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.
According to the Pew Research Center, even now, in a time in which Americans are portrayed as rootless, 4 in 10 Americans stay in the place of their birth. The ones who do move, usually do so for jobs. Most of this significant migrations in American history were the result of economic issues. People who don't move make that choice usually because they prefer to remain near family and friends, even if it causes financial hardship.
Instead of inland in places like Kansas. You can get a house for almost no cost in certain areas of Kansas and other non coastal states. Try finding that deal in a coastal state. Will not happen, you will likely be spending well north of $1 million dollars to own a home in the coastal states. Especially in highly desireable areas. So my
question is even if one have a good cash flow why would someone willingly choose to live in a place like Boston when they could own a house for almost no cost and save more money in the Midwest states?
Because people live where the jobs are. Hard to maintain that beautiful cheap house on food stamps.
I think the Midwest is beautiful, as is the rest of our great country. Not everybody wants big house, big yard to care for. Our families are on the east coast, so wherever we go needs to be affordable to travel to and from several times a year. You may get a reasonably priced house, but how much will each airline ticket cost or how much will you pay in gas and time to get to somewhere else. Different strokes for different folks.
Because people live where the jobs are. Hard to maintain that beautiful cheap house on food stamps.
There are plenty of good paying jobs scattered across the country...people want to conglomerate where they THINK all the jobs are. I live in the 5th or 6th largest metro area and it's slim pickins here...why? Because everyone moves here taking all the jobs!
...
The Mid West is not all "flyover country". And each state has it's own flavor.
Ohio is part of the moderate to progressive upper Mid West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capoeira
I grew up in the Midwest and I am looking forward to moving back there! It has nothing to do with cost. Even if California was exactly the same cost as the Midwest I would still plan on moving back to the midwest.
Not to verge too far off-topic, but while I agree that the Midwest is not "monolithic", certain tendencies abound. To define what IS the Midwest, and what ails it, I recommend Richard Longworth's book, "Caught in the Middle": Richard C. Longworth Books . It is a sympathetic but critical analysis.
My part of Ohio (its southwest) is more progressive than Dixie, but nothing compared to the urbanized Northeast. By this I mean the prevalence of religiosity, "family values", a blue-collar culture, engrained agrarianism and the various aspects of social conservatism.
To be fair, by "urbanized Northeast" I basically mean the I-95 corridor from DC to Boston. Drive 100 miles west of Boston, or even 50 miles west of DC, and other than weather and topography, one might as well be in the Midwest. In fact most of America is Midwestern, save for its principal urban beacons. Chicago, by this reasoning, is not Midwestern. It also happens to have an expensive real-estate market.
It's simple. Because the East Coast (speaking very generally) is much richer, better educated, better, higher paying jobs, more scenic, more cosmpolitan, more progressive, and better located, than Kansas.
Why do people spend big money in London when one can buy in rural England for nothing? Why do people spend big bucks in California when next-door Mexico is dirt cheap? Why doesn't everyone move to Angola or Myanmar or Paraguay because all those places are still dirt-cheap? It's simple supply and demand.
Let's turn it around. Why on earth would the Midwest cost the same as the East or West Coast? And I have lived in the Midwest, and think it's underrated. But let's be real. Flat, boring towns, crazy hot and crazy cold, only one "real" city (and even that one doesn't hold a candle to the NYCs and Londons of the world), depressed industrial base, withered out farm towns, etc. Not the most glamorous place on earth. Not many people are going to move from San Francisco or NYC or LA to Kansas or Indiana. The only exception would be if you have family ties.
Instead of inland in places like Kansas. You can get a house for almost no cost in certain areas of Kansas and other non coastal states. Try finding that deal in a coastal state. Will not happen, you will likely be spending well north of $1 million dollars to own a home in the coastal states. Especially in highly desireable areas. So my
question is even if one have a good cash flow why would someone willingly choose to live in a place like Boston when they could own a house for almost no cost and save more money in the Midwest states?
Because there's no ocean nearby. I'm sure it's more than that for other people, but I would panic if I lived somewhere so far from the ocean. I moved 60 miles so that I could be ten minutes from the sea rather than an hour plus. I need to go there from time to time for my soul. I might go today, as a matter of fact, now that you've put it in my head.
You scenario assumes that everyone wants the big million-dollar+ house. Some of us are content to live in a small space. Even if I suddenly came into money, why on earth would I want a big house? I am alone. I don't need a lot of stuff; as a matter of fact, as life goes on, I find I need less and less stuff. But I have the ocean a short drive away. That's worth much more than granite counter tops and a home theater.
Good point, MQ. But remember, too, that Europeans have been living in cramped quarters for centuries. Land is a luxury available to only the few at the top. It's hardly surprising that they would romanticize the open space we take for granted.
Also, for some weird reason people think that buying in an expensive area makes one poorer. In fact the opposite is true for most people.
Expensive areas are expensive because they have higher-than-average annualized returns. If you buy in Coastal California, or NYC, your investment, in the long term will be much better than if you bought in the Midwest. And the federal deductions (for mortgage interest and taxes) will benefit you more.
Would you rather buy a $1 million home in Orange County, CA or a 500k home in suburban Ohio? In the long run that $1 million home will be a much better investment, and will make your richer. The only exception would be if you take that "extra" 500k you saved by buying in Ohio and then invested all of it and had investment returns better than the real estate gains in Orange County.
I would MUCH rather put my money in NYC or SF or LA real estate than in real estate in a "cheap" area. The returns are much better over time in areas that are most desirable. My aunt bought in Corona del Mar, CA in the late 1970's, and now she is a millionaire many times over, due only to her home. If she bought in Ohio, she would never have accumulated such wealth.
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.
