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.
Unless you are upwardly or laterally mobile like many Americans and able to take advantage of increasingly higher salaries and opportunities around the country on a whim if you are renting...Plus the experience of having lived in cities like SF, Chicago or NYC (and who knows what the future will hold) is well worth the cost of being a renter for me. You can't put a price tag on that. I personally don't like the idea of being locked in to a place, no matter where it is. I've never stayed in one place for more than 3 years in a row since I was in college and was basically forced to. 2-3 years anywhere and I start to want a change of scenery. Maybe at some point this will change. If I bought a place, I'd probably buy it for investment purposes only, and rent it out, but not actually live there.
I personally think buying new vehicles, having cable tv, having a big house and other things people consider necessities to be bigger money wasters than renting my studios/1brs.
We obviously aren't going to see eye to eye, just wanted to speak for myself and others who don't necessarily agree with your formulaic American dream type ethos.
I'm not unable to see your viewpoint completely. But the problem is as with all things they aren't black and white.
It depends on what industry and skills an individual commands.
If the person is a tech whiz with awesome programming skills that attracted a few job offers in Silicon Valley out of graduation sure, it makes sense for him to move to SF/San Jose. That's where his career will grow. Then he's moving for his career, it's not even about home ownership.
I know tons of people who moved to those "glamorous" locations you named and they're doing blue collar jobs or medium skilled jobs like first responders, firefighter, police, accounts assistant, warehouse supervisor. They struggle with their cost of living, pay rent for a stinky tiny apartment, and live pay cheque by pay cheque. They literally need to wait for the next pay cheque to consider a vacation in the same state! I was shocked.
One time too many I've seen posts here that idealize the lifestyle of certain cities, without the knowledge that in all cities, most people are either middle or working class. The way I've seen posters here glamorize Boston is as if they think Boston is filled with only Harvard and MIT grads and the city has nobody manning its public services and blue collar jobs.
There are tons of hospitality, warehouse supervisors, hotel, restaurant, marketing and communications, teaching, academic and university, and accounts manager jobs in the Midwest and the south.
If you think it makes great financial sense for you to move to any of these cities, rent and work a blue collar or middle class salary, and also with COL of the states factored in, by all means.
I'm having a hard time conceiving what could be more boring to visit than say North Dakota.
There is nothing in North Dakota except oil.
But North Dakota =\= all of Midwest.
But I think the issue is we are approaching this from different angles. You're looking at it from a tourist's perspective from abroad and I agree the Midwest even with Chicago isn't a region that holds fascination for tourists from foreign land. The Midwest is for living. Not visiting as much and even less, for visitations from abroad.
Maybe that's why it's so quintessential American and the cradle of American culture. That's possibly why it's produced so many uniquely American icons that pervade the world phenomenally and changed the world. For you to consider the different regions of America, you're wondering what's there to see and experience to justify your $2000 air ticket. So it's more understandable.
For ignorant Americans on the coasts to degrade the Midwest, they're putting down a big part of their own culture without knowing.
But I think the issue is we are approaching this from different angles. You're looking at it from a tourist's perspective from abroad and I agree the Midwest even with Chicago isn't a region that holds fascination for tourists from foreign land. The Midwest is for living. Not visiting as much and even less, for visitations from abroad.
Maybe that's why it's so quintessential American and the cradle of American culture. That's possibly why it's produced so many uniquely American icons that pervade the world phenomenally and changed the world. For you to consider the different regions of America, you're wondering what's there to see and experience to justify your $2000 air ticket. So it's more understandable.
For ignorant Americans on the coasts to degrade the Midwest, they're putting down a big part of their own culture without knowing.
I agree with this but with one disclaimer. If a foreign tourist wants to understand or know American culture then they should visit the Midwest. Also some notable things worth a visit IMO, Sleeping bear Sand dunes on Lake Michigan, Pictured rocks lakeshore on Lake Superior are both tourist worthy destinations. Much of the rest of the upper Midwest is small lakes and forest perfect for a relaxing vacation, but I would agree maybe not a top rated stop for a foreign tourist looking to see Americas key tourist places.
Iowa is absolutely no less topographically monotonous than any of those other states. Ohio and Illinois both have almost double the number of wineries of Iowa. Iowa doesn't even have the added benefit of the natural scenery of a Great Lake to break up some of the endless farmland.
Iowa is far more beautiful overall than Illinois - not even close. Illinois is a gigantic state, and the only nature of note is some acreage at the very bottom tip, a tiny strip of Lake Michigan IN THE CITY (not really "nature"), a few rocky river valleys and one county in the far NW that's part of the beautiful Driftless region of which Iowa has far more territory. Between the Driftless in Iowa and the Loess Hills in the western part of the state, I'd say that Iowa is one of the most underrated state in terms of natural beauty - certainly, much of it is dull flat farmland, but it's a much smaller % than Illinois and the beautiful areas are much more spectacular. And I would place IA and OH as near-even, just because of the Lake on the north side and the foothills in the south.
People outside of the Midwest like to associate us (I am from the Midwest) with endless cornfields, people with funny accents, entirely whitebread population and not much to do? It's a little annoying.
I like being in the Midwest. I moved from the east coast as a child and I can say I am so glad I did! The Midwest has a lifestyle I prefer-- people seem more family-oriented, there's a good mixture of age groups, plenty to do in the cities, and it's cheaper compared to living in a lot of regions in the U.S. I know a lot of people wouldn't like that kind of lifestyle and would feel limited by some of the harsher weather, but life seems "slower." The Midwest in particular seems to be growing with a more diverse population and some economic sectors are thriving while they are shrinking in other areas. Yes, there are cornfields. Some of us do have funny accents and yes there are white people-- big deal. I don't think any of it's boring at all, so what gives?
Because Hollywood/NY movies/TV people and news people stereotype it that way. There are a bazillion lawyer shows on TV. Ever see one set in Omaha, for example? No, if they are going to do a Nebraska movie or TV show, it's going to have a farm in it somewhere. You'd think the only cops in Nebraska are behind some rural highway billboard that says "Eat Grandma's Apple Pie" ready to jump on some "poor big city type whose car breaks down" so they can torture them with farm equipment while they dance naked around some scarecrows reciting the Constitution. And if it's about the midwest, there are always quite a few old people in the movie in case viewers don't get the message that it isn't cool to live there if you are young.
The southeast also takes a hit. See, according to moviemakers, in the southeast they're all slow moving bigoted hicks who don't own a pair of shoes and didn't get past the 8th grade. They all sit on the porch and watch paint dry for entertainment when they aren't whipping you for not reading the bible, feeding their meth enemies to gators and shooting up some Yankee dog interloper from their pick-up trucks. Oh yeah, and according to Hollywood all black southerners are poor.
Sometimes the people from the coasts looking to relocate to the southeast or midwest ask the most inane questions in the state forums because they watch too much TV and movies.
Iowa is far more beautiful overall than Illinois - not even close. Illinois is a gigantic state, and the only nature of note is some acreage at the very bottom tip, a tiny strip of Lake Michigan IN THE CITY (not really "nature"), a few rocky river valleys and one county in the far NW that's part of the beautiful Driftless region of which Iowa has far more territory. Between the Driftless in Iowa and the Loess Hills in the western part of the state, I'd say that Iowa is one of the most underrated state in terms of natural beauty - certainly, much of it is dull flat farmland, but it's a much smaller % than Illinois and the beautiful areas are much more spectacular. And I would place IA and OH as near-even, just because of the Lake on the north side and the foothills in the south.
Sure, I guess if that's your opinion. My opinion is that there is nothing of note that I have ever seen in IA that cannot be found in its neighboring state. My opinion is that IA is nothing special, and it lacks any Great Lakes frontage, which absolutely is nature and why I wouldn't put IA above IL or IN in terms of beauty. And it's not just the southern tip of IL or IN that are nice...they both have national forests in their southern portions and are definitely covered in more forest than IA. In my opinion, OH's southern region is much nicer than any rolling hills in a portion of IA, IL or IN. IL is just very long from north to south, but it's actually smaller than IA in square acreage (not counting water as area) and has a marginally smaller % farmland than IA.
But I think the issue is we are approaching this from different angles. You're looking at it from a tourist's perspective from abroad and I agree the Midwest even with Chicago isn't a region that holds fascination for tourists from foreign land. The Midwest is for living. Not visiting as much and even less, for visitations from abroad.
Maybe that's why it's so quintessential American and the cradle of American culture. That's possibly why it's produced so many uniquely American icons that pervade the world phenomenally and changed the world. For you to consider the different regions of America, you're wondering what's there to see and experience to justify your $2000 air ticket. So it's more understandable.
For ignorant Americans on the coasts to degrade the Midwest, they're putting down a big part of their own culture without knowing.
I guess a lot of people use the term "boring" because the tourist angle really does mesh in with what it's like to live somewhere. I am from the Midwest, lived in Nebraska and South Dakota most of my life before eventually moving to Seattle. The touristy type of thing really does affect locals, because on weekends you want to go out and do things. Out here, on the weekend we pack up for day trips up to the Cascade Mountains for hiking, photography, or just scenic drives. We take a ferry over to the Olympic Peninsula for the same types of things in the rain forest, or out on the Pacific coast. There is just so much to see and do in the free time on top of the usual things we have in the city that of course all cities and towns have such as shopping, movies, etc.
We were bored out of our minds back home because what is there to do on the weekend? A drive for 100 miles in any direction from Lincoln or Omaha just took us through endless farm fields, there was nothing to actually go see. I guess that is the difference in mentality- when the people on the west coast say the Midwest is boring it's because the lifestyle out here is so different, people are used to having a million different jaw-dropping scenic places to go for all kinds of activities, that they would consider it boring if they did not have access to those things as is the case in most of the Midwest.
I'm not unable to see your viewpoint completely. But the problem is as with all things they aren't black and white.
It depends on what industry and skills an individual commands.
If the person is a tech whiz with awesome programming skills that attracted a few job offers in Silicon Valley out of graduation sure, it makes sense for him to move to SF/San Jose. That's where his career will grow. Then he's moving for his career, it's not even about home ownership.
I know tons of people who moved to those "glamorous" locations you named and they're doing blue collar jobs or medium skilled jobs like first responders, firefighter, police, accounts assistant, warehouse supervisor. They struggle with their cost of living, pay rent for a stinky tiny apartment, and live pay cheque by pay cheque. They literally need to wait for the next pay cheque to consider a vacation in the same state! I was shocked.
One time too many I've seen posts here that idealize the lifestyle of certain cities, without the knowledge that in all cities, most people are either middle or working class. The way I've seen posters here glamorize Boston is as if they think Boston is filled with only Harvard and MIT grads and the city has nobody manning its public services and blue collar jobs.
There are tons of hospitality, warehouse supervisors, hotel, restaurant, marketing and communications, teaching, academic and university, and accounts manager jobs in the Midwest and the south.
If you think it makes great financial sense for you to move to any of these cities, rent and work a blue collar or middle class salary, and also with COL of the states factored in, by all means.
Never said anything about working blue collar industries... That wouldn't make any sense. The thing is, cities like Louisville, Indianapolis or Milwaukee are almost entirely blue collar so even if you liked those cities, there aren't jobs in them in many high end fields that require advanced education. The cities I named have very large white collar populations living in them with plenty of mobile people.
Sure, ND probably has a few sights, but almost any state outside the Midwest is more interesting imo. Only maybe Delaware or something seems duller than the likes of ND, Iowa, Nebraska.
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.
Iowa is absolutely no less topographically monotonous than any of those other states. Ohio and Illinois both have almost double the number of wineries of Iowa. Iowa doesn't even have the added benefit of the natural scenery of a Great Lake to break up some of the endless farmland.