Where are you going to move to?

[TheFinn]

I want to move somewhere warm, we have mold/pollen allergies in my family so maybe a dry place like TX, AZ or NM would be best. I want (or think I want) to enjoy a warm climate, but on the other hand all of US is warmer than Finland (except maybe Alaska). I don't like congested places and I also want to continue with sports shooting in the US, so places like CA, NJ and NY are out of the question.

It's not easy to find the best place to live with no ties to the country

 

[EmilyW]

I am looking to move the family to a place where the cost of living is actually reasonable. Texas seems reasonable to me? Plus Austin is the most liberal part of the state.

The cost in living in Auckland (NZ) is just criminal. There should be an investigation as to why this was allowed to happen....probably self interest from the politicians.

The price of living in a nanny state.

Austin is the most liberal part of Texas. And, from friends who just moved out of there, it's turning into a toilet bowl slowly.

 

[SusieQQQ]

I am looking to move the family to a place where the cost of living is actually reasonable. Texas seems reasonable to me? Plus Austin is the most liberal part of the state.

The cost in living in Auckland (NZ) is just criminal. There should be an investigation as to why this was allowed to happen....probably self interest from the politicians.

The price of living in a nanny state.

Austin is the most liberal part of Texas. And, from friends who just moved out of there, it's turning into a toilet bowl slowly.

Depends how important liberal is or isn’t to you
Someone I know moved to Austin on similar reasoning to bob22 - they hated it, said not much to do, hated the weather in both summer and winter, not Austin’s fault but hated that they weren’t near a beach, and that “liberal” and its touted “culture” seemed only relative to the rest of Texas. (They decided higher cost of living elsewhere was worth it, and moved to California, where the salary they got more than made up for the higher cost of living/taxes - interestingly they moved to Orange County, which is one of the most conservative parts of CA, and they love it) There are people who love Austin of course - another friend of mine studied there and totally loved the city - just be aware that some things are relative.

There are a bunch of rankings on affordable places on the net if you google, and you can rank those by other factors that appeal to or deter you as well. One of the states that constantly comes out near the top of a “balanced” ranking (reasonable cost of living, good jobs etc) is Colorado, so I’d definitely suggest looking into that if you haven’t already.
The beauty of the US is that it’s so big and so diverse, there’s almost certain to be somewhere that has the right combination of factors for you.

 

[John5000]

I'm moving to NYC (Queens or Brooklyn). I'll try that for a bit and if I don't like it there I'll move to Texas or North Carolina.

 

[saabe]

I am looking to move the family to a place where the cost of living is actually reasonable. Texas seems reasonable to me? Plus Austin is the most liberal part of the state.

The cost in living in Auckland (NZ) is just criminal. There should be an investigation as to why this was allowed to happen....probably self interest from the politicians.

Liberal and affordable is an oxymoron. Choose your priority.

 

[SusieQQQ]

Liberal and affordable is an oxymoron. Choose your priority.

Everything is relative. There are certainly liberal places that are relatively affordable- some cities in Colorado and New Mexico for example. The cheapest states ( places like Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia etc) are definitely pretty deep red.

 

[Britsimon]

Liberal and affordable is an oxymoron. Choose your priority.

It is true that areas of higher wealth/education tend to lean more toward liberal values - but not all the time. And wealthy people tend to live in the nicest places with the best opportunities - thus forcing up the prices. But again - that is not always true...

 

[saabe]

It is true that areas of higher wealth/education tend to lean more toward liberal values - but not all the time. And wealthy people tend to live in the nicest places with the best opportunities - thus forcing up the prices. But again - that is not always true...

Sorry, I don't agree with you. Rather wealthy liberal people in liberal cities tend to force up prices because of scarcity (those places tend to be islands of wealth surrounded by an ocean of poverty and crime). Also wealthy liberal people tend to prefer downtown or euro-style dense areas (scarce, because the inner-city in America is generally not a good area). There is no correlation between wealth and political affiliation, rather between age, race, industry/field, etc.....and political affiliation. Let's talk about the latter point. If you work in some industries like entertainement (Beverly Hills/Malibu/Santa Monica/etc...), IT (SF) or in some fields like higher education (Berkley) or civil service (North Virginia), you're more likely to be liberal than,......if you're a businessman, an engineer , an army officer or work for let's say, in the oil, the agro or the automotive industry.

But generally speaking, outside SF bay Area, LA and Manhattan,...think average american cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia or Houston,....you can assume the red dots are an indication of nice neighborhoods/suburbs with good schools and safe streets.,...and the blue dots,..well, quite the opposite.

Now it also depends on what he means by "liberal",....if he only means cities that vote for liberal politicians and support liberal policies, well, generally they are not the best places to live, and taxes are very high there. If he can't take the heat and only seek well-segregated white ghettos full of starbucks, sushi restaurants, organic food stores and art galleries, in this case he must make at least a 6 figure salary to afford one of those places.

@SusieQQQ

The best places that combine liberalism, safety and relative affordability (relatively, compared to SF and the nice neighborhoods of NYC and LA), are probably in Oregon, Vermont, Western Washington, Massachusetts and Maine. Otherwise, I would recommend him to live in a conservative suburb, and commute to the city (probably very blue) for his dose of liberalism (he has tons of alternatives, Atlanta, Dallas/Austin/Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Tampa/St Pettersburgh area, Denver/colorado springs, etc...

 

[Britsimon]

Sorry, I don't agree with you. Rather wealthy liberal people in liberal cities tend to force up prices because of scarcity (those places tend to be islands of wealth surrounded by an ocean of poverty and crime). Also wealthy liberal people tend to prefer downtown or euro-style dense areas (scarce, because the inner-city in America is generally not a good area). There is no correlation between wealth and political affiliation, rather between age, race, industry/field, etc.....and political affiliation. Let's talk about the latter point. If you work in some industries like entertainement, IT or in some fields like higher education or civil service, you're more likely to be liberal than,......if you're a businessman, an engineer , an army officer or work for let's say, the oil, the agro or the automotive industry.

But generally speaking, outside SF bay Area, LA and Manhattan,...think average american cities like Atlanta, Philadelphia or Houston,....you can assume the red dots are an indication of nice neighborhoods/suburbs with good schools and safe streets.,...and the blue dots,..well, quite the opposite.

Now it also depends on what he means by "liberal",....if he only means cities that vote for liberal politicians and support liberal policies, well, generally they are not the best places to live, and taxes are very high there. If he can't take the heat and only seek well-segregated white ghettos full of starbucks, sushi restaurants, organic food stores and art galleries, in this case he must make at least a 6 figure salary to afford one of those places.

@SusieQQQ

The best places that combine liberalism, safety and relative affordability (relatively, compared to SF and the nice neighborhoods of NYC and LA), are probably in Oregon, Vermont, Western Washington, Massachusetts and Maine. Otherwise, I would recommend him to live in a conservative suburb, and commute to the city (probably very blue) for his dose of liberalism (he has tons of alternatives, Atlanta, Dallas/Austin/Houston, Charlotte/Raleigh, Salt Lake City, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Tampa/St Pettersburgh area, Denver/colorado springs, etc...

I don't understand any of that. I just comment from my 3 decades of experience visiting, working in, living in, the USA. Guess I had my eyes closed.

 

[saabe]

I don't understand any of that. I just comment from my 3 decades of experience visiting, working in, living in, the USA. Guess I had my eyes closed.

San Francisco is not America. Not everyone is a T-shirt wearing millennial working for google. Do you think the wealthiest and best-educated people in let's say,.....Houston , Atlanta or Detroit area vote for democrats? Where is more land available? In the outskirts of Atlanta or in the center of SF or Manhattan? You're very smart, you know what I'm talking about. I also visited the US many times, and as a "US fan" probably know more about USA than Europe (which btw,...bores me to death).

 

[SusieQQQ]

San Francisco is not America. Not everyone is a T-shirt wearing millennial working for google. Do you think the wealthiest and best-educated people in let's say,.....Houston , Atlanta or Detroit area vote for democrats? Where is more land available? In the outskirts of Atlanta or in the center of SF or Manhattan? You're very smart, you know what I'm talking about. I also visited the US many times, and as a "US fan" probably know more about USA than Europe (which btw,...bores me to death).

Oh wait, we’ve heard this all before haven’t we? Even the same stupid examples you used before (you clearly have never spent much if any time in San Francisco). You do seem to have some kind of major chip on your shoulder, which leads you to spout stereotypes that are not at all helpful to people who are actually trying to make life decisions. And it’s boring.

 

[saabe]

Oh wait, we’ve heard this all before haven’t we? Even the same stupid examples you used before (you clearly have never spent much if any time in San Francisco). You do seem to have some kind of major chip on your shoulder, which leads you to spout stereotypes that are not at all helpful to people who are actually trying to make life decisions. And it’s boring.

Sorry if I offended anyone. Bottom line,....if he wants nice places with starbucks, sushi joints and bike-riding blondes.....he should be able to pay for it. If he only wants cities with liberal politicians and liberal policies,....all major cities in the US are democrat-run (even in alabama) and many of them are affordable,....minus property taxes. but generally they're not nice. The other alternative,.....he can live in the suburbs of some major mid-west or southern city,...more affordable than the ideal liberal places like San Francisco or Manhattan,...but they're definitely not liberal.

 

[Mijoro]

I didn’t realise that @Britsimon is a T Shirt wearing millennial

 

[Mijoro]

Sorry if I offended anyone. Bottom line,....if he wants nice places with starbucks, sushi joints and bike-riding blondes.....he should be able to pay for it. If he only wants cities with liberal politicians and liberal policies,....all major cities in the US are democrat-run and many of them are affordable,....minus property taxes. but generally they're not nice. The other alternative,.....he should live in the suburbs,...more affordable than the ideal liberal places like San Francisco or Manhattan,...but they're definitely not liberal.

You know cities have suburbs right ....

 

[saabe]

I didn’t realise that @Britsimon is a T Shirt wearing millennial

Oh my god! this is called rhetoric,...which may include sarcasm and intentional generalisations,...a common feature in western language. Of course not all citizens of SF are young techies,...and not all Brits drink tea at 5PM and not all Japanese love Manga .

 

[SusieQQQ]

I didn’t realise that @Britsimon is a T Shirt wearing millennial

 

[SusieQQQ]

Oh my god! this is called rhetoric,...which may include sarcasm and intentional generalisations,...a common feature in western language. Of course not all citizens of SF are young techies,...and not all Brits drink tea at 5PM and not all Japanese love Manga .

No, it’s called stereotyping. And it’s dumb.

If you were genuinely intending to use rhetoric and irony (preferable to sarcasm), may I bluntly suggest you need to learn how to phrase things better. But I don’t believe you were, precisely because of how you phrased it. Not to mention how you then ascribed a whole bunch of wants to someone who didn’t mention any of those things, because of your interpretation of what someone else might mean by one word. Huh? And bam once again you lured us into totally derailing a normal discussion. Sheesh.

 

[saabe]

You know cities have suburbs right ....

Really? Swear it!

 

[Mijoro]

Oh my god! this is called rhetoric,...which may include sarcasm and intentional generalisations,...a common feature in western language. Of course not all citizens of SF are young techies,...and not all Brits drink tea at 5PM and not all Japanese love Manga .

Calm down dear, perhaps take it down a notch or two.

Out of curiosity which country are you from?

 

[saabe]

No, it’s called stereotyping. And it’s dumb.

stereotyopes are linked to negative prejudices,...talking about young techies is not stereotyping, it's just a rethorical generalisation,...and indeed, San Francisco has probably the biggest density of IT professionals in the world and they're (mainly) the ones who are driving property prices up.