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.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt
The income jump doesn't come close to matching the housing cost jump--trust me. Your money will go farther in Chicago. I honstly think that Chicago has a more family-oriented atmosphere than greater Boston..
Have to agree. Would need a 30-50% jump to even out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean
Wisconsin and Michigan are playgrounds for Chicagoans....lots of outdoors in those two states.
Yeah, we lovingly call you FIBs.
Last edited by timberline742; 01-15-2020 at 11:21 AM..
Boston people will talk about ski trips and the character of their city. Chicago people will talk about smaller mortgage payments and larger suburbs.
Neither are wrong, and that pretty much says it all. The kind of people who care more about pocketing more of their paycheck will obviously be unimpressed by outdoor access because if they were concerned about outdoor access they would not be living in Chicago, is the point.
No. This is so wrong. You are clueless still, honestly, and know nothing about Chicago. I live in Chicago because I like it and make a good living here, not because I am not concerned about outdoor access. I don't live here because I pocket more of my paycheck, I can afford a nice place in Chicago or Boston. There is plenty to do here outdoors, and if you have ever been here, you would realize that. Or paid attention to the many posts here.
Yeah I used to ski every weekday when I was younger when I lived in Canton MA. A Boston suburb that bordered Boston, because there was a ski slope in town. Not great. But it was something. Blue Hills
As I stated earlier, if skiing, apparently, is that high on one's list, they can move to Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, parts of California, etc. People don't move to Boston because they want to ski.
The ignorance by people on the coasts about the midwest is palpable, and I say this as someone who lives on the East Coast. It's funny because these same people think they are worldly yet dont truly know jack about regions of their own country.
I've lived in both. More than a decade, in each, to be exact.
Why is there such confusion? There is more nature in Eastern MA, than in Northeastern IL. It's not even conceivable how that part can be disputed, or there can be any type of argument made.
If people don't like to ski, don't like coastal towns, or don't like mountains, than the differences in day/weekend trips are unimportant. And that's fine.
I've lived in both. More than a decade, in each, to be exact.
Why is there such confusion? There is more nature in Eastern MA, than in Northeastern IL. It's not even conceivable how that part can be disputed, or there can be any type of argument made.
If people don't like to ski, don't like coastal towns, or don't like mountains, than the differences in day/weekend trips are unimportant. And that's fine.
You completely misunderstood the point. A ton of people here thinks there's absolutely no nature in the midwest. It's obvious even here a few posters think that. I experience it in real life in NYC if the topic comes up.
You completely misunderstood the point. A ton of people here thinks there's absolutely no nature in the midwest. It's obvious even here a few posters think that. I experience it in real life in NYC if the topic comes up.
I agree that it's not true, and that the Coastal bias totally exists. Western Michigan is very nice, Wisconsin has plenty to explore to.
The ignorance by people on the coasts about the midwest is palpable, and I say this as someone who lives on the East Coast. It's funny because these same people think they are worldly yet dont truly know jack about regions of their own country.
So you want me to say that Chicago offers more outdoor recreation within driving distance than Boston? If I say Boston offers more variety in outdoor activities and recreation in driving distance..am I wrong?? Can I say you can still hike and ski and jet ski in Wisconsin while at the same time saying Boston offers more?? Can both be true ?? Or will everyone from the Midwest have a fit because where are not giving outdoor recreation in the Midwest enough credit
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.
