A native Angeleno who is considering leaving LA for good (Los Angeles: middle-class, 2013)

[chessgeek]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

No, it isn't.

But when you live in some places a park is a baseball field and a swing set.
Not a park with lakes, paddles boats, swans, and scenery. A park that has free concerts.

You have to drive 50 miles to go to museum or pay top dollar to see a third rate production of a Broadway show, also a 50 mile drive each way.

You don't have as much at your fingertips.

There are exceptions to "Kansas" type places in the middle of the country, though. The OP could check out three places, one in the Upper Midwest and two in California.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul area, where i grew up, would be one of those with more affordability for the OP than LA or the Bay Area and it has beautiful parks and trails on lakes and rivers. Great free concerts on summer evenings at the Lake Harriett bandshell. It is a step up from Columbus in the pro sports area too with all of the four major team sports, plus pro soccer will be there next year. It also has very good museums, food/restaurants, and entertainment (including Tony Award winning Guthrie theater; famous First Avenue nightclub and much more). The OP will be surprised at how high the pay is there, too. As an added bonus, the OP could see his/her Buckeyes football team play the Gophers every other year. On the downside, the area has very cold winters.

The OP may also want to check out Sacramento, which is more affordable than LA or the Bay Area, as was recommended earlier. They don't get the cold winters and could easily get to the Bay Area for all the pro sports and additional attractions if desired. Sacramento does have an NBA team and the minor league Rivercats baseball team. Think there is enough good food and entertainment there to satisfy most people. Summers will be hotter, but the delta breeze on occasional late afternoons/early evenings means it would certainly be far better than Phoenix and Las Vegas for climate. The Sacramento and American Rivers are also there for recreation. The trail along the American River stretches from Sacramento to suburban Folsom. The beautiful Lake Tahoe region is not too far away either. Commute traffic can be slow, but won't be as bad as LA or the Bay Area.

Santa Rosa, a nice city slightly more than an hour north of San Francisco, may be worth a look too. Don't know if home prices there have increased significantly or not. It is famous for the Charles Schultz museum (was home to the famed cartoonist in the last 25 years of his life). It is close to both the coast and wine country, too.

In Sacramento or Santa Rosa the OP could also visit some of his/her old Nor Cal college friends, assuming they have stayed in the area.

[Vanderbiltgrad]

I kid you not and I know nobody will believe me but I have met quite a few people that have moved from LA to Nashville when I was in college. The Californians would buy a mansion here because they sold their home back in California and they still had enough money left over from Maserati, Mercedes, Porsche's buying a boat and on top of that that sill had enough money to fly home a few times a month. I would try a cheaper state and save money and visit LA as much as you can. Good Luck.

[Stevedore]

I am taking my mid six figure income to Colorado and buying my first house at 48 years old. I'll be able to pay it off by retirement age, 62. Here, I would be house poor and working till I'm 75; no thanks. IMO, it takes $200k a year to really have a nice stress free life in Los Angeles; probably closer to $225k honestly. The alternatives are to rent here forever in a desirable area and receive no tax breaks or move to an extreme Northern part of Los Angeles County and to the far East short of Riverside to chase a respectable mortgage. Bad air, too hot, and long commute times are your reality if choose to go far North or East; no thanks, getting out and couldn't be more excited about it!

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

OP, the medical field is a well compensated field. Why do you say you will never be able to buy a condo, at least? A registered nurse makes $30/hr and a nurse practitioner makes 100k. Eh, even if you can't buy the condo by yourself, you can at least have a really nice room in a nice shared apartment.

Eh, I only make $14/hr. And I live in Silicon Valley (as in Google, Apple, Intel, HP), which is easily as expensive as Los Angeles, probably more so. I am paying 500 per month to share a one bedroom apartment with my dad; I moved back with him a couple years ago. I could move out, but then I wouldn't be able to help him with his rent, and I would likely be sharing the same room with someone else, so I'm going to stay here a few more months until I get a better job. I will probably never be able to buy a single family home here. But I grew up here. And it's Silicon Valley.

Sure, you can move to a flyover state, and the single family home will be cheap. But there's nothing to do except stay in your cheap single family home.

In Los Angeles, you have parks and libraries and movie theaters and museums right outside your door. You're in one of the world's Great Cities, where things happen.

Without realizing it, you just made a case for moving somewhere cheaper. Very few people want to be sharing a 1BR apartment with their dad in their late 30s. $14 an hour in a place like Ohio is almost middle class for a single person. And before anyone goes off about how much higher wages are in CA....they're a bit higher, but nowhere near enough to make up for the cost of living, especially on the lower end of the pay scale.

Even those on the higher end of the pay scale have to make sacrifices in terms of housing that they just wouldn't have to do in other places.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

Other than the coastal areas of LA and vista views, why are the homes so expensive. The housing stock is subpar to most major American cities. Take a look at the homes in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio and compare to LA and it is just ridiculous the cost of homes in LA.

The value of real estate isn't in the house, it's in the land. It's also about supply and demand. Not much buildable land coupled with numerous land use restictions (environmental rules, tax disincentives) and NIMBYs who fight any and all attempts to build new housing means the supply of housing is limited while the demand is high. That means higher prices.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Which place is going to have better parks, libraries and museums? The place where a house is $10, or the place where a house is 800k? I'm guessing the cheaper place is cheap for a reason. Just going out on a limb here.

That's an overly broad generalization on your part. California's public services aren't top notch.

[jacktravern]

Originally Posted by chessgeek

There are exceptions to "Kansas" type places in the middle of the country, though. The OP could check out three places, one in the Upper Midwest and two in California.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul area, where i grew up, would be one of those with more affordability for the OP than LA or the Bay Area and it has beautiful parks and trails on lakes and rivers. Great free concerts on summer evenings at the Lake Harriett bandshell. It is a step up from Columbus in the pro sports area too with all of the four major team sports, plus pro soccer will be there next year. It also has very good museums, food/restaurants, and entertainment (including Tony Award winning Guthrie theater; famous First Avenue nightclub and much more). The OP will be surprised at how high the pay is there, too. As an added bonus, the OP could see his/her Buckeyes football team play the Gophers every other year. On the downside, the area has very cold winters.

.

I have no doubt about most of what you just said. Overall, Minnesota is probably not terrible. Depends on how much that sporting stuff is to you though. But that sentence can literally wipe away all the other joy........EXTREME WINTERS!

Originally Posted by Stevedore

I am taking my mid six figure income to Colorado and buying my first house at 48 years old. I'll be able to pay it off by retirement age, 62. Here, I would be house poor and working till I'm 75; no thanks. IMO, it takes $200k a year to really have a nice stress free life in Los Angeles; probably closer to $225k honestly. The alternatives are to rent here forever in a desirable area and receive no tax breaks D

People have there own ideas on what it takes to be "stress free". I make a third of that and I'm fine. The tax breaks you speak of re: housing...well you do have to pay that money up front and its not like you get ALL of that money back. Colorado is probably nice....in a Minnesota kind of way. But again, no matter how cheap the housing, everyone is not interested in dealing with frost conditions. Either again, or for the first time in their life.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

I have no doubt about most of what you just said. Overall, Minnesota is probably not terrible. Depends on how much that sporting stuff is to you though. But that sentence can literally wipe away all the other joy........EXTREME WINTERS!



People have there own ideas on what it takes to be "stress free". I make a third of that and I'm fine. The tax breaks you speak of re: housing...well you do have to pay that money up front and its not like you get ALL of that money back. Colorado is probably nice....in a Minnesota kind of way. But again, no matter how cheap the housing, everyone is not interested in dealing with frost conditions. Either again, or for the first time in their life.

The problem with California is it turns you into a weather wimp. Then you can't handle hot/cold/wind/snow. That, along with the natural human tendency for inertia, makes you willing to pay through the nose for crappy housing.

[FirebirdCamaro1220]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The problem with California is it turns you into a weather wimp. Then you can't handle hot/cold/wind/snow. That, along with the natural human tendency for inertia, makes you willing to pay through the nose for crappy housing.

You can't blame them, cold, and the adverse road conditions that come with it, sucks. I never want to see another flake of snow as long as I live. Heat, I'm obviously fine with if it's dry, I actually like Santa Ana days, when it can be hot at the beach even

[Stevedore]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

I have no doubt about most of what you just said. Overall, Minnesota is probably not terrible. Depends on how much that sporting stuff is to you though. But that sentence can literally wipe away all the other joy........EXTREME WINTERS!



People have there own ideas on what it takes to be "stress free". I make a third of that and I'm fine. The tax breaks you speak of re: housing...well you do have to pay that money up front and its not like you get ALL of that money back. Colorado is probably nice....in a Minnesota kind of way. But again, no matter how cheap the housing, everyone is not interested in dealing with frost conditions. Either again, or for the first time in their life.

Six figure income without a house and you're just giving away money and making someone else rich IMO. Everyone's situation is quite different obviously, not sure if you're supporting a family or single; supporting a wife and small child myself. I'm going to make the same salary, just not here. I'm a native, and the weather here is overrated if you ask me, I want some seasons! Colorado gets cold, real cold, but it's dry unlike Minnesota. The sun at high altitude means snow doesn't stick around for long on the plains and front range of Denver; Minnesota is never ending cold, nasty winters.