Here (https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/fivethirtyeight-debate-club-whats-the-best-state-in-the-u-s/) is a fun debate by FiveThirtyEight about which state would be the best one to live in if you were stuck there forever.
I thought this might be interesting for us to discuss as well, given that everyone is more or less stuck in their state right now unless they live very near a state line. There are a limited number of clear top contenders: California and New York are probably the top two. Maybe we could even come up with some metrics to use to rank all 50. But obviously, New York is #1. :)
Quote from: webny99 on May 16, 2020, 07:54:47 PM
I thought this might be interesting for us to discuss as well, given that everyone is more or less stuck in their state right now unless they live very near a state line.
Don't forget the several states that never had "stay at home" orders, and some more for which their orders have expired.
If you have lots of money, California (where I grew up) and Hawaii would be high on the list. I can't afford the latter, and the former would be a reach financially, due to their high cost of living (in Hawaii, it's called the "paradise tax").
From a purely financial perspective (but nice in other ways too), Vancouver WA is a dream place to retire, in a state with no income tax, next to a state with no sales tax.
California wouldn't be so bad given there is a huge variance in the types of scenery. Cost of living could be a huge issue in major metro areas though along with high taxes. I think that I could do Arizona but I would have to settle at a higher elevation like Prescott of Flagstaff.
I would love to be back in Maine. Kittery is just a bridge away (well, three, really) from Portsmouth, NH. However, I'd likely be in Portland.
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 16, 2020, 11:15:49 PM
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees. Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag. The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous. Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.
If I had my choice, it would be a tossup between Texas and New Mexico. Corpus Christi is where I would live if I chose Texas, and I agree with Max that New Mexico does rugged better than West Texas or Oklahoma. New Mexico is more my speed politically (all I'm going to say on that), but Texas has more opportunities and no state income tax.
Unfortunately, I'm stuck in Michigan because I have fantastic health insurance, and I'm not sure I could get as good of coverage in other states. I do have mental health and regular health issues to be concerned with.
If you couldn't leave, I would go with California. Fantastic national parks, big cities, beaches, mountains, desert, redwoods, theme parks, interstates, everything.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2020, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 16, 2020, 11:15:49 PM
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees. Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag. [...]
I would second this. In my limited experience, the Piney Woods are much closer in character to both, and Louisiana especially. Come to think of it, what part of the state does the Texas stereotype best characterize? Any part at all? Talk about an identity crisis...
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2020, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 16, 2020, 11:15:49 PM
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees. Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag. The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous. Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.
East Texas is largely forested with wetlands. Becomes largely plains west of San Antonio, then transitioning into desert the further west you go.
Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.
And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.
I myself would probably be content living in the eastern half of Minnesota my whole life. Abundant clean lakes and rivers, vast forests, cities that are big but not too big and are easy to quickly leave behind, rolling hills, bluffs, and cliffs. Taxes are a bit high for some to stomach but it's part of why our quality of life is top-3.
The western half, not so much of these things.
Unfortunately government has ruined many states, and that may vary depending on your belief system.
I vote NH.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 17, 2020, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2020, 11:47:11 PM
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 16, 2020, 11:15:49 PM
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
That definitely isn't "everything" if you're missing large swathes of trees. Personally the state east of San Antonio has way too much in common with Louisiana and Arkansas to be my bag. The western part of the state is intriguingly remote and mountainous. Even still, I've always felt as though New Mexico does the whole rugged lifestyle thing that western Texas tries so hard be.
East Texas is largely forested with wetlands. Becomes largely plains west of San Antonio, then transitioning into desert the further west you go.
Yes, but they are all "civilized forests" in eastern Texas along with a handful of swamps. If I want to visit some real swamps in a deep murky forest than Louisiana and Florida do that way better than Texas. In western Texas you have the likes of Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Big Bend National Park, both which are very much mountainous.
Speaking of Mountains, Colorado would have been high on my list ten-twenty years ago. The urban areas started getting way too hipster around that time to be something I think that I could tolerate long term. The Front Range westward is top notch and probably some of the best terrain in the country. Personally I would probably choose Wyoming or Montana over Colorado for somewhere to settle for good.
Texas for me
Quote from: Bruce on May 17, 2020, 03:02:57 AM
Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.
And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.
The biggest issue I see with Washington is two things; how difficult Seattle can be to deal with, but more so the constant grey dreariness west of the Cascades in winter. Personally I don't mind the winter weather in Washington, but it definitely isn't for everyone. We have looked at possibly transferring to the Kitsap area in the future, the winter weather is what concerns my wife the most.
Well, if I could leave, than I would stay in Massachusetts.
538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it. Nate Silver is an idiot.
Anyway, the obvious answer is there is no obvious answer. First, of course, people are different. Different desires, different likes and dislikes, different ideas about what is good and bad (something most 'urban planners' do not understand), different values. Second, nothing is "permanent". For just one example, California spent the better part of a century being one of the most desirable places to live and welcomed millions from other states. Now it has become a ****hole and most people with an option are fleeing.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 17, 2020, 11:59:53 AM
538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it. Nate Silver is an idiot.
Trying to be a bi-partisan, data-based news outlet is a tricky needle to thread these days, and this post is a classic example of why. Personally, I have a lot of respect for any outlet that isn't explicitly catering to one partisan camp or the other, and FiveThirtyEight is one of the few remaining.
Anyways, this isn't supposed to be about politics, this is supposed to be an interesting thought experiment about the relative benefits of different states. The fact that there is no right answer is what makes it fun.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 12:15:42 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 17, 2020, 11:59:53 AM
538 is to serious politics and polling as watching YouTubes on a subject is to getting a PhD in it. Nate Silver is an idiot.
Trying to be a bi-partisan, data-based news outlet is a tricky needle to thread these days, and this post is a classic example of why. Personally, I have a lot of respect for any outlet that isn't explicitly catering to one partisan camp or the other, and FiveThirtyEight is one of the few remaining.
Anyways, this isn't supposed to be about politics, this is supposed to be a fun thought experiment about the relative benefits of different states.
Don't bother with SP. Any media that isn't openly hard right is too far left for him. Move along with the rest of the discussion.
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
If you like an urban lifestyle, upstate NY is cheaper than anything in CA, while NYC is more diverse.
If you like a suburban lifestyle, all major NY cities including NYC have good suburbs - best in the nation, I would argue - that have larger properties at a much lower price than what you'll find in CA.
If you like a rural lifestyle, NY has the Adirondacks, the Finger Lakes, and the 1000 Islands. Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
If you like an urban lifestyle, upstate NY is cheaper than anything in CA, while NYC is more diverse.
If you like a suburban lifestyle, all major NY cities including NYC have good suburbs - best in the nation, I would argue - that have larger properties at a much lower price than what you'll find in CA.
If you like a rural lifestyle, NY has the Adirondacks, the Finger Lakes, and the 1000 Islands. Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.
Real mountains, all you have out east is big hills at best. Mountains aren't the same when they don't have potential volcanic activity or top 10,000 feet in elevation. The coast line here (especially in Big Sur and the Lost Coast) is pretty unique and far more dramatic than the East Coast.
I certainly haven't been everywhere in the country. Of the places I've been, I've usually thought they were great places to visit. But overall, if I had to choose one place to stay, it would be my home state of Michigan. It provides a great diversity of environments and has 4 true seasons, none of them extreme. Sure there's things that aren't perfect and some things that are just plain bad, but what state doesn't have those?
Quote from: GaryV on May 17, 2020, 05:50:37 PM
I certainly haven't been everywhere in the country. Of the places I've been, I've usually thought they were great places to visit. But overall, if I had to choose one place to stay, it would be my home state of Michigan. It provides a great diversity of environments and has 4 true seasons, none of them extreme. Sure there's things that aren't perfect and some things that are just plain bad, but what state doesn't have those?
I was so bored there the two times I lived in the Lower Peninsula. When I was in High School there was almost no outdoor activities or things like hiking trails to be had. The lack of sunlight after 4 PM in the winter was totally depression inducing, but I did like how late it stayed light out in the summer. The City of Detroit is bad enough to drive someone to clinical depression along with trails and tribulations of the auto industry. The Upper Peninsula couldn't be anymore different than the Lower Peninsula in a good way, truly an outdoorsy person's paradise. The Lower Peninsula has gotten substantially better in terms of recreation, especially with the Metro Park System around Detroit.
Other states that I can see an argument for:
Washington, Oregon, Texas, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
Maine, if it had a bigger city.
Tennesee, if it had a coastline.
Kentucky, same as above.
Ohio, if it had more varied landscape.
Illinois, same as above.
And some states are just too small. If we could consider all of New England a single state, it would be a legitimate top contender. But no single New England state has enough to contend with CA, NY, or even TX.
In terms of pure quality, Vermont is obviously #1, but the problem is that it has no big cities, no coastline, and lacks diversity.
The overriding issue for me would be tax policy. Tennessee has no income tax, but onerous sales taxes. Some states have no sales taxes, but the property taxes are punitive. The cost of living would be a prime consideration for me. How much do essentials such as food, housing, utilities, etc., cost? All things being equal, I'd choose the state that lets me keep more of my own money.
Climate-wise, is any place ideal? The south is too hot and humid in the summer. The north is too cold and snowy in the winter. Scenery, diversity, urban amenities, etc., are meaningless to me, although I'd definitely choose to live in a rural area over an urban or suburban one.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.
Sorry, but having been out west a lot including California, I just can't be impressed by the Appalachian Molehills.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 17, 2020, 06:04:09 PM
Climate-wise, is any place ideal?
San Diego, and parts of Hawaii (not the rainy east coasts), are pretty close to perfect. But you pay through the nose for that privilege.
The "Banana Belt" of Colorado (west of Pueblo) would also be a candidate, if you can handle the altitude.
The problem with Nate Silver, who also does the "ESPN win probability" numbers, has nothing to do with left-right politics. It has to do with the fact that he is wrong more often than he is right, and that he hedges his bets such that he never faces the consequences of his unscientific methods.
Most pollsters express their predictions as %ages, with a "margin of error". Most sports touts express their as a clear choice of A or B against the spread. Silver expresses his as a % chance of A or B happening. Which is cowardly. What value is there in that? Silver, in the last election said there was a 90% chance of A, which implied a 10% chance of B, and then actually TOOK CREDIT for "accurately" predicting that there was a possibility of B. Other pollsters, equally wrong, at least had the b***s to admit it. Watch me do Silver's act. In the next election for Dog Catcher in Dumptruck County, AR, I say there is a 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of B. An unloseable, and valueless, opinion. Likewise in sports, Silver never says "100%" and thus is, in his cowardly way, never wrong. Watch me do that. In the game this fall between Auburn and Furman, I say there is a 90% chance Auburn wins. Now should Furman win, look at me, I told you it was possible.
Junk science and cowardice.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
Real mountains, all you have out east is big hills at best. Mountains aren't the same when they don't have potential volcanic activity or top 10,000 feet in elevation.
I do have to take issue with real mountains being over 10,000 feet. The standard accepted definition is at least 1000 feet, and NY has many that are double, triple, even quadruple that. The Adirondacks are very much real mountains, you can call them big hills, but they are proper mountains even if they're not the Rockies or the Sierras. Besides, the quaint and forested nature of them has its own beauty. They are very different from the mountains out West that tower above the tree line, but they are not bad or inauthentic by any means.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 05:45:31 PM
The coast line here (especially in Big Sur and the Lost Coast) is pretty unique and far more dramatic than the East Coast.
That I will hand to you. Parts of the Great Lakes have impressive coastline, but not really in New York, unfortunately. And our Atlantic coastline is quite flat. You have to go up to Maine to get the true rugged Atlantic coastline.
Does Canada count as a state? Totally wouldn't mind living in Quebec forever.
That aside, I'm sick of living out in the boondocks. I'd probably pick a city that (a) supports engineering, (b) has good restaurants, and (c) doesn't require me to sell my liver for the sake of paying the rent. I guess I'd pick NYC or Boston. Recreational opportunities aren't terribly far away and both cities are diverse enough to support many types of restaurants from different cultures. Cost of living in both cities would be steep, but still possible to find an apartment for a reasonable price, if you know where to look.
Quote from: oscar on May 17, 2020, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.
Sorry, but having been out west a lot including California, I just can't be impressed by the Appalachian Molehills.
I don't mind if you're unimpressed as long as it is acknowledged that they are, indeed, mountains. Smaller, sure, less grand, certainly. But they are still beautiful, especially in the fall.
I love Texas. As long as you don't hate heat. Mountains west, open areas west, desert west, pine trees east, the gulf, lots of lakes, wonderful winters. living in the center of it you can go 10 hours NW, 9 hours to El Paso. Pretty much a little of everything here. When I was 37 I moved away from MN to Texas, never looked back.
And no state income tax.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 17, 2020, 06:12:15 PM
The problem with Nate Silver, who also does the "ESPN win probability" numbers, has nothing to do with left-right politics. It has to do with the fact that he is wrong more often than he is right, and that he hedges his bets such that he never faces the consequences of his unscientific methods.
Most pollsters express their predictions as %ages, with a "margin of error". Most sports touts express their as a clear choice of A or B against the spread. Silver expresses his as a % chance of A or B happening. Which is cowardly. What value is there in that? Silver, in the last election said there was a 90% chance of A, which implied a 10% chance of B, and then actually TOOK CREDIT for "accurately" predicting that there was a possibility of B. Other pollsters, equally wrong, at least had the b***s to admit it. Watch me do Silver's act. In the next election for Dog Catcher in Dumptruck County, AR, I say there is a 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of B. An unloseable, and valueless, opinion. Likewise in sports, Silver never says "100%" and thus is, in his cowardly way, never wrong. Watch me do that. In the game this fall between Auburn and Furman, I say there is a 90% chance Auburn wins. Now should Furman win, look at me, I told you it was possible.
Junk science and cowardice.
taking your personal political preference out of it, he got a lot of credit in 2012. In 2016 he got cocky and gave Hilary way too big of a chance of winning and had egg on his face. They do have interesting political analysis, even if too politically biased.
You can either say there is a so much pct chance of either way and never claim to be "right" or make a prediction. Agreed, you can't have it both ways.
Science does this too. They say they are only models, but then they say other things are "settled facts". Which is it?????
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 08:04:08 PM
In 2016 he got cocky and gave Hilary way too big of a chance of winning and had egg on his face. They do have interesting political analysis, even if too politically biased.
Exactly the opposite. He gave Trump a higher chance than other predictions.
FiveThirtyEight: 70%-30%
PredictIt (betting market): 80%-20%
New York Times: 85%-15%
HuffPost: 98%-2%
Quote from: 1 on May 17, 2020, 08:10:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 08:04:08 PM
In 2016 he got cocky and gave Hilary way too big of a chance of winning and had egg on his face. They do have interesting political analysis, even if too politically biased.
Exactly the opposite. He gave Trump a higher chance than other predictions.
FiveThirtyEight: 70%-30%
PredictIt (betting market): 80%-20%
New York Times: 85%-15%
HuffPost: 98%-2%
Lol at Huffpost.
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
Quote from: Bruce on May 17, 2020, 03:02:57 AM
Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.
And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.
And high altitude alpine and subalpine landscapes, and glaciers. And beaches. Some big city things to do if you like theatre, movies, music, etc. but also lots of countryside. In the west half of the state, mild summers and mild winters.
Are we supposed to be considering job availability, housing prices, tax rates, and cost of living? Quality of public schools?
Quote from: Ketchup99 on May 16, 2020, 11:15:49 PM
Texas has everything. Coastline, Cajuns, desert, cities, the South, the Southwest, plains. It's got everything you could want but forests.
what about the Piney Woods, all of East Texas?
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
I honestly get bored with Michigan. I live in a rather boring part of the state (Saginaw County) and there aren't many inland lakes around here, the land is flat for the most part and I've seen just about everything in a hundred mile radius at some point or another in my life. You can't go east because Lake Huron is in the way, same with going west to any extreme you'll eventually make it to Lake Michigan, then going too far north you get in the middle of nowhere easily and the cities and villages north of Saginaw, Bay City and Midland are small and far and few in between. Marquette is the largest city in the state north of Midland and Bay City at about 21,000. Alpena and Traverse City are the largest Lower Peninsula cities north of that same line with about 10,000 and 15,000 respectfully. The lakes are nice and there's enough to do but it's the same scenery all the time.
Going to the Upper Peninsula is pretty cool but the whole time you are going up there you are anticipating going over the Mackinac Bridge and then once you get over the bridge it's like what do I do now? Most people get off I-75 and take US-2 westbound or M-123. There isn't a whole lot up there though and unless you are really into outdoors kind of stuff you'll get bored quick.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
That was a real thing I witnessed first hand in many communities in Northern Arizona, it wasn't something that I expected. Granted, it didn't compare to the infinitely worse and outright vicious racism I witnessed from the Detroit suburban communities directed at minorities. That's one of the biggest reasons I'm glad to be away from in the Midwest, the rabid but yet somehow passive-aggressive middle class/white picket fence Baby Boomers. Michigan was surreal being back in during 2017 and 2019 when it was apparent those views on life were starting to die out with the younger generations coming of age.
On the whole Arizona had a ton of problems with racism in general in the early 2000s, especially directed at the Hispanic communities. It was ugly, unwarranted, and felt like much of what I saw from the same types of people in the Midwest. That's one of the things I don't miss about the Phoenix Area, hopefully it has gotten better this past decade with the Metro Area becoming more diverse.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2020, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 17, 2020, 03:02:57 AM
Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.
And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.
And high altitude alpine and subalpine landscapes, and glaciers. And beaches. Some big city things to do if you like theatre, movies, music, etc. but also lots of countryside. In the west half of the state, mild summers and mild winters.
Are we supposed to be considering job availability, housing prices, tax rates, and cost of living? Quality of public schools?
I consider things like the housing prices, cost of living, and taxes (I could care less about the schools personally). All of those things skyrocketing out of control are why I won't got back to the Los Angeles Area and left the Phoenix Area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 17, 2020, 10:25:32 PM
I honestly get bored with Michigan. I live in a rather boring part of the state (Saginaw County) and there aren't many inland lakes around here, the land is flat for the most part and I've seen just about everything in a hundred mile radius at some point or another in my life. You can't go east because Lake Huron is in the way, same with going west to any extreme you'll eventually make it to Lake Michigan, then going too far north you get in the middle of nowhere easily and the cities and villages north of Saginaw, Bay City and Midland are small and far and few in between. Marquette is the largest city in the state north of Midland and Bay City at about 21,000. Alpena and Traverse City are the largest Lower Peninsula cities north of that same line with about 10,000 and 15,000 respectfully. The lakes are nice and there's enough to do but it's the same scenery all the time.
Going to the Upper Peninsula is pretty cool but the whole time you are going up there you are anticipating going over the Mackinac Bridge and then once you get over the bridge it's like what do I do now? Most people get off I-75 and take US-2 westbound or M-123. There isn't a whole lot up there though and unless you are really into outdoors kind of stuff you'll get bored quick.
The best thing Detroit had going IMO was that it had all the major sports easily available. Outdoor activity required a significant drive to a Lake Shore somewhere and it was often easier just to go out of state.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 07:22:49 PM
Quote from: oscar on May 17, 2020, 06:10:20 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Nothing as dramatic as the Sierra Nevadas, but we certainly have mountains, forests, lakes, and farm country. Desert is the only notable exception.
Sorry, but having been out west a lot including California, I just can't be impressed by the Appalachian Molehills.
I don't mind if you're unimpressed as long as it is acknowledged that they are, indeed, mountains. Smaller, sure, less grand, certainly. But they are still beautiful, especially in the fall.
Amusingly enough there isn't a universal definition of a mountain. But something that I can tell you having lived in places like New England and Midwest is that the mountains out East aren't in the same league as those in the Mountain West or West Coast. It took a really long time to get National Parks east of the Rockies en mass for a reason.
I'm going to (after years of railing against the place myself) go out on a limb and say New Jersey. I'm going to go further and say the western side of Jersey - and maybe even South.
It's way too late and I'm not writing an essay on my phone here, so I'll just give a shortlist on benefits:
1. 4 distinct seasons; even if they are all over the calendar a bit
2. Something for everybody in terms of shore, city, farm/rural, small towns, and even little mountains up in the skylands by the Poconos.
3. Sandwiched between two major cities (job opportunities, social lives, nightlife, things to do)
- but those cities are separated from us by rivers...
4. Excellent schools
5. Decent pay to cost of living ratio. You can go on about our taxes, but they do go down as you go south/west and job pay does scale as well.
6. They pump your gas. You think it's weird... until the dead of winter, when you're too chilly to complain. You don't need to tip, and gas prices are lower than the surrounding states anyway, so there's literally no reason to complain.
7. Surrounded by interesting history, as part of the 13 original colonies... and we have a lot of road firsts as well! You all wouldn't have a Good Roads Movement without the American Wheelmen of NJ.
8. Not known for major weather events - yes, some major storms knocked out the eastern half the state; I prefer the western half for that reason as well.
9. Generally no animals that want you dead. Our bears are more defensive than aggressive.
10. Just to make it a Top 10, let me think of one more... Let's go road related. Free state inspections, not even annually for most vehicles anymore.
I have to admit, this state is growing on me.
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 18, 2020, 12:43:30 AM
I'm going to (after years of railing against the place myself) go out on a limb and say New Jersey. I'm going to go further and say the western side of Jersey - and maybe even South.
It's way too late and I'm not writing an essay on my phone here, so I'll just give a shortlist on benefits:
1. 4 distinct seasons; even if they are all over the calendar a bit
2. Something for everybody in terms of shore, city, farm/rural, small towns, and even little mountains up in the skylands by the Poconos.
3. Sandwiched between two major cities (job opportunities, social lives, nightlife, things to do)
- but those cities are separated from us by rivers...
4. Excellent schools
5. Decent pay to cost of living ratio. You can go on about our taxes, but they do go down as you go south/west and job pay does scale as well.
6. They pump your gas. You think it's weird... until the dead of winter, when you're too chilly to complain. You don't need to tip, and gas prices are lower than the surrounding states anyway, so there's literally no reason to complain.
7. Surrounded by interesting history, as part of the 13 original colonies... and we have a lot of road firsts as well! You all wouldn't have a Good Roads Movement without the American Wheelmen of NJ.
8. Not known for major weather events - yes, some major storms knocked out the eastern half the state; I prefer the western half for that reason as well.
9. Generally no animals that want you dead. Our bears are more defensive than aggressive.
10. Just to make it a Top 10, let me think of one more... Let's go road related. Free state inspections, not even annually for most vehicles anymore.
I have to admit, this state is growing on me.
Animals that want you dead is a benefit, not a drawback.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 18, 2020, 12:44:30 AM
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 18, 2020, 12:43:30 AM
I'm going to (after years of railing against the place myself) go out on a limb and say New Jersey. I'm going to go further and say the western side of Jersey - and maybe even South.
It's way too late and I'm not writing an essay on my phone here, so I'll just give a shortlist on benefits:
1. 4 distinct seasons; even if they are all over the calendar a bit
2. Something for everybody in terms of shore, city, farm/rural, small towns, and even little mountains up in the skylands by the Poconos.
3. Sandwiched between two major cities (job opportunities, social lives, nightlife, things to do)
- but those cities are separated from us by rivers...
4. Excellent schools
5. Decent pay to cost of living ratio. You can go on about our taxes, but they do go down as you go south/west and job pay does scale as well.
6. They pump your gas. You think it's weird... until the dead of winter, when you're too chilly to complain. You don't need to tip, and gas prices are lower than the surrounding states anyway, so there's literally no reason to complain.
7. Surrounded by interesting history, as part of the 13 original colonies... and we have a lot of road firsts as well! You all wouldn't have a Good Roads Movement without the American Wheelmen of NJ.
8. Not known for major weather events - yes, some major storms knocked out the eastern half the state; I prefer the western half for that reason as well.
9. Generally no animals that want you dead. Our bears are more defensive than aggressive.
10. Just to make it a Top 10, let me think of one more... Let's go road related. Free state inspections, not even annually for most vehicles anymore.
I have to admit, this state is growing on me.
Animals that want you dead is a benefit, not a drawback.
Wouldn't the Jersey Devil technically be an animal that wants to kill pretty much everything that moves?...if you believe in that kind of thing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 11:01:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
That was a real thing I witnessed first hand in many communities in Northern Arizona, it wasn't something that I expected. Granted, it didn't compare to the infinitely worse and outright vicious racism I witnessed from the Detroit suburban communities directed at minorities. That's one of the biggest reasons I'm glad to be away from in the Midwest, the rabid but yet somehow passive-aggressive middle class/white picket fence Baby Boomers. Michigan was surreal being back in during 2017 and 2019 when it was apparent those views on life were starting to die out with the younger generations coming of age.
On the whole Arizona had a ton of problems with racism in general in the early 2000s, especially directed at the Hispanic communities. It was ugly, unwarranted, and felt like much of what I saw from the same types of people in the Midwest. That's one of the things I don't miss about the Phoenix Area, hopefully it has gotten better this past decade with the Metro Area becoming more diverse.
Quote from: kkt on May 17, 2020, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bruce on May 17, 2020, 03:02:57 AM
Washington has all the biomes that anyone would ever want. Rainforests, regular forests, mountains (including volcanoes), deserts, steepes, dry forests, and irrigated semiarid land. Our natural disasters are a bit less frequent, with rare earthquakes (but looming risks), seasonal windstorms, and very rare tornadoes.
And it's a bit more affordable than California. And our (plentiful) water tastes good. There's also no income tax, which is nice for high earners (hence Bezos and Gates staying here) but sucks for most people.
And high altitude alpine and subalpine landscapes, and glaciers. And beaches. Some big city things to do if you like theatre, movies, music, etc. but also lots of countryside. In the west half of the state, mild summers and mild winters.
Are we supposed to be considering job availability, housing prices, tax rates, and cost of living? Quality of public schools?
I consider things like the housing prices, cost of living, and taxes (I could care less about the schools personally). All of those things skyrocketing out of control are why I won't got back to the Los Angeles Area and left the Phoenix Area.
Quote from: Flint1979 on May 17, 2020, 10:25:32 PM
I honestly get bored with Michigan. I live in a rather boring part of the state (Saginaw County) and there aren't many inland lakes around here, the land is flat for the most part and I've seen just about everything in a hundred mile radius at some point or another in my life. You can't go east because Lake Huron is in the way, same with going west to any extreme you'll eventually make it to Lake Michigan, then going too far north you get in the middle of nowhere easily and the cities and villages north of Saginaw, Bay City and Midland are small and far and few in between. Marquette is the largest city in the state north of Midland and Bay City at about 21,000. Alpena and Traverse City are the largest Lower Peninsula cities north of that same line with about 10,000 and 15,000 respectfully. The lakes are nice and there's enough to do but it's the same scenery all the time.
Going to the Upper Peninsula is pretty cool but the whole time you are going up there you are anticipating going over the Mackinac Bridge and then once you get over the bridge it's like what do I do now? Most people get off I-75 and take US-2 westbound or M-123. There isn't a whole lot up there though and unless you are really into outdoors kind of stuff you'll get bored quick.
The best thing Detroit had going IMO was that it had all the major sports easily available. Outdoor activity required a significant drive to a Lake Shore somewhere and it was often easier just to go out of state.
Detroit is a great sports town indeed. The past few years haven't been too good for any Detroit team though. All are last place material but Detroit is still a great sports town with the four major sports.
I've never been a Detroit sports fan though, I opted to go with rival Chicago (Sox, Hawks, Bears, Bulls) but I respect the teams in Detroit they are all historic teams in their respective sports.
I agree with that coming from Detroit it's at least a three hour drive to any significant lake community. I'm talking like as you go north of Arenac County. Indiana's dunes and the western part of Michigan are just as easily accessible. And there are some parts of the U.P. that are difficult to access.
A trip from Detroit to the U.P. is a journey. It's 289 miles from downtown Detroit to the Mackinac Bridge. It's just as easy to go to Chicago or especially Cleveland. I think you could make it from Detroit to Cleveland before you'd make it up north in Michigan.
Quote from: SP Cook on May 17, 2020, 06:12:15 PM
The problem with Nate Silver, who also does the "ESPN win probability" numbers, has nothing to do with left-right politics. It has to do with the fact that he is wrong more often than he is right, and that he hedges his bets such that he never faces the consequences of his unscientific methods.
Most pollsters express their predictions as %ages, with a "margin of error". Most sports touts express their as a clear choice of A or B against the spread. Silver expresses his as a % chance of A or B happening. Which is cowardly. What value is there in that? Silver, in the last election said there was a 90% chance of A, which implied a 10% chance of B, and then actually TOOK CREDIT for "accurately" predicting that there was a possibility of B. Other pollsters, equally wrong, at least had the b***s to admit it. Watch me do Silver's act. In the next election for Dog Catcher in Dumptruck County, AR, I say there is a 85% chance of A and a 15% chance of B. An unloseable, and valueless, opinion. Likewise in sports, Silver never says "100%" and thus is, in his cowardly way, never wrong. Watch me do that. In the game this fall between Auburn and Furman, I say there is a 90% chance Auburn wins. Now should Furman win, look at me, I told you it was possible.
Junk science and cowardice.
As a statistician, I can tell you his methods are pretty sound.
As you noted, polls provide percentages with a +/- margin of error. What he is doing is talking all of those polls, analyzing them, and creating a predictive model that assigns a % likelihood to each outcome. As someone else noted, he gave Trump a 30% chance of winning in 2016 when everybody else was giving him less than 20%. He recognized systematic flaws in polling that nobody else did, though those flaws were more pronounced than even he realized.
Back to the original question - there really isn't a universal answer because everybody has different preferences. I've enjoyed visiting the south but the climate is too warm and humid for me to consider living there. If you care about the cost of living either coast becomes difficult. If you care about living near your parents or other family members that becomes limiting as well. I'm fine with Indiana for now, but once my parents are gone, I'm considering northern Arizona. Not humid, but elevated enough so as not to be scorching hot.
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:58:19 PM
Ohio, if it had more varied landscape.
The Turnpike has some large hills and rock cuts east of Sandusky and there are some large hills in the Mansfield/Ashland area.
Quote from: ftballfan on May 18, 2020, 10:06:24 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:58:19 PM
Ohio, if it had more varied landscape.
The Turnpike has some large hills and rock cuts east of Sandusky and there are some large hills in the Mansfield/Ashland area.
SE of Columbus it has more in common with West Virginia too.
If I had to live in a rural area, it would be very tough to choose, but the top 5 would be Vermont, Maine, Michigan (UP), Montana, and Wyoming.
For a suburban area, call me biased if you want, but I really do think Upstate NY suburbs are among the best in the nation.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
I love western landscapes and outdoor opportunities. As such, Colorado and Utah are big favorites of mine. I'm curious to know how the cost of living compares between the two states.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 17, 2020, 11:01:28 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
That was a real thing I witnessed first hand in many communities in Northern Arizona, it wasn't something that I expected. Granted, it didn't compare to the infinitely worse and outright vicious racism I witnessed from the Detroit suburban communities directed at minorities. That's one of the biggest reasons I'm glad to be away from in the Midwest, the rabid but yet somehow passive-aggressive middle class/white picket fence Baby Boomers.
[/quote]
Yeah, there's some animosity in STL between both whites towards black city dwellers and blacks towards white suburbanites. Neither side seems to want their "spheres of influence" overlapping. It's a tense, irrational, and frankly unhealthy relationship at times.
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 18, 2020, 09:09:37 AM
Back to the original question - there really isn't a universal answer because everybody has different preferences. I've enjoyed visiting the south but the climate is too warm and humid for me to consider living there. If you care about the cost of living either coast becomes difficult. If you care about living near your parents or other family members that becomes limiting as well. I'm fine with Indiana for now, but once my parents are gone, I'm considering northern Arizona. Not humid, but elevated enough so as not to be scorching hot.
If you're looking at northern Arizona, consider looking down here as well.
I live at just under 4700 feet. I look up at 9000 foot mountain peaks. The temperature very seldom breaks 100 degrees Fahrenheit here. We get occasional snow, but it doesn't last.
I moved out here from the Chicago suburbs, where I had lived for over thirty years, and I know the way to Three Floyds. When I took my car to the dealer in Tucson the first time, he told me that I should change my oil twice as often as the manufacturer's recommendation because Arizona represented "severe service". I told him "no, thanks." Where I live it doesn't get any warmer than it does in Chicago, but it gets one hell of a lot colder in Chicago than it does here, and I have put over 170,000 miles on this car.
We have a decent cost of living, good weather, great scenery, interesting small towns, and we're not that far from Phoenix or (especially) Tucson. Wish we had a beach, but Puerto Penasco is about a five hour drive.
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It's just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It’s just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
There's some truth to that - precisely why I said "I'll stay here until retirement" - in 30 years I envision myself cashing out my will-be valuable Idaho dollars to buy some land in Nebraska and a place somewhere in Mexico and live the high life.
It could also go the other way - we have ideologues from all over the spectrum moving here from California - both Bay Area types that just want a lower cost of living but tend to be super liberal and other California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 02:35:41 PM
call me biased if you want
I mean I was feeling kinda like this whole thread was so you could argue everybody should want to live in NY. :biggrin:
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 04:24:55 PM
California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
This boggles the mind.
Please tell me there's a cute nickname to call people like that.
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 04:24:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It's just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
There's some truth to that - precisely why I said "I'll stay here until retirement" - in 30 years I envision myself cashing out my will-be valuable Idaho dollars to buy some land in Nebraska and a place somewhere in Mexico and live the high life.
It could also go the other way - we have ideologues from all over the spectrum moving here from California - both Bay Area types that just want a lower cost of living but tend to be super liberal and other California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
In the case of my brother it would be the uber conservative Arizonan type. I know he's convinced a lot of his friends that Boise is a mini-Phoenix waiting to have it's low cost of living exploited. Idaho sounds great to me, but it wouldn't be to the Boise Area where that urban boom is taking place. The Arizonans are attracted by the low living costs just as much as the Californians it seems.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 04:24:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It’s just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
There's some truth to that - precisely why I said "I'll stay here until retirement" - in 30 years I envision myself cashing out my will-be valuable Idaho dollars to buy some land in Nebraska and a place somewhere in Mexico and live the high life.
It could also go the other way - we have ideologues from all over the spectrum moving here from California - both Bay Area types that just want a lower cost of living but tend to be super liberal and other California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
In the case of my brother it would be the uber conservative Arizonan type. I know he’s convinced a lot of his friends that Boise is a mini-Phoenix waiting to have it’s low cost of living exploited. Idaho sounds great to me, but it wouldn’t be to the Boise Area where that urban boom is taking place. The Arizonans are attracted by the low living costs just as much as the Californians it seems.
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 04:24:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It's just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
There's some truth to that - precisely why I said "I'll stay here until retirement" - in 30 years I envision myself cashing out my will-be valuable Idaho dollars to buy some land in Nebraska and a place somewhere in Mexico and live the high life.
It could also go the other way - we have ideologues from all over the spectrum moving here from California - both Bay Area types that just want a lower cost of living but tend to be super liberal and other California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
In the case of my brother it would be the uber conservative Arizonan type. I know he's convinced a lot of his friends that Boise is a mini-Phoenix waiting to have it's low cost of living exploited. Idaho sounds great to me, but it wouldn't be to the Boise Area where that urban boom is taking place. The Arizonans are attracted by the low living costs just as much as the Californians it seems.
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
You've said before that you're a swing voter (reply #4 here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7761)). Has that changed?
Not Arkansas.
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 04:24:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 03:05:31 PM
Idaho, duh. Low cost of living, good but varied weather, some of the best scenery in the country, a wide variety of things to do especially if you like the outdoors, Boise is a very underrated place to live if you like small cities, and the state generally has (for this era) unusually pragmatic and non-ideological governance from both sides of the aisle (obviously some exceptions).
We may not have any truly big cities but Boise attracts good concerts, we don't have major league sports but we do have a good college football team, and we have a great restaurant/bar scene.
I plan to stay here until retirement.
Only problem with Idaho is that people like my brother found out about it. It's just a matter of time before the turn Boise into another Scottsdale.
There's some truth to that - precisely why I said "I'll stay here until retirement" - in 30 years I envision myself cashing out my will-be valuable Idaho dollars to buy some land in Nebraska and a place somewhere in Mexico and live the high life.
It could also go the other way - we have ideologues from all over the spectrum moving here from California - both Bay Area types that just want a lower cost of living but tend to be super liberal and other California people who erroneously think Idaho is some conservative utopia. The latter are hilarious because they're all too happy to tell you to "take your liberal values back to California" when you've been associated with the state for 20+ years and they just moved here in 2018.
In the case of my brother it would be the uber conservative Arizonan type. I know he's convinced a lot of his friends that Boise is a mini-Phoenix waiting to have it's low cost of living exploited. Idaho sounds great to me, but it wouldn't be to the Boise Area where that urban boom is taking place. The Arizonans are attracted by the low living costs just as much as the Californians it seems.
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
My brother is out by Meridian specifically and that description is pretty much spot on as to how I saw it the last time I visited.
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 18, 2020, 05:38:28 PM
Not Arkansas.
Hey, plenty of Walmart locations and even a National Park.
I do have to ask this when it comes to the question at hand: What happens when folks of a certain race or economic class can no longer enjoy the benefits of moving away? Do these folks take semi-proactive steps to try to make the situation around them a little better? Or do they just hunker down and curse the darkness around them?
Not to get too political, but there are folks of other races and economic classes who are very interested in what happens when the particular race/economic class mentioned above is "forced" to stay in place.
But if you'd want me to answer the question, I have lived in two states in the last 25 years (South Dakota and Colorado) that are very much optimum states to live in permanently. Which is a good thing, given how relatively communitarian both states are. Just don't expect to move to either state and expect it to be the answer to one's issues with the state they left.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 18, 2020, 05:38:28 PM
Not Arkansas.
Hey, plenty of Walmart locations and even a National Park.
I'd rather play up the negative stereotypes of my state, so that it isn't shortly overrun by those looking for cheaper/healthier places to move to. I don't want to have to move away in 30 years when I no longer recognize the place.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 18, 2020, 05:38:28 PM
Not Arkansas.
Hey, plenty of Walmart locations and even a National Park.
Plenty of mountains, too. I imagine you had Hot Springs NP in mind but up north is the Buffalo River.
When it comes to MO, you have two large cities, and the topography isn't all that boring with the Ozarks, though the best of them are in Arkansas. Max income tax percentage is 5.4% (I am not entirely sure about this). The south part of the state get quite hot in the summer and hardly gets any snow, while the north gets plenty. I obviously haven't lived long enough to say what the best state to live in is.
Quote from: 1 on May 18, 2020, 05:24:40 PM
You've said before that you're a swing voter (reply #4 here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7761)). Has that changed?
That was... eight years ago- without getting too far down an off-topic rabbit hole I'd say I'm still a potential swing voter at the local and state level and leave it at that.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on May 18, 2020, 06:21:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 18, 2020, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on May 18, 2020, 05:38:28 PM
Not Arkansas.
Hey, plenty of Walmart locations and even a National Park.
Plenty of mountains, too. I imagine you had Hot Springs NP in mind but up north is the Buffalo River.
When it comes to MO, you have two large cities, and the topography isn't all that boring with the Ozarks, though the best of them are in Arkansas. Max income tax percentage is 5.4% (I am not entirely sure about this). The south part of the state get quite hot in the summer and hardly gets any snow, while the north gets plenty. I obviously haven't lived long enough to say what the best state to live in is.
Yes, I was thinking about Hot Springs specifically but I know there are other worthwhile mountainous locales. I've always been surprised how much I end up enjoying Arkansas when I visit, it definitely doesn't have the reputation for outdoor activity. I really like the free highway maps at the State Travel centers, not many places do that anymore.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 18, 2020, 04:44:18 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 18, 2020, 02:35:41 PM
call me biased if you want
I mean I was feeling kinda like this whole thread was so you could argue everybody should want to live in NY. :biggrin:
Well of course! :)
But it has been an interesting discussion despite not being very NY-focused so far.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
I love western landscapes and outdoor opportunities. As such, Colorado and Utah are big favorites of mine. I'm curious to know how the cost of living compares between the two states.
my wife applied for the same job in Denver. they offered her less money even though cost of living is about 20% higher there.
Quote from: kphoger on May 18, 2020, 02:40:37 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 17, 2020, 10:25:18 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on May 17, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
I'm not old enough to make an entirely informed decision, but from my travels Texas seems like a good place to be. Favorable taxes, diverse terrain, and more. Utah would be a close runner up, but if I could never leave than I wouldn't want to be stuck there.
I have nothing against Mormons but when we considered moving there, our Mormon friend said it's really hard to live there w/o being Mormon due to discrimination...nothing bad it's just hard to get jobs over them, etc. I can probably pull it off but my wife can't smile that big.
I love western landscapes and outdoor opportunities. As such, Colorado and Utah are big favorites of mine. I'm curious to know how the cost of living compares between the two states.
Moab gets 7 inches of snow a year, just in that sweet spot
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
A comfortable climate?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2020, 05:03:01 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
A comfortable climate?
In "Ëœn Out?
More seriously though, CA also has real ocean coastline. That little stretch of Long Island ain't in the same universe.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:28:32 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2020, 05:03:01 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
A comfortable climate?
In "Ëœn Out?
More seriously though, CA also has real ocean coastline. That little stretch of Long Island ain't in the same universe.
What do you consider the difference? I'd take Fire Island over quite a few stretches of California shore.
Quote from: Rothman on May 19, 2020, 07:16:39 AM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on May 19, 2020, 05:28:32 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 19, 2020, 05:03:01 AM
Quote from: webny99 on May 17, 2020, 05:42:22 PM
Serious question: Besides desert, what does California have that New York doesn't?
A comfortable climate?
In "Ëœn Out?
More seriously though, CA also has real ocean coastline. That little stretch of Long Island ain't in the same universe.
What do you consider the difference? I'd take Fire Island over quite a few stretches of California shore.
Excluding the massive swathes of urban beaches featured in the news; Point Loma, Moro Bay, San Simeon, all of Big Sur, Pebble Beach, Alisomar State Beach, Fort Ord Dunes, Marin Headlands, Point Reyes, much of the North Shore, the Lost Coast, and segments of Redwood National Park.
Quote from: Konza on May 18, 2020, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 18, 2020, 09:09:37 AM
Back to the original question - there really isn't a universal answer because everybody has different preferences. I've enjoyed visiting the south but the climate is too warm and humid for me to consider living there. If you care about the cost of living either coast becomes difficult. If you care about living near your parents or other family members that becomes limiting as well. I'm fine with Indiana for now, but once my parents are gone, I'm considering northern Arizona. Not humid, but elevated enough so as not to be scorching hot.
If you're looking at northern Arizona, consider looking down here as well.
I live at just under 4700 feet. I look up at 9000 foot mountain peaks. The temperature very seldom breaks 100 degrees Fahrenheit here. We get occasional snow, but it doesn't last.
I moved out here from the Chicago suburbs, where I had lived for over thirty years, and I know the way to Three Floyds. When I took my car to the dealer in Tucson the first time, he told me that I should change my oil twice as often as the manufacturer's recommendation because Arizona represented "severe service". I told him "no, thanks." Where I live it doesn't get any warmer than it does in Chicago, but it gets one hell of a lot colder in Chicago than it does here, and I have put over 170,000 miles on this car.
We have a decent cost of living, good weather, great scenery, interesting small towns, and we're not that far from Phoenix or (especially) Tucson. Wish we had a beach, but Puerto Penasco is about a five hour drive.
How far from Tucson is not that far? Getting my wife to move anywhere that's > 30 minutes from a Target is going to be a challenge.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 19, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
Quote from: Konza on May 18, 2020, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 18, 2020, 09:09:37 AM
Back to the original question - there really isn't a universal answer because everybody has different preferences. I've enjoyed visiting the south but the climate is too warm and humid for me to consider living there. If you care about the cost of living either coast becomes difficult. If you care about living near your parents or other family members that becomes limiting as well. I'm fine with Indiana for now, but once my parents are gone, I'm considering northern Arizona. Not humid, but elevated enough so as not to be scorching hot.
If you're looking at northern Arizona, consider looking down here as well.
I live at just under 4700 feet. I look up at 9000 foot mountain peaks. The temperature very seldom breaks 100 degrees Fahrenheit here. We get occasional snow, but it doesn't last.
I moved out here from the Chicago suburbs, where I had lived for over thirty years, and I know the way to Three Floyds. When I took my car to the dealer in Tucson the first time, he told me that I should change my oil twice as often as the manufacturer's recommendation because Arizona represented "severe service". I told him "no, thanks." Where I live it doesn't get any warmer than it does in Chicago, but it gets one hell of a lot colder in Chicago than it does here, and I have put over 170,000 miles on this car.
We have a decent cost of living, good weather, great scenery, interesting small towns, and we're not that far from Phoenix or (especially) Tucson. Wish we had a beach, but Puerto Penasco is about a five hour drive.
How far from Tucson is not that far? Getting my wife to move anywhere that's > 30 minutes from a Target is going to be a challenge.
Out west most view that on a different scale. I viewed 3 hours as not far when I lived in Arizona.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2020, 09:55:53 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 19, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
Quote from: Konza on May 18, 2020, 03:45:14 PM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 18, 2020, 09:09:37 AM
Back to the original question - there really isn't a universal answer because everybody has different preferences. I've enjoyed visiting the south but the climate is too warm and humid for me to consider living there. If you care about the cost of living either coast becomes difficult. If you care about living near your parents or other family members that becomes limiting as well. I'm fine with Indiana for now, but once my parents are gone, I'm considering northern Arizona. Not humid, but elevated enough so as not to be scorching hot.
If you're looking at northern Arizona, consider looking down here as well.
I live at just under 4700 feet. I look up at 9000 foot mountain peaks. The temperature very seldom breaks 100 degrees Fahrenheit here. We get occasional snow, but it doesn't last.
I moved out here from the Chicago suburbs, where I had lived for over thirty years, and I know the way to Three Floyds. When I took my car to the dealer in Tucson the first time, he told me that I should change my oil twice as often as the manufacturer's recommendation because Arizona represented "severe service". I told him "no, thanks." Where I live it doesn't get any warmer than it does in Chicago, but it gets one hell of a lot colder in Chicago than it does here, and I have put over 170,000 miles on this car.
We have a decent cost of living, good weather, great scenery, interesting small towns, and we're not that far from Phoenix or (especially) Tucson. Wish we had a beach, but Puerto Penasco is about a five hour drive.
How far from Tucson is not that far? Getting my wife to move anywhere that's > 30 minutes from a Target is going to be a challenge.
Out west most view that on a different scale. I viewed 3 hours as not far when I lived in Arizona.
I love telling my Uber passengers something is "only 8 hours away". To them that's the other end of the world. In Texas it's nothing. 3 hours to Dallas or Houston is barely a blip on the radar to us.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 19, 2020, 10:07:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2020, 09:55:53 AM
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 19, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
How far from Tucson is not that far? Getting my wife to move anywhere that's > 30 minutes from a Target is going to be a challenge.
Out west most view that on a different scale. I viewed 3 hours as not far when I lived in Arizona.
I love telling my Uber passengers something is "only 8 hours away". To them that's the other end of the world. In Texas it's nothing. 3 hours to Dallas or Houston is barely a blip on the radar to us.
3 hours does not sound like much to me at all. Easy day trip range.
I don't think it's so much an east vs. west phenomenon as it is just what you're used to, and to some extent, what type of area you live in. Distances generally sound much farther when you live in an urban or downtown area.
For sure.
Growing up in northwestern Kansas, my piano teacher was 30 miles away in another county, my orthodontist was 50 miles away in another state, away games for football or track could be as much as 90 miles away, the nearest mall was upwards of 130 miles away. Once or twice a year, our family would drive more than 200 miles to Denver and stay the night, just to be able to shop at places like a uniform store, a yarn store, a "big" liquor store, etc. My senior year of high school, to visit a college, I drove those 200 miles to DIA by myself before dawn, in order to catch a flight to Chicago.
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
Out of curiosity, why does a neighborhood's predominant political affiliation make you avoid going there? How do they "get in your bubble" or you get in theirs otherwise?
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:16:39 PM
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
I don't think other cities, including my own, are as clearly defined.
Around here, most suburbs would be close enough to 50-50% that I could never assume that a given area or neighborhood strongly favors one party or the other. And it's certainly not something I'd be able to decipher just by getting gas or going to the grocery store.
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
Out of curiosity, why does a neighborhood's predominant political affiliation make you avoid going there? How do they "get in your bubble" or you get in theirs otherwise?
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
My perspective may be different, but the reasons I avoid going out towards Meridian are that's it's just generic strip malls, generic suburban housing, and lots of traffic (Eagle Rd is worse than anything else in Boise proper). I used to live near all that, by Eagle/Overland, and while I didn't hate it, I far prefer my current place on the Boise Bench. I sometimes have reasons to go out that way, but it's not often (during the pandemic anyways, with my every 2 week D&D session at my friend's house in Meridian currently on hold). It's not so much for political reasons (though there is probably some correlation between republican leaning areas and generic suburbs with strip malls). Most of the time, it's not actively avoiding it, it's just I can find everything I need closer to home where it's more convenient (the farthest west I regularly go is the Boise Towne Square Mall; anything I can find in Meridian, I can probably find near there too).
I visit plenty of deep red (eg. Idaho Falls or Burns, OR), and deep blue (eg. Portland and Seattle) areas, and everything in between. I don't really chose my destinations based on politics. I do kind of appreciate "purple" areas like Boise and Salt Lake City though, they often are the best of both worlds, though it doesn't really matter much when you're just visiting (but it can be a good factor to choose where you live).
Looking past commute reasons (commuting from Nampa to Boise during normal work hours sucks), if I didn't live in Boise, I'd actually rather live in Nampa than Meridian, the city feels like it has more of a soul, while Meridian kinda feels "soulless" if that makes sense. Even though Nampa is probably a bit more republican than Meridian (showing it's not directly politics related, at least to me). I lived 4 years in Nampa, 2 in Meridian, and 2 (and counting) in Boise so I think I have a decent perspective on things.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I used to think that but being a conservative living in Austin, they mayor has defied the governors order and stores harass you about not wearing a mask. I go 10 minutes to Buda, half wear, half don't, and no one hassles you. We'll be moving to Hays County next year.
Quote from: cabiness42 on May 19, 2020, 08:25:50 AM
How far from Tucson is not that far? Getting my wife to move anywhere that's > 30 minutes from a Target is going to be a challenge.
Tucson is about a 75 minute drive, depending where in Tucson. Tucson, due to the relative absence of freeways, can be slow to navigate. Sierra Vista proudly hosts a Target, Walmart, Dillard's, Lowe's, Hope Depot, and Best Buy.
And there are towns down here that lean far right and far left. Either one can lead to groupthink and intolerance, which can lead them to be inhospitable for those who don't at least lean the same way.
Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:52:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:16:39 PM
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
I don't think other cities, including my own, are as clearly defined.
Around here, most suburbs would be close enough to 50-50% that I could never assume that a given area or neighborhood strongly favors one party or the other. And it's certainly not something I'd be able to decipher just by getting gas or going to the grocery store.
The Brighton Central School District was deep blue when I was in school, but of course that isn't the whole town, and things could have changed by now.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: corco on May 18, 2020, 05:10:03 PM
What's nice is that Boise is pretty fragmented politically- those uber-conservative types who just want to buy big property at a lower price than they can in California/Arizona all tend to live out in Meridian/Eagle along the Idaho 55 corridor and west, while most of the rest of us live in Boise proper - Cole Rd is the typical dividing line, with the area between Cole and Cloverdale serving as a buffer zone of sorts.
I just avoid going west at all costs (Eagle Rd especially is very Phoenix-like) and let those folks do their thing over there, and because of that I love Boise - we more or less stay out of each other's bubbles. If I lived out there I'd probably hate Boise.
Out of curiosity, why does a neighborhood's predominant political affiliation make you avoid going there? How do they "get in your bubble" or you get in theirs otherwise?
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
Sorry - I think "political party" got conflated with personality type - the folks that live in Eagle/Meridian tend these days to be the uber-conservative Californians I referenced above and I just don't like what they like. The traffic out there is worse, you're just hanging out in generic strip malls at huge chain restaurants with rich people in lifted pickups, and it's overall just not where I want to be. The people who live out there seem to like it out there, but it's not my scene I guess. And that's fine. One of the things I like about Greater Boise is there are options for everybody, and it's pretty easy to avoid things you don't like.
I'd agree with comments above that although Nampa is probably more Republican and classically conservative than even Eagle it's also catering to a very different demographic than Eagle/Meridian - and one I agree I'd rather live in.
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn't going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I'm assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I'm obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that's why it's different in reverse.
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn't going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I'm assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I'm obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that's why it's different in reverse.
And, as I was mowing the lawn yesterday evening, I realized exactly what you said. I guess it didn't occur to me while posting because I didn't think any of that was true of
corco. But yes, I certainly
do understand someone who is "flamboyant" (for lack of a better word) having a legitimate reason for avoiding deep red areas. The same, these days perhaps, also goes for anyone who looks remotely like they're from the Middle East.
I wonder if the reverse is also true. A few posts ago,
texaskdog mentioned moving out of Austin. He didn't specifically say that the political climate is the reason, but it's possible that's what he meant. I can definitely imagine, for example, being harassed in the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago if I were wearing a MAGA hat or something like that. And I have personally had black teenagers throw rocks at me in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago when I was simply walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday morning.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2020, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn't going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I'm assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I'm obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that's why it's different in reverse.
And, as I was mowing the lawn yesterday evening, I realized exactly what you said. I guess it didn't occur to me while posting because I didn't think any of that was true of corco. But yes, I certainly do understand someone who is "flamboyant" (for lack of a better word) having a legitimate reason for avoiding deep red areas. The same, these days perhaps, also goes for anyone who looks remotely like they're from the Middle East.
I wonder if the reverse is also true. A few posts ago, texaskdog mentioned moving out of Austin. He didn't specifically say that the political climate is the reason, but it's possible that's what he meant. I can definitely imagine, for example, being harassed in the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago if I were wearing a MAGA hat or something like that. And I have personally had black teenagers throw rocks at me in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago when I was simply walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday morning.
That's just a bad neighborhood in Chicago.
Quote from: vdeane on May 19, 2020, 09:41:34 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 19, 2020, 04:52:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:16:39 PM
I guess I've just never even considered avoiding shopping at or traveling through a certain part of town based on how the residents there vote.
I don't think other cities, including my own, are as clearly defined.
Around here, most suburbs would be close enough to 50-50% that I could never assume that a given area or neighborhood strongly favors one party or the other. And it's certainly not something I'd be able to decipher just by getting gas or going to the grocery store.
The Brighton Central School District was deep blue when I was in school, but of course that isn't the whole town, and things could have changed by now.
Likely still the case, since Brighton is an inner-ring, old-money suburb with a sizable Jewish population. My guess would be that the parts of Brighton that aren't part of the school district are lighter blue.
Really the entire East Ave corridor from downtown to Pittsford and beyond is very blue. It's often thought that well-to-do suburbs tend to lean red, but that's certainly not the case with the older ones around Rochester like Pittsford and Brighton.
It would seem hard to make distinctions about local culture based on geographical borders (or borders placed on a map) but they're there. There isn't a whole lot of difference between Lee and Breathitt counties in Kentucky, except the county seat of Breathitt is bigger than the county seat of Lee, and the population and land mass areas are larger as well. But Lee is staunchly Republican and Breathitt is staunchly Democrat. Two adjoining counties, but the social and political cultures are vastly different. So you can't paint a broad geographical area with the same brush.
What would everyone's criteria be for determining where to live permanently?
For me, I'd be looking primarily at climate, housing prices, and distance to relatives.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 10:54:00 AM
What would everyone's criteria be for determining where to live permanently?
For me, I'd be looking primarily at climate, housing prices, and distance to relatives.
At this stage in my life I'm looking for some mix of career opportunities, cost of living relative to median salary, number of available women, and weather (prefer cold and on the dry end but flexible on that, Boise is warmer than my preferred climate).
I expect when I retire I'll be looking for a rural area with some character where I can get some amount of land inexpensively and is centrally located for roadtrips to live out a retirement in relative solitude but that is also in a colder, drier climate. Trinidad, Colorado and Chadron, Nebraska probably fit that bill best right now- but who knows what my tastes will be in 25+ years.
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2020, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn’t going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I’m assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I’m obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that’s why it’s different in reverse.
And, as I was mowing the lawn yesterday evening, I realized exactly what you said. I guess it didn't occur to me while posting because I didn't think any of that was true of corco. But yes, I certainly do understand someone who is "flamboyant" (for lack of a better word) having a legitimate reason for avoiding deep red areas. The same, these days perhaps, also goes for anyone who looks remotely like they're from the Middle East.
I wonder if the reverse is also true. A few posts ago, texaskdog mentioned moving out of Austin. He didn't specifically say that the political climate is the reason, but it's possible that's what he meant. I can definitely imagine, for example, being harassed in the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago if I were wearing a MAGA hat or something like that. And I have personally had black teenagers throw rocks at me in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago when I was simply walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday morning.
I'm conservative and I moved to Austin because I love the laid back atmosphere. But "we the people" voted out every conservative and the city council does what they want. The mayor has decided everyone must wear a mask and I have asthma and can't do that. Thus we have to go to Hays County (only 10 minutes away) to eat and shop. whatever your political persuasion it's not much fun living somewhere around people who think so differently.
On the other hand, gay people, interracial couples, pretty much anyone can be themselves without harassment which is one of the things I like about Austin. So we'll be close to Austin just not in Austin.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 21, 2020, 11:13:31 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2020, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn't going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I'm assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I'm obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that's why it's different in reverse.
And, as I was mowing the lawn yesterday evening, I realized exactly what you said. I guess it didn't occur to me while posting because I didn't think any of that was true of corco. But yes, I certainly do understand someone who is "flamboyant" (for lack of a better word) having a legitimate reason for avoiding deep red areas. The same, these days perhaps, also goes for anyone who looks remotely like they're from the Middle East.
I wonder if the reverse is also true. A few posts ago, texaskdog mentioned moving out of Austin. He didn't specifically say that the political climate is the reason, but it's possible that's what he meant. I can definitely imagine, for example, being harassed in the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago if I were wearing a MAGA hat or something like that. And I have personally had black teenagers throw rocks at me in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago when I was simply walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday morning.
I'm conservative and I moved to Austin because I love the laid back atmosphere. But "we the people" voted out every conservative and the city council does what they want. The mayor has decided everyone must wear a mask and I have asthma and can't do that. Thus we have to go to Hays County (only 10 minutes away) to eat and shop. whatever your political persuasion it's not much fun living somewhere around people who think so differently.
On the other hand, gay people, interracial couples, pretty much anyone can be themselves without harassment which is one of the things I like about Austin. So we'll be close to Austin just not in Austin.
I think that in many places you can get a medical exemption from wearing a mask.
After visiting 49 US states, Kansas (where I was born and raised) remains my personal sweet spot. Yes, the summers are too humid, and the local political climate is in many respects uncongenial. However, Midwest red is not the same as Southern red, northern (especially inland) states have severe winters, the "best coast" has a very high cost of living, and the intermountain West has a varying combination of water supply constraints/fire risk/temperature extremes that we don't really have to deal with here.
And locality does matter--judging just by what I have seen on the street, I would think it is a lot easier to be openly LGBTQ+ in Mobile and New Orleans than it is in the rest of Alabama and Louisiana respectively.
If I were permitted to live in the same general region as Kansas but not in Kansas itself, my preference (in descending order) would be Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Oklahoma.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 21, 2020, 11:13:31 AM
Quote from: kphoger on May 20, 2020, 02:35:07 PM
Quote from: J3ebrules on May 19, 2020, 11:49:44 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 19, 2020, 04:55:40 PM
I just don't get it to begin with. I lean pretty far to the right, but that doesn't mean I avoid towns or parts of towns that lean far to the left.
I wasn't going to comment at all on the political aspects at all, because this forum is my oasis from politics - but this needs to be said.
As a presumably white man (I'm assuming because the majority of this forum is male and conservatives tend to be predominantly white), you can go to left leaning towns without fear.
Not so much for many people of color or LGBT people. I'm obviously queer and my trans boyfriend and I have to legitimately fear for our safety in right-leaning parts of the country. So just keep in mind that's why it's different in reverse.
And, as I was mowing the lawn yesterday evening, I realized exactly what you said. I guess it didn't occur to me while posting because I didn't think any of that was true of corco. But yes, I certainly do understand someone who is "flamboyant" (for lack of a better word) having a legitimate reason for avoiding deep red areas. The same, these days perhaps, also goes for anyone who looks remotely like they're from the Middle East.
I wonder if the reverse is also true. A few posts ago, texaskdog mentioned moving out of Austin. He didn't specifically say that the political climate is the reason, but it's possible that's what he meant. I can definitely imagine, for example, being harassed in the Boystown neighborhood of Chicago if I were wearing a MAGA hat or something like that. And I have personally had black teenagers throw rocks at me in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago when I was simply walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday morning.
I'm conservative and I moved to Austin because I love the laid back atmosphere. But "we the people" voted out every conservative and the city council does what they want. The mayor has decided everyone must wear a mask and I have asthma and can't do that. Thus we have to go to Hays County (only 10 minutes away) to eat and shop. whatever your political persuasion it's not much fun living somewhere around people who think so differently.
On the other hand, gay people, interracial couples, pretty much anyone can be themselves without harassment which is one of the things I like about Austin. So we'll be close to Austin just not in Austin.
We live just outside of Fayetteville, AR for the same reason. Nice town, but can't relate to the majority of inhabitants since I'm actually from Arkansas and many in town are not.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 10:54:00 AM
What would everyone's criteria be for determining where to live permanently?
For me, I'd be looking primarily at climate, housing prices, and distance to relatives.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 21, 2020, 12:55:25 PM
(where I was born and raised) remains my personal sweet spot.
I have to agree with JN on this one.
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me. Plenty of great day trip destinations would be another.
I haven't thought too much about affordability, but that may change as I get older.
Much of the West Coast reminds me of Canada in terms of housing, and not in a good way. Small houses on small properties, and generally not as much space in your own neighborhood as I'm used to.
Western NY has a lot in common with the Midwest, so I think I could tolerate anything north of I-80 between here and the Twin Cities. (That excludes most of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and intentionally so. Minnesota would probably be my next choice, with Michigan #3.)
I wouldn't mind being in the 4-6 hour range from relatives, because I actually really like that length of trip. Long enough to feel like a legit road trip, but not too long that it feels like a drag or has to be split up. Having basically the entire East Coast (at least the DC-Boston portion) within that range is another big bonus of living here in Rochester.
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
I like the changing of the seasons too but, with each passing year, I realize more and more I could do just fine without winter altoghether.
My perfect climate would have high temps between 50 and 80 for ten months of the year, with one month of hot summer and one month of cold winter (snow included). Of course, that climate doesn't really exist, so...
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
My perfect climate would have high temps between 50 and 80 for ten months of the year, with one month of hot summer and one month of cold winter (snow included). Of course, that climate doesn't really exist, so...
Mexico City seems to have temperatures between 50 and 80 almost all the time. If you want snow, move into the mountains just the slightest bit.
Quote from: 1 on May 21, 2020, 03:56:51 PM
Mexico City seems to have temperatures between 50 and 80 almost all the time. If you want snow, move into the mountains just the slightest bit.
The problem is that, when I say "snow", I mean storms that drop eight inches on the ground. I'd rather have that or nothing. In-between weather is my least favorite of all, such as 30 degrees and raining. I'd much rather have zero degrees and a foot of snow or 105 degrees with no clouds.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
I like the changing of the seasons too but, with each passing year, I realize more and more I could do just fine without winter altoghether.
I think I've heard my parents, and many other people over 30, say this in some form or fashion so many times that it's become almost cliche.
However, the result has been that I'm expecting to like winter less and less as I get older, so I'm just enjoying it while it's still enjoyable. There's always at least a few days each winter that remind me what I love about it. This past winter, it was a February trip to Letchworth park the morning after about 8-10 inches of snow had blown in off Lake Erie. Fresh snow and winter sunshine is an incredibly breathtaking combination.
Strangely, I looked forward to winter more and enjoyed for longer last year than has been the case in probably five years.
There are definitely four seasons here, however they manifest themselves differently than they do in the northeast.
winter = plant dormant season, short dark days. some years a snowstorm or two which rarely sticks more than a few days
spring = everything comes back to live. plants bloom, birds have chicks, lambs
summer = hot (as it gets here) and sunny. grasses go dormant
fall = relief from the hot, quieter birds, harvest
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
The joke I've heard in San Diego is that they have their four seasons: "early summer, summer, late summer, and next summer". (I'd sub in "autumn" for "next summer", they definitely have a non-summer season late in the year.)
I'd otherwise prefer to skip the four seasons, if that meant avoiding my least favorite season, autumn.
Hawaii doesn't have an autumn, but the price of that (cost of living about a third higher than the mainland, a/k/a the "paradise tax") is too much for me. Florida doesn't have much of an autumn/winter, but much of the state is a hellhole in the peak summer months. It's better for snowbirds who can afford to maintain two homes (or one home and an RV), to winter in Florida and summer in some northern clime like Maine.
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
I realize more and more I could do just fine without winter altoghether.
My wife wants a place where winter lasts from about Dec 20 to Jan 2.
Quote from: GaryV on May 21, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
I realize more and more I could do just fine without winter altoghether.
My wife wants a place where winter lasts from about Dec 20 to Jan 2.
I would be fine without any winter at all.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 21, 2020, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: GaryV on May 21, 2020, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 21, 2020, 03:54:11 PM
I realize more and more I could do just fine without winter altoghether.
My wife wants a place where winter lasts from about Dec 20 to Jan 2.
I would be fine without any winter at all.
Nah, gotta have a White Christmas.
Quote from: oscar on May 21, 2020, 04:50:53 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
The joke I've heard in San Diego is that they have their four seasons: "early summer, summer, late summer, and next summer". (I'd sub in "autumn" for "next summer", they definitely have a non-summer season late in the year.)
I'd otherwise prefer to skip the four seasons, if that meant avoiding my least favorite season, autumn.
Hawaii doesn't have an autumn, but the price of that (cost of living about a third higher than the mainland, a/k/a the "paradise tax") is too much for me. Florida doesn't have much of an autumn/winter, but much of the state is a hellhole in the peak summer months. It's better for snowbirds who can afford to maintain two homes (or one home and an RV), to winter in Florida and summer in some northern clime like Maine.
Warm and humid, though. Not someplace I'd pick to live, though I might visit someday.
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
Of course, you could choose the Keweenaw Peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan) in Michigan's UP. There, the seasons are:
1. Brief, warm summer, also known as just the Fourth of July.
2. Fall, starting July 5, and ending before the end of September. The leaves don't always get a change to fall from the trees before the snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Victorian_Hall_in_winter.JPG) starts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Private_residence_in_Laurium,_Michigan_in_winter.JPG).
3. Big Snow Season (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan#/media/File:Downtown_Hougton_MI.JPG). Lasts from September to May, with snow occurring in May, and maybe even June. I had freezing rain the first week of June there for geology field camp. Be prepared for at least 160 inches of the white stuff at a minimum, 390 inches at a maximum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keweenaw_Peninsula#/media/File:Keweenaw_Snow_Thermometer.jpg), with 220 inches average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet,_Michigan#/media/File:Calumet_Theater_P1180054.jpg). There's never been a season without it, but they do know what to do with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Technological_University%27s_Winter_Carnival).
4. Sloppy Season, known in some places as spring. All the runoff from the big snows as well as the sand used for winter traction flows down the hills towards Portage Lake. Usually ends by July 3.
Repeat. :bigass:
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
Of course, you could choose the Keweenaw Peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan) in Michigan's UP. There, the seasons are:
1. Brief, warm summer, also known as just the Fourth of July.
2. Fall, starting July 5, and ending before the end of September. The leaves don't always get a change to fall from the trees before the snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Victorian_Hall_in_winter.JPG) starts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Private_residence_in_Laurium,_Michigan_in_winter.JPG).
3. Big Snow Season (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan#/media/File:Downtown_Hougton_MI.JPG). Lasts from September to May, with snow occurring in May, and maybe even June. I had freezing rain the first week of June there for geology field camp. Be prepared for at least 160 inches of the white stuff at a minimum, 390 inches at a maximum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keweenaw_Peninsula#/media/File:Keweenaw_Snow_Thermometer.jpg), with 220 inches average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet,_Michigan#/media/File:Calumet_Theater_P1180054.jpg). There's never been a season without it, but they do know what to do with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Technological_University%27s_Winter_Carnival).
4. Sloppy Season, known in some places as spring. All the runoff from the big snows as well as the sand used for winter traction flows down the hills towards Portage Lake. Usually ends by July 3.
Repeat. :bigass:
Yikes that's way too long of a winter for me.
Any place I want to live permanently would have to have an autumn at minimum. I go up to Grand Marais for a week around every first week of October.
Quote from: Brandon on May 21, 2020, 05:22:08 PM
Quote from: webny99 on May 21, 2020, 03:50:04 PM
Four seasons would be an absolute must for me.
Of course, you could choose the Keweenaw Peninsula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan) in Michigan's UP. There, the seasons are:
1. Brief, warm summer, also known as just the Fourth of July.
2. Fall, starting July 5, and ending before the end of September. The leaves don't always get a change to fall from the trees before the snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Victorian_Hall_in_winter.JPG) starts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium,_Michigan#/media/File:Private_residence_in_Laurium,_Michigan_in_winter.JPG).
3. Big Snow Season (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houghton,_Michigan#/media/File:Downtown_Hougton_MI.JPG). Lasts from September to May, with snow occurring in May, and maybe even June. I had freezing rain the first week of June there for geology field camp. Be prepared for at least 160 inches of the white stuff at a minimum, 390 inches at a maximum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keweenaw_Peninsula#/media/File:Keweenaw_Snow_Thermometer.jpg), with 220 inches average (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calumet,_Michigan#/media/File:Calumet_Theater_P1180054.jpg). There's never been a season without it, but they do know what to do with it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Technological_University%27s_Winter_Carnival).
4. Sloppy Season, known in some places as spring. All the runoff from the big snows as well as the sand used for winter traction flows down the hills towards Portage Lake. Usually ends by July 3.
Repeat. :bigass:
As long as there are places to ski, this is paradise.