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.
It seems like there are a lot of very rich people and a lot of very poor people here. Wages tend to be higher than other parts of the country, but not enough to compensate for the higher cost of living and the economy seems less diversfied overall. I wonder why - is it because the West is sort of remote, functionally almost like an "island" due to the vast distances over mountainous and arid land? Or is it because of real estate speculation due to the climate and vistas?
I also notice that houses and yards out West tend to be smaller and offer fewer amenities compared to the rest of the country, and are not as well built as houses in other regions. If you account for higher COL California actually has more poor people than Mississippi. This doesn't surprise me; it's pretty much impossible for a young person to be a home owner in California or any Western state.
Mini-apple-less, you really should move. I don't mean to be snarky but, judging from your multiple negative threads on the west, you are clearly very unhappy there. You shouldn't live somewhere you dislike so much.
Mini-apple-less, you really should move. I don't mean to be snarky but, judging from your multiple negative threads on the west, you are clearly very unhappy there. You shouldn't live somewhere you dislike so much.
Actually I'm fine now, I'm just curious what people think. I always hear about how the West has a higher "quality of life" but it seems like the stats suggest otherwise.
Actually I'm fine now, I'm just curious what people think. I always hear about how the West has a higher "quality of life" but it seems like the stats suggest otherwise.
Honestly that depends on how you define "quality of life." If your definition places more value on cash than aesthetics then a bland place like Dallas-Fort Worth will be better for you than, say, Denver.
FWIW - Our house in Denver is higher quality than both houses we owned in DFW and it's not even close. Unless you're buying from a high-end builder like K. Hovnanian or Toll Brothers, a lot of the newer housing stock in the metroplex is 100% crap because the builders have tiny margins and defect resolution in Texas heavily favors builders over homeowners. You get what you pay for.
Last edited by bluescreen73; 05-31-2015 at 08:54 PM..
Honestly that depends on how you define "quality of life." If your definition places more value on cash than aesthetics then a bland place like Dallas-Fort Worth will be better for you than, say, Denver.
FWIW - Our house in Denver is higher quality than both houses we owned in DFW and it's not even close. Unless you're buying from a high-end builder like K. Hovnanian or Toll Brothers, a lot of the newer housing stock in the metroplex is 100% crap because the builders have tiny margins and defect resolution in Texas heavily favors builders over homeowners. You get what you pay for.
From a development perspective I'd actually consider Dallas part of the West too. It has more in common with Sunbelt cities in the West than it does with cities in the Southeast.
In general, East coast is old money, West coast is new money. The wealthy is the West tend to flaunt it more, East coast elites conceal it and have better handle at keeping their finances to themselves.
In general, East Coast is old money, West coast is new money.
That's true, though California has some old money doesn't it?
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.