The average salary for an RN in LA is around $90k, a dentist around $300k, a SWE at around $150k, Aerospace Eng at around $115k, Pharma Researcher at around $140k, etc.
If you've been working in a white collar industry for a decade, and your partner has as well, you'll end up being able to afford a pretty large down.
Furthermore, it's very easy to find a job in these hubs, not just in Software but also in Hardware, Finance, Accounting, Pharma, Aerospace, and Government.
In addition, lots of people just like the weather. Polar vortexes, hurricanes, and snow does suck.
And finally, there are some people who might not feel as safe in Middle America due to their identity (racial, sexual, or gender).
This isn't to say that Middle America sucks (it doesn't), but people make rational choices about where they live, and it's insulting to say otherwise.
You have valid reasons to live where you live, and I listed those of mine and my peers.
Off topic, but do I take it that you've tried living elsewhere and it didn't work well for you?
I had a great time living outside the Bay Area, but at some point you do end up missing stuff from your culture.
It's similar to how you see so many NY transplants complaining about Pizza or Italian food in SF.
It's similar for me if I'm outside the West Coast.
Asians are not homogenous, and we have extreme levels of ethnic diversity, and most cities and towns in the West can accommodate for that level of Asian diversity.
Also, at some point it gets annoying when some cities might be ethnically diverse but only show off "Italian" or "Irish" pride (looking at you Boston) despite having way larger Brazilian, Dominican, Puerto Rican, or African American populations.
If Boston, Chicago, or NYC's image is always going to be intertwined with Italian-American, Irish-American, German-American, or <insert European community>-American, I got the message. And "Chinese" or "Indian" American doesn't cut it when the difference between someone from Xian and Changsha can be massive, or someone from Kashmir and Kanyakumari.
I can't comment on Chicago, and don't disagree about Boston, but your perception of NYC seems pretty off-base. NYC is extremely diverse. According to Wikipedia, "New York contains the highest total Asian population of any U.S. city proper." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asians_in_New_York_City
Likewise for the greater New York metropolitan area -- for example Jersey City is considered the most diverse city in the United States, and Bergen County has the largest percentage Korean population of any US county.
Several smaller ethnic groups are not well represented in NYC.
Indian isn't a singular identity but dozens, same with Chinese, Pinoy, etc.
If there's a specific Asian subethnic cuisine or community you want to find, you will always find 3-4 options within commuting distance in the Bay Area, but never really in NYC.
For example, if I want authentic Uyghur samosas, I have 3 options in SF, but only 1 that recently opened in ALL of the NYC metro.
Same thing if I want Bihari style cuisine, or Pakhtun cuisine, or Central Vietnamese cuisine .... (you get the point)
This doesn't matter if you are a large ethnic group like Cantonese or Gujarati, of which there are tens of thousands here, but it does matter if you're a smaller subgroup or you wish to experience different subgroups.
On top of that, Asians are well represented outside the Bay Area in other areas in the West - I can go to small town California and not get treated as an "other" because they had a community of ranchers who moved from India 100 years ago or have a multigenerational Filipino community.
If you go to small towns in the East Coast, you absolutely do feel and get treated like the "other".
I don't need to worry about a racial abuse in a town like Visalia but I have been called slurs in similarly sized towns in Upstate New York.
At the end of the day, California is Minority-Majority, and the rest of the West is trending the same way. Perpetually being a minority like out East, Midwest, or South sucks.
If I or my family ever needs some form of support from the government or social services, I can safely assume that resources exist to meet our cultural needs, but the same cannot be said out east.
Furthermore, we are VERY well represented in all rungs of government and civil service out West, but it's not the same anywhere East.
It's like what Ali Wong said - SF is basically Asian Wakanda
> Several smaller ethnic groups are not well represented in NYC
and this, which is what I'm disputing here:
> NYC's image is always going to be intertwined with Italian-American, Irish-American, German-American, or <insert European community>-American"
I don't think that statement about NYC's image is remotely accurate or fair.
> I have been called slurs in similarly sized towns in Upstate New York.
Upstate New York is multiple hours drive from NYC, and not considered part of the NYC metro area. Are you asserting that there are no places a similar distance from SF that will "other" people of color?
Edit to add:
> For example, if I want authentic Uyghur samosas, I have 3 options in SF, but only 1 that recently opened in ALL of the NYC metro
From a couple minutes of searching on Google, I see two options in Manhattan and at least four in Queens offering it as either samosa, samsa, or baked bun. Is this what you were referring to?
I wouldn't expect many of my South- and East-Asian engineering friends from the Bay Area to just YOLO and buy a house next door to me. Heck, I've asked some of them, and yes, the culture gap weighs heavily on their minds.
A US-based colleague reports that what he doesn't like about traveling north of the Mason-Dixon line is when certain people hear his accent and assume his politics match theirs.
(as to New Orleans: it has the reputation it does because the catholic french history makes it much less WASPy than neighbouring regions, in many ways)
I'm drowning in offers from banks begging to refinance my home, but I got a ridiculously low rate during COVID and I refuse. Also I don't want to be underwater if the market ever comes to it's fucking senses.
And this is why decreasing interest rates will only raise housing prices EVEN higher.
There's too much demand but not enough supply.
And we don't physically have enough to build houses, nor the ability to bring guest workers to build for us due to USCIS incompetence.
There's a nice place nearish me that sold for like 3 million dollars, which is crazy, but the property tax is like $36000 a year. That seems crazy as well.
* require that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limit annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. (this was the text of the prop in 1978)
* upon the transfer of properties, allow them to be reassessed at one percent of their sale price and reset the limit on annual increases of assessed value.
* prohibit the state legislature from enacting new taxes on the value or sale of properties.
* require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase non-property taxes.
* require local governments to refer special taxes to the ballot and require a two-thirds vote of electors.
* make the state government responsible for distributing property tax revenue among local governments.
Meaning that if you bought your house in 1975 for the median price of $24,300, you'd pay 243 dollars. Now, the next year (ignoring inflation, because I can't get a good source for that), you'd pay 1.02X of that, so $247.86 in property tax (Tell me if I am wrong here!). In 2024, if you carry it all out, you'd be paying $641.23 in property tax.
Now, look at the median home price in California in 2024. Its $860,300. That growth rate between 1975 and 2024 is, on average, about 8.1% for the median home (again, tell me if I'm wrong here). If you bought the median home in 2024, you's then pay $8,630 in property tax.
So, if you've lived in your home since 1975, 1) good for you! Keep up whatever you're doing health-wise and 2) you're paying $7961.77 less than your next door neighbor that just bought the house. They are paying ~13.4X in taxes than you are. Not 13.4% more, but 1,340% more.
This issue has come up with my parents. They've lived in the house since 1978. Nice little place. Dad got it for ~70k and they pay about 650 for taxes these days. Mortgage was paid off years ago. The house next door has gone through about owners in about seven years. It's always young couples with maybe one kid and usually one more on the way. The houses go for about 1.1M now. So, they are paying about 11k in taxes. Then the mortgage comes along. Lets use a mortgage rate of 5% and assume they managed to get 20% down for the sake of argument here (it varies a lot, I know). Their mortgage is 57k a year, so with taxes about 68k a year, round it to a nice 70k a year with garbage and water and whatnot. Or about 5,800 a month. Versus my folks who are at about $200 a month. About a 29X difference. (I know I screwed up something here, sorry).
The very second there is any kind of wobble in their finances, these couples have to sell. There is no room for error with these young people. An accident, a plumbing problem, any kind of health issue. Boom, done.
My folks try to help out as they can, they baby sit sometimes, my Dad does a lot of free labor and lends out his tools, helps buy sod and supplies when he can, they cook for these couples too. The neighborhood tries to help the young folks out. But at nearly a 6k/mo drain, guys, there's not much you can really do. Fortunately the house only ever goes up in price, so when they do move out to live with family again they aren't underwater. But that just sets up the next young couple for another disaster too. It's honestly tragic.
This works okay in states like Texas that have no income tax, but hardly applies to California tax rates..