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.
Rents have been dropping in the twin cities, so there's now a huge difference regarding the price of one bedroom apartments. I remember you said you did restaurant work. Portland pays slightly higher but cheaper housing should help you a great deal.
Make sure that you factor in sales tax, however.
I'm a chef so I know the restaurant industry pretty well. If the OP works in restaurants I would definitely suggest the Twin Cities. The restaurant industry here is currently going through an acute labor shortage and as a result the back of the house pay scale is increasing sharply right now. As recently as two years ago the pay range for line cooks was $8 to $13 an hour. Since then it has increased to $11 to $17 and hour. The average rate for a veteran line cook is around $15. My guess is that wages will continue to rise until they are high enough that they draw in enough migrants from other parts of the country to bring the labor market back into equilibrium. The same thing happened in the '90s when the kitchen pay scale nearly doubled in five years. Front of the house jobs are also plentiful and since most places are busy these days, tips are good. Labor shortages are great for the working class.
Rents have been dropping in the twin cities, so there's now a huge difference regarding the price of one bedroom apartments. I remember you said you did restaurant work. Portland pays slightly higher but cheaper housing should help you a great deal.
I think the other thing that makes Mpls look more expensive on paper when you look at 'average rent' is that it has a number of really nice but pricier areas that skew the averages up, like the high-end condos around Lake of the Isles, the redevelopment (ok, so it's probably 15-20 years old at this point it's still "new" to me) in Uptown, and the high rises downtown.
I'm pretty sure almost all the data that gets published is based on mean and not median, so the share of high-end stock Mpls has to offer is probably making a difference. Even if you can go 15 blocks east to Whittier or any number of other options and prices are just fine.
St. Paul averages about $50/mo lower than Mpls on paper even though outside of the top-end stuff the housing stock and access to amenities doesn't strike me as all that different.
It depends what areas of the midwest you're comparing to with the west coast. If you're comparing rural Minnesota with the Bay Area then there is a huge difference with rents. I heard that jobs in the midwest don't pay as much, which is why rents are so low. You can't have high pay and low rents, it just won't happen.
Definitely cheaper. If you think having access to the ocean and mountains is worth being an indentured servant then go for it and live on the West coast. If you want enough money to do THINGS. the midwest is definitely cheaper. Even the biggest city(Chicago) has rents under 1000 in certain areas that are NOT ghetto.
In California people are paying 2000 to rent a ROOM in a house. Not an apartment. a ROOM
Chicago is my very Midwest City by far and yes its cheaper than the East and West Coast but its still pricey. Midwestern Cities like St. Louis, Cincy, Indy and KC are pretty cheap on average compared to the rest of the country.
I don't know. I'd say all of what is considered "flyby" country is pretty affordable. It's only in the West Coast and Northeast where things are expensive.
Florida is becoming more like the Northeast in some respects so that's changing
People trying to get by on SS can find small dying farm towns too far from real jobs to command much rent. Hey it beats living in a box on sidewalk.
If however you expect cheap rent and good paying full time jobs, dream on. Anyplace too far to commute to real jobs and no recreational interest, well thats where its cheapest. choose your poison.
People from California get sticker shock when looking for housing in the Midwest and other places because it is so affordable. Reverse sticker shock. But I think rents are going up in most places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyroninja42
The problem with Kansas City is that it's in Missouri, even if it's practically in Kansas. Missouri is the place where the bad things happen.
As a Missouri native who fled the state, I think that the above statement has some truth but not if you pay attention and make good choices. If I was ever to move back, I would not be fearful of living in St. Louis or Kansas City if I did a proper research job on neighborhoods and visited a few. If I wanted a more rural, less urban area I would steer clear of the Ozarks as a rule of thumb. The swath of counties on either side of the Missouri River between St. Louis and Kansas City would be fine as would many of the Mississippi River counties a few miles distant north and south of St. Louis. Missouri is, and has long been, in the grips of intense urban/rural acrimony that infects almost all aspects of politics or statewide policy. The cities are insulated somewhat from the witch-burning and mega racist attitudes found in some rural areas. It is the state that produced Todd Akin and Josh Hawley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SyraBrian
Kansas City would also be nice but I'm a bit of a tv addict and I heard that the local stations trample all over the network programming with constant "Storm Team" weather updates.
It is a safety thing. Kansas City is the only city I have been in where they can give street directions of where the tornado is -- what block of what street. I lived in Missouri 65 years and saw one tornado, but you will see the damage from time to time. When there is an outbreak of multiple tornados you will be thankful for the alerts.
People from California get sticker shock when looking for housing in the Midwest and other places because it is so affordable. Reverse sticker shock. But I think rents are going up in most places.
As a Missouri native who fled the state, I think that the above statement has some truth but not if you pay attention and make good choices. If I was ever to move back, I would not be fearful of living in St. Louis or Kansas City if I did a proper research job on neighborhoods and visited a few. If I wanted a more rural, less urban area I would steer clear of the Ozarks as a rule of thumb. The swath of counties on either side of the Missouri River between St. Louis and Kansas City would be fine as would many of the Mississippi River counties a few miles distant north and south of St. Louis. Missouri is, and has long been, in the grips of intense urban/rural acrimony that infects almost all aspects of politics or statewide policy. The cities are insulated somewhat from the witch-burning and mega racist attitudes found in some rural areas. It is the state that produced Todd Akin and Josh Hawley.
It is a safety thing. Kansas City is the only city I have been in where they can give street directions of where the tornado is -- what block of what street. I lived in Missouri 65 years and saw one tornado, but you will see the damage from time to time. When there is an outbreak of multiple tornados you will be thankful for the alerts.
I lived in KC a number of years and a similar amount of time in a remote part of the Ozarks.
The “witch burning” “mega racist” comments are far-fetched.
Missouri in general is okay, and a whole lot better off than many states out there.
The midwest is certainly more affordable and for the most part quite nice and civilized.
You don’t even have to resort to rural farm communities to live on the cheap.
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.