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.
Point taken. I meant that the number of people moving here is an indication of LA's popularity. US cities tend to grow and be large based on people moving there and I don't think that's the same for China or India, but I could be mistaken as I'm not that familiar.
Yes, people move here for opportunities. Isn't that all rolled up into where they prefer to live? Some people really do want to move here you know. It's ok if that's not your thing.
Nobody has been moving to LA for a while from other parts of the country overall; it's had a negative domestic net migration for a while. Natural increase and immigration are the only reasons LA continues to grow.
Kind of I guess, the poll I was referring to (Harris Interactive "Where Americans Most Want to Live") was asking people regardless of jobs, family, costs and SD consistently ranked higher than LA. I'm aware plenty of people want to and do move to LA. But I think SD overall has a much better reputation which translates to more people overall preferring it as a place to move over LA if it was an option.
Nobody has been moving to LA for a while from other parts of the country overall; it's had a negative domestic net migration for a while. Natural increase and immigration are the only reasons LA continues to grow.
Kind of I guess, the poll I was referring to (Harris Interactive "Where Americans Most Want to Live") was asking people regardless of jobs, family, costs and SD consistently ranked higher than LA. I'm aware plenty of people want to and do move to LA. But I think SD overall has a much better reputation which translates to more people overall preferring it as a place to move over LA if it was an option.
I've already agreed about the reputation bit when I said that the average American would overwhelmingly choose San Diego. But the average American and the people in those polls don't actually move to either one. Where they do tend to move comparatively, and in much larger numbers, is LA.
But LA has a negative net migration because so many people leave. It's still near the top though for where people choose to move. I think that LA is in the top 3 or 4 and my take is that we send lots of unskilled, uneducated people to the rest of the country, but we get better educated and skilled people in return. We're not the Bay Area getting lots of engineers, but we have lots more unskilled leaving than most places. They leave for Las Vegas, Phoenix and Texas.
More people must prefer Ohio over Hawaii because it has more people as well. Yeah I wonder why actors, singers, etc..and other creatives choose LA over SD...real big mystery there. I wonder why techies move to the Bay Area too.... Most people move for a variety of reasons (job, family, etc..) aside from a simple desire to just live in a certain city because they like it.
Is Ohio more expensive to live in than Hawaii?
There are millions on top of millions of people choosing to live in Los Angeles over San Diego despite higher cost of living who have nothing to do with performing/creative arts.
Better question is why would someone choose SD? Higher average home prices, fewer good jobs, poor airport connections, culturally stodgy, food isn't as good, and generally sleepy, nondiverse town still dominated by the military.
There are millions on top of millions of people choosing to live in Los Angeles over San Diego despite higher cost of living who have nothing to do with performing/creative arts.
Yeah I'm pretty sure because this site, this site, and this site, only show the cost of living varying about 2-3% on either end. I don't consider than significant or even worth mentioning.
Location: Midwesterner living in California (previously East Coast)
296 posts, read 438,060 times
Reputation: 598
I used to live on the East Coast. I had a career opportunity to move to Southern California. I was presented with the option to live in LA or live in SD. I visited both to scope out the situation along with doing extensive qualitative and quantitative research. Ultimately I chose LA. Now, don't get me wrong. I think SD is a nice place and one can live a happy life there.
However, I had a couple of issues with it.
1. I value variety very much. LA is the king of variety. Geographic, cultural, professional, recreational, culinary, etc. SD was lacking on a number of those fronts.
2. Professionally, SD punches way below its weight. Great place if you're in the navy, biotech or hospitality/tourism. If you're not in one of those categories, it's a disappointment. Both in terms of job openings available and in terms of salary. This wasn't an immediate issue for me since I already had a job, but was a big-time issue for my spouse (who had to job hunt as part of the move).
3. SD felt....smallish for its relative population size. I know some people view that as a positive. But I did not. I want to be in a city with a global cosmopolitan mindset. LA has that. SD does not. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, Denver, Austin, Charlotte, Minneapolis feel like bigger/more important metros than SD (even though they are pretty much the same population size tier).
In summation, my takeaway was this after an exhaustive multi-month evaluation period.
"You can live an SD lifestyle in LA, but you can't live an LA lifestyle in SD."
And that's why I ultimately went with LA.
By the way, I'm not an actor. Just a regular joe working a regular job in the corporate world.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,547,418 times
Reputation: 6682
Good summary—agree with all your points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrIndependent
I used to live on the East Coast. I had a career opportunity to move to Southern California. I was presented with the option to live in LA or live in SD. I visited both to scope out the situation along with doing extensive qualitative and quantitative research. Ultimately I chose LA. Now, don't get me wrong. I think SD is a nice place and one can live a happy life there.
However, I had a couple of issues with it.
1. I value variety very much. LA is the king of variety. Geographic, cultural, professional, recreational, culinary, etc. SD was lacking on a number of those fronts.
2. Professionally, SD punches way below its weight. Great place if you're in the navy, biotech or hospitality/tourism. If you're not in one of those categories, it's a disappointment. Both in terms of job openings available and in terms of salary. This wasn't an immediate issue for me since I already had a job, but was a big-time issue for my spouse (who had to job hunt as part of the move).
3. SD felt....smallish for its relative population size. I know some people view that as a positive. But I did not. I want to be in a city with a global cosmopolitan mindset. LA has that. SD does not. In fact, as crazy as it sounds, Denver, Austin, Charlotte, Minneapolis feel like bigger/more important metros than SD (even though they are pretty much the same population size tier).
In summation, my takeaway was this after an exhaustive multi-month evaluation period.
"You can live an SD lifestyle in LA, but you can't live an LA lifestyle in SD."
And that's why I ultimately went with LA.
By the way, I'm not an actor. Just a regular joe working a regular job in the corporate world.
Last edited by elchevere; 01-21-2020 at 04:50 PM..
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.