The top ten states Americans are flocking to in droves to benefit from a much lower cost of living - and then ten they are leaving

[RocksInMyHead]

Thank you for that cost of living index by state. I sincerely hope this is a very credible analysis of data. I live in Missouri and I am grateful that the average cost of living in my state is well below the base score of 100.

It seems fairly accurate and consistent with my experiences, at least at first glance.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Your situation isn't the "norm" though for much of that type of vehicle ownership.

Study Claims That Most Pickup Truck Owners Don’t Actually Use Them For Truck Stuff

Even when we were kids, many of us have always loved the pickup truck. They’re big, rugged, capable, and tough, and all of those same qualities still resonate with us today as adults. In 2022...

www.powernationtv.com

(and this isn't a pro-green, pro-fuel efficiency source, PowerNationTV is a "Detroit Muscle" publication that loves gas guzzlers and high performance and old hot rods)


Researchers found that a significant portion of modern pickup truck owners rarely, if never, use their vehicles for hauling, towing, or other typical truck stuff. Instead, they are more likely to be used for shopping, running errands, and commuting.

The following results were based on answers given by F-150 owners with model years 2012–2021.

View attachment 350621

The majority are getting them for the same reasons one may get a sports car, they think they're fun to drive and they want to convey a certain "image".


I have a car that's a "toy" (I have my daily driver, and I have an impractical car that looks cool and is fun to drive). However, I knew what I was signing up for, and with the money I shelled out on the car, I certainly wouldn't be portraying it as "the economy is going down the toilet!" because there are some times where it takes me $52 to fill it instead of $47.

The only point you are making is that people love their trucks more than they love California in that they will choose to move instead of getting rid of their F-250 for a Prius.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My 2011 Chrysler 300 has a 19 gallon tank and it averages 28 mpg.

Not 20 gallons, and if not "wildly inefficient" not that great on the millage.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only point you are making is that people love their trucks more than they love California in that they will choose to move instead of getting rid of their F-250 for a Prius.

If someone is willing to uproot their family, change jobs, and completely relocate to the other half of the country due to having to pay an extra $10 to fill up at the gas station, then I'd like to sit down with them and go over their math.

There's any number of good reasons to leave Cali for a more cost-effective state if costs are their concern (I listed off several of them earlier in this thread), as is true with crime concerns.

"I can afford a $50k truck, but can't afford to spend an extra $10 to fill it up" isn't one of those legitimate concerns. That's just someone looking for a cheap "Dem Bashing" opportunity (when quite frankly, there's better opportunities available)

The fact that you immediately brought up the Prius is exposing your underlying mentality just a bit.

You seemed to immediately default to the most stereotypical "hippy'ish", "caricature of what a SF liberal would drive" as the counterpart to driving a F-250.

There are ample options on the market, people are not limited to just the choices of "Manly Truck with 14mpg to show everyone how rugged I am" and "Little Hybrid Clown car with a peace sign bumper sticker and pre-loaded Grateful Dead CD"

 

[Vambram]

Not 20 gallons, and if not "wildly inefficient" not that great on the millage.

I'm satisfied with the mpg for my car.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

If someone is willing to uproot their family, change jobs, and completely relocate to the other half of the country due to having to pay an extra $10 to fill up at the gas station,

I had to stop reading after this. You just don't get it. Gas prices are just one example of the bigger issue. The problem is the progressive policies that are literally sucking people's finances dry and leaving them unsafe. California has one of the highest tax rates on everything, to include gas. People here complained about homeowners insurance in Florida, but do not want to discuss the housing prices in California, property tax, sales tax, income tax, price of food, price of electricity, water, and tolls. I even provided a link showing the cost of living by state. The highest were all blue states, the lowest was all red. That is why people are leaving blue states to go red. It isn't that difficult to understand, but your ideology prevents you from admitting it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

but do not want to discuss the housing prices in California,

What are you going on about? Everybody in this thread is talking about housing prices in California.

But please continue telling others how they “don’t get it.”

 

[Pommer]

Not 20 gallons, and if not "wildly inefficient" not that great on the millage.

I had the car that got three gallons to the mile.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I had to stop reading after this. You just don't get it. Gas prices are just one example of the bigger issue. The problem is the progressive policies that are literally sucking people's finances dry and leaving them unsafe. California has one of the highest tax rates on everything, to include gas. People here complained about homeowners insurance in Florida, but do not want to discuss the housing prices in California, property tax, sales tax, income tax, price of food, price of electricity, water, and tolls. I even provided a link showing the cost of living by state. The highest were all blue states, the lowest was all red. That is why people are leaving blue states to go red. It isn't that difficult to understand, but your ideology prevents you from admitting it.

My ideology?? You mean my "touch right of center"/"spent the first 3 pages critiquing the blue states" ideology? lol

Cost of living in certain states (while partially impacted state policies) can't be solely attributed to just the "blue policies"...some of it has to do with location in proximity to "where the action is" so to speak.

Costs per state has a less-direct correlation with party than say, criminal justice policy.

While California has a Democratic governor and legislature...

States like Maryland and Massachusetts have had Republican governors in the past decade and were still more expensive to live in (by a lot) compared to places like Iowa or Idaho.

Virginia has a split legislature and republican governor, it's still more expensive to live there than in Ohio.


If we rewind the clock to the early 1970's. Median rent in California was $140/month. Median rent in Kentucky was $82/month

Compared to today

Here Are Median Rental Prices by State in the U.S.

Over 12 million Americans were spending at least half their paycheck on rent.

time.com

The ratios weren't wildly off from where they're at today. Early 1970s was right in the middle of Ronald Reagan's tenure as Governor of California, and when Kentucky had a Democratic Governor (Wendell Ford). So even with the "conservative's conservative" Reagan at the helm in Cali, and a Democrat running Kentucky, Cali still cost way more to live in than the rural states in the Midwest and South.


None of that is to suggest that their policies have had no impact on some of the increases that take place (California has one of the most burdensome regulatory processes in the nation for new construction). And the safety issues that have been an increasing concern there can certainly be blamed on some of their policies. However, we do need to be realistic in the critiques.

It's not as if had California just been under republican leadership for the past 20 years, it'd magically be a beacon of affordability. States that have a certain "draw" (whether it be a tourist draw, activities draw, or if it's the epicenter of certain sectors) are always going to have some upward pricing pressure that doesn't exist in a states that don't.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What filthy slanderous crap for a Christian to be spouting. For shame. Matt 15:11

??

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Oh? You "started to research"?

Because when I admonished people to "drill into the data a bit more," you said that that was "spoken like a true liberal," as if that were a bad thing.

Because it was

I did the research already.. And it did not line up with what you were trying to say.

If you were truly as into "research" as you claimed, you would have agreed with my admonishment.

No.

not when you do it one sided like you did.. You were slamming conservatives..

What do you know about why California is "unlivable"?



I'm sure your hours and hours of research brought you to that conclusion.

What is livable there? Why are the streets lined with drug addicts and homeless?

Why are people working multiple jobs just so they can live?

I spoke to actual people who left. should I listen to the media. or talk to the people themselves?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I’m sorry, but am I missing some context (or something here).
In what ways, (specifically) is the Biden Administration “destroying” our country?
What policies have proven systemically detrimental to the proper functioning of government?

Illegals, Debt relief, A systematic push of the legal system to go against your apponenet and his supporters.

Come one. what other president int he history of our nation has done what this man has done.

I think Carter was bad. I would take a million carters over the current one WHO HAS TO BE LED EVERYWHERE BECAUSE HE GETS LOST.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

While I certainly have my fair share of disagreements with the Biden administration on a variety of issues....

Hyperbole in the theme of comparing his administration to some sort of stop on "the roadmap to communism" is just as unproductive as when people were suggesting the same about Trump and fascism.


Finding one or two shared proposals or pieces of rhetoric, and jumping to the immediate conclusion that it'll follow the exact same trajectory as the worst historical examples is flawed logic and ignoring a lot with regards to probabilities and statistics.


While one can make reasonable arguments (for and against) on the topics of healthcare, public education, social welfare policies, "Stalin proposed that too, and look how that turned out!" isn't one of those reasonable arguments.

Mainly because there are loads of other countries that implemented those things, and didn't devolve into Soviet-era collectivism, so one would basically have to ignore the 98% of instances where it didn't lead to that in order to think that it's assumed that we'd wind up like the 2% that did.


As soon as Biden starts proposing things like the public sector be expanded to exceed 50% of the market, that people should have their vocation assigned to them, the widespread legal abolition of private property ownership, then we can start having some of those conversations about whether or not we're on the slippery slope.

Until that happens, there's no reason to assume that it's a "given" that we're any more likely to experience the "worst possible outcome" than any of the other 70+ developed nations that have implemented similar kinds of policies and haven't turned into Communist states.

(not to mention, it's sort of a slap in the face to anyone who had to endure actual socialism/communism)

Talk to a person from 80s/90s Romania or East Germany or Cuba. Tell them "I know exactly how you felt, they just raised my taxes by 2% and proposed a new set of building codes that will make building my new gazebo a hassle"...see what kind of response that yields lol.

Socialism is the deal

Who is paying for all the welfare that keeps hard workers at home on the government dollar

who is going to pay for the student debt Biden wishes to cancel

The lie is the economy is great. What is said is people buy it. The lie is that unemployment is going down. where? My wife can not keep workers. because they hire someone, they word for enough hours tro keep their welfare benefits going, then quit.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Because it was

I did the research already.. And it did not line up with what you were trying to say.

What did your research say?

No.

not when you do it one sided like you did.. You were slamming conservatives..

Because IME it tends to be conservatives who gloat about interstate migration patterns

What is livable there? Why are the streets lined with drug addicts and homeless?

"The streets" aren't lined with them. Yes, those problems exist in some places, but they're hardly ubiquitous. Homelessness tracks with housing costs more than just about anything (even moreso than poverty), so it would make sense that a place with expensive housing is going to have a higher number of people who can't afford it.

California's drug problem isn't worse than other states. The states with the highest overdose death rates are mostly in the rust belt, deep south, and southwest. You called out Ohio and Arizona specifically and both of those states have higher OD death rates than Clifornia.

Drug Overdose Mortality by State

www.cdc.gov

Overdose Mapping Tool

opioidmisusetool.norc.org

Why are people working multiple jobs just so they can live?

Because it's expensive.

I spoke to actual people who left. should I listen to the media. or talk to the people themselves?

My comment about your "research" was in response to your comments about socialism and communism:

Look at any communist state you see today and see how they got to where they are. then look at the current administration. It is prety much text book how to destroy a country.​

​

That's absurd.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Socialism is the deal

Who is paying for all the welfare that keeps hard workers at home on the government dollar

who is going to pay for the student debt Biden wishes to cancel

The lie is the economy is great. What is said is people buy it. The lie is that unemployment is going down. where? My wife can not keep workers. because they hire someone, they word for enough hours tro keep their welfare benefits going, then quit.

But what you're describing isn't "socialism", it's a market economy with an expanded welfare state.

There's valid arguments that can be made against an expansive welfare state, and reasonable people can disagree to what level it should exist.

However, that and actual socialism aren't synonymous. A system has to check some specific boxes in order to be able to be rightfully called socialist.


- it needs to have an expansive public sector in which most industries and means of production are controlled by the state
- it would need to be a top down centrally planned economy in which vocations are assigned rather than individually sought out an acquired
- it would need to include punishments or "negative reinforcement" for those who don't participate in the system


While all socialist/communist states involve redistribution, not all redistribution equates to "socialism/communism"
(the old saying, all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples)

Socialist/Communist states have legal penalties for things like murder and driving drunk... the fact that we have similar laws against murder and DUI doesn't mean we have "socialist laws", that just means that there is some auxiliary overlap between the systems and certain policies.


Case in point, arguably one of the most capitalist countries on the planet is Singapore. They have some of the lowest corporate tax rates, low income tax rates, no capital gains tax, and is consistently ranked in the top 3 for "least regulated" business environments.

However, they still offer things like subsidized college, universal healthcare, and government-paid maternity leave. (all of which are funded via the tax dollars they do collect)


The negative outcomes you're describing are the result of a welfare state not having robust enough guardrails (and the indolence that can produce), but a country having a welfare state component doesn't equate to socialism by default.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

"The streets" aren't lined with them. Yes, those problems exist in some places, but they're hardly ubiquitous. Homelessness tracks with housing costs more than just about anything (even moreso than poverty), so it would make sense that a place with expensive housing is going to have a higher number of people who can't afford it.

You evidently have not seen the pictures. and hearrd the complains.

California's drug problem isn't worse than other states. The states with the highest overdose death rates are mostly in the rust belt, deep south, and southwest. You called out Ohio and Arizona specifically and both of those states have higher OD death rates than Clifornia.

Drug Overdose Mortality by State

www.cdc.gov

Overdose Mapping Tool

opioidmisusetool.norc.org

California has a drug problem worse that many states because they give the drugs away for free in thei clinics. somehow thinking if they do that, they can help people and reduce crime.

Because it's expensive.

My friend and his wife are dealing with an issue, Her father died in California. And his house (which was worth 400,000 a few years ago. Now goes for 700,000 some odd dollars.

Imagine having a 7000 dollar a month mortgage (which at the current interest rates it would be)

so you have a 70000 dollar mortgage, High taxes (to pay for all the socialist things the government gives away) the high cost of living. and so on and so forth. and we wonder why people are leaving in droves.

My comment about your "research" was in response to your comments about socialism and communism:

Look at any communist state you see today and see how they got to where they are. then look at the current administration. It is prety much text book how to destroy a country.​

​

That's absurd.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

But what you're describing isn't "socialism", it's a market economy with an expanded welfare state.

10 years ago. I could agree.

There's valid arguments that can be made against an expansive welfare state, and reasonable people can disagree to what level it should exist.

However, that and actual socialism aren't synonymous. A system has to check some specific boxes in order to be able to be rightfully called socialist.

inorder to bring in socialism, you need to bankrupt the state. what do you think is happening now?

- it needs to have an expansive public sector in which most industries and means of production are controlled by the state
- it would need to be a top down centrally planned economy in which vocations are assigned rather than individually sought out an acquired
- it would need to include punishments or "negative reinforcement" for those who don't participate in the system

all of which we are starting to see..

While all socialist/communist states involve redistribution, not all redistribution equates to "socialism/communism"
(the old saying, all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples)

When you pay people who are more than healthy enough to work. to stay home, thats not redistribution

When you have people who go to school. and spend hundreds of thousands to go. then write of their debt, and have the government pay that debt, its socialism

Socialist/Communist states have legal penalties for things like murder and driving drunk... the fact that we have similar laws against murder and DUI doesn't mean we have "socialist laws", that just means that there is some auxiliary overlap between the systems and certain policies.


Case in point, arguably one of the most capitalist countries on the planet is Singapore. They have some of the lowest corporate tax rates, low income tax rates, no capital gains tax, and is consistently ranked in the top 3 for "least regulated" business environments.

However, they still offer things like subsidized college, universal healthcare, and government-paid maternity leave. (all of which are funded via the tax dollars they do collect)


The negative outcomes you're describing are the result of a welfare state not having robust enough guardrails (and the indolence that can produce), but a country having a welfare state component doesn't equate to socialism by default.

Socialism fails. It has never worked. and will never work.

and we are headed right there, up to an including the current administration using the justice system to systematically take out an opponent and his people.

if you can;t see this, Well I can;t help you

 

[iluvatar5150]

You evidently have not seen the pictures. and hearrd the complains.

When I go visit my in-laws in the bay area, I see no homeless people and no junkies roaming the streets in their town. (a SF suburb that’s even more expensive than SF proper)

What should I deduce from that? That the problem doesn’t exist at all or that it’s concentrated in certain areas?

California has a drug problem worse that many states because they give the drugs away for free in thei clinics. somehow thinking if they do that, they can help people and reduce crime.

According to those sites I linked, CA’s OD rates are pretty average. If their drug issues stem from handing out drugs, what’s the reason that red states (with ostensibly more “sensible” drug policies) have higher rates of overdose deaths?

My friend and his wife are dealing with an issue, Her father died in California. And his house (which was worth 400,000 a few years ago. Now goes for 700,000 some odd dollars.

Imagine having a 7000 dollar a month mortgage (which at the current interest rates it would be)

so you have a 70000 dollar mortgage, High taxes (to pay for all the socialist things the government gives away) the high cost of living. and so on and so forth. and we wonder why people are leaving in droves.

Absolutely zero people are wondering about why folks would leave when housing prices are that high. Everybody is pointing the finger at high COL (which is mostly driven by housing costs) as being the main factor. What people balk at are conservatives’ blaming of things like taxes and culture war stuff.

 

[BCP1928]

??

Your post (#98) is an ugly, destructive, bald-faced lie.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

inorder to bring in socialism, you need to bankrupt the state. what do you think is happening now?

Actually, if you look at how/when many socialist states were formed, whether or not the state was bankrupt was irrelevant.

In many cases, it was simply a matter of conquest by an already-existing socialist state (the Soviets) that had a bigger army and were foisting it on the smaller nation.

all of which we are starting to see..

No we're not...for the 3 bullet points listed, I've yet see any proposals from the Biden admin suggesting that the public sector be massively expanded.

I've yet to see any proposals suggesting that people should be given a mandatory vocational assignment

And the last one I listed... your assertion is actually the opposite of that.

You implied that people were being rewarded for staying home and not working...that's actually the opposite of what happens in a socialist system. If you're able bodied and refusing to go to your assigned vocation under a socialist state, guys with guns show up to your house and make you go to work under threat of severe legal punishments.

It can't be both...is laziness & the neglecting of work being rewarded or punished?

When you pay people who are more than healthy enough to work. to stay home, thats not redistribution

When you have people who go to school. and spend hundreds of thousands to go. then write of their debt, and have the government pay that debt, its socialism

Again, that's not socialism, it has nothing to do with control over the means of production, nor expansion of public sector.


It's lousy financial stewardship and poor fiscal planning, but that's not what's being debated here.

Socialism fails. It has never worked. and will never work.

Agreed... but pointing out the failing track-record of a system that's not being advocated for by the current administration isn't galvanizing the point you're trying to make.

and we are headed right there, up to an including the current administration using the justice system to systematically take out an opponent and his people.

That's not an exclusive feature of any specific economic system.

Pinochet was a staunch anti-communist (so much so, that if you were caught participating in any sort of socialist or communist groups, you were given one of his signature "helicopter rides" -- the kind people don't come home from)

And when people say "What Biden is doing to Trump with justice system is Banana Republic stuff!", the irony there, is that Banana Republics were actually operated under borderline anarcho-capitalist administrations, not socialist ones. The Banana republics operated under such loose economic restrictions, that literally everything was "up for sale" for a profit. (Including the countries' natural resources, their postal services, their utilities, etc...). So lax, in fact, that if you were rich and decided one day you want to buy the post office or the telegraph service from the government, and then flip it for a profit to a foreign corporation, you could. (and that's not an exaggeration, that actually did happen)



So is Biden pushing for:
Expansion of the welfare state? Yes
Irresponsible redistributive measures? Yes
Cash-in-hand entitlements that create some indolence issues? Yes
Higher taxes? Yes

Is any of that evidence that he's pushing for us to become the USSA? No

At best, one could he's pushing for something resembling a watered down version of the Nordic model (which contrary to modern perceptions, is not socialism)


Definitions of terms are important.

Young progressives have bastardized what the term means by equating it to "that's what Denmark is"
Conservatives have bastardized the the term to refer to "any form of government spending or entitlements I don't approve of"

And as a result, when debating the subject people end up arguing with each under within the context of the other side's inaccurate definition, and the public debates end up looking like this: