Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed.
However it really does get irritating when the Coasters act like they rule the US and call the Midwest Flyover Country.
and 2nd even if the East/West Coast didnt buy midwestern food there is the rest of the world to buy it
I've driven across the US multiple times and have had cool experiences, seen amazing sights, and met nice people every step of the way that I wouldn't have had anywhere but where it happened, so I really can't refer to it as "flyover country." Will I ever live there? Probably not. It's just not on my radar and I'm no longer a country boy. I never really was, honestly. But that said, you don't get lightning storms like you see around the Great Lakes in coastal California; you don't see rolling green hills lighting up with fireflies over a dusky sky like you do on the plains in the forests of the PNW and honestly, I find the former more attractive than the latter. But, you don't get beaches there like you have over here, and you also don't get the deserts and canyons and palms that I adore so much.
I just don't see the point in such arguments. It's like arguing that a pizza is better than a cheeseburger.
I've driven across the US multiple times and have had cool experiences, seen amazing sights, and met nice people every step of the way that I wouldn't have had anywhere but where it happened, so I really can't refer to it as "flyover country." Will I ever live there? Probably not. It's just not on my radar and I'm no longer a country boy. I never really was, honestly. But that said, you don't get lightning storms like you see around the Great Lakes in coastal California; you don't see rolling green hills lighting up with fireflies over a dusky sky like you do on the plains in the forests of the PNW and honestly, I find the former more attractive than the latter. But, you don't get beaches there like you have over here, and you also don't get the deserts and canyons and palms that I adore so much.
I just don't see the point in such arguments. It's like arguing that a pizza is better than a cheeseburger.
i agree.
However its sad not as many people are as opened minded as you.
Heck here on City-Data ive seen my fair share of *Flyover Country* remarks.
Plus the Media/Yahoo.com do it too.
Let's say you have two opportunities-- one to live in a very expensive major city-- take your pick of any. You make 100K per year, but even at that level you will find you live in a nice part of town but in a small (500 sq ft or so) condo or apartment. You are single-- this is not your first urban living experience, you are well traveled, etc.
Second scenario-- all of the same personal characteristics, but you make that 100K in a city that is considerably smaller, but still has a lot to offer (I am talking places like Houston, Charleston, Raleigh, Portland, Providence-- again, take your pick). You can afford to live in the best part of town in a much bigger, swankier apartment or condo. You can afford to buy a house in the city. This place is does not have a major airport but has plenty to do. The pace is slower.
Which do you pick?
I don't think its as cut and dried as "oh, be a middle manager with kids and live in a mediocre city, run with the big boys, have a glam life and pay through the nose."
No offense $100K in a city like NYC is nothing. One of the items you failed to consider is that the taxes are substantially higher in the great cities.
Sadly, I'd have to go with the places that offer less on that kind of coin. The big cities are absolutely awesome- but only if you make real money ($100K ain't it). Otherwise, you are not going to be able to take advantage of everything those places offer. I know some people believe in a sort of romantic bohemian existence in NYC in a microapartment walking the city, taking in the atmosphere and seeing the sites, but you still need certain income to have that kind of lifestyle.
If you grew up in a "super-expensive" city/metro area and are used to the lifestyle and amenities it offers, should you consider giving a chance to living in a less expensive city? Or will you be bored and is it just a waste of time?
No offense $100K in a city like NYC is nothing. One of the items you failed to consider is that the taxes are substantially higher in the great cities.
Sadly, I'd have to go with the places that offer less on that kind of coin. The big cities are absolutely awesome- but only if you make real money ($100K ain't it). Otherwise, you are not going to be able to take advantage of everything those places offer. I know some people believe in a sort of romantic bohemian existence in NYC in a microapartment walking the city, taking in the atmosphere and seeing the sites, but you still need certain income to have that kind of lifestyle.
I am not saying its a ton of money, I am just using that as an example. If I had said 50k, it would have been a different story. On 100k most people can survive as a single person in any city in the US, even NYC, so that's why I picked that number (if you can't survive on that level of income, it seems like a personal issue.) You can have a decent place in a decent neighborhood. Can you live in Midtown Manhattan? Maybe not. Can you have a private terrace? Nope.
That is sorta my point, and the whole discussion of this thread. Say you had 100K in (Raleigh, Houston, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Portland..insert less expensive city here). You *might* be able to have a prviate terrace, live in the best or most convenient area, have a great space. So while this is an arbitrary number, this is indeed a number most people can say is not a bad income, especially for a single person. Now, if I had asked about where you would live with a few million, that would be a different story.
If you grew up in a "super-expensive" city/metro area and are used to the lifestyle and amenities it offers, should you consider giving a chance to living in a less expensive city? Or will you be bored and is it just a waste of time?
I think that people who grew up in a major metro definitely should consider it at some point or another. Some will hate it; some will love it; some will think it's nice, but want to go back home at the end.
Part of the reason that I can appreciate smaller and less expensive cities for what they are is because I lived in rural areas and in or around smaller cities at various points throughout my childhood. I'm not overwhelmingly interested in living in them at this point, but I understand, appreciate, and respect the reasons people move (or stay) there and the sort of lifestyle they offer.
Agreed.
However it really does get irritating when the Coasters act like they rule the US and call the Midwest Flyover Country.
and 2nd even if the East/West Coast didnt buy midwestern food there is the rest of the world to buy it
California is the largest agricultural state in the nation.... so I'm not sure the whole "if you live on the coast you depend on Midwest food" storyline has any traction.
And there is a big difference from "vacationing" in a big city versus living in one. Indianapolis may be a great town, but there are some things that are not there that are available in large expensive cities. YOU may not value those amenities, but others obviously do.
California is the largest agricultural state in the nation.... so I'm not sure the whole "if you live on the coast you depend on Midwest food" storyline has any traction.
And there is a big difference from "vacationing" in a big city versus living in one. Indianapolis may be a great town, but there are some things that are not there that are available in large expensive cities. YOU may not value those amenities, but others obviously do.
CA may be the largest single agricultural state but its foolish to say it grows more food than the midwest.
Midwest states that grow a decent amount of food=all of them.
I dont even see why were arguing this cause there really is no foundation to argue that the midwest is America's breadbasket and grows the food that keeps you alive.
And im being nice about it cause i cant logically understand your arguement and as Rush Limbaugh once said. if you cant understand something logically then it tends to **** you off. So well leave it at that.
CA may be the largest single agricultural state but its foolish to say it grows more food than the midwest.
Midwest states that grow a decent amount of food=all of them.
I dont even see why were arguing this cause there really is no foundation to argue that the midwest is America's breadbasket and grows the food that keeps you alive.
And im being nice about it cause i cant logically understand your arguement and as Rush Limbaugh once said. if you cant understand something logically then it tends to **** you off. So well leave it at that.
Rush Limbaugh does not understand a great number of things.
But that's neither here nor there.... back to the topic at hand.
Yes, Super-expensive cities are "worth it" to a great number of people -- or else market forces would indicate fewer people would live there and they would be less expensive. Basic Economics 101.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
