I live in the Midwest, and I am likely to inherit my first home. Housing is cheap relative to the coasts, but pay is lower, and student loans aren't based on my wages.
Yes, salaries are lower. But they aren't 8-10 times lower. A 1000 ft^2 bungalow that costs a million dollars in Palo Alto can be had for around a hundred grand here.
And, no, it won't be in a place that's as nice as Palo Alto, but it will be in a perfectly reasonable working-class neighborhood. It's up to you to decide if that tradeoff is worth it.
One way to clarify your own thoughts on this is to imagine the reverse. If you were from St. Louis and somebody gave you a million dollars, would you spend every penny of it to buy a house in Palo Alto?
That's a bad comparison, because Palo Alto is not representative of housing prices in American metro areas, it's an exception.
A better comparison would be someplace like northern New Jersey, or any such suburb, where you can be an hour away from a big city and you can get a house for ~$350k or so. Then you can enjoy having decent access to the big city, and also having lots of nice amenities very close by, enjoying a much prettier environment (there's a reason it's called "the garden state"), and there's better-paying jobs than anything you'll find in the midwest.
If I were stuck in STL for some odd reason and someone gave me $1M, I would not stay in STL, I'd move to someplace where houses cost $300-500k most likely.
I'm not impressed by snark about being "stuck in STL for some odd reason." You shouldn't be either. It's not particularly clever.
But, to further the point, the same would obviously apply to houses in higher price ranges. $500k can buy a house in the Midwest that could fairly be described as luxurious.
>I'm not impressed by snark about being "stuck in STL for some odd reason." You shouldn't be either. It's not particularly clever.
It wasn't meant to be "clever". Maybe you think it's a great place, but if you're offended that not everyone thinks STL is some great place to live, that's your problem. STL does not have a reputation as a nice place to live. Proof: Ferguson. And Midwest weather is generally very bad (temperature extremes, tornados, etc.). And the crime rate there is known to be very high. If I was forced to live in some Midwest city, STL is probably the last place I'd choose. There's plenty of other Midwest cities that have boring but safe reputations.
Yes, $500k can buy a luxurious house in the Midwest, but the salaries there are much lower so you're not going to be able to afford that house there anyway.
I'm not offended. I'm well aware of the perception and reputation of places like St. Louis. You're absolutely right about perception. What I'm arguing is that the perception is erroneous and based on a very limited understanding of what's really going on in the Rust Belt.
The fact that you think "Proof: Ferguson" is a complete thought demonstrates this beyond doubt.
But you're definitely right about the weather. It sucks.
Edit: Just one thing I wanted to point out, not so much for you, but for anyone else reading this. Saying that, "And the crime rate there is known to be very high" about St. Louis is equivalent to suggesting that the South Bay isn't safe because the crime rate is very high in Oakland.
The only difference is that nobody measures the safety of the South Bay against Oakland. But in St. Louis, the whole region is referred to as "St. Louis" even though only the inner core -- St. Louis City -- is included in those crime stats.
You're right about one thing: that's a huge perception problem. The crime rate is "known" to be high here due to ignorance about how the region draws its political borders (which affects how crime stats are collected) and wildly mistaken impressions about Ferguson.
But, I guess as long as you "know" it to be true, it's not worth trying to better understand it.
Walmart or any other nationwide retailer isn't going to give you lower prices on TVs or clothes or groceries because you're in a low cost-of-living area. It all costs the same, nationwide. Same goes for anything online. ISP/telecom costs are not any lower in the midwest. Gasoline is not significantly cheaper. Cars cost the same no matter where you buy them. What else is left? I suppose you can get away with paying someone less to mow your lawn there, but that's about it.
The retail employees in the bay area get paid more because they have to pay for the insane rent just like you have to. This obviously results in higher prices for goods purchased in brick and mortar stores.
I grew up in the Midwest, and among my peers I grew up with (born in 1980), home ownership is the norm. This is particularly true for those with children.
I was born in the same year and this is true for me, too. I'm considered crazy because I still choose to rent. Again: I am considered a weirdo for not owning in my thirties. That is a normal sentiment among the working and middle classes in the Midwest.
I don't think people on the coasts really understand this. My girlfriend moved here from Boston by way of NYC. She still can't believe the apartment we rent Downtown. In her mind this is an apartment for people much wealthier than we are.
