Rural living for double the income, would you?

[Enerchi]

BTW, I gotta say that YOUR definition of *rural* and MY definition of rural are vastly different.

Ok, I'm NOT going to accept the $500K offer if I have to live in the above version of rural. *THAT*, I could not do - not for 5 days, let alone 5 years!!

"Dahling I love you, but give me Park Avenue..." - that clever Zsa Zsa Gabor really was onto something there when she sang that in Green Acres....

 

[Niel]

I prefer nature. I find it something the city will never be able to capture, and someone mentioned your kids access to culture like museums and such... frankly for the number of times you go to the museum or the ballet as a child, i think a child is much better off living in the country. For example, when i was younger, i lived probably 40 minutes from downtown city, though where i lived youd never know it. If i wanted to be taken to a museum or something ones or twice a month, 40 minutes is not a shlep, and my mother was happy to take us in to the city, have a nice dinner or shopping..

but what i got EVERY DAY was out in nature, with trees and bugs and sledding and snowmen and apple picking and whatnot... always outside always fishing or exploring. AND i had no fear of of strangers because i never saw anyone unless i wanted to

 

[rubybeth]

Other stuff I would consider:

Are you going to get decent schooling for your kids in the middle of nowhere?

Would you miss having access to different cultures/food?

Would you want your kids to have access to culture eg museums, art galleries, the ballet?

How would you fill your free time in the country? Are you into hiking/camping?

If I lived in the country, then I'd gleefully count the money in my bank for about 6 months, then run back screaming to civilisation. The beach is very nice for a holiday, but after two weeks of sunbathing then I'd need a lot more.

I assumed you meant 500k gross, if so, how much would you be left with after tax? Would you have access to excellent healthcare in an emergency (a huge consideration for me)?

There's good reason why big salaries are offered for some areas. Think very carefully and don't find out the hard way.

I think there can be good schools just about anywhere, so that wouldn't be an issue for me, though I don't have kids and don't plan to. I can cook (not amazingly, but I'm willing to learn), so if I missed different kinds of food, I would just make them myself. I think I went to one ballet as a child and I don't think I turned out any worse than anyone else, so I wouldn't be concerned about access to culture for my kids if I did have them. I'd probably miss it more, but again, I'd take trips and get my fill of museums and things doing that. My main hobbies are writing, reading, movies, crosswords, and working out, and I could enjoy any of those just about anywhere. I do like taking walks (in the woods or wherever I am), but not camping. If I'm in the country making $500k, I'd probably put in a heated swimming pool, hot tub, and home gym, maybe even a home theatre.

 

[VRBeauty]

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned this yet.........

For me, it would depend on when in my life this decision was being contemplated. I'm in my late 40s now, and while I fully expect to have many many more years in front of me, it's less of a given than it was when I was 25. Because of that perspective, it's a lot more weighty for me now to think about giving up 5 years of my life.

If I were 20-25 years younger, I'd probably seriously consider the rural option because the likelihood is much higher that I'll reap the rewards of frugal living for many years after the initial 5-year investment to amass wealth. Being younger, I'd also have more of the inclination and the energy to pursue monthly 'sanity trips' to enjoy shopping/dining while living frugally.

Though that would be a snap decision for me at a younger age, it would be less so now that I'm older. Now, I value ease, convenience, and enjoying my home. I'm feeling acutely aware these days of how fast things seem to be passing by, and the time in those five years is much more valuable to me now. It would be harder for me to make that kind of time sacrifice now.

That was one of my first thoughts, but I'd reach a different conclusion. When I was a young single I had the chance to live my geographic dream - in an oceanside community, at a good salary - and didn't even give it a second thought. I knew at that in that point in my life I would need a the social opportunities and yes - distractions - that a bigger city would offer. If I had been young and married I might have looked at it differently, though. Now as I'm nearing retirement, the thought being closer to nature and farther from the noise and distractions of urban life is far more attractive to me!

 

[iheartscience]

I'm surprised that no one's mentioned this yet.........

For me, it would depend on when in my life this decision was being contemplated. I'm in my late 40s now, and while I fully expect to have many many more years in front of me, it's less of a given than it was when I was 25. Because of that perspective, it's a lot more weighty for me now to think about giving up 5 years of my life.

If I were 20-25 years younger, I'd probably seriously consider the rural option because the likelihood is much higher that I'll reap the rewards of frugal living for many years after the initial 5-year investment to amass wealth. Being younger, I'd also have more of the inclination and the energy to pursue monthly 'sanity trips' to enjoy shopping/dining while living frugally.

Though that would be a snap decision for me at a younger age, it would be less so now that I'm older. Now, I value ease, convenience, and enjoying my home. I'm feeling acutely aware these days of how fast things seem to be passing by, and the time in those five years is much more valuable to me now. It would be harder for me to make that kind of time sacrifice now.

Agreed 100%. If I were in my 20s just starting out I would consider it and save as much as possible. Now, I definitely would not...I love city living, and am absolutely willing to make less money to stay in the center of a big city. Depending on proximity to a big city I might be able to hack 2 years somewhere rural, but I doubt it.

I think location has a HUGE impact on quality of life, at least for me. My husband was actually offered 3 promotions he turned down because of location, and the difference in income was considerable.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yep, except for being near the Mexican border. No thanks. I'd build an amazing dream house. For $500k a year I could afford monthly weekend trips to SF, NY, etc.

This. I live less than an hour from a large city, but it is still pretty much a small town. I would not trade it for living in the large city at all. Better schools, less traffic. I take a trip or two when I need to visit a large city. At $500k, I could easily do a trip like that once a month if I wanted. But really, a couple of trips a year to somewhere like NYC is plenty for me. The problem with the scenario of making $100k near the large city means you wouldn't have a penny left over to enjoy spending in the large city, and that would be worse to me!!! You need the opposite...$500k to afford to live comfortably in the large city or $100k to live in the rural place! But I'd strongly consider your scenario of the $500k rural depending on the specific location. I'd live off $200k (which would include bling and nice trips) and save the rest!

 

[Dee*Jay]

I get the impression that the OP is more on the starting out end (so schools wouldn't be as much of an issue, at least in the beginning). Please correct me if I'm wrong on that part.

But one of the things that also makes a big impact is if you're alone on the journey, and I can't tell from the posts if there is a spouse or significant other in the picture. Being "with" someone in a rural setting cuts both ways though. You will have someone to spend the time with, but any foibles or flaws in your relationship may be exacerbated by a LOT of time together.

The thread has also gone down the age/station of life path. At a later stage in life *with no other obligations* I was actually MORE willing to go the rural route than I would have been at a younger age. (But we all know how THAT turned out! )

To the OP, I'll be interested to learn what you ultimately decide.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

If you are being paid this huge amount of money, I think you must be a smart person. Keeping that in mind(being smart), I think you will be able to find some interests, or hobbies that will keep you busy and engaged in that rural area. For example, photography might be an interest you can learn about. Rural areas have a great deal of beauty, even in the desert.

The younger you are, the better. Sometimes this kind of an opportunity only comes once in a lifetime. Take it, bring your computer and post on here when things are slow. Hopefully you love your job, (I was hoping you were a Dr), and can enjoy that part of your life.

Don't buy a house, rent a nice place. Save most of your money. It will give you such a start in life, you will feel lucky the rest of your life. There is no reason your life cannot be interesting even in a rural area. I lived in a city a good part of my life. I moved to a rural area, farms , and corn, and soybeans, and loved it. It has sinced turned into suburbia, which is still better than the city, but rural was great!

I love Mexico or the Mexican people. I would choose Mexico, learn spanish, and enjoy the culture, always saving that money for when you return to the states. Good luck!


Annette

 

[partgypsy]

Only you can make the decision what is more important to you.

Myself if I was starting out, I would Definitely move to the 500K a year and do that for 5 years, and then move (not like anyone's asking). I would only not do it if the area felt unsafe.
I am married, with kids in school, feel settled. It would have to be a significant pay raise for me to relocate at this point.

 

[whosurdaddy]

There are some really great responses coming from you guys and get me thinking a bit deeper. Just to be clear though, I am a SAHM and we have been moving around three different States over the past 8 years due to my husband's job. He is due to separate with his current group next year and he's been contacted by numerous job opportunities recently. Of course, we can choose to stay but my husband knows I am not completely happy here so he wants to explore a bit.

I lived and worked in one of the largest metro cities in my 20s and really enjoyed having exposed to large diverse cultures. I remember there were at least 10 different ethnic restaurants on the street I lived. A really authentic Thai restaurant, a Mexican burrito place that's always crowded with college students, a Greek coffee shop with delicious pastries, a Russian deli, a most authentic Chinese restaurant that serves Sichuan cuisine, and numerous Korean. Indian and Japanese restaurants. I spent weekends walking around exploring and never thought it was actually out of norm. Just a few days ago, I had a urge of checking out if there was any Indian restaurant in my area. I yelped "Indian" in the search. Only one result showed up and it was "Indian Trail" - a golf course!

My child is still very young but I definitely want to live in an area with good schools that prepares him for the real world. I know city living is probably too hectic for my current life style (and honestly, too expensive), but I really have doubts of staying here long term at this point. A place that's within 2 hours drive of a major city would be ideal I think.

I get the impression that the OP is more on the starting out end (so schools wouldn't be as much of an issue, at least in the beginning). Please correct me if I'm wrong on that part.

But one of the things that also makes a big impact is if you're alone on the journey, and I can't tell from the posts if there is a spouse or significant other in the picture. Being "with" someone in a rural setting cuts both ways though. You will have someone to spend the time with, but any foibles or flaws in your relationship may be exacerbated by a LOT of time together.

The thread has also gone down the age/station of life path. At a later stage in life *with no other obligations* I was actually MORE willing to go the rural route than I would have been at a younger age. (But we all know how THAT turned out! )

To the OP, I'll be interested to learn what you ultimately decide.

 

[Dee*Jay]

whosusdaddy - ah, that's really helpful information!

Just by the way you describe the restaurants I can tell how much you miss them.

Is it possible to go to a "happy medium"? I don't know what line of work your husband is in, but can he relocate to a smallER city that is still urban but not super expensive? (I'm also thinking about this from a US perspective, so advise if that's incorrect.)

 

[jstarfireb]

I wouldn't do it. I grew up in a rural area (central PA) and absolutely hated it. I'd be bored to tears. I discovered long ago that where I live, including both the climate and the availability of things I like to do, great food, etc., has a huge impact on my well-being, and I'm not willing to sacrifice that for any amount of money. So I complain about the exorbitant rent and relatively low income where I live (NorCal), but I wouldn't give it up for the world if it meant living in a less desirable area.

 

[whosurdaddy]

There are many family members in NorCal have been trying to convince us to consider the town they live in - Palo Alto. It's a nice place that's very safe with excellent public schools, but living there would mean half the income and double the tax. A 2 million dollars starter homes in PA will only cost 1/10 here. LIfe is too short to be unhappy, but it's so hard to find a balance point sometimes.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

How far out in the sticks? Are we talking one hour or a five hour drive? I wouldn't want to live in the middle of nowhere w/out a good movie theater and basics like Trader Joes. I have two boys and it's also important that they have access to activities and exceptional schools. We are in a great school district, but the schools are overfull bc of popularity. I didn't expect that when we moved here, but I'd choose this over a tiny school with lack of progressive programs.

If I didn't have kids, the only way I'd consider the rural is if I had an option to buy a condo in the city & stay there on weekends or do some telecommuting.

 

[isaku5]

As a Canadian for 71 years, I wasn't aware we shared a border with Mexico

Maybe I interpreted the post the wrong way thinking that Canada and Mexico were on an even plane economically???? Definitely not!

 

[whosurdaddy]

As a Canadian for 71 years, I wasn't aware we shared a border with Mexico

Maybe I interpreted the post the wrong way thinking that Canada and Mexico were on an even plane economically???? Definitely not!

isaku5, of couse that's not what I meant. There are a lot of jobs in places like Duluth, MN or El Paso, TX which are near either Canadian or Mexican border. I wasn't, in any way, trying to compare Canada to Mexico or vise versa.

 

[LtlFirecracker]

I lived in a rural area near the border for almost 3 years....

I left, and now live in a city and no amount of money will bring me back. I just like my city creature comforts, what can I say??? There were just too many things I missed. To me it is not just about money, but quality of life, and I was not happy being in the middle of nowhere.

 

[JulieN]

I'd take the rural place if it is somewhere nice. I vacationed near the MN/Canadian border earlier this summer, it was wonderful. NO cell phone service, 45 minute drive into "town."

I'd have a nice place built, leave a millionaire, and keep the place as a rental/vacation house.

 

[aljdewey]

Now as I'm nearing retirement, the thought being closer to nature and farther from the noise and distractions of urban life is far more attractive to me!

I think the fact that you and DeeJay would choose differently perfectly illustrates that the answer to this question also depends on what one places a priority on to begin with - what type of creature are they naturally? More prone to activity/socialization or more prone to solitude?

While I do relish the thought of a slower pace in retirement, I'm keenly focused on anticipating the need to be reasonably close to acceptable healthcare providers.

I guess that points back to 'what is one's definition of rural?'. For some, rural means having to drive 15 minutes to find a suitable restaurant. For others, rural means having to drive 5 hours to find one. I guess it depends on what each person values as creature comforts to begin with.

My father, bless his heart, is one of the few remaining breathing creatures in this galaxy (or any other) not to own a cell phone. He'd be completely happy living about an hour or two outside of his existing small city, but his loves are fishing and NO PHONES. My mom, however, would freak out moving further out because they live 10 minutes from exceptional healthcare (which my dad periodically has needed), and she's much more social.

 

[zoebartlett]

Ditto Alj. I keep coming back to this thread to read others' replies and I keep wondering what one's definition of rural is. There are different interpretations of the word. Are the most basic amenities or necessities 10 minutes away, 30 minutes away, or an hour's drive? Alj, you know where I live and where I'm moving within my state. It's probably considered rural to most. But compared to the tiny town I taught in (no traffic lights, 1 school, 1 general store, 1 library, 1 fire station with volunteer firemen, a town hall, and a police station -- that's it!), it's probably viewed as a city by some.

A few people have mentioned quality of life. If by 'rural' one means the boonies, the sticks, in the absolute middle of nowhere with a 45 minute drive to the nearest movie theater, hospital, grocery store, shops of some sort, that's a place I'd pass on. I'd go stir-crazy. I don't need to rely on public transportation, and I don't want to live in a big city, but I DO want to live within 1-1.5 hours' drive from a major city, and I'd like to be able to go shopping or to the movies with ease. I don't want to always make a day trip out of simply going out to eat, you know? I like to have relatively easy access to my creature comforts.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Ditto Alj. I keep coming back to this thread to read others' replies and I keep wondering what one's definition of rural is. There are different interpretations of the word. Are the most basic amenities or necessities 10 minutes away, 30 minutes away, or an hour's drive? Alj, you know where I live and where I'm moving within my state. It's probably considered rural to most. But compared to the tiny town I taught in (no traffic lights, 1 school, 1 general store, 1 library, 1 fire station with volunteer firemen, a town hall, and a police station -- that's it!), it's probably viewed as a city by some.

A few people have mentioned quality of life. If by 'rural' one means the boonies, the sticks, in the absolute middle of nowhere with a 45 minute drive to the nearest movie theater, hospital, grocery store, shops of some sort, that's a place I'd pass on. I'd go stir-crazy. I don't need to rely on public transportation, and I don't want to live in a big city, but I DO want to live within 1-1.5 hours' drive from a major city, and I'd like to be able to go shopping or to the movies with ease. I don't want to always make a day trip out of simply going out to eat, you know? I like to have relatively easy access to my creature comforts.

Yep, I keep imagining the rural town being discussed to be one of those that when you get off the interstate exit, there is a gas station, cafe, & maybe a car repair shop. Then if you want groceries, you have to drive an hour to arrive at a supermarket.

I would be fine living in the SUBURBS... is this the kind of rural you mean? I wouldn't want to live an hour away from the suburbs in a small town with just a few hundred people. That would mean that my kids would either be bused an hour a day or go to a teeny school. Plus, I don't like the idea of only having one close supermarket to shop at...It's nice to be able to pick between different places and also not always running into people I know. (We're rather centrally located and I like that. This week, we'll be in Seattle two times...I like that we can do so on a whim...no preplanning.)

 

[distracts]

or on the border of Mexico/Canada

For a moment I was REALLY confused by this. Mexico and Canada don't share a border! Then I realized you meant the border of the US/Mexico or US/Canada.

As for the question, nope nope nope! I'm a city girl through and through.

 

[VRBeauty]

There are many family members in NorCal have been trying to convince us to consider the town they live in - Palo Alto. It's a nice place that's very safe with excellent public schools, but living there would mean half the income and double the tax. A 2 million dollars starter homes in PA will only cost 1/10 here. LIfe is too short to be unhappy, but it's so hard to find a balance point sometimes.

I've lived in the Bay Area, and two of my brothers still on the Peninsula. Palo Alto and the surrounding towns are lovely but I wouldn't want to live there - they're so built up and traffic is constant and terrible, and mass transit isn't really an option as it is in larger cities... not to mention the sky-high cost of living! On the flip side of course you do get a lot of the cosmopolitan area amenities, but there are many far less expensive places to live that also offer good schools, restaurants, arts, and access to open space.


Just my 2 cents' worth!

 

[VRBeauty]

Now as I'm nearing retirement, the thought being closer to nature and farther from the noise and distractions of urban life is far more attractive to me!

While I do relish the thought of a slower pace in retirement, I'm keenly focused on anticipating the need to be reasonably close to acceptable healthcare providers.

That's a very good point. My parents live in a fairly rural area with few medicare providers, and it does impact their health care options.

Back to the drawing board!

 

[FrekeChild]

I was wondering where exactly on the Mexican border. If you're in the El Paso/Las Cruces area, I don't particularly consider it rural per se, but there are a lot more urban areas across the states! I'm very well versed in New Mexican culture and geography after living there for roughly 29 years, so I know the El Paso area/Southwest pretty well if you have questions there. El Paso is a strange place because it's almost been adopted by New Mexico, but Texas still claims it as their own. I would not be concerned for my safety in that general area, so long as you aren't directly on the border. If you were having to consider the AZ/Mexican border, I would never move there because the immigration and politics in AZ are totally jacked up!

I don't know why everyone is concerned about the Mexican border, yeah if you're out there wandering around at the border, not close to any developed areas and the wrong people happen by, then maybe? But it seems like it's mostly American tourists that go to Mexico that are meeting with trouble.

I'm in a rural city (it's really hard to describe, because it's a smaller city in California, and feels very suburban) that's only a few hours from Los Angeles, SF/SJ, San Diego, and Las Vegas. Which was the only reason I let my husband consider it because I'm a city girl. It helps that we've been to LA about 5 times since moving here, SF/SJ once, back home to NM a couple times and going to NYC in a couple weeks.

Tough choice.

 

[hippi_pixi]

i would do rural but 5-10 years is a permanent life choice not a short stint :S.

i would move rural but spend as little as possible while i was there. imagine that the entire purpose of your existence is to save money. if you can do that for a year fantastic! if you can do it for 2 even better. but that would be my limit.

I had a similar job opportunity in Darwin Australia. huge money for me and my partner and we were both interested but i suggested we go for a year, keep our expenses as low as possible and come back to a city (brisbane or Sydney) a year later with a big house deposit. He suggested he could only stay sane if we were flying to the city for a weekend twice a month. so i said well whats the point then if we're spending the money flying back to where we'd rather be? and we didn't do it

5-10 years is only worth it if you actually enjoy the lifestyle.

 

[rubybeth]

I'd take the rural place if it is somewhere nice. I vacationed near the MN/Canadian border earlier this summer, it was wonderful. NO cell phone service, 45 minute drive into "town."

I'd have a nice place built, leave a millionaire, and keep the place as a rental/vacation house.

You were in my state! I love Minnesota. We used to vacation 'up north' on a large lake near Bemidji/the headwaters of the Mississippi River, and cell service at the resort was terrible. However, you can see the stars perfectly at night, it's immensely quiet, the air quality is great, you're in the middle of a pine forest with lakes and rivers all over, just pristine and gorgeous. I'm not going to be on my death bed saying, "I wish I spent more time on the internet!" or "I wish I ate at more restaurants!" I'm going to be thankful for the time spent with family and friends.

That's more what I think of when I think of rural. Either northern Minnesota (near Canadian border) or southern Minnesota (more agriculture, plains, think Laura Ingalls Wilder country with wide open spaces). A lot of my co-workers live in rural areas, about a 40-50 minute drive from the metro area in which we work (about 100,000 people). They love having acreage, which means orchards, huge gardens, space for dogs/horses/chickens/whatever animals they want, and they also have the relative convenience of being within reasonable driving distance of a larger, more urban area. They'd probably spend 40 minutes in traffic if they lived 10 miles from their workplace in a big city, anyway.

 

[dragonfly411]

I prefer rural. I'd be self sufficient, do the work, save all my money and retire.

 

[Rhea]

No. We've chosen to live in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world, because we want to have great transportation, be close to other people, and have easy access to world-class art museums and entertainment. I'm not at all bothered by shopping or malls, but I want to have the ability to easily catch a show or see a piece of art. I may someday chose to live in the suburbs or a village, but not right now.

 

[JulieN]

You were in my state! I love Minnesota. We used to vacation 'up north' on a large lake near Bemidji/the headwaters of the Mississippi River, and cell service at the resort was terrible. However, you can see the stars perfectly at night, it's immensely quiet, the air quality is great, you're in the middle of a pine forest with lakes and rivers all over, just pristine and gorgeous. I'm not going to be on my death bed saying, "I wish I spent more time on the internet!" or "I wish I ate at more restaurants!" I'm going to be thankful for the time spent with family and friends.

That is so funny, I have actually mentioned my trip to my acquaintances IRL and I had one person tell me she was from MN, too!

There was wireless Internet, that was so slow it seemed like it was purposefully slow to discourage users. I didn't miss it or my cell phone after a few days. I loved it, and the people were so nice compared to Californians, even the TSA airport workers.