Cost of living and real estate prices are what keep me away from living in California again, even though I grew up there. Grew up in Thousand Oaks (due north of Malibu), but got married and started my family in Oak Park (west of Chicago). We'd be happy to have you here! Take all the money you would otherwise spend on a house in L.A. and instead, spend it on extending your startup's runway, and/or 3D printers, Arduino, and making robots. It worked for me! With O'Hare airport nearby, you're always a frequent, direct flight away from the coasts if needed.

Funny enough, I recently moved from Schaumburg (having lived most of my life in the Chicago suburbs) to St Petersburg, FL to get away from the high cost of living in Illinois (and the winters!).

No income tax (helpful in high earning years), much lower property taxes, and I'm 15 minutes from one of the top rated beaches in the country.

Yeah, but how many high-paying tech jobs are available in Florida?

I work remote for a Bay Area startup, close to market rate.

If I instead worked locally, DevOps jobs are a plenty. Sure, not at $130K-$150K/year, but plenty at $100K-$125K/year, which affords more purchasing power relatively than me making market rate in the Bay Area. And I get much more time with my family working from home.

There is no amount of money in the world worth trading quality of life.

Which is exactly why many people would never dream of leaving SF for Florida.

San Francisco is a fantastic place, but I'm convinced that comments like this one that assume it's so much better than everywhere else that you'd have to be crazy to leave are evidence of a deep (probably not even conscious) need to justify the high cost of living.

If San Francisco didn't cost so much, people wouldn't feel the need to defend it in such ridiculous ways.

What is it that attracts you to SF? I've been there lots of times for conferences and it has always struck me as a so-so place to live, but in my experience there are so many places that are so much better. Cheaper housing, closer to nature, better mountains, better beaches, less fog, better weather, less taxes, fewer californians ;-)

To each their own. I'd rather retire at 35-37 then have to try to stick it out in the tech industry in my 40s and face the ageism that comes with that.

Lived in Chicago most of my life and moved to the bay a couple years ago.

What you might gain in affordability you lose in weather and employment options. Also, corporate culture in the Midwest is typically as dated and conservative as it gets.

Georgia welcomes you with open arms. I moved from the DC area where I was spending $1,800/mo for a 2 bed 2 bath 30 miles outside of DC. I came south and bought a 3,200 sq ft home, 12 miles from downtown Atlanta, for $200,000. I've got a nice backyard, two car garage, it's quiet, costs are low, and the weather is nice.

Ive been to Atlanta. I wouldn't describe the weather, especially the summers, as "nice". 90 F with 100% humidity[0], isn't "nice." I grew up with it. It sucked.

Also, I don't really think the Confederacy is a welcoming place.

[0] https://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPDK/2015/9/26/...

I lived in Atlanta for two years while I attended Georgia Tech. Never again. They still have a monument for the Confederacy. I'm sorry, but you lost.

Ugh! As a kid, I visited Atlanta during the summers of 1990 and 1991. My Yankee ass was not prepared for the laser light show at Stone Mountain. The encore was a celebration of the Confederacy, complete with a laser portrait of Gen. Lee in his most resplendent military regalia. People began chanting the South will rise again. That's when I realized I couldn't live anywhere in the South besides Miami.

What other nation state tolerates such salient scenes of seditious activity?

It was an explicit reconstruction policy. The government wouldn't prosecute the traitors for treason, because we were once again a big happy family. This is why 10 Army bases are named after confederate generals[0]. Sometimes, even after really crappy generals. (See Fort Bragg [ibid.])

The modern movement of embrassing "southern heritage" with the confederate flag, holidays, and monuments come from an reaction to the civil rights movement. Stone Mountain in your example was the site of the founding of the second Klu Klux Klan, which was then purchased by the state in 1958. The site and the history of memorial are deeply entwined with the KKK. I truly urge everyone to read the Wikipedia page about this site if you have any doubts about this.[1]

[0] http://time.com/3932914/army-bases-confederate/ [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain

When some place becomes a new popular migration destination, its politics usually change pretty fast.

Nope. See Austin. Largest city in the US without its own congressional representative. Instead, it's gerrymandered into 6 other districts to minimize Democratic representation.[0] See the latest disenfranchisement laws.[1]

If you're going to lose, change the rules.

[0] http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jul/17/ellio...

[1] http://www.newsweek.com/voter-id-laws-discriminatory-disenfr...

Not sure why you were down voted without refute. Gerrymandering is a known and ignored problem in a lot of states, including my home state of Kansas (where Lawrence is split down the middle).

I just assume it's because it's inconvenient to someone's preconceived political notions. Happens all the time around here.

I've also been modded down to oblivion recently for saying that I don't like exercise because I find it boring. Whatev.

Aren't both Lawrence and Austin big college towns?

Maybe the state does not want its representatives chosen by out of area students who will not be around long term to deal with the outcome of their votes, good or bad.

So the students shouldn't have representation from the place where thy live anywhere from 9 to 12 months out of the year, but instead have repeentation in a place they live 0 to 3 months in? That doesn't make any sense.

Also, Austin is... wait for it... THE STATE CAPITAL, with a population of 912,000 people. UT Austin Has an enrollment of 50,000. Even if we held for sake of argument your statement that college students should vote in "home" districts where they don't live for more than half the year, and for simplicity say that all 50,000 students are not from Austin, what of the remaining 862,000 Austin residents? Don't they deserve to have their city represented, like every other city of similar size?

Calling Austin a "college town" is as nonsensical as calling Boston one.

The reason why college towns get gerrymandered to dilute their representative power in Republican dominated states has everything to do with the fact the fact that college students tend to vote Democratic. This is the same reason why "voter fraud" became an excuse to target minority voting patterns. It's a partisan power to try to create and maintain structural bias into the electoral system.

You actually give an example to reinforce my point. Austin has to be gerrymandered, because it is already so blue - if it weren't, they wouldn't bother. Gerrymandering is moving the goalpost (of what it takes to get political representation), but as a technique, it has a limited range. At some point the supermajority is sufficiently super that no amount of fooling around can suppress it.

My point is that things don't change fast. Multigenerationally, sure. Fast? No. Not even close.

I don't know. NC already changed fast enough that I would hesitate to call it multi-generational.

HB2 says otherwise.

HB2 is only one piece of the puzzle. The state did vote for Obama in 2008, and presidential elections are a big part of political representation, too (in fact, the 2016 one may well even take care of HB2 in a roundabout way, via SCOTUS).

The sooner you leave LA, the sooner you can start saving for the things you want to do.

I lived there for 6 years, now I do remote work for an LA based company and travel. Best decision I ever made.

Colorado is calling.

I dunno the Denver and Portland trains as cheap and fun urban areas sailed a few years ago (the cheap part). I'm waiting to see what the next rad yet cheap city is... Nashville maybe?

I've been really impressed with Richmond, VA. The tech scene is small, but pretty healthy. It's not my favorite weather, but it has four seasons, which is a plus. Great restaurants (some DC restaurant concepts get tested there first).

I haven't spent much time in Nashville, but I've only heard good things from friends that moved there after college.

Kansas City. Nashville has been a hotspot for back office outsourcing from the Bay and NYC for years.

Yeah, all the californians moved to Portland and caused the housing prices to sky rocket.

Just back from Boulder. Could live there and work there. Denver is like a typical blue collar town, but Boulder has that utopian walkable thing that techies crave so much. The bookstores in Boulder are incredible.

Weather was great this time of year at least.

Boulder house prices are probably as high as East Bay in California at this point.

Colorado is full thank you to move somewhere else and transform some other state into california.

You could try Europe, where people have figured out that it's possible to live with lots of other people and still be pretty happy.

This "OMG! Other people! The horror!" mentality is part of the reason why places like LA (and Boulder, in Colorado) get so expensive in the first place. If you do density right, it keeps prices down, and requires less driving because you can put a lot of smaller businesses in the middle of dense areas and have them be successful, and also walk/bike to them. It requires a substantial rethink of our zoning though.

Working remotely in parts of Portugal and Spain is a recipe for happiness and early retirement (speaking as a US citizen). I can't imagine wasting so much take home pay on CA living costs; you'll never be able to retire or own a home outright under those conditions.

As a young Portuguese immigrant in California, I would selfishly ask you not to share this recipe too widely ;)

Places like Portugal - and Italy, where I spent most of the last 15 years - would certainly be helped more than harmed by people moving there with high-paying jobs and paying into the local economy.

That is probably true up to some extent. I just don't want to the country (Lisbon, in particular) becoming an amusement park for tourists (in the style of Barcelona).

He was talking about living there and working remotely. This is very different from the "let's go hang out and drink for a week" kind of person.

Loved visiting those places, but could never live there. Last time I went people were smoking in pairs in the grocery store. WTF?

You're welcome to pool resources with like-minded individuals, purchase all property that has been developed or is planned to be developed in Colorado, and prevent it from being used by or sold to anyone else.

Until then, the entire state is not your backyard, thankfully.

And it should go without saying, but there's no natural right for things around you to remain exactly like they have always been. Although you do, of course, have a natural right to free speech to grumble about how they change.

Try Minnesota. We're not dicks!

I have my suspicions

Native Washingtonian.

We're also full.

Native? Which tribe are you from?

Here's the Merriam-Webster definition in case you don't know what native means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/native

Is there a reason you raised the issue of race? Does my race matter? If so, I'd just LOVE to see you explain why.

Your race doesn't really matter, no. But neither does your native-born origin. You don't get to lay an exclusive claim on the arbitrarily defined geopolitical unit on the basis that you happened to be born there.

Except you wrote:

>> Native? Which tribe are you from?

Then you wrote:

>> You don't get to lay an exclusive claim on the arbitrarily defined geopolitical unit on the basis that you happened to be born there.

Why won't you just tell the truth: you don't like it when some people lay an exclusive claim to a geographical unit on the basis that they were born there, but you're fine when other people do it, provided YOU get to make the rules a la: "Native? Which tribe are you from?".

BTW, there's a word for what you're doing. It starts with H.

It was a rhetorical question to invite further discussion. Your assumptions about where I wanted the discussion to go from there are just that, assumptions.

And no, I don't believe that Native Americans have such rights, either. But since you sounded like you believe that you do, it was a comparison that practically begged to be made.

Are you that guy from the UK? I think we've had this conversation before.

No, I'm a guy from Russia who lives in US. But I'm sure you had that conversation before - it's not exactly uncommon :)