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.
That interesting statement leads to a rather open-ended discussion, so I'll jump in. First, I have no doubt that in your particular case (leaving Houston to live in Philadelphia) the statement is true. It makes sense to me, plus of course I have no reason to doubt you. The higher cost of living in Philly is well worth it to you because the quality of life is better for you, probably on multiple levels.
But I question whether the bolded sentence is true generally when applied to the cost of living in different metro areas in the United States. My counter-example would be a comparison of New York City (#2 on the list) versus Los Angeles (tied for #10). Both cities have vibrant and world-class cultural offerings, New York City being ahead in the area of live theatre. New York City also gets the nod for people who wish to live car-free. But there is that huge (for some of us, anyway) factor of climate/weather, and I don't think that needs any explanation.
Of course the whole thing depends on what an individual wants most in a location, but for me the lower cost place (Los Angeles) is a FAR superior place to live, all things considered. I realize I am open to the charge of bias because I live here, but I couldn't resist responding to your interesting thesis that we "get what we pay for" in terms of cost of living. Again, I think it's true in some cases, but not necessarily as a generalization.
Let's start with your last sentence - bolded. Most important point to keep in mind. I was not implying that the most expensive metro offers the best quality of life. For everyone.PERIOD. If that were the case, every single individual would be the happiest if they made their way to Honolulu, undertaking whatever financial burden it might take to do so.
I've found that CD can be a very literal forum in which to exchange information. I've noted certain posters confuse their preferences with facts:
- Example 1: "I like to golf. Who doesn't like to golf!! My house abuts a golf course. My living situation is superior to yours because your house does not abut a golf course."
- Example 2: "I like warm weather. Who doesn't? When I retire, I am settling in warm weather spot. You don't live in a warm weather region? Really?? My life is better than yours." See what's happening again?
Your first paragraph is what I was saying. Indeed, I have personally found the adage "You get what you pay for" to be true more times than not when it comes to how I allot my dollars - whether it be restaurant choice, a seat in the opera, the class one choses to fly on an airplane, the car one drives, the neighborhood one lives in along with the house in that neighborhood, and on and on. Does this mean that purchasing a Mercedes S class is the best decision for everyone to drive? No. Why? Because not everyone places equal value on automobiles. Let's take Bob and Mary who value foreign travel and are perfectly happy with a Chevy Volt. So guess what?: Bob and Mary are getting what they paid for - for their trips abroad travels and for their ride.
If someone wants to parse language on my application of a fairly common phrase (not you ER but the poster above) they can knock themselves out.
Yep. This list only takes into account the Cost of living. I'm sorry, but I am not moving to some hell hole to save money.
That's the whole beauty of the list, that it only takes into account the cost of living! That's all it was designed to do! It was neither designed nor presented as a guide for where people are going to want to move. Cost of living is one single parameter which may be important to many people. People can take that parameter, assign to it the importance which they want, and use it among many other parameters to make decisions.
No one expects anyone else to move "to some hell hole to save money". Do you normally have this much trouble understanding the context of something?
I didn't pose any question. I simply made a comment.
I was "answering" the 1st sentence of of your second paragraph (which I took as a question - if it wasn't, then my bad). At the end of it all, I think we are of the same mindset: there are no universal truths that apply to each individual . . . at least when it some to quality of life.
I've pretty much given up looking at any of these "Best Places to..." lists, because they're usually too one- (or at the most, two-) dimensional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah
This "Best Places" lists are never really accurate. Best places for whom?
What gave either one of you the idea that this was a Best Places to do anything list? It's simply a measure of the cost of goods and services in various places around the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StressedOutNYer
The list in the OP makes no separate mention of Long Island or any part thereof. Are we to assume it's part of the "New York/Newark/Jersey City" group? Nobody in their right mind would describe LI as anything other than "very high cost of living".
Any list that would group LI with NJ and PA is inherently flawed, LOL.
Huh? You're from NY and you're not familiar with what encompasses the New York Metropolitan Statistical Area?
Cost of living is relative and the value is when you can get the same/more of what you want for less. The value to the individual of living probably anywhere THEY are happy might be difficult to capture in a forum discussion. So for a person who lived in suburban DC to move to Vegas would be immensely increased if they lived to gamble. Wow less expensive housing and gaming tables for them perhaps priceless.
The header on the shorter list states "2012 Price Parity." Note that housing prices in some of these areas have increased greatly since 2012. I was having problems figuring out how Tucson could be considered more expensive than Prescott or how Albuquerque and Bend, OR had the same ranking until I saw the header.
Indeed, I have personally found the adage "You get what you pay for" to be true more times than not
If someone wants to parse language on my application of a fairly common phrase (not you ER but the poster above) they can knock themselves out.
:
Challenge accepted! "you get what you pay for" NOT as generally true as "you pay for what you get".
That interesting statement leads to a rather open-ended discussion, so I'll jump in. First, I have no doubt that in your particular case (leaving Houston to live in Philadelphia) the statement is true. It makes sense to me, plus of course I have no reason to doubt you. The higher cost of living in Philly is well worth it to you because the quality of life is better for you, probably on multiple levels.
But I question whether the bolded sentence is true generally when applied to the cost of living in different metro areas in the United States. My counter-example would be a comparison of New York City (#2 on the list) versus Los Angeles (tied for #10). Both cities have vibrant and world-class cultural offerings, New York City being ahead in the area of live theatre. New York City also gets the nod for people who wish to live car-free. But there is that huge (for some of us, anyway) factor of climate/weather, and I don't think that needs any explanation.
Of course the whole thing depends on what an individual wants most in a location, but for me the lower cost place (Los Angeles) is a FAR superior place to live, all things considered. I realize I am open to the charge of bias because I live here, but I couldn't resist responding to your interesting thesis that we "get what we pay for" in terms of cost of living. Again, I think it's true in some cases, but not necessarily as a generalization.
ER, I have to agree with you. Between the two, LA would be way preferable to NYC in my opinion.
But comparing these 2 cities brings up what to me is a source of inaccuracy in these COL comparisons. What do they assume about owning a car, for example? Do they assume to live in LA you have a car, but in NYC you don't? You have been in LA for a while, if you sold your place to me, my property taxes would be higher than yours (I think this is true, and it's driven by a proposition type law in CA).
My point is, COL depends on one's lifestyle choices. IMHO you can get a fairly low COL most anywhere provided you adapt well to the environment (and this assumes you are willing to make the adaptations necessary, for example going car-free in NYC)
That said, these lists are always interesting.
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.
