[throwaway729]

> For the most part, this is all true in, say, Tulsa. Especially if you stay off Facebook.

Really only the cost of living.

> Commuting is less wearying

Not really.

There's a near zero percent chance your commute involves anything other than driving. The walkable areas of midwestern cities are certainly cheaper than SF, but they're also not exactly cheap. You're still looking at half a million for a decent house, 200k for a decent condo, and that's on a midwestern salary. Not to mention the weather.

And if you're driving, well, driving is driving.

> And American politics, “Brexit” and the Islamic State are on the other side of the world... [can be avoided] Especially if you stay off Facebook.

I mean, I guess you can just avoid talking to people altogether, but avoiding Facebook is no way to avoid the nastier parts of American populist politics in the midwest, which is decidedly Trump's America. On my last visit I learned that there are still people who very strongly believe that Obama is a Muslim and Clinton is a witch (literally, as in worships satan. I'm not exaggerating and they weren't being coy with language). And I wasn't even seeking them out, they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.

So no, the midwest isn't some cheaper version of California. There's a reason why people like me leave after a few decades and never look back. The weather sucks, the cities are either unlivable or not appreciably cheaper, and there's a high concentration of extremely unpleasant people.

[dang]

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14114500 and marked it off-topic.

[hueving]

>which is decidedly Trump's America

Look at the results for something like Kansas City, MO.[1] It's about 50/50 between the two candidates. If you look at the Bay Area counties[2], it's 1/6th to 1/5th of the voters supporting Trump.

So in a room filled with a random ~10 people will have 2 Trump supporters in the Bay and 5 in Kansas City.

>they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.

I suspect this is the only actual difference between the two. On your visit to the Midwest you were forced to hang out with people discussing politics. This is no less unpleasant if you are living in the Bay and aren't a rabid Democrat.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/missouri

2. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california

[vkat]

I lived in Kansas City metro for 6 years and politics is rarely discussed at work. The people I hang out with are very welcoming and don't treat immigrants any differently. When there was racial induced killing in one of the suburbs(Olathe) there was an outpouring of grief and support. Basic human premise.

[cookiecaper]

Also note that a [white] local attempted to defend the targeted men and got himself shot in the process. There was also a racially motivated killing in NYC shortly thereafter.

The Midwest has its share of people who are off the rails, but so does the rest of the world. The overwhelming majority of people and interactions are just fine.

[throwaway729]

> Kansas City, MO...Bay Area counties

This isn't even close to an Apples-to-Apples comparison. You should at least include Clay, Lafayette, Johnson if you're going to look at the entire Bay area.

And then looks at who's Actually In Charge of the state! The people with the power are the ones who make an actual difference, on a political level. Greitens is downright liberal compared to a lot of the general assembly.

> So in a room filled with a random ~10 people will have 2 Trump supporters in the Bay and 5 in Kansas City.

But you and I both know that's not how it actually works basically anywhere. Except maybe the DMV.

> On your visit to the Midwest

I spent decades there, in cities, burbs, and rural areas.

My experiences are representative. Perhaps, I venture to guess, much more representative than someone who never leaves Jackson County.

Spend some time in the bootheel. Or even the comparatively flaming liberal city of Springfield.

[muninn_]

There are so many things wrong with this comment.

First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work. I hate cars, but you're being dishonest in how you're addressing the parent comment. Going to the grocery store, for example, isn't a commute. Actually you could probably use Prime Pantry or something and not even have to drive to go do those things. I strongly prefer a walkable city, and people like Jeff Speck preach the gospel as far as I'm concerned - but I'll take a daily 20 minute drive over an hour hopping on and off trains any day of the week - especially when I can do so from my nice, comfy Lexus or whatever.

You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal.

>And don't get me started on the casual racism/homophobia. The Midwest is Trump's America. In-laws firmly believe Obama is a Muslim and that Hillary Clinton is a witch. I'm not exaggerating for effect, and they're not being coy. Sincerely held beliefs.

Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid. My parents don't think Obama is a Muslim , aren't at all racist, and they voted for Trump. I don't think Obama is a Muslim (I voted for him both times) and I don't like Hillary. So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - especially these undeserved "casually racist" ones.

[throwaway729]

> There are so many things wrong with this comment.

I feel strongly about the midwest. I hated living there. There are serious down-sides, and if people move to Tulsa thinking it's "NZ in the USA", they're going to be in for a rough surprise.

Do you disagree?

> First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work

My point was that you're probably going to end up driving in either case, and if you have to drive anyways, your commute will suck no matter where you live.

OR, if you don't end up driving, you're actually not saving much on cost of housing. And you probably have a lower salary with which to purchase that prime real estate. Basically, little net benefit over California or other coastal states.

> You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal.

First, I don't live in California.

I agree with everything else. It's really all beside the point, though.

> Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid... So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - especially these undeserved "casually racist" ones.

My family isn't stupid. Pretty smart by any objective measure aside from willingness to believe confirmational bullshit, actually. Which is kind of my point. They're embedded in a terrible culture.

Look, I lived in the midwest for decades. I know what I'm talking about.

The politics of the region is dominated by this sort of stuff. It's a LOT more common and MUCH more difficult to avoid in the midwest. The composition of state houses speaks for itself. Name a midwestern state and I'll go member-by-member through its General Assembly to demonstrate to you the obscene popularity of blatant intolerance. Seriously, shoot.

It bleeds over into every aspect of life.

If you're lucky enough to be white male and straight, you can just avoid talking to people all-together, or silo yourself off from your community, and mostly ignore the terrible culture of the region. Which is what I did. But if you like living in a community where you know and respect your neighbors, the midwest can be a tough place to be.

[cookiecaper]

This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I intentionally avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA.

Like all places, the Midwest is not without its unhappy quirks or its difficult people, but Midwesterners are noticeably polite and friendly, even coming from other "flyover" regions.

Yes, they are generally conservative (not universally, and especially not among the young), but they can usually get along with their neighbors just fine.

When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay teachers living in our neighborhood. While I'm sure it upset some of the parents, these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools. This was in a very red region, not some liberal enclave.

We had people of all races and it was rarely, if ever, a visible issue. We didn't have anyone shouting racial slurs or visibly denigrating people. I'm sure this happened occasionally, not trying to say that there are literally 0 racists, but it was by no means a sentiment you'd come across with any frequency.

If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who also live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest.

The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it.

[throwaway729]

> This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I intentionally avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA.

This is certainly true! To each his own. My point was that the midwest probably isn't a great place to be if you're looking for "cheaper California".

Sounds like we agree on that.

> When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay teachers living in our neighborhood... these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools

1. "Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".

2. A school I attended explicitly discriminated against trans people in hiring. And those are the public schools. So, YMMV. I'm sure things have gotten better across the entire country since then, including the midwest.

3. Even without "lose your job/house" levels of hate, the world can still be a nasty place. E.g. imagine driving by this billboard every day: http://www.medina-gazette.com/news/2013/02/22/Passers-by-on-...

And of course most of the people you interact with disagree with the sign, but attend churches that teach the exact same thing. Those "midwestern nice" interactions don't feel so "nice" anymore.

> If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who also live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest.

Sure. The difference is who's in charge! And that's the difference that makes a difference.

> The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it.

For you. I hated it.

[cookiecaper]

>"Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".

The point is that the community at large was willing to accept these people as role models for their children and did so with minimal hostility or interference (visible anyway, since I can't see what happens behind closed doors). Entrusting a teaching position is a little different than any other random job.

While I'm sure there are horror stories, in practice it would be very rare to find someone who was legitimately "fired for being gay".

The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO. This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general.

[throwaway729]

> The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO.

If only that were true, I'd move back to the midwest in a heart beat.

> This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general.

Name a "that doesn't happen here" scenario -- from blatant racial discrimination/brutality in policing to "bobby's parents sent him to pray-the-gay-away camp" -- and I experienced or directly witnessed a friend experience it before coming of age.

Whenever people shame me for being overly harsh on midwestern culture, I stop and feel guilty for a split second. Then I think back to these victims of its excesses and the guilt quickly subsides.

I firmly believe there are decent communities in the midwest. Especially in its cities. I don't doubt your or anyone else when you say you've had good experiences.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything about the fundamental cultural trade-winds of the aggregate region. Or the effect they have on people caught in the zip code one over.

[tomdell]

Stop with the generalizations. They're inaccurate and insulting. You don't know what you're talking about at all.

[throwaway729]

I'm not saying "all midwesterners are racist and believe in crazy shit". I'm saying it's more common and harder to avoid in the midwest.

I think that claim is both true and demonstrable. I even suggested one empirical test.

At the very least, it's not a generalization. Saying "box a has more red gumballs than box b, so if you don't like red, choose box b" isn't the same as saying "all the gumballs in that box are red".

> You don't know what you're talking about at all.

With all due respect, I lived in the midwest long enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe our experiences differ, but mine are PERFECTLY well-informed.

I believe that you know what you're talking about. I also don't believe your experiences are perfectly representative.

[hueving]

>With all due respect, I lived in the midwest long enough to have an informed opinion. Maybe our experiences differ, but mine are PERFECTLY well-informed.

It sounds like you lived in one location in the mid west and have taken it upon yourself to assume that's how it must be everywhere. That's not well-informed, it's just an anecdote about a crappy time spent somewhere in the country.

[throwaway729]

> It sounds like you lived in one location

Also not true. Try again.

> That's not well-informed, it's just an anecdote about a crappy time spent somewhere in the country.

Multiple decades across several states. Both in cities and in non-city areas.

The argument here basically amounts to: "But hey, the densest 20% County-Containing-Major-City, ST isn't so bad, and my college educated software engineering co-workers are all pretty decent..."

And I'M the one making inaccurate generalizations about the region?!

Come off it. Take a week off work on go two counties in any direction. Or hell, to that other suburb where 30% of the metro population but none of the folks you hang out with live. Come back and tell me you still think I'm wildly out of touch.

[csutter]

I live in Tulsa and disagree entirely. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[komali2]

You being different than the majority of the Midwest doesn't change the fact that the majority of the Midwest is conservative.

[badsock]

It's deserved:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11833548/donald-trump-support-ra...

[djsumdog]

I never owned a car in Wellington. The bus and train system is excellent.

[throwaway729]

Since some people feel I'm being unfair to the midwest, I'll mention:

* Chicago has a pretty decent public transit systems.

* MSP and St. Louis both have decent light rail systems for their size. Still pitiful compared to most of western Europe or Wellington (the latter due to the comparably poor bus systems in msp and stl), but also cheaper on the tax base of course. And not too shabby compared to Portland for example.

[gregw134]

You can get a decent house (3 bedrooms, large yard) for 150k in many Midwestern cities as long as you're willing to live in the suburbs.

[throwaway729]

FWIW my experience is closer to 200k minimum. Especially if you want to be in one of the 1 or 2 best school districts in the area. But yeah, right ballpark. Definitely cheaper than CA. you can also go way south of 150k if you're not in a major metro area, though.

But for not much more (and with a higher salary) you can get a decent suburban house in any number of western or eastern cities. Maybe a tad less land here or there.

And the cities are still expensive with bad schools.