05-02-2017, 01:59 AM
It could be that people are moving out of high-cost metro areas to places far less expensive. San Francisco may be a paradise, but it is so fiendishly expensive that moving to a dump like St. Louis (to be sure, it has a high crime rate, a brutal climate, and much poverty) might allow one to live materially better. One might not take the income with one. OK, is Indianapolis that bad? The scenery is non-existent and the climate is brutal (about like Arkansas in the summer and almost like Wisconsin in the winter)... The difference in rent between San Francisco and Indianapolis is $2720 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and $3800 a month for a two-bedroom apartment. You can buy a giant-screen TV for that price and some very impressive nature videos with the difference in one month.
The chain restaurants and shopping are about what you would expect in Fremont or Walnut Creek. Cultural life? You can go to St. Louis (which is otherwise a dump) or Chicago as day trips.
I noticed that Bakersfield is relatively cheap. It's also poor. Paying California taxes in a low-income area looks like a raw deal.
The chain restaurants and shopping are about what you would expect in Fremont or Walnut Creek. Cultural life? You can go to St. Louis (which is otherwise a dump) or Chicago as day trips.
I noticed that Bakersfield is relatively cheap. It's also poor. Paying California taxes in a low-income area looks like a raw deal.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.