5 ms·

Much of it is about what is trendy, what is the cultural mecca of the moment. Unfortunately the overcrowded west coast continues to dominate the trendseekers mi

Much of it is about what is trendy, what is the cultural mecca of the moment. Unfortunately the overcrowded west coast continues to dominate the trendseekers mindset, which is why you have ridiculous housing prices all over, a severe homeless crisis, terrible traffic, and rampant overcrowding. Make the midwest, south, and NE "cool" and trendy, and all the trendseekers who endlessly trucked out to the west coast will suddenly discover how "amazing" and "cool" - and ridiculously affordable - Columbus Ohio, Shreveport LA, Rochester NY, or Madison WI are. The price of a downpayment in any west coast state will buy the entire home - cash - in those locations, and in many cases you'll have money left over.

kolpa 9y ago
CA is the most desirable geography in the USA. The homelessness problem isn't because CA is trendy. CA has been the destination for the USA's disenfranchised and opportunity-seekers for decades because it's the best place to start a new life and not die over the winter. That might be ending now that CA is "full".
- komali2 9y ago
  The OP might have meant less "disenfranchised" and more "people with money, jobs, and the means to move." I, for example, wasn't exactly disenfranchised when I moved to SF (poor, broke, sure, but with enough credit to get a loan and float on credit cards until I got a job). For me, I chose SF because I was confident I could learn to program and then get a job here, and having an in to cheap housing for Chinese immigrants I knew I could do it without completely bankrupting myself. Opportunities like that don't necessarily exist in Madison, WI, as local culture makes the place a bit more traditional and resistant to, say, bootcamp-educated programmers.
- bazooka_penguin 9y ago
  Is northern California that much worse in the winters? Or the less popular areas of California? Because whenever we hear about homelessness being a booming problem it's usually to do with SF or perhaps L.A.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    SF is in Northern California, so I don't understand the question. If you mean to ask why the homeless don't go to Nowheresville, CA, it's probably because there are no social services available for them there.
    - prewett 9y ago
      I'd say SF is more mid-California, compared to what's north of Sacramento. North of Sacramento is pretty rural, full of people wanting to implement the State of Jefferson. But you're right, there isn't much in the way of social services in northern California, due to the population. The only real population centers are Chico and Redding. I haven't spent any time in Chico, but Redding has quite a few homeless, and there isn't much in the way of social services. The City of Redding doesn't have money to burn like SF apparently does, so the homeless pretty much have to fend for themselves. I get the feeling that a lot of Redding's homeless population is on their way somewhere; Redding is kind of a midway stop along I-5 or to the coast.
      - emodendroket 8y ago
        I'm on the East Coast, but Wikipedia describes San Francisco as "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California."
        prewett 8y ago
        Yeah, and it's understandable why they would say that. Realistically the only places people care about in California are Los Angeles and San Francisco (and to some extent Sacramento and San Diego), and compared to LA, SF is definitely north. Culturally and politically, though, north of Sacramento is quite different from SF. I mean, you see lots of signs supporting the formation of Jefferson State (and seceding from CA). I've had California natives talk about how SF wasn't really northern CA. And geographically, it actually is kind of mid (on the northern end of mid, but still).
  - rayvd 9y ago
cimmanom 9y ago
People don't move places because they're trendy. They move places and stay there because that's where the jobs are.
- moate 9y ago
  And because they're safe, and because they feel a sense of community with the people they've met there, and because they're able to indulge their hobbies and because they have family that live there and told them it's great, and because... The reasoning is vast and wild. Job markets are one factor, but there's a huge pile of reasons that factor in. Sometimes that includes being trendy.
  - cimmanom 9y ago
    Sure, that's why you move from one place with a decent job market to another with a decent job market. But people an aggregate move towards places that offer economic opportunity and away from those that don't -- hence the waves of migration from rural to urban areas and away from dying cities like Detroit. The only people (not quite that absolute, but close enough) who move from a place with plentiful opportunity to one without opportunity are those who a) have no choice (or feel they have no choice) -- be it due to being priced out or having to take care of an aging parent; or b) aren't subject to such economic pressures (work remotely or are financially independent).
jonknee 9y ago
If tons of high paying jobs suddenly open up in the Midwest it will not continue to be ridiculously affordable. Good jobs are trendy and will never go out of style.
salmonfamine 9y ago
It's much more complicated than that. Weather is a huge factor. Network effects are not so trivial or easily displaced. Walkability and public transit are major factors that contribute to those network effects and establish a city's culture -- which is a very difficult thing to reproduce. Not to mention politics. It's easy to say "just move to Shreveport!" But many, many people would feel very uncomfortable moving to these locations due to their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or whatever. And maybe the city itself is much more liberal than its surroundings. However, there are still genuine political concerns that many individuals would have for policy decisions made at a state-level that would directly affect their well-being. The major argument people from the midwest or the south give in favor of their locations is lower house prices. Many of the "trendseekers" have no interest suburban tract homes. I think the people advancing this argument should understand that a home is, for many, just one factor amongst many in determining where to live, and in many cases is not the strongest. Shreveport, LA is not "uncool" because of some accident of trendiness. It's uncool because it's uncool. There are no strong networks there, no extensive public transportation systems, no walkability, no political protections for marginalized groups -- etc., etc. It's a lot more than just trendiness. I say this as someone who has never lived on either coast. Just keep in mind that much of America seems unappealing or unfriendly to people who are not from here for legitimate reasons.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Plus, I mean, the elephant in the room is jobs. I'd probably be pretty happy in Upstate New York, but the options for work are far fewer than they are near major, booming cities.
  - salmonfamine 9y ago
    Yes, absolutely. And those network effects I mentioned above significantly contribute to high-skill job markets in many cases.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    Just how many jobs do you need? It only takes one good one that pays the appropriate amount, right?
emodendroket 9y ago
Looking at Boston or NYC suggests the problem isn't that the Northeast isn't cool enough.

kolpa 9y ago

CA is the most desirable geography in the USA. The homelessness problem isn't because CA is trendy. CA has been the destination for the USA's disenfranchised and opportunity-seekers for decades because it's the best place to start a new life and not die over the winter. That might be ending now that CA is "full".

komali2 9y ago
The OP might have meant less "disenfranchised" and more "people with money, jobs, and the means to move." I, for example, wasn't exactly disenfranchised when I moved to SF (poor, broke, sure, but with enough credit to get a loan and float on credit cards until I got a job). For me, I chose SF because I was confident I could learn to program and then get a job here, and having an in to cheap housing for Chinese immigrants I knew I could do it without completely bankrupting myself. Opportunities like that don't necessarily exist in Madison, WI, as local culture makes the place a bit more traditional and resistant to, say, bootcamp-educated programmers.
bazooka_penguin 9y ago
Is northern California that much worse in the winters? Or the less popular areas of California? Because whenever we hear about homelessness being a booming problem it's usually to do with SF or perhaps L.A.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  SF is in Northern California, so I don't understand the question. If you mean to ask why the homeless don't go to Nowheresville, CA, it's probably because there are no social services available for them there.
  - prewett 9y ago
    I'd say SF is more mid-California, compared to what's north of Sacramento. North of Sacramento is pretty rural, full of people wanting to implement the State of Jefferson. But you're right, there isn't much in the way of social services in northern California, due to the population. The only real population centers are Chico and Redding. I haven't spent any time in Chico, but Redding has quite a few homeless, and there isn't much in the way of social services. The City of Redding doesn't have money to burn like SF apparently does, so the homeless pretty much have to fend for themselves. I get the feeling that a lot of Redding's homeless population is on their way somewhere; Redding is kind of a midway stop along I-5 or to the coast.
    - emodendroket 8y ago
      I'm on the East Coast, but Wikipedia describes San Francisco as "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California."
      - prewett 8y ago
        Yeah, and it's understandable why they would say that. Realistically the only places people care about in California are Los Angeles and San Francisco (and to some extent Sacramento and San Diego), and compared to LA, SF is definitely north. Culturally and politically, though, north of Sacramento is quite different from SF. I mean, you see lots of signs supporting the formation of Jefferson State (and seceding from CA). I've had California natives talk about how SF wasn't really northern CA. And geographically, it actually is kind of mid (on the northern end of mid, but still).
- rayvd 9y ago

cimmanom 9y ago

People don't move places because they're trendy. They move places and stay there because that's where the jobs are.

moate 9y ago
And because they're safe, and because they feel a sense of community with the people they've met there, and because they're able to indulge their hobbies and because they have family that live there and told them it's great, and because... The reasoning is vast and wild. Job markets are one factor, but there's a huge pile of reasons that factor in. Sometimes that includes being trendy.
- cimmanom 9y ago
  Sure, that's why you move from one place with a decent job market to another with a decent job market. But people an aggregate move towards places that offer economic opportunity and away from those that don't -- hence the waves of migration from rural to urban areas and away from dying cities like Detroit. The only people (not quite that absolute, but close enough) who move from a place with plentiful opportunity to one without opportunity are those who a) have no choice (or feel they have no choice) -- be it due to being priced out or having to take care of an aging parent; or b) aren't subject to such economic pressures (work remotely or are financially independent).

jonknee 9y ago

If tons of high paying jobs suddenly open up in the Midwest it will not continue to be ridiculously affordable. Good jobs are trendy and will never go out of style.

salmonfamine 9y ago

It's much more complicated than that. Weather is a huge factor. Network effects are not so trivial or easily displaced. Walkability and public transit are major factors that contribute to those network effects and establish a city's culture -- which is a very difficult thing to reproduce. Not to mention politics. It's easy to say "just move to Shreveport!" But many, many people would feel very uncomfortable moving to these locations due to their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or whatever. And maybe the city itself is much more liberal than its surroundings. However, there are still genuine political concerns that many individuals would have for policy decisions made at a state-level that would directly affect their well-being. The major argument people from the midwest or the south give in favor of their locations is lower house prices. Many of the "trendseekers" have no interest suburban tract homes. I think the people advancing this argument should understand that a home is, for many, just one factor amongst many in determining where to live, and in many cases is not the strongest. Shreveport, LA is not "uncool" because of some accident of trendiness. It's uncool because it's uncool. There are no strong networks there, no extensive public transportation systems, no walkability, no political protections for marginalized groups -- etc., etc. It's a lot more than just trendiness. I say this as someone who has never lived on either coast. Just keep in mind that much of America seems unappealing or unfriendly to people who are not from here for legitimate reasons.

emodendroket 9y ago
Plus, I mean, the elephant in the room is jobs. I'd probably be pretty happy in Upstate New York, but the options for work are far fewer than they are near major, booming cities.
- salmonfamine 9y ago
  Yes, absolutely. And those network effects I mentioned above significantly contribute to high-skill job markets in many cases.
- Domenic_S 9y ago
  Just how many jobs do you need? It only takes one good one that pays the appropriate amount, right?

emodendroket 9y ago

Looking at Boston or NYC suggests the problem isn't that the Northeast isn't cool enough.