It's much more complicated than that. Weather is a huge factor. Network effects are not so trivial or easily displaced. Walkability and public transit are major factors that contribute to those network effects and establish a city's culture -- which is a very difficult thing to reproduce. Not to mention politics. It's easy to say "just move to Shreveport!" But many, many people would feel very uncomfortable moving to these locations due to their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or whatever. And maybe the city itself is much more liberal than its surroundings. However, there are still genuine political concerns that many individuals would have for policy decisions made at a state-level that would directly affect their well-being.

The major argument people from the midwest or the south give in favor of their locations is lower house prices. Many of the "trendseekers" have no interest suburban tract homes. I think the people advancing this argument should understand that a home is, for many, just one factor amongst many in determining where to live, and in many cases is not the strongest. Shreveport, LA is not "uncool" because of some accident of trendiness. It's uncool because it's uncool. There are no strong networks there, no extensive public transportation systems, no walkability, no political protections for marginalized groups -- etc., etc. It's a lot more than just trendiness.

I say this as someone who has never lived on either coast. Just keep in mind that much of America seems unappealing or unfriendly to people who are not from here for legitimate reasons.

Plus, I mean, the elephant in the room is jobs. I'd probably be pretty happy in Upstate New York, but the options for work are far fewer than they are near major, booming cities.

Yes, absolutely. And those network effects I mentioned above significantly contribute to high-skill job markets in many cases.

Just how many jobs do you need? It only takes one good one that pays the appropriate amount, right?

No. I do not want to live somewhere where I cannot find another job if I am fired or decide I want to quit the one I have.

Maybe if it were a union job. As long as it's a right-to-work job, there needs to be a backup plan.

Besides that, the lack of available alternatives will almost surely depress your wages.

I read the article, and the comments here. I am struggling quite a bit in articulating what is going on in my head. I will try, with hopefully some modicum of success.

Let's start with how you ended your comment:

>Just keep in mind that much of America seems unappealing or unfriendly to people who are not from here for legitimate reasons.

It is ironic you say that because I was thinking about something very similar while reading the piece, but with the opposite sentiment. As hard as it may be to believe, the US is fairly homogenous. The language is the same, and the accents don't vary a lot, when you compare with a number of countries out there. The values are so similar that the differences really stand out, and we spend all our time focusing on the differences. Within the US, I have lived in the big city, in a rural area, in a very liberal area and a very conservative area, and the differences in values have impacted my life very minimally (as in I have not had to actively adjust anything in my lifestyle to fit in).

From an outsider's perspective, the US is very uniform given it's size and population.

Now look at it from a perspective of a foreigner who moves to the US - regardless of whether it was via the university system, H-1B, visa lottery, etc. Many of the issues you, other commenters, and the article mention, are simply dwarfed by all the other differences they have to put up with.

And yet, by and large, immigrants are more successful in the US than the local populace. The issues they face are more. Many of them do not have cash and struggle a lot initially.

I do not think the problem lies in network effects, politics, weather, etc (although I will grant sexual orientation/gender identity probably is a big factor). The problem seems to be in attitudes and expectations. I'm guessing immigrants have the mentality of "we'll have problems, and we will seek solutions" (honestly don't know - never asked them). Whereas much of the article and sentiment I see here is "We'll have problems, let's not even try". Or "I don't want to move. It just won't be the same there" (well of course!)

Forget immigrants. Look at the history of the US. People 50 years ago moved as well, with no better certainty than today's climate. Yes, the culture of the new city will be somewhat different. Yes it may not be as walkable. Yes you'll have to develop a new support network. None of this is new.

People do not realize they may get something positive out of the new culture. I remember when I was in a small university town in the Midwest, my colleague was from California and he was really depressed about it (not the university, but the town). He would talk about how boring it was, etc. It was trivial for me to list a rather large number of interesting/fun things that were available to him that he had not even tried (most within his interests). The notion that he had a boring life was purely internal.

>Weather is a huge factor.

I mean, of all the things. You're willing to risk not having a roof over your head because you want nice weather? Do you not see how this sounds to others?

This really sounds a lot like "I found a place that is heaven, and I do not want to leave". And a lot of "Moving is hard. Someone should make it easier for me before I move."

Sorry - really do not aim to be judgmental.

CA is the most desirable geography in the USA. The homelessness problem isn't because CA is trendy. CA has been the destination for the USA's disenfranchised and opportunity-seekers for decades because it's the best place to start a new life and not die over the winter. That might be ending now that CA is "full".

The OP might have meant less "disenfranchised" and more "people with money, jobs, and the means to move." I, for example, wasn't exactly disenfranchised when I moved to SF (poor, broke, sure, but with enough credit to get a loan and float on credit cards until I got a job).

For me, I chose SF because I was confident I could learn to program and then get a job here, and having an in to cheap housing for Chinese immigrants I knew I could do it without completely bankrupting myself. Opportunities like that don't necessarily exist in Madison, WI, as local culture makes the place a bit more traditional and resistant to, say, bootcamp-educated programmers.

Is northern California that much worse in the winters? Or the less popular areas of California? Because whenever we hear about homelessness being a booming problem it's usually to do with SF or perhaps L.A.

SF is in Northern California, so I don't understand the question.

If you mean to ask why the homeless don't go to Nowheresville, CA, it's probably because there are no social services available for them there.

I'd say SF is more mid-California, compared to what's north of Sacramento. North of Sacramento is pretty rural, full of people wanting to implement the State of Jefferson. But you're right, there isn't much in the way of social services in northern California, due to the population. The only real population centers are Chico and Redding. I haven't spent any time in Chico, but Redding has quite a few homeless, and there isn't much in the way of social services. The City of Redding doesn't have money to burn like SF apparently does, so the homeless pretty much have to fend for themselves. I get the feeling that a lot of Redding's homeless population is on their way somewhere; Redding is kind of a midway stop along I-5 or to the coast.

I'm on the East Coast, but Wikipedia describes San Francisco as "the cultural, commercial, and financial center of Northern California."

Yeah, and it's understandable why they would say that. Realistically the only places people care about in California are Los Angeles and San Francisco (and to some extent Sacramento and San Diego), and compared to LA, SF is definitely north. Culturally and politically, though, north of Sacramento is quite different from SF. I mean, you see lots of signs supporting the formation of Jefferson State (and seceding from CA). I've had California natives talk about how SF wasn't really northern CA. And geographically, it actually is kind of mid (on the northern end of mid, but still).

Northern California winters aren't harsh, but still don't compare with Southern California's.

If tons of high paying jobs suddenly open up in the Midwest it will not continue to be ridiculously affordable. Good jobs are trendy and will never go out of style.

People don't move places because they're trendy. They move places and stay there because that's where the jobs are.

And because they're safe, and because they feel a sense of community with the people they've met there, and because they're able to indulge their hobbies and because they have family that live there and told them it's great, and because...

The reasoning is vast and wild. Job markets are one factor, but there's a huge pile of reasons that factor in. Sometimes that includes being trendy.

Sure, that's why you move from one place with a decent job market to another with a decent job market.

But people an aggregate move towards places that offer economic opportunity and away from those that don't -- hence the waves of migration from rural to urban areas and away from dying cities like Detroit.

The only people (not quite that absolute, but close enough) who move from a place with plentiful opportunity to one without opportunity are those who a) have no choice (or feel they have no choice) -- be it due to being priced out or having to take care of an aging parent; or b) aren't subject to such economic pressures (work remotely or are financially independent).

Looking at Boston or NYC suggests the problem isn't that the Northeast isn't cool enough.