California vs. Elsewhere: Living For the Weather Vs. Living In Spite Of The Weather

In a recent discussion among fellow journalists, we were comparing places we've lived, and where is better. Weather, traffic, living expenses, family, relatives who need care, and job availability were all mentioned.


Several described the San Francisco area, where I live, as too expensive -- "spendy" is how htey put it. I replied:


SF isn't so spendy once you've paid off your house. There are lots of things -- wine, for example, and fruits and vegetables, that are more affordable here than in some other places. And like all urban areas, other products and services are less expensive because of the large market.

I was raised in South Jersey near Philadelphia, went to school in Philly, went to D.C. in the Army, then to Frankfurt, Germany  for three years. Then to Oakland, then down to L.A. for a few years and now back to the Oakland/East Bay area.

I've liked all the places I've lived. Each has its own thing. What's peculiar about California, to a New Jersey kid, is that this is one of those places where the weather is so wonderful so often that the weather becomes a major part of the living experience. In most other places in the world, weather just is; in South Jersey it's cold in the winter and muggy in the summer - you just put up with it. I imagine that someone living in North Dakota just deals with the frigid weather in winter (and heat in summer) as part of the background. You live in California, in part, because of the weather; you live in Chicago in spite of the weather. You live in both places, more fundamentally, for other reasons -- family, friends, job, nightlife, quiet or noise, busyness or lack thereof.

Sometimes, though, the severity of weather in some places drives its longtime residents to seek less-severe weather elsewhere, especially when the major factors - family, job, circle of friends - undergoes a major change. Thus so many MidWesteners and New Yorkers move to Florida once they retire.