Overgeneralizing stereotypes of Washington (Seattle, Vancouver: schools, income, income tax)

[sylentvoyce]

This is just a random, fun, thought thread. I have heard two distinct schools of thought when people generalize Washington State for me. I moved here from Montana about a year ago, in pursuit of better financial security. I landed in Moses Lake with a 61k per year state government job; and I haven't regretted it since.

The first thought is: Why do people think the whole state is rainy and gray? Even before I moved here I knew there was a big chunk of eastern Washington that was mostly sunny and brown.

Second thought: Why do people think the whole state is expensive. Whenever I told people I moved from Montana for the higher pay, the response is always: But its cheaper in Montana. Everything east of the cascades in this state is actually comparative too or totally cheaper than most of Montana. Plus a bigger average paycheck and no income tax to boot.

Any thoughts, responses, rebuttals, insults, or anecdotes are all welcome here!

[Diana Holbrook]

Why do people think


Generalizing much yourself?

[Diana Holbrook]

Of course, you're right. People 'not from around here' tend to think the whole state revolves around Seattle. In fact, Seattle thinks the whole state revolves around Seattle.

[NW Crow]

I don't have the exact current splits but probably at least 80% of the state population is west of the Cascades and most of that is within 90 miles of Seattle.


Most people are not the rich Microsoft / Amazon professional or the homeless person but most Washintonians ARE near or kinda near Seattle and its weather type.


Central and eastern WA can work for some. Have to look to know. Unless you know you want something different from that.

[sylentvoyce]

Diana Holbrook; thank you for the burn

I did generalize people. In my case whenever the topic of Washington comes up, one or both of these thoughts become a debate point. So from my perspective, it does feel like most people have these beliefs.

To respond to others, It makes sense that people believe these things as the majority of Washingtonians do live in the Seattle area. It does also make sense as the I5 corridor connects western Washington to Vancouver BC, Portland and California. So I suppose most people who visit this state, come in through this gate. It makes sense.

[NW4me]

Indeed, the wet side and the dry side are so different that they could be separate states. Ditto for Oregon. But people who live far away probably find it easy to create simple mental pictures of the states where they've never spent much time (there are 50 states... how many people have an accurate understanding of all of them?). So, e.g. "Arizona" conjures up "deserts," even though a big piece of AZ is forested. "Colorado" means "Rocky Mountains," although eastern CO is flat.
And the wet side of WA gets most of the attention, because it's where most of the population lives. WA even calls itself the Evergreen State.

[Diana Holbrook]

Colorado is a good example with a similar issue.

I assumed Colorado was all mountains, especially the 'mile high city'. I was shocked the first time I flew in to Denver.

[MtnSurfer]

Even California, the most populous state in the nation, gets stereotyped into two main types of areas: The Bay Area or coastal SoCal (LA/OC/SD). Yet it has some of the most diverse geography (highest and lowest points in the lower 48) as well as variety of climates and sub cultures. No, not everyone surfs, lives in Hollywierd or works in the Silicon Valley.

Derek

[CrazyDonkey]

Seattle is on the ocean...

[NW4me]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Even California, the most populous state in the nation, gets stereotyped into two main types of areas: The Bay Area or coastal SoCal (LA/OC/SD). Yet it has some of the most diverse geography (highest and lowest points in the lower 48) as well as variety of climates and sub cultures. No, not everyone surfs, lives in Hollywierd or works in the Silicon Valley.

Derek

I often think it would be cool if the northern third of the state (everything north of Sacramento) was a state unto itself. I added up the numbers once: the territory would be about the same size as Pennsylvania, the population would about equal to Idaho's. Presumably Redding (population 100,000) would be the state capital -
it's the largest city of this predominantly rural region. As a state of its own, it would no longer have the mistaken identity of being lumped in with LA & SF.