Geography
I've been thinking a little about geography, specifically where I want to live and why. I gave career services 2 preliminary options: pacific northwest and Chicago.
Why Pacific Northwest? Climate climate climate. Not just weather, but the personal climate. Though we're certainly all Americans in this country, there are definitely differences in the way people think and act from region to region. For exmaple, Texans have way more state pride than just about anyone. You ever go to a place and think "I could really see myself living here"? That's the feeling I got with that area, it's the same feeling I got the first/only time I visited Austin. I trust my wn instincts.
Why Chicago? People people people. Not the people of Chicago per se. Chicago people tend to be jerks. But the majority of people I know live within driving distance of Chicago, such that visiting my friends wouldn't require me to get on a plane. Which is a nice thing in of itself.
So which is more important, climate or people? Right now I'm sort of leaning towards climate. That's why I moved to Austin, and that worked out quite well. I was happy in Austin, and when I came back to Michigan, my friends could see that. (I'd be open to moving back to Austin, but the legal market is really oversaturated there.)
But what about the long run? Some people like to be near family as they get older, am I going to be one of those people? (I mean, I think part of that may have something to do with wanting your kids to be near grandparents, and since my desire to have kids is in the negative numbers, that won't factor in. But there are other reasons.) Will it not matter in the long run as people grow apart, or more positively, I become that excellent vacation prospect for my friends?
What factor played in more when you chose someplace to live? Or was there some other factor that drove your decision?
Why Pacific Northwest? Climate climate climate. Not just weather, but the personal climate. Though we're certainly all Americans in this country, there are definitely differences in the way people think and act from region to region. For exmaple, Texans have way more state pride than just about anyone. You ever go to a place and think "I could really see myself living here"? That's the feeling I got with that area, it's the same feeling I got the first/only time I visited Austin. I trust my wn instincts.
Why Chicago? People people people. Not the people of Chicago per se. Chicago people tend to be jerks. But the majority of people I know live within driving distance of Chicago, such that visiting my friends wouldn't require me to get on a plane. Which is a nice thing in of itself.
So which is more important, climate or people? Right now I'm sort of leaning towards climate. That's why I moved to Austin, and that worked out quite well. I was happy in Austin, and when I came back to Michigan, my friends could see that. (I'd be open to moving back to Austin, but the legal market is really oversaturated there.)
But what about the long run? Some people like to be near family as they get older, am I going to be one of those people? (I mean, I think part of that may have something to do with wanting your kids to be near grandparents, and since my desire to have kids is in the negative numbers, that won't factor in. But there are other reasons.) Will it not matter in the long run as people grow apart, or more positively, I become that excellent vacation prospect for my friends?
What factor played in more when you chose someplace to live? Or was there some other factor that drove your decision?