originally posted by: HanSolo31
a reply to: okrian
Yes some cities are cheap, those are typically in areas that are polluted Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, AKA places nobody wants to live. Even though
they are cheap Cali taxes are Cali taxes.
Ha, I grew up in Bakersfield, and it's not "cheap," per se. I have many, many families members and friends still living there, and they hate the cost
of living in the town, but when I ask why they don't leave, they cite family and friends, certainly not weather, that is keeping them there.
I have a buddy who is on the Modesto PD--living in those areas isn't cheap, either.
The problem is that they are relatively
cheap compared to other areas in California, but they certainly are not cheap relative to the national
Take the area in which I have found myself--the Cincinnati Metro area. According to
, it is 20% cheaper overall to live in Cincinnati
versus Bakersfield. Housing is nearly twice as much.
Using that same site, Bakersfield versus, say, Long Beach, has Long Beach as being 45% more expensive than Bakersfield.
My point being that only in California or other ridiculously high CoL places is Bakersfield a good option for "affordability." My reason for comparing
Bakersfield to Cincinnati is that I live in the greater metro area of Cincinnati, but also that it affords a somewhat bigger-city feel and opportunity
than Bakersfield, with much more to do, yet is much cheaper.
It's like this in general, and since mortgages are what bog down people in California, it's sad that housing doubles from Cincinnati to Bakersfield,
and then more-than doubles again from Bakersfield to Long Beach. It's ridiculous what people will pay to live their day-to-day lives.
9-4-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)