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.
If anything, it shows people how unsatisfied people can be. 23% is still pretty high and I believe that a third of the country is essentially unhappy about where they live. That is a pretty high percentage, if you think about it.
Tri-state area (NJ, NY and CT) well represented. People basically want out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod
If anything, it shows people how unsatisfied people can be. 23% is still pretty high and I believe that a third of the country is essentially unhappy about where they live. That is a pretty high percentage, if you think about it.
It is pretty darn high. I'm not really surprised to see the top states that people want to stay in. They're are no real huge downsides to ME, NH, OR or MT, especially if your family is there and you've got a job. Texas is booming. And each state's residents I would venture to say have a different reason for wanting to leave. My guess:
NY, NJ, CT: taxes, COL
IL: boring as hell, Chicago gets all the benefits.
NV: its a brown desert and the entire states economy is based on gambling and toxic waste storage
MS: poor, backward, bad rap nationally.
Tri-state area (NJ, NY and CT) well represented. People basically want out.
It is pretty darn high. I'm not really surprised to see the top states that people want to stay in. They're are no real huge downsides to ME, NH, OR or MT, especially if your family is there and you've got a job. Texas is booming. And each state's residents I would venture to say have a different reason for wanting to leave. My guess:
NY, NJ, CT: taxes, COL
IL: boring as hell, Chicago gets all the benefits.
NV: its a brown desert and the entire states economy is based on gambling and toxic waste storage
MS: poor, backward, bad rap nationally.
Actually, with the exception of Montana, the other 3 states still have areas with a well above average COL in terms of their population centers, relative to other areas: http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...s/download.pdf
Portland, OR is 100.5
Portland, ME is 100.8
Manchester-Nashua is 108.9
And these are the most expensive areas in each respective state. With the exception of Manchester, the cost of living in these areas are about the national average. Manchester isn't much more.
It also shows Raleigh to be slightly cheaper than both Syracuse and Binghamton, and Charlotte to be on par with Elmira.
Thanks for posting this. Its one of the few online COL charts that I've come across that seems pretty accurate with what I've experienced personally.
Portland, OR is 100.5
Portland, ME is 100.8
Manchester-Nashua is 108.9
And these are the most expensive areas in each respective state. With the exception of Manchester, the cost of living in these areas are about the national average. Manchester isn't much more.
It also shows Raleigh to be slightly cheaper than both Syracuse and Binghamton, and Charlotte to be on par with Elmira.
Thanks for posting this. Its one of the few online COL charts that I've come across that seems pretty accurate with what I've experienced personally.
I agree they are the same when Cost of Living Only is considered. I'm not sure how property taxes factor in, but assuming that's accounted for, then the question becomes:
If the cost is the same, whats the difference in Quality of Life?
I think many would argue for a higher quality of life currently in many Southern and Western states. Its the only logical conclusion one could draw from the major population shift to these states.
I agree they are the same when Cost of Living Only is considered. I'm not sure how property taxes factor in, but assuming that's accounted for, then the question becomes:
If the cost is the same, whats the difference in Quality of Life?
I think many would argue for a higher quality of life currently in many Southern and Western states. Its the only logical conclusion one could draw from the major population shift to these states.
There could be two words fueling it. That is retirement and jobs.
If you look at some other metrics, many Northeastern and Midwestern areas/states are still doing fine.
We've also seen how people are moving all over the place and how that isn't cut and dry. So, I think that there is a lot to consider.
There could be two words fueling it. That is retirement and jobs.
If you look at some other metrics, many Northeastern and Midwestern areas/states are still doing fine.
We've also seen how people are moving all over the place and how that isn't cut and dry. So, I think that there is a lot to consider.
Retirement, yes, moreso in the warmer areas. Jobs definitely seem to be on the upswing in places like TX, NC and CO. While its not cut and dry, the overall pattern seems to be South and West.
Oil and gas are the big winners in the upper Midwest for sure.
Another way to look at that list is something i heard from a sport radio talk show host and that is that, "There are the coasts and everywhere else".
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.
