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.
Did you ever for a single second think that these people picked New England, New York, and California not because they are desirable compared to the rest of the country but because that is where they grew up along with the rest of the majority of the 10% crowd.
No, because it isn't true.
The superrich gravitate to the NYC area and to Coastal California. They generally aren't born there. They choose to live there.
They could live anywhere they wanted to, anywhere on the planet, and choose these places.
You know it's sad when half the list is of cities and towns in PA. It's one of the reasons I hate PA getting lumped together with New England in the "northeast" since we have so little in common with them compared to the mid atlantic and the rust belt.
Essentially, the Interior Northeast has a similar overall COL as much of the South. You'll notice a lot of Upstate NY areas as well. So, it is more than just PA.
Yes. There are zero metro areas on that list from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. The list represents metro areas with median home values that are below the national median home value of $173,900, according to the 2013 American Community Survey (U.S. Census).
In that case, Southern metros like Raleigh, Durham, Charlottesville, Richmond, Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Naples-Marco Island, Key West, Miami, Hilton Head, the Hampton Roads/Tidewater area of VA, Winchester VA, Wilmington NC, Orlando, Crestview-Fort Walton Beach FL, Port St Lucie, Charleston SC, Harrisonburg VA, Jacksonville FL, Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville FL, Atlanta, Daytona Beach, Tampa, Gainesville, Asheville and some other smaller areas are above that median home value figure according to this list based off of this census data: U.S. House Median Value Metro Area Rank Based on ACS 2006-2010 data*
So, the prices are probably even higher for these areas and for other Southern areas that was close to that figure and I believe if you click on an area, it will show 2008-2012 median home value information.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 12-28-2014 at 03:26 AM..
Yes. There are zero metro areas on that list from Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire. The list represents metro areas with median home values that are below the national median home value of $173,900, according to the 2013 American Community Survey (U.S. Census).
Show me the house and neighborhood you get for 173,900!!!!
As if anyone willingly moves to Greenville, SC from LA, SF, or Seattle? Let's get real here -- people move to the South because it's cheap or they were transferred there for work. And for most the part, most people forced to leave the West Coast, leave "kicking and screaming" -- just like the family interviewed for the article originally from Seattle.
What's wrong with Greenville?
Let's get real here - I guess you don't realize that there are lots of people out there who genuinely would HATE to move to LA, SF or Seattle (or any number of other huge cities like NYC, DC, Dallas, Atlanta,etc). I would be one of those people. Not everyone is enamored with big, expensive, crowded, congested metro areas.
"Nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there."
Exactly. The South isn't hell or anything, it can be a decent place to live. But people move there generally because it's cheaper, not because it's more desirable.
OH MY GOSH.
"More desirable" covers a lot of ground. It's not just "cheap" that may make a place appealing for pete's sake. It's also "jobs," "family," "friends," "hobbies," "values," and a host of other elements. "Cheap" alone won't hold most people to a place, just as "cool" alone won't either. If you live in the most "cool" place around, but you have no job, or no friends, or no family, or you hate the weather, or whatever - you are likely to be miserable and want to get the hell out of Dodge.
People move all over the US (not just the South) and of course there's usually one top reason - it could be a job offer, or weather, or to be closer to family, whatever - but when you see people buy homes, start having kids, settle down for twenty years rather than three years, you have to understand that it's simply not just because it's "cheap."
I love the beach. I love tropical weather. I would love to visit Hawaii - but I can assure you, I would hate to have to move there. Not because it's not beautiful, and not because it's expensive (we have a good income and could afford to live there) but because it's too far from my family, and too isolated.
I enjoy visiting big cities. I enjoy shopping and I love the cultural aspects of big cities. Once again, we could afford to live in NYC or DC or Boston or Dallas or Seattle or SF or LA - but guess what - I don't WANT to live in any of those cities. I don't want to live in ANY big city. That's because I prefer not to deal with the traffic and the smog and the congestion and the anonymity of a huge metro area. I prefer owning my own large, comfortable home and a few acres. I prefer having my own car, parked in my own garage, driving on wide, uncrowded highways rather than in bumper to bumper traffic. I prefer a lower cost of living overall as well - it's not like I can't visit big metro areas anytime I want to (and I do that often throughout the year).
Lots and lots of people feel exactly the same way I do. We don't have to live in SF or LA or NYC in order to enjoy them if we choose to do so. We can visit if we like. It's not that they're not exciting cities with lots to offer - we just don't want to LIVE there every day.
That's OK - different bites for different likes. But your attitude is like "They can't afford it," or "They're only living elsewhere because they have limited options." That's often not the case. I'd go so far as to say that's USUALLY not the case. Most adults with careers have a variety of options when it comes to choosing where to live.
Exactly. The South isn't hell or anything, it can be a decent place to live. But people move there generally because it's cheaper, not because it's more desirable.
Wouldn't the fact that the cost of living is lower in the south make it more desirable to the average American which would make the southeast more desirable overall?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
No, because it isn't true.
The superrich gravitate to the NYC area and to Coastal California. They generally aren't born there. They choose to live there.
They could live anywhere they wanted to, anywhere on the planet, and choose these places.
Okay then are they not essentially just moving there to be closer to others like them? Essentially they'd rather be with there own group together in places like LA, NYC, Boston, etc. vs being around non super rich people. Either way they grouping together with the other rich people. I don't view that as making those areas more desirable then other parts of the country. I view it as rich people segregating themselves from average people.
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.
