We're not talking about houses in the middle of nowhere. These are major urban population centers.
The Houston metro area has 7 million people. The Phoenix metro area has 4.9 million people. Tampa metro has 3.1 million people. Houston and Phoenix are both larger than the Bay Area metro is currently. Tampa's just shy of the size of Seattle.
Nor is it the case that these are depressed areas with hollowed out job markets and no opportunity. They all have substantially lower unemployment rates than the national average. Well below the Bay Area in fact. All three of these metros have large-scale employers with plenty of high-skilled jobs. All three have economic growth rates and business formation rates far above the national average.
Not sure where you're getting that number from. Are you just referring to San Francisco / Oakland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...)? That completely leaves out San Jose and many other areas. The entire Bay Area is nearly 10 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area)
City, H+T % of income
New York City, 39%
San Francisco, 41%
Seattle, 46%
Houston, 45%
Phoenix, 49%
Tampa, 56%
Your other point about houses being "better" is also false. When you compare to economic items, you don't compare against something you can buy and something you can't buy anymore. The houses for sale are the "better" houses. That's the simple fact for Americans. It's because our culture only builds for the wealthy. The poorer get their hand me down houses.
Rents in the neighboring counties have been climbing steeply for years. If you were looking at an $850/mo property in 2012, expect to pay about $1500/mo for the same place now.
source: 30 year Tampa area resident
There was a time where people would move countries with nothing but what they can carry at a chance of improving their life. At a time where the only way to travel was by boat for weeks and the only way to communicate to relatives was by mail.
Now we balk at the idea of moving cities when it's easier than ever before, and we can communicate instantly across the world.
To be clear, it's not just "Raleigh" or "South Dakota", it's really any city outside of California + New York. I live in Richmond, an hour and a half from DC, and you can buy 2000 sqft homes for 200k.
They went to a place that is better than their hometown. What you are suggesting is that people should leave their hometown for a place that is worse at everything except housing.
So, it doesn't matter if X region is cheaper if there aren't any jobs there...
I mean - I moved to the bay area because that's where so many software engineering jobs are. I didn't move here because I loved the high cost of living. I moved here because there were a lot of jobs and I had an easier time getting a job here than almost anywhere else (ironic - I know). The places that were hiring in "anywhere else" were paying $50k/yr and still not easy to get into.
Doesn't really feel like cost of housing is what's changed.
Another change is that smaller houses have giant rooms. If you want a 4-bedroom in a decent school district (so, around here it'll be 80s construction at the very earliest, probably late-90s or later, or else in one of a couple very rich and expensive areas that have older houses) you're in for a giant house. A 1960s middle-class 4-bedroom probably has about the square footage of a modern 2-bedroom. Sqft./room is way up across the board. Further, floorplans that look nice in a walk-through or in photos but are incredibly wasteful of all that "cheap" square footage are the norm.
It's their own fault for not living where HS graduates can afford - a tent on someone's unmaintained property.
What matters is where HN commenters are, because they are controlling this discussion. Let's not pretend that upvotes here are representative of the wider population, or that the average populations' opinions are well represented here. No, you did not imply that, I'm not attacking you or anything, but I figured it should be said lest we delude ourselves.
> I don't want to live there
Isn't it great that the increasing wealth in society gives us the idea that we can pick and choose anywhere in the country to live and then expect to buy a house there? This was not exactly the case for my (grand)parents. My family came from Buffalo, moved to Phoenix, and settled in the Seattle area(long before there were Amazon jobs, when the PNW was a refuge for weirdos). Imagine how silly it would be if the majority of the US population thought they were entitled to a house in a "tier 1" city.
But then you are choosing to be poorer. And that can be a valid choice, but it is a choice you are making.
Right, but what matters is the housing price where people are. It doesn't matter what the housing market looks like in South Dakota if I don't want to live there. While houses in South Dakota may be 1/10 the price of houses in NYC (likely cheaper, honestly), they also have 1/10 the population. The notion that the quantity of land somewhere (in this case, quantity for sale) should somehow equate to importance more than the quantity of people is ridiculous.
> It's like somebody who works as a back office bookkeeper insisting on buying custom tailored Seville Row suits for his work attire, then complaining that the costs of clothes has gotten out of hand.
No, it's like someone who works as a back office bookkeeper in New York City being forced to pay insane amounts in rent while seeing thousands of empty AirBNBs, hotel rooms, etc. and complaining that the cost of living has gotten out of hand. Housing is a necessity, "custom tailored Seville Row suits" are not. And it's simply not feasible for the vast majority of people living paycheck to paycheck to just up and leave to Raleigh like you imply.