U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2018, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
2,701 posts, read 991,154 times
Reputation: 1913

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MB1562 View Post
But that is the problem. You define higher quality of life by what you value, and it is by no means universal. I have no problem living with roommates in a small apartment if it means I have easy access to all the things the city has to offer. Others would be driven crazy by my living conditions and ease of access would be a wash for them.

All I'm saying is that it's pointless to define quality of life, because it varies so widely from person to person. There is a reason so many people sacrafice so much to live in high COL places, even when it is against their financial best interests.
I don't think it's pointless. While there is subjectivity involved, there is a general definition to quality of life that is commonly accepted, and is definitely useful for the purposes of this thread. (Don't forget the OP has framed the debate here). It's an ability to live financially comfortable. NYC,LA,SF - you will be less financially comfortable if you're relocating here unless your income has substantially increased. The things I named were meant to be illustrative examples of the things that make up quality of life. Of course everyone assigns their own weight to each factor.

Besides, my point wasn't to get into individual preferences. The OP's post is about how "having a lower cost of living is overrated" and uses supposed higher income in large cities as the foundation of his argument. My post illustrated why that argument doesn't make any sense. The OP is essentially saying that if you have the same job in NYC as you do in Atlanta, then you will be paid a wage in NYC that is directly proportional to the increase in the cost of living. That is simply not true, and the fact that it is nowhere close to being true destroys the point the OP is making. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me as I think the posters who say stuff like this tend to skew very young on here and highly value urbanity and vibrancy over everything else. What I don't like is the minimization or outright dismissal of the downsides. I love living in NYC, but I'm not here peddling the bull**** I see people spout around here like "oh NYC is actually very affordable if you know all the secrets wink wink nudge nudge".

On a personal note, I used to be where you were at when I was a 23-year old freshly arrived student in NYC. Now that I'm 30 and a few years into my career, I'm looking to stretch out a bit more. And I'll tell you, until now I've never settled for less than bougie neighborhoods. I was resolute in my desire to live in the best neighborhoods, and willing to live in old ass walkups and piled with roommates to do it. But now, I'm definitely starting to see the appeal of neighborhoods I wouldn't touch before so I can have more space. I also used to look down my nose at the idea of commuting from Jersey, but now...I totally get it. I'm even considering it. Having your own pad, a little open space, better access to beaches, while still getting a fill of the city if you need it. Maybe that won't happen to you, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's an age correlation to this. I'm at a point where yes it matters to me to be near a city, but having my own castle, especially as a man, is starting to matter much more than it used to. I think my own personal anecdote is reflective of how most people go through, and that's why I think there really is a fairly universal definition to quality of life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2018, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Clemson, SC by way of Tyler,TX
4,857 posts, read 2,995,112 times
Reputation: 3399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian View Post
I don't think it's pointless. While there is subjectivity involved, there is a general definition to quality of life that is commonly accepted, and is definitely useful for the purposes of this thread. (Don't forget the OP has framed the debate here). It's an ability to live financially comfortable. NYC,LA,SF - you will be less financially comfortable if you're relocating here unless your income has substantially increased. The things I named were meant to be illustrative examples of the things that make up quality of life. Of course everyone assigns their own weight to each factor.

Besides, my point wasn't to get into individual preferences. The OP's post is about how "having a lower cost of living is overrated" and uses supposed higher income in large cities as the foundation of his argument. My post illustrated why that argument doesn't make any sense. The OP is essentially saying that if you have the same job in NYC as you do in Atlanta, then you will be paid a wage in NYC that is directly proportional to the increase in the cost of living. That is simply not true, and the fact that it is nowhere close to being true destroys the point the OP is making. Frankly, it doesn't surprise me as I think the posters who say stuff like this tend to skew very young on here and highly value urbanity and vibrancy over everything else. What I don't like is the minimization or outright dismissal of the downsides. I love living in NYC, but I'm not here peddling the bull**** I see people spout around here like "oh NYC is actually very affordable if you know all the secrets wink wink nudge nudge".

On a personal note, I used to be where you were at when I was a 23-year old freshly arrived student in NYC. Now that I'm 30 and a few years into my career, I'm looking to stretch out a bit more. And I'll tell you, until now I've never settled for less than bougie neighborhoods. I was resolute in my desire to live in the best neighborhoods, and willing to live in old ass walkups and piled with roommates to do it. But now, I'm definitely starting to see the appeal of neighborhoods I wouldn't touch before so I can have more space. I also used to look down my nose at the idea of commuting from Jersey, but now...I totally get it. I'm even considering it. Having your own pad, a little open space, better access to beaches, while still getting a fill of the city if you need it. Maybe that won't happen to you, but it wouldn't surprise me if there's an age correlation to this. I'm at a point where yes it matters to me to be near a city, but having my own castle, especially as a man, is starting to matter much more than it used to. I think my own personal anecdote is reflective of how most people go through, and that's why I think there really is a fairly universal definition to quality of life.
Great post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2018, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
44,960 posts, read 36,253,688 times
Reputation: 63638
Quote:
Originally Posted by MB1562 View Post
But that is the problem. You define higher quality of life by what you value, and it is by no means universal. I have no problem living with roommates in a small apartment if it means I have easy access to all the things the city has to offer. Others would be driven crazy by my living conditions and ease of access would be a wash for them.

All I'm saying is that it's pointless to define quality of life, because it varies so widely from person to person. There is a reason so many people sacrafice so much to live in high COL places, even when it is against their financial best interests.
I agree, and there is also a reason why so many people sacrifice Big City Urban Life (with it's high COL) to live on sometimes smaller paychecks in lower COL areas, too.

Because like you say it's pointless to try to define quality of life which varies so widely from person to person.

My brother and sister in law live in Fort Worth. Not NYC or LA- Fort Worth. For some reason, they think that they are "uber sophisticated' and that my husband and I, who live in a smaller metro area of about 250,000, are country hicks. Never mind that we are literally world travelers and have both lived overseas several times in the past (which they haven't done). Never mind that when they go on vacation, they always go on a guided tour type of vacation, and when we go on a vacation, we always rent a car and just take off - no matter what country we are in, or for that matter, no matter which side of the road they drive on there! Never mind that we have considerably more disposable income than them, live in a much lower crime rate area, and can and do travel wherever we want to whenever we want to. But because they live in "the big city," and we live in "a small town," (though I don't consider a metro area of 250,000 to be a small town), they really, truly do feel like we are country bumpkins.

They want to move out of Fort Worth and retire in a few years so they are looking at other cities in other states. We too have considered moving out of state, mainly for a change of pace, not because we hate Texas or anything like that, so both of us couples have taken little 3 to 5 day mini vacations to cities we're considering for retirement. It's interesting - they are still gravitating to bigger cities and we are still gravitating to cities that are smaller but within an hour to two hours of big metro areas. I guess they are just perpetually attracted to larger cities than we are. That's OK. But I just wish they'd stop assuming we just don't "know" any better. We know what bigger cities are like, and we have chosen not to live in a big city. They simply DO NOT APPEAL TO US. But it's an educated, not uneducated choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2018, 03:53 PM
 
Location: North Dakota
7,745 posts, read 9,047,244 times
Reputation: 11153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker View Post
Or, no offense to anyone, the middle of Indiana vs say Boston. Different strokes of course and there are too many factors to name.
I lived in the pretty parts of Montana for many years and I can say with 100% certainty that the scenery is not worth the high cost of living. If you're broke and can't afford to do anything nothing makes it enjoyable. People sometimes ask why I left Montana and that is what I tell them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2018, 09:07 AM
 
Location: IN
20,855 posts, read 35,982,121 times
Reputation: 13304
Parts of the Great Plains have the lowest cost of living in the country other than the rural Deep South, but I would never recommend living there unless you already have family or relatives that are nearby. The cost of living is low for a reason, you have to contend with the worst weather in the US all the time. Ghost towns are all over the place, distances to get to a decent healthcare are massive, social culture is very closed off, and few younger people around. Also, no public lands access as greater than 95% of all land is privately owned in many cases- meaning you need to know someone that owns land to be able to access many rural areas. If you want to take a vacation you would have to leave the area entirely if you want better access to scenic outdoor recreation opportunities on public land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2018, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Center City
6,865 posts, read 7,813,769 times
Reputation: 9492
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Parts of the Great Plains have the lowest cost of living in the country other than the rural Deep South, but I would never recommend living there unless you already have family or relatives that are nearby. The cost of living is low for a reason, you have to contend with the worst weather in the US all the time. Ghost towns are all over the place, distances to get to a decent healthcare are massive, social culture is very closed off, and few younger people around. Also, no public lands access as greater than 95% of all land is privately owned in many cases- meaning you need to know someone that owns land to be able to access many rural areas. If you want to take a vacation you would have to leave the area entirely if you want better access to scenic outdoor recreation opportunities on public land.
People will get upset if you’re implying that you get what you pay for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2018, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
44,960 posts, read 36,253,688 times
Reputation: 63638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pine to Vine View Post
People will get upset if you’re implying that you get what you pay for.
Who are you talking about specifically? Was someone upset? Dang, I hate I missed that drama!

Some people think emeralds are beautiful. Some people don't care for them. Some people think they're pretty enough but not worth the cost personally but certainly don't mind that other people like them. Some people hate them.

One high COL area is most of Hawaii. For some people, Hawaii is heaven on earth and they're willing to pay that high COL in exchange for living there. It's well worth it to them. But you know what - if you love snow or four distinct seasons or if you DON'T want to live in an island or you don't care for the beach but prefer the Alps or Rockies or Appalachians, then Hawaii is simply not worth the high COL to you.

Same with huge urban areas. Same with perhaps moving to another country. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

If a person's career and salary doesn't revolve around a particular location, or (fill in the blank) then they may not want to pay what it costs to live in an area that doesn't fit their desires. It's really that simple.

I'll give an example from my own life recently. We were considering moving to another state. We went to visit several metro areas. One of them had a lot of great housing in several areas. One area was SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the other areas and when we asked why, we were told that it was geared around a superior school system and attracting a very wealthy, suburban loving, childrearing age family. Well, we don't have kids in school or at home. We ruled that area out immediately. Not because we couldn't afford it (we could) but because we'd rather spend that extra money we save going on fabulous European vacations, or saving for retirement (or both) or, well, fill in the blank with any number of other factors specific to our own situation.

By the way, this very high COL area also wouldn't fit the bill for most singles, especially if they were interested in public transportation, an urban setting, walking to bars or shops or restaurants, etc. So if they forego that area in favor of a lower COL area that offers what THEY want, are they selling themselves short or only "getting what they pay for?" What's wrong with getting only what you WANT to pay for?

Sort of reminds me of the great insurance coverage I have now - maternity care and pediatric dentistry are now covered! Never mind that I don't have a uterus or kids at home, by golly I've got that coverage in case I need it!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2018, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, NY
245 posts, read 68,656 times
Reputation: 186
Lower cost of living cities are truly overrated unless you're purpose for living in one is based of retirement, or change of lifestyle/pace.

You'll see a lot of strange comments of people on facebook bragging about living someplace in Arizona, Vegas or South Carolina but aside from the cost of living these places fail in every other category of what makes a city great.

I do think people who are priced out of their city do become emotional and the only way to overcome that emotion is to create a disdain for higher cost of living cities while bragging about living in a boring and uncultured place.

A few weeks ago an ex-New Yorker really tried to brag to me about her living in Vegas. Been to Vegas and could not take her serious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2018, 08:56 PM
 
1,830 posts, read 1,256,952 times
Reputation: 1823
Quote:
Originally Posted by iLoveFashion View Post
Lower cost of living cities are truly overrated unless you're purpose for living in one is based of retirement, or change of lifestyle/pace.

You'll see a lot of strange comments of people on facebook bragging about living someplace in Arizona, Vegas or South Carolina but aside from the cost of living these places fail in every other category of what makes a city great.

I do think people who are priced out of their city do become emotional and the only way to overcome that emotion is to create a disdain for higher cost of living cities while bragging about living in a boring and uncultured place.

A few weeks ago an ex-New Yorker really tried to brag to me about her living in Vegas. Been to Vegas and could not take her serious.
The only thing I'm missing out on is the ocean, walkability, and good public transportation by living in DFW instead of NYC, Boston, D.C., LA, San Francisco, or Seattle, and even then, I don't like being near the ocean and nearly all of them still have, in my opinion and based on my experience, bad public transportation. Seattle is special to me and it is my dream city for more personal and family reasons, but there is nothing in those cities I'm wanting in DFW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2018, 02:15 AM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
4,214 posts, read 2,838,368 times
Reputation: 4507
The lower cost of living only matters when you are comparing areas that are otherwise equal to you, and can serve as a differentiator...

You do get what you pay for. I know what kind of lifestyle I want and the lifestyle I want affordable for my daughters. I'll say this, of the most expensive cities, the only ones I'd even consider living in would be DC or LA. Everyone else, the ticket isn't worth the price of admission to me...

In most cases, I won't opt to live in a lower COL area if the cultural experience is lower as well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top