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.
Only houses right on the water have extreme prices. Here in Mass. we have many multi million dollar homes but most are down in the $300,000 range which is affordable to someone with a decent job.
My wife is always going on about moving to Maine or NH, and she looks at the property we could have if we chucked it all in. My response is always "what would we do up there?"
Kansas and Maine may appeal to some but many need more.
Everyone has different requirements. Just because Kansas works for some, doesn't mean it will work for all.
*Want to live near family
*the culture is different
*there is no ocean
*there isn't a tornadoe season
*you can drive to many states in a short time for vacation
*more job opportunities
There are so many reasons, you don't have to agree with it, but you can't force people to want or like something because you think it's right.
People are anchored by just about everything, and the anchor gets bigger and bigger as years pass. Then they are limited to what they can spend to live. An independently wealthy person with no ties to any area, is probably not going to hone in on suburban New Jersey. Or Kansas, for that matter.
Instead of inland in places like Kansas. You can get a house for almost no cost in certain areas of Kansas and other non coastal states. Try finding that deal in a coastal state. Will not happen, you will likely be spending well north of $1 million dollars to own a home in the coastal states. Especially in highly desireable areas. So my
question is even if one have a good cash flow why would someone willingly choose to live in a place like Boston when they could own a house for almost no cost and save more money in the Midwest states?
I would never buy a house in Tornado Alley. It would be guaranteed destroyed eventually, so it's a foolish investment.
Same with California. In most of the populated areas, there will be at least one 7.0+ earthquake (not counting the aftershocks). This will turn almost any residence into a pile of rubble.
Instead of inland in places like Kansas. You can get a house for almost no cost in certain areas of Kansas and other non coastal states. Try finding that deal in a coastal state. Will not happen, you will likely be spending well north of $1 million dollars to own a home in the coastal states. Especially in highly desireable areas. So my
question is even if one have a good cash flow why would someone willingly choose to live in a place like Boston when they could own a house for almost no cost and save more money in the Midwest states?
Have you ever been to Kansas?
Why do people spend all that money to live in Kansas when they could live in Romania for much less?
Why do people spend all that money to live in Romania when they could live in Costa Rica for much less?
Why do people spend all that money to live in Costa Rica when they could live in Sudan for much less?
You're right, this is fun!
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.
