This is, unfortunately, a widely-held viewpoint here: that only the coasts count, and the "flyover states" exist only to serve the needs of their coastal masters.

Most such people have never seen inland states from ground level.

I'm a CA native looking to leave, and Nashville is one possible landing zone that is getting better and better press (outside of conventional media, which here retains the coastal bias).

> nothing to do

Yeah, you don't know anything about Nashville.

I think of the major cities in the country, "nothing to do" fits San Jose's downtown better than most. And I say that as an SJ native. South First Fridays[0] are about the only time there is a palpable presence in downtown.

[0] http://www.southfirstfridays.com/

Yeah, I only ever went there twice. Once to visit an army buddy, another time to visit my brother. Nashville is pretty frickin awesome, even if you're not into country music.

Have a chat with someone who lives in Nashville, they'll tell you you're full of shit.

Seriously. I don't think I'd want to live in Nashville, but that's a me thing--I spent a year and a half going there every other month and I had no end of positive things to say about the place, except for the reliance on cars for transportation. It's a really nice city, it's safe, and it has plenty to do.

I'm considering BOS->ATL right now, because Atlanta is also a really nice city but a little more tech-friendly.

Who are the Atlanta employers these days? I left for SF because there seemed to be nothing years ago. Now I know one person at Cisco ex-Scientific Atlanta, but everyone else in tech works at the enterprise telephone system company. That one might just be nepotism…

With friends who grew up in Kansas City, who moved to california, then back home to 'settle down' I'm willing to call your bluff.

There is a large fundamental difference between Outerbumbelch, North Dakota and Dallas, Kansas City or even Denver.

Who's bluffing? I'm not the one claiming that I'd be willing to do something drastic to lower my rent. I'm perfectly happy where I am.

This country is full of low-rent places. If you don't like your rent you don't have to stay in the city. What people want is to be somewhere desirable but not have to pay a premium for being someplace desirable.

That happens briefly when you find a good place that nobody discovered yet. But it never lasts. Eventually people find out. My property taxes have gone up 3 times in 5 years for precisely that reason. It's a small price to pay, IME, to be somewhere you like even if you have to pay extra.

I'm currently in Idaho, raised in SoCal. I would never return to California, the quality of life here is exponentially better.

I'm interested in details. Idaho showed up in comments so many times before, but every time I research it by myself, I can't of don't understand what's so appealing.

I'll just list a few things as selling points: 1) Very low crime. 2) Generally less restrictive laws. 3) Pristine nature is always nearby. 4) Not much traffic. 5) Cops tend to mind their own business here. I'm not bothered by the police nearly as much as I was in Cali.

That's a few things off the the top of my head. Now some downsides: 1) Culture (art, music, etc) are generally less available. 2) There aren't as many conveniences. 3) You pretty much have to drive everywhere in rural areas. 4) Towns aren't very well planned, I rarely see any bike lanes or pedestrian oriented areas.

Plains indeed are special case in terms of hi-tech jobs. However, PA or TX or NC are inexpensive and still have stuff going on.

The article's talking about Nashville, which if you're going to be stuck in the South, you could do a lot worse than.

I also don't think it's totally fair to compare it to the plains states, those places are emptying out for a reason (ok, several reasons).