mess. Even if their education system was top notch (it's not), those educated graduates are going to move to another state because that's where the jobs are.