[smeej]

If they're only in the major cities because they have to be to get their careers going and would prefer to be somewhere else, $2-300k would buy them a complete, well-renovated house large enough for a family in cash in much of the central part of the country.

Having to move to a city isn't the same as having to stay in a city.

[29083011397778]

One moves in a large city to start a career. At which point, by the time that middle America house is within reach, your support system is in the city as well. Friends for pet-sitting, likely family close-ish for child care, public transit to avoid paying for insurance, gas, parking, and a car. An emotional support network, instead of being (for at least the first bit) physically all alone with no friends nearby - because let's be frank: having all your friends a multiple-hour drive away, and none nearby, can feel bleak. Doubly so when your long-term partner isn't ready to sacrifice the above for a house in flyover country. And all of this precludes keeping your professional network nearby as well, making getting a new, better paying job easier as well.

None of these are insurmountable. Not at all. But the more barriers in place, the more likely it is that our hypothetical person will be stopped by one.

[smeej]

Granting that I only lived in the Midwest for 8 years, my experience was that those who "moved away to a city" still had most of their family support system in the place they left, not the one they moved too. Yes, they certainly made friends in the city, but their family and "oldest friends," the ones they grew up with, were still at home in flyover country.

These people should not be confused, though, with those who could not wait to get away from home and were beyond glad for an excuse to move to the city. Their motives and relationships are completely different.

I'm only talking here about the ones who "had to" move to a city to get started--the folks middle-American companies depend on for the long haul after they cut their teeth on the coasts.