One of the things that always amazes me is when you confront people who live in the highest priced areas of the US is the argument that they "have to be there". Or else, if you show them places where they can get six times for their money the throw their head back haughtily sneering "oh, there".
Recently there were some articles about Google opening up a fiber network in the small city of Kansas City, KS. They discussed how this network offering near 1Gbps speeds was attracting a circle of entrepreneurial start ups some of whom bought homes to be in the service area. But what also caught my eye was the price of those homes:
But once Google announced its fiber rollout schedule, Barreth realized the families that had signed up were not going to get crazy speeds until Summer 2013. So he took matters into his own hands and, with his wife’s blessing, he liquidated his Roth IRA to put 20 percent down on a house they eventually bought for $48,000 in September 2012.
And they showed a picture of the $48,000 house and guess what...that house looked pretty nice!
Meanwhile I also read a story about a couple who moved to the Bay Area, to have these "great jobs" and yet their household income does not allow them to afford even a single home!
Maybe the Republicans are right in some sense, in the spirit of people not wanting to move where the work is, if they just gave up their pretensions (or biases) about what they "have to have" then their dollars would go a lot further...
John Bailo is moderator of this thread.
Watch comments by email
questions or suggestions? write email@example.com