Rich in the city or poor in the country? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rich in the city or poor in the country? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:25:03 AM EDT

[#1]

To be 'rich' in SF you would need to be making at least $200,000/year

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:27:55 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I choose the country. But can I choose another county besides Fulton? Fulton is a one deer county and it's in the northern part of the state were you get a lot of snow. How about Brown or Adams?

I needed a difficult choice. While I live in Fulton County, I understand that most would never consider it as a place to live. It's cold, flat, there is little opportunity, and it's sparsely populated. I wanted to force people to make a difficult decision. Wacky San Francisco, or who-the-hell-wants-to-live-there Ohio.

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:28:32 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have that exact choice to make in about a year, well over $100k in Los Angeles area, or 30-40k in rural Idaho. I have no idea what to do.

Have you ever lived in the country? If you have then you can make a good desicion. If you have not, then move there, at least for a couple years to get your feet wet. Idaho is a great place to live (even though I have never lived there). I grew up in Rual WY and I am moving back in a couple of weeks. SD has TOO much of nothing but provate property. Drives me nuts. All the features of living in the country without the country.

If you grew up in rural WY (isn't all of it rural?) your concept of city vs. country is probably a little out of whack. You're beyond "out in the country" in rural WY.

You got a point. Everyone here thought I was a bit strange when I said I wanted to get out of the busy live and back to the country. I think they thought I was crazy. The biggest town I have ever lived in was about 100k people. That was pretty big in my opinion. I know it is nothing in the grand scheme of things, but to me it was pretty big.

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:31:21 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
To be 'rich' in SF you would need to be making at least $200,000/year

The "rich" thing made for a catchy title (or so I thought). 35K isn't exactly "poor" in Fulton County, either. What I really want people to do is look at the numbers, consider both areas, and make an artificialy limited choice.

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:40:08 AM EDT

[#5]

I guess I'd rather be poor in the country. I'm on a teacher's salary (in rural Alabama), but we live comfortably on 75 acres. Got a few motorcycles in the garage and both cars are paid for. My mortgage payment is half of what a friend of mine is paying for RENT closer to Birmingham.

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:45:20 AM EDT

[#6]

If my only two choices were San Fran and Ohio, I'd pick Ohio.

If my only two choices were San Fran and a Soviet gulag, I'm going with the gulag.

If my two choices were any US metropolitan city and Ohio, I'd have to think about it (NOT a big Ohio fan)

If my two choices were any US city and where I live now, I'd choose where I live now.

(all above assume the income parameters you set)

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:48:01 AM EDT

[#7]

Ohio. I dont like big cities.

Posted: 3/17/2006 5:49:32 AM EDT

[#8]

Not even having to think about it, OH. Remember what state SF is in? Gun laws there suck!

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:04:09 AM EDT

[#9]

Fulton County Ohio isn't so bad. I spent the first 18 years of my life there. Elkhart County Indiana is getting too populated.

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:37:40 AM EDT

[#10]

Poor in the country, but I think your poll needs work.

Ohio is not exactly a gun mecca. Our laws in Pennsylvania are MUCH better. Better than Texas's gun laws, even. We grew up here in rural Pennsylvania; my sister went to live in Ohio (Cincinnati) and she said the gun laws were nowhere as loose as Pennsylvania's.

And it's not uncommon to be making $150k+ living in the burbs or rural areas in southeastern Pennsylvania, where you have a short jaunt into Philadelphia or Wilmington (DE). Some people even live in Philadelphia and commute to New York City every day. That's why we have million dollar condos being built on a daily basis in Philadelphia.

My sister now lives in California, a scant 90 minute drive from San Fran. As others have noted in this thread, $150k is not "rich" in that area.

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:39:23 AM EDT

[#11]

I like the big city life. I'd choose (flame away) San Francisco. I just left Ohio

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:43:15 AM EDT

[#12]

Can't I make $75k/year in the suburbs?

(I voted for "poor in the country"

... I'd never live in a city)

Posted: 3/17/2006 6:56:50 AM EDT

[#13]

I'd rather live in W.Va. than Ohio, but this will have to do. No $$ at all there. I wouldn't live in Ca. for any amount of money.

Posted: 3/17/2006 7:04:04 AM EDT

[#14]

I can't stand when guys look at MY butt and not my girlfriend's, friggin country for me.

Posted: 3/17/2006 7:36:10 AM EDT

[#15]

I think I'd have to take SF. I'm originally from BFE Indiana and it would take 250,000+ for me to consider moving back there on my own.

Posted: 3/17/2006 7:49:12 AM EDT

[#16]

I'd take the country over any city.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:08:19 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
In the land of opportunity, there are more than two options.

But in the land of ARFCOM, 5 choice polls don't work and a false dichotomy is preferred.

How about $70k in Orlando or Dallas or something like that. Seems you set yourself to make a bunch of cash in SF, but almost nothing in Oho.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:08:26 AM EDT

[#18]

$150K is pocket change in San Fran. No way you'd get me to move there for less than $300K/yr.

In Ohio, I could use the equity in my current house to buy some huge house with land and have plenty left over to supplement that $35K.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:14:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Of your two choices: Ohio.

Why?
1)It's not Commiefornia
2)CCW, Class 3
3)Country living seems nice(although I've lived in urban areas all my life)
4)It's not Commiefornia.

Figure you'll have $5,000 left over each month to fuck around if you pick SF. Add in a car + insurance + gas = $1,000. Now we're at $4,000. Figure $500 for food and entertainment. $3,500. I'm sure you could live comfortably and buy a shithole trailer home in Nevada or Arizona in the middle of the desert to use as your personal gun storage and shooting range with the money that's left over, all while enjoying life in what is a fine city (Aside from the gun laws and high cost of living). Of course I imagine most here are country folk. I'm a city person myself.

This assumes you're single. I could not comfortably support a family on $150k in the SF bay area. Between private school (SF schools are teh suck), food for a family (our grocery bills are way more than $500/mo.) and other assorted family-type expenses, we'd be tapped out before we started. Not to mention real estate prices -- I wouldn't want to raise kids in an apartment, so we'd have to find a million dollars somehow for a modest house. No thank you, I'll take my chances on Fulton County (wherever the hell that is).

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:17:20 AM EDT

[#20]

so if everyone here moved to fulton county ohio could it be considered a "city?"

Arfcomtown

Arfcomsville

Township of Arfcom

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:24:13 AM EDT

[#21]

You can't put a dollar amount on freedom.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:28:16 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In the land of opportunity, there are more than two options.

But in the land of ARFCOM, 5 choice polls don't work and a false dichotomy is preferred.

How about $70k in Orlando or Dallas or something like that. Seems you set yourself to make a bunch of cash in SF, but almost nothing in Oho.

I know, that was the idea. A fat (kinda) paycheck, but you have to live in SF - which the average Arfcommer would find objectionable. The other alternative was country living (or small city, I did leave all of Fulton County up for grabs), but a miserably low wage. Basically, you're between a rock and a hard place. Financially - even with the additional cost of living - you'd be better off in San Francisco.

It was meant to be a shitty choice.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:29:33 AM EDT

[#23]

Even better, do #1 for 5 years, live like a pauper, bank it, THEN take the second job with a huge bankroll for a nice house and savings.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:30:03 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
so if everyone here moved to fulton county ohio could it be considered a "city?"

Arfcomtown

Arfcomsville

Township of Arfcom

Unincorporated villiage, I think.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:33:31 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I have that exact choice to make in about a year, well over $100k in Los Angeles area, or 30-40k in rural Idaho. I have no idea what to do.

Have you ever lived in the country? If you have then you can make a good desicion. If you have not, then move there, at least for a couple years to get your feet wet. Idaho is a great place to live (even though I have never lived there). I grew up in Rual WY and I am moving back in a couple of weeks. SD has TOO much of nothing but provate property. Drives me nuts. All the features of living in the country without the country.

WE have a house in Idaho, we only use it for vacations at this point. I have not lived in the country but I have spent time there. It is a different way of life for sure and has pros and cons. Mortgage in Idaho is under $400 a month. House payment in California is around $2500, but it's real nice to be a little over an hour drive from mountains, several beaches and a number of theme parks. The simple country life does have a draw for me, just not sure how quickly it will get extremely dull.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:38:02 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
you guys are fucking morons.

at $35k per year you'd NEVER be able to retire.

WRONG. In Ohio, you can live on 35K a year, especially if you're single and sock alot away. My buddy is doing just that. He's only 40 but has enough in his IRA to cash out now if he wanted to.

Around here, you can live in the country, own a nice little piece of land with a $500 a month house payment, and the cost of living is very good in rural Ohio. My taxes on 44 acres are only $2100 a year.

Now, contrast that with SanFran. It's one of the most expensive places to live on the west coast. So, do you think you're going to buy a house there? With 150K a year? Ok, maybe you will....a shitty one and you're going to pay $2000 a month (3 times the Ohio payment), and you're going to pay a shitload in taxes across the board. Guess what? You're not sitting with any more money in the bank than I am poor in Ohio partner. No way, I know the bay area, it's not happening.

I know of what I speak, I am living less than a rich life here, but I have land, a new house, a range in my backyard and some retirement socked away. I'm not a fucking moron. In fact, I count myself as one of the smarter people when it comes to living free and well.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:40:56 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
you guys are fucking morons.

at $35k per year you'd NEVER be able to retire.

WRONG. In Ohio, you can live on 35K a year, especially if you're single and sock alot away. My buddy is doing just that. He's only 40 but has enough in his IRA to cash out now if he wanted to.

Around here, you can live in the country, own a nice little piece of land with a $500 a month house payment, and the cost of living is very good in rural Ohio. My taxes on 44 acres are only $2100 a year.

Now, contrast that with SanFran. It's one of the most expensive places to live on the west coast. So, do you think you're going to buy a house there? With 150K a year? Ok, maybe you will....a shitty one and you're going to pay $2000 a month (3 times the Ohio payment), and you're going to pay a shitload in taxes across the board. Guess what? You're not sitting with any more money in the bank than I am poor in Ohio partner. No way, I know the bay area, it's not happening.

I know of what I speak, I am living less than a rich life here, but I have land, a new house, a range in my backyard and some retirement socked away. I'm not a fucking moron. In fact, I count myself as one of the smarter people when it comes to living free and well.

Wow, somebody gets it.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:43:27 AM EDT

[#28]

i might be biased but i picked ohio.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:44:48 AM EDT

[#29]

Could you even live on $150k in San Francisco?

You can buy a car and a decent house on $35k in the rural areas.

Jim

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:46:26 AM EDT

[#30]

Looks like ARFkommers are in the minority. I saw a map of the poulation trends and rural areas continued to lose population and outer suburbs to gain population.

I like the outer suburbs, close enough to get a wide variety of food, movie, and hi speed internet, but close enough to the hills to go shooting when I want to.

I think I would get very bored on a rural farm or a very small town.

Posted: 3/17/2006 8:51:12 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Could you even live on $150k in San Francisco?

You sure can. Plenty do it with much less. I made $100,000 when I worked there during the dot com boom, and I was near the upper end of the pay scale in the building. Plenty of folks lived in the city with $70k and $80k incomes.

It's meant to be a tough call. You're not going to live in a nice house on $150,000/yr in San Francisco. If you play your cards right though, you can easily manage $2,000 a month in disposable income with that salary.

"But" you say, "I wouldn't want to raise a family there and private school is expensive". And I'd say "Very true, so consider Fulton County". You may reply "Fine, but it's in the middle of nowhere and the income level sucks". And I'd say "I know, it's a tough call ain't it?"

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:31:59 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
And I'd say "I know, it's a tough call ain't it?"

It is a tough call, for the 2 seconds I think about it before I realize I can buy a suppressed M16 here in Ohio.

Sorry Cali, you suck.

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:38:00 AM EDT

[#33]

I have a similar decision to make soon. $80K working in NYc and living slightly upstate in a very expensive area. I am being offered $40K to live in the finger lakes area (Ontario county) My wife is from there and she is ready to go. Not sure what I will be doing.

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:39:08 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I certainly wouldn't consider 150k 'rich' in SF.

and $35k isn't poor

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:39:22 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
you guys are fucking morons.

at $35k per year you'd NEVER be able to retire.

WRONG. In Ohio, you can live on 35K a year, especially if you're single and sock alot away. My buddy is doing just that. He's only 40 but has enough in his IRA to cash out now if he wanted to.

Around here, you can live in the country, own a nice little piece of land with a $500 a month house payment, and the cost of living is very good in rural Ohio. My taxes on 44 acres are only $2100 a year.

Now, contrast that with SanFran. It's one of the most expensive places to live on the west coast. So, do you think you're going to buy a house there? With 150K a year? Ok, maybe you will....a shitty one and you're going to pay $2000 a month (3 times the Ohio payment), and you're going to pay a shitload in taxes across the board. Guess what? You're not sitting with any more money in the bank than I am poor in Ohio partner. No way, I know the bay area, it's not happening.

I know of what I speak, I am living less than a rich life here, but I have land, a new house, a range in my backyard and some retirement socked away. I'm not a fucking moron. In fact, I count myself as one of the smarter people when it comes to living free and well.

Wow, somebody gets it.

Even I have to admit that this is true....Northern VA is quite a bit like SF. Down the street from me are $1 million townhomes that would hardly sell for $400,000 in Ohio.

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:41:57 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Hell I make $35,000 in SW Virginia and I am just fine and dandy.

Yup im at $35000 in Medford Oregon and have a home and a landrover.. So I guess im doing good..

Posted: 3/17/2006 9:42:14 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I certainly wouldn't consider 150k 'rich' in SF.

and $35k isn't poor

You're both right. I'm starting to wish I used a different thread title.

Posted: 3/17/2006 10:07:45 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Up me to $200k and I'll take San Fran.

I wouldn't mind living in the country, but I wouldn't live in Ohio at any price.

When I started interviewing with Bank One many years ago, I told them from the outset that if the position involved moving to Columbus then we could stop talking right now.

I've hear people say that about California, but never about Ohio. At any price? I'd love to know why, this is interesting.

It's not just Ohio. Add in IN, IL, MI, PA. I don't like the midwest. It's depressing. But there are plenty of other states I wouldn't move to either.

Indiana, Michigan, I could do. I live in IL and want to leave, and PA I hear is conservative but teeming with NY and MA libs at the same time.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rich in the city or poor in the country? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us