Why are Americans down on the economy?

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp
Over the last 4 years, real wages have stagnated. That is, only 4% of the country has seen any increase in wages. That 4% is the country's elite. The economy might be up, but only 4% are seeing any effects of it.

You're flat out wrong. In my industry, specifically IT/network, average wages have increased I would be willing to bet 30% in the last 3 years.

Sorry, you would flat out lose. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the big picture. There are always some who do better than average and some who do worse. It's the big picture that matters. IT salaries have increased a bit more than average, but still barely ahead of inflation and they are not representative of all salaries. Hacp is absolutely correct.

After the dot com bust, which included the closing or bankruptcy of most of the major telecoms, I had to work non-IT jobs. Then finally in 2003, I got a network specific job in Oklahoma City that payed 27k/yr. Mind you, I havent made that little since the late 80's. I combed through 6 or 7 industry specific job boards, flew all over the country for industry "recruiting conventions", as well as checking the job boards of over 50 companies twice/week. I probably spent 20 hrs/week just looking for work. Jobs were far and few between. Fast forward 4 years-

Last year I had 3 job offers from 7 resumes submitted. All paid more than I had ever made. You can pick any job board and there are jobs in just about any metropolitan area you want. Dozens of jobs. All paying well.

All this crap about how bad we're doing, specifically tech jobs "being shipped offshore" is utter bullshit.

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data". It's easy to make rapid salary gains initially, as one moves from an entry-level postion to something requiring experience. Good entry-level IT opportunities are scarce due to the glut of experienced people looking for work. (Why pay a noob $40K for entry-level work when you have a stack of resumes from experienced people who need the job? Pay $27K and make them prove themselves.) It's simple supply and demand, aggravated in part by the FACT that many American tech jobs have been offshored. Not all, obviously, but tens of thousands.

eh

Im not talkingt about entry level jobs. I've never looked for an entry level job. Specifically in IT, the job market, in general, is as good as it was before the dot com bust. Where's the "data" you speak so highly of disputing what I've said? Data, as Im sure you know because of your intelligence, is subjective. Did you happen to notice where I said "In my industry, specifically IT/network"? Did you? Wages and opportunities are far greater now than 5-7 years ago. Period. Since you brought up the example of entry level jobs (again, something I know nothing about) maybe you are right. But for mid-career (7+ years exp + multiple certs) you obviously know not of what you speak.

edit: here ya go skippy:

In numbers that haven't been matched since 2001, the U.S. tech industry added 140,000 jobs in the first half of 2006, according to a report released Sept. 26 by the Washington, D.C.-based AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association).

Information Technology (IT) is the fastest growing sector in the economy with a 68% increase in output growth rate projected between 2002 and 2012. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Just use Google. I think Ive proven my point.

Hardly. All you've proven is you know how to change the subject when the facts are against you. The subject, by the way, is wages, and your claim that Hacp was "flat out wrong" about overall stagnant wages, followed by an absurd claim that average IT wages have increased 30% in the last three years (or even "IT/network" wages, a niche within a niche). Your red herring about how tech employment is recovering is good news, but irrelevant to that subject.

I'd also suggest any "IT/network" job that pays only $27K is, in fact, entry level, whether you want to admit it or not. I especially enjoyed "I've never looked for an entry level job." I've certainly met a lot of kids who think they should start in the middle somewhere, usually at ridiculous salaries. Never hired one of them, at least not for anything except entry-level positions at entry-level salaries. That's sort of the definition of the term. (Also, I believe you'll find most IT managers consider certs worthless without supporting experience. Certs used to be important, but they're a dime-a-dozen these days, with too many incompetent yet "certified" experts.)

Anyway, the subject is stagnant wages overall. Your assertion to the contrary was wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vic tells it like it is

Yes, he does, for the rich Republican way.

Yeah, except I'm a middle-class Democratic moderate.

But hey! everybody knows there's a lot of rich Republicans living in Portland, OR and driving Subarus!

It must make you cringe knowing you vote for the same person as Dave come presidential elections...

It'd make me cringe worse to vote for the religious fanatic warmongering party.

 

[IGBT]

..they sit around listening to the gloom and doom action lines on CNN and other liberal condemnatory "progressive" programs guised as news organizations. If you want a better life shut the TV off.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp
Over the last 4 years, real wages have stagnated. That is, only 4% of the country has seen any increase in wages. That 4% is the country's elite. The economy might be up, but only 4% are seeing any effects of it.

You're flat out wrong. In my industry, specifically IT/network, average wages have increased I would be willing to bet 30% in the last 3 years.

Sorry, you would flat out lose. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the big picture. There are always some who do better than average and some who do worse. It's the big picture that matters. IT salaries have increased a bit more than average, but still barely ahead of inflation and they are not representative of all salaries. Hacp is absolutely correct.

After the dot com bust, which included the closing or bankruptcy of most of the major telecoms, I had to work non-IT jobs. Then finally in 2003, I got a network specific job in Oklahoma City that payed 27k/yr. Mind you, I havent made that little since the late 80's. I combed through 6 or 7 industry specific job boards, flew all over the country for industry "recruiting conventions", as well as checking the job boards of over 50 companies twice/week. I probably spent 20 hrs/week just looking for work. Jobs were far and few between. Fast forward 4 years-

Last year I had 3 job offers from 7 resumes submitted. All paid more than I had ever made. You can pick any job board and there are jobs in just about any metropolitan area you want. Dozens of jobs. All paying well.

All this crap about how bad we're doing, specifically tech jobs "being shipped offshore" is utter bullshit.

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data". It's easy to make rapid salary gains initially, as one moves from an entry-level postion to something requiring experience. Good entry-level IT opportunities are scarce due to the glut of experienced people looking for work. (Why pay a noob $40K for entry-level work when you have a stack of resumes from experienced people who need the job? Pay $27K and make them prove themselves.) It's simple supply and demand, aggravated in part by the FACT that many American tech jobs have been offshored. Not all, obviously, but tens of thousands.

eh

Im not talkingt about entry level jobs. I've never looked for an entry level job. Specifically in IT, the job market, in general, is as good as it was before the dot com bust. Where's the "data" you speak so highly of disputing what I've said? Data, as Im sure you know because of your intelligence, is subjective. Did you happen to notice where I said "In my industry, specifically IT/network"? Did you? Wages and opportunities are far greater now than 5-7 years ago. Period. Since you brought up the example of entry level jobs (again, something I know nothing about) maybe you are right. But for mid-career (7+ years exp + multiple certs) you obviously know not of what you speak.

edit: here ya go skippy:

In numbers that haven't been matched since 2001, the U.S. tech industry added 140,000 jobs in the first half of 2006, according to a report released Sept. 26 by the Washington, D.C.-based AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association).

Information Technology (IT) is the fastest growing sector in the economy with a 68% increase in output growth rate projected between 2002 and 2012. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Just use Google. I think Ive proven my point.

Hardly. All you've proven is you know how to change the subject when the facts are against you. The subject, by the way, is wages, and your claim that Hacp was "flat out wrong" about overall stagnant wages, followed by an absurd claim that average IT wages have increased 30% in the last three years (or even "IT/network" wages, a niche within a niche). Your red herring about how tech employment is recovering is good news, but irrelevant to that subject.

I'd also suggest any "IT/network" job that pays only $27K is, in fact, entry level, whether you want to admit it or not. I especially enjoyed "I've never looked for an entry level job." I've certainly met a lot of kids who think they should start in the middle somewhere, usually at ridiculous salaries. Never hired one of them, at least not for anything except entry-level positions at entry-level salaries. That's sort of the definition of the term. (Also, I believe you'll find most IT managers consider certs worthless without supporting experience. Certs used to be important, but they're a dime-a-dozen these days, with too many incompetent yet "certified" experts.)

Anyway, the subject is stagnant wages overall. Your assertion to the contrary was wrong.

You speak as if I was a green behind the ears college drop out or something...as if. OK I'll modify my statement: I havent looked for an entry level job in 25 years. Thats more accurate. Yep certs ARE a dime a dozen. But years of experience arent. If you actually had any experience in the IT job market you would know there is a plethera of IT jobs all over the country...and most require certs AND at least 5-10 years experience. By the sounds of things you are some middle manager somewhere and have taken your finger off the pulse of the job market. In other words, your intelligence comes from print. So get the hell off your soapbox and quit being a condecending ass.

As far as wages overall? I guess it depends on where you look. Although this is from a year ago, it's still on topic. I also find articles that show wages are stagnant. So what is one to believe? Thats right. The ones that you agree with.

Wages continued their upward trend in April (2006). The average annualized rate of wage growth over the past quarter was 4.7 percent, which is above the rate of inflation.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vic tells it like it is

Yes, he does, for the rich Republican way.

Yeah, except I'm a middle-class Democratic moderate.

But hey! everybody knows there's a lot of rich Republicans living in Portland, OR and driving Subarus!

It must make you cringe knowing you vote for the same person as Dave come presidential elections...

It'd make me cringe worse to vote for the religious fanatic warmongering party.

See that's one of the major problems of a two party system; everyone is voting agianst the other party rather than voting for something you agree with.

In Canada we have the NDP that gets 10%-15% of the vote and that's where all the fringe crazy nuts like Dave go. The normal people vote for the moderate-left leaning Liberals or the moderate-right leaning Conservatives. There's lots of other fun little parties like the Greens, Marxist-Leninist, Communist, Christian Heritage, Libertarian, Marijuana, Action, and Animal Alliance Environment. (none of these guys have seats in government).

When there's lots of fringe parties, it keeps the super-nut cases out of the mainstream parties.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp
Over the last 4 years, real wages have stagnated. That is, only 4% of the country has seen any increase in wages. That 4% is the country's elite. The economy might be up, but only 4% are seeing any effects of it.

You're flat out wrong. In my industry, specifically IT/network, average wages have increased I would be willing to bet 30% in the last 3 years.

Sorry, you would flat out lose. Your personal experience is irrelevant to the big picture. There are always some who do better than average and some who do worse. It's the big picture that matters. IT salaries have increased a bit more than average, but still barely ahead of inflation and they are not representative of all salaries. Hacp is absolutely correct.

[ ... trimmed for length ... ]

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data". It's easy to make rapid salary gains initially, as one moves from an entry-level postion to something requiring experience. Good entry-level IT opportunities are scarce due to the glut of experienced people looking for work. (Why pay a noob $40K for entry-level work when you have a stack of resumes from experienced people who need the job? Pay $27K and make them prove themselves.) It's simple supply and demand, aggravated in part by the FACT that many American tech jobs have been offshored. Not all, obviously, but tens of thousands.

eh

Im not talkingt about entry level jobs. I've never looked for an entry level job. Specifically in IT, the job market, in general, is as good as it was before the dot com bust. Where's the "data" you speak so highly of disputing what I've said? Data, as Im sure you know because of your intelligence, is subjective. Did you happen to notice where I said "In my industry, specifically IT/network"? Did you? Wages and opportunities are far greater now than 5-7 years ago. Period. Since you brought up the example of entry level jobs (again, something I know nothing about) maybe you are right. But for mid-career (7+ years exp + multiple certs) you obviously know not of what you speak.

edit: here ya go skippy:

In numbers that haven't been matched since 2001, the U.S. tech industry added 140,000 jobs in the first half of 2006, according to a report released Sept. 26 by the Washington, D.C.-based AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association).

Information Technology (IT) is the fastest growing sector in the economy with a 68% increase in output growth rate projected between 2002 and 2012. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Just use Google. I think Ive proven my point.

Hardly. All you've proven is you know how to change the subject when the facts are against you. The subject, by the way, is wages, and your claim that Hacp was "flat out wrong" about overall stagnant wages, followed by an absurd claim that average IT wages have increased 30% in the last three years (or even "IT/network" wages, a niche within a niche). Your red herring about how tech employment is recovering is good news, but irrelevant to that subject.

I'd also suggest any "IT/network" job that pays only $27K is, in fact, entry level, whether you want to admit it or not. I especially enjoyed "I've never looked for an entry level job." I've certainly met a lot of kids who think they should start in the middle somewhere, usually at ridiculous salaries. Never hired one of them, at least not for anything except entry-level positions at entry-level salaries. That's sort of the definition of the term. (Also, I believe you'll find most IT managers consider certs worthless without supporting experience. Certs used to be important, but they're a dime-a-dozen these days, with too many incompetent yet "certified" experts.)

Anyway, the subject is stagnant wages overall. Your assertion to the contrary was wrong.

You speak as if I was a green behind the ears college drop out or something...as if. OK I'll modify my statement: I havent looked for an entry level job in 25 years. Thats more accurate. Yep certs ARE a dime a dozen. But years of experience arent. If you actually had any experience in the IT job market you would know there is a plethera of IT jobs all over the country...and most require certs AND at least 5-10 years experience. By the sounds of things you are some middle manager somewhere and have taken your finger off the pulse of the job market. In other words, your intelligence comes from print.

ROFL. Yeah, that's it. Even were it true, it's a big step up from getting your intelligence [sic] from your rectum.

So get the hell off your soapbox and quit being a condecending ass.

Need more room, do you?

I wouldn't be so condescending if you didn't present your uniformed biases as if they were fact, doubly so when you then twist and turn to try to avoid accountability for your claims. It would also help if you learned to read what people actually write instead of inventing straw men to attack. (I never said anything to suggest there aren't lots of IT jobs around -- that is a straw man -- and I already said that one needs experience to go with certifications.) I simply don't respect people who make up stuff and then belligerently attack people who challenge them.

You'd think after an alleged 25 years in the grown-up world you'd have learned to simply fess up when you make an error instead of madly trying to find someone else to blame. If your ego keeps you from doing so, I'd sincerely suggest you make a point of knowing what you're talking about before you post. Opinions and bias are poor substitutes for fact.

As far as wages overall? I guess it depends on where you look. Although this is from a year ago, it's still on topic. I also find articles that show wages are stagnant. So what is one to believe? Thats right. The ones that you agree with.

Wages continued their upward trend in April (2006). The average annualized rate of wage growth over the past quarter was 4.7 percent, which is above the rate of inflation.

I'll believe hard stats that look at the big picture rather than cherry-picking one quarter that matches my preconceived bias. The fact remains that your "You're flat out wrong." and "average wages have increased ... 30% in the last 3 years" are completely without merit. Do you have the integrity to acknowledge this, or are you going to keep changing the subject?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

When the have not group is big enough of used to have's you will see a full scale revolution against the rich and the Government they own.

It's that simple and it's happening right in front of our eyes.

There isn't going to be a revolution because Americans have taken the notion of personal responsibility and meritocracy to an almost religiously-held dogmatic extreme. Those formerly middle class Americans will not blame their government and the nation's economic system, rather, they'll blame themselves for not being good enough--for not having worked hard enough, for not having interviewed well enough, for not having enough education, for not having chosen the right fields, etc.

A good analogy would be a person who has been dragged into a death camp who blames himself for his predicament. "If only I weren't Jewish." "If only I had blond hair." "I deserve to die, it's my fault."

That's a pretty grim picture you paint for the last days of America.

No more grim than yours.

I see many Americans have woken up to the Republican destruction and many more everyday. That hopefully means there is a chance to save this country from your kind.

Time will tell.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Vic tells it like it is

Yes, he does, for the rich Republican way.

Yeah, except I'm a middle-class Democratic moderate.

But hey! everybody knows there's a lot of rich Republicans living in Portland, OR and driving Subarus!

Bahahahahahahahaha :laugh: That's funny

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
We're just shifting from manufacturing-type jobs to more educated jobs in this country, in my opinion.

It's easy to say this and perhaps that's what the media would have you believe, but what makes you believe that it is true?

The media loves to report about high tech jobs and new jobs in obscure new fields, but how many jobs do those fields actually produce? For example, if the number of jobs in, say, nanotechnology were to double, it might mean that the field now has 10,000 jobs instead of 5,000, big whoopee.

As I understand it, the Bureau of Labor Statistics stats show that most of the new jobs being created are in low-wage service fields.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

This is what gets me. They say there is a "shortage of skilled people"...I have to ask....where are the entry level positions? I see a fair amount of jobs looking for people with at least 3-5 years experience but virtually no entry level around here. I think they have outsourced all of the entry level jobs they can...and now they're surprised that there's no one around with 3-5 years experience. Around here the problem is simply that there is mostly small businesses, which of course don't usually have the resources to train entry level people.

You can dump as many people into tech degree programs as you want though, if there aren't any entry level positions out there they'll just go into other fields afterwards and you still won't create any more middle level people.

Quoted for Truth.

Another issue is whether the companies are interested in people with years of experience. If they're looking for 3-5 years of experience, would they hire someone with 15 years of experience or would they prefer to engage in age discrimination?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Inflation over 10%, unemployment over 10%, GDP growth under 1%, prime housing lending rates 21%!!, stock market tanking......

Umm...the real unemployment rate is probably well over 10%, especially when underemployment is factored in.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

 

[Hacp]

You speak as if I was a green behind the ears college drop out or something...as if. OK I'll modify my statement: I havent looked for an entry level job in 25 years. Thats more accurate. Yep certs ARE a dime a dozen. But years of experience arent. If you actually had any experience in the IT job market you would know there is a plethera of IT jobs all over the country...and most require certs AND at least 5-10 years experience. By the sounds of things you are some middle manager somewhere and have taken your finger off the pulse of the job market. In other words, your intelligence comes from print. So get the hell off your soapbox and quit being a condecending ass.

As far as wages overall? I guess it depends on where you look. Although this is from a year ago, it's still on topic. I also find articles that show wages are stagnant. So what is one to believe? Thats right. The ones that you agree with.

Wages continued their upward trend in April (2006). The average annualized rate of wage growth over the past quarter was 4.7 percent, which is above the rate of inflation.

Its funny how they use average, and not median. If you want average, then you will include wages earned by stock brokers who get 1 million dollar bonuses. Try Median Wages, they have gone down, although Median Income has gone up due to the increase in health care costs that buisinesses need to spend on.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp
Over the last 4 years, real wages have stagnated. That is, only 4% of the country has seen any increase in wages. That 4% is the country's elite. The economy might be up, but only 4% are seeing any effects of it.

You're flat out wrong. In my industry, specifically IT/network, average wages have increased I would be willing to bet 30% in the last 3 years. After the dot com bust, which included the closing or bankruptcy of most of the major telecoms, I had to work non-IT jobs. Then finally in 2003, I got a network specific job in Oklahoma City that payed 27k/yr. Mind you, I havent made that little since the late 80's. I combed through 6 or 7 industry specific job boards, flew all over the country for industry "recruiting conventions", as well as checking the job boards of over 50 companies twice/week. I probably spent 20 hrs/week just looking for work. Jobs were far and few between. Fast forward 4 years-

Last year I had 3 job offers from 7 resumes submitted. All paid more than I had ever made. You can pick any job board and there are jobs in just about any metropolitan area you want. Dozens of jobs. All paying well.

All this crap about how bad we're doing, specifically tech jobs "being shipped offshore" is utter bullshit.

In 2004, real wages decreased for the country's bottom 95%, while it rose for the the elite 5%. Real wages have been decreasing from 2004 to 2006. The lastest report from the FED(July 18th) said that real 'income' is up, but that doesn't mean real wages were up. It also said nominal wages were up, but that doesn't mean median real wages were up either. In all, the FED report didn't talk about real wages at all, implying that they are avoiding the topic.

Also, offshore jobs aren't just for tech people. Service jobs, like Customer Service, and Factory Jobs have all been transferred to countries like India and China.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
It's all about the leftist media trying to make Bush look bad......

they've try to convince the public that the sky is falling.

no credit ever, given to Bush tax cuts and the roaring economy and the sky high DOW.

I'm very pleased with the economy, and my personal financial situation. Never been better!

the DOW is high, unemployment has been reduced from the high he had earlier in his tenure.

Of course...none of this means shit when the median wage af the American worker has dropped 5k since 1974....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Here is why people feel bad about the economy:

A generation ago, American men in their thirties had median annual incomes of about $40,000 compared with men of the same age who now make about $35,000 a year, adjusted for inflation. That?s a 12.5 percent drop between 1974 and 2004, according to the report from the Pew Charitable Trusts? Economic Mobility Project.

This is despite a 100% increase in inflation adjusted gdp per capita during the same time.

ooo, thanks for linking ahead of me...I hadn't gone through the whole thread yet

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

Well said. I can't believe what people are willing to pay just so they can live in one of the hot cities. There are alternatives ... excellent alternatives.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

Well said. I can't believe what people are willing to pay just so they can live in one of the hot cities. There are alternatives ... excellent alternatives.

:thumbsup:

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

That's great and all, but place is FAR more important than other factors. Place is not just about history, attachment, belonging, roots, and other similar things; it's also about weather, environment, social attitudes, being well established, etc. I have NEVER understood people who will move for something as ludicrous and unimportant as a job. Place actually matters, employment doesn't. I know I'd rather die in the northwest than live wealthy in the south or midwest. And before you dismiss my attitude as insane just remember that anthropological and sociological studies pretty much support what I say.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

That's great and all, but place is FAR more important than other factors. Place is not just about history, attachment, belonging, roots, and other similar things; it's also about weather, environment, social attitudes, being well established, etc. I have NEVER understood people who will move for something as ludicrous and unimportant as a job. Place actually matters, employment doesn't. I know I'd rather die in the northwest than live wealthy in the south or midwest. And before you dismiss my attitude as insane just remember that anthropological and sociological studies pretty much support what I say.

Yeah, I would agree, but that's not the issue here. Whipper was talking about relocating but then wanted to know about earning a living. He was being informed that it could be done.


BTW, I don't think I'd leave the midwest even if I could make more on the coasts(and I know I could). I love the midwest, it's people, climate, etc. It's just a bonus that I like to do what I am doing here and that it pays relatively well(for this area)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

Well said. I can't believe what people are willing to pay just so they can live in one of the hot cities. There are alternatives ... excellent alternatives.

I have to agree here. There are lots of affordable places to live that also have excellent career opportunities.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: vi_edit

In certain areas, yes. House prices are beyond ridiculous. There are still tens of thousands of houses on the market in in very pleasant parts of the country with great school districts and low crime that are very affordable. Anything 2 hours south of Chicago in IL is pretty reasonable. A very large part of Iowa is reasonable. Nebraska is affordable. And the entire stretch going east from Indiana over to a lot of Pennsylvania is very affordable.

It's what happens when you don't pay a premium to live in a huge booming metropolis or in a place that has perfect weather 300+ days a year.

Drop the coasts off the equation and the medium home prices would be half what they are.

Well...yeah...but how do you earn a living in those areas? That's the problem.

I suspect that a great many people would love to relocate to an area with lower housing costs and less congestion (myself included), but they have difficulty figuring out how they'd earn a living in those areas, especially if they have college degrees.

Heck, if it were that simple then boatloads of people would be moving to the likes of rural Montana, Oregon, and Colorado, etc. Heck, if it were that simple I'd already be there.

Come on, there's a whole lot more between the sheets than podunkvilles. There's are dozens of cities ranging from 100k-500k to even over 1 million that have very reasonable living costs with good job opportunities. It's just that not many people grow up in California and go "I wanna move to Omaha!"

Omaha, NE
Sioux Falls, SD
Cedar Rapids, IA
Des Moines, IA
Peoria, IL
Quad Cities, IL/IA
Appleton, WI
Milwaukee, WI
A half dozen big cities in Ohio
Indy
San Antonio
Most of the major cities in Texas

And so on.

All have very reasonable housing, safe living conditions (with a few rough spots that are easily avoided), short commutes, and plenty of jobs that pay well.

It's just that a lot of people in more appealing areas thumb their noses. There are plenty of jobs, and the number of candidates applying are much lower than in more desired hot spots.

That's great and all, but place is FAR more important than other factors. Place is not just about history, attachment, belonging, roots, and other similar things; it's also about weather, environment, social attitudes, being well established, etc. I have NEVER understood people who will move for something as ludicrous and unimportant as a job. Place actually matters, employment doesn't. I know I'd rather die in the northwest than live wealthy in the south or midwest. And before you dismiss my attitude as insane just remember that anthropological and sociological studies pretty much support what I say.

Yeah, I would agree, but that's not the issue here. Whipper was talking about relocating but then wanted to know about earning a living. He was being informed that it could be done.


BTW, I don't think I'd leave the midwest even if I could make more on the coasts(and I know I could). I love the midwest, it's people, climate, etc. It's just a bonus that I like to do what I am doing here and that it pays relatively well(for this area)

Ohhhhh, now I get it. Sorry, I'm uber tired and totally misunderstood the exchange.