I considered jobs in California, but ultimately decided against it. Partly it was the distance from family (They’re almost all East Coasters, and even those living elsewhere don’t live on the West Coast), but partly it was the situation in California. The other reasons are complex, and inter-related
1.) Earthquakes are part of it, but not all of it. Certainly the possibility of a large quake hitting anywhere along the California coast is daunting. I lived in Utah for a few years, and experienced quakes there.
2.) The biggest problem in southern California is Too Many People, on land that wouldn’t normally support anything like that population. Thisd makes housing costs outrageously high and a lot of competition for everything I couldn’t believe the housing prices in santa Barbara – if I’d taken a job there, i’d have to commute an incredible distance every day, or else luck out to get a nearby home. It also makes potential disasters worse – if that Big Quake hits, all those displaced, injured, and killed people are going to strain rescue and relief systems much more than in a less densely populated area.
3.) The interrelated cycle of earthquake/seismic breakup - flash fires – rainfall – mudslides in the LA basin described by John McPhee in his book Control of Nature. It’s not by chance that these things happen. The cycle has been known to those in charge for quite a while – witness the vast constructions of drainage ditches and catch basins – but aen’t well known to the general populace. And human effects – especially preventing periodic burning of built-up vegetation, yet not clearing it out, either – makes things worse (fewer but much bigger fires, both directly threatening housing and denuding large stretches of hillside of soil-holoding plants, making it ripe for mudslides)
4.) Water. The LA area has been piping in huge quantities of water to support people, industry, and agriculture. This not only blighted the surrounding areas that lost out, but makes the city more vulnerable to a disruption of water. and LA is surrounded by desert. Even San Francisco , far to the north, and not exactly desert, has serious water-supply problems.
granted, Massachusetts is grotesquely expensive to live in, too (But I was able to get a house here). Anywhere interesting will be crowded and will have competition for desirable elements. But the density isn’t as high here and street parking – still more cutthroat than in most of the rest of the country – is still easier than the areas of LA I’ve visited.
Massachusetts has its share of natural disasters – hurricanes can hit here, and even tornados, but rarely. Nor’easters and killer snow storms are more common. There was a major earthquake here two centuries ago, but we’re far from a Plate Boundary, so they’re not common. None of the shattered rock/fire/mudslide cycle here. And we’re not so hemmed in by inhospitable country with relatively few roads.
My oversimplified picture of most California areas is that of isolated bowls with relatively few methods in ingress or egress, with several Damoclean swords hanging over them. I picture where 'm at as more accessible with fewer and smaller swords.
