The Midwest is the best if... (Los Angeles, Concord: buying a house, buying, living in)

[bruhms]

...if the west wasn't the best!!!

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by kingdomkz

Thankfully IN Illinois you don't HAVE to pay that kind of money to GET the same qualities of a $600,000 house in urban Southern California! Let's do a comparison!

Los Angeles, CA:

2448 Kings Pl, Los Angeles, CA 90032 is For Sale | Zillow

This is literally the only house for sale in LA, for your listed price range! Needs desperate TLC to even be liveable.

1991 year, 5 Beds, 6 Baths, 4,832 sqft

Price: $600,000, Property Tax: $11,488

That LA house is obviously a special circumstance, as those taxes are based on an assessment of $900K, and they will reset to the 7K range if it sold for 600K. I'm curious how that house could lose so much value, must be falling down/need major work.

I also agree with other posters that people with middle incomes would probably have a better lifestyle in the Midwest. There is an opportunity for home ownership with reasonable commutes there that doesn't exist here.

For those that are better off, LA generally offers more in every area but housing. I think that people that compare the price difference between a 3 bed, 2 bath in a nice neighborhood in LA versus a similar size house in a Midwest city or suburb are missing an important point. Most people with good incomes tend to buy the nicest house that fits in their price range. If they can afford a $600K house, most people aren't buying a $250K house (although I think that would be better for their financial health). My friends back in the Midwest that are making similar income to me own houses that are worth 80-90% of what mine cost (and their property taxes are higher). The commuting times are similar, the difference is that my house is 2000 sqft and their houses are 3500 to 4500 sqft. Do they need all of that square footage? Since they don't have 4 kids, probably not. But that's what you get at that price range there. We would probably do the same thing if we moved back, because even though we don't need it, if we could afford it, we'd want an office. We'd also want some extra space like a game room or finished basement for the kids to run around in for the months of the year when it's too cold for me to want to hassle with taking them to the park.

So all in all, I would save 10-20% on purchase price, have a bigger house, pay more annually in property taxes, save enough on state income tax that it would probably even out with the property taxes. The sales taxes would probably save me about $600 a year based on our spending, and gas would be negligible as both my wife and I each fill up our cars about once a month. If we currently had long commutes, blew all our money instead of saving for retirement (more sales tax), or were trust fund babies who had a lot of capital gains income, the math might be different.

[iNviNciBL3]

Still you are forgetting something, its the midwest... i would rather live in the inland empire than the northside of Chicago.

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by NowInWI

First time I've ever ventured on the California site. Interesting...with just a couple of reads, I noticed there are those in California who think Arkansas and Oklahoma are a part of the Midwest, and the poster above, who said $20/hr is a good wage, certainly isn't speaking for anyone with a college degree. Certainly lots of stereotyping done here. Let's go with this....

Community, farmers face water cut-off after California drought decision | Fox News

I can't speak for the entire Midwest, but in WI, we do have a fair amount of water. I'm actually not posting this because I'm gloating...this is a serious situation. I'm afraid this will impact the future of certain areas...even more in the future than now. What is the solution? Clearly, there's not one currently in place.

I'm sure they will survive, isn't there a lot of ground water in the Mojave?

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

Still you are forgetting something, its the midwest... i would rather live in the inland empire than the northside of Chicago.

Lol..... I grew up in the Midwest and I agree.........so depressing.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota

That LA house is obviously a special circumstance, as those taxes are based on an assessment of $900K, and they will reset to the 7K range if it sold for 600K. I'm curious how that house could lose so much value, must be falling down/need major work.

I also agree with other posters that people with middle incomes would probably have a better lifestyle in the Midwest. There is an opportunity for home ownership with reasonable commutes there that doesn't exist here.

For those that are better off, LA generally offers more in every area but housing. I think that people that compare the price difference between a 3 bed, 2 bath in a nice neighborhood in LA versus a similar size house in a Midwest city or suburb are missing an important point. Most people with good incomes tend to buy the nicest house that fits in their price range. If they can afford a $600K house, most people aren't buying a $250K house (although I think that would be better for their financial health). My friends back in the Midwest that are making similar income to me own houses that are worth 80-90% of what mine cost (and their property taxes are higher). The commuting times are similar, the difference is that my house is 2000 sqft and their houses are 3500 to 4500 sqft. Do they need all of that square footage? Since they don't have 4 kids, probably not. But that's what you get at that price range there. We would probably do the same thing if we moved back, because even though we don't need it, if we could afford it, we'd want an office. We'd also want some extra space like a game room or finished basement for the kids to run around in for the months of the year when it's too cold for me to want to hassle with taking them to the park.

So all in all, I would save 10-20% on purchase price, have a bigger house, pay more annually in property taxes, save enough on state income tax that it would probably even out with the property taxes. The sales taxes would probably save me about $600 a year based on our spending, and gas would be negligible as both my wife and I each fill up our cars about once a month. If we currently had long commutes, blew all our money instead of saving for retirement (more sales tax), or were trust fund babies who had a lot of capital gains income, the math might be different.

Sorry, there is more to life than a 4,000 square foot house.

In fact anyone who leaves CA(and there are few on here who have posted just this) and than turns around and gets some huge house in another state that they don't really need, they're no better off financially in the long run.

One poster moved to Alabama and got some McMansion on two acres, couldn't just get a modest home like they had in CA. So they're no better off financially. He's bragging about how much more he has in house and property....LOL. Yes, he does. But he isn't saving money.

As I said earlier, you better enjoy that house because when you have to deal with brutal winters, humid summers, you're going to be spending a lot of time in it.

I know a few people who moved to TX, got the bigger house, missed family, missed CA, and didn't care for TX(again the weather and topography) and moved back to CA.

I would rather have a smaller house/condo in an area that I liked with better weather, better scenery( the Midwest is flat), and not have to drive a distance to go see an independent film or cultural events.

[jmac1]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Sorry, there is more to life than a 4,000 square foot house.

In fact anyone who leaves CA(and there are few on here who have posted just this) and than turns around and gets some huge house in another state that they don't really need, they're no better off financially in the long run.

One poster moved to Alabama and got some McMansion on two acres, couldn't just get a modest home like they had in CA. So they're no better off financially. He's bragging about how much more he has in house and property....LOL. Yes, he does. But he isn't saving money.

As I said earlier, you better enjoy that house because when you have to deal with brutal winters, humid summers, you're going to be spending a lot of time in it.

I know a few people who moved to TX, got the bigger house, missed family, missed CA, and didn't care for TX(again the weather and topography) and moved back to CA.

I would rather have a smaller house/condo in an area that I liked with better weather, better scenery( the Midwest is flat), and not have to drive a distance to go see an independent film or cultural events.

Somebody better listen to this guy.

I moved from SFV to Chandler AZ........from 2050 sq ft 3Bd 2 bath to a 4700 sq ft 6bd 5bath Too many bedrooms, too many bathrooms, not enough kids, too much on AC and heat in the winter and in the subs.....didn't like it at all.

I "downsized" to 3300 sq ft 3bd 2ba in a better location. When I originally moved, I did spend 115k less on my AZ home and invested the extra money wisely

There is only so much house you need and you use less than that...trust me. I did get lucky, because I love where I moved. But, all the way back to the mid-west full-time...no way!

Chicago in the summer

[h4ppyl1fe]

Originally Posted by jmac1

Lol..... I grew up in the Midwest and I agree.........so depressing.

Also from the Midwest and I left for college and to pursue my dreams here. It might cost more to live here, but there's just so much more opportunity in California, specifically in my field (tech).

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Sorry, there is more to life than a 4,000 square foot house.

In fact anyone who leaves CA(and there are few on here who have posted just this) and than turns around and gets some huge house in another state that they don't really need, they're no better off financially in the long run.

One poster moved to Alabama and got some McMansion on two acres, couldn't just get a modest home like they had in CA. So they're no better off financially. He's bragging about how much more he has in house and property....LOL. Yes, he does. But he isn't saving money.

As I said earlier, you better enjoy that house because when you have to deal with brutal winters, humid summers, you're going to be spending a lot of time in it.

I know a few people who moved to TX, got the bigger house, missed family, missed CA, and didn't care for TX(again the weather and topography) and moved back to CA.

I would rather have a smaller house/condo in an area that I liked with better weather, better scenery( the Midwest is flat), and not have to drive a distance to go see an independent film or cultural events.

I agree completely. The point of my post was that the big savings on housing that some posters claim rarely happens in reality for higher income people, because most people buy the nicest house that is affordable to them. When people move from a expensive market to a cheap one, most end up treating themselves to luxuries they don't necessarily need but would like. Sometimes that's a big house, sometimes that's lakefront property, etc.

For poorer people who are struggling with the costs of an apt in the IE, the Midwest could offer a bigger advantage as they could cut the percentage of their income going to rent to closer to the 30% that is recommended, rather than the 50% which is common in SoCal.

[jm1982]

I also agree it doesn't make sense to move out of state or out of L.A and then purchase a huge house with huge bills ,etc.

But on the other hand, a lot of people have moved or are moving because they can't even afford a small condo in a decent part of L.A

I know it sounds crazy...but 5 bedroom homes in Texas can actually be a lot cheaper than 1bedroom condos in L.A..

An example of this is this home in a Houston suburb
3707 Houston Lake Dr, Pearland TX 77581 - HAR.com

It's 5 bedroom 3 1/2 baths , in a gated neighborhood. with an asking price of... $260,000..
No Not 260k down payment...but 260k total..

Nowadays it's hard to find a one bedroom condo in a not great area in L.A for 260k.

Even if you have only a budget of $100,000 you can buy a place in TX or somewhere out of state.

If someone really wants to own property this is the real reason they move. Also not everyone is buying big mansions , but as you can see in my example its possible for a mansion to even be cheaper than a 1bedroom in L.A today.

In the past things were different as middle class people were able to afford/qualify for a bigger percentage of properties in L.A in decent areas. It's been a while since those days though...and the likelihood of prices coming down to a level that would make a different for most people is unlikely.