in b4 craigslist posting of what you can get for 1600 in iowa followed by OMG from NYCers

What's a... loblaws, walter. How do you pronounce it? 'Low-blows?' because that's omegalol.

Yes. Without a doubt. I think they would prefer the physical property itself but people don't want to live in Iowa so they rather take the worse property in the better location.

I can't believe you are actually arguing this given that people demonstrate this thought their choices. Why do you think people pay more to live somewhere else? Do you honestly think they just don't know that the mid-west exists and what you can buy there? They know and they choose to not take that option.

You do understand that most people don't live in cities right?

Henry's sample, afaik, consists of the people he can poll and hangs out with. This is a population out of which 75%+ of the chicks have had abortions, and over half had had some form of cosmetic surgery, or something sorta like that.

So it's not, like, the most reasonable sample from which to be drawing North America's major life preferences, the great majority of which live lives that he (presumably) has no experience with and clearly has trouble even imagining.

most people in the US live in metro areas.

i would choose the Gulag before i choose rural Iowa (redundant, i know)


rural iowa: http://slog.thestranger.com/files/20....Roadside1.JPG

gulag: http://www.ilhn.com/blog/wp-content/...ag-500x333.jpg

Henry, are you French-Canadian? This would really explain a lot.

Most people in the US do not live in metropolitan areas such as NY where you can walk to buy food and don't need a car. TBH I have no idea what the actual figure is, but I would be incredibly shocked if most people live "in a city".

I'd much rather be within walking distance to pretty much anything I need than have some giant house in the middle of a corn field.

That isn't true in Canada. I certainly didn't think it was true in the States either. Looking up your census data confirms that I am correct and you are wrong. 82.6% of Americans live in metropolitan areas.

Yeah, I think the balance on this tipped a while back. It's pretty close though and hardly invalidates Klompy's basic premise.

This has to be a pretty loose definition of 'metro areas.' It was 50/50ish as recently as the late nineties.

If your figure is correct than I guess I'm wrong, but I simply don't have the ambition to look it up right now.

matters what the definition of metro area is but most people in the US live like 50 miles from major cities that are 100k+. honestly who wants to live in a really small city or town. i know there are some but most people like the convience of not driving an hour to get to a department store. and have a variety of work options.

capone0,
I live within 50 miles of a major US city, but it would be absurd to consider where I live a "suburb" of Des Moines.

personally i could have chosen to move to NYC right after school and worked like a bitch to make it (60+ hours a week, maybe 80 if I got into finance) but I chose to hardly work and make a good salary for memphis doing it (memphis sucks but it's cheap). i'm not pro NYC cause the rates are ******ed. i wouldn't want to live in an apartment the size of my room in Ithaca for 1500+ dollars a month. nor do I like the lifestyle of working a ton of hours a week. but i would prefer paying 1500 a month for a box + work 60-80 hours a week if my other choice was living in the middle of nowhere. my preference would be a job in a good but not amazing location with good hours >> job in a great area but terrible hours >> good job in the middle of nowhere.

God no. I hate the French-Canadians.

i'm guessing their definition of metro includes surrounding suburban areas

And exurban areas, for that matter.

Not that I grocery shop or anything, but I can only assume prices are even worse here in Newfoundland due to the added ferry cost.

And no, it's not because I'm too busy catching fresh fish through a hole in the ice.

in alaska corn is like a dollar a cob

I prefer living in the mountains to living in the city, I'm in the minority it seems but my opinion means more than yours does (whoever).

I think you have a literal sense of how much things cost.

But I think that you have a poor sense of what luxuries can fit into a fixed salary, and that you would basically consider a life without them "unacceptable" even though the people living like that quite enjoy their lives, and are probably no more or less happy than you because of it.


I agree that 65k in NYC is not a lot of money.

But the question he's asking is whether it makes him "poor", and shopping at walmart does not imply that he's poor.

It implies that he places a very high value on living in a desirable area (or maybe that he really dislikes the commute from jersey), and that he's willing to forego a lot of the luxuries that you consider "essential" that actually aren't to most people.


You don't have to be poor to be thrifty.
Often the reason people get poor is because they can't control their spending.

If you would prefer to live in Iowa, then you should live in Iowa.

I don't know anyone who would want to move there.


People who live in cities don't really care about having a big house, because the city is your home. You'll just spend a lot more time in public. If you don't like going in public often, then you move far away from the city and get a big cheap house in iowa. If you REALLY like being isolated, you buy a big strip of land in the boonies and hunt for squirrels.