12 ms·

So Eureka Ca, which is in the middle of nowhere costs about the same as the suburbs of Raleigh NC. Raleigh has a mid level international airport with direct fl

So Eureka Ca, which is in the middle of nowhere costs about the same as the suburbs of Raleigh NC. Raleigh has a mid level international airport with direct flights to Europe and other continents, has many other cities and great schools in it, and nearby (NC State, UNC Chapel Hill, Duke, etc), (the whole research triangle), etc... with plenty of job opportunities. What does Eureka have (appart for nice nature)? How much does one has to drive to go to an airport that can fly directly to Europe or Asia? If your local business closed, how long and how much would you have to drive to find another job? Commanding a mid-level metro prices, without the economy vibrancy of one, is sheer overpricing. And maybe that's why so many locals are leaving. (the influx is usually immigrants, which are more willing to put up with crappier conditions).

tomc1985 5y ago
I chose Eureka because I know people there and have direct experience with the town, even if it is an extreme example. If I knew folks and the housing situation in Stockton, or Modesto, or Bakersfield, or even Temecula, or any of those other armpit Central-Valley cities, I would have used them as an example. And you're right, maybe Raleigh is a better choice. Or maybe Minneapolis. Or perhaps Boise, or any number of other mid-size capitol cities. But they aren't California.
- kbenson 5y ago
  I think the point is that we should compare major metropolitan centers/coastal communities in CA to major metropolitan centers and coastal communities in other states. That there are places relatively cheaper in CA is not in question, but those cheaper places are likely similar to even cheaper places in other states. The opportunities available in Eureka are not the same ones available in the Bay Area (although it's likely gotten better). I suspect they don't even stack up to Raleigh favorably. Eureka is much smaller than many bay area cities, and more importantly, is isolated, so it feels much smaller than even the ones that it is similarly sized to, as once you leave Eureka, you're not immediately entering another city of the same or larger size.
michaelmrose 5y ago
The people on the bottom 50% aren't taking international flights and proximity to international airport is honestly a worthless metric for 90% of the population. In fact 500,000 of them without health insurance are looking encouragingly at a possible medicaid expansion 11 years after the ACA passed.
- ardit33 5y ago
  it is a proxy for jobs and a large labour market and choice, even for poor people. Eureka doesn't have one, yet it commands prices of a mid sized metro. CA is overpriced by a long shot
  - gkop 5y ago
    I don’t have a horse in this race, but must point out that Eureka sits directly on the Pacific Coast of the mainland United States, which adds significant desirability to a town that is admittedly best known for having a lot of tweakers. (In fact Eureka is fairly centrally located on the coast, which is kind of cool, too. I’d want to live in Arcata instead because less tweakers. But Arcata isn’t directly on the coast, so you can’t really compare them)
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      This is really pedantic, but Eureka isn't really directly on the coast either, it sits on the far side of Humboldt Bay and is shielded by an isthmus that is mostly empty land. That said the coast is a 10 minute drive (and maybe 25-30 minute drive for Arcata) As for the populace... they don't call it Eutweaka for nothin
      - michaelmrose 5y ago
        The more we narrow our focus the less meaningful the discussion. Whether Eureka is overpriced is a digression. The parent post to this whole offshoot is implying that comparing a carefully chosen podunk town in California with one of the only two big cities in the entire state of NC shows why people are leaving CA. Eureka can be overpriced while the overall thesis remains carefully constructed malarkey. NC has grown by 300% in the last century while CA has grown by 900% in the same period. More recently NC has grown at about 1% per year over the last decade. California grew similarly over the same period until 2016 when it started to slow down. Its barely a blip in the graph and needs no complicated explanation.

tomc1985 5y ago

I chose Eureka because I know people there and have direct experience with the town, even if it is an extreme example. If I knew folks and the housing situation in Stockton, or Modesto, or Bakersfield, or even Temecula, or any of those other armpit Central-Valley cities, I would have used them as an example. And you're right, maybe Raleigh is a better choice. Or maybe Minneapolis. Or perhaps Boise, or any number of other mid-size capitol cities. But they aren't California.

kbenson 5y ago
I think the point is that we should compare major metropolitan centers/coastal communities in CA to major metropolitan centers and coastal communities in other states. That there are places relatively cheaper in CA is not in question, but those cheaper places are likely similar to even cheaper places in other states. The opportunities available in Eureka are not the same ones available in the Bay Area (although it's likely gotten better). I suspect they don't even stack up to Raleigh favorably. Eureka is much smaller than many bay area cities, and more importantly, is isolated, so it feels much smaller than even the ones that it is similarly sized to, as once you leave Eureka, you're not immediately entering another city of the same or larger size.

michaelmrose 5y ago

The people on the bottom 50% aren't taking international flights and proximity to international airport is honestly a worthless metric for 90% of the population. In fact 500,000 of them without health insurance are looking encouragingly at a possible medicaid expansion 11 years after the ACA passed.

ardit33 5y ago
it is a proxy for jobs and a large labour market and choice, even for poor people. Eureka doesn't have one, yet it commands prices of a mid sized metro. CA is overpriced by a long shot
- gkop 5y ago
  I don’t have a horse in this race, but must point out that Eureka sits directly on the Pacific Coast of the mainland United States, which adds significant desirability to a town that is admittedly best known for having a lot of tweakers. (In fact Eureka is fairly centrally located on the coast, which is kind of cool, too. I’d want to live in Arcata instead because less tweakers. But Arcata isn’t directly on the coast, so you can’t really compare them)
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    This is really pedantic, but Eureka isn't really directly on the coast either, it sits on the far side of Humboldt Bay and is shielded by an isthmus that is mostly empty land. That said the coast is a 10 minute drive (and maybe 25-30 minute drive for Arcata) As for the populace... they don't call it Eutweaka for nothin
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      The more we narrow our focus the less meaningful the discussion. Whether Eureka is overpriced is a digression. The parent post to this whole offshoot is implying that comparing a carefully chosen podunk town in California with one of the only two big cities in the entire state of NC shows why people are leaving CA. Eureka can be overpriced while the overall thesis remains carefully constructed malarkey. NC has grown by 300% in the last century while CA has grown by 900% in the same period. More recently NC has grown at about 1% per year over the last decade. California grew similarly over the same period until 2016 when it started to slow down. Its barely a blip in the graph and needs no complicated explanation.