Leaving California, moving to STL with our wealth and energy

[J_Quayle_Higgins_III]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

There's barely any jobs in Missouri yet its unemployment rate is lower than California.

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I guess the retort will be we all work at Walmart and you all work in Silicon Valley.

Well, anyway, I manage to get by, can buy a new still and outhouse every few years and have a short drive to work. And I know some good fishin' holes too.

Way to ignore what I actually posted to try and argue a point that was never made. My comments about jobs were clearly labeled as about outstate Missouri. I live in St. Louis btw, Missouri resident my entire life and my family farms down in southern Missouri. St. Louis and the rural areas of Missouri are two different worlds with two very different futures if we don't plan for what is ahead.

[J_Quayle_Higgins_III]

Originally Posted by Angus215

Name a part of CA that is less expensive than STL. Bakersfield?

I didn't say less expensive than St. Louis, I said affordable. With wages and taxes being higher in California, an expense comparison would be more complex than comparing home prices. I'm no expert in California, but I do know that using the bay area as an example for the entire state is disingenuous

A Zillow search of the state of California for homes priced between $100,000-$200,000 yields 10,700 options. The same search of Missouri provides 12,200 results. This is obviously not apples to apples, it is just to illustrate that options exist.

And yes, Bakersfield is quite affordable. It is like as if St. Louis was dropped down in the middle of California. If St. Louis were on a coast with near perfect year round temperatures, its prices would be sky high too.

When I had a job offer in San Jose, I found an area called Boulder Creek that offered affordable acreage to build on and a 45 min commute. (about the same as hillsboro to St. Louis) I don't know what the politics of the area was because it wasn't important to me.

[MOforthewin]

Originally Posted by cofor

I didn't say less expensive than St. Louis, I said affordable. With wages and taxes being higher in California, an expense comparison would be more complex than comparing home prices. I'm no expert in California, but I do know that using the bay area as an example for the entire state is disingenuous

A Zillow search of the state of California for homes priced between $100,000-$200,000 yields 10,700 options. The same search of Missouri provides 12,200 results. This is obviously not apples to apples, it is just to illustrate that options exist.

And yes, Bakersfield is quite affordable. It is like as if St. Louis was dropped down in the middle of California. If St. Louis were on a coast with near perfect year round temperatures, its prices would be sky high too.

When I had a job offer in San Jose, I found an area called Boulder Creek that offered affordable acreage to build on and a 45 min commute. (about the same as hillsboro to St. Louis) I don't know what the politics of the area was because it wasn't important to me.

I see a lot of people in the Bay area, Silicon Valley buy Winnebagoes to live in because it's cheaper than trying to buy a house. For most people who already own a home a Winnebago is unaffordable. That's how bad housing prices in parts of California are.

Here in FL places like Naples and southeast FL same way. In Miami part of the problem is international investors are buying up property jacking prices up.

I saw an article in a business journal about foreigners buying property and places like FL, TX, NY, and CA were at the top and it's the Chinese buying up property.

[kipfilet]

Sounds like the troll succeeded this time.