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.
Because liberal areas are where people want to live as opposed to places where they have to live. Therefore, prices are higher because of the demand. It continues to amaze me how the free market capitalists on this board fail to grasp that simple concept.
I have a hunch, though, as to why: they know it's because of the fact that those liberal areas are extremely desirable but they're trying so desperately to "prove" to the world that their conservative areas are the real utopias in the US. Deep down they know better but they can't stand it. They'll do anything and everything to disparage those who have anything left of bat s*** crazy ideologies.
Trailer parks, which are typically found in conservative communities, are affordable.
If that is where you want to live, no one will stop you from moving there.
If you want to live in larger areas where the jobs are, then you'll probably have to pay more in living expenses.
Gee....................... I'm a conservative and have four houses, none of which are trailers. The biggest is 8200 sq ft and the smallest 2800, but I have yet to acquire a trailer. I have never had a mortgage and have always paid cash for homes (I hate debt). As they appear to be irritating to libs, perhaps I will get one in the future.
I do not look down upon trailer court dwellers, unlike smug libs, as it appears to make a lot of common sense anymore. even those tiny houses appear to make more sense than young people getting tied down with debt in a big mortgage.
I really think that people live in way, way too big of homes anymore. Our next primary house will be about 2500 square feet, as I have found that you never use all the space in a larger house. As you age, you don't give a damn about "status symbol" homes and are more concerned with practicality.
I bought my youngest boy (a teacher) a 2600 sq ft "starter" home that should fit the needs of nearly every family in America. It's very nice- just not huge. I would think that younger people will wake up and stop seeking the huge houses that seem to be a goal of many in my generation. It's a waste of cash.
PS- Most "liberal" places I have been to range from urban slums to very nice places. Most of the large urban centers are dumps, but parts of NYC, Boston, and DC are nice. I would rather live (as I do) in a conservative area, as I like to be near mountains and pretty scenery. CA has the Sierras, but the area adjacent is ag country, which is conservative. LA and SF are dumps now- SF used to be so pretty and now it is a craphole.
I bought my youngest boy (a teacher) a 2600 sq ft "starter" home that should fit the needs of nearly every family in America. It's very nice- just not huge. I would think that younger people will wake up and stop seeking the huge houses that seem to be a goal of many in my generation. It's a waste of cash.
Younger people are definitely open to living in smaller places. See things like the tiny house trend and more widespread acceptance of minimalist lifestyles. Granted, I don't see that changing our society's general obsession with enormous houses ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
PS- Most "liberal" places I have been to range from urban slums to very nice places. Most of the large urban centers are dumps, but parts of NYC, Boston, and DC are nice. I would rather live (as I do) in a conservative area, as I like to be near mountains and pretty scenery. CA has the Sierras, but the area adjacent is ag country, which is conservative. LA and SF are dumps now- SF used to be so pretty and now it is a craphole.
Outside of some construction in a small part of SOMA (centered on the new transbay terminal), SF looks the same as it has for decades. I don't what point you're making? I seriously question how familiar you are with the city if you think it has changed physically in any dramatic way.
If you want to live in larger areas where the jobs are, then you'll probably have to pay more in living expenses.
Just as in the thread on decline of small towns, currently ongoing in parallel, the real crux is economic, and not explicitly political. Lucrative jobs tend to be surrounded by other lucrative jobs. There's a "Matthew effect". It is unlikely for a small locale, for an isolated locale, to have lucrative jobs... because said jobs flock to places where such jobs are already plentiful. There's a feedback loop: demand is greater in places with lots of good jobs. That increases real-estate costs. That means that wages have to be higher. That also means that real-estate prices can rise... and so forth.
Even in conservative states, the more lucrative jobs tend to be in the larger and more prosperous cities, which concomitantly (but not inevitably) are more liberal. Dallas, Houston and Austin are more liberal than Waco, Lubbock or Amarillo. Closer to "home", Columbus and Cleveland are more liberal than Findlay or Chillicothe. Sure, Oklahoma City is more conservative than San Francisco. But compare Oklahoma City with towns 100 miles away.
Just as in the thread on decline of small towns, currently ongoing in parallel, the real crux is economic, and not explicitly political. Lucrative jobs tend to be surrounded by other lucrative jobs. There's a "Matthew effect". It is unlikely for a small locale, for an isolated locale, to have lucrative jobs... because said jobs flock to places where such jobs are already plentiful. There's a feedback loop: demand is greater in places with lots of good jobs. That increases real-estate costs. That means that wages have to be higher. That also means that real-estate prices can rise... and so forth.
Even in conservative states, the more lucrative jobs tend to be in the larger and more prosperous cities, which concomitantly (but not inevitably) are more liberal. Dallas, Houston and Austin are more liberal than Waco, Lubbock or Amarillo. Closer to "home", Columbus and Cleveland are more liberal than Findlay or Chillicothe. Sure, Oklahoma City is more conservative than San Francisco. But compare Oklahoma City with towns 100 miles away.
It's amazing how so many seem to not understand this.
Well explained.
Also worth pointing out that this job growth can happen quickly - so quickly that supply can't compensate (see: Bay Area). It's much easier to create new jobs than it is build new housing for all of those workers.
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.
